First I’d like to thank 343 for their efforts. Even if it’s not exactly like the original game I will still enjoy playing it.
On a scale of 1-10…
Halo CE -11
Halo 2 -5
Halo 3 -9
Halo Reach -10
based on multiplayer only.
I’m not putting down anyone or any game in this post I just wanna state some facts.
The real pros in halo CE know that there were certain things that separated it from all other halos. Why they never implemented them again I will never know.
1 simplicity of maps( no goofy wall decorations that made it harder to spot opponents)
2 the rockets wouldn’t rapid fire like all the other halos ( making you have to switch weapons to finish a kill)
3 the plasma weapons froze your opponent ( makes the weapons unique)
4 NO RADAR! (that’s a given for any pro)
5 you run faster in halo CE making it harder to snipe
6 power up spawns. This is the big one. See, in halo CE team slayer wasn’t just run around and kill. There was an objective- get to the power ups before your opponents.
There are many others but I can’t think of all of em.
Once again I’m not disrespecting anyone or any other halo I just wish the makers were pros like me so they knew what to look for when remaking this remarkable FPS. Maybe they do. We will see in a couple weeks
I’m a pistol fan and the one in reach was pretty deadly from medium range. The BR lowered the ceiling for how far you could separate yourselves from the noobs in halo 2
hahaha, your funny kid, halo 3 is bad and halo reach is bad too halo 1 and halo 2 are both 10 and all other are like 5 u clearly dont know anything lol halo 2 had the best multiplayer out of all of them, it was clean smooth etc.
Campaign yes without a doubt. But right below my ratings I posted “multiplayer only” and I just think that halo 2 was dumbed down so anyone could be relatively good at it to maximize profits. Plus there were so many cheaters in halo 2 as opposed to all other halos. That you can’t argue
Are you kidding? Standby, modding, super bouncing… How much multiplayer do you actually play? I was a 47 in halo 3 it’s tough to make it past 30 in halo 2 without cheating in some way
I could care less about the scores you think each game’s MP should have.
What I do care is why you post this thread in Halo: Combat Evolved Anniversary forum board? This would of been better off in the General Chat forum board, since this thread is about more than just one Halo game, and none of those Halo games is Halo CEA since Halo CEA does not have a built in MP, it’s MP is Reach.
What did you do, print out the main forum page tape it to your wall and throw a dart at the print out, and where ever the dart landed you posted?
First of all, I’d like everyone to realize this thread is full of opinions. As I’ve said before, opinions are like a box of chocolates- only a couple of them are any good.
Second, there are many pros and cons with each game. I personally feel H2/3 had the largest skill gap. I feel Reach’s AA’s are too forgiving, and the spawn selection method means that players must make choices long before they know what they will need. I feel CE’s multiplayer was too clumsy to be considered better than H2/3.
haha, more than you buddy, i am a 50 in halo 3 and a 35 in halo 2. standby happens in halo 3 too so that is nothing new, superbouncing is not cheating thats part of the game, modding happens in every game, and everytime i played i didnt see anybody modding in halo 2 on xbox live, on the pc sure cause anything can be done on the computer.
> First of all, I’d like everyone to realize this thread is full of opinions. As I’ve said before, opinions are like a box of chocolates- only a couple of them are any good.
>
> Second, there are many pros and cons with each game. I personally feel H2/3 had the largest skill gap. I feel Reach’s AA’s are too forgiving, and the spawn selection method means that players must make choices long before they know what they will need. I feel CE’s multiplayer was too clumsy to be considered better than H2/3.
In halo CE I could beat 3 noobs by my self while being shot at by all of them because if you weren’t good in halo 1 you couldn’t kill someone who was. That’s not true with all other halos therefore the skill gap is much wider in the first than any other halo there is no opinion I’m that that’s fact
> > First of all, I’d like everyone to realize this thread is full of opinions. As I’ve said before, opinions are like a box of chocolates- only a couple of them are any good.
> >
> > Second, there are many pros and cons with each game. I personally feel H2/3 had the largest skill gap. I feel Reach’s AA’s are too forgiving, and the spawn selection method means that players must make choices long before they know what they will need. I feel CE’s multiplayer was too clumsy to be considered better than H2/3.
>
> In halo CE I could beat 3 noobs by my self while being shot at by all of them because if you weren’t good in halo 1 you couldn’t kill someone who was. That’s not true with all other halos therefore the skill gap is much wider in the first than any other halo there is no opinion I’m that that’s fact
While I believe you that you could take on 3 players to one in CE, I assume this is on one console. In that case, skill game is more based on location than the game itself. Playing against opponents of relatively close skill is a real test of a skill gap.
I remember running into an entire enemy team in Halo 3 (back when I was good) and walked away with 1/4 of my shields remaining. All of these players were fairly close to my skill level, but the games skill gap meant that my better skill was enough to overwrite the numbers advantage they had. Thats a true skill gap.
I’d also like to not that a feat like that is almost impossible to accomplish in Reach. Things like bloom and lower acceleration make taking on lower skilled players much more difficult.