Halo: Combat Evolved remake confirmed

ShaneU

http://www.joystiq.com/2011/02/04/halo-combat-evolved-hd/

Joystiq wrote:

Joystiq has learned that the previously rumored remake of Halo: Combat Evolved will indeed launch this holiday season for Xbox 360 with a full visual overhaul. Sources explain that the re-release is not Bungie's 2001 Xbox game simply running at a higher resolution -- it's being remade with new art assets. While Halo's audio will likely remain unaltered, the controls will allow for more recent Halo configurations.

The Halo: Combat Evolved remake is allegedly being developed by New Jersey-based Saber Interactive, the company behind TimeShift and Namco's upcoming Inversion, but we've been unable to confirm the nature of the engine powering it. We understand that it's something other than the Reach engine.

The Halo: Combat Evolved update, one of two Halo games currently in development under the watchful eye of 343 Industries, is expected to support 1080p resolution and 3D televisions. Details on multiplayer are supposedly still being worked out, but we understand the remake will likely feature online co-op (the original game supported two-player split-screen co-op).

The game is expected to re-evolve on November 15, 2011, ten years after Halo: Combat Evolved launched alongside the Xbox. Our sources didn't know of any plans to similarly upgrade the recently disconnected Halo 2, but it's hard to imagine Microsoft playing favorites with its biggest franchise.

Should please a lot of people

Korvanica

Cool...

Also...

Que a bunch of people complaining about how crap halo is....

johnny_ultimate

Yes, repetitive corridors in high def!

Can't help but feeling this is pretty much entirely unnecessary. The sequels have improved on most aspects, can't see it ageing well.

GTR63

Seen this story myself.Not exactly confirmed yet but its the worst kept secret in gaming.Never played the original.Wonder if they'll incorperate Kinect with it they'd nearly want to if they are going to charge full price for it.

Duggy747

Being a PC gamer I never thought much of the Halo games bar what they did for online gaming. I wouldn't call them crap but I do find it funny seeing some people cream their pants over Halo games.

Finally played Halo Reach last weekend and while it had some moments me and the lads just thought "meh". Nothing entirely new compared to the previous installments.

johnny_ultimate

I don't think Halo is as bad as some make out, but nor is at as good as others preach. It's in between - fun, some good setpieces, excellent multiplayer. But the first had truly awful level design in the indoor sections. The later games improved slightly on this, so it is a series that gradually improved. The first is a milestone for console FPS (controls wise anyway) but with the innovative elements now commonplace, the weaknesses will likely shine through, HD or online co-op or what not.

gizmo

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Yes, repetitive corridors in high def!

Can't help but feeling this is pretty much entirely unnecessary. The sequels have improved on most aspects, can't see it ageing well.

Most Halo fans (I'm not including myself there at all) would strongly disagree with you there. The original is still seen as the best in most peoples eyes with Reach following it up in second place.

Overheal

Halo CE was fun. I just think this is another weak attempt to cash in on the franchise, though.

I guess it will be worth it if they can get the driving climax to make any sense at all.

Menengroth™

WE'RE OUT OF IDEAS, QUICK, TO THE REMAKE-MOBILE!

super_furry

Reach, followed by 2, then the original for me. Bit early for a remake though, unless they're going to include online multi-player.

gizmo

super_furry wrote: »

Reach, followed by 2, then the original for me. Bit early for a remake though, unless they're going to include online multi-player.

I have a Halo fanboy mate who would eat your eyes for listing Halo 2 there.

As for the remake itself, I think it's fairly acceptable at this stage. It's been ten years, that's a hell of a long time in the games industry. Like it or loath it, it's also had a pretty huge impact on the console FPS market. And that's all aside from the fact that it has a huge and often rabid fanbase who will lap it up.

