Poll: Is Halo a generic shooter?

[Jabberwock xeno]

No, it's rich niverse set's it apart.

Of course, I don't expect anyone to have read the books other then the universe fourm.

 

[Mr.Amakir]

The first Halo game revolutionized the FPS genre. Sure the games are not that good and sure they might be generic now but when Halo: Combat Evolved came out it was pretty revolutionary. Halo might not be as important to the FPS genre like Half-Life was but it sure helped to define the standards of modern FPS gaming.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

Halo is a shooter that was once innovative (the original was quite different from the other shooters on the market at the time). The sequels were iterative in nature (in that there were small changes from one game to the next) but the core concepts remained unchanged. In the intervening years, the popularity of Halo has ensured that many other games adopted many of the bits that made the game unique and thus the Halo style has become generic.

Thus, Halo was not generic but it spawned a slew of games (including its own sequels) that were similar enough that Halo became a generic type.

I would note that this is not simply a trend with Halo. There are only a few rudimentary "types" of FPS. More specifically you have the following:

Quake Type: A shooter with no pretensions towards realism. Speed, precision and resource management are the most important factors in determining superiority between players. Half-Life, Duke Nukem (3D and later) and unreal are notable alternate examples of this type.

Rainbow Six Type: A shooter that places adherence to reality above interesting or enjoyable play. This type lives on in games like Operation Flashpoint and ARMA as examples. Notably, the Rainbow Six series itself is no longer a part of the type it spawned.

Gears of War type: A shooter emphasizing the use of cover and short distance tactical movement with arbitrary adherence to reality. Games of this type would include Rainbow Six Vegas, Killzone 2 and so forth.

Counterstrike Type: A shooter with arbitrary adherence to reality that emphasizes speed, precision and pattern recognition. Games of this type include the Call of Duty series, Killzone 2 (multiplayer) and Halo (multiplayer).

I named the types based upon the game that immediately popped into my head when considering a particular kind of gameplay. It should be noted that in most (if not all) of these cases a game of very similar type may have preceded it. For example Doom obviously preceded Quake and was of the same type but thanks to the fact that Quake was the first game of it's type with relatively easy means of playing online (Quakeworld + Gamespy client) it named the type. Similarly, Killzone was of similar type as Gears of War but the overwhelming popularity of Gears of War (versus the limited success of Killzone) and the fact that GoW maintained it's type online (where Killzone had no multiplayer component) means GoW is a more suitