NICO Hosted Halo games

[Infinitiguy19]

Hey I have been thinking about this idea for some time. I love Halo and NICO so I figure if you combine the two you get a damn good time.

What do you guys think?

O yeah make sure its on a PC and you guys use the Halo 1 demo.

[hannibal]

Halo belongs on the 360, not a PC...

[Dire91]

Halo belongs on the 360, not a PC...

HELLS YEA! XBOX 360 only, s***s the best.

[Razi]

Halo belongs on the 360, not a PC...

Halo 1 has a PC version.

[Dittoz7]

Halo 1

PC>Xbox

[DMan II-40]

My favorite shooter of the Halo series is Halo 1. I played it online with a program called XBC (Xbox Connect). Halo 2 was good, and i was on the leader boards for awhile (first page too) but it got borring. Halo 3 was cool for several weeks. If they remade Halo 1 with XBL support it would kick a**.

Also on a side note Perfect Dark is comming to the Xbox360 Arcade with online support. (For those that dont know Perfect Dark is basically 007: Goldeneye but way better, same engine and company just more guns, etc.)

Also Modern Warfare is pretty good. Can't wait for Modern Warfare 2.

P.S. Halo 1 PC sucked balls....

[Infinitiguy19]

I think I may have posted this topic in the wrong section.

But Halo 1 on PC rocks, no need to buy $300 worth of non upgradable hardware. To me 360 and PS3 is a like a Ipod, there is a new one every 6 months.

But I am not made of money so thats why I say that.

[Dattebayo]

no need to buy $300 worth of non upgradable hardware.

You can upgrade it. Who said you can't?

[Infinitiguy19]

What kind of upgrades?

CPU, memory...?

[naladude911]

I have halo 1 for PC, but since I got a mac I cant play it anymore. When I did play it, I dowloaded Halo custom edition (look it up) and it was awesome. Custom maps, zombie warfare, drive the pelicans etc. If you are going to have a NICO tournament on blood gulch im down.

[Nali]

I think I may have posted this topic in the wrong section.

But Halo 1 on PC rocks, no need to buy $300 worth of non upgradable hardware. To me 360 and PS3 is a like a Ipod, there is a new one every 6 months.

But I am not made of money so thats why I say that.

I just moved back to PC gaming cuz i got a nice upgrade.

But the quoted post is far too unfunny to be left alone.

300 dollars?New one every six months?non-upgradable?

1. 360s are 199. 100 dollars less than your hyperbolic list price.2. The 360 has been out since 05 with only minor internal changes to avoid RRoD and support HDMIA format which only really kicked off in 06, but otherwise the launch system and current system are the same s***.And will be till atleast 2012 when the true nextbox comes out.3. Upgrading the HDD on the 360 might be super limited and trivial to some, but it is still an upgrade so your statement is moot.

Further if you honestly need to upgrade to play Halo 1.......

P.S PC gaming has cost me much more than 360 gaming.I upgraded for FEAR, Crysis and Now just cuz i know a guy who knows a guy.Even if i only upgraded to play FEAR and Crysis at stable FPS it would cost more than a 360 at launch.

P.P.S The 7x00 from 2005 which came out the same time as the 360 is practically useless for gaming today....my launch console is still useful today.Console Gaming > PC Gaming(flamebait)

[Infinitiguy19]

Did'nt mean to get you all mad but:

The Xbox was only lowerd price wise because the new Xbox 720 is due out soon.

I was being sarcastic, But there is a new and better one evey once an a while and I would rather have something for some time. But like I said I am not rich and I have other priorities.

Upgrading harddrive size is stupid easy to so with out buying microsoft one, even I know that and I havn't ownes a game system since Nintendo 64.

PC is better for shooting games.

[MinisterofDOOM]

Halo 1 has a PC version.

The PC version has better multiplayer, too.

[C-Kwik]

But Halo 1 on PC rocks, no need to buy $300 worth of non upgradable hardware. To me 360 and PS3 is a like a Ipod, there is a new one every 6 months.

But you would have to buy or own a PC that can play it. By today's standards, sure, that can be done fairly cheap considering how old the game is. I'm tempted to install it and see how it plays on my current desktop. But at the time, when it released on the PC, I bought it, installed it and tried 2 different video cards before giving up on it (I could barely eek out 30 FPS with most of the effects turned down or off). Ended up buying an XBOX and Halo 1 for less than $200 and have enjoyed it since.

I agree that FPS games are better on a PC when the PC can handle the game in question decently. Particularly due to the accuracy of the mouse look. But a controller isn't all that bad. I've spent far less money buying 3 360's, a crapload of games and XBL memberships than I have on various computers when trying to play only a handful of games. Hell, my last PC could pay for 2 360's at launch prices and its not even a gaming rig.

