If you hated Halo 2, why did you buy Halo 2 Vista? "Maybe it'll be different this time!"

Now, the only part I agree on is the Covenant. Unfortunately though, for fans of the lore, we see Halo 4 as being the best campaign since Halo 2.

[quote]Unfortunately though, for fans of the lore, we see Halo 4 as being the best campaign since Halo 2.[/quote] We do? I thought Halo 2 was trash.

Gameplay wise, I agree. Story was awesome though. What they did with the Covenant is usually only something that happens in the Halo Novels. Atleast revealing their socio-political structure.

My main gripe with it is the terribad campaign level design, anticlimactic boss battles (though not nearly as bad as Halo 3's), and the fact that some levels seemed to go on [i]forever[/i]. It got old fast and I was thinking "get [i]on[/i] with it" about half the time.

wait, did you just acclaim the issues of halo 4 to being caused by halo 2? This is how I see your logic in a nutshell: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=US1FsUiFNgU As well, you are gunna get so much hate for that.

[quote]As well, you are gunna get so much hate for that.[/quote] [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocyYwLCDyCU]I've been down that road before.[/url]

I just read your "best game ever" post and I have no respect for your comments now.

Well, continue on then. I'm absolutely confident you're not the first Halo 2 fan to ignore my posts. And as for the video, you need to lighten the mood up sometimes. It's one of the hallmarks of me. I can be an intellectual powerhouse one second, and the next I can become a rampant troll. And above all, watch the video to see how the "competitive god of the Halo series" was actually where it devolved into casualized crap.

I was talking about the call of duty one but okay. As for halo 2 I do see why people hated aim assist and bullet magnetism but it is required in console shooting. Go play halo 3 and onwards and try to betray your team. Its the biggest pain in the butt ever. Thats because you have no aim assist or magnetism. I myself agree that by todays standards the games multiplayer isn't the best but that game is old now, nearly 10 years. And in any regard, it is still better than halo 4.

[quote]I was talking about the call of duty one but okay.[/quote] I know you were. [quote]as for halo 2 I do see why people hated aim assist and bullet magnetism but it is required in console shooting.[/quote] Not nearly to the degree where Halo 2 used it. Look at Halo CE, 3, and even Reach and 4. [quote]Go play halo 3 and onwards and try to betray your team.[/quote] Why? Regular Halo 3 is decent. [quote]Its the biggest pain in the butt ever.[/quote] Okay. [quote]Thats because you have no aim assist or magnetism.[/quote] I never once said that those assists should be eliminated as a whole. I simply said that Halo 2 went absolutely overboard and Halo still hasn't recovered from those effects. [quote] I myself agree that by todays standards the games multiplayer isn't the best[/quote] Excellent. [quote]but that game is old now, nearly 10 years.[/quote] Halo CE is older, and manages to evade every one of the problems shown in the video. [quote]And in any regard, it is still better than halo 4.[/quote] -Auto Aim and Bullet Magnetism are greater than in 4 -Melee Lunge is borderline Commando Pro -Weapon sandbox is cluttered garbage ([url=https://forums.halowaypoint.com//yaf_postst17113_Halo-4--Sandbox-balance-and-how-it-should-work--three-parts.aspx]read through this thread[/url]) -lolinfiniteammoenergysword -BXRRRXYYRRXBBXB -etc.

Fair enough, you do make valid points but you separated some segments that needed to be together for the proper context. The point I was trying to make is that Halo CE had no aim assist. I did not play multiplayer much so I can't attest to gameplay. Halo 2 was the first implementation of the new features that ended up being over the top. The game is old as was the first to implement this in the series so with those two factors I give it a break. I am not saying it was perfect by any means. As for the comparison with halo 4. - call in power weapon because I got a bunch of assists - DMR (enough said) - loadouts - perks - lack of even a hint of arena style play - went on vacation for the following two months after release (not joking) - killed cortana and the list goes on. The point I am trying to make is that halo 2 was far from perfect, it did however implement a lot of new stuff for the first time and did okay with it in the end. Halo 4 on the other hand had halo 3 as a base. They knew exactly what is up and what the game is, then they screwed it up. [b]They hired people that hate halo[/b], how worse can it get.

