Halo on PC kind of sucked because of the above factors; the slow movement felt off as fuck, and everything about it just wasn't.. well.. tuned for the PC. Stinkles sounds overly defensive but there is some truth to the idea that it never really made for a great PC experience.
That was Gearbox's fault though more than anything inherent in Halo's design.
One reason it was off IIRC is that they didn't fix the physics to account for more than a locked framerate of 30fps or something. That was why the weight and everything was off, it even causes the Warthogs to sometimes get stuck endlessly spinning if you go around a corner at too fast of framerate. (This is also one of the more common "bad console port" era* problems, it's hardly exclusive to Halo.)
I'm sure Bungie would have accounted for that if they weren't focused on making the consoles release date and a sequel and were doing the PC port themselves. Notably, Halo 2 was ported by Microsoft themselves reportedly at Bungie's request rather than farmed out.
*Arguably GTA III has the worst console port from a design flaw standpoint, the PS2 fillrate is so high that a simple auto-cull of non-visible polygons will save your framerate, so GTA III draws
everything even if it's completely hidden by blocks of buildings. (It also has an incredibly rudimentary texture streaming setup, again, it's saved by the fillrate.) The PC version's framerate will tank on hardware of the time because of this, Vice City doesn't draw anything hidden, so on the same hardware you can get twice to sometimes ten times the framerate despite Vice City's arguably heavier graphics load elsewhere like textures/lighting/etc. I assume Rockstar fixed this in the Xbox port or else the Xbox would have had the same issues yet I don't recall it having them.
