Halo:CE and Halo 2: Gameplay Discussion

[AlNom]

What really killed Halo 2 Co-op for me and my friends was the fact that on legendary, everytime someone died, the game would return to the last checkpoint. Essentially, that got rid of the crazy kamikaze runs (plasma grenades or just plain running in). It would have been better to have that as an option.

Replaying a spot about 50 times in an hour just isn't fun when it isn't intentional. What is it that Calvin said? It isn't work unless someone makes you do it? Something like that.

I don't really have a problem with the Arbiter's missions, they just furthered my understanding of the story. But I do feel that all the extra info takes a fait bit away from the sense of urgency on the human's side of the story, and the game just felt a lot shorter than it actually was. It seems to me that it would be a much better experience to play through Halo 2 and immediately play through Halo 3 and count it as one experience given the direct continuation of the story.

 

[nintenho]

The thing I hated about Halo 2 co-op was hwo easy it was to outgun your enemies when you dual-wield. Especially in the human ground missions. It's just too repetitive. However, the co-op is awesome in the vehicle sections. It needed more of those or for the enemy AI to adjust around two "super soldiers". Was fun as hell in the later levels though when you fight those brown bear like guys with helmets and brute shots.

 

[patsu]

What really killed Halo 2 Co-op for me and my friends was the fact that on legendary, everytime someone died, the game would return to the last checkpoint. Essentially, that got rid of the crazy kamikaze runs (plasma grenades or just plain running in). It would have been better to have that as an option.

Replaying a spot about 50 times in an hour just isn't fun when it isn't intentional. What is it that Calvin said? It isn't work unless someone makes you do it? Something like that.

That's right. The entire Legendary game is a grind. It's exceptionally unbalanced and no fun after the "realism" wore off. There were so many impossible moments like fighting and getting away from 2 hunters in a tunnel, and suddenly see a sniping Jackal spawned straight ahead of you, sealing off the other end of the tunnel (The snipers have one-shot-kill !). Then it's back to the checkpoint with an unhappy wife

The thing I hated about Halo 2 co-op was hwo easy it was to outgun your enemies when you dual-wield.

You should try Legendary then. Heroic is easy.

 

[El Leone]

Heh, acutally if you manage to learn you way around the game you stop dying all the time and start getting killing sprees and killtaculars and such and that isn't boring at all.

Hes right you know .

I'm not going to bother with the Halo VS Halo 2 SP discussion, IMO Halo 2 is less repetitve but Halo is more memorable and has a better story etc. Halo wins that round.

Mutiplayer wise its harder, and I'd say Halo 2 takes that crown. Indeed, the one duelable weapons on their own can be weak (espically the pistol, it was fine before the gameplaypatch), but you can still kill someone if you have enough skill, its not a case where someone runs out, 3 shots and you're dead You have more of a fighting chance. Duel wielding is fine (IMO), anybody can kill somebody with it, but the skill is actually surviving afterwards,which isn't that hard if you have your wits with you (sometimes its better just to drop the other weapon, throw some frags to buy some time and then re-duel), its also good for letting noobies not get raped every time by pro players.
Vechicals is a bit of a mix bag, I love the handling of the new vechicals, and its good that they can be destroyed now, but a opition to make it so you could go Halo style vechicals (aka invisible) would be nice.
The Pistol does live on, its called the Battle Rifle and its more balanced. It also looks better and makes more sense than the pistol.
Its true that everyone did start out with the pistol, which did make everything abit more fair, it doesn't dampen down the fact that almost every other weapon was useless. There was no point Using the AR (which I find is cooler than the pistol), the shotgun, plasma rifles, needlers and perhaps even the rocket (Pistol pros can kill people in ghosts and warthogs, Rocket is only really needed for banshees and Tanks).

There have always been some useless weapons In Halo(1&2) which Bungie need to sort out. The Plasma rifle is cool with the SMG, but its useless on its own, and the Needlers are so useless that they're just more of a comical item.

To me, the biggest difference between the two Halo mutiplayers is that in Halo, one good player could run off to the other base, kil the shit out of everyone with the Pistol and then run back with the Flag. In halo 2, you can't do that (well you can, but its harder), you have to work together to work somewhere.