[quote]Fair enough, you do make valid points but you separated some segments that needed to be together for the proper context.[/quote] No, no I didn't. The meaning of your points was not tampered with, and despite breaking your sentences up, I addressed the overall points at one time or another. [quote]The point I was trying to make is that Halo CE had no aim assist.[/quote] You didn't once mention that Halo CE had no aim assist, which is completely untrue in itself. It [I]did[/I] have aim assist (because, as you point out, it's damn near impossible to play precision based console shooters without it) but no bullet magnetism, mountainous hitboxes, melee lunge, etc. [quote]I did not play multiplayer much so I can't attest to gameplay.[/quote] I see. [quote]Halo 2 was the first implementation of the new features that ended up being over the top. The game is old as was the first to implement this in the series so with those two factors I give it a break.[/quote] [I]What?[/I] So you're saying that because it was the first Halo to introduce bad things, you're giving it a break? Bad decisions are bad fracking decisions. Bungie was fully capable of making another excellent competitive experience like CE, but didn't. Their "dumb downs" were all just stupid decisions. [quote]I am not saying it was perfect by any means.[/quote] I know considering you've basically said that the game is bad compared to today's standards. [quote]As for the comparison with halo 4. - call in power weapon because I got a bunch of assists[/quote] Custom games can fix this. [quote]- DMR (enough said)[/quote] 4 Shot BR + No Spread after TU + BXRRRXYYRRXBBXB + Auto Aim + Bullet Magnetism + Mountainous Hitboxes ([I]not[/I] enough said) [quote]- loadouts - perks - lack of even a hint of arena style play[/quote] Custom games can fix this. [quote]- went on vacation for the following two months after release (not joking)[/quote] As opposed to Halo 2, which, at the time of release was completely broken and didn't have a fix until halfway through it's lifespan, which still wasn't enough to save it from being a broken mess. [quote] - killed cortana and the list goes on.[/quote] Killing Cortana was one of the best things they could ever do to the story to bring out the human element in Chief. Taken from another post I made this morning: [quote]What many don't understand is Cortana as a metaphor. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. There is no character in Halo 4 aside from Master Chief. Everybody represents a side of him or exists solely to aid in his evolution as a character. Lasky? His connection to the normal world. Del Rio? His first "impulsive" act in the series. Looking at everything in a Freudian manner, Cortana is his superego- the part of his mind that mediates between his supressed, impulsive, "human" side (id), and his mission focused "machine" side (ego). Having Cortana herself turn on him would be absolutely ridiculous. Cortana's malfunctions and her death are supposed to allow for Chief's character to naturally progress from the mission focused machine to a more human character. Just look at Del Rio's cutscene, where Chief straight up disobeys orders for Cortana. Or, perhaps more importantly, look at the ending, where Chief, for the first time ever, is seen acting based on his personal feelings in the face of logic ("Wait!"). Having Cortana turn on him would have ruined the entire metaphor, in addition to being a [I]massive[/I] cliché. The only way I would have changed Cortana's role is to have the whole "attacking Didact with copies of herself" to not be a deus ex machina. Maybe instead we could have gotten another plot thread throughout the campaign, where Cortana, in her quest for knowledge, tries to manipulate hard light bridges to give herself form, but fails each time (maybe even endangering Chief a few times). That would not only have eliminated the deus ex machina, but been a brilliant plot thread in itself (IMO). [/quote] [quote] The point I am trying to make is that halo 2 was far from perfect, it did however implement a lot of new stuff for the first time and did okay with it in the end.[/quote] No, no it didn't. It was a broken piece of glitch happy garbage that spat in the face of its predecessor and forever turned Halo into a casualized wreck of a game. [quote]Halo 4 on the other hand had halo 3 as a base. They knew exactly what is up and what the game is, then they screwed it up.[/quote] [quote]Halo 2 on the other hand had Halo CE as a base. They knew exactly what was up and what the game was, and [I]somehow[/I] screwed it up on a colossal level. Where in Halo 4, 343 has deliberately stated that they are "bringing their own spin on things." Regardless of how retarded their spins were, they clearly stated that they'd do it. With Halo 2, a [I]direct successor[/I] to Halo CE, Bungie completely f*cking failed.[/quote] [quote] [b]They hired people that hate halo[/b], how worse can it get.[/quote] I don't know, maybe putting the people that love Halo on drugs and forcing them to finish an already broken concept within 11 months?

You can be really arrogant you know that? Oh well, rather than me giving you my opinion while I try to see both sides of the argument. Where do you stand on it? Also customs don't count, I am talking in terms of the general matchmaking system. I am already solely customs in halo 4.

So when you bring up flawed points and I call you out for it, I'm considered arrogant? You're debating your stance on the argument. It's not supposed to be an opinion, we're debating facts. Halo 2 was where Halo started going downhill (in terms of competitive play). That's the premise of this argument. There's no "opinions" or any grey area in that. I've already stated my stance- that Halo 2 was indeed where the series started going downhill. What do you mean customs don't count? Where was this specified? In any event, my point about customs was that Halo 4 at least had the option to remove many of its unnecessary features, but Halo 2 didn't. Sorry for my "arrogance."

