Talk:Halo 2/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

The Mark of Shame

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)

Halo 2's Live controversey?

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)

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)

Signature Song, Plot Details

The signature song of Halo 2 is "Halo Theme Mjolnir Mix", not "The Last SPARTAN". I'm pretty sure I could dig up a Bungie quote eventually. Gspawn 17:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

And some people had started adding Halo 3 banter to the end of the plot synopsis. Halo 2 paves the way for Halo 3. No further explanation necessary. If people wanna know more, they can check the Halo 3 page. Gspawn 18:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
To above post, that would be true if John-117 would stop vandalizing it with his "plot crap".

just saying something

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)

  • Like what? If you have major gripes, list them here. As an official Wiki note, make sure you do think about what you want changed back and see if you can tell why it may have been deleted. For example, I recently-ish deleted some of the talk people kept adding about Halo 3, because (as noted above) you can just go to the Halo 3 page for that. Reverts can also (technically) be done by anyone, but SERIOUSLY think about what you're doing before you do, because there's no faster way to have your account privelages restricted than to make a large revert that nobody else supports (IE: talk about it here first, please). No idea how much of that you do or don't know, just being a friendly Wiki . Gspawn 00:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

oh i was just complaining lol, no real reason for that, im really pleased with this article. f1r3r41n 21:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


The "Criticism of halo 2" article.

- - 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)

And where is the talk page for the Halo 2 Criticism? That is just as worth saving as the article itself. Alyeska 05:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

In Reference to Halo Wiki

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)

PC version confirmed

This news post on BBC News says that not only is there definately a PC port, it will only work on Vista. Big wtf's are in order if you ask me. Those money grabbing bastards... - Ferret 20:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Halo 2 is the flower of 2001 technology. The game should be able to run easily on a WinXP system. Confining Halo 2 to Vista is merely Microsoft being a real dick. That Bungie claims with a straight face that this isn' a marketing ploy has me wondering how stupid they think the customers are. If Halo 2 is made modified for DirectX10, any chances of playing on XP die. DirectX10 will not run on anything but Vista. Alyeska 18:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Yeah, because PC gamers have NEVER, EVER seen this before. Not with DOS 1.x to 2.x, or up to 6.x, or with Win 1.x, or Win 2.x, 3.x, 95, 98, 98SE, NT, 2000/ME, XP/Pro... OS exclusivity is just COMPLETELY new to PCs, and it's all M$'s fault. And it's not like Linux and Mac users have ever had to upgrade, either! This is the only recorded... yeah, you get the point. Gspawn 08:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the voice of reason...It seems to be a rare thing. I don't understand the "flower of 2001 technology" statement, OK it runs on hardware released in 2001. And? that's a strawman argument that has no basis on the issue. Halo will run on a Pentium III with 128 Meg Ram and a 32 MB Video Card. Does that mean it should? You have to understand that there can't be direct comparisons between consoles and personal computers. The console is optimized for the specific task of gaming, computers aren't. Build yourself a computer to the XBox's relative specs, (I.E. A Pentium III, 733MHz, 128 Meg RAM, 128 Meg GeForce 3 Videocard, an 8 GB hard drive, Windows 2000, DirectX 8, and play Halo PC on it.) How does that work? How does that look? It's that same technology, the exact specifications of the XBox. Your "flower" quickly wilts under this test, and has no merit. With the new file sytem and DirectX 10, they may be able to get Halo 2 running as smooth as the XBox version on relatively average PC hardware. GameJunkieJim 04:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Half Life 2, which looks better than Halo 2, runs smooth on relatively average PC. --LaP 18:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I would not be surprised if some kids make a hack to play it over Windows XP. I remember when i bought my ATI Rage Fury i had problem running old directx 5 games with it. It was a problem with the drivers of the card i think. Someone who had the same card has me created a fix to make Need For Speed Hot Pursuit directx 6 compatible so it could be played on that card. Microsoft is generally lazy. WGA has been hacked so fast it was laughable (for the first version you only had to disable IE plugin). XBox is working with a modified directx 8.1 and modified windows 2k kernel. It will really surprise me if bungie takes the time to rewrite all the code of the game to make it a real directx 10 and vista game. Bungie will probably add some directx 10 features and put a little line of code so the game doesn't install and/or run over xp. Will probably be really easy to hack. --LaP 18:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


You fools seems to have forgoten Micro$oft's work, the greddy work they do.

