×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Halo Graphic Novel In the Works

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the sounds-tasty dept.

42

A new chapter in the Halo story was announced this past week, and it's not going to be a videogame this time. Marvel comics will be working with Bungie studios on a Halo graphic novel. The tome will include four short stories and a bevy of art from concept artists. Joystiq has overall impressions and some artwork, while Gamespot has details on the deal with Marvel. From the Gamespot article: "Marvel has said they will feature signature characters and weapons and be set against a backdrop involving the alien races of the Covenant and the Flood. Perhaps more interesting to comic fans is the roster of talent secured to put words and images on the page. Beyond renowned French comics artist Moebius, the Halo graphic novel will also feature the talents of Phil Hale, Ed Lee, Tsutomo Nihei, Jay Faerber, Andrew Robinson, Simon Bisley, and Lee Hammock."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

42 comments

Semantics (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14949950)

Graphic novel?

Oh you mean a comic book.

Re:Semantics (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14950005)

Or my favorite new euphamism, "American manga" ::snickers::

("No, comic books are for children, this is an American manga, so it's OK for adults to read.")

Re:Semantics (1)

C0rinthian (770164) | about 8 years ago | (#14957614)

I must be old. I thought "Graphic Novel" was the term people used when they weren't comfortable admitting they read comics.

Ahh, don't read during Star Trek... (2, Funny)

Caeda (669118) | more than 8 years ago | (#14949984)

Could have sworn it said "holo-novel" and was very confused...

Holographic Novel (1)

Jerf (17166) | more than 8 years ago | (#14949999)

I read this title as "Holographic Novel In the Works". Now, that could be sorta cool.

(Although the classic Illuminatus Trilogy [wikipedia.org] comes close, in that cutting the book in half loses surprisingly little information, which as you may recall is one of the characteristics of a hologram. But real holograms would be even cooler.)

Blah Blah Blah (2, Informative)

nmb3000 (741169) | more than 8 years ago | (#14950001)

Instead of the ad-laden websites of Joystiq and Gamespot, go directly to the source [bungie.net].

Why the dancing around these middleman sites that contain no additional information or insight? Does /. get some sort of kickback for sending people to see ads?

What's the fuss? (3, Insightful)

PhrostyMcByte (589271) | more than 8 years ago | (#14950008)

This may be taken as a troll, but- What did I miss out on that everyone else seems to have found? I've played Halo for the PC and found it enjoyable, sure, but the amount of praise given to it seems far overblown. Was the Xbox game that different?

Re:What's the fuss? (4, Insightful)

Turn-X Alphonse (789240) | more than 8 years ago | (#14950158)

You've hit the nail on the head. The Xbox has very few worth while games, so a decent FPS which plays well on a console was huge. Then it just snowballed as most popular series did and the hype made it sound like the greatest game ever.

Same with HL1 and HL2. Both are fine games, but they arn't overly special (HL2 right now is special, but give it a year or two and it'll be run of the mill).

Context, context, context. (0)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 8 years ago | (#14951453)

HL2 right now is special, but give it a year or two and it'll be run of the mill

Exactly.

So many games now have taken the good ideas from Halo that Halo itself isn't as great as it used to be, relatively. The same can be said for Doom.

But, Halo did a very good job on gameplay and weapon balance, and was actually fun to play. The same can be said for Doom.

And, I still believe the Halo campaign was a work of art.

Of course, the main complaint is that it's repetitive -- you know what? That isn't always so bad. If you're going to give me a room that I can stealth through and melee everything in it without alerting them, it helps to have some other nearly-identical rooms so that I can get good at them before moving on.

But, take it in its context to understand how good a game it was. There really was nothing like it at the time. Not on the PC, either.

Re:What's the fuss? (1)

Castar (67188) | about 8 years ago | (#14959631)

Hmm, I disagree about Half-Life. The original was an excellent game - a first-person shooter with a good story and most of all, excellent atmosphere. I have never felt so immersed in a game before.

Half-Life 2 was fun, but not nearly as good as the first one. I think it mostly rode on the predecessor's tails.

Re:What's the fuss? (3, Interesting)

DesireCampbell (923687) | more than 8 years ago | (#14950228)

Halo = best Console FPS since goldeneye.
Halo 2 = best console FPS since Halo.

The biggest deal is Halo 2's online play... in 2005. Good job being 10 years behind the PC.

Re:What's the fuss? (1)

Khuffie (818093) | more than 8 years ago | (#14950291)

Except that Halo 2's online play is far easier to get into in terms of functionality and interface than anything found on the PC to this day.

Re:What's the fuss? (1)

Suddenly_Dead (656421) | more than 8 years ago | (#14950408)

I doubt that. For example: I find it far easier to simply click on a server that clearly says it's running CTF than, say, choosing a matchmaking playlist thing in Halo 2 and waiting ten minutes for the game to start. Plus, with the former method I can see how many players are in the server, I can know if I've played there before, I can see how my ping to it is, etc.