This seams to be spiraling a little so let me rectify that. The arrogance comment was from [quote]No, no I didn't. The meaning of your points was not tampered with, and despite breaking your sentences up, I addressed the overall points at one time or another.[/quote] As the segmentation did destroy one of the points I was trying to make. Past that however. If I come off as arrogant or stubborn myself I apologies. I only recently switched over from the waypoint forums and its a lot different over there. Also my point has been lost in the fray. So lets start again. Hello, I am spiderman cy612, I think halo 2 was a good game but I got in at halo 3 then went back and played the campaigns of previous games and some multiplayer. Why am I wrong?

[quote]This seams to be spiraling a little so let me rectify that.[/quote] Alright then. Not sure how this rectifies anything but whatever I guess. [quote]The arrogance comment was from [quote]No, no I didn't. The meaning of your points was not tampered with, and despite breaking your sentences up, I addressed the overall points at one time or another.[/quote] As the segmentation did destroy one of the points I was trying to make.[/quote] [url=http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arrogance]Definition of ARROGANCE: an attitude of superiority manifested in an overbearing manner or in presumptuous claims or assumptions[/url] Exactly how is a simple denial arrogance? You'd need to know my motivations in order to fully prove that point. And which exact point are you referring to? The whole "betraying in Halo 3" point? [quote]As for halo 2 I do see why people hated aim assist and bullet magnetism but it is required in console shooting. Go play halo 3 and onwards and try to betray your team. Its the biggest pain in the butt ever. Thats because you have no aim assist or magnetism.[/quote] This was your non-separated point. This is my non-separated response: [quote]Not nearly to the degree where Halo 2 used it. Look at Halo CE, 3, and even Reach and 4. Okay. I never once said that those assists should be eliminated as a whole. I simply said that Halo 2 went absolutely overboard and Halo still hasn't recovered from those effects.[/quote] Of course, since my points were separated I need to clarify which point is which. Slapping it all together isn't exactly a great indicator (KEEP IN MIND that these edits do [I]not[/I] tamper with the meanings of any of my counter points, just added for clarification). [quote]There is an acceptable degree to the aim assist and bullet magnetism that a game can use, and it is not nearly the degree to which Halo 2 used it. Look at Halo CE, 3, and even Reach and 4- they also had aim assist and bullet magnetism, but not nearly to the point that Halo 2 did. You bring up how impossible betraying is in Halo 3. Why? Regular Halo 3, with the default amount of aim assist and bullet magnetism (which is far less than Halo 2's) is excellent. You then say that this is because the game has [I]no[/I] aim assist or bullet magnetism- but that's not the point. I never once said that the assists should be eliminated as a whole. I simply said that Halo 2 went absolutely overboard and Halo still hasn't recovered from those effects.[/quote] The point was addressed. I broke it up, but I responded to the proper point. [quote]Past that however. If I come off as arrogant or stubborn myself I apologies.[/quote] You do not. [quote] I only recently switched over from the waypoint forums and its a lot different over there. Also my point has been lost in the fray. So lets start again. Hello, I am spiderman cy612, I think halo 2 was a good game but I got in at halo 3 then went back and played the campaigns of previous games and some multiplayer. Why am I wrong?[/quote] [b]That's not the premise of this argument.[/b] Either this is an honest mistake (which I can fully understand) or you're trying to change the argument to suit your point better.. Not with me. [quote]wait, did you just acclaim the issues of halo 4 to being caused by halo 2? This is how I see your logic in a nutshell: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=US1FsUiFNgU As well, you are gunna get so much hate for that.[/quote] You denied that Halo didn't go wrong (or more specifically, Halo 4 didn't go wrong) due to Halo 2 with that video. The objective debate here is that Halo 2 [I]was[/I] where Halo went wrong. Not only is your restated premise completely wrong, it brings in words like "I" and "good." This isn't a subjective argument. This is an objective one. Sorry, but I'm not going to succumb to that. But I can introduce myself. Hello, I am Roach. Halo 2 was the start of Halo's problems as a competitive game. You've stated otherwise. You are objectively wrong, and I'm here to debate it. I started with Halo 2, loved it, went back to Halo CE, loved it far more, and realized that Halo 2 was absolute garbage. I also use an aggressive tone during debates which I don't necessarily translate to every day encounters. I don't hate, or even dislike you in any way, cy612. I'm just debating.

Fair enough, lets disclude the previous comments and begin again. I stand by my previous points and I would appreciate it if you didn't separate my points in quotes as responses are made more difficult by them. So, back to my first point. What is it exactly that you dislike about halo 2 and how do you feel about the implementations to halo 3?