Halo 2 Forum
This topic has moved here: Subject: Would you still want a halo 2 remake if it didnt have a remastered mp?
  • Subject: Would you still want a halo 2 remake if it didnt have a remastered mp?
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • of 2
Subject: Would you still want a halo 2 remake if it didnt have a remastered mp?

I don't think i would.. the halo 2 multiplayer in my opinion was the best (along with halo 3's) if i wanna play the campaign ill just pop in the disc.

  • 01.23.2012 10:26 AM PDT


Posted by: JohnnyB0Y28
I don't think i would.. the halo 2 multiplayer in my opinion was the best (along with halo 3's) if i wanna play the campaign ill just pop in the disc.

I think it should still have remastered graphics otherwise I'm not sure how well it would fare against new releases or even the new fans who will probably be like "OMG dis game looks lik tra$h" simply because it isn't on par with the latest Halo's.

So yes, I think it should be remastered with a new graphics engine like the CEA campaign. It should not use a different game engine for MP like CEA did though. Otherwise, no sale from me.

  • 01.23.2012 10:29 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Sometimes, I dream about cheese.

if they screw up multiplayer like they've already done with Halo: Combat Evolved Anniversary then screw it

  • 01.23.2012 2:50 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Noble Heroic Member

"A life lived for others is the only life worth living" - Albert Einstein

"I have your RCON right here." - Iggwilv

"Always my pleasure to be lazy." - InvasionImminent


Posted by: path1k
if they screw up multiplayer like they've already done with Halo: Combat Evolved Anniversary then screw it
I know that a lot of you believe this is a legitimate concern, but in my opinion it's not.

Let me explain:

Halo: Combat Evolved Anniversary was brought out as a gift to the community commemorating 10 years of Halo. That being the Halo franchise in all. They thought nothing would be better than bringing back the original game that started it all back in 2001. The most important thing, to them at least, was to bring out the Campaign which was the main focus of the first Halo game. Sadly enough, there were many difficulties in bringing out the multiplayer side. Here they are:

1. The netcode. This one is very obvious to absolutely anyone who has either played the PC version or through tunneling programs. The lag is absolutely terrible and ignorant people would rip it apart blaming 343 Industries for it. Pretty much no one would thoroughly enjoy it. Even if they were to make a good working netcode for the game it would have been in the form of changing many things Combat Evolved elitists would have claimed to absolutely ruin the game.

2. They didn't want to split the Reach community. This one is the second most known reason. Some of you have even stated this is the reason there will never even be a remake of the original Halo 2 multiplayer for Xbox Live. Reach was already suffering so they didn't want to completely drown it out for the fans that do actually enjoy it.

Halo 2's main offering to the franchise was its Live multiplayer. 343 Industries knows that, Microsoft knows that, and the fans know that. If they were to honor anything with Halo 2, it would undoubtedly be the multiplayer. That was the main focus of Halo 2 and that's what, if anything, they would do. If they can't do the multiplayer, they probably won't even worry about anything else.

If they simply brought out a way for people to play Halo 2 multiplayer again through Live (ex. Arcade), I doubt it would truly split the player base. I think it would have pretty okay population at first, but it would dwindle down to about how it was before the original Xbox Live server went down within a month or so. A full remake of the game would probably split the player base, though. In those terms, it would be smartest for Microsoft/343 Industries to bring something like that out instead of a remake which seems to be exactly what most of you want.

I hope that helped calm some of your fears about this. Keep in mind this is all just how I see this situation. At the same time I could be wrong, I do believe this is a well educated guess as to how they would most likely handle this.

[Edited on 01.23.2012 3:30 PM PST]

  • 01.23.2012 3:18 PM PDT

The only thing I'm uncertain on is the netcode Syx. Halo PC didn't have co-op online because it's netcode couldn't handle it, yet they had a netcode for it on CEA. I think they could have easily implemented an netcode for Multiplayer (same for PC maybe?).