What's even more interesting is the fact that 343 aren't working on it at all, which indicate they have something else going on behind the scenes.

johnny_ultimate

gizmo wrote: »

Most Halo fans (I'm not including myself there at all) would strongly disagree with you there. The original is still seen as the best in most peoples eyes with Reach following it up in second place.

Hmm, perhaps. I only got on board with Halo at a late stage - maybe 2004 / 2005, and played 1 and 2 in close succession to each other. TBH they were both a slog, and even only three or four years after release Halo felt a little dated. There are moments when the game really becomes repetitive - the open levels are a strength (and the ending is cool), but the Library and other parts are very poorly designed. Later games IMO had more variety. But that's just me, as someone very much on the fence about the franchise (can't deny the multiplayer strengths though). I think coming to the franchise after playing Half Life 2 was a bad decision :pac:

madrab

a hd version of some of the outside levels would be nice but the coridor levels and having to do them in reverse drove me crazy

TrustedApple

Looking forward to this was looking at picking up halo 1 on the pc today on ebay but after reading going to wait for the remake

Halo has one of the best online mutiplayer game on the xbox 100 times better then CoD after not playing halo for about a year online i just got reach and was back to my best with in a 2 days

Retr0gamer

I wouldn't even say Halo was a milestone for console FPS in terms of controls considering Quake 2 and Alien Ressurection on the PS1 as well as a few others had the same control scheme. I think it was more a milestone that with Halo console FPS games could replicate PC ones. Also think Halo 2 is a very poor game and gave us one of the worst things to happen to online gaming, matchmaking.

I kind of think a HD remake is totally unneeded. If it's a straight up almost level for level remake of the original then it's going to fall down when those awful later levels filled with flood appear. Graphically the game hasn't even aged all that badly. I think the remake has got to be a ground up reimagining of a lot of the first game. Play down the god awful flood or at least make them far more interesting to fight and take out the repeating level sections and replace them with new ones. I'm not the biggest fan of Halo but if they make the necessary changes it could be good. Also don't try and tie the story in with the later games more, Halo has a simple well told story that doesn't need to be blighted by the bat **** stupidity of Halo 2 and 3.

mrm

Retr0gamer wrote: »

I kind of think a HD remake is totally unneeded. If it's a straight up almost level for level remake of the original then it's going to fall down when those awful later levels filled with flood appear. Graphically the game hasn't even aged all that badly. I think the remake has got to be a ground up reimagining of a lot of the first game.

Pretty accurate assessment there. I only played combat evolved for the first time within the last couple of months. It would be completely unnecessary to tart it up and offer it to the gaming community since it can be currently played on the 360 as is and has a bit of a retro feel value/ old game characteristic going for it. Take that away and the upscaled version will not stand up against some of the current games without a major redesign of a majority of the level design, and gameplay.

I like the Halo games that I have played to date (Halo 3, ODST and CE in that order). IMHO the GOW collection stands up against anything released recently, I don't think Halo: CE will. Halo: Cash Extraction methinks!

Overheal

And now, some classic homage:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsQrQFBIdaw&playnext=1&list=PLE936E3BE9151DBE9

K.O.Kiki

Hello, goodbye.

TerrorFirmer

Was excited until I read it's being built on a new engine. Assumed it would be made with the Reach one. That's a potentially massive balls up, Halo on anything other than a Bungie engine could feel and play different to Halo as we know it. But all we can do is wait.

Halo CE is the best game, in my opinion, followed by Reach, Halo 3, Halo 2 and then ODST in terms of SP content.

Also think Halo 2 is a very poor game and gave us one of the worst things to happen to online gaming, matchmaking.

That's a bit much, Halo 2 virtually made live, and was considered the best online console game of its generation, so to say it's poor and it's matchmaking one of the worst things to happen gaming, is somewhat of a stretch going entirely against overwhelming opinion.

I guess a lot of the people criticizing the game aren't overly big Halo fans, as the case usually is, I recently played Halo CE and found it was still great fun, didn't have any real concerns over level design.

profitsflow

gizmo wrote: »

I have a Halo fanboy mate who would eat your eyes for listing Halo 2 there.

