- last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT
Posted by: Master Kim
I disagree, I believe my logic is reasonable. It's possible to differentiate skill between these two shooters, made by the same company, made for the same platform, etc. I think I am expressing my opinion and the truth when I say that the severity of the auto-aim reduces the amount of skill required to aim compared to the first game. I'm not saying Halo 2 takes no skill, but the hit boxes are some of the biggest I've seen in any shooter.I see your point and I agree on some parts...but I'll trying my best to explain how I see this.
I'll try to give you guys an example: Me and my friend plays a 1v1. He's better than me in 1v1 so he'll win. Why? Becuase he's a great jumper, knows most shortcuts, tactics, knows how to sweep with the sniper and uses the auto-aim to his advantage.
If we do a re-match, this time in the same team (zero auto-aim). The scores will come out completely different. Now he IS a skilled person - in Halo. He's no aiming god. But he's still skilled.
The thing I'm trying to say is that a game is about more than being able to aim. Sure, you aim like a god you'll win more, but you'll still get owned by people who uses the "entier" game to their advantage. This is why you can't compare skills between Halo, Halo 2 or Halo 3. They might have some similarities but all the games are different - in some way.
Edit: Also, remeber the subject is: halo 2 are more skilled then halo 3...don't throw in more games into this "skill" discussion.
[Edited on 05.30.2008 8:50 AM PDT]