Hi First, sorry for my english..i'm from france In my opinion, equal starts was the core of the success of halo 2 & halo 3. It brings more skill to kill someone because at the very beginning, we're all equal. The rush for the sniper, overshield, etc is what make halo a competitive game, where strategy and teamwork are keys success factors. Therefore map control was indeed a game of position but also a game of nerves and pace. Moreover, i disagree with the "let the player choose his weapon" because again it will bias the algorithm. What is the point of creating "balanced maps" if the players are not equals (with jetpacks, abilities, different weapons,..) ?? How can 343 Industries can establish balanced maps if all the players doesn't have the same speed, the same ability to jump etc ?
To me, what made halo 2-3 blockbusters was the style of the fps. It was competitive, so you had to train to level up in ranked matchmaking. I remember sometimes going completely crazy in my room after loosing but also in great joy after winning 50-49 for instance. And that's what made it beautiful. On average, 90% of the time the players who won were the best players. Ok, there was luck, there was lag, but in the end, if you had more skilled, and if you played well with your teammates, you were winning because you deserved to win. That's what made it competitive therefore successful because everyone knew that the best players were hardworking and really talented. It was a pleasure to see all the MLG finals because it was only skill, strategy and how to adapt in fast-stressed situations. Watching MLG on halo reach-4 is a pain in the ass (imo)
Seen on an another topic, it's exactly what i think :