 

[Silenti]

Being an avid HALO player I thought there were a few items missed here.

Out of curiosity, the people we all know, beyond ourselves, who continue to play, are they "run and gun" types or deliberate, slow motion, tactical people? I wonder if there is a correlation between which game is preferred and a preferred play style? What about the difference between those who are more likely to enjoy and attempt speed runs to a "kill every last enemy" approach? How did one feel when playing the games? Did you feel like you were under attack more in HALO or HALO2? Did you feel you were the aggressor more in HALO or HALO2? Do you have a preference? In HALO2 I am far more agressive once actually in a room, and far more cautious on the approach. Nearly the polar opposite to HALO.

I would submit that the disappearance of health packs, overcharge and invisible powerups were a massive and completely overlooked improvement in HALO2 (SP at least, they still exist, much to my disappointment, in MP.) How ridiculous were the mere existence of those in HALO? They were cliche's every bit as bad as crates that were removed from HALO2. Neither games really used crates, or at least they were better disguised in both games than a normal FPS. Human weaponry lying around? There were dead human bodies or a reason stated in dialogue (The Elites comments about "war trophies" and the "vulgar" taste of Brutes.) The Coveneant cache's were the closet thing to crates, yet at least they were not some idiotic box laying around you had to bash open, it actually seemed proper they were present in the situations you found them. They served much the same purpose as crates, but were different enough not to intrude on my gameplay to actually make a difference. So here may be a difference. Did you prefer the existence of powerups and the gameplay options they opened up or do you praise their disappearance (Arbiter levels with the timed invisibility not withstanding?)

In HALO you had to concern yourself with a health meter and a much slower shield recharge, but the game itself seemed quicker paced. In HALO2 there was no health meter, no health packs, and the shield recharged more quickly, yet you play far more deliberately until you are in a close range fight with no clear line of retreat. Look at the legendary difficulty settings for both games. When you got good enough, in HALO you could "run and gun" your way through any level on the game. Try that in HALO2 legendary and you are going to get killed, repeatedly. Cover and approach are far more critical. My new roomie (here after referred to as Mark "Cannon Fodder" Heany) was used to HALO SP and MP, and HALO2 MP, he had never played the SP until he moved in here. It has been a real chore to even get him through Heroic on the HALO2 SP with me constantly giving him directions. He is quite and aggressive player with little patience.

As to MP experience, how much of this is once again a difference in play style? The HALO2 maps and weapons seem to be far more balanced and useful for team based play than single player deathmatch games. The pistol, though I dearly loved it in HALO, was terribly unbalacing and made no sense. The AR was nearly useless as anything other than a short range bullet hose, to which the shotgun was infinitely superior. There was no medium range firearm with any accuracy, though one can argue the pistol filled this role. Again, how much of this is a difference between preferred play styles? The needler actually has a use in HALO2 and is almost completely useless in HALO. (There's nothing more fun, or embarrassing, than dodging a swordstrike/having a swordstrike miss and seeing a needler employed, short of a banshee jack.)

This entire discussion almost has the PC vs. Console FPS argument feel to it. Without the attendant rancor. In HALO you can walk the vehicle levels on foot, on legendary, and even add rules such as "no rocket launchers, no sniper rifles, no grenades" and still manage it fairly well. On HALO2 this is one hell of a lot more difficult and nearly suicidal. In the end, I would argue the difference of opinion may well come down to predominant playing style more than anything else. I recently read a strategy guide to HALO2 online MP, where his ranking, at the time of the writing, was level 41. He still has trouble on legendary, and not just the sniper areas of New Mombassa. I can still replay HALO2, on legendary, and not dominate the game. You want "fun and gun" fun, you play Heroic. You want a challenge, you play Legendary.

 

[TheChefO]

I Agree 100% Halo 2 was not as good as Halo 1. Anyone who has used the Halo "live" hack before there was a "ive" can speak to its superiority over halo 2 in nearly every fashion. This does bring a level of concern over the possibilities of what Halo 3 may turn out to be. Judging from the responses here I'd say there is a varying opinion on what should be developed for the latest in this series.

What do you want to see in Halo 3?