I do have little understanding of netcodes however so I will leave it at that.

  • 01.23.2012 3:48 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Noble Heroic Member

"A life lived for others is the only life worth living" - Albert Einstein

"I have your RCON right here." - Iggwilv

"Always my pleasure to be lazy." - InvasionImminent

They did "fix" Anniversary so that you could play Co-Op on Live, but it's still way too laggy. If you've played the Co-Op on Anniversary you'd see how that would not be okay for online multiplayer. It would have been chewed up and spit back out at 343 Industries. Is that really how they want to start off with the Halo community?

I've also played Co-Op with a mod through Xlink Kai on the original game. The lag is about the same, but there are bugs due to the fact it wasn't meant to be played online. Those were all desyncing bugs which were due to the fact System Link wasn't designed to handle BSP loading and massive amounts of AI. That's probably all that they fixed for Co-Op to work on Anniversary.

Could you imagine the outcry they would get if they released the PC netcode for Anniversary? Aim assist would be useless with it and everybody would hate it. That would definitely not be the answer. They were much better off not bringing out the multiplayer than slapping the PC's netcode onto it.

[Edited on 01.23.2012 3:58 PM PST]

  • 01.23.2012 3:53 PM PDT

Never done Live Co-op on CEA as no one I knew had the game xD

As for the netcode on Live, AI are alot harder to sync than regular players are they not? I use Halo 3/Reach as an example, yes it was there and it worked but with 4 players there was often slowdowns to the point where the game would lag at times and the controls feel clunky and slow. Whereas the MP itself handles alot better. I'm assuming (with little knowledge xD) that the co-op with system link on Halo CE would then be irrelevant? And maybe the 2 player Live co-op netcode would be enough for MP...I'm not sure.

Gearbox had a working broadband netcode apparantly before Microsoft made them change it (why they didn't patch it in for PC i don't know) but surely it shouldn't be too difficult to have done? I think it was a matter of they ran out of time and decided to cut corners. And yes, if Halo was released with the netcode it has on PC, it would be a disaster xD

  • 01.23.2012 4:05 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Noble Heroic Member

"A life lived for others is the only life worth living" - Albert Einstein

"I have your RCON right here." - Iggwilv

"Always my pleasure to be lazy." - InvasionImminent

I already said that the lag handles just the same on Xlink Kai as it does on Anniversary except for those bugs. It's definitely not irrelevant seeing as though that makes it seem as though they really didn't do anything to the actual netcode.

The broadband netcode that Gearbox had may not even be around anymore. It's hard to believe that they have it stored somewhere. They would have also had to put that netcode in, tested it online thoroughly, and seen if it was up to par with modern games. That would have taken a long time and a lot more attention that 343 Industries doesn't have due to them primarily focusing on Halo 4. (Which, if I might add, I do believe is much more important.)

Even if they could have gotten the broadband netcode working great in the game, they would be splitting the Reach community which is the second reason why not to do it. With the game being remade it adds a lot more incentive to play it. A lot more than it would if Halo 2's multiplayer came back out as an Arcade title. (Basing that on how it was before the servers were shut off. It's undeniable that after a month or so it would reverse back to that population number if not lower.)

  • 01.23.2012 4:16 PM PDT

Hmm, fair arguments. As I said, I've little knowledge on the netcode for CE so I will take your word for it.

I do think Halo 2 has alot more potential, It probably won't split the fanbase either if remade with just an extra graphics engine.

I am concerned about Halo 4, I'm not comfortable with Bungie out of the picture. All my other favourite game series have gone astray after doing so (Crash Bandicoot and Spyro way back on the PS1 were amazing and are great examples of how new developers can ruin the future games in the franchise)

So for that reason, I do agree that 343's time is best spent making sure Halo 4 is perfect in the respect it stays true to the Halo formula and has all the key features of the old games. Finally, Halo 2 being re-released with MP on the Arcade would fail for the very reason you said, population would collapse due to it being the same game. A new graphics engine with extra features like forge may create the illusion of a remake being a new game.

