If Halo had been a PC game...

[Erana]

What basis do you have to predict these changes? Did they include 2 weapon only simply for consoles? Why would the level design be fundimentaly different?

Part of the reasoning behind these predictions is not merely a matter of the game being on a different platform, but if it had taken a more normal FPS route entirely. The two weapon thing is a common complaint/compliment feature of the game, so for the sake of hypotheticals, I wondered about what it would be like having it absent from the game entirely.

 

[Gildan Bladeborn]

What makes you think the core design of the game, apart from things like the interface or auto-aiming and whatnot that are specific to the console platform, would have differed that much? Halo was a title that went through the classic "development hell" - by the time Microsoft bought Bungie and made it an X-Box exclusive, the title had been in development for bloody ages and all the 'cool new features' it brought to the table had already been cribbed by other developers.

I'd go so far as to suggest that Microsoft buying their company and making them release Halo as a console-only shooter (at first anyways, there is a PC port) was the best thing that could have happened for Bungie at the time - let's face it, Halo didn't do a whole lot to stand out from the crowd of FPS titles on the PC. It wouldn't have lived up to the hype, and taking a great deal of time to release a game that can only boast that it's "competent!" would not have been good for Bungie's reputation. It would hardly have been another Daikatana, but it would still have gotten an underwhelming reception.

Instead, Microsoft made it a system launch title, and the FPS that would have been "meh" on the PC was phenomenal on the X-Box, because console FPS titles prior to Halo can be broadly described as staggeringly bad - it shined all the brighter because it was a decent game in a field that could barely offer anything besides 'barely playable'.

But what you're suggesting I think is wishful thinking - you can blame Microsoft for the artificially lengthened levels, but I rather doubt so many aspects of the gameplay itself were scrapped and redesigned when they shifted their development focus over to the X-Box.

 

[jmd102993]

If the Halo game was made JUST for the PC it would be no different than it is now. The story would stay the same.

I don't know why PC fanboys say this crap.
THE STORY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT SYSTEM IT IS ON. THE STORY WOULD REMAIN THE SAME REGARDLESS IF IT WAS ON THE PC OR CONSOLE.

Did gamers get stupid all of a sudden? Really? Are guys really THAT stupid to believe that the story would be so much better if it was just PC game?

The story is the first thing to be written. They don't just say "Alright we are going to make a game and develop the story as they go." They may improve the story, but the don't just write it as they go.

The graphics might have improved a bit, maybe. The gameplay would be different yes, but the story is written even before the game is in development. I mean really? Do you know how stupid this sounds? "The story would be better if it was developed for the PC." That is by far the dumbest statement I have ever heard.

Of course look who I am talking to...apparently people are confusing "weather" with "whether." I know this is the internet, but it is no excuse to be THAT stupid.

I don't even care if you like Halo or hate it.

i dont mean it as if they story would magically get better having been on the PC, but i think they would have paid less attention and time working on the multiplayer aspect fo the game, meaning more likely the single player aspect would get better, storyline and single player usually going hand in hand, USUALLY... no need to freak out

 

[ZydrateDealer]

Erm...originally it was in developement for the Mac then the PC...so it is what it would be like were it a PC game, Microsoft wanted it on their console so it was ported to the xbox.

 

[aemroth]

Frankly i think halo might have been a better game had it been developed on the PC, most likely it would have gotten more development on its story, not that its story is bad as is but in comparison to how it could have been just off of Halo 1, but because of that its multiplayer aspect would have fallen, and weather you liek it or not the halo franchise, along with the Call of Duty franchise, has set a pace for a lot of the newer first person shooters in terms of online play, so yea it may have been better on the PC, but think of the ripple effects on other games

Hrm... I don't factor in enough the "ripple effects" of Halo. It did change things for better or worse, and it would be interesting how the reactions to Halo effected the development of Halo 2 and 3...
The problem with that though is that if the regenerating health, limited weaponspace and general Halo-ness had never come around, the FPS market would have prolly gone in a different direction entirely, with Halo marching along with it.