Re:What's the fuss? (1)

DesireCampbell (923687) | more than 8 years ago | (#14950415)

"far easier to get into in terms of functionality and interface than anything found on the PC to this day."

What games are you playing? Name one PC FPS that needs a subscription to play online.

Re:What's the fuss? (1)

Khuffie (818093) | more than 8 years ago | (#14950447)

When did I ever say anything about money?

Re:What's the fuss? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14950778)

After purchasing an xbox game you need broadband and xbox live, which requires a credit card in order to use and is a subscription service, before you are able play online. With a PC you would only need broadband hence the money issue. If you play infrequently, say only on weekends, then xbox live is fairly costly for what you are getting considering that you could play the same game online with a PC for free.

Dumbed down. (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 8 years ago | (#14951467)

You're right. You know why?

PC games don't assume you're retarded. They assume you can learn a little something about servers and ping times.

At least the other things that make Halo so accessible to morons don't get in the way. The constant "Press Y to dual-wield" messages don't prevent me from just holding Y as I run over the weapon. But the multiplayer element makes it impossible for me to find and remember specific servers, or find a server playing a specific map, or to find a group of people playing a 3 on 4 game, so that I can join next round for a 4 on 4 game.

Oh, and it charges me $5/mo for the privelage of being so restricted.

Re:Dumbed down. (1)

Khuffie (818093) | more than 7 years ago | (#14952502)

You make some valid points. But what makes Xbox Live for me is the friends list. I can just login, see what my friends are playing and decide to join them if I want. Most of the time that negates the need for a specific serer playing a specific map, since you can choose in custom games, and so on. Voice communication is built right in to boot, so you don't have to run separate programs like Ventrillo, get everyone on board and setup servers for that.

I generally don't like playing with random people I don't know, hence the friends list is really nice. You don't have to like Xbox Live, I do, and plenty of others do. It doesn't negate online pc gaming.

Re:What's the fuss? (1)

Ryz0r (849412) | more than 8 years ago | (#14950721)

Hey, don't forget Perfect Dark! It took everything that made Goldeneye the best FPS of its time, and improved on it vastly; Counter-Operative mode, anyone? (why the hell was that mode not copied by every FPS developers on the planet?! HOURS of replayable fun!) and the plethora of types of multiplayer simulants was excellent! AND i think it's still the only FPS where you could choose where each weapon appeared on each map. Fantastic! Ahhh, those were the days :-(

I agree, Halo 2's online play was amazing fun, although i do prefer Halo 1 System Link games to halo 2 ones, there's just something extra special about the first..

Re:What's the fuss? (1)

Trogre (513942) | more than 8 years ago | (#14950453)

You didn't really miss much. unless you look at what HALO was supposed to be. To quote myself from another article:

Halo is a PC game. It was designed to be a PC game and the original version always will be an unfinished PC game. Bungy made it, and they made it great.

Unforunately, not long before the game was ready, Microsoft bought Bungie studios and shelved Halo. They then ported whatever they could from the carcass to the then new XBox just in time for a Christmas release. Thus Halo/XBox was born.

A few months later, Microsoft were kind enough to grace us PC gamers with a port of Halo/XBox to the PC. But make no mistake - this was not the original version by any means. Because it's a port of an XBox game, game play is severely retarded due to the pathetic 64MB memory of the XBox, textures are repetitive and performenace is dog slow. This is Halo/XBox/PC.

I doubt Halo/PC will ever see the light of day.

Re:What's the fuss? (2, Interesting)

GaryPatterson (852699) | more than 8 years ago | (#14950694)

Bungie stated out time and again that Microsoft didn't affect Halo's development, but somehow the message never seems to get through.

Halo started life as a new map renderer for Myth, and then Bungie decided that they could try large-scale cooperative games. After developing down that path for a while, they shifted focus to a single-player game with online matches similar to Marathon. The reasons I recall from that time were around development and game focus. Bungie was strapped for cash, so they looked around for a buyer. Microsoft came to the table, and it went from there.

If Halo would have been such an amazing game, why didn't Microsoft go with that? The original Halo model would have brought more people to X-Box Live and would have encompassed what Halo became for non-Live users. Sounds like a good strategic move for Microsoft to let Bungie develop that.

But hey! This is Microsoft, so bring out the tinfoil hats and bizarre conspiracy theories! Microsoft crippled Halo to irritate some PC users! It's so clear now, so obvious. They made it a lesser game because they didn't want it to sell. Clearly Microsoft is a company that doesn't know how to make money.

Halo/PC saw the light of day a few years back, and it's all it was ever going to be. You need to move on.