  • 01.23.2012 4:46 PM PDT

If you didn't Play Halo: CE or Halo 2 MP, your opinion about Halo means nada.

CE + H2 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> H3+Reach+H4


Posted by: JohnnyB0Y28
I don't think i would.. the halo 2 multiplayer in my opinion was the best (along with halo 3's) if i wanna play the campaign ill just pop in the disc.

Nothing more needs to be said.

/thread

  • 01.23.2012 4:48 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Noble Heroic Member

"A life lived for others is the only life worth living" - Albert Einstein

"I have your RCON right here." - Iggwilv

"Always my pleasure to be lazy." - InvasionImminent

I honestly feel better with 343i taking the reigns of Halo. Bungie was getting bored of Halo and I know that effected a lot of what happened with the series. I also feel that 343 Industries wants more out of the Halo series that the fans also want. One reason being the fact they're mostly comprised of fans.

If you really look at all the interviews you find that Bungie wanted a completely different sort of experience than what fans really took hold of. Reach is exactly what Bungie wanted to do, as they've stated many times, and that's not at all what the fans wanted. If you look at the interviews with 343 Industries, it seems that they want exactly what the fans want. I'm thrilled to give them the chance to prove themselves and I'm going to try my hardest not to let my nostalgia blind me. (Which I know most will.)

[Edited on 01.23.2012 8:02 PM PST]

  • 01.23.2012 5:29 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: Wilis_kid

Posted by: JohnnyB0Y28
I don't think i would.. the halo 2 multiplayer in my opinion was the best (along with halo 3's) if i wanna play the campaign ill just pop in the disc.

I think it should still have remastered graphics otherwise I'm not sure how well it would fare against new releases or even the new fans who will probably be like "OMG dis game looks lik tra$h" simply because it isn't on par with the latest Halo's.

So yes, I think it should be remastered with a new graphics engine like the CEA campaign. It should not use a different game engine for MP like CEA did though. Otherwise, no sale from me.
For me, gameplay > graphics

On the other hand, isn't it possible to keep the H2 models and just update the scenery? Select button should have 3 modes of change:

-new graphics
-new graphics with old models
-old graphics

:D

Posted by: Dr Syx
I honestly feel better with 343i taking the reigns of Halo. Bungie was getting bored of Halo and I know that effected a lot of what happened with the series. I also feel that 343 Industries wants more out of the Halo series that the fans also want. One reason being the fact they're mostly comprised of fans.

If you really look at all the interviews you find that Bungie wanted a completely different sort of experience than what fans really took hold of. Reach is exactly what Bungie wanted to do, as they've stated many times, and that's not at all what the fans wanted. If you look at the interviews with 343 Industries, it seems that they want exactly what the fans want. I'm thrilled to give them the chance to prove themselves and I'm going to try my hardest not to let my nostalgia blind me. (Which I know most will.)
Nolstagia smolgia. I knew that Bungie was on the wrong path ever since I started playing H3 extensively. We all should have seen Reach coming. Damn hype.

But I agree, let's give 343 a chance. They did correct the Reach models in CEA and make them fit in more, even if they are minor changes: Banshee, Elite major, Zealot.

But if they dare touch my Councilors... I won't mind if it isn't too bad. :P

[Edited on 01.23.2012 10:19 PM PST]

  • 01.23.2012 10:12 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Sometimes, I dream about cheese.


Posted by: Sliding Ghost
But if they dare touch my Councilors...
lol

  • 01.24.2012 3:52 AM PDT


Posted by: Sliding Ghost
Nolstagia smolgia. I knew that Bungie was on the wrong path ever since I started playing H3 extensively. We all should have seen Reach coming. Damn hype.

I'm sorry for acting like an ass hat about this, but I completely disagree. 343i didn't even make Combat Evolved Anniversary. They told Saber Interactive, and they did the hard work. 343i just pushes other companies around tells them what they do. I don't care if you think Reach was the failure of the century, at least Bungie actually made it.