The PC version has better multiplayer, too.

Sure, considering you can't play Halo1 online on the Xbox. Using the same reasonin, Halo3 on the 360 kicks the PC version's butt... I did enjoy playing it online when I did though.

But one thing that bothered me about playing PC games online was having to upgrade just for the sake of being competetive. There are advantages to having more frames per second and higher resolutions. While I am not suggesting the hardware makes the player, all else equal, better hardware provides an advantage. Trying to keep up or even get a competetive edge can be expensive.

The Xbox was only lowerd price wise because the new Xbox 720 is due out soon.

While its likely under development, there are no concrete indications of when it might be released. There really isn't a pressing need for it either.

But in either case, that's not why prices have come down. The biggest reason the prices dropped is because they have found cheaper ways to build it. Cost of technology itself naturally declines and their engineers will redesign it to be cheaper to manufacture as new manufacturing processes become available. The 360 has gone through several revisions since launch. Sony also recently released a PS3 Slim and had a few revisions to the regular sized PS3 as well.

[Red coupe]

Hell, my last PC could pay for 2 360's at launch prices and its not even a gaming rig.

You got taken for a ride?

You can put together a damn good gaming PC including buying a new copy of windows for just over 700 bucks. Unless you are talking about two base model consoles that is cheaper then two of them.

But this argument is too old. You talk about how you have to keep upgrading a PC, I point out that you don't and that consoles maintain the same level of performance for years and a computer can do the same with out upgrade, you talk about how much cheaper a console is to buy, I talk about how the price between a regular computer that you will "need" anyways and a gaming rig is the same or less then a console... ect...

[MinisterofDOOM]

Sure, considering you can't play Halo1 online on the Xbox. Using the same reasonin, Halo3 on the 360 kicks the PC version's butt... I did enjoy playing it online when I did though.

I had completely forgotten that the Xbox version wasn't playable online. I was just referring to the added content in the PC version.

Hardware isn't really that much of an issue with PC games. The margin of competitiveness is on the low end of hardware for most games (Halo included). Above that point, it's all just "shinies."

While its likely under development, there are no concrete indications of when it might be released. There really isn't a pressing need for it either.

Exactly. Even though we're nearing what would, if looking at past trends, be the end of the console's lifecycle, it's pretty clear that both MS and Sony want to extract more life from these consoles than has been had from previous console generations. The Xbox 360 is actually pretty old, but the PS3 is still not where Sony wants it in terms of market share and sales. Given that fact, and the fact that these consoles are still pretty strong on the tech curve, it's not likely that either feels a need to move forward with another console. Sony NEEDS more life from the PS3 to make it worth its existence, and that means MS has no need to rush to beat them to the market with the next machine. MS can bide their time, and the PS3 isn't in any danger of becoming obsolete by sheer tech capability, so Sony can afford to string things out to get as much return as possible on the console. And it's in MS's benefit to sit back and relax while not having to be super-competitive.Even consumers benefit, since since we get more life out of our console investment.

[DMan II-40]

RTS , MMO, and Counter Strike = PC

Everything else = console

This is the truth, god himself told me to say it.

[MinisterofDOOM]

This is the truth, god himself told me to say it.

I told you no such thing.

[AZ89two4Tsx]

I'll just leave this here.



halo sucks

[Elbowblk]

halo 1 is my favorite halo. played on xbc and alot of 4v4/8 man ffa system link.

halo 2 was a huge disapointment imo

halo 3 was better but still wasnt as fun in multiplayer as 1

but yah playing on xbox > pc

[Dire91]

I have halo 1 for PC, but since I got a mac I cant play it anymore. When I did play it, I dowloaded Halo custom edition (look it up) and it was awesome. Custom maps, zombie warfare, drive the pelicans etc. If you are going to have a NICO tournament on blood gulch im down.

http://www.amazon.com/Halo-Mac/dp/B00006IQTHAAAHHHHAA!

[DMan II-40]

I'll just leave this here.



halo sucks

halo 1 is my favorite halo. played on xbc and alot of 4v4/8 man ffa system link.

halo 2 was a huge disapointment imo

halo 3 was better but still wasnt as fun in multiplayer as 1

but yah playing on xbox > pc

I agree with these two. Halo isn't fun anymore. XBC was the fun days. Basically if someone never played online they sucked, so I could kick everyone a** I knew.

[Pento240sx]

I'll just leave this here.



halo sucks

Is all about the CLASSICS.I just love all the mods it has. CS 1.6 FTMFW.

[Infinitiguy19]

So you guys want to have a NICO game?

[240marcuSX]

im down for a cod4 or waw game, i dont have halo.

[C-Kwik]

You got taken for a ride?

