Halo CE in HD?

So I found this on the Bungie forums, it suggests that Halo 1, and maybe 2-ODST, will be remade in HD before 343's next Halo game is out. It even suggests that Halo CE could be rereleased in March next year. I know it's probably just rumours, but it's something I'd love to see come true.

Hmmmm... I'm troubled. I somehow can't imagine 343 Industries leaving well enough alone.

Then again, I'd also really like to see the studio do something on their own, rather than tread familiar (albeit fond) territory.

Half of me wants new stuff. The other half of me wants Halo 1 and 2 re-released with XBL support and achievements and all 5 Halo games given the Reach-style makeover (The PoA at the end of Reach looked amazing. Just imagine how awesome the rest of the series would be.) With Reach's multiplayer at the forefront I wouldn't worry about remaking the entire games though. I would just do the Campaigns from all of the games.

If there's ever to be a remake of just one campaign, though, definitely go for Halo 1. The greatness of the first game stemmed from this beautiful alien world you crash landed on and every level was a beautiful new sight to behold. You put those sights with Reach-style graphics and it's going to be like playing a whole new game.

Now here's the grand question. Should they keep all of the campaigns as is or should they add new content to bolster it? And I mean add in things that were ultimately cut from the game merely do to time constraints. All of the games lost content because of that and I see no reason why they couldn't be re-applied and even a few new missions added into the campaign (I want more Earth Defense levels. They don't even have to hold any value to the storyline. I just want more fighting and more conflict to bolster how deadly the war actually was (it felt so tame during H2 and H3.))

I never thought about re-adding cut content, but yeah, that would be nice. One level I'd love to see would be Forerunner Tank, which for anyone that doesn't know is from Halo 2, between the Chief killing Regret and meeting the Gravemind (I think, anyway). I also wonder if they would add in the new weapons, vehicles and enemies, but I think they probably would. One final thing I'd like would be to see the Flood with Reach graphics. That would just be amazing. Halo 1 would definitely be my choice for a remake, because Halo 2 and 3 aren't outdated enough to need a remake as quickly as possible.

As reign and launch said, add in the cut content add in online multiplayer, update the graphics, and leave everything else alone.

Especially gameplay >_< I hate when they remake games and tamper with the gameplay. I never understood why company's insist on that, but when I play games like Wolfenstein 3D on XBLA they suck because this and that has been changed and it's either too unresponsive or too easy to manipulate now.

If they added stuff into the game, I guarantee that they'd "fix" and "tweak" the gameplay as well. Hell, the fact that they'd probably have to remake the engine for a Halo 1 remake already risks changing the gameplay drastically (assuming they'd want online play).

I don't really see any need to tamper with it for online play. It's not the easiest game in the world to play, but if XBC and it's lag-laden servers were any clue, than running off of dedicated MS servers would be more than enough to keep the game fun to play.

Hell, to be perfectly honest I'm amazed nobody has found a way to run XBC off of the 360 directly. Be awesome to be able to use it and play Halo 1 and Halo 2 without having to connect through the PC. MS could even pick it up and release it as a "XBL Silver account alternative to online play. Less features and harder to get a good game going, but still an option for people to poor or cheap for Gold or people who still want to get online achievos.

The lag from XBC and PC has less to do with the servers and more to do with the way the Halo 1 engine works. Halo 1 was never intended to run on online play and therefore wasn't made to calculate things like dead reckoning or latency. Xbox Live's servers are rarely lag free as is. However, they can be under theoretically perfect conditions. Halo 1 as it was originally released would not be.

Also, the fact that XBC is a cheaper alternative for online gaming is the single best reason why Microsoft will never endorse it, let alone let people unlock achievements from it.

As I said, I'm against this from a conceptual standpoint. I don't like the message that a few remakes will send to the Halo community. Remakes are usually only put out for two reason: to coincide with the release of a new installment or because the people in charge of the property have no new ideas to add. If they're going through with this, I'm hoping they announce something of their own with it.

I'm 50:50 on the remakes of the games. I want it for achievements and updated graphics (anything else honestly is take it or leave it) but I don't want it because the changes that potentially need to be made will most certainly not go over well. Even if the games themselves aren't remade, I would love to see the cut-scenes from all of the past Halo titles be redone with the Reach engine and fix the animation on the Halo 2 cut-scenes. Some of them were awful (Especially the level where the Arbiter crashes the banshee into the wall and pulls himself up. That was just embarrassing IMO.)

