Halo Very OK

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

Ok,

I just played halo trial demo multiplayer for a couple of hours...

It was pretty good.

The speed is decent and the graphics look good and the lag isn't too bad.

It was very relaxing.... totally different than say rtcw for example.

Because most of the time their are only 4 tot 6 players... so that's not a
lot compared with 32 rtcw players which I did a lot

I would give halo an 8 for multiplayer...

Though the demo could use some improvements... for example their is no ammo
laying around... that was most annoying that wapens good empty fast and no
way to refill etc.

Also I wonder how much the lower frame rate impacts the players'
performance... still it played good and I enjoyed it. But sometimes it
seemed like other players could kill me faster than I could kill them.

Well all in all this is another fine game that performed just fine on PIII
450 mhz with geforce fx5200 chip.

Well what more can I say... only thing left to say is that getting into a
game was a bit wacky at first since lot's of black screens... the first time
it failed ? maybe because of a time out... my firewall had to be given
permission first... but all in all... later it worked ok... not bad...

I did not expect it to work... I did not expect it to bad any good... So I
was happily surprised... that the halo trial demo multiplayer is pretty good
! =D

Well enough game playing for today lol... or maybe not...... ihhihihihihi

Their is one more game which I am curious if it will work on my system and
that is homeworld 2.... my hd is a bit full so I am not sure if it will fit
since I would like to keep halo multiplayer demo for now so I can play it
just a bit more... hmm...

There is one more game... the terminator game... that was realllly slow with
the tnt2 and wrong graphics... call of duty reminded me of it... it's level
looked like a terminator scenerio hehehe.

Wow so much games I can play now... sickening =D hehehe.

Skybuck.

 

[chip]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

Why are you posting all this stuff?

Chip

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

i think he is trying to tell others with a low end sys that they can play
some of the newer games.
i tryed a fx5200 a year or so ago on a amd 1800+ and had the same results it
played most games just fine, after lowering the eye candy.
some on the forum may want to know befor they buy a game what will work and
what will not.

--


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
FIGHT BACK AGAINST SPAM!
Download Spam Inspector, the Award Winning Anti-Spam Filter
http://mail.giantcompany.com


"Chip" <anneonymouse@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:2ghh7aF308s0U1@uni-berlin.de...
> Why are you posting all this stuff?
>
> Chip
>
>

 

[Dave]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

"Chip" <anneonymouse@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:2ghh7aF308s0U1@uni-berlin.de...
> Why are you posting all this stuff?
>
> And do you ever buy any games?
>
> Have you got a job or something?

 

[augustus]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

>the players'
> performance... still it played good and I enjoyed it. But sometimes it
> seemed like other players could kill me faster than I could kill them.
>
> Well all in all this is another fine game that performed just fine on PIII
> 450 mhz with geforce fx5200 chip.

It is inconceivable that Halo will perform "just fine" on a PIII 450 and an
FX5200 that has 3D performance in the sub Geforce2 GTS range. Completely
unplayable slide show is what comes to mind. Bare minimum for Halo is at
least double the CPU power, and it's a slideshow on that, too. I guess you
must take the opinion that Windows XP performs "just fine" on a 233MMX with
64Mb of RAM.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

On Thu, 13 May 2004 20:46:43 GMT, "Augustus" <tiberius@weeik.com>
wrote:

>>the players'
>> performance... still it played good and I enjoyed it. But sometimes it
>> seemed like other players could kill me faster than I could kill them.
>>
>> Well all in all this is another fine game that performed just fine on PIII
>> 450 mhz with geforce fx5200 chip.
>
>It is inconceivable that Halo will perform "just fine" on a PIII 450 and an
>FX5200 that has 3D performance in the sub Geforce2 GTS range. Completely
>unplayable slide show is what comes to mind. Bare minimum for Halo is at
>least double the CPU power, and it's a slideshow on that, too. I guess you
>must take the opinion that Windows XP performs "just fine" on a 233MMX with
>64Mb of RAM.
>


Halo is playable on Celeron 1.1Ghz with GeForce 2 MX400 64MB.
It is not as fast as newer hardware (runs in the lower to mid 30fps at
800x600 with lowered detail), but still very playable. I believe the
OP when he says it was playable on his system. He did however leave
out the details of the game settings. The FX5200 is not a mid level,
much less high end card, but the 128bit plain, and ultra versions
rival the GF3 line, and as a current GF3 Ti200 owner, all games out so
far are still playable without slideshow frame rates.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

XP does perform fine on a 233Mhz with 64MB of RAM! If you would say a 5
minute boot up time was fine...!

