-Clearly Everyone is Forgetting Halo 2 = Easy-

Halo 2 was amazing for 2 main reasons:

-Xbox LIVE/online in general
-Amazing maps

Other than that, the gameplay was FARRRRRRRRRRRRRR inferior to Halo 1. Each successive Halo game thereafter became subpar in terms of gameplay mechanics, etc., and somehow lost that perfect balance of skill-demanding AND casual-friendly that Halo 1 gameplay/mechanics had.

“Halo 2 Noobified” -> LINK!

So before you people continue with this bandwagon of Halo 2 being the glory days of Halo… it’s not. It was the glory days of ONLINE Halo, but the TRUE glory days of Halo stand with Halo 1. Simple.

The link explains it all and experiences proves that Halo 2 was a far inferior games in terms of the skill it required to master compared to Halo 1.

Bottom line.

I loved the Campaign. Up until the Flood Parts and the Arbiter sequences, however. When I had Halo 2, I had no ability to play the MP, so I have no standing or valid points there. However, what I can saw is: Outskirts, that is all. xD

> Halo 2 was amazing for 2 main reasons:
>
> -Xbox LIVE/online in general
> -Amazing maps
>
> Other than that, the gameplay was FARRRRRRRRRRRRRR inferior to Halo 1. Each successive Halo game thereafter became subpar in terms of gameplay mechanics, etc., and somehow lost that perfect balance of skill-demanding AND casual-friendly that Halo 1 gameplay/mechanics had.
>
>
> “Halo 2 Noobified” → LINK!
>
>
> So before you people continue with this bandwagon of Halo 2 being the glory days of Halo… it’s not. It was the glory days of ONLINE Halo, but the TRUE glory days of Halo stand with Halo 1. Simple.
>
>
> The link explains it all and experiences proves that Halo 2 was a far inferior games in terms of the skill it required to master compared to Halo 1.
>
>
> Bottom line.

More of this crap eh? You cannot compare one games MP to another, totally ridiculous.

The link is just showing the difference between the games, it does not compare because you can’t compare. The better players from H1 were suddenly faced with noobs who could actually kill them, so they either had to get better or whine like you and gripe for years.

H2 forced the game to speed up and team tactics came into play more, no more bounce bounce pistol headshot. The butthurt people just faded away but the real players changed their tactics and had to get even better to overcome the noobs being able to kill them.

This same thread was useless last time and you post it again, lol.

Is this serious or…

Halo 2 outsold Halo:CE and was all around a better game. Sorry to break it to you.

Noobified? Then why is it that Halo: CE’s best MLG player (Zyos) couldn’t easily adapt to Halo 2?

Sure you could argue it was an easier game for everyone else to play, but if that’s the case, you only need to put a bunch of level 32’s and over against a bunch of say - 25’s? in TS and see the result.

Halo 2 was all about team play. Not one man running the show. One man could easily hold his own and dictate the game but good teamwork could now beat him. That’s how it should be.

Didn’t a thread identical to this get locked awhile back?

Campaign was hindered by the limited AI (there were some improvements but they were a bit slower and less responsive and could have been better) and unbalanced sandbox (the unfortunate side effect of dual wielding making individual weapons weaker and the loss of a powerful plasma pistol), but had this not been so, it could have been as fast (perhaps faster due to the button combos and weapon glitches) and as enjoyable as CE’s campaign.

I have nothing to say about the mp except that the BR was much better than the one in H3 and that it was more about fun than competition.

> Noobified? Then why is it that Halo: CE’s best MLG player (Zyos) couldn’t easily adapt to Halo 2?
>
> Sure you could argue it was an easier game for everyone else to play, but if that’s the case, you only need to put a bunch of level 32’s and over against a bunch of say - 25’s? in TS and see the result.
>
> Halo 2 was all about team play. Not one man running the show. One man could easily hold his own and dictate the game but good teamwork could now beat him. That’s how it should be.

There…that had to be said.

> More of this crap eh? You cannot compare one games MP to another, totally ridiculous.

You can’t compare anything that has differences to it! That’s absurd!

If you can’t compare two Halos then what can you compare? They’re easily comparable and if you honestly think they’re not, that’s just a petty excuse to not bring up the subject.

Halo 2 had unnecessarily large hitboxes, unnecessarily large amounts of aim assist, certain aspects that were ridiculously unbalanced (i.e. infinite energy sword, noob combo, etc.), large flaws with netcoding (Not as bad as Halo PC, though), rampant hacking/boosting, massive amounts of game breaking glitches, crazy bullet magnetism, and an unfinished campaign. That’s all the stuff I could think of on the top of my head. All of these things are facts, not simply opinions. If you actually know what you’re talking about you can see it, but if you don’t you’d just dismiss this off. It’s all true, though. Most of these points are shown in the “Halo 2 Noobified” video and they’re not up for debate. They’re facts based on absolute evidence.