  • 01.24.2012 4:45 AM PDT


Ooh, I love those people, the ones who decide to throw everything and the kitchen sink at you, as if an M16 does anything to a T-90. Oh, MLG player with noobtube instead? Congrats! You blew off one of my ablative plates!

Gun, meet Bad Guy.
Bad Guy, this is Gun.

It would definitely annoy me but not stop me from buying it for the great campaign.

What I hope is that they remaster all the maps, not just 6-7, that pissed me off knowing I would only get maps I actually didn't like, I don't give a -blam!- about Hemmorhage I would've preferred a remastered Blood Gulch and Sidewinder.

  • 01.24.2012 8:21 AM PDT

Good players work together...and no matter how good you are, you're not physic. - blade6321

I'd gladly pay $40 for Halo 2's campaign with updated graphics and 7 multiplayer maps.

  • 01.24.2012 9:06 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Noble Heroic Member

"A life lived for others is the only life worth living" - Albert Einstein

"I have your RCON right here." - Iggwilv

"Always my pleasure to be lazy." - InvasionImminent


Posted by: InvasionImminent

Posted by: Sliding Ghost
Nolstagia smolgia. I knew that Bungie was on the wrong path ever since I started playing H3 extensively. We all should have seen Reach coming. Damn hype.

I'm sorry for acting like an ass hat about this, but I completely disagree. 343i didn't even make Combat Evolved Anniversary. They told Saber Interactive, and they did the hard work. 343i just pushes other companies around tells them what they do. I don't care if you think Reach was the failure of the century, at least Bungie actually made it.
The only reason 343 Industries has to get other companies to do many of the projects (Like DLC and Anniversary) is because they're hard at work on Halo 4. I believe it's right for them to do that. They need to focus as much as possible on that product. Halo 4 will be 343 Industries. Not some other company's.

  • 01.24.2012 9:40 AM PDT

Microsoft can hire anyone they want to work for 343 and if they haven't yet, then they should hire more people. 343 is not some small obscure company struggling to make a buck, they are owned by one of the biggest corporations in the world.

The rationale that 343 needs to concentrate on one game only works only if MS tries to go cheap. An H2 remake will make MS a lot of money, imo, so they will start work on H2 when the time is right in a year or two and it will not affect any other project at the time. After all, it's H5 that would be happening around the same time H2 comes out.

So, concentrate away on H4 because there's no excuse at this point. Once H4 is done, start work on H2 and just hire more people for H5. I think MS can multitask just fine and with the amount of money on the line, they will, imo.



[Edited on 01.24.2012 12:04 PM PST]

  • 01.24.2012 12:03 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Noble Heroic Member

"A life lived for others is the only life worth living" - Albert Einstein

"I have your RCON right here." - Iggwilv

"Always my pleasure to be lazy." - InvasionImminent


Posted by: Grumpy1
Microsoft can hire anyone they want to work for 343 and if they haven't yet, then they should hire more people.
They do. They hire entire development teams to do the projects. Didn't really think that one through, huh?

Posted by: Grumpy1
The rationale that 343 needs to concentrate on one game only works only if MS tries to go cheap.
or if they want to make the highest quality game they could... Where the entire development team only has one game in mind... Quality/Quantity. Do you really want them to be releasing things constantly? It's not "cheap" to have a major work force focusing on one game. In fact it's the exact opposite.

Posted by: Grumpy1
I think MS can multitask just fine and with the amount of money on the line, they will, imo.
Multitasking leads to sloppy work and that money is spent on hiring good development teams to make the other projects. That's a lot more than just hiring some less random people, slapping them into a team, and expecting a good product. (Can anyone say Hired Gun/H2V?)