You can put together a damn good gaming PC including buying a new copy of windows for just over 700 bucks. Unless you are talking about two base model consoles that is cheaper then two of them.

But this argument is too old. You talk about how you have to keep upgrading a PC, I point out that you don't and that consoles maintain the same level of performance for years and a computer can do the same with out upgrade, you talk about how much cheaper a console is to buy, I talk about how the price between a regular computer that you will "need" anyways and a gaming rig is the same or less then a console... ect...

The last PC I built was about that cheap. It worked great for my games for about 2 years. Then I had to start getting into the whole start replacing everything mode as newer games kept pushing the limits of my system. Buying a system that won't become obsolete in a hurry requires much more initial investment. My newest system is much better than the PC I am describing here. And it barely meets the minimum requirements for Crysis. I certainly enjoy and appreciate PC games though. Its just more expensive in the long run.

Also keep in mind that not everyone feels comfortable about building their own PC. This probably doesn't apply to most PC gamers, but I could name off a handful of people that I know that I wouldn't trust to open a jar of peanut butter let alone a computer. Hell, even installing a fresh copy of an OS if necessary is a daunting task for most PC users. Just think of how many people ask you for help everytime their PC is having issues.

Now compare it to how much simpler and easier it is to deal with a console. The only time an "OS" was ever changed on my 360 was then the NXE was released. But that just involved pressing OK on the console. Pretty much brainless.

[idahotuner]

how about a vegas 2 rainbow six game

[Red coupe]

And it barely meets the minimum requirements for Crysis.

Really? My PC was like... $800 and I think that was with a $200 OS and I can play Crysis just fine.

For a given level of graphics, you only need so much hardware...sure the upper level of games keeps getting higher but that just means older machines just play them on lower and lower settings. It takes a lot of years to get to the point where you can't even play lowest settings anymore (Id say close to the life of your average console)

True, this may mean that you don't get the latest and greatest graphics... But the alternative is a console where graphics only REALLY improve once every 5 or 6 years and you have to buy a WHOLE new system to do it, instead of being able to make minor improvements when you decide to.

[MinisterofDOOM]

The Athlon 64 system I built in 2004 lasted me just fine until this year. It played Fallout 3 fine. It was not even top of the line when it was new, yet it kept up with current games at a playable (but not terribly shiny) level.

Yes, PCs are more expensive. But they are also better for it. I guess it's what you want. Do you want an Echo, or a Ferrari? I like Ferraris myself. Both will get me to work, but every second in the Echo will be spent yearning for the Ferrari.

Also, even if keeping a PC aggressively upgraded is more costly than buying consoles, the benefit of those two alternatives can vary greatly. I give you an example:I have been debating buying a PS3. There are now a few games I'd like to play on it, and it's cheap enough to be worth buying. I can buy that PS3, and then buy games for it, bringing me to a minimum $360 (need a game for the PS3 to be useful). OR I can spend $200 on a second GeForce GTX260 for my PC, and get performance benefits on games I already own AND on games I've yet to buy. The video card makes more sense to me. I don't have to go buy multiple games to feel like the purchase was worthwhile, because I already have games that can take advantage of the purpose. So it's a safer investment with more return. But I do not, by any means, NEED the video card in order to be competitive or to be able to run anything. It is a luxury. As is the PS3.

[DMan II-40]

The Athlon 64 system I built in 2004 lasted me just fine until this year. It played Fallout 3 fine. It was not even top of the line when it was new, yet it kept up with current games at a playable (but not terribly shiny) level.

Yes, PCs are more expensive. But they are also better for it. I guess it's what you want. Do you want an Echo, or a Ferrari? I like Ferraris myself. Both will get me to work, but every second in the Echo will be spent yearning for the Ferrari.

Also, even if keeping a PC aggressively upgraded is more costly than buying consoles, the benefit of those two alternatives can vary greatly. I give you an example:I have been debating buying a PS3. There are now a few games I'd like to play on it, and it's cheap enough to be worth buying. I can buy that PS3, and then buy games for it, bringing me to a minimum $360 (need a game for the PS3 to be useful). OR I can spend $200 on a second GeForce GTX260 for my PC, and get performance benefits on games I already own AND on games I've yet to buy. The video card makes more sense to me. I don't have to go buy multiple games to feel like the purchase was worthwhile, because I already have games that can take advantage of the purpose. So it's a safer investment with more return. But I do not, by any means, NEED the video card in order to be competitive or to be able to run anything. It is a luxury. As is the PS3.

I don't know... Play old games with better graphics of play new games... Basically your paying $200 to play the same games but look better. Honestly I don't care about graphics. I play WC3 and used to play WOW. I put all setting low so i get better performance, I can care less as long as the game is fun.