Just like anything else in life, Halo 2 had flaws. I love the game with all my heart, but you have to accept them. You ought not give this game a god-like title. Nothing deserves of a title like that. Definitely if it has this many flaws about it.

> Noobified? Then why is it that Halo: CE’s best MLG player (Zyos) couldn’t easily adapt to Halo 2?

Noobified? Then why couldn’t Walshy do as good on Halo 3 as he did with Halo 2? Noobified? Then why couldn’t Walshy do as good on Reach as he did with Halo 2? /logic

Simply put: Zyos was best at 1v1 stuff. He wasn’t a team player. When Halo 2 came out, it was mainly focused around team play in tournaments instead of 1v1s. Due to the larger hitboxes/added aim assist, people had to rely more on stealth. His playing style in Halo: Combat Evolved was so aggressive it was hard for him to adapt to that sort of gameplay. The skill gap was shortened so much that it hardly made a difference if he was better at aiming/strafing.

(P.S. If you feel I am “trolling” or “hating” with these observations, you’re being ignorant. I see flaws when they’re there because I don’t blind myself with admiration. I’m willing to bet I play Halo 2 more than most of you do through things such as Xlink Kai, Xbox Connect, and Vista. I love the game, but I think it’s incredibly dishonest to blindly defend something such as most of you do. It’s also disgraceful to the game its self. It’s like arguing that a fat lady is thin instead of just saying “I still think she’s beautiful.”)

Syx pulling the “PC master race” card again. For one, a keyboard and mouse is much more precise than a controller. And seeing as Halo 2 was built for primarily the Xbox (admit it, Halo 2 vista is crap and isn’t an actual PC game), it needed more of those ‘noobish’ features. Otherwise it would have been a stalemate.

And yes, I know you didn’t directly come out and say how Halo PC didn’t have these features, but anyone who has ever seen you post will know what you are talking about.

Also, lol this thread.

… Wow… Everyone always defaults to calling me out for that. Nothing I said had anything to do with PC gaming at all. That was an absolutely pitiful attempt at discrediting me. The only thing in my post that I compared Halo 2 to Halo PC with was the netcode. That was actually saying Halo 2 had better netcode. Your argument with that is completely invalid. Did you read what I said? Also, I know Halo 2 Vista is a terrible excuse for a PC port. Where did you get that I thought differently?

The magnitude at which Halo 2 has many of these features to make it easier for players to use is unnecessary. All the rest of the Halo games work just fine and they don’t implement these things to as great of an extent as Halo 2 does.

None of the stuff I said was meant as a comparison to Halo PC. It was to compare to the rest of the Halo games on console. You have absolutely nothing to argue against my points so you just default to accusing me of things I’ve clearly not done here. That’s pathetic.

> … Wow… Everyone always defaults to calling me out for that. Nothing I said had anything to do with PC gaming at all. That was an absolutely pitiful attempt at discrediting me. The only thing in my post that I compared Halo 2 to Halo PC with was the netcode.

What? Your feelings about console games and their trash features is all over the internet. It is pretty obvious that you think little of those features due to PC games not having these hand holders. Even if you did not directly say it, like I said before, anyone who has ever seen you post about PC will know where your feelings are derived. The truth is that PC games =/= console games. And console games HAVE to have these features in order to play due to the controller. If Halo 2 was a PC game I would totally agree that these features are trash.

> The magnitude at which Halo 2 has many of these features to make it easier for players to use is unnecessary. All the rest of the Halo games work just fine and they don’t implement these things to as great of an extent as Halo 2 does.

Halo 3 and Reach aren’t better off. There are a variety of problems due to less aiming features. Bloom in Reach is another one, a silly mechanic that was made to hide Aim assist and just made it worse.

> None of the stuff I said was at all to intend people to compare it to Halo PC. It was to compare to the rest of the Halo games on console. You have absolutely nothing to argue against my points so you just default to accusing me of things I’ve clearly not done here. That’s pathetic.

Is it really pathetic? All of your points have been made before, but have just been compared to PC instead. Obviously the PC portion has been taken out in order to opt for the argument at hand. But it is still there.

> What? Your feelings about console games and their trash features is all over the internet. It is pretty obvious that you think little of those features due to PC games not having these hand holders. Even if you did not directly say it, like I said before, anyone who has ever seen you post about PC will know where your feelings are derived. The truth is that PC games =/= console games. And console games HAVE to have these features in order to play due to the controller. If Halo 2 was a PC game I would totally agree that these features are trash.

