Canadian Mac Forums at ehMac banner

Halo: Negative Feedback Across the Web

5K views 61 replies 19 participants last post by  monokitty 
#1 ·
I just finished reading Inside Mac Games' review of Halo: Combat Evolved, and I must say I am was more than just unimpressed. The reviewer is running the game on 2.0 GHz dual-processor G5 with the ATI RADEON 9800 PRO w/128 MB DDR VRAM -- and he said that anything above 1024x768 resolution (with graphics on medium) the game slows down to almost unplayable. Then I checked out the forum, and found a 7-page "Halo runs like a crap" thread and found most people running at 640x480 with details on medium or low on dual G4's @ 1.25 GHz with Radeon 9000 cards and getting frames under 30 on average, 20 on average, and heavy battles rendering unplayable (less than 10).

Halo is by far, the worst performaning game on the Mac market currently available.

Somehow I don't feel confident any more Halo will perform decently our on G5/1.6 GHz w/ Radeon 9600 64 MB... :confused:

The reviewer also blamed ATI for insufficent drivers for their RADEON cards, and said major performance hits was because of the drivers. It's too bad Halo wasn't optimized for G5's.
 
#4 ·
Good thing I'm paying $229 this Christmas for my husband to play it on the Xbox


But having said that. The xboxs computer speed is something like a PIII 733 with 40gigs of hd space. So why won't it run well on a real computer? What's the main difference?
 
#5 ·
Pamela - The XBox may only have a 733 Intel processor (modified Pentium 3 designed solely for gaming) and an 8GB HD (not 40 as you said, but people have upgraded their HDs and even loaded Linux on it) but the real reason it performs so well is that it only supports 1 resolution (640x480) and games that are made for it don't have to worry about different types of hardware configurations. One of the joys of developing for a closed system.

Also the XBox sports a highly customized (and one of the largest reasons Microsoft has lost money on the XBox) nVidia chipset, that although quite expensive, Microsoft was willing to lose money to use it. The next version of the XBox will sport an ATi chip set and a PPC variant processor.

The biggest difference is that an XBox (or any console) is solely designed to run games and therefore everything in the system is designed towards handling graphics. Computers aren't as they have to do multiple tasks from word processing, to chatting, to gaming, and work in Photoshop. That is also a reason that some people will make a gaming PC and then have another computer (many a Mac) as their work machine. One solely designed for gaming, the other for productivity.

I hope this clears the water a little, and if it only muddied it up, the first sentence of the paragraph above this one is the simplest and shortest answer.
 
#7 ·
I love Macs for working and everything that entails, but they will never be a gaming platform. I was really hoping that with the G5's this might change, but it's not the case.

Halo not running well on a Mac is no surprise.

ATI is going down hill so fast in the gaming 3D market that their benchmarks are almost meaningless.

I hate to sound like I'm trashing the G5's and Macs, but on the gaming field, they can't compete. Hey, blame Apple, it's not the game companies. Usually the Mac version of a game runs poorly compared to a native PC version. It's a shame.. :rolleyes:
 
#8 ·
I'm running Halo on 1.33Ghz 17" Powerbook at 800x600, with all the fancy graphic settings on. Basically the system recommended settings, and it runs just fine. Even played over the internet last night and everything was smooth as silk.

I'm running 10.3.1....are the folks having problems running 10.2.x or something?

I had stumbled across this article yesterday.
 
#9 ·
thanks for clearing that up everyone


But i have to ask. Why would you bother setting up a pc instead of just buying a gaming console? seems cheaper, no?

(Other than the fact that you'd also have a working pc to use for applications I guess)
 
#10 ·
Pamela - For First Person Shooters (FPS) you can't beat a keyboard and mouse. With consoles, there is always an auto-aim turned on as on a TV it is harder to aim precisely. On a computer with a mouse, it is quite easy.

