Apple Previews Halo, System Requirements Posted

Discussion in 'Games' started by MacBytes, Nov 20, 2003.

  1. machinehien macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2003
    Location:
    houston
  2. Nermal Moderator

    Nermal

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2002
    Location:
    New Zealand
    #3
    Same here, except I'm just going to a G4. I don't want a G5 because I need OS 9.
     
  3. bousozoku Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    Gone but not forgotten.
    #4
    Big requirements for something that was originally shown on a much lighter-specced machine. What was the demo machine, a 9600 running at 300 MHz?
     
  4. MrMacMan macrumors 604

    MrMacMan

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2001
    Location:
    1 Block away from NYC.
    #5
    ARRRGGGGG

    Another game I will have the bare minimum in gaming.

    G-Damn.

    You know why this pisses me off because all of the upcoming games mean I will never be able to play them.

    My barily a year old Mac is Obsolete.

    Thats game makers.

    BTW:

    How is it they got this to run on X-Box which basically has a P3 IN IT! AHHHHHHH
     
  5. Bunzi2k4 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2003
    Location:
    San Diego, California
    #6
    yea... but i think altivec has some potential in games... mayb its just me... but w/e... its great to know that my pb is too slow to run games already... (knew i shoulda gotten a powermac g5 1.6...)
     
  6. yamabushi macrumors 65816

    yamabushi

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2003
    #7
    This even beats UT2k3 for listed minimum hardware requirements.
     
  7. eclipse525 macrumors 6502a

    eclipse525

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2003
    Location:
    USA, New York
    #8
    Is it me or does this really piss people OFF!.......I'd be more pissed than eager to run out and buy a G5.....contrary to believe most of us can't afford to upgrade. I'm sure some of you are still paying off the old systems. Freakin' sucks..... Love my Mac but at least I can upgrade a PC that I've built myself to take advantage of the latest and greatest.


    ~e
     
  8. bousozoku Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    Gone but not forgotten.
    #9
    It upsets me just because I know that some of these developers can't code efficiently. I've spent most of my career making sure my code was accurate and efficient.

    The trouble is that you can throw a bad game on a 3 GHz machine and it will run decently without trying. :(
     
  9. iJon macrumors 604

    iJon

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    #10
    agreed, in newspaper we have imacs with the 16mb video card and i brought my warcraft 3 cd as requested by some students and warned them it may not play well, but actually i was quite impressed with how wel it played on those imacs, just shows how well blizzard codes for the mac. and just to think that halo runs like a dream on an xbox, which as a 733 pentium 3.

    iJon
     
  10. lewdvig macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2002
    Location:
    South Pole
    #11
    With all the eye-candy turned up, it ran OK on my 3.36GHz P4 with RADEON 9800 Pro.

    But there are multiple code paths in this game on the PC side, and hopefully they will be present on the Mac.

    For example, I can force Halo to run in fixed function, pixel shader 1.1, 1.4 or 2.0 mode. Basically Halo will detect the capability of your video card and use the best mode.

    RADEON 9800/9700/9600 can do 2.0
    GF FX 5200 can do 2.0, but shoudl really do 1.1
    GF 4 4600 can only do 1.1
    RADEON 8500 can do 1.4
    GF 4 MX, RADEON 7500, RADEON can do fixed function

    In anything short of a system with the lastest RADEONs my suggestion would be to run fixed function: no blurring effects, no shiny surfaces, no specular highlights, no fancy water effects, etc.

    I ran the game on my P4M (1.6Ghz) laptop with a RADEON 7500 and it ran very smoothly. Remember, smooth for me menas never dipping below 30fps.

    Given that the pixel shader definitions above are defined by Microsft's DriectX I am not sure how they translate to the OpenGL API used by the Mac. I hope we can force modes.

    I think fixed function will be quite playable on the minmum system Mac. And it still looks quite good - comparable to Elite Force II.
     
  11. lewdvig macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2002
    Location:
    South Pole
    #12
    640*480 with lower rez textures, and a very thin OS and special APIs. No surprise at all.

    Warcrft runs great because it uses an ultra simple 3d engine with virtually no physics.

    Laud Blizzard because they make fun, uncomplicated games, not because of the engine coding skills.
     
