Talk:Halo 2/Archive 2

message: The first paragraph of the Halo 2 plot seems to state the torture of an Elite admiral (Arbiter) twice. I think, just as Master Chief is be rewarded, the Arbiter is getting branded with the Mark of Shame. I don't have the guts to go and edit the page, so just thought I'd point this out. --Vinyourg 02:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Mark of Shame

message: I'm pretty sure anyone who's ever played Halo 2's Xbox Live multiplayer has found an abundance of little snot-nosed kids who constantly curse and, by their high voices, are too young to be playing the game. I'm not sure if it exactly fits into the Halo 2 article, but it's becoming such a big problem that it might be considered. Lani12 07:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so. This is a problem with all online games. Maybe an article could be created about this "phenomenon". Young kids play all M rated games online not only Halo 2. A lot of them cheat and trash talk. Try Counter Strike ;) --LaP 18:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Halo 2's Live controversey?

message: i want to thank whatever supreme being there is for the revert option, man these people changing crap like that really ticks me off
f1r3r41n 14:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: just saying something

message: - 		 
- 	Whatever happened to that thing? =/ Shady_Joe
I had removed this due to its improper placement, but then I realized that probably wasn't the best thing to do, so I moved it down here where it belongs.  BTW there is an answer on your talk page.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 19:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The "Criticism of halo 2" article. 

message: Halo wiki is a repository of knowledge of and relating to the halo universe, including tactics and knowledge of the story, so i added it back to the list of external links, revert me if im wrong but please explain why it was deleted again, thanks 
f1r3r41n 21:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: In Reference to Halo Wiki

message: Someone changed the contraversy paragraph to include contraversy about the original Halo, which is not only an attempt to add a whole lot of weaseling (I like the word, so sue me) but it's not something that needs to be in this article. If you want to bring up contraversy about Halo 1, do it on that games' page. I'll look through the history to try and restore some better text if I can. Gspawn 23:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Weasel words, contraversy

message: Health doesn't actually recharge in Halo 2. The amount of health you have is consistent, and can only be depleted, not regained. This can be demonstrated by playing a game without shields. -Rabid Monkey
*...because your Shield regenerates your health? I've personally tried the system out (using a Plasma Pistol to negate shields and an SMG to try out health) and it seems to work as advertised. -gspawn
**Actually, I just tested it a minute ago, and I was surprised to find that health does actually recharge. However, health doesn't recharge anywhere near as fast as the shield, which is how I made my original mistake. My newest test was done by using a Plasma Pistol and a Battle Rifle against a second player on Ivory Tower. First, I found that when you deplete another player's shields using the charged-up Plasma Pistol shot, it takes 3 Battle Rifle bursts to the body to kill them (I tested the 3 bursts on torso and foot, both worked the same). Once I had found that, I started the real test. I depleted the shields using the Plasma Pistol charge shot again, but this time I only shot two bursts with the BR. I let the shields charge up to full again, then drained them with the PP and killed the player with only one BR burst. Thus, health does not recharge with the shield. Second test: I depleted the shields, shot two BR bursts, and then, after the shields had recharged, I ran a lap around Ivory Tower. When I got back to the other player, I drained his shields and it took 3 BR bursts to kill him. Obviously, I don't know if you need to run around Ivory Tower before your health recharges, but I have proved that it doesn't recharge simultaneously with the shield. I think that this should be mentioned in the Halo 2 article, because, as it is now, the description of health recharging can be misleading. -Rabid Monkey
***If you can find a brief way to state it, I have no problem with the evidence (although it'd be hard to have a wording for this that can cover the recharge while not confusing the average passerby). Default to the positive, at least, because it technically does recharge even if it takes a while. 172.130.226.254 13:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been proved many time that there's health in Halo 2 and that the health doesn't recharge as fast as the shield. There's 2 way to prove it by yourself. Start a custom game where only you play. Go to a corner. It's easier if you stand face to a corner. Throw a human grenade at your feet. You will not die but your shield and part of your health will be down. Let your shield recharge. Now if your health would recharge at the same time as your shield (or if you would not have any health) throwing another human grenade would not kill you since your shield is back. Once your shield is back throw immediately another human grenade at the same place as the previous one. This grenade will kill you instantly. The second way to prove it is by starting a 2 players split screen custom game when only you play. With one player take a plasma pistol and a human pistol. Find the other player (nobody play with it). Shot a burst at him with the plasma pistol. Now that his shield is down shot with the human pistol and count the number of shots it takes to kill him (to remove all his health). I think iy's 8 or 9 but i'm not sure. Now reload your human pistol and wait for the other player to respawn. Find him again. Shot another burst with the plasma pistol and shot with the human pistol 1 less time it took to kill him previously (if it took 8 shots to kill him shot 7 time) so he will be almost dead. Let his shield recharge and reload your gun at the same time. Immediately after shot another burst with the plasma pistol. Shot with the human pistol again. He will die in 1-2 shots at most. If you wait too much after the shield is back his life will be back too and it will take the regular number of shots to kill him. It's hard to know precisely how much time it takes for the health to recharge. Me and my friends did a couple of tries and we came to the conclusion it's about 3 secondes after the shield is back but we have no proof of the time it takes. --LaP 18:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Recharging health" - Not true. 