First of all they created the awesome Windows Vista that has LongHorn

Not many people will wanna buy it, because it's like wasting monet, some already have Window Server 2003, while some are sticking to their XP

To back up that above statment,
I have been telling people about Windows vista, how sik it is, but people just seems it's like another window, even showing them the cool screen shot from Wiki.

So in order to sell this software, they included Halo 2 for it, how big Halo 2 is, and it's Massive Online/ multiplayer. Remember, with PC, you can download extra patches for HAlo 2 and more modders.

">x<ino and out" >x<ino 08:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • From Bungie Weekly Update of 5/26/2006:

Will I need a DirectX 10 graphics card to run Halo 2 on PC?

No. Although you will require Windows Vista to play Halo 2 on a PC, you won't necessarily need to upgrade your graphics card to do it. Halo 2, like some other Vista titles, will work just fine on a wide range of graphics cards, including DX9 cards. We will provide far more detailed minimum hardware requirements closer to the game's completion. [1]

The game will run on current hardware, but not software. I'm assuming the game will take advantage of Live Anywhere on Windows Vista.

Weasel words, contraversy

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)

  • Update: It seems someone has been re-adding this from time to time, so even cleaning it up may be useless. Please, don't make it necessary to bring up Protection... nobody wants that. Gspawn 23:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

"Recharging health" - Not true.

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)
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)

Overshield redundancy

It's redundant to state that "In multiplayer Halo 2, the overshield gradually depletes over time, can be used as a default shield that recharges and can be completely taken out with a charged up plasma pistol shot" while also saying at the end of the Powerups section, "In certain Multiplayer gametypes, one or more players start with a regenerating overshield." I'd recommend taking out the first reference and just mentioning that Overshields can be turned on as the default shield type in custom games.

Well that wouldn't really explain what the overshield does. I do see your point though. It seems a bit redundant. I have an idea for a different wording, "In multiplayer Halo 2, a powerup that makes your shield stronger appears in some levels. When touched the extra shield gets added on and gradually depletes over time. It can be completely taken away [I couldn't think of a better word] with a chardged plasma pistol shot. In multiplayer games it can be turned on as a default shield that recharges." -ironpenguin

Halo2sucks.com

First of all, I enjoyed Halo 2. I think its a good game. I also don't think its perfect, however. I'm saying this to let you know I'm not a Halo 2 fanboy (I hate the term fanboy, BTW). Now that I have that out of the way, I don't believe "Halo2Sucks.com" should be listed under external links. This is supposed to be an encyclopedic article, and therefore should maintain a neutral point of view. I realize that many articles are less strict with the NPOV rules when it comes to external links, but I really don't think an anti-Halo 2 site is appropriate. The external links are supposed to provide external sources for Halo 2 information, not opinion as to why someone thinks the game "sucks". I'm discussing this first to see what the popular concensus is before removing it (I see there's a sort of mini revert war going on with it). Defkkon 03:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it obviously does not belong there. It's a non-neutral website that just doesn't add anything to the article itself. --TheKoG 19:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree completely. Its hard to allow it to sit there when we have sites such as the Official Halo site, HBO, and MobyGames. I just want to make sure we discuss it, so that we can prevent further reverts. Defkkon 19:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Alright, its been a few days. This was the chance to discuss removing the link, so there shouldn't be anymore reverts to put it back. Defkkon 13:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Since when is it possible for an encyclopedia to be neutral? Neutrality is established by representing all views, not by trying to create a measurably "middle-of-the-road" point of view. If all linked sites are pro-Halo (which Halo fan sites and Bungie/Microsoft funded sites are) then there is going to be nothing but glowing reviews of Halo. I find it very troubling that the Halo 2 main article has no discussion of the game's criticism (ranging from complaints of the campaign losing aspects of realism such as sound/gravity in outer space to the game's controversial ending.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MartinDuffy (talk • contribs) .

Halo 2 Live Hours

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)

(This is Delta Elite, forgot to sign in)-Delta Elite 01:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The Last Spartan... again?

