ODST was a spinoff,i don't think that messed up halo. Also it played like Halo too.
I still think ODST was Bungie's best game. Obviously it wasn't as successful or ground breaking, but I really do think it was their most polished. I'm sure there are as many people who love it as there are who dislike it though, so that's a topic for another time.
Here's what I think "messed up" Halo (in no particular order):
1. Experimental gameplay mechanics in Reach.
2. Bungie not able to directly TU, which meant fixes took longer than the other games.
3. The transition from Bungie to 343, which not only emphasizes the first point, but represents a cultural shift in-game and online (forums).
4. Pressure on Reach to surpass Halo 3, make up for ODST (multiplayer-wise) and deliver a CoD competitor.
5. Reach not being a direct Halo 3 sequel. The name makes a huge difference. I knew people who had no clue what it was or that it was a Halo game.
6. Lack of decent competitive and BTB maps and gametypes across the board (though at least there are small ones). This includes community maps that may have bothered players.
7. Overall different online atmosphere with things like AFKing for cR, quit/mute bans, challenges and a general lack of incentive to win. By extension, the Campaign was decidedly darker in tone than past games, which IMO took out a lot of Halo's wit and charm.
Of course there are many other factors that went into it, but I think it's safe to say that Reach (much like its fictional namesake) was doomed to fall. But perhaps it was necessary?
It's a technique to force items to skip the "Generating Lighting, Please Wait" phase, allowing them to be as bright as possible for the area. The drawback is that they will also not generate a shadow so you have to be careful which pieces you choose for delaying. It's good for highlighting areas but looks unnatural when too many items are bright and don't cast a shadow.
For example, the floors are set to delayed spawn.
That's really neat.