[Edited on 01.24.2012 12:23 PM PST]

  • 01.24.2012 12:15 PM PDT


Posted by: Dr Syx

Posted by: Grumpy1
Microsoft can hire anyone they want to work for 343 and if they haven't yet, then they should hire more people.
They do. They hire entire development teams to do the projects. Didn't really think that one through, huh?

Posted by: Grumpy1
The rationale that 343 needs to concentrate on one game only works only if MS tries to go cheap.
or if they want to make the highest quality game they could... Where the entire development team only has one game in mind... Quality/Quantity. Do you really want them to be releasing things constantly?

Posted by: Grumpy1
I think MS can multitask just fine and with the amount of money on the line, they will, imo.
Multitasking leads to sloppy work and that money is spent on hiring good development teams to make the other projects. That's a lot more than just hiring some less random people, slapping them into a team, and expecting a good product. (Can anyone say Hired Gun/H2V?)
What an immature combative person you are.

I was referencing your silly statements about how a company can only work on one project to have quality. That is ignorance, MS can hire the best in the world and if they already have the best (as you stated) then nothing should stop them. Your rationale for only making one game at a time does not hold water and is shallow thinking at best.

Your last statement is ridiculous, yes, multitasking as a corporation can work just fine, as long as the individuals have just one job to do. You act like everyone would be multitasking and that is not true. A company can have several jobs going on at once yet nobody within each department has to multitask at all. You just make up reality as you go along don't you? Dr Syx must be right at all times!

I would suggest you take your own advice about 'not thinking it through'.





[Edited on 01.24.2012 12:33 PM PST]

  • 01.24.2012 12:31 PM PDT

This is the average H2 Fanboy.
Xfire: JacobGRocks.
50 in H2/H3? Great, but you still fail at this.



So, concentrate away on H4 because there's no excuse at this point. Once H4 is done, start work on H2 and just hire more people for H5. I think MS can multitask just fine and with the amount of money on the line, they will, imo.



Meanwhile, Sonic Team tried multi tasking as well, trying to rush a game for 2 consoles, instead of making one version and porting it later.

When you multitask, the quality goes down the drain. Same with hiring inexperienced team members, when you do that you end up with shoddy programming, like with H2V or Sonic 06.

[Edited on 01.24.2012 12:42 PM PST]

  • 01.24.2012 12:41 PM PDT


Posted by: JacobGRocks


So, concentrate away on H4 because there's no excuse at this point. Once H4 is done, start work on H2 and just hire more people for H5. I think MS can multitask just fine and with the amount of money on the line, they will, imo.



Meanwhile, Sonic Team tried multi tasking as well, trying to rush a game for 2 consoles, instead of making one version and porting it later.

When you multitask, the quality goes down the drain. Same with hiring inexperienced team members, when you do that you end up with shoddy programming, like with H2V or Sonic 06.
Pure nonsense, this is not sonic so there is no relevance, it was just set up wrong. All you have to do is have different departments with high quality people and you can develop 2 games at once with no loss of quality. MS can do that even if other examples of poor organization exist.

  • 01.24.2012 12:48 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Noble Heroic Member

"A life lived for others is the only life worth living" - Albert Einstein

"I have your RCON right here." - Iggwilv

"Always my pleasure to be lazy." - InvasionImminent

Grumpy... Seriously... Could you stop with this? Why do things with you always have to come down to name calling? How old are you? How am I immature in the least? If I have an opinion on something then I have an opinion on something. That doesn't mean I believe I must be right all the time.

I never said 343 Industries has the best people in the industry. I said they hired good development teams. The teams that worked on the DLC and Anniversary were great companies and, in my opinion, is much better than hiring people who aren't even used to each other as a team to develop something within 6 months.

Multitasking in general does in fact lead to less quality. That's been proven many times with many things. It's the same with game development. One thing I could point to is Reach/ODST with Bungie.

I don't "make up" reality as I go along. I could easily say the same about you. These are all just my opinions and I do believe I have a solid foundation to form them. If you insist on name calling to prove your points then that shows something, Grumpy. I used to think you were a reasonable person. Now all you do is come up to each of my posts, argue with me, then say I'm immature for disagreeing with you. What's wrong with you?