As for the remake itself, I think it's fairly acceptable at this stage. It's been ten years, that's a hell of a long time in the games industry. Like it or loath it, it's also had a pretty huge impact on the console FPS market. And that's all aside from the fact that it has a huge and often rabid fanbase who will lap it up.

What's even more interesting is the fact that 343 aren't working on it at all, which indicate they have something else going on behind the scenes.

10 years is the same lenght in any industry.... Remakes are done to bring the product to whole new audience... This is the same people buying the same game twice... Its a cynical cash in on weak minded people.... Its best support new innovative games from houses that are really trying to push the boundaries.... Please don't be stupid enough to encourage this "Cash-in" behaviour of suits with no eye to the future... Thats what has ruined the music industry and IS ruining the movie industry.

krudler

profitsflow wrote: »

10 years is the same lenght in any industry.... Remakes are done to bring the product to whole new audience... This is the same people buying the same game twice... Its a cynical cash in on weak minded people.... Its best support new innovative games from houses that are really trying to push the boundaries.... Please don't be stupid enough to encourage this "Cash-in" behaviour of suits with no eye to the future... Thats what has ruined the music industry and IS ruining the movie industry.

Im getting the Ico/Shadow of the Colossus HD remakes, guess that makes me weak minded and stupid :rolleyes:

less of the insulting people and your point might come across better. if you dont want to buy a remake of a game, dont. plenty of people would love a remake of something Vice City or San Andreas running on the GTAIV engine, me included.

profitsflow

krudler wrote: »

Im getting the Ico/Shadow of the Colossus HD remakes, guess that makes me weak minded and stupid :rolleyes:

less of the insulting people and your point might come across better. if you dont want to buy a remake of a game, dont. plenty of people would love a remake of something Vice City or San Andreas running on the GTAIV engine, me included.

Remakes have their place but selling the same game twice to the same audience is not the place. We're killing the very industry we love... Lots of talented programmers are out their doing fantastic innovative things... THIS remake and remakes of games such as vice city are nothing more than a cynical ploy to milk every last cent out of us.... Look what Kareoke singers like westlife and the like, have done to the music business... We no longer get great singer songwriters or fantastic guitar players anymore... Just plastic compies of great songs.... I'd rather not see that happen to our industry.

krudler

profitsflow wrote: »

Remakes have their place but selling the same game twice to the same audience is not the place. We're killing the very industry we love... Lots of talented programmers are out their doing fantastic innovative things... THIS remake and remakes of games such as vice city are nothing more than a cynical ploy to milk every last cent out of us.... Look what Kareoke singers like westlife and the like, have done to the music business... We no longer get great singer songwriters or fantastic guitar players anymore... Just plastic compies of great songs.... I'd rather not see that happen to our industry.

Oh I'm sorry, I didnt realise we were facing mandatory buying of all games we dont agree with. you can say FIFA and Pro Evo are milking us for every cent, but I wouldnt know as I've never bought a single one of them. I dont care if a game is generic as long as its well made, look at Need For Speed Hot Pursuit, its the yearly NFS update yet its one of the best racing games in years.

profitsflow

krudler wrote: »

Oh I'm sorry, I didnt realise we were facing mandatory buying of all games we dont agree with. you can say FIFA and Pro Evo are milking us for every cent, but I wouldnt know as I've never bought a single one of them. I dont care if a game is generic as long as its well made, look at Need For Speed Hot Pursuit, its the yearly NFS update yet its one of the best racing games in years.