You’re using arguments from other discussions to say my opinion on this is invalid. I did not cite PC games and I am only comparing the magnitude of these features, not the feature its self. Then, I’m just comparing it to other console games, not PC games. I know PC games =/= Console games and that’s why I’m not comparing the two here. You’re the only one that’s doing that.

> Halo 3 and Reach aren’t better off. There are a variety of problems due to less aiming features. Bloom in Reach is another one, a silly mechanic that was made to hide Aim assist and just made it worse.

What does bloom have to do with anything? We’re comparing aim assist/hitboxes. I’m not saying Halo 3 or Reach are better as a whole, I’m saying that they were better with hitboxes/aim assist. Every single argument you’ve given so far is completely unrelated to what I said and therefore is invalid to the conversation at hand.

What is made worse in Halo 3, Halo: Combat Evolved, and Halo Reach by less aim assist/smaller hitboxes? I still see people fluently getting headshots. I have no problem aiming what so ever in those games. It’s just that it’s far easier to do in Halo 2 which is a bad thing for competitive gameplay. If you really want to argue that you apparently don’t understand competitive gaming at all.

> Is it really pathetic? All of your points have been made before, but have just been compared to PC instead. Obviously the PC portion has been taken out in order to opt for the argument at hand. But it is still there.

It’s pathetic because you’re arguing that I’m doing something that I’m clearly not. I did not take PC games (Other than Halo PC’s netcode being worse than Halo 2’s) into account yet you still want to go on about that. You want to discredit my argument just because I have bias towards PC gaming when this has absolutely nothing to do with PC gaming. Once you come up with an argument that stands against mine that is actually on topic it won’t be so pathetic. Instead of making logical retorts you’re just upset at me about statements I’ve made elsewhere.

Forgot to quote/reply to this before:

> Halo 2 outsold Halo:CE and was all around a better game. Sorry to break it to you.

Halo 3/Reach outsold Halo 2 and were all around better games. Sorry to break it to you. /logic

> > More of this crap eh? You cannot compare one games MP to another, totally ridiculous.
>
> You can’t compare anything that has differences to it! That’s absurd!
>
> If you can’t compare two Halos then what can you compare? They’re easily comparable and if you honestly think they’re not, that’s just a petty excuse to not bring up the subject.
>
> Halo 2 had unnecessarily large hitboxes, unnecessarily large amounts of aim assist, certain aspects that were ridiculously unbalanced (i.e. infinite energy sword, noob combo, etc.), large flaws with netcoding (Not as bad as Halo PC, though), rampant hacking/boosting, massive amounts of game breaking glitches, crazy bullet magnetism, and an unfinished campaign. That’s all the stuff I could think of on the top of my head. All of these things are facts, not simply opinions. If you actually know what you’re talking about you can see it, but if you don’t you’d just dismiss this off. It’s all true, though. Most of these points are shown in the “Halo 2 Noobified” video and they’re not up for debate. They’re facts based on absolute evidence.
>
> Just like anything else in life, Halo 2 had flaws. I love the game with all my heart, but you have to accept them. You ought not give this game a god-like title. Nothing deserves of a title like that. Definitely if it has this many flaws about it.
>
>
>
> > Noobified? Then why is it that Halo: CE’s best MLG player (Zyos) couldn’t easily adapt to Halo 2?
>
> Noobified? Then why couldn’t Walshy do as good on Halo 3 as he did with Halo 2? Noobified? Then why couldn’t Walshy do as good on Reach as he did with Halo 2? /logic
>
> Simply put: Zyos was best at 1v1 stuff. He wasn’t a team player. When Halo 2 came out, it was mainly focused around team play in tournaments instead of 1v1s. Due to the larger hitboxes/added aim assist, people had to rely more on stealth. His playing style in Halo: Combat Evolved was so aggressive it was hard for him to adapt to that sort of gameplay. The skill gap was shortened so much that it hardly made a difference if he was better at aiming/strafing.
>
> (P.S. If you feel I am “trolling” or “hating” with these observations, you’re being ignorant. I see flaws when they’re there because I don’t blind myself with admiration. I’m willing to bet I play Halo 2 more than most of you do through things such as Xlink Kai, Xbox Connect, and Vista. I love the game, but I think it’s incredibly dishonest to blindly defend something such as most of you do. It’s also disgraceful to the game its self. It’s like arguing that a fat lady is thin instead of just saying “I still think she’s beautiful.”)

Lol, you are not very bright, are you? You type and type and say nothing at all.

MP is played by pitting people against people. On any given night you play noobs or you play against better people. The skill of other players determines how difficult MP matches are at any given time. To say one games MP is more difficult that another Games MP is childish and shows a lack of serious thought. You can compare difficulties of gameplay only in CMP, not in MP especially when the game is using different engines. In CMP you are playing against the computer, in MP you are playing against random humans…big difference.