I get the feeling the "ripple effect" is really what the point of this thread is about. Halo was, for all that matters, the defining game that shifted the primary target of the fps market from PC to consoles. At least, that's how i see it, i even call the periods pre and post-Halo

Anyway, if Halo had been different? Irrelevant, i think. If it wasn't Halo, it would have been any other posterior game to make that change. Nowadays consoles aren't just for playing, they're full blown media centers, and i know a lot of people that buy PS3's simply because it integrates the convenient function of a blueray player.

The market was ready. Bungie were simply the first to acknowledge that fact and think "hmm, what can we do differently, to grab the attention of console gamers, because clearly PC-to-console ports aren't working, and they seem to want a whole different kind of fps altogether"? But i believe if it wasn't Bungie, someone else would reach the same conclusion soon enough. It was bound to happen.

Personally, i prefer fps's that allow you to use the map design, gameplay factors etc., to think outside the box and give you more room to think creatively. Adrenaline discharges are fun too, but they work better with a mouse, like they used too. Plus, linear design, and gritty/realistic settings don't work if the story isn't up to par (if you're stuck in a rail, it better make sense why, and be engaging). But anyway, i'm digressing, i'm not talking about Halo per se now, but the bulk of modern fps's.

The truth is, however, the market i and single-minded people represent, is no longer the most profitable market. It'd be interesting to see indie developers try their hand at this, however...

 

[deth2munkies]

The OP is a huge wall of text, but all I have to say is this:

If it were on the PC it would automatically be better because of mouseaim. Console FPS's are near impossible to play due to the overly clunky dual stick controls, the closest good thing is the Wii Zapper.

 

[mad825]

the xbox would have no mascot from what I understand.

 

[Nalgas D. Lemur]

Well, Halo was a PC/Mac game before MS bought Bungie. It was announced at MacWorld, even. I suspect that overall it would have been largely similar if that hadn't changed, but the first game at least would probably have been more polished and had less copy/paste level design if they hadn't had to overhaul it and rewrite the engine for the Xbox in time to make the launch deadline. I also probably would've played it more, since I never had an Xbox, prefer FPSes with a keyboard and mouse, and was a big fan of the Marathon games.

 

[James Cassidy]

i dont mean it as if they story would magically get better having been on the PC, but i think they would have paid less attention and time working on the multiplayer aspect fo the game, meaning more likely the single player aspect would get better, storyline and single player usually going hand in hand, USUALLY... no need to freak out

It's funny because some only want multiplayer in games and that is all some care about. "Is there a multiplayer or co-op." I don't know about other developers, but Bungie is good about having a balance to their games.

The storyline wouldn't change even if you gave them 10 years to develop the game. Some games have been in development that long and the game still sucks regardless. I see no correlation between development time and the story aspect of the game. They always write the story before the development happens of anything.

I wish people would get this notion out of their head that "If they didn't worry about console ports, they would develop the story aspect better." I have been hearing this on every gaming forum I have been through and it is getting on my nerves now cause that is all anyone is complaining about. "Why didn't they just make it for the PC? The story would have been better."

It's like saying "If Hollywood only focused on making movies on Blu-ray, then the movie plots would be ten times better."

 

[Woodsey]

Halo 1 and 2 are avalible for the PC.

I was just about to raise that point. That said, both were external ports, and so isn't really relevent to this thread.

I would imagine there would be a few minor changes (such as the "only hold 2 weapons" rule being dropped), but to be honest, I can't see Halo being too different if it was developed primarily for PC.

Why exactly would the 2 weapon only system have been dropped? i don't play many FPS on the PC but it seems like it makes sense and is more realistic, though i suppose realism isn't a huge part of the halo series, regardless is it that uncommon of a aspect in PC FPS's?

From the console side you normally get two weapons; a primary and a secondary.

Games like HL2 and Crysis are more of a throwback to when games let you carry a rocketlauncher in your crotch. Especially HL2 - admittedly in Crysis you can see in your reflection/shadow where each weapon is held on your body.

A FPS for the PC does have a very different feel to that of one developed for a console though.

 

[Josh123914]

You should probably read up on your history because Halo was originally developed as a Mac exclusive, just check, there was a presentation and everything at Macworld 1999 so there was NO way that Microsoft was gonna pas that up, it was only in 2003 the Halo FINALLY came to the Mac and even then the hype train for Halo 2 had began so let me just put it this way-
Halo 1 - Xbox(2001),PC(2002),Mac(2003)
Halo 2 - Xbox(2004),PC(2004)
Halo 3 - Xbox360(2007)

 

[Turbulenssi]

I would still have skipped it anyways since scifi shooters aren't really my thing. Unless they have something to do with WH40k.