Not exactly something that would be of any real financial benefit, but I know giving a small team that task would yield a small profit and would be a nice gift for the die hard Halo fans like us here at the Source.

To rip off a stupid internet meme (or perhaps just GameFAQs) that article makes me QQ.

As a lot of the comments on there mentioned, they don't think remakes of Halo and other classics are worth the time and money, but they think the Kinect is? As sad as it is to say, but if Wii, Move, and Kinect are what developers think are important and gamers really want in the future of gaming, than this industry has truly gone to the dogs and "Hardcore/Veteran/Professional/etc.... gaming has died and "casual" gaming is officially top dog now.

If this is the case, than I can honestly see another Great Gaming depression coming soon. Motion Gaming is a gimmick at best and will never be able to support a majority of the game styles out on the market right now. Gaming will degrade into slews of childish mini-games and point and click adventure games (to which the only benefit to come out of that would be the imminent rise of Tim Scafer and his point n' click greatness.) Than for good measure you throw in a dose of controversy and government dictation over the content and sales of videogames and it scary when you think about it.

I'm not a big fan of the MOVE on the PS3, but I believe that it and the Wii are good ideas. While I do not like what they represent, I do like that motion sensing allows developers to free up buttons on a controller for more important functions (and, in the case of the Wii, I love the shooter schemes if the controls are tight enough). However, Kinect is the Wii's nongaming mantra taken to its most illogical extreme. Given its launch titles, there certainly isn't much to get excited about. Thus far, it hasn't shown me that it is any more powerful than the Wii or the eye Toy, even though its specs say otherwise. The fact that it doesn't interact with a controller of any sort (as of now, anyway) tells me that it's going to remain a purely motion sensing device, which will limit its usefulness (if not nullify it).

This thing isn't a Wii like revolution. It's the Microsoft version of the Sega CD.

The biggest benefit for the Kinect, in my opinion, isn't anything to do with the games, but just the ability to turn on your 360 and navigate the menu without having to pick up the controller. That's not a very big benefit, especially since I'm still amused by and constantly abuse the fact that you can turn the console on with a button on the controller (Now THAT was revolutionary... at least in the eyes of a lazy man like myself.)

As far as games though, I have to say I'm not impressed. The Kinect version of Wii Sports could be cool, but honestly without having something in your hand to hold and swing, it's not really going to feel like anything sporty (At least in Wii Sports you had the remote to replicate boxing gloves and a bat. Now I'm going to have to grab random things around the apartment and swing those instead.) The rest of the launch titles look bland (though I can always find a little amusement out of Kinectimals... or distract the wife for a few hours) The two games I'm perhaps most excited for are the Star Wars game and the sequel to Steel Battalion (though how you go from a 40-button controller to a hands-free motion play is beyond me. My only guess is replicating those anime mechs where the mech mimics the movement of the pilot inside. That could be kind of awesome actually.)

Beyond that, I have hopes that a few games like No More Heroes and Trauma Center pop up (I know Trauma Center is Nintendo. I mean something in the same style.) Something I think Microsoft would be smart to do is release a 360 controller split down the middle. You still have all of the buttons and the functionality is no different than a regular controller, but it would free up your hands for some minor movement that would be much more beneficial to use in conjunction with the Kinect.

Whatever the case, those industry chatterers have been chattering again, sparking rumours that Microsoft's new Halo studio, 343 Industries is hard at work on a remake of Halo: Combat Evolved using the Halo: Reach engine.

MS UK Xbox boss Stephen McGill told GamesMaster that he's keen on the idea of a Halo: CE remake, telling the publication, "I imagine it's a good idea," adding, "I think some people want to go back to older games and see them revisited and I think a lot of developers want to see that too."

I honestly don't know what to think.

Launch wrote:

Whatever the case, those industry chatterers have been chattering again, sparking rumours that Microsoft's new Halo studio, 343 Industries is hard at work on a remake of Halo: Combat Evolved using the Halo: Reach engine.

MS UK Xbox boss Stephen McGill told GamesMaster that he's keen on the idea of a Halo: CE remake, telling the publication, "I imagine it's a good idea," adding, "I think some people want to go back to older games and see them revisited and I think a lot of developers want to see that too."

I honestly don't know what to think.