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)

The Cello piece to Last Spartan is repeated several times in the game and is the "signature" piece for when the MC is doing important things. Its certainly notable. Alyeska 05:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Halo Headache

Man, I hate to look like I'm lording over this page. I promise I'll stay away for a while after this. Someone contributed a cool but insignicant bit about "halo headache":

  • A strange phenomenon being reported among players of Halo 2 is the "halo headache". Some players, mostly older players, are reporting thay they develop a headache after playing Halo for more than an hour. The phenomenon is strange because those who get the headache only seem to get it playing Halo 2.

I'll archive this bit in case anyone wants to develop it, but last I heard only a tiny sliver of users experience this, and most people thought it had been explained. Halo 2 has a narrower field of view (potentially confusing some people's eyes, easily leading to migrane-like symptoms), and many TVs experience "tearing" (TV not synchronizing with input signal, leading to drawing problems during quick movement) when dealing with games like Halo 2, which can also lead to headaches after prolonged exposure. Perhaps there has been more work into this since last I heard, so if anyone has new information that could make this bit worthwhile, it would be a very interesting addition. gspawn 15:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm the one who posted about the Halo Headache. In my experience, everyone experiences it. In fact, myself and my friends (who like playing it co-op) have been unable to finish it because of it. I apprieciate your professionalism in dealing with the information. You are correct, I need to do more research before inclusion. :)
Hmm... maybe co-op heightens the effect? No one I personally know gets it, but I've definately heard it before. As said- if you can find enough info to warrant inclusion, it'd be a great addition. I just don't think there's any published research or anything on the issue yet...gspawn 04:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Well I heard it was actually the field of view being 70* instead of Halo's 110* that caused it.-Delta Spartan 03:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
its always about the last spartan indeed it has to be since thats what halo is all about!
Calderra may be rite. I've experienced it in Co-op, but NOT multiplayer. The detail is somewhat lowered with a guest.I noticed in Coagulation, if u have a full screen, u can see alll this tall grass, but it disappears in split screen/xboxlive multi. ¬¬¬¬--Crazy 20:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I experienced the "Halo Headache" too. I always had to take tylenol or something. But after playing Halo 2 on the 360, I noticed that the headache is completely gone.Lani12 21:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I might suggest play environment be taken into account here. Poor lighting, odd viewing angles and incorrect viewing distance can all affect the eyes and head. I remember Quake giving me headaches unless I had the lights on, and I would often hear reports of 'Quakevision', otherwise known as 'Reduced Depth-Perception' after long bouts. GleebTorin 03:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality / sources / criticism merge

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)

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)
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)

controversy?

Why is this game tagged as controversial? Dread Lord ✎☠ 23:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

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)
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)
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)
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)

hAl0 2 Soundtrack

I removed the last reference. Asking how to violate copyrights on wikipedia is an INSANELY LARGE nono. Answering that question is an even bigger one. Also as to the fact that this has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ARTICLE I am striking it all. Please keep talk pages ARTICLE RELATED.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 05:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Criticism

Criticism is generally Non-neutral and unencyclopdic in its own right. The one exception is to accompany it with an article giving equal article to praise that has been layed on the media (providing it exists). Unless a subject is notably hated (such as a movie or game almost universally accepted as bad) praise is to be given equal consideration. Also, this section uses personal pronouns such as "you" so say goodbye to any chance that it might have still been slightly encyclopdic, oh, and then it has weasel words, lots of weasel words. "Some gamers claim," and "Many players feel", and so on, are nonsense phrases that have no basis and are simply used to evade sources. It would be different if these were cited. I'm tagging this as all of the preceding as well as tagging specific lines that need citation. If no one feels it necessary to find a source in the next several days the entire section will be removed due to its detrimental impact on the neutrality of the entire article. A simmilar situation lead to the larger criticism article being deleted. Wikipedia need not stand for this crap anymore.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 17:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Editing as such, down to what the section should be. gspawn 14:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I've pared the section down to rougly what it should look like. Anyone can feel free to edit this, of couse, but please don't turn this into a POV rant. Again.
  • Despite the critical and financial success of Halo 2, there continues to be heated debate as to whether the title is superior or infererior to its predecessor, Halo: Combat Evolved. Arguments are mainly directed at the multiplayer aspect of the game, and include claims that the game's learning curve has been simplified too drastically, and that there may be deep-rooted problims within the games's online matchmaking modes via Xbox Live. The game's Campaign mode also recieves some criticism, including dissatisfaction the abrupt, cliffhanger ending that sets gamers up for Halo 3. There is also some criticism of the game's on-the-fly rendering technique, which can sometimes result in textures or models being loaded into a cutscene in full sight of the player.
  • It should be noted that criticism of Halo 2 is mostly voiced by competitive online gamers, and that despite the criticism, Halo 2 continues to be the most-played game on Xbox Live, even after the release of the Xbox 360.
I realize that there are a few notes that might be worthy of mention, such as the demystification of the Covenant / playing as Arbiter, but I couldn't find a way to add it in without making the section grow too cumbersome. gspawn 14:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

