IGN Tests HL2 Xbox

[Urban Terror]

The reason it is possible, as far as I know, for high end PC games to run on significantly less powerful machines is because they run with no AA/AF, and in 640x480 or less.

[marc___1]

washuplushie wrote..

console games are good for people like me who have an old computer. Half-Life 2 won't even run on mine (works on my dad's) and CS 1.6 runs at 15-20fps but my PS2 lets me play my games at 60fps all the time. I do prefer the computer but the console is great if you have an old computer =)

are televisions not 30fps and 640x480 resolution?

[ma_cherie]

Edited by [user="100811"] @ [time="1114930454"]

marc___1 wrote..

are consoles not 60fps and 640x480 resolution?

Fixed and yes they are.



As for the person talking about Xbox 360 I'd like to know where they got that from, the past six months Microsoft has been calling it simply X2 and it's slated for release later this year with The Godfather being one of the launch titles. So why they didn't wait for the X2 to be released, I'll never understand.

[HitmanCodename48]

[Juice^]

Some_God wrote..

Why is a CS oriented website reporting on HL2 news? :O

The same reason the lines on the road are yellow.

[defuser]

i bet hl2 will be a failure in xbox,Like Cz on xbox,it's hard to move up with the controller

[HitmanCodename48]

yea, unless they add mucho auto aim like in halo 2, hl2 will be unplayable. and good luck shooting a headcrab or dodging a poison one. when you design a game around a keyboard and mouse, it's impossible to make it as playable on a console.

[Bigun]

Hitmans right, Halo2 was designed with the controller in mind so there arent so many 'tiny' enemies, or insanely fast moving enemies....hopefully they will tweak this, or it will be lame.

[FL!P]

They pulled off half-life on the PS2 and I own it. If you hold circle you can autoaim on stuff, or you could try doing it all manually, or just a mix, in case you only want it for the smaller enemies.. Worked for me.

[KhAoS]

HitmanCodename48 wrote..

yea, unless they add mucho auto aim like in halo 2, hl2 will be unplayable. and good luck shooting a headcrab or dodging a poison one. when you design a game around a keyboard and mouse, it's impossible to make it as playable on a console.

Not to mention the super fast zombies...

[Xephik]

Sucks its not coming for PS2, i'm not going to plunge $200+ on and Xbox for HL2. I'll stick with the PC one...

[kerosine99]

blueflamedazn wrote..

Yeah I realized that after I posted. I dunno, I guess if I was the developer I'd wait until I hear more about the xbox 360 b4 jumping into development purely because I know that the xbox 360 will offer more resources for me to work with. Then again I guess Valve does want to show Halo 2 fans out there that HL2 truly is more amazing than Halo now that both are on Xbox. I bet thats why Valve started on xbox development so soon.

Hmm no.



This is what they said:

While the online portion won't be coming to Xbox, Valve explained it this way, "Trying to get the multiplayer running on Xbox Live would have put us back months, so we're focused on delivering an excellent single-player game." As for why the game isn't coming to Xbox 360, Valve said it this way, "Xbox is here and now. We actually started working on the Xbox version of the game about two and half years ago. We committed ourselves, and had already done work, so it just seemed to make more sense to put it on a system with 18 million units already in homes."

Xephik wrote..

Sucks its not coming for PS2, i'm not going to plunge $200+ on and Xbox for HL2. I'll stick with the PC one...

If you already have the PC one, why would you want to play it on a console? It's exactly the same game minus multiplayer.

appended @ [time="1114986541"]

HitmanCodename48 wrote..

yea, unless they add mucho auto aim like in halo 2, hl2 will be unplayable. and good luck shooting a headcrab or dodging a poison one. when you design a game around a keyboard and mouse, it's impossible to make it as playable on a console.

They talk about the subtle auto-aim feature they're including if you read the article.

[Pharlap]

marc___1 wrote..

are televisions not 30fps and 640x480 resolution?

actually its an interlaced 30fps. giving an apparent 60fps smoothness.

[Bigun]

my tv is 100hz meaning its true 50fps

[-:Nighthawk:-]

FightingChance wrote..

It's rather amazing how much co-efficient of loss there is in a non-closed development platform - the Xbox is little more than a Celeron 733Mhz and a higher end GeForce 3. I think it goes to show that roughly half of a modern gaming PC's power goes to waste. (which is inherent to the pitfalls/benefits of such an open system)

They already said the game wouldn't look as good as it does on the PC. Odds are you're dealing with lower-res textures, shorter sight distances, etc. so they can squeeze it all in. I wouldn't call that "half of a modern gaming PC's power" going "to waste" as you put it, but rather that extra power being used to give visual enhancements not possible with a lower end system.

Urban Terror wrote..

The reason it is possible, as far as I know, for high end PC games to run on significantly less powerful machines is because they run with no AA/AF, and in 640x480 or less.

Generally speaking that's true, though you can use AA/AF with the XBOX afaik if it's got the rendering power to spare, and things look a lot better if you do.

marc___1 wrote..

are televisions not 30fps and 640x480 resolution?

TVs aren't locked into a res like that. The max resolution and refresh rate of TVs varies from model to model, but good ones capable of the better HDTV modes have reasonably decent resolution. The refresh rate is definitely well above 30hz on ANY TV, however. Normally, when watching a mediocre TV, you'll get 60hz refresh rate displaying a 30fps feed, roughly speaking.

Pharlap wrote..

actually its an interlaced 30fps. giving an apparent 60fps smoothness.

That's kind of a simplistic way of explaining interlacing, but somewhat valid nonetheless. Basically, for the guys that don't understand it, TVs typically display alternating odd and even lines, which gives the apparence of a larger vertical resolution than they actually possess. On top of this, as a result, you can fit two time points into a single frame (one on the odd lines, one slightly later than it on the even lines) to effectively double the frame rate.



It works decently on TVs because they tend to be a bit blurry by nature. Computer monitors, on the other hand, always display every line of every frame all at the same time, so to get the same perceived framerate you have to process twice as many pixels, but the ending image is sharper.



That said, I think most video games tend to display non-interlaced (progressive) images rather than attempting to create an interlaced feed, as doing so really necessitates having a constant FPS.