message: I was looking up Xbox 360 after mine broke down, and I found a neat fact. Of all the hours of Xbox Live played since Xbox 360's release, about 1/3 has been Halo 2 time. If anyone thinks that may be worth looking into, I can get the URL for that.70.30.225.140 01:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (This is Delta Elite, forgot to sign in)-Delta Elite 01:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Halo 2 Live Hours

message: Who keeps re-adding the musical note about 'the Last Spartan'? Halo Theme- MJOLNIR mix is THE ONE AND ONLY signature song of Halo 2. It's the theme song, and the song that Bungie frequently mentions as being the signature piece for Halo 2. And it is in no way combined with 'The last SPARTAN', except that it was placed on the same album. Please, if there's a reason you keep adding this note, discuss it here. Deleting again. gspawn 12:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Last Spartan... again? 

message: Who put up the Neutrality and Sources banners? Please discuss such moves here if you're serious about this- posting those isn't something you should do on a whim. Are there really concerns? Or (I have a suspicion) was this someone coming from the Contraversy page? Deleting pending formal discussion. gspawn 04:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: After the last VfD on the Criticism of Halo 2 article, users tried to suggest merging Criticism into the main article. It should be noted that Criticism was origionally pulled from the main article because it was too long, not up to Wiki standards, and attracted too many vandals to the rest of the main page. Merging it back is not a viable option, unless we want to repeat the whole process again. gspawn 15:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And on the topic of the above, a user attempted to add most of the Criticism section into the main article, probably as part of the potential merge. I pared the section back down to the small section it should be. To maintain Wiki standards, Criticism needs to be kept to about one paragraph discussing the main points. If it is allowed to grow any longer, opinions will begin to be interjected into the rest of the article again in an attempt to justify addition to Criticism. Or, that's what happened last time anyway. gspawn 15:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality / sources / criticism merge 