"Augustus" <tiberius@weeik.com> wrote in message
news:T8Roc.2895$9P6.445@clgrps12...
> >the players'
> > performance... still it played good and I enjoyed it. But sometimes it
> > seemed like other players could kill me faster than I could kill them.
> >
> > Well all in all this is another fine game that performed just fine on
PIII
> > 450 mhz with geforce fx5200 chip.
>
> It is inconceivable that Halo will perform "just fine" on a PIII 450 and
an
> FX5200 that has 3D performance in the sub Geforce2 GTS range. Completely
> unplayable slide show is what comes to mind. Bare minimum for Halo is at
> least double the CPU power, and it's a slideshow on that, too. I guess
you
> must take the opinion that Windows XP performs "just fine" on a 233MMX
with
> 64Mb of RAM.
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

On Thu, 13 May 2004 21:04:16 GMT, "Phillip Parr" <nospam@spam.com>
wrote:

>XP does perform fine on a 233Mhz with 64MB of RAM! If you would say a 5
>minute boot up time was fine...!
>

Been there. Did that. It booted into the desktop about 2 to 3
minutes once it started it's loading procedure. Once you tweak it to
turn down the desktop effects, it performs decently enough, but I'd
stick with Win2k, or the Win9x varients for that hardware.

 

[NaDa]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

"Skybuck Flying" <nospam@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Well all in all this is another fine game that performed just fine on PIII
> 450 mhz with geforce fx5200 chip.

Dude, the game plodded like a dried out monkey in quicksand even with
a Barton 2600+ and FX 5900XT in the "Assault on the Control Room"
level.

 

[augustus]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

> Halo is playable on Celeron 1.1Ghz with GeForce 2 MX400 64MB.
> It is not as fast as newer hardware (runs in the lower to mid 30fps at
> 800x600 with lowered detail), but still very playable. I believe the
> OP when he says it was playable on his system. He did however leave
> out the details of the game settings. The FX5200 is not a mid level,
> much less high end card, but the 128bit plain, and ultra versions
> rival the GF3 line, and as a current GF3 Ti200 owner, all games out so
> far are still playable without slideshow frame rates.

It's not so much the FX5200 I find unbelievable but the PIII 450 running on
a 100Mhz BX board. A Celeron 1100 is marginal but as you say workable. A
PIII 450? Absolute BS .

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

"Augustus" <tiberius@weeik.com> wrote in message
news:T8Roc.2895$9P6.445@clgrps12...
> >the players'
> > performance... still it played good and I enjoyed it. But sometimes it
> > seemed like other players could kill me faster than I could kill them.
> >
> > Well all in all this is another fine game that performed just fine on
PIII
> > 450 mhz with geforce fx5200 chip.
>
> It is inconceivable that Halo will perform "just fine" on a PIII 450 and
an
> FX5200 that has 3D performance in the sub Geforce2 GTS range. Completely
> unplayable slide show is what comes to mind. Bare minimum for Halo is at
> least double the CPU power, and it's a slideshow on that, too. I guess
you
> must take the opinion that Windows XP performs "just fine" on a 233MMX
with
> 64Mb of RAM.

Well I forgot to mention the single player experience.

So I will do that now...

The single player experience was one of the most exciting levels of halo I
have played so far in the full version and even this level was boring me =D

It's the level where multiple soldiers ran over the beach and you have to
shoot many aliens.

I can't say what the frame rate is... because the game doesn't have an
option to show the framerate ?

Anyway it was below the minimum speed to play it decent... I am guessing 10
frames per second or so.

Halo does have slow downs even on fast systems.

I could try lowering the graphics but I don't care about single player =D

The multiplayer played just fine without any setting changes... expect for
brightness.

I even set all details to on.

I think the resolution is 640x480... I am pretty sure about that.