 

[czekon]

This all reminds me quake . When quake 2 was realased everyone get excited, but after a while a lot of people was complaining about speed, wepons, yada yada. I believe there are some peoples that don't like changes, and you can't satisfied them all. I know that many just wanted halo2 to be halo 1 with better gfx and new missions, but it's different. Hard to say better/worse becouse it's also a matter of personal prefernces. I think with Halo3 will be even worse H2/H1 fans will hate it, becouse it's not like H2/H1. I love both of them for me Halo1/2 and god of war are the best games of previous gen and ones of the bests ever.

 

[kyleb]

I Agree 100% Halo 2 was not as good as Halo 1. Anyone who has used the Halo "live" hack before there was a "ive" can speak to its superiority over halo 2 in nearly every fashion. This does bring a level of concern over the possibilities of what Halo 3 may turn out to be. Judging from the responses here I'd say there is a varying opinion on what should be developed for the latest in this series.

What do you want to see in Halo 3?

Not so, I played plenty of XBC and lan games as well as PC online and I think Halo 2 is a great evolution of the gameplay of the orignial. Much less respawning into fire, no chaseing down heathpacks, more usefulness for the weaker weapons, nades that while effective when well placed don't rack up instant kills like candy are some of the reasons I strongly prefer Halo 2's multiplayer. As for Halo 3, I expect further evolution on Halo 2's multiplayer gameplay to bring it up another notch.

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

Well.. I agree with the idea that any change will isolate a certain percentage of the fanbase because it's different from what they are used to.

That is simply something that cannot be avoided when making second or third installments of games.

However, the original premise of the discussion was how Halo2 added "improvements" into the game that simply weren't.

When you talk about multi-player balancing or the simple fact that Halo2 allows play over Live! when Halo didn't, obviously, those are improvements that had to happen that isn't really relevant to the original (whatever the hell that was) discussion.

But when you start talking about improvements in terms of playing the covenant in the 2nd VS not in the first, or when you talk about improvements in terms of adding dual wielding weapons in the second and the nerfing of the weapons in order to allow it, then you start to see what I was originally talking about.

I don't know anybody who played a multiplayer Halo game and ran around using their pistol the entire time. EVERYBODY had a pistol and defending from the pistol (and part of defense is offense) was simply part of the game. Playing with your friends (there was no Live!) was still a race to the resource points, a race to protect them, a race to camp on them, etc... because people still wanted the shotgun, the rocket launcher, etc...

Why did people want those things? Because then they could go kill the other people..

They essentially removed the pistol, they removed the assault rifle, they added a bunch of really crappy weapons in order to be able to dual wield them.

Why? Because being able to dual wield assault rifles would have made the player too powerful. So they added the SMG.

WHAT? In the second install of the game, AFTER the humans have fought back and are no longer losing the war to the Covenant, the humans decide to issue weapons that are LESS powerful but can be used in tandem?

First.. it makes no sense. Second.. It's just plain stupid.

I don't know anybody who played Halo and Halo2 who wouldn't rather have just had the assault rifle rather than having dual SMGs.

The assault rifle was perfectly balanced, it was a good intermediate weapon that provided intermediate damage. The pistol was a long range weapon that provided weak damage. The shotgun was a close range weapon that provided heavy damage. The sniper rifle was a long range weapon that provided heavy damage. The RPG was a long range weapon that provided extremely heavy damage but required a long time to target.

The bottom line is that the weapons in Halo were balanced almost perfectly. They all had their strengths and weaknesses, and they could all be offset by wielding different weapons.

In order to add an improvement that wasn't (dual wielding), Bungie had to remove or nerf the weapons from Halo which were perfectly balanced to begin with.

And in order to understand why they added this improvement that wasn't, you have to remember the state of shooters when Halo2 was in development... there were mods out there for akimbo weapons in Half-Life. Max-Payne was out that allowed you to use dual weapons. When Halo2 was in development this was thought of as a 'must have feature'. But by the time that Halo2 was actually released, gamers realized that dual wielding weapons was nothing but a lame gimmick. The realistic need/aspect of dual wielding was that you can independently target two enemies at the same time. The limitations of the controllers (be it M/K or gamepad) prevent this. So both weapons are simultaneously trained upon a single target.. making the entire point of dual wielding worthless and no more important than have a single more powerful weapon.