Re:What's the fuss? (1)

Trogre (513942) | more than 8 years ago | (#14950953)

Bungie stated out time and again that Microsoft didn't affect Halo's development, but somehow the message never seems to get through.

You're kidding, right? A Microsoft department says that nothing has changed now that they are owned by Microsoft? What else did you expect them to say? "Our dictators have screwed us over and changed everything, now can we have a raise?". Do you really believe Bungie was developing Halo with the XBox in mind?

If Halo would have been such an amazing game, why didn't Microsoft go with that?

Simple - they had to dumb the game down until it could fit into the confines of the limited time/memory space of the XBox. They made it as good as it could be for the target hardware, but of course the target hardware had changed from Mac and PC to XBox. When they decide to release it for PC, they have a problem. If they pull out all the stops and develop for the platforms capabilities, the comparison will reflect poorly on the XBox, so of course they have to keep it dumbed down. The poor quality and performance of Halo on PC compared with similarly specced games at the time is well known and can be easily observed. The other alternative is that the original game engine was crap to begin with but I find this unlikely given early (pre-MS-buyout) reports.

Re:What's the fuss? (1)

GaryPatterson (852699) | more than 8 years ago | (#14951070)

The 'original game' was never made. We only ever saw tech demos, and they were all single-player. The idea of a huge co-op game was put out there, but never implemented by Bungie because they changed direction.

I think you're letting the conspiracy theory get out of hand. The game that was released is all that ever will be released for Halo, and from Bungie's own people, even those who left the company it was a Bungie decision to make the game what it was. Microsoft don't control these people, so why are they sticking to their story?

The simplest answer is that the story is true. It was Bungie driving the development of Halo.

And poor quality of the PC version? The X-Box uses 640x480 graphics, doesn't it? The PC version can easily scale to 1600x1200 on good hardware, and the image quality far exceeds the wildest dreams of anything on the X-Box. The game seemed to rely heavily on the shader model used in the X-Box, and the ports reflected that.

Maybe you're comparing the actual released software against something once rumoured. That's not a valid comparison.

Occam's razor tends toward the simpler explanation. You're inventing complex reasons for something simple.

Re:What's the fuss? (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 8 years ago | (#14951484)

And poor quality of the PC version? The X-Box uses 640x480 graphics, doesn't it? The PC version can easily scale to 1600x1200 on good hardware, and the image quality...

You completely missed the point. It's not that the PC version is crap, it's that it's crap for the system requirements. The xbox is a dumbed down PC, if I remember, it's a 700 mhz, 64-meg box. So why does the PC version require so much more than that?

The reason we want the original (intended) PC version is that it wouldn't suck as much as the current PC version, and we wouldn't have to buy an xbox to play Halo 2, and so on. For that matter, it was also originally planned to have Windows/Mac/Linux versions. You're lying to yourself if you honestly believe that Microsoft had no hand in the release of only a Windows version, and months after the xbox version.

Re:What's the fuss? (1)

Ford Prefect (8777) | more than 8 years ago | (#14951628)

Actually, when the game moved to the Xbox the engine was almost completely rewritten - it went from being a slightly naff heightfield based effort [bungie.net] on the PC and Mac to a rather nifty arbitrary geometry renderer [halomaps.org] on the Xbox.

As for the apparent lack of performance on the eventual PC port of Halo when it was released - that could have something to do with the original Xbox version of the game being designed to take full advantage of the hardware it was running on. On the Xbox, you got ~30fps at 640x480 on approximately a GeForce 3.5, yet people expected the game to somehow magically run at silly resolutions on roughly equivalent PC hardware.

Lots of computationally expensive shaders, and all that.

There are many valid criticisms of Halo and its eventual port to the PC, but bizarre conspiracy theories don't really work when you look at the game's evolution. A game which languished in development hell for years, with no real direction to it - suddenly being given a powerful new games platform and a huge budget (and deadline) to work with. All things considered, it's amazing it turned out as well as it did.

Shame about the bloated, ending-less sequel and its years-overdue, deliberately limited platform PC port... ;-)

Halo Novels (1)

JNighthawk (769575) | more than 8 years ago | (#14950132)

The Halo novels were great! Personally, I didn't like the video game, but I really liked the story and the three novels (I think that's all there is) were fantastic. I have high hopes for these "comic books." As far as the semantic difference between a graphic novel and a comic book, as one other poster asked, is about 100-200 pages.

Re:Halo Novels (1)

casualsax3 (875131) | more than 8 years ago | (#14950754)

Totally with you there, I REALLY enjoyed the three novels, Nylund's two were particularly well written. I might actually go read them again...

Comic book..... (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14950236)

Just....say..... comic book!!!!

Cut and paste job (2, Funny)

Cyanara (708075) | more than 8 years ago | (#14950552)

Man, this project would be too easy. You'd be able to just repeat the same pages several times over each chapter until the characters move onto a different terrain type.