It should probably just be mentioned in brief, but in the interest of NPOV include a counter, especially since one is readily available. Very little if any of what you learn about the covanent is at all demystifying if you've read the Books, and even less so if you read the content that came with the special edition of Halo 2 (like the conversations from across the universe pamphlet (I think thats the name).--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 15:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  • It is highly unnecessary to construct such a section in any video game article, taking in due consideration the amount of conflicted views and whatnot being inserted. If viable sources have made comments on the source content's failings, then it should be merged within appropriate sections outlined in the article. I'd advise a similar structure to the method I took on Nightshade (PlayStation 2). -ZeroTalk 16:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm all for merging all of this into the appropriate content sections. My only problem is that, when this was originally tried, the people pushing for POV criticism essentially started to vandalize the entire article, trying to turn the bulk of it into one long, anti-Halo 2 rant. If you have an active interest in monitoring this page to make sure something like this doesn't happen again, I'm more than willing to help. gspawn 11:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Someone added a "too linear" criticism. I may be mistaken, but I don't think that's a particularly common complaint (or if it is, it's no moreso than basically all other FPS games). Deleting unless there's a great abundance of evidence I'm unaware of. There are many scenarios that have many possible paths, even if the beginning and ending points are the same, and this is just as Halo was. gspawn 13:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I added the comment about the linear nature of the game, based on several critical commentaries (such as over at rampency.net), but also because the path you take through levels is often very restricted, even if it appears to be open on the face of things. 2 good examples would be the New Mombosa bridge, which is surrounded by invisible walls, and the Gondolas on Delta Halo. The levels appear to be large, yet the actual path you can take through them is often very small, hence the "On Rails" comment. --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.229.59.144 (talk • contribs).

And my point can be summed up with "Library" and "the Maw run". (heh). I expect rail-like portions of levels will return in Halo 3, because it seems more like a feature of the series, and isn't terribly difference from most any other FPS game. But alongside Library you also have bits like Attack on the Control Room, blancing things out nicely. Although some points in Halo 2 are linear, there are also tons of massive areas (dwarfing the biggest open spaces in Halo) where there's virtually unlimited freedom and variety. gspawn 15:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Removed new passage: gspawn 17:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Also, despite assurances by Bungie during the Halo 2 development process that they were aware of complaints about the original game's level design, and that the sequel would improve on this aspect of the series, some still felt that many of Halo 2's environments were drab, uninspired, and repetitive when compared to other first-person shooters.
As per this discussion, removed. Halo 2's environments are monstrously big, often very open, and are in many ways pinnacles of gaming especially at the game's release. See also: Draw distance on the New Mombasa bridge, monstrous 3d proportions of Banshee levels, etc. Especially considering the contents of the addition, Bungie DID fix many problems. Geometry is much less repeated, there are no "reversed" levels, etc. These complaints were completely addressed. As an added bonus, see frequent mentions that the Criticism section must be kept to absolute minimum. gspawn 17:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure criticism should be part of an encyclopedia article. In the end everything get criticism. But in the other hand i'm not sure praise should be part of an encyclopedia article too. There's always a bunch of people who love or hate something. I could be wrong but the goal of an encyclopedia is not to criticism or praise something. It's to explain or describe it. Again i could be wrong. The problem with the H2 article is it praise the game, bungie and microsoft a lot but doesn't talk about the criticism. The part about the cheating is the worst. The article praise bungie and microsoft for fighting cheating (a thing all companies do, all online PC games are patched on a regular basis) but doesn't really say that cheating is actually as worse as before. I'm not knowledgeable when it comes to encyclopedia. I don't know what an encyclopedia should include and exclude and i will never edit Wikipedia main articles (even in my native language). But in my opinion it should show both side of a medal. If everyone think a game is innovative then fine this is a fact. But when the opinions are divided then you must talk about both side or simply not talk about it at all. It's not because H2 sold so much copies and is still played online that it's a perfect game. A lot of people saw Pearl Harbor or Independance Day. Are they great movie for that ? I liked Halo 2 and a lot of people liked it. It's not false to say it's a great game (ranked 17th over gamerankings.com while halo ranked 7th), an xbox live flagship title and one of the most popular game ever (NPD numbers would prove that but not xbox.com for god sake). I just recently stoped playing it when i sold my xbox to get a 360. But when the article say this game is a milestone in the emergence of the video games industry well this need to be backed by a source. When the article say the multiplayer is innovative well it's need to be backed by a source again. Some people and some observers are not sources. And when the article talks (read praise) about all the patches bungie did well it needs to also talk about all the new cheats hackers created like bridging or using 2 month trial cards to mod and boost friends because no people who play with modders are not banned like the article says (it's wrong to say that). I reported them often are they are never banned. Overall the article describe the game well (except the lack of super jump). But some part are really more opinions than facts and some parts are simply just wrong. The multi is different, simple and effective when you don't play against cheaters. Innovative i know a lot of people who would disagree. Maybe thay are wrong. But prove it. --LaP 18:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Multiplayer Update