"Mandatory buying of games".... I've no idea what thats about.... Yearly updates of games are fine as long as they bring something substantially new. How many times like me, have you bought this years updated game and thought... God theres not much different here except the a tweek in the graphics... Games like Fifa and pro evo are battling each other for market share which ensures they at least try to be innovative. That is good.
But when a blatant copy of a game with just an updated graphics tweek is brought out its a whole other ball game. The games company isnt trying anything at all..... Why do you think this is such a great idea? You've fought hard on this point?

krudler

profitsflow wrote: »

"Mandatory buying of games".... I've no idea what thats about.... Yearly updates of games are fine as long as they bring something substantially new. How many times like me, have you bought this years updated game and thought... God theres not much different here except the a tweek in the graphics... Games like Fifa and pro evo are battling each other for market share which ensures they at least try to be innovative. That is good.
But when a blatant copy of a game with just an updated graphics tweek is brought out its a whole other ball game. The games company isnt trying anything at all..... Why do you think this is such a great idea? You've fought hard on this point?

WEll you're saying companies are milking us, if you dont think a game is worth buying then dont, simple as. People buy FIFA every year even though its the same game with roster updates, how is that being innovative?

I dont mind games being rereleased in HD or on a new engine. I love the Splinter Cell games, they've aged a bit graphics wise so if an update of a classic game is released with a new lick of paint at a reduced price then whats the harm? Ico/Shadow of the Colossus in HD is a day one buy for me, even though I have both of them on PS2.

Innovation in games has never been better with stuff like the Wii, Kinect and Move all changing control schemes, indie games like Limbo, Super Meat Boy and Shadow Complex are being made available to worldwide audiences whereas before they would have been bought by a handful of people. If the revenue generated from yearly generic games is put to use to fund smaller innovative projects then all the better. Doesnt mean there arent plenty of classic games deserving a new audience as well.

profitsflow

krudler wrote: »

WEll you're saying companies are milking us, if you dont think a game is worth buying then dont, simple as. People buy FIFA every year even though its the same game with roster updates, how is that being innovative?

I dont mind games being rereleased in HD or on a new engine. I love the Splinter Cell games, they've aged a bit graphics wise so if an update of a classic game is released with a new lick of paint at a reduced price then whats the harm? Ico/Shadow of the Colossus in HD is a day one buy for me, even though I have both of them on PS2.

Innovation in games has never been better with stuff like the Wii, Kinect and Move all changing control schemes, indie games like Limbo, Super Meat Boy and Shadow Complex are being made available to worldwide audiences whereas before they would have been bought by a handful of people. If the revenue generated from yearly generic games is put to use to fund smaller innovative projects then all the better. Doesnt mean there arent plenty of classic games deserving a new audience as well.

Finally we agree Krudler... I knew we would.... Updates at a lower price... Definitly.... Classic games getting an update and being released to a new audience... Definitly...

Classic means a game that the new audience would never have seen the original because they were too young. EG super mario brothers... God I remember playing that on the NES when It first came out. Its great to see it get numerous new leases of life and new innovative game play on new consoles and higher end computers. The first computer I bought with my own money was a Sinclair ZX80 which came as a kit and you had to put it together yourself. That was 1980.. 3.25 MHz Processor and 1kb of RAM.... AH the smell of solder...lol

krudler

profitsflow wrote: »

Finally we agree Krudler... I knew we would.... Updates at a lower price... Definitly.... Classic games getting an update and being released to a new audience... Definitly...

Classic means a game that the new audience would never have seen the original because they were too young. EG super mario brothers... God I remember playing that on the NES when It first came out. Its great to see it get numerous new leases of life and new innovative game play on new consoles and higher end computers. The first computer I bought with my own money was a Sinclair ZX80 which came as a kit and you had to put it together yourself. That was 1980.. 3.25 MHz Processor and 1kb of RAM.... AH the smell of solder...lol

Halo CE is nearly 10 years old now, same principal really there are teens who were infants when it was released, New Super Mario Bros Wii is just a remake of the original with some new stuff thrown into it, why is that innovative and remaking Halo for a new audience isnt? bit contradictory there.

profitsflow

krudler wrote: »

Halo CE is nearly 10 years old now, same principal really there are teens who were infants when it was released, New Super Mario Bros Wii is just a remake of the original with some new stuff thrown into it, why is that innovative and remaking Halo for a new audience isnt? bit contradictory there.