 

[Erana]

i dont mean it as if they story would magically get better having been on the PC, but i think they would have paid less attention and time working on the multiplayer aspect fo the game, meaning more likely the single player aspect would get better, storyline and single player usually going hand in hand, USUALLY... no need to freak out

It's funny because some only want multiplayer in games and that is all some care about. "Is there a multiplayer or co-op." I don't know about other developers, but Bungie is good about having a balance to their games.

The storyline wouldn't change even if you gave them 10 years to develop the game. Some games have been in development that long and the game still sucks regardless. I see no correlation between development time and the story aspect of the game. They always write the story before the development happens of anything.

I wish people would get this notion out of their head that "If they didn't worry about console ports, they would develop the story aspect better." I have been hearing this on every gaming forum I have been through and it is getting on my nerves now cause that is all anyone is complaining about. "Why didn't they just make it for the PC? The story would have been better."

It's like saying "If Hollywood only focused on making movies on Blu-ray, then the movie plots would be ten times better."

But the story of Halo did change. Like how the recent news article was talking about how Halo 2 was a mess of a development; they had to cut out so much. From what I understand, everything after the first Halo was a matter of reining in their ambitions, making it a shadow of what it was intended to be. If the story of the hypothetical PC game was any different, it would be because Bungie would have more time to do what they wanted because they wouldn't have microsoft pushing deadlines.

 

[Quad08]

I'm sorry, but many of the assumptions you make are just so...biased. Basically what your saying is, that it would have been better on PC. I don't really understand how you come to this conclusion though, but hey, its your opinion.

Honestly, all I is hypothetical rambling.

But to answer your question on what I think about what it would be like...I think it would have ruined Halo. It would be just another PC shooter, which already had Half Life and Counter Strike as the shooters of choice. Halo would be forgotten and so would Bungie.

 

[Magnatek]

What would you imagine Halo to be if it had been developed with a more typical approach to a PC FPS and the according market?

Well, the first thought to this would be, "not quite as popular, obviously". The Halo series has almost always been made for consoles (well, after Microsoft bought Bungie, of course). After that, the Xbox's popularity skyrocketed. Though, with other scenarios, such as the one you've given, having the game have that increased size of development time might have helped to improve the series as an entirety, eventually. However, the rate that this would happen would most likely be much slower than as it did with the consoles. After all, not everybody could afford or know how to build a computer made exactly for games like this.

Would you play it?

Sadly, I'll have to answer no to this question. When Halo initially came out, I had little to no interest in playing it at all. Additionally, I also had access to a computer that could barely handle a flight simulator, so an FPS on it was pretty much right out. This would be different now that I'm in college with a decent laptop that can easily play something like Bioshock, but with the time Halo originally came out, I would have had no chance in playing it.

If you wouldn't play a PC oriented Halo series, what would have to change to make you want to?

Actually, nothing on their part would have to be changed, in my case. I like playing any type of game that I'm able to play. I'd be willing to play it anytime. Again, I bring up the status of my computer access. With this laptop, I'm sure I'd be able to play Halo now, but then again, I haven't really tested this in a big FPS online yet. My answer in this, to sum it up would be that I needed to change my access, not the actual game itself.

 

[dragdev]

Lots and Lots of mods like halo CE and halo 2

 

[baseracer]

I think the real question is that what is Halo was going to be on the mac? or if MS didn't buy Bungie and was instead Rockstar produced that game.

Take Two would be very happy with the second situation.

 

[muse-13-bliss]

Halo 1 and 2 are avalible for the PC.

and /thread

 

[More Fun To Compute]

I have no idea what it would have been like if it was developed for computers first as it could have been many different things. Possibly it could have had thing like audio logs and terminals. It likely would have had more variety in textures and levels so that different rooms in levels like pillar of autumn and the library looked more unique. They also could have stuck more with the original RTS concept, it could even have been more like Giants: Citizen Kabuto.