Exactly. I knew you'd understand.

To those who weren't entirely sure, that wasn't intended as a serious link. Some of their points (such as the use of the SMG as a starting weapon) are valid. However, that site is mostly full of elitist idiots, who feel that by creating a game that satisfied the majority of players (as opposed to a few-dozen obsessives) Bungie have somehow 'sold out'. This suggestion alone makes the website hilarious, and the standard of post found on the forums only serves to strip their argument of what little credibility it had.

Halo: CE had its strong points. The campaign was engaging and exciting (with a few notable exceptions such as The Library and Keyes) and the superb AI made some parts of the game incredibly tough, without ever feeling unfair. Halo 2 didn't do too much to improve on this, but the addition of new enemy types, more varied landscapes, and some awesome set-piece battles gave it the edge over its predecessor. Halo: CE failed in the multiplayer aspect of the game (unless played with 8 or more people over a LAN connection) and it is in this area where Halo 2 made its biggest improvement. Simply by adding X-Box Live capability, it became such a better game to play, and the levels feel better suited to all-out warfare than before. The lack of offline bots was a major omission, but it didn't stop the game being immensely enjoyable.

The sequel is the superior game, no doubt about it, and while I may not agree that it 'rulz', as Demon Eye seems to think, it's a brilliant title that fully deserves its success. It was never going to live up to the immense hype it received, but that doesn't stop it being one of the best games of the year.