(P.S. Calling me an immature combative person while you were the one that first replied to my posts with name calling is a bit hypocritical.)

Posted by: Grumpy1
All you have to do is have different departments with high quality people and you can develop 2 games at once with no loss of quality. MS can do that even if other examples of poor organization exist.
How is that not the same as just hiring a high quality development team to do that job for you while your main development team watches over them?

Oh, one more thing... To your "Dr Syx can never be wrong" comment:
Posted by: Dr Syx
At the same time I could be wrong
That was on my first post in this thread.

[Edited on 01.24.2012 1:04 PM PST]

  • 01.24.2012 12:50 PM PDT


Posted by: Dr Syx
Grumpy... Seriously... Could you stop with this? Why do things with you always have to come down to name calling? How old are you? How am I immature in the least? If I have an opinion on something then I have an opinion on something. That doesn't mean I believe I must be right all the time.

I never said 343 Industries has the best people in the industry, I said they hired good development teams. The teams that worked on the DLC and Anniversary were great companies and, in my opinion, is much better than hiring people who aren't even used to each other as a team to develop something within 6 months.

Multitasking in general does in fact lead to less quality. That's been proven many times with many things. It's the same with game development. One thing I could point to is Reach/ODST with Bungie.

I don't "make up" reality as I go along. I could easily say the same about you. These are all just my opinions and I do believe I have a solid foundation to form them. If you insist on name calling to prove your points then that shows something, Grumpy. I used to think you were a reasonable person. Now all you do is come up to each of my posts, argue with me, then say I'm immature for disagreeing with you. What's wrong with you?

(P.S. Calling me an immature combative person while you were the one that first replied to my posts with name calling is a bit hypocritical.)

Posted by: Grumpy1
All you have to do is have different departments with high quality people and you can develop 2 games at once with no loss of quality. MS can do that even if other examples of poor organization exist.
How is that not the same as just hiring a high quality development team to do that job for you while your main development team watches over them?
It's ridiculous to say multitasking in a corporate sense does not work. I've worked with many large corporations and always the quality of the product was the direct result of the quality of the people hired. If 2 games can not get done with the highest quality, it's because it wasn't organized correctly in the first place. It is not because they should have worked on only one game at a time.

Regardless of the hyperbole, the rationale that 343 should only work on one game at a time is ludicrous at best. Hiring outside help is not as good as in-house organizing because you can't keep tabs on outside companies as well and then quality might very well suffer.

@Syx
You insulted me with 'didn't think that through, huh?'. When you respond to someone's post with that, who is the aggressor? I gave my opinion and backed it up and your response was nothing but a knee-jerk reaction to being called to task.

  • 01.24.2012 1:15 PM PDT

This is the average H2 Fanboy.
Xfire: JacobGRocks.
50 in H2/H3? Great, but you still fail at this.


Posted by: Grumpy1

Posted by: JacobGRocks


So, concentrate away on H4 because there's no excuse at this point. Once H4 is done, start work on H2 and just hire more people for H5. I think MS can multitask just fine and with the amount of money on the line, they will, imo.



Meanwhile, Sonic Team tried multi tasking as well, trying to rush a game for 2 consoles, instead of making one version and porting it later.

When you multitask, the quality goes down the drain. Same with hiring inexperienced team members, when you do that you end up with shoddy programming, like with H2V or Sonic 06.
Pure nonsense, this is not sonic so there is no relevance, it was just set up wrong. All you have to do is have different departments with high quality people and you can develop 2 games at once with no loss of quality. MS can do that even if other examples of poor organization exist.

............

You missed the point.

Point is, if you multitask, you will end up with a buggy product in the end. 06 was so bad that it became infamous for sucking hard.

  • 01.24.2012 1:26 PM PDT

  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • of 2