All subjective. Low end skill of just about any game feels like a challenge, the question is what does it take to hit the ceiling.

Star Craft 2 for example is bad on this as there is only one ladder to climb to the ceiling and its name is APM. Intellect or smartly deployed tactics rarely has a chance against someone with 100+ more APM. Where as Annihilation type strategy games are far better because you can over strategize your next 10 minutes because you can queue your entire plans at a time. While faster AMP would help out there when the plans fail recovery is not as hard or when a plan fails it is typically a death blow.

Shooters are entirely different bag of nuts because most shooters rewards both reflexive or smart or both styles of play at the same time. Dust 514 and BF series capitalize being able to being smarter, but still rewards being good at the gun game as well. Call of Duty strongly emphasizes the gun reflex game however which is why it is constantly branded as an arcade shooter; to which most arcade games are what it is, a reflex game.

Now if you asked me where planetside 2 is, it should be in the tactical field, the tools are there, as are the means and execution but the way players are currently forcing it to play nearly punishes being smarter as being too time costly and time is the only real resource in that game. Stupid and large numbers pays off entirely too much over smart and efficient.

Also if you want to talk about how much perfectly balanced PS2 is versus Dust 514, why does it take a light tank nearly 20 tank shells to die, but 4 infantry rockets or one aircraft mounted cannon to kill? Railguns in dust guts just about any other tank in 5 shots or less, blasters one heat cycle, missiles 5 or less direct hit vollies.