I've updated the multiplayer section by correcting how long game data is retained on the bungie.net servers, and by correcting a comment on being the host of the game being percieved as an advantage (it is, and one that's especially noticable at high levels of play, or at long range, or on a highly latent connection, such as between the US and Australia). However, I'm wondering if the comment on host should be moved to it's own section.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.229.59.144 (talk • contribs).


Bridging

The Multiplayer section mentions bridging as a form of cheating: "..it is becoming increasingly common to manipulate the system to forcibly obtain host by a method termed 'bridging'." Is bridging something specific to Halo 2 Multiplayer? If so, it should be embellished upon (perhaps in a new subsection of Multiplayer called "Cheating" or "Bannable Offenses." If bridging is a technique common to other online gaming, the term should be linked to a page describing it. I don't know what the terms means, or I'd do it myself.

The term is misnamed from the fact that in order to actually 'bridge', it requires the user to run their xbox through a PC and set up internet connection sharing, or a network bridge, and limit the connections using a firewall. Unfortunately, despite the term being named inaccurately, it seems to have caught on within the Halo community.

As for it being a common technique ... I don't think it happens in other online games, since most online games do not select the host at random (as Halo 2 does), prefering instead to use server listings. Consequentally, there is no way to manipulate the networking to make someone host, as this is fixed.

I also like the idea of creating a few multiplayer subsections, to make the layout seem more organised. --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.229.59.144 (talk • contribs).

Really, there would just need to be a page for "bridging" (if there isn't one already?), and that's what someone can create if they want. I don't know enough to make a good page or I'd do it myself And yes, it's pretty isolated because of the way in which Halo2 does its matchmaking. It's not like network control doesn't happen in other games, it's that it usually doesn't happen this way. gspawn 11:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

To Sum things up, bridging is the **coolest** thing about h2 multiplayer. Whoever has Xlive, I strongly recommend that you learn how to bridge.

Bridging is not the coolest thing about H2. It actually what is killing H2. Bridging is cheating. I sold my XBox last week (to buy a 360) but before doing so i decided to join a group of bridgers to see how bridging affect the game. I always suspected bridging to be the main reason why there's more lags since last fall when playing H2 over XBox Live. By joining this group of bridgers i found that i was right. Basically one player bridge to host to another player (it takes aroung 15-20 minutes to find a team slayer game while forcing host since most team slayer groups now bridge, it takes less time to find a big team game). And this other player can use his PC to regulate his bandwidth so other players in the game will lag enough to give the host an advantage (so he can steal the flag, plant the bomb or gets 20 kills easily) but not enough to be suspected of cheating. We won 19 games out of 20 even if we actually had a very average team. Not every bridgers will us his PC to make others lag. But even if you only force host you are actually cheating. You prevent the game and Xbox Live from chosing the best host in the game. Chances are the guy you force host to is not the best host for this game. I have a good 5000/1000 internet connection. I used to host often while playing Halo 2 because my connection is enough good to be smooth with 8 players only. I can join 32 players BF 2 servers on PC easily. Yet since last fall i rarely host when playing Halo 2 and often the game lags even if there's only 8 players in the game. Team Slayer in now unplayable. I would say 25 to 33% of the games lag so much it gives the host team a big advantage. --LaP 18:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

