In Halo CE, you can’t regenerate health because you’re wearing Spartan-II edition MJOLNIR mk V.
The Spartan-III mk. V (Reach) and Spartan-II mk. VI (Halo 2; 3) have medkit injectors built right into the armor.
In other words: Plot device thrown in to justify gameplay additions.
Mmmmm, but Reach takes place BEFORE halo 1 
, and the Master Chief has the same armor as the other spartans, with the edition of being able to have Cortona, also, the Spartan III armor is significantly downgraded so it could be mass produced cheaply. Wait, oh shit your that mean guy who likes belittling people:retard:
EDIT: Apparently Noble Team uses “special” MJOLNIR armor and are mostly spartan IIIs, mmm
In other words: Plot device
Stop caring.
Your health doesn’t fully recover in Reach, only 1 set of blocks.
It’s a slightly modified set of MK V armor.
Well, since I’m the guy who started shoeing Halo in the nuts, I figure I at least owe a response…and this statement is probably the best validation of the game I’ve heard. Granted, not everyone enjoys bashing Halo as much as me…probably no one…millions of people love it…but with all of the bitching that I’ve done about it’s popularity, nobody gave me a really good reason why it was an improvement on the FPS genre…until now.
While some may see a streamlined control scheme as simplified, it’s at least a reason.
Yeah…and I might actually play it this time. As a fan of both Final Fantasy III/VI and Nintendo, I was really looking forward to FFVII…until it jumped to the PlayStation that is… I hadn’t been sold on disc games yet, and for good reasons…load times were abyssmal, and discs could be easily damaged. Sure cartridges were fast and heavy duty, but they were very expensive if you wanted to jam a lot of information on one. The biggest argument for discs, despite the mind numbing load times, was that they were cheaper to make…the most important reason of course, if you’re a game publisher. So…if discs were SOOOOOOOO much cheaper to manufacture, THEN WHY DIDN’T THE DAMN GAMES GET CHEAPER?! But I digress…
So, FFIII/VI was a blast, and I fully intended to try out FFVII as soon as the PSX got dirt cheap, or I got a flatmate with one…and along came the flatmate. I sat down one night to play FFVII…OH BOY, OH BOY, OH BOY! Then I ran smack into the load times…oh yeah…that’s right…this is the reason I didn’t buy a PSX. Holy Shit! Even the creature fights took forever to load. I could be done with a FFIII/VI fight before the FFVII one began. No thanks, I’ll pass. I may play a remake though!
Oh well, back to Halo…
Yeah, it didn’t bring this either…Counter-Strike beat it by a year and 1/2.
Dual post…dleet plz.
I strongly dislike Counter-Strike, yet find it really addicting, it’s still the most elitist game i’ve ever played though.
Had anyone said Twilight Princess or Golden Eye yet?, Ocarina of Time?, Supermario world, Right now i am thiking about nintendo games and playing Ocarina of time now so thats why I am naming those
As for worst games: E.T. the game and Super man 2 the game
I said OOT as the first post, and I commend you for your taste in games.
Best.
The climax of Metal Gear Solid on the PS1.
Worst.
The fact Banjo Threeie doesn’t exist, and we got Nuts and Bolts.
Best - When I had finally reached end of that asteroid mini-game in lvl 4 and went to save it
Worst - The power went down during the saving and the saved part was f*ed up …
I actually own an N64 and have Perfect Dark, Goldeneye, and Ocarina of Time, and also a Dreamcast, nostalgia FTW 
Best: The creation of Half Life/Valve. Either that or the not-too-distant revival of the Battlefield series. Now THAT was a real game.
Worst: Activision.
Best: When the whole MW2 series was released to take advantage of dedicated 3D cards
Worst: Dune the video game
Wow is this true…but that’s also why I really liked it. You could say that CS is the basketball of team FPSes, where much of the teams strategy is centered around the star player, who can make a giant difference in the games outcome…i.e., more tactical. I would liken Battlefield or Team Fortress Classic/Forever to American football, where the teams can be strong in specific aspects and play on the other’s weaknesses…i.e., more strategical.
The good news about CS, though, is that as long as you enjoy the game, which you said you do, you will get exponentially better over time the more you play. The amount of decisions a player in CS must make on a second by second basis is pretty immense, and developing a new tactic feels like magic. The day I learned (during the BETA phase) the advanced tactics of pulling your sidearm at the right times, my win percentage spiked like never before. Plus your aim gets naturally better over time, but brings us to your main point…
…the “elitist” factor of CS. You can play religiously, hone your tactics to perfection, and obtain an obscenely high kill/death ratio…and then run into some freak with superhuman reflexes…or ping. The main flaw with CS is that much of the game relies on the ability to shoot quickly and accurately, so matches frequently come down which ace can out shoot the other. In BF and TFC/F, a teams offensive/defensive strategy or movement skills always make a huge difference in the outcome, where CS is far too dependent on shooting skills.
So, if you play CS and get smoked by some Godly aimed freak, don’t get discouraged…that’s just how CS is.
Some godly aimed freak isn’t going to win a full match for their team, especially against a well-played team rush. Tactics in CS are a huge factor.
You don’t get any Rambos in BF though