Halo 2 rulz
Halo 2
Halo 2 rulz
Muhahahahahahaha.....come with me to hell!!!!
chaos: IMO, it was too short.
It was too short, but I found the campaign enjoyable. It's extremely fun on Xbox Live, too. Worth the money, but a bit overhyped.
It was bound to be overhyped, like Fable was. 3-4 years building a sequal to a game millions love = imppossible expectations.
Boy am I an unfunny ass.
Did anyone see on the preview video some guy on the Xbox Live! mode who's nickname was OHTEHNOES!!!11111? Because that in my opinion is the best part of Halo 2. Did I say Halo 2? I meant Halo 1.1.
Crappy single player campaign, late texture loading, and pretty much should be called Halo: It's cool because it can go on X-Box live now.
Yeah, the multiplater is fun, but it's not a great as people are making it out to be.
My final gripe about Halo 2 is not about the game, but about how the video game press covered it. NO ONE WOULD SHUT UP ABOUT DUAL WIELDING. It's not that cool. Halo 2 isn't even the first game to do it! GET OVER IT!
Now if only Rare would get around to doing Perfect Dark 2.
Sig under construction.
Halo 2....Horrendous single player. Somehow worse than the first in EVERY ASPECT! Worse graphics(texture loading and pop in), worse AI on all levels of difficulty, worse weapon balance and worse level design. The first game's single player was not even all that great and now they took 3 years to make a vastly inferior game.
Multiplayer is stupidly fun. It is no where near as good as Halo 1 but it is still a hell of a lot of fun because of the random variety you can get online.
Half Life 2 > Halo 2
Does it rule in inches or centimetres?
www.halo2sucks.com is a good source of entertainment.
"The most important and recognize player in the history of the country."
Sometimes I wonder what my life would be like if I were as great as Paulo Wanchope.
Wow, that website explains a lot, and it's so true... Halo2 has become a mindless shooter like Quake or Unreal, while in Halo(1) you had to use plenty of strategy
That's rather laughable in my point of view. Halo 1, while not a bad game, offered nothing over any other decent shooter that was currently available. It's overwhelming success is a mystery to me. I don't understand why people love it so much when, in all reality, it's just a mediocre shooter.Originally Posted by ChaosCalibur
Halo 2, with the incredible, and highly annoying hype it received surely failed to deliver.
While Halo 2 may have lacked any strategy, as you've said, Halo (One) also lacked such things, if you were to ask my opinion.
I play Halo 2 online alot. People who say there isn't strategy involved haven't played the multiplayer. Honestly... Yeah it would suck if you don't have anyone else to play with and you can't get online. Maybe it didn't live up to the hype? Quite frankly, I don't give a damn. I'm one of the dumbasses bragging about medals and the like online to a bunch of strange people I've never met before. It's fun to play. Halo 1 always just seemed like a reaction tester to me. In Halo 2 there is that same aspect of racing towards an unevenly powered weapon, but the good ones are rare and not invincible. CTF is nothing short of magical also.
Oh, and that site was pathetic. I don't listen to anyones opinion if they use words like noob. STK (a high ranking clan) wouldn't be able to pull of 100% win victories (they haven't lost, ever.) if it was about luck. Their fourth complaint out of 1,000 is that there is a time limit. I hope it's a joke. They've got a serious problem with the sword... The sword is so insanely overrated it's not funny. The only way you can really die against the sword is if you run towards the person who has it (which is probably a habit they gained after those 3 years of orgasming of the pistol). They also complained about grenades. Grenades = Easy way of sticking and killing someone with a sword .It's 20 times easier to stick someone when they're boosting at you, even if you die you'll get a medal and ruin their swording.
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.
"The most important and recognize player in the history of the country."
Sometimes I wonder what my life would be like if I were as great as Paulo Wanchope.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
