Posted by: DusK
This completely destroys any actual skill factor in the encounter, turning it into a first-person who-is-holding-a-better-weapon instead of a first-person shooter.
Sometimes. What about when they're both holding the same weapon? Halo 2 Vista might be a giant Fiesta-fest, but we know that's not standard for the deceased Xbox matchmaking, which meant ample showdowns featuring two players with BRs or SMGs + pistol/plasma rifle. I think it's also worth noting that sometimes the player with the far superior weapon (for the situation) might have made a smart move to gain that advantage. For example, a player being out classed with the BR escaping around the corner and crouching, only to pull out a shotgun and lure in his opponent. Even if the player with the BR has more "raw skill", he should have the brains not to walk into that kind of trap. A bit of skill shouldn't grant the privilege of walking around the map killing everyone worse than you without a dose of smart play.
Posted by: DusK
Weapons should be circumstantial, yes, but not so much so that a significantly more skilled player is virtually guaranteed to lose against a lesser one.
It strikes me that there's a range where you're right. At the close end of mid range, the better player should prevail regardless of weapon. It's at this range that the rocket launcher is clearly a bit overpowered. I understand your complaints there and about the sword (an unlimited, often more effective shotgun). The sniper is also a bit ridiculous. Yet the beautiful part is, you can remove all three of those (though I think the sniper *could* be left in) and play Halo 2 competitively. Like I said, Bungie's playlists weren't usually designed for hardcore play, but that doesn't mean it's impossible or that the game isn't based on skill.
I suppose now is as good a time as any to state my anecdotal beliefs about weapon balance. First I'll speculate about how I think things develop the way they do, then I'll explain what I'd like to see out of a game's weapons.
I think Bungie tends to put too much muscle behind their new toys. This could be because Bungie either wants the shiny new weapon to see use or because they simply don't know its potential. Examples include:
Halo 2 sword: Do I need to write an explanation for this one? It was significantly downgraded in Halo 3, to essentially 10 uses per pickup. And it had to play nice with the Hammer, which was surprisingly well balanced.
Halo 2 dual-wielding (in general): There were so many solid DW options in Halo 2 (SMG + Plasma Rifle, SMG + Pistol, SMG + SMG, Plasma Pistol + Pistol) that blasting away and then melee attacking was the next best thing to having the shotgun or sword. I thought the ease of access made this a good balancing feature, although Bungie wasn't happy since they made it worthless in Halo 3.
Halo 3 Brute Spikers: What! you say? You say that Brute Spikers were trash in Halo 3? In the full version that's true, but in the Beta testing Brute Spikers were practically the only viable dual-wielding option. Bungie nerfed them accordingly, and upgraded dual SMGs to an almost-usable tier.
Halo Reach: Armor Lock. When you stick them and they go into armor lock, they deserve to blow up on the spot. Lock that grenade inside the shield.
I suppose I'd like to see something similar to Ben's, with all weapons being roughly equitable in close mid-range battles. I do not believe, however, that it's at all *possible* for developers to truly make their weapons even in strength. So ideally that's what I want, but I'm not holding my breath.
The rocket launcher is obscene because of what it is--a -blam!- rocket launcher. Bungie should've taken that thing out in favor of a sensible grenade launcher with less splash damage and a small window to get out of dodge, save for a great shot.