New Halo 2 Maps (Apr 17th)
- Thread starter 22psi
- Start date
Gradthrawn
Veteran
Wow... its nice to see them continuing to support the product so long after its initial release.
$2 for a Halo map ported to Halo 2?
TurnDragoZeroV2G
Regular
Wow. It's going to the original Xbox as well. IIRC, when it was announced, that wasn't the stance MS was taking. I can just imagine what went down for this to be the case.
And for $4, I'll probably pick them up.
And for $4, I'll probably pick them up.
Gradthrawn
Veteran
Granted that it's not exactly new content, but its something different to play since they weren't available before (on H2, that is). I don't really agree with their pricing though, that I agree with you on. But, I'm still happy to see the support there.
I was hoping they'd make use of all that RAM in the 360 (high res textures). Surely it would be trivial... But I guess they don't have high res source art nor are they willing to go through that much effort for just these two maps for a 3 year old game. The two screenshots still look good from an art standpoint though IMO.
I get the impression it'll be a little harder to see people in the remake of Hang 'em High. It looks like it's using the New Mombasa setting (at the giant bridge) and I always thought that was a little dark. I guess I'll have to wait and see how it is.
Last edited by a moderator:
TurnDragoZeroV2G
Regular
Aye, I hear ya'. They should have called it quits earlier, decided it definitely wasn't coming to Xbox ever, and go from there. It probably would have stuck out like a sore thumb, but so what. Heh. Nevertheless, I'm sure there'll be tens of thousands of Halo 2 fans who don't want to buy a 360, who'll be grateful for the turn of events. i also agree they look pretty good as well. I'm kinda surprised Certain Affinity only signed on for 2 maps, though, and remakes at that, even if they've been re-imagined slightly gameplay wise (Desolation at least). I won't be surprised if there are more maps besides these two, including original ones.
Indeedy
Some details from Frankie:
http://www.bungie.net/News/content.aspx?type=topnews&link=certainaffinitymaps
They still haven't got Halo 2 running as well on the 360 as it does on the orignal Xbox. I still bust out my old Xbox to play Halo 2 as I can't stand the way it chugs in heavy action on the 360, so I'm glad they are making these maps avalable for it or otherwise I wouldn't be interested in them at all.
Fair enough, and actually... I'd probably get the maps on the original box just for compatibility unless they were continuing to update the emulator (it has been awhile...). It's just too bad that they don't have a system in place to differentiate between the two systems (and that goes for the purchase method too) surely the loading of larger textures is no different code-wise 
I wonder how the response will be in terms of sales though.
I wonder how the response will be in terms of sales though.
Not in any game I've ever worked with, though there would be a consitancy issue with high res world textures making the low res model textues stand out as particularly ugly....surely the loading of larger textures is no different code-wise
Ike Turner
Veteran
Well, isn't Bungie and Microsoft......the same thing ? Given that Microsoft owns Bungie.. etc...
TurnDragoZeroV2G
Regular
Bungie's pretty independent, for technically being owned by Microsoft. There are numerous examples of Bungie not being on the same wavelength as MS... one of the most recent I can think of involved taking Halo 3 to troops in Iraq, purely as something for them, and MS getting all worked up because they would have wanted to attach PR and **** to it.
But I don't think anybody at Bungie even dared to dream they could release the maps for free (not initially). It costs Microsoft money no matter which way you look at it, unlike the (infuriating) case with other games, such as Gears (which I assume is coming purely out of their own pockets).
Edit: and it's in no way new news that the maps would cost money. The very day they were announced, it was noted that they would cost "Something" to download.
But I don't think anybody at Bungie even dared to dream they could release the maps for free (not initially). It costs Microsoft money no matter which way you look at it, unlike the (infuriating) case with other games, such as Gears (which I assume is coming purely out of their own pockets).
Edit: and it's in no way new news that the maps would cost money. The very day they were announced, it was noted that they would cost "Something" to download.
Last edited by a moderator:
Slightly off topic...
Well, completely off-topic, to be honest.
But it would be cool, if Bungie ported the PC version achievements of Halo 2 to the Xbox 360, for theses who (re)play the game on the X360.
Since I heard about the Halo 2 PC version having achievements, I thought that it would be a great add-on to the original game.
Of course, they might have to wait a bit before porting it to the console version, to give the PC version the primer of it (since some gamerscore addicts will surely buy the PC version for the achievements only).
They could also add them to the first Halo. It would require a bit more work, since they'll have to be created specifically and not ported over from the PC version, but it wouldn't be that much more work, since it's only achievements, not real new content; they'd just have to add achievements support to their executable (without size constraints since it would be for X360 only).
Nevertheless, it would surely give more incentives to people to replay the games, which would be nothing but positive a few months away from the Halo 3 launch. More people would want their next-gen Halo fix, sooner rather than later.
Well, completely off-topic, to be honest.
But it would be cool, if Bungie ported the PC version achievements of Halo 2 to the Xbox 360, for theses who (re)play the game on the X360.
Since I heard about the Halo 2 PC version having achievements, I thought that it would be a great add-on to the original game.
Of course, they might have to wait a bit before porting it to the console version, to give the PC version the primer of it (since some gamerscore addicts will surely buy the PC version for the achievements only).
They could also add them to the first Halo. It would require a bit more work, since they'll have to be created specifically and not ported over from the PC version, but it wouldn't be that much more work, since it's only achievements, not real new content; they'd just have to add achievements support to their executable (without size constraints since it would be for X360 only).
Nevertheless, it would surely give more incentives to people to replay the games, which would be nothing but positive a few months away from the Halo 3 launch. More people would want their next-gen Halo fix, sooner rather than later.
Someone had to do the work, test has to be involved, distribution has to be involved, billing has to be involved, support has to be involved.
There's a minimum cost to just releasing something.
Replayability is actually an issue, I think. If a game become too replayable, people will be too busy playing to buy new games. I'm not sure Halo1 replayers would be more likely to buy Halo3 with recent Halo1 gaming than without. Wouldn't it be better to have them sitting around wanting some new game to play instead? This is also a concern for something like LBP. What if the user-created content keeps people amused with that one title for ages. That'll be less content being sold. The only games where you really want replayability, from a publisher POV, are subscription games and games with buckets of advertising (Soccer) especially with live advertising being updated so you can charge companies for it.
The first title that pops into my head is World of Warcraft. The popularity and replayability of that game means (in my mind) that Blizzard will "never" release a new game (i.e. a hell of a long time). But the game itself is different from their other hit genre, RTS. There's a split fanbase where the RTS is the only interest (Read: Starcraft 2
).So I think the replayability issue you describe is generally a problem if the new game "fails to deliver" by comparison. If the next title sparks no interest, being vastly different, replayability of the older title shouldn't matter. For instance, if Warcraft III was not so replayable, it does not mean I'll pick up WoW because I have no interest in online RPGs.
And that's not just it - People do have different tastes and will pick up another title from a different company if it suits them. There's a replayability factor, but people also do want to try new things, and a sequel is a safe bet if the sequel has that same pull but doing different things that the older title did - something "new".
For something like adding gamer points to Halo or Halo 2 for 360 Backward compatibility, it should have been implemented in slower months of the year so as not to try and interfere with the sales of other titles. Has Halo 2's online, itself, hindered sales of other titles? I don't know, but there has been nothing that can replace it except for a sequel. I would have to go back and see what were the popular titles on Live before it came out (2002-2004).
Apologies in advance if it all seems incoherent.
This is especially true for these maps because they are being made by a new start-up and independent company; some of the folks who worked on Halo 2 multiplayer made it (it's not Wideload Games).