Personally I would prefer a console but a gaming PC has its merits, just as any console. Also, with a gaming PC you can easily get updates, bug fixes and such over the internet, while once a game is done for a console, any bugs that occur are there to stay. (They can update newer copies they sell, but ones already sold can't be upgraded easily.)
 
#11 ·
Good thing I'm paying $229 this Christmas for my husband to play it on the Xbox
Bad thing is your husband gonna play late at night for a while


Good thing is the recent Xbox model doesn't have the cheap DVD drive found in the early models - like mine. I've had it for a year and a half, and it has problems reading even brand new games (no scratch on disk)-it's out of warranty, of course. Imagine an Xbox telling you your disk is dirty or damaged when that disk is out of the box; imagine the system freezing when you're about to win your first game in FIFA Soccer 2003.

I'm about to throw the console out of the window and buy a new one... Would you mind buying me one? :D
 
#13 ·
I'm running Halo on my Dual 2.0 G5 and the performance is definately lackluster, especially when I can run UT2003 with all settings set to max with absolutely no problems.

The AI in this game is quite sweet though.

I hope they optimise it with a patch, I remember once when Bungie made quality games for the Mac, stupid Microsoft.
 
#14 ·
How can you dare to say that ATI isnt making fast card? Or even worst that mac will never be a gaming platform?

As far as I know, you dont need 100+ frame sec to play a game at a serious level, 60+ is fine. Also, its totaly pointless to have superbe graphic when playing a FPS, you wont be able to see them. When I play in a shooter, I mouse look so fast in all direction that I cant even notice any details on the texture. In these game not moving = death so who cares about details... Details are only important in games like splintercell, max payne, etc where you have time to look at the scenery.

The only reason PC is a better platform for gaming is that you can make a faster machine for less cash, thats all.

G5 may not be the BEST gaming platform but it is a very good.

Finaly, code optimisation is very important and I doupt that they have done much for the mac, they where too scared to not be able to release it before xmas. So in a couple of week we should be more able to judge the performance of the game, right now it should be seen as a beta.
 
#17 ·
Well as if anybody noticed.


i've been way more AWOL from this site in the last 3 months or so.
Reason?

FFXI online.I bought a peecee just for this online game.I wouldn't even think about playing this on a Mac.I love Macs to death but in the gaming market, forget it.It just isn't what Macs do. :rolleyes:
 
#18 ·
runs like crap on 99 or 100 percent of Macs unless details are on almost on the lowest.

Are we reading the same review Lars? I guess I missed that line. Lets look at page three where they talk about graphics.

<blockquote>Unfortunately, the game does have graphical misgivings. While the textures were all up-res’ed for modern graphics cards, polygon counts weren’t, and feature a slightly blocky feel that dates the game. And while you’d expect two-year-old software to play relatively well on a new computer, frame rates on my Dual 2.0 GHz G5, equipped with a Radeon 9800 Pro, courtesy of ATI, were surprisingly low. Playing at resolutions higher than 1024x768, with both vertex and pixel shading enabled and all the effects turned up to max, caused significant slowdowns in frame rate. While the game’s minimum system requirements call for an 800 Mhz Mac with a powerful graphics card, a 1 Ghz is recommended, which puts the game out of reach of a lot of players I know.</blockquote>

What exactly is 'surprisingly low'? It isn't actually given a number at any point in the article, and considering that this is in regards to resolutions over 1024x768 that they are talking about when they say 'significant slowdowns', I can't say I am that surprised.

Also, what is your definition of "runs like crap", considering that 30 fps is still very playable and graphics, while pretty to look at should always take a back seat to gameplay, I still fail to see how exactly high system requirements (and a 9.25 review from IMG) equals 'negative feedback across the web'.

--PB
 
#19 ·
sputnik - I noticed ;)

Lars - If it runs like crap on 99 or 100 percent of Macs, then why is Macommunity have an article describing how they have it working well on computers that aren't "supported". Like a 900 Mhz G3 iBook and a 700Mhz G4 iMac?