Yet, because this was thought to be a 'must have feature' while Halo2 was in development, they added it to the game. In order to add it to the game, they had to then re-balance the weapons because dual wielding assault rifles would make the player too powerful. But the simple truth is that the weapons of Halo were very well (if not perfectly) balanced to begin with. Changing that balance to add an improvement that wasn't, was a major downfall of Halo2.

 

[AlNom]

about the only rationalization I can think of for the pistols is this:

In First Strike they mention that Fred and fellow spartans discover a magnum sort of pistol with giant bullets. These are the new pistols (what we would probably know as the M6D). It's not unlikely that the Pillar of Autumn would receive a shipment of these given the special nature of their mission, so they could have gotten first dibs on it, hence their appearance in Halo:CE. Standard issue pistols (M6C) would be the ones that appear in Halo 2.

It's a pretty weak explanation (why wouldn't the PoA get the battle rifles then?), but it's something...

 

[El Leone]

nce the weapons because dual wielding assault rifles would make the player too powerful. But the simple truth is that the weapons of Halo were very well (if not perfectly) balanced to begin with.

No, the weapons were not balanced to begin with. Most of them were useless when compared to the pistol and theres not even a need/desire to look for a better weapon because you started it out with. If weapons were 'nerfed' (or made useless) in Halo 2, then they were like that since the very beginning.

 

[NRP]

@El Leone
Other than the needler, what Halo weapons were "useless"?

The plasma weapons had a "freeze effect", quickly stripped shields, and had quick melees, so they were pretty effective at close range.

The assault rifle had a high rate of fire and a quick melee, so it too was good at close range.

The pistol was very effective at mid and long ranges.

The shotgun was devastating up close (as a shotgun should be).

The sniper rifle was very good at mid and longe ranges (again, as a sniper rifle should be).

The rocket launcher was just plain devastating (as it should be).

So I ask again, which of these weapons were "useless"? Each of these weapons was more desireable than the others in certain situations, but none of them were "useless".

The only counterintuitive thing was that the pistol was the better mid/long range weapon, and the assault rifle was the better close range weapon. However, once you realized this, it was all good.

In any case, no one who was decent (in SP or MP) ran around with nothing but a pistol the whole time. In any close range encounter, a pistol wasn't you best choice (plasma rifle, assault rifle, or shotgun were much better).

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

In any case, no one who was decent (in SP or MP) ran around with nothing but a pistol the whole time. In any close range encounter, a pistol wasn't you best choice (plasma rifle, assault rifle, or shotgun were much better).

Uh.. yeah, what he said. I can't imagine what games these people have been playing when they say the pistol was too powerful and everything else was worthless.

 

[El Leone]

The plasma weapons had a "freeze effect", quickly stripped shields, and had quick melees, so they were pretty effective at close range.

Plasma Rifle indeed had a freeze effect which made it decent for meeleing...Pretty useless when its not short range, but even then there are better alternatives (pistol,shotgun).

The assault rifle had a high rate of fire and a quick melee, so it too was good at close range.

Had a high rate of fire, but was pretty weak and you'd have to unload quite alot of led into someone for awhile before they died. Even more pathetic if its not close range. Better alternative is the pistol.

The pistol was very effective at mid and long ranges.

And close range. I'd say it was effective from Short to Medium Long Range.

The sniper rifle was very good at mid and longe ranges (again, as a sniper rifle should be).

Sniper rifle did actually perform like a sniper rifle, like it does in Halo 2 also (Unless some of you say its nerfed). Its a fine weapon.

The rocket launcher was just plain devastating (as it should be).

Yup, and its basically the same in Halo 2.

The only counterintuitive thing was that the pistol was the better mid/long range weapon, and the assault rifle was the better close range weapon. However, once you realized this, it was all good.

A player skilled with the pistol could take down a Plasma rifle/AR in close range without much hassle. Sometimes they could beat a decent player with a shotgun as well if they're aware whats happen.

Just to say, I'm not saying Halo is a bad, I love it and its got a fun mutiplayer, but to say its balanced (and more balanced than Halo 2) is a bit much IMO.

 

[Fox5]

Uh.. yeah, what he said. I can't imagine what games these people have been playing when they say the pistol was too powerful and everything else was worthless.