Halo 1 in the Halo Reach engine. I've got a bad feeling about this, especially given how many purists (the only people really desperate for a Halo 1 remake) don't want any changes at all. Reach engine is about as close to Halo 1's engine as Concorde: Airport 1979 was to the original Airport.

If that's how you view the comparison betwen CE and Reach, than I'm scared to hear what you would rate H2 and H3 compared to it. Reach is easily the closest of the 4 bungie-produced CE successors to match what Halo: CE did in the beginning.

That being said, I will re-iterate once more. I hope they update graphics and add XBL. THAT is all! I'm sure they'll add in some extra details like the armor customization and probably environmental physics, but they need to leave the game alone as far as I'm concerned. .1 off the score for every little thing they tamper with.

While I feel that Reach is definitely closer to Halo CE's overall feel than Halo 2 and Halo 3, I think that has more to do with the game's spirit and design than the engine. The engine is a lot closer to Halo 3, if only because of the extra features (let alone the physics). I doubt 343i will rape the Reach engine just to make it feel more "classical" either.

While it's arguable that a lot of Reach's features would only add to the Halo 1 campaign, there's a lot of purists around that would find vehicle hijacking, refined Banshee controls, new melee system, less floaty vehicles, and the lack of a double melee/backpack reloading as a grave sin.

Hell, that's why I think that this is probably one of the worst things 343i could do as a first project. You've got two very polarizing groups and one will not be satisfied with this no matter what. There are just as many people (particularly those that have Halo PC) that wouldn't waste money on a direct port (me included).

I wish it would happen because I want to play it like old time sake but time feel to it. However, I don't want it to actually happen because I know that whoever makes it is going to change too many things and it's not going to feel lim Halo: CE if they changed the graphics and added online multiplayer it would be perfect but that's too much to ask for for what they want to do ( see the irony) and that turns me off of the idea. I they do make it I'll get it regardless because of the Halo fanboy in me but I don't want it to happen. That's my two cents.

Sadly I can't even decide what I want in a Halo remake. The purist in me says leave it alone, but the gamer in me says bring on the changes. Yes vehicle jacking would be awesome in Reach. Yes environmental physics would be a huge bonus. Yes new weapons, vehicles, and most likely even new MP maps (and possibly updated levels) would be an awesome new experience. BUT, that's not Halo 1. Halo 1 has only 4 vehicles. Halo 1 had no physics. Halo 1 had only basic features and that was part of it's charm. I can't really decide. I want both, though I tend to lean toward making the changes. Way I see it, as much as I want it to be true, no matter how many changes they make I'll still always have a copy of the original game anyway. If I don't like the new one, I can just play the old one.


Something occurs to me though. Would they be remaking Halo: CE or would they be "finishing" Halo: CE? I mean lvls 1-4, and 6 are all obviously pretty much established, but lvls 5 and 7 were overly repetitive and 8-10 were just clones. Would they just go and remake the levels like they were or would they potentially install the levels as they were originally planned or something new altogether. Like Mingy said a while back. Library was supposed to be brightly lit and ornate. The Library we got was no such thing and it's design would really be a waste of Reach's Graphics Engine.

Bungie is actually no longer a subsidiary of MS. They broke off into their own company again and have since signed a 10-year contract for a new series with Activision. MS, however, still owns the Halo Franchise and they have created a marketing company called 343 industries that will manage the license. They themselves are not the programmers, but act like the middle-men in negotiating Halo products. They decide what kind of products the series would benefit from (books, movies, games, animes, toys, etc... than they find the company they want to do it and negotiate a contract and obtain MS funding for the project to be done.

So 343i, which is managed by a number of ex-Bungie employees, get to call the shots on whether a remake of H1 is done or not, but they won't actually be developing it. It's their job to find a company that would be capable enough to remake the game (I've always personally believe Ubisoft: Montreal would be a capable team to handle a project like that, but I don't know if that genre is really their cup of tea.)

I will give you that. Farcry 2 wasn't an awful game by any means, but it had some crippling gameplay moments and as a FC sequel it definitely didn't deserve to carry the name. They really should have left a sequel to Crytek.

Other than that, though, Montreal has had a fairly solid and successful library of games released. Splinter Cell, Rainbow Six, Prince of Persia, Far Cry Instincts, Assassins Creed, and Naruto. Their biggest bum titles aside from FC2 were Lost Via Domus and Avatar, which those were guaranteed to fail no matter who made them anyway. At least Montreal made them remotely enjoyable to play compared to most movie-licensed games.