Yes I do concede that all the eye candy of Halo isn't there for most computers unless you have a Radeon 9800, but that is partially because some of the features that Halo uses (advanced bump mapping for example) aren't available or supported very well except for the latest cards. If you want to game, you want as good as GPU as possible, as game developers are always trying to make their graphics better, and push the cards to their limits.

Also, PosterBoy, the 9.25 review rating isn't on how well it runs on a particular machine, but more so a review of the game and how it works itself. The gameplay, the sound and everything else about Halo is wonderful. But just because it doesn't run at 120FPS doesn't mean its a bad game, wait a year, get the top of the line vid card then and it will run just fine.

When UT came out it pushed the requirements high, but now everyone exceeds those requirements very easily and therefore it runs real nice and fast. If you aren't willing to have the latest and greatest, don't expect stellar performance on every game. It's just a sad fact of the life of a gamer. And one reason I like consoles more.
 
#21 ·
then why is Macommunity have an article describing how they have it working well on computers that aren't "supported". Like a 900 Mhz G3 iBook and a 700Mhz G4 iMac?
Because not everyone thinks that 15 frames-per-second on all lowest settings possible is crap. ;) Put every setting on the lowest possible option, and if you think 12-20 FPS, maximum, is good, then of course it's "working well" on 700 MHz G4 machines.

There are enough gamers who think the above is good enough for them, and then they turn around and say it "works well." Nothing wrong with that, it's their own opinion, and they're entitled to it, but probably to more than half the gaming community on the Mac side - the above is completely unacceptable; and a few posts on the IMG forum will prove that I'm not the only one who believes so.

When I owned a really crappy G3 way back with only 4 MB of VRAM, I thought playing the original UT was "good" when it hit 14 frames-per-second -- do you think anyone else thought that was good? A few, yes, but no one with a 16 MB graphics card and 400 MHz or better processor did, who were all breaking 30 on average.

If you have a crappy graphics card, or let alone a slow Mac in terms of gaming performance, you eventually learn to accept what you have, and once used to it, say it "works well." Unfortunately, I don't agree with the statement that it "works well" when you have to turn every single setting to the lowest just to prevent the game from going under 10 frames-per-second. And those 700 MHz iMacs, and 900 MHz iBooks users - probably had to do just that.
 
#22 ·
Lars - You're assuming that the computers described at Macommunity were getting substandard frame rates. There is no posted Frames Per Second evidence to prove your right or wrong.

However on the 900 Mhz iBook, with its ATi Radeon 9000 Mobility that the "game play was awesome, no lag and no defects".

There are also gamers who are self-proclaimed Frame Junkies who can't play a game that is under 120 FPS. Technically the mind can't distinguish the difference in frame rate above 60. (Some people say they can, but it has yet to be proven that people actually can tell the difference). Those people wouldn't play on a) an older computer and b) a Mac. If you want games, consoles and PCs is where its at. I know a few of my friends can't stand Windows, but they dual boot their frankenPeeCess in Linux and Windows. Linux for their work, and Windows for the games.

I said earlier if you want to play the latest and greatest games at their complete glory you'll have to keep your computer top of the line. It is just a matter of spending the money to upgrade your processor every 18 months or so, your GPU every year and another fan to keep your computer cool for the next year. My one friend has 6 fans in his because of all the overclocked upgrades he has in his machine. It would be a really loud machine if it wasn't under the desk and drowned out by the sound system.

PB - Very true that the only people complaining are that it runs slow on their older hardware. Gaming is about the latest and greatest (and how pimped your specs are).
 
#23 ·
PB - Very true that the only people complaining are that it runs slow on their older hardware. Gaming is about the latest and greatest (and how pimped your specs are).
True in one perspective, but on the otherhand, the majority of people who are complaining about Halo are the ones who surprass the listed system requirements, plus the recommended ones, and still aren't getting acceptable performance on their machines.

These people have the full absolute right to complain when their machines surprass the system requirements.