I think those complaints come more from the PC version anyway, where headshots were extremely easy to get thanks to the mouse.

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

I think those complaints come more from the PC version anyway, where headshots were extremely easy to get thanks to the mouse.

Huh. Maybe that explains some of the outlandish comments I've been reading. 'A skilled player with a pistol is better at short range than a shotgun' Huh? Are we comparing players of similar skill or are we comparing experts with one weapon to beginners with another?

Seeing as this is a console forum, the thought hadn't entered my mind that people were discussing their experiences on the PC, but you could be correct.

 

[El Leone]

'A skilled player with a pistol is better at short range than a shotgun'

if you're referring to me, I never said that. I said someone with a pistol who aware of whats happening may (or may not ) have a slight advantage over a shotgun person. He can always try and seperate himself from the shotgun person and then use the range of the pistol to his advantage

Are we comparing players of similar skill or are we comparing experts with one weapon to beginners with another?

Players of a generally good skill who are compariable to each other

I think those complaints come more from the PC version anyway, where headshots were extremely easy to get thanks to the mouse.

Its more noticable on the PC, but it happens a fair amount on the Xbox.

Anyway, I'm going to stop here. I know this is just going to turn into another 'I lyk think Halo has b111g balancing issues' , 'no wai, its perfect what r u playing mayte? Ur well wrong'.

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

if you're referring to me, I never said that. I said someone with a pistol who aware of whats happening may (or may not ) have a slight advantage over a shotgun person.

No, that's certainly not what you said. What you said was that the pistol was so overpowered that it made all the other weapons irrelevant. You are now saying 'may or may not' in which case, that simple caveat reveals that the weapons are actually balanced and depend on game play and strategy.

Yes, the pistol wielder may or may not have an advantage over the shotgun person, but the shotgun person may or may not have an advantage over the pistol wiedler, plus the one with the shotgun also has a pistol so any advantage is removed.

He can always try and seperate himself from the shotgun person and then use the range of the pistol to his advantage

Uhh.. right. Because that's the nature of the weapon. It's not a short range weapon as you originally claimed. In a short range fight with two equally skilled opponents, the one with the shotgun will most likely defeat the one using the pistol.

The one using the pistol has to attempt to retreat out of range of the shotgun in order to get the advantage.

Again demonstrating that the weapons ARE balanced. The shotgun is more effective in close quarters (as it should be) and the pistol is more effective at longer ranges.

Its more noticable on the PC, but it happens a fair amount on the Xbox.

No, I don't think so. I think your idea of what is happening is completely skewed because you are playing Halo on the PC. If you have Halo for the Xbox, invite three friends over and play a normal or large map under normal conditions. See if everybody ignores the rocket launcher, shotgun and sniper rifle, and just runs around using their pistol.

And if they do? Its because the rest of you suck, because a good player would go grab the shotgun and rush the players sniping with their pistols.. no differently than a good player would go grab the shotgun and rush the players sniping with the sniper rifle.

Is the pistol better in close quarters than the sniper rifle? Yes. Is it as good in close quarters as either the shotgun or the assualt rifle? No, it's not. Is it as good at sniping over long range as the sniper rifle? No.

See how that works? It's called balance. It's something that Halo had that Halo2 didn't, because they removed or nerfed the weapon in order to add the dual wielding feature which is only useful at close range.

 

[El Leone]

No, that's certainly not what you said. What you said was that the pistol was so overpowered that it made all the other weapons irrelevant. You are now saying 'may or may not' in which case, that simple caveat reveals that the weapons are actually balanced and depend on game play and strategy.

Yes, the pistol wielder may or may not have an advantage over the shotgun person, but the shotgun person may or may not have an advantage over the pistol wiedler, plus the one with the shotgun also has a pistol so any advantage is removed.

My original quote was

Sometimes they could beat a decent player with a shotgun as well if they're aware whats happen.

I removed the sometimes and added may or may not.

I may reply to this later on, but for now I'm busy, and I know this 'heated discussion ' will just keep going back and fourth making no movement whatsoever untill a certain amount of people flock onto halo/halo 2 and tell the other to shut up.