The DOOM books (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14950989)

I have to admit, the first book was ok.

After that, I got 30 pages into the 2nd when I felt like I had a morman parrot sitting on my shoulder, telling me morman-ism was the way to god.

0_o Im not religious at all personally. That whole deductive reasoning thing and all.

Anywho, a book about Halo? I'd much rather watch that video of that kid playing halo throw a fit when he dies.

no potential (1)

pokopoko3k (874262) | more than 8 years ago | (#14951176)

i thought the same thing when hearing the crap about the bidding for the Halo movie: wtf? Halo, while fun to play, has a very flimsy story. but even worse for expansion into movie/novel/comic/whatever, is that the main character is one-dimensional... at best. he's got to be the least interesting character ever. basically no back story, no motivation, no personality, no vulnerability. i mean, he doesn't even really have a name! he's just a cyborg warrior who unceasingly is ready to fight and occasionally spits out a painfully dumb platitude. despite his technological advancement, he obviously lacks a cliche detector... his cheezy voice acting seems to be a synthesis of every war b-movie actor ever.
when i first heard that Halo was so amazing, i assumed it would have a deep, interesting story with an actualy human element, like most games do now. Halo is way behind the times in that regard. ever since at least Star Wars, mostt robots have had more personality that the Master Chief does.
the job of translating him into a movie or book or whatever is a writer's worst nightmare.

Re:no potential (3, Interesting)

Saffaya (702234) | more than 8 years ago | (#14951218)

There are already several books on the Halo universe (check 'halo' at your fav online book retailer), including prequel to the game's storyline.
Masterchief's name is John117 and you can learn about him and other members of the Spartan project, and see that he and cortana have been a long way together (remember the 'so you did miss me' line ?).
You'll also see Captain Keyes' prowess as a ship commander against unfavourable odds.
"no back story, no motivation, no personality, no vulnerability" ?
There is a limit on what you can cram into the cutscenes between the game stages before it begins to dumb down the pace of action.
And all your critics can also be applied to half-life's gordon freeman, except we know his name.
Gordon's back story .. uh ? Motivation ... survive ? personality ... ha ha ha .. Vulnerability ... likes crowbars ?
Don't be mistaken, I loved the first Half-life and still do. I'm just trying to point out how your criticism seems silly to me. (And I'd be thrilled if it would become a movie too)

Re:no potential (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#14962397)

Yet somehow the terminator series was a success and Arnold is considered an actor go figure. Just becuase the main charcter is devoid of life does not mean that the story is boring, you know that little thing called plot. Won't be Hemmingway, but it could be entertaining

Copyright (1)

tezbobobo (879983) | more than 7 years ago | (#14952103)

Now correct me if I'm wrong (everyone usually does) but Halo bears a very close resemblence (at least in the game) to Larry Nivens Ringworld story. I don't know it there was an explicit connection and he was paid or whether the whole ring-word/Ringword thing was pure coincidence. I can however see a very close resemblence to a contemporary courtcase being undertaken by one Dan Brown.

Re:Copyright (1)

GaryPatterson (852699) | more than 7 years ago | (#14953478)

The idea of a ringworld is similar, although Niven's version circled the star, while Bungie's version was far smaller, and orbited a planet. The mechanics behind both are very different then. Ringworlds were, I think, based on Dyson Spheres. Niven didn't create that idea.

Further, the plots are vastly different. I think any case for plagiarism would be extremely difficult to make except at the most superficial level.

The Dan Brown case relies upon the extreme similarity between the book "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" and his book. The concepts from the earlier book seem to have been moved right into Brown's book without much or any modification.

I read Niven's books, and found them to be that sort of stuff thrown out by a lot of authors in the 60s and 70s - a long, rambling quest which doesn't seem to have any consistency in the way the world works. Deus ex machinas are common and often used to get out of sticky situations. I think I gave them to a second-hand store in the end. A lot of early SciFi was like that, although thankfully we've moved on.

Re:Copyright (1)

patio11 (857072) | about 8 years ago | (#14954517)

Luckily, you can't copyright an idea, you can only copyright an expression of an idea. Dan Brown's large (and completely unjustified, his books are terrible and I want to slit my own wrists for buying three of them after it was perfectly obvious from the first one) commercial success might bring out "Oh no you CLEARLY stole my unpublished manuscript" claims but they'll be legally dead on arrival. I could write a hackish novel about a middle-aged Harvard professor discovering an ancient conspiracy in the Catholic Church to fake the existence of a female Pope threatening me and my improbably sexy and vapid love interest with death at the hands of the Inquisition if I don't keep uncovering clues with my comprehensive knowledge of medieval calliagraphy and Dan Brown would have no legal recourse other than slapping himself in the forehead and saying "Dang, why didn't I bang out that terrible excuse for a work of fiction first". IANAL, I just work for them from time to time.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...