Although I agree Halo 2 was unbalanced with the BR and Brute Shots, I disagree with the maulers and shotguns ruining the game in Halo 3. The dual maulers were useless unless they didn't see you coming or they walked in front of you and didn't see you (aka camping). But even then, all it takes to negate that is a well lobbed grenade before you walk in and expecting the corner camping asshole. Though I will admit the shotgun was very effective, it took some real skill to use it effectively outside of camping or holding up in the corner(in the open or during a responsive firefight when they shoot you first)WHENTWOTRIBESGOTOWAR said:
I rather think Halo 1 was the most unbalanced because of the pistols, it made almost every other weapon useless. No one ever needed to use anything else, there was no variety in weapon usage. Although I loved that magnum, everyone else did too, it was simply too good of a gun. I mean C'mon, 3 head shots and you're down? 6 and even an over-shield couldn't protect you? If you're good you can take a guy down in just under 3 seconds, 5 if he had an over-shield
And as for being the buggiest, that would be Halo 2. Or do you not remember all the assholes that would super-jump to safety and take the sniper with them? Or what about the BXR bastards (admittedly I was one of those jerks too)? Or the super BR shot that unloaded 4 full bursts in one shot?
Personally, I don't think Halo 1 was the best multiplayer, Although I would claim it was the most influential in defining what FPS multiplayer is supposed to be like for the last generation. If you could recall that any FPS that came after Halo always had its game play mechanics explained as it was "just like Halo"? Well, that was true until COD gained popularity, and then the next generation of shooters followed the COD mechanics.
I would say that most Halo 3 or Halo 2 haters that place Halo 1 as the bast of the trilogy just really miss the overpowered magnum. I know I miss that lovable, overpowered bastard.