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

I may reply to this later on, but for now I'm busy, and I know this 'heated discussion ' will just keep going back and fourth making no movement whatsoever untill a certain amount of people flock onto halo/halo 2 and tell the other to shut up.

Yes, and considering I checked the TeamXbox Halo Forums today, this debate has been going on forever, and really is rather worthless to rehash or continue here in terms of whether or not the weapons are balanced.

However, one thing that isn't ever debated in these discussions is the fact that the weapons were nerfed in Halo2 in order to add dual wielding.

The discussion comes down to whether or not the dual wielding weapons were balanced, which was never my contention.

I feel the weapons in Halo were almost perfectly balanced, and in Halo2 they aren't. Why? Because they had to nerf the weapons in order to add dual wielding.

Now, are the dual wielding weapons almost perfectly balanced? I don't know, and I really don't care. That's not a discussion I really wish to particpate in.

I'm more focused on the fact that they had to make game play changes to Halo for Halo2 in order to add the feature of Dual Wielding.

That's what I was attempting to discuss. The fact that they took away from the game aspects that people liked, in order to add an improvement that quite frankly wasn't an improvement, because it's stupid.

Again, as I've said earlier.. I realize the historical time frame behind dual wielding and the development of Halo2. I understand that while the game was in development, dual wielding was a "must have feature" on any future AAA FPS title.

However, the reality is that we've all gotten bored of dual wielding, because all it does is nerf the weapons (or remove them) because using two of them would make the game unbalanced (obviously).

The realistic utility of dual wielding is never recognized in an FPS because of the limitations of the controller. So essentially, dual wielding becomes only a visual aspect of the game. Instead of holding one weapon, you are holding two. However, the damage that results from using two weapons instead of one, is no different than if you just had a single more powerful weapon.

In other words, they had to nerf the power of the single weapons in order to make it so that you could use both at the same time and the game wouldn't become unbalanced.

This is an aspect that is never disputed in any of the HALO:CE vs HALO2 threads.

Everybody readily admits that the dual wielding weapons in Halo2 are less powerful than their respective counter parts in Halo:CE, as a very nature of the ability to dual wield and a necessity to keep the game balanced.

So it all goes back to what I said originally in the Resistance thread that this got spun off of. They added an "Improvement that wasn't" into the game. Nerfing and removing weapons in Halo2 in order to add dual wielding is finding the answer to a question that wasn't asked. Making light sources movable when shot at (yet not destructible) is the same thing.

The first priority of any game developer should be to make the game as realistic as possible given it's setting. Special effects and whatnot should all be used to enhance that reality.

The fact that Master Chief would much rather have the assault rifle and the pistol from Halo rather than the pistol, battle rifle, and SMG in Halo2 (regardless of the ability to use two at the same time), removes a level of realism from Halo2.

And I maintain that the weapons from Halo weren't altered for Halo2 because they were unbalanced to begin with (that whole discussion), but because when they were making Halo2, they wanted to add the Dual Wielding feature which neccesitated the removal and/or nerfing of the weapons from Halo.

And the primary reason for that is because the weapons in Halo were already very well balanced to begin with. If you multiply any of them 2x, they become unbalanced.

Let me ask you this simple question: Why do you think there was such a large outcry over the lack of the assault rifle in Halo2? Especially considering that you deem the assault rifle (And every other weapon) as completely worthless and require only the pistol to win in SP or MP? Why do you think that message boards everywhere lit up like the 4th of July when the Halo3 video game out that very clearly showed Master Chief holding an assault rifle and not a battle rifle?

It's because the battle rifle was stupid. The SMG was stupid. The pistol was stupid. All three of them were developed from the Halo weapons in an attempt to continue to balance the game while adding the dual wielding feature.

We don't need the battle rifle, the SMG or the pistol. Three weapons that replaced two from Halo?

Just give us back the two that were in Halo to begin with.. the pistol and the assault rifle, and everybody would be happy.

I sure as hell HOPE that dual wielding is GONE from Halo2. The entire concept is pathetic and stupid and everybody who has played FPS or 3PS over the past 5 years realizes this fact.

Do you know how many times Bungie has been asked about making Halo:CE Live! capable? They get asked that question repeatedly. Do you know how many "professional" leagues still play Halo:CE multiplayer for their tournaments? It's a boatload.