So why are we not talking about the HUGE sales this game had?

and that is scored more then any hollywood film ever on it's opening day???

I thought that was covered? *double-take* gspawn 12:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject Halo is formed!

It needs members.--Zxcvbnm 14:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Uhhh... link? lollerskates. gspawn 18:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Halo. — TKD::Talk 20:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I think this information needs to be posted at the top of every halo page currently listed in the list of wikipedia articles on halo on the project pages. I am happy to do so if necessary. -007bond 23:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Story cleanup

Attempted some cleanup of the spoilers section, including deleting doubled bits, rewording for brevity when possible, etc. Not too much improvement, but a start. Suggestions? gspawn 18:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Version deletion

The version section needs deleted, and at most left as a one-sentence mention elsewhere (game is at 1.1). The "lower-right hand shows" line screams unencyclopedic. Seems like someone is actively editing now, so I'll just say a simple fix can be seen on most other PC games (a la Diablo 2) where version is a part of the game's infobox. Gspawn 02:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Done'd. Gspawn 12:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Mythic Mode

What gives? I've never seen mythic mode. Do you have to beat the game in Legendary? I couldn't beat the game in harder than Normal, which would explain it.

See Halo 2 Skulls. You have to find one of the secret skulls, which only appears in legendary mode. Ace of Sevens 06:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

so why the hell did you guys get rid of the "main article" on the critisim of halo 2?

Is this biased? or is it just me? -Dragong4

Just you. See NPOV--Zxcvbnm 21:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
One entire article article entirely dedicated to bitching relentlessly about a game is biased [pardom my language, but it's true]. The reason it became an article of its own in the first place was because I (and others) basically amputated it from the main article in order to put it by itself and show how ridiculous it was, as well as to keep vandalization of the main article down (haters were constantly inserting reasons H2 sucked all over the entire article- moving the critism stopped that almost immediately).Gspawn
The "criticism" section has always only needed roughly one meaty paragraph's worth of information only, and then to move on. That's almost exactly what we have now- and it should stay. Gspawn
And in case anyone wonders, the "criticism" page got tons of opportunities to save itself, including several votes for deletion that should have acted as rallying points for anyone still concerned about actually fixing the content. Those who supported the page relentlessly protected it from deletion, but basically never tried to meet Wikipedia expectations at any point, even as deletion loomed large. As it stands, this matter is resolved, and any attempts at unnecessarily expanding the "criticism" will be deleted/reverted, and all major contributors here would (probably) agree that any additions to the section need to be discussed on the Talk page first, because until it's proven that the addition is worth keeping, it will be deleted. Gspawn 18:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
So basically if someone adds in valid points of opinion that may have influenced the work of Bungie, while maintaining a, "Even if you don't think Halo 2 sucked, your opinions are still welcomed" attitude over at Halo2sucks.com it proves suceptable to remove a link to a site that is unbiased? Just because the url reads "sucks" doesn't mean every member thinks so; flawed is more of a word just about every member would choose, or "dissapointed," considering they are all fans of the series and just wished for the best. Also, the main page isn't meant to be taken seriously; it's the forums where the arguements and points are. If you're going to provide links to fan sites who will blindly say, "OMG HALO 2 ROCKS END OF STORY LOLZ" I don't see why adding a link to a site with members with a seriously mature approach to the issue is "wrong."--Agamemnon 20:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
The website's name is "Halo 2 sucks" and you're holding it up as an unbiased source? Come on. And again, this has been going on for quite literally MONTHS. All of this has been said before, all of this has been debated before, and the final logical consensus was to get rid of the section (and anything remotely connected to H2sucks). Try to resurrect it all if you want, but you're fighting a losing battle. Sorry? Gspawn 04:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
And by the way, yes even posting the link attracts vandals en masse. Vandals as in replacing a whole section with "you can (f/s)uck Master Chief" (two exact quotes). Letting a criticism section exist at all is virtually a giant neon "vandalize me" sign to way too many people. It's even already starting up again by the looks of the overwikification and little attempts to add in extra bits. But if we got rid of the Criticism section entirely to stop that, the whole page would be destroyed by others, and we'd be talking lockdown or making a new criticism page to push the vandals away. Again. Point- FOR THE LOVE OF GOD (or Allah, or Vishnu...) just LET IT GO. Nobody wants to do this again. Gspawn 04:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Gspawn in most respects here. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that a "Criticism" section alone is too much, and that we should switch over to a "reception and criticism" section for fairness' sake, as done in the Final Fantasy VIII article. Unfortunately, some people are determined to add their little bit of dissatisfied bitching about Halo 2, which unfortunately belongs on a forum or blog, and not in an encyclopedia. Peptuck 14:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Chapters

