Posted by: F4C3 0F D34TH
Posted by: Colossal Dave
I agree with the rest of your post, but I would say Halo 2 was more competitive than Halo 1. I preferred Halo 3 out of all of them just because it had a nice balance of fun and actually requiring some ability but I am willing to say it was less competitive than both of its predecessors.
Posted by: F4C3 0F D34TH
After Halo 1, the multiplayer has progressively gotten more casual-friendly -- Reach was just the tipping point. Halo 4 shouldn't have been a surprise to anyone.
Halo 2 had massive aim-assist and bullet magnetism, overpowered dual-wielding, (especially the Noob Combo), rockets that would lock on to any vehicle, overpowered sword with unlimited ammo, and a flawed weapon-spawn system that could be manipulated easily, rather than Halo 1's system in which all weapons had a fixed spawn time.
Agree with Face here. The host advantage was unbelievably bad in both Halo 1 and 2. I've rarely played Halo 1, but the Halo Council (MLG Pros like Gandhi and Elamite) has stated that CE was incredibly unfair off host. Also, Halo 2 had far more auto aim and bullet magnetism than any halo besides maybe Halo 4. The host advantage was noticeable where in Halo 3 it's not nearly as bad. In Halo 3, the host can sometimes be a bad thing because it makes glitching shortcuts harder and things like teabagging the lift on The Pit are impossible on host making you an easier target. It really depends in Halo 3 where Halo 2 and 1 the host almost always won. I pulled host through most of Halo 2 and early Halo 3 making me have a good advantage, but it was definitely more noticeable for Sniping in Halo 2.
Also, Halo 4 has terrible hit detection or lag for me so I'm just not playing the game. I noticed since I got a new router I'm pulling host a lot in Black Ops II so I'm sticking to Cod until Halo 4 gets its first Title Update.
Reach Anniversary Playlist is more competitive and enjoyable to me than Halo 2 or Halo 4, but Halo 2 is a better game overall among all three. I think Halo 2 had the best weapon feel and sound, but too much autoaim and host advantage made it less competitive.
Halo 4 is beautiful to look at and some of the maps would be great for Halo 2 or 3, but I just can't adjust to Halo 4 gameplay and its laggy netcode.
Solace is unfair for BR users because DMR 3x zoom is necessary. I will never forgive 343 for making the BR a 5 shot gun. I'd rather have a bigger spread (it already has recoil) and keep it four shot for the sake of balance. There is no reason to have the BR and DMR both in the game as 5 shot weapons. BR is less accurate and has less range.
Competitive wise I'd say:
Halo 3 = Reach Anniversary > Halo 2 = Halo Reach > Halo 4
I have no opinion on CE other than its known host advantage by listening to many pros talk about early MLG.
I know most pros prefer Halo 2, but some pros like Elamite and Neighbor have stated Halo 3 was just as good as Halo 2. Elamite in particular said he preferred leading his shots. Snipedown had said Halo 3 took the most skill in sniping. Elamite was a national champion in 2008 during imo the best season of MLG and Neighbor and Snipedown are known to be two of top players on par with the Ogres, Pistola and Instinct brothers.
The only pros I know that don't like Halo 3 are Gandhi (famous for naming the ghey jump because he couldn't pull it off and also had to retire due to bad placing) and . Even Walshy said that nades in Halo 3 were most competitive because of consistency and nade launching.
-----------------
Halo 3 can be improved upon, but Reach and Halo 4 have failed to do so.
[Edited on 11.22.2012 3:40 PM PST]