It's logical that multiplayer plays just fine... since the level is not that
big... and there are only 4 players and about 4 or 6 vehicles ( 2 planes and
4 sandbuggies ).

The frame rate at multi player was about 30 fps I would guess...

One I started the game it said my system speed was below the minimum
speed... but I just clicked 'continue anyway'.

So there you have it =D

Skybuck.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

Well I just played single player halo.

Before I started I googled the net... and I found a way to enable the frame
rates per second display.

It's hold control and press F12... I must say halo has the best fps display
I have ever seen in a game ! =D

The frame rate outside during the beach storm etc... is 5 frames per second.
That's still playable but too low to be really enjoyable.

The rest of the game is 10 to 15 frames while driving the card... and 20 tot
max 30 frames when inside.

You should be glad that the frame rate is so low... since it makes the game
easier to play (read cheat )

If this game ran at 60 fps... that would make the game a lot harder !

It plays almost as fast as on an AMD 2600+ mhz... so it's definetly not the
CPU that's to slow... the game is just slow.

Hehehehe

Skybuck.

 

[chip]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

"Dave" <baddsxyz@xyzbtinternet.com> wrote in message
news:c80c0m$s8f$1@sparta.btinternet.com...
> "Chip" <anneonymouse@virgin.net> wrote in message
> news:2ghh7aF308s0U1@uni-berlin.de...
> > Why are you posting all this stuff?
> >
> > And do you ever buy any games?
> >
> > Have you got a job or something?

You asking me? Or him?

Chip

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

>Why are you posting all this stuff?
>
>Chip
>

Obviously he's on drugs.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

>i think he is trying to tell others with a low end sys that they can play
>some of the newer games.

Yeah? I think he is trying to tell others JUST SAY NO.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

> The frame rate outside during the beach storm etc... is 5 frames per
> second.
> That's still playable but too low to be really enjoyable.
>
> The rest of the game is 10 to 15 frames while driving the card... and 20
> tot
> max 30 frames when inside.

And you're proud of that? Good Lord, I'd be screaming bloody murder at
playing a game with that low of an FPS. You have low standards.

 

[chip]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

"ThE AnArKrIsT" <thirdandten@aol.comNoSpAm> wrote in message
news:20040514112945.18679.00000850@mb-m26.aol.com...
> >Why are you posting all this stuff?
> >
> >Chip
> >
>
> Obviously he's on drugs.

.... or he needs drugs. Strong ones.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

On Thu, 13 May 2004 20:46:43 GMT, "Augustus" <tiberius@weeik.com>
wrote:

>>the players'
>> performance... still it played good and I enjoyed it. But sometimes it
>> seemed like other players could kill me faster than I could kill them.
>>
>> Well all in all this is another fine game that performed just fine on PIII
>> 450 mhz with geforce fx5200 chip.
>
>It is inconceivable that Halo will perform "just fine" on a PIII 450 and an
>FX5200 that has 3D performance in the sub Geforce2 GTS range. Completely
>unplayable slide show is what comes to mind. Bare minimum for Halo is at
>least double the CPU power, and it's a slideshow on that, too. I guess you
>must take the opinion that Windows XP performs "just fine" on a 233MMX with
>64Mb of RAM.
>


"fine" is a matter of opinion... If ya like LOW LOW setting and like
playing modern games that look like DOOM2...

Some of us have standards... others are simply on a budget.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

On Sun, 23 May 2004 15:37:06 GMT, "Ted Bealmear" <ted@insightbb.com>
wrote:

>That is very true. A lot of us do play on a budget, including me. And
>also, maybe your standards are too high. But, all that matters is if you
>have fun playing the game.

PS: FORGOT TO SAY:
Play a game like Far CRY on a 9800, then play it on a GF2-440mx or
5200 or 5600 - where you have to set the level on LOW.

With such settings, the GRASS is not displayed... It looks and feels
silly to SNEAK around on the ground with guys walking by "pretending"
they can't see you because of the HIGH grass and plants that aren't
visually there. How fun is that?

Its freaky to have a guy finally walk on you (about 2 feet away)
before he finally sees you (and you HIM!) and ya start blasting away!


Of course for Muliplayer - such a setting woul have an ADVANTAGE.