Hey, can somebody who owns (or is intimately familiar with) Halo 2 add the chapter titles into the article, like in the Halo: Combat Evolved article? It would be much appreciated.--67.172.204.135 22:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I never f***d it, but I have played it. Kind of a pun there. Sorry. Doing it now. Gspawn 22:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Minor thing, this section was formatted as a sub-header accidentally by creator. Fixd.Gspawn 15:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

You've never f****d it?! Sacrilege! You don't know what you're missing! :D--67.172.204.135 19:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Skulls

Can somebody please add a more in-depth section about the skulls that can be found? As it is, there is only mention of the Mythic skull, and currently I can't tell if it just makes the game harder, or if it unlocks a completely new difficulty mode. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.172.204.135 (talk • contribs) .

Yeah, Wikipedia is not a place to find this kind of thing. Refer to a site like Gamefaqs for that info.--KrossTalk 01:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Understood, I was just commenting on how the mythic skull is briefly mentioned once with no explanation as to what skulls are. Either they should be explained or or not mentioned at all. 67.172.204.135 20:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Anyone involved with the Wikiproject wanna address this? I'm not terribly familiar with the skulls myself...172.129.79.43 20:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Should be in the Electronic sports games category

I tried to add Halo 2 to the Electronic sports games category but, it was removed. Halo 2 is an e-sport game because there are professional Halo 2 teams and Halo 2 tournaments. The biggest tournaments held by MLG. --Credema 17:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I am sure the one who removed it did because he thought you classified the game as a sport game. -- ReyBrujo 17:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, my mistake. That category name, Electronic sports games, is somewhat misleading, but I apologize for not checking exactly what it was first. Obviously, Halo 2 is played professionally. I have reverted. --Satori Son 18:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Obviously, the category is incredibly misleading and needs revised. Halo is not a game in the Sports genre, so it should not be classified as a Sports game. Now, if the category were revised to read "Games in Electronic Sports" or... something. I will redo the delete because I don't think any "Average Joe" visiting the site would ever read "Electronic Sports Game" and think what's intended. Once the categorization gets a fix, it can be redone. Along with this, I've started a discussion on that category's Discussion on fixing this problem. Solve the problem first, add back after. In my opinion, anyway. 68.255.77.106 14:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Duplicated information on the Halo 2 Multiplayer Map Pack

It appears that the same information is located both here and here. Is it necessary to have the same information appear twice in the article? --Brent Butler 19:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Way to Cop Out

The criticism section, which merited it's own article has been narrowed to 3 sentences. This is the most hypocritical bullcrap I've ever seen, as many game articles out there have critical sections that have remained intanct, but I guess the mindless zombies out there got all Fascist on our asses and got Halo 2's dumbed down to the point where it's laughable to say, "Halo 2 is a failure." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.188.137.52 (talk • contribs). 16:45, 8 September 2006

