@ TheUselessOne, i fail to see how it has gotten harder to play. I'm not taking sides because this is a stupid argument, but i thought i'd put my 2pence in. Halo 1 was by far the fastest playing, and hardest one. You had things like fall damage, different run speeds, much different gameplay, etc.
In Halo 2, you claimed that the emphasis is on the weapons, and not skill. I don't see how you can say that. In Halo 2, it was all about skill, you had to know how to do things, timing for things like BxR/Doubleshot so you wouldnt reload, or cancel the beatdown. You also had to time the BxB so you wuoldn't cancel that. In Halo 2, the sniper had less power. Only headshots counted, and if you shot someone with even semi-full shields for the most part it would only take down their shields. In Halo 3, it kills them. You had to get a headshot in Halo 2 for a sniper kill unless you wanted 2 body shots.
People who didn't have the skill to learn to play a certain way couldn't doubleshot, and lost, end of story.
In Halo 3, whoever sees the person first wins, how is that fair? What if someone has invis, or is crouching in a hard to reach spot. Not to mention the autoaim in Halo 3. I've played loads of Halo 2 customs recently and haven't had any problem nor too much aid. In Halo 3, i play on 10 sensitivity, same as in H2. In H2 i will die if im not warmed up. In Halo 2 i can spaz the BR/gun all over the place to get a kill, and it works. In addition, the autoaim is too much. I'll be about the get a headshots, and someone will run slightly by, barely going near to my target, and the reticule will be dragged away, making me miss the headshot.
Halo 3 requires less skill then Halo 2, and Halo 2 less then Halo 1. I would be incredibly happy if Reach played like Halo 1, and wasn't weighed down by things that slow it down like Equipment. (Don't feel like writing an argument for this but it gives one player an unfair advantage, stops gameplay, blocks off areas of a map, etc.)