I get the feeling game companies put these low requirements so the game sells - and don't care if it actually plays decently at their listed requirements. :rolleyes:

So Posterboy's comment was technically correct, but wrong in a way. I would complain too if I had a dual 1.25 GHz G4 with a 64 MB video card, when the requirements say 800 MHz and I'm getting 15 FPS.
 
#24 ·
Lars - Requirements are requirements to make it run at a set standard deemed by the manufacturer. Recommended is what you should have in order for the lowest settings to be deemed usable by most people.

The requirements are:
Minimum: Macintosh computer with 800MHz G4/G5 or faster processor, Mac OS X v10.2.8 or higher, 256MB RAM, 32MB AGP Video Card (GeForce 2MX/ATI 7500 or better), 1.4GB hard disk space. Internet or LAN connection required for online play.
Source
And more importantly the recommended specs:
Recommended: 1GHz G4/G5 or faster processor, Mac OS X v10.3, 512MB RAM, 64MB AGP Video Card (GeForce 4ti-ATI 9000 or better).
With all games, the requirement is just enough to play the game, at very low quality and a usable program if your expectations aren't high. The recommended is for those people who want a usable game that performs well with all the eye candy turned off.

The average user rating at IMG is a 7.63 which is still good, but all the harsh marks of 5 or 6 stem from the fact that the user can't run it very well on their old systems. Though as one post puts it "You people make mac gamers sound like a bunch of whiny pussies. If you don't like the way the game plays, it's your own damn fault..."

Also a more important thing is that people tend to push past the limits of their video card and still expect it to perform as if it were running UT. It won't. The game has a heck of a lot of eye candy (shading, bump mapping) and this brings any GPU to its knees if not specifically designed to do these (read: anything not top of the line). That is the nature of games on the computer. Also many of the people on their cranked the eye candy and dropped the resolution, that doesn't mean their graphics card can still handle it. Also there are more people giving it a thumbs up then thumbs down. If not then why can people post; "Even on my old iBook 700MHz G3 w/ 16MB VRAM Radeon 7000 can play it well enough at 1024x768 with everything turned down." or "Believe it or not, I'm playing Halo on my Titanium PowerBook 667 with 16MB ATi Rage Mobility"

They may have had to turn down the settings but its still quite playable. On an older machine with games you can't have your cake and eat it too. Its a fact in the gaming scene. Besides games are all in the GPU now.

Although I do have to say that the new drivers coming in 10.3.2 should improve framerates as I believe the drivers have been either rewritten or fixed considerably.
 
#25 ·
i played it at the release party at carbon and it ran beautifully on the g5's there and flawlessly on the 20" imac, on the standard res, nonetheless.
 
#26 ·
Although Lars might be overstating things a bit (SURPRISE), the review did report the following:

Unfortunately, the game does have graphical misgivings. While the textures were all up-res’ed for modern graphics cards, polygon counts weren’t, and feature a slightly blocky feel that dates the game. And while you’d expect two-year-old software to play relatively well on a new computer, frame rates on my Dual 2.0 GHz G5, equipped with a Radeon 9800 Pro, courtesy of ATI, were surprisingly low. Playing at resolutions higher than 1024x768, with both vertex and pixel shading enabled and all the effects turned up to max, caused significant slowdowns in frame rate. While the game’s minimum system requirements call for an 800 Mhz Mac with a powerful graphics card, a 1 Ghz is recommended, which puts the game out of reach of a lot of players I know.

The game’s biggest disappointment, however, is its lack of support for full scene anti-aliasing. While there’s an option to set FSAA in the opening screen, turning that feature on will screw up the graphics and slow the frame rate down to a slug’s pace. MacSoft claims that the problem is due to a bug in ATI’s drivers, and will need to be addressed with both updated ATI drivers and a patch from MacSoft at a later date. The FSAA issue is a real bummer – as you can tell by the screenshots accompanying this review, the incredible work put into the textures and shaders are overshadowed by the blocky edges on all the objects on screen.

---------------------------
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top