Criticism never merited its own article under Wikipedia's guidelines, and criticism itself is inherently not NPOV. While other games do have criticism sections, these themselves are violations of NPOV, and should be changed to "Reaction" or "Controversy" sections at best. Reference the Final Fantasy VIII article, of a game which has drawn as much whining and bitching as Halo 2. Peptuck 08:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
In addition, and in a much more inarguable way (restating old stuff here) having a Criticism section of more than 3 lines in this article brings incredible amounts of griefing and vandalization of the article at large. So even IF the criticism wasn't inherently against Wikipedia, all the griefing still would be. Read sections above- this is the bazillionth time this has been brought up. 68.255.77.106 14:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
The similar section in the Final Fantasy VIII article is called "Reception and criticism". When this article was peer reviewed back in March, Nifboy suggested we change the name to "Reception". Personally, I prefer Peptuck's "Controversy". We're certainly going to have to change it at some point before we even think about trying for FA. --Satori Son 16:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Agreed and changed to "Controversy." Calling that segment a "Reception" section as-is would unfairly make the game look like it was universally pooryly received.
People aren't being fascist, they are following the rules. It seems that most of the "criticism" that gets added is uncited, unverifiable or original research, all of which violate policy. If something can be added then it should be done properly, and then no one will be within their right to delete it. Konman72 08:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

vandalism

um, i dunno if the rest of you can see this, but the entire article here has been extensively vandalized, but when I try to edit it, the article appears normal. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.44.212.188 (talk • contribs) 11:35, October 6, 2006.

Hi, it appears there has been quite a bit of vandalism lately, and perhaps between the time of when you noticed it, and when you clicked 'edit', it had already been reverted (we're usually pretty fast on that stuff :) ). If you're more interested in helping fight vandalism, you can register and join the Counter Vandalism Unit, or just patrol recent changes. --DevastatorIIC 19:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the AntiVandal Bot program and numerous vigilent editors are pretty good about reverting vandalism here quickly. But, since this article is vandalized several times per day, what are the opinions as to requesting Semi-protected status for this article? --Satori Son 20:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I'll drink to that! Er, I mean, yeah, sounds good. :) CVU? Sounds like somethingI'd like to be a part of. Although your speed in fixing the article was incredible. bit of a problem though; when I went back to the main article it was the same as it had been. it was probably justme, but you never know... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.44.212.188 (talk • contribs). 16:27, 6 October 2006
I agree on semi-protection. Almost everything in terms of vandalism seen thus far is an IP edit, and there's no vandalism from established editors in recent memory. Semi-protection will save everyone a lot of trouble. Peptuck 06:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Peptuck seems to be right. Cyberlemming 00:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and put in a request for Semi-protected status.Peptuck 19:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Taken care of. Now we can improve the article in relative peace :) Peptuck 18:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Multiplayer Map List

Multiplayer / Xbox Live is a huge part of Halo... I think we should have a list of the maps in the game, and possibly even entire pages on each map. I would be glad to help in any way! I am new to Wikipedia, but I am an avid Halo fan and I can learn fast. :)

[Edited for typos] GAMER4EVER 18:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Hate to break it to you, but that list used to exist, and was deleted by consensus. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of multiplayer maps in Halo 2. — TKD::Talk 19:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Halo Combat Evolved Tin

Ok, let me first start by saying that I have no clue where this should be discussed. I'm starting my search here because I would say that this most closely relates with the Halo 2 tin for the collectors edition.

First a little background:

Before I graduated from highschool I had to job shadow somebody in a career of interest for me. Because of some connections, I was able to job shadow the Worldwide OEM manager for Microsoft. He had recently been promoted to this position, having been working as the General Manager of North American Operations and was closely associated with the Halo 2 launch. Before my time with him ended, he gave me a tin case that had the design for Halo on it. He said that it was made for executives to look at how the Halo 2 case would be. At the point that they made this they hadn't finalized the design for the Halo 2 case, but they wanted to make an example and proof of concept if you will. It has the exact image of the regular halo case, but it is made out of tin and embossed. These were made in limited number and not distributed to the public. Before I went there, I did not know that these even existed. I'd like to make an article that tells of their existance. Unfortunately, I don't have much information other than this second hand story. No facts, no references. But I have one, so if I get a hold of a digital camera I can upload a picture.

Is there any support for this, or advice on how and where? I've worked on a few articles but still need help on the finer points. Any advice would be much appreciated.

Stephen—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thestevo (talk • contribs).

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/a/l/Talk%7EHalo_2_Archive_2_0b0a.html"