  12. ScottDodson macrumors 6502

    ScottDodson

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2003
    Location:
    Chicago
    #13
    Alright, I can tell some of ya are upset on the req. for Halo....but you guys have to understand a few things before you get all torn up about this:

    1. FORGET EVERYTHING YOU KNOW WHEN THIS WAS INITIALLY MADE FOR MAC. We all have to face the reality that M$ bought Halo and scrapped all mac dev, thus making it specifically for Xbox. Even thought Xbox has a P3 and Gf3....it's not a computer. Then that had to be ported to PC in DX-8,9. So now this also has to be ported to Mac. We all know what ported games are like...especially a game that's been ported from platform to platform to platform. And on top of that...as lew stated, it started at a 64*48* game.

    Quote from IMG: "While the Mac & PC versions of Halo retain certain elements of the original console game, like the first person gameplay and the advanced AI and physics engines, most of the game has been retooled and refitted with new engines that take advantage of the very latest technologies found in today’s desktop computers."

    2. How can anyone here really expect game dev's not to push the envelope on graphics and requirements??? Do we really want dev's to make games for 4 year old computers?? My computer is now pushing over 2 yrs. old...and I still meet the requirements (867, gig r, ATI 9000). I don't think the specs are that bad for what hopefully will be a great game. Can people honestly say that they are a gamer, and that they are pissed about a minimum of a 32 meg. g-card, and 256 ram??? If you are...what kinda' games do you want to play?? And if people are serious about gaming...you can buy 512 of ram and a new G-card for 200 bucks.

    We all have to understand mac gaming is getting better day after day. And this port will be another addition to our ever growing library. But to do that...we have to keep up with the rest of the gaming comm. As the software gets better and better, we have to continue to upgrade like the rest of the world.....but the downside is this: While the PC users can upgrade fairly easily/cheaply...it tends to be a little more expensive for us maccers, we all know this. When we decided to buy our mac (unless you are buying a new g5), we knew it wasn't gonna' be a explosive gaming machine.

    All in all I'm glad for these requirements, because in the last 2 years I have been able to play every game available for the mac....and I still get to play Halo. And in today's lifespan of the computer, 2 years is fantastic to me. And to say that Halo has higher sys req. than UT2003....it is a newer game by 5 months and only has a higher sys req. by 77 MHz, more good news to me. Why is this good new to me?? Read this review from IMG.

    IMG Quote: "One of the first things players will notice about the game is its graphical beauty. Gearbox has gone through tremendous efforts in bringing the visually-rich Xbox game into the realm of high resolution PC graphics. Through extensive use of vertex and pixel shaders, the latter which have never been seen in a Macintosh game before, Halo brings a rich and vastly textured alien world to player’s screens. Taking advantage of today’s high-end graphics technology, Halo pushes graphics cards to their limits with gorgeous exterior environments, stunning visual effects like reflections and glows, and multi-pass texturing to put the latest versions of Unreal Tournament to shame.
     
  13. ScottDodson macrumors 6502

    ScottDodson

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2003
    Location:
    Chicago
    #14
    Ooops sorry guys, forgot to post a link to the IMG article:

    IMG First Look
     
  14. eclipse525 macrumors 6502a

    eclipse525

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2003
    Location:
    USA, New York
    #15
    i have a iMac 17" FP(800mHz) and for the most part it's not that old BUT according to the system requirements, my system is the minimum. That totally blows. Has anyone played it on a system similar to mine? I'm curious to see if it runs smoothly or not. Thanks!

    ~e
     
  15. ethernet76 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2003
    #16
    This strikes me as odd. The xBox is a 800 mhz P3. But, it has like 32 mb Video. The only difference really I could see between the two would be PPC compling and of course higher res since TV's are like 1024 on the high end.

    Maybe they changed the engine to a better one? The original was good though.
     
  16. ScottDodson macrumors 6502

    ScottDodson

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2003
    Location:
    Chicago
    #17
    Not to sound like a jerk...but didn't you even read my post before replying??

    That should answer for ya.....
     
  17. Sunrunner macrumors 6502a

    Sunrunner

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2003
    #18
    ScottDodson is da man! I agree totally, thanks to scott for that nice post.
     
  18. Sunrunner macrumors 6502a

    Sunrunner

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2003
    #19
    On the system requirements for Halo... a good tip for those out there who are worried about being able to play the game on your hardware: go download UT2003 demo. If you can play that without problems, then you will most likely be able to handle Halo, (albiet with low-res settings).
     

Share This Page