> Lol, you are not very bright, are you? You type and type and say nothing at all.
>
> MP is played by pitting people against people. On any given night you play noobs or you play against better people. The skill of other players determines how difficult MP matches are at any given time. To say one games MP is more difficult that another Games MP is childish and shows a lack of serious thought. You can compare difficulties of gameplay only in CMP, not in MP especially when the game is using different engines. In CMP you are playing against the computer, in MP you are playing against random humans…big difference.

Pot calling the kettle black… 'nough said.

Actually, that’s not enough said. Just because I’m bored and can’t sleep, I’ll go further into detail even though I can see it’s hopeless:

Multiplayer games have a certain degree of difficulty built into them. There is this thing called “skill gap”. That determines how difficult it is and how varied the amount of skill that can be attained by individual players is. If it’s easy to hit a target due to things like movement speed, large hit boxes, aim assist, etc it will have a lower skill gap. That means there’s more of a chance for a “noob” to kill you. Other games heavily focus on not having these things which forces the skill gap to grow wider with a higher possibility of skill being involved.

I’m about 95% sure you’re just trolling me, but I figured why not reply with an actual reply? Bored enough to be posting on this forum anyway so I might as well do it. If you are being serious then I’m not surprised. These forums are filled with tons of people that honestly derp this badly daily.

> > Lol, you are not very bright, are you? You type and type and say nothing at all.
> >
> > MP is played by pitting people against people. On any given night you play noobs or you play against better people. The skill of other players determines how difficult MP matches are at any given time. To say one games MP is more difficult that another Games MP is childish and shows a lack of serious thought. You can compare difficulties of gameplay only in CMP, not in MP especially when the game is using different engines. In CMP you are playing against the computer, in MP you are playing against random humans…big difference.
>
> Pot calling the kettle black… 'nough said.
>
> Actually, that’s not enough said. Just because I’m bored and can’t sleep, I’ll go further into detail even though I can see it’s hopeless:
>
> Multiplayer games have a certain degree of difficulty built into them. There is this thing called “skill gap”. That determines how difficult it is and how varied the amount of skill that can be attained by individual players is. If it’s easy to hit a target due to things like movement speed, large hit boxes, aim assist, etc it will have a lower skill gap. That means there’s more of a chance for a “noob” to kill you. Other games heavily focus on not having these things which forces the skill gap to grow wider with a higher possibility of skill being involved.
>
> I’m about 95% sure you’re just trolling me, but I figured why not reply with an actual reply? Bored enough to be posting on this forum anyway so I might as well do it. If you are being serious then I’m not surprised. These forums are filled with tons of people that honestly derp this badly daily.

Skill-gap is an overused term and applied in many different ways. If you lessen the skill-gap, the game is more difficult, for that game. For instance, one player was real good at slaughtering people on H1 MP and life was beautiful, all he had to do was bounce, bounce, bounce…then headshot with pistol. Life was good until that player played H2 MP and suddenly this skilled player was getting shot and dying. He had two choices, either change tactics and strategy or piss and moan from then on. The better players had to get even better to overcome the realization that inexperienced players can kill. So that blows skill-gap to hell, the skill-gap was less, it was more difficult to stay alive therefor for the more skilled players, H2’s MP was more difficult. This example is only showing that an opposing view is certainly viable so please climb down off your pedestal, nothing you or I have said is fact.

However, I don’t apply that example to comparing H1 to H2 as far as MP difficulty…ludicrous imo, two completely different games and skill-gap is overrated and misused by people who could not cut the mustard in H2 MP.

> Is this serious or…
>
> Halo 2 outsold Halo:CE and was all around a better game. Sorry to break it to you.

Biggest reason why it sold better was for the MP and continuation of the sequel!

> I loved the Campaign. Up until the Flood Parts and the Arbiter sequences, however. When I had Halo 2, I had no ability to play the MP, so I have no standing or valid points there. However, what I can saw is: Outskirts, that is all. xD

im with this guy on the campaign wich is the only comparable part and imo halo 2 had an amazing story i liked it much better than halo1 remember the fact that halo 1 mp was only lan or a pc one and pc games cant be com paired to a console on mp u have the hugely more accurate mouse and a keyboarder full of butons to use or this controller with six buttons and the less acuret stick so quit compairing thier mp they arent compair able and i loved each one exept the flood parts but i loved 2 more

LMFAO I cant believe u guys are having such a heated argument over a last-gen games. U guys are no different then “Trekies” arguing over who’s a better captain Kirk or Picard? Who cares?, they’re both good for different reasons! I mean geez guys calm it down! I came in the halo 2 forums to see if getting it on PC is a good idea just to have to fart around on and I see this stuff! WOW!

I personally think every Halo has been better than the last. I hope this trend continues. Onward and upward fellas.