Not at all... There are very few of us who remember buying super mario cartidges. The vast majority of gamers were around when when Haol came out...... So a remake of a game that is 30 years old is definitly worth a look if they're using the new technology. The new technology advancements of 30 years make that worthwhile... The technology advancements since Halo are not that big. Granted a lot of that is down to hardware makers trying to dumb down the equipment so it will work for the majority of people. They can't be blamed for that. The next big leap in REAL 3D is exciting alright. It will be great when they finally bring to market the technology that they are begining to design now. Although I'll wait for the real thing myself. I'm not buying the current "Inbetween" stuff that is out now. Samsung have some great stuff coming down the pipe. Hopefully it'll put sony out of business once and for all. From seeing firsthand how they operate it'll be a great day.

krudler

profitsflow wrote: »

Not at all... There are very few of us who remember buying super mario cartidges. The vast majority of gamers were around when when Haol came out...... So a remake of a game that is 30 years old is definitly worth a look if they're using the new technology. The new technology advancements of 30 years make that worthwhile... The technology advancements since Halo are not that big. Granted a lot of that is down to hardware makers trying to dumb down the equipment so it will work for the majority of people. They can't be blamed for that. The next big leap in REAL 3D is exciting alright. It will be great when they finally bring to market the technology that they are begining to design now. Although I'll wait for the real thing myself. I'm not buying the current "Inbetween" stuff that is out now. Samsung have some great stuff coming down the pipe. Hopefully it'll put sony out of business once and for all. From seeing firsthand how they operate it'll be a great day.

Yeah thats just nonsensical, the ps3 got right everything the xbox got wrong, free online, chargeable pads, built in wifi, region free, hdmi out of the box instead of a newer version down the line, built in blu-ray instead of an attachment you have to buy (thats now outdated) you can say Sony are a big evil company but they do innovate games and technology as well.

Retr0gamer

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

That's a bit much, Halo 2 virtually made live, and was considered the best online console game of its generation, so to say it's poor and it's matchmaking one of the worst things to happen gaming, is somewhat of a stretch going entirely against overwhelming opinion.

Matchmaking is the worst thing to happen to online gaming imo. I'd much rather a server list sorted by ping that I can pick from and maybe have a favourite so a bit of a community can grow. Instead I've to wait maybe a minute while matchmaking finds me a server and it's a roulette whether the ping is terrible or not. Worst of all it's starting to infect PC games that don't need it.

Saying it is considered the best console shooter of it's generation isn't really saying much and also has no bearing on whether matchmaking is terrible. Anyway I'd Rainbow 6 3 over it any day and it was out before it.

Halo CE is nearly 10 years old now, same principal really there are teens who were infants when it was released, New Super Mario Bros Wii is just a remake of the original with some new stuff thrown into it, why is that innovative and remaking Halo for a new audience isnt? bit contradictory there.

I couldn't really call Halo a classic which is why it seems wrong. Comparing super mario bros to Halo is like comparing the godfather to the rock. And New Super Mario Bros Wii is far from a remake conidering other than some of the same gameplay it's all new.

profitsflow

krudler wrote: »

Yeah thats just nonsensical, the ps3 got right everything the xbox got wrong, free online, chargeable pads, built in wifi, region free, hdmi out of the box instead of a newer version down the line, built in blu-ray instead of an attachment you have to buy (thats now outdated) you can say Sony are a big evil company but they do innovate games and technology as well.

Its not what they do mate.... Its how they do it.... Like I said I've seen it first hand.... I've worked with them... Its not pretty and their policy on what they will do to people is horrific... I consider myself to be a pretty hard nosed business man and have negotiated with some tough cookies in my time... But there are lines that any semi decent human being will not cross... These guys skip across them.