message: Why is this game tagged as controversial? Dread Lord ✎☠ 23:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ummm... Why do you have three lines of font selectors in your signature? Anyway, it's because a lot of complaining people wan to voice their own gripes about the game, and won't let the rest of the page rest. Now that people are threatening to delete/mege the Contraversy page, you're going to see more and more people sneaking Criticism/Contraversy into the main article. gspawn 14:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't matter, 99% of it is either biased or unsourced and will be deleted immediately upon its inclusion as a result.  Controversy needs to be cited.  Its time to make a point on this article family that non-neutral article assembly will NOT be tolerated.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 05:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't want to break your fun but the main article itself is controversial. I'm sorry but this whole Halo 2 thing over Wikipedia is really of fanboyism level. IMO it is a shame for Wikipedia. I'm a big fan of Halo 2. I played over 1000 games since stats reset and even more before stats reset. My Stats. When i read the main article it looks more like a PR release Microsoft would write than a encyclopedia article about halo 2. First XBox.com should never be used as a source. Using Microsoft itself as a sorce to say how much a Microsoft product is successful is wrong. And it is even worse that wikipedia community accept this. This doesn't apply to Microsoft only but all companies. Like HP PR should not be be used as a source to show how much HP products own. We all know companies PR make things look better than they really are. Like using shipped product number instead of analyst sources for number of units sold. Nintendo did it, Sony did it and Microsoft did it. Here's some things that really bug me when i read Halo 2 article. As of November 9 2005, exactly a year after its release, Halo 2 had sold more than 7 million copies worldwide.[5] Some observers saw this as another milestone in the emerging dominance of the video game industry. Halo 2 won "Game of the Year 2004" at GPhoria, among other awards (Best Boss Battle, etc.), including different award shows. Some observers ? Who are they ? Some observers is really vague. Is it really some observers or the creator of the article himself. 7 millions while extremely good numbers, specially for a video games newbie like Microsoft, is far from a milestone in the emerging dominance of the video game. Mario 64 has sold around 11 millions copies (despite the failure of the N64). Vise City sold more copies too. 7 millions is not a record and not close to it. So what makes Halo 2 a milestone. And who the hell are those observers. I follow video games market closely and never heard of them. A source citing those observers would be great. And a good source like GameSpot or IGN even better. Killer app is also commonly identified as a fanboy word. What's next ? People will use the AAA **** to describe games over wikipedia ? Since Halo 2 was a successful killer app for the Xbox and its Live online service, Microsoft took advantage of Halo 2 to ban modded Xboxes from the network when they tried to log on for online gaming. While this part is partially true i think it can be extremely misleading. People could understand that it is impossible to log on XBox Live with modded contents while this applies to mod chip to play burned games only. Maybe i missed a part but i didn't read in this article that it is possible to log on XBox Live and play Halo 2 with modded contents and be able to run really fast and fly in the game. You don't even need a source for that. Everyone who play Halo 2 encountered modders. Some people are banned for this but not all. THE HULK 1 boost itself by playing with modders and bridgers. The Hulk 1 He still play the game and he is not banned. If you want to talk about modding talk about it entirely. If not then don't praise Microsoft for banning modded xbox specially if you don't say it applies to mod chip only. It is misleading in my humble opinion. Also new mod chips let you turn them off (or something like that not sure how it works) so you can log over XBox Live with legal copies of games and still be able to play illegal copies of offline games. I heard you can also get unbanned but never saw it from my eyes so it worth nothing. But my friend log on XBox Live and can play burned games with his xbox and watch DVD without the remote. Mod chips and xbox live. Also there's not part about super jump. I'm sorry but talking about super jump is not a criticism. Super jump is now part of the gameplay specially for map like Turf where the super jump can give you an easy win in skull games. It is in the game. Most players consider it a normal gameplay part of Halo 2. Also you will definately need a better source than XBox.com for the number of copies sold. NPD is what people use. Also some whole say innovative about the multiplayer in Halo 2. Who the hell are those some people ? It's vague. It's not backed by facts. It is different yes. Innovative ? Maybe. Find me a a couple of reviews saying that and i'll accept it. Again it looks more like the writer opinion than anything else. It's easy to say some find it innovative. But back it up. Halo 2 as fun as it is suffers of host advantage. Bungie tried something different. Some people like others don't. There's advantage and disadvantage about it. It's easier. You chose your gametype and voilà. But it induces host advantage and you can't do you want. You know some people think it sucks. It's not a reason to write it in a encyclopedia. For something to be considered innovative most people must think it is. I'll give the guy the credit for talking about he host advantage though. Also this article makes it looks like cheating has been corrected by the patch 1.1. Talk about it or not. Don't make it looks like there's no problem. Cheating is as worse as before the patch 1.1. It is possible to use bridging to create the same lag effect as standbying and this is used a lot lately. A lot of games lags. Modding is still used even if it is less a problem than after bungie released the new map. Another update was added in July, 2005 (a week or so after the release of the map pack). The update added a detection tool that would automatically detect and ban 'modders' using modified content on their Xboxes. This part is simply wrong. I've seen level 15+ using modded contents. They are not automatically banned. Not at all. They can play an entire day often before being banned. Again i'll give the guy the credit for talking about the 2 month trial cards problem. Also it is wrong to say that anymone playing with modders will be banned. I reported to bungie a lot of time people who where playing with modders to boost their level and they have never been banned. Never. I don't say all of what i said should be there. But if you want to talk about something you do it or not. If you praise bungie and microsoft for fighting cheating for a good 20 lines and then gently say and the end that there's still some cheating in about 2 lines then it looks like fanboyism to me. Inevitably some cheats and exploits remain. As users typically aim to increase their matchmaking rank by using these, some users avoid these by not entering games with particularly high-level players. This is really misleading. Cheating is already rampant over level as low as 30. If you don't want to talk about cheating then don't. If you want to talk about it then don't act like things are fine because ther are not. Sorry for my bad english. I didn't have a lot of time to write this and i'm a french canadian. Fell free to correct spelling mistakes from this text. --LaP 20:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also i forgot to say this. While the innovative part of the multiplayer is really more opinions than facts (it is different but innovative ...) Halo 2 is really the first popular online game for console. It is not the first online console game but this is the first to be so much popular with so many players. I didn't read that in the article. Maybe the word revolutionary could be used. Would be interesting to find source about this. Also while saying Halo 2 IS a killer app can sound a little fanboyish (anyway in my opinion i could be wrong) we could easily say that this game is the xbox flagship serie ans that it helped to define the xbox brand in united state. Just to be clear Halo 2 is a killer app. I just think the word chosen to express this are a little teenish. And finding sources (other than xbox.com) about it would really help. --LaP 04:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  controversy?