5punk

no-one play halo anymore?

I statred playing again the other day after getting my arse kicked at a LAN party, decided it was time to polish my skills again

on PC?

no way in hell. also, I don't pwn an xbox.

Halo you say? I don't believe I've ever heard of it before

I quite enjoyed the few games of Halo I played.

Love it on t'box, played it on PC, just didn't seem right, too slow or something, not sure, just wrong

meh it full of "uber-1337 pistol guys" anyway

mrbobbins wrote:Love it on t'box, played it on PC, just didn't seem right, too slow or something, not sure, just wrong

Yeah, gearbox managed to fuck up a game that runs fast on a console that's basically a PC. My laptop is far superior to a Xbox, hardware wise, and yet it runs like a 2-legged dog.

i found halo ran pretty acceptably on my machine *but* it felt slow as fuck

Halo was fun, but it felt sluggish all the time, plus the multiplayer aspect sucks as the maps are designed for console controllers - and that means there's little vertical action to be had.

I wonder what Halo 2 will be like on the P.C.???

Woo Elephant Yeah wrote:I wonder what Halo 2 will be like on the P.C.???

smooth-running hopefully...

deject wrote:

Woo Elephant Yeah wrote:I wonder what Halo 2 will be like on the P.C.???

smooth-running hopefully...

pfft!

halo runs fine on my pc, 1024x768 max settings

Something that really does run slow and makes me want to cry ... lotr:battle for middle earth

Dr. kitteny berk wrote:i found halo ran pretty acceptably on my machine *but* it felt slow as fuck

That is because, to cut down on costs, Master Chief's feet were made of lead.

Yeah it runs ok performance wise, what I meant was that it's just a slow game (McChief does feel like he has lead shoes, although they're probably a fancy futuristic carbon-adamantium-diamond composite..)

I guess it's to give console thumbs time to react!!

We want run a-la-COD

jeffclaw wrote: Something that really does run slow and makes me want to cry ... lotr:battle for middle earth

This!

I found lotr ran quite nicely.
Shite game, though.

Joose wrote:I found lotr ran quite nicely.
Shite game, though.

That's a shame - I just remembered about it today and wondered if I should get it. Then I saw they had announced a sequel - what was shit about the original that they could maybe improve upon in the second one?

weeeell, the base building was a bit basic (build everything. win.)
as for tactics, nce you had some decent horsemen it bascally boiled down to "charge em with horsemen. win"
or, if you have ents; "use ents. win"

all a little silly and dissapointing.

as for the sequel, ive just been reading about it. Apparently its going to be set up in the north, at the same time as the main events. It will focus on the battle between the elves/dwarves and the goblins in and around mirkwood.

Which basically means; it will be people we've never heard of in places we dont know fighting battles that were not important enough for the main story.

well, im excited.

Joose wrote:
Which basically means; it will be people we've never heard of in places we dont know fighting battles that were not important enough for the main story.

well, im excited.

haha, I can imagine your tone XD