What do you think of Halo 2?

I gotta admit, I'm actually unironically pleased that Halo 2 bumped up the campaign difficulty to 11/10, because it gives more replayabillity to a campaign that is otherwise a noticeable drop in quality from CE's. I like Halo 2 but I still consider it strictly inferior to the first Halo in every aspect that truly matters, especially the level design, which was very heavily scaled down, as I've pointed out before.

I feel like if Halo 2 had been released before CE the series would never have been seen as revolutionary in the first place.

That's all true, but you'd have to be crazy to deny CE's innovations in regards to artificial intelligence, outdoor level design and seamless integration of vehicles. CE's enemy AI in particular was regarded as groundbreaking for a shooter at the time; it was almost uncanny how quickly and accurately elites responded to your actions by weaving and dodging your gunfire/grenades. And then there were all those finer details like how grunts would scramble off in fear when you take out their elite commander.

In Halo 2 I would often turn a corner and catch an enemy off guard, and they would just stand unresponsive for a good second or two before reacting to my presence. The downgrade to the AI was undeniable. And don't even get me started on how badly the teammate AI was botched in the sequel; half the time they walked straight into enemy fire like they were in a suicide pact!


I think the only areas 2 objectively improved upon were the graphics and physics, which while nice, were nothing more than an aesthetic in an era when interactivity was already established as a luxury in ambitious titles like Deus Ex Invisible War, Half Life 2, and some others. Halo 2 did make some nice minor alterations like getting rid of universal autofire, but beyond that, nothing much else. Of course, the online support was regarded as the best of its kind for a console game in 2004, but considering online play had already been a universal feature in PC shooters since at least the late 90s, I can't really consider that an innovation like the AI or level design in the first game, which like I said, had never been done as polished before for a single player shooter, regardless of platform (console or PC).

All those elements you mentioned in your above post were definitely important for the success of the series, but the bottom line is that from a technology point of view Halo CE was so good for it's time that I would argue it was peerless. The physics and online play in 2 were great additions, but Halo 2's engine itself just doesn't compare, and considering ragdoll physics had already been done by 2001 as well as the Xbox's very limited processing power, I think it was wise of Bungie to focus on realistic but innovative goals like the sublime AI and grandness of the levels if CE, both of which have aged ever so gracefully. I just don't think ragdoll physics would have been plausible for an Xbox game in 2001 (the earliest example I can think of is Unreal Championship, which came out at least a year later, and suffered from some significant performance issues despite the low body count).

Hey Balder, I have a question: do you hate CE? Because everytime I try to point out what the game did exceptionally well you try and denounce me like an ignorant half-wit.

It would've been a critically acclaimed hit, sure, but I don't think it would've had the same impact as CE. I mean, people are still modding CE after all these years later because the engine is that good, and the levels are so open ended that it gives modders plenty of space to place vehicles, enemies and other stuff.

I'm not very interested in modding, but I probably wouldn't even bother modding 2's single player campaign because of how disgustingly streamlined its design was. It just goes to show how much streamlined level design can hurt the replay value of a game. 

Also, when I see videos like this, it reminds me how good (groundbreaking even) CE's AI was for the time:



I can't think of many other console shooters that were as engine-driven as CE was. Even during the unmodded campaign there were a lot of moments similar to this, except with the flood doing battle with the covenant. They were always fun to watch and were a great showcase of the AI system. Halo 2 had some nice AI but it never felt like a upgrade of CE's.

I guess what I'm saying is that Halo 2 just left me disappointed in several areas, and considering that I (unlike you?) played CE before 2, I would expect you to understand
my disappointment with any of its short comings. Halo 2 felt like more of a cash-in than a true upgrade when I view it as a single player experience. Bungie themselves have come out as stating that Microsoft rushed the game's development, so I feel like this is why certain elements (like the AI) feel unpolished.

I understand that you find some of CE's level design extremely monotonous, but keep in mind that those massive levels took much longer to design than 2's corridor-style levels did. For that reason, when you look at it from a programming perspective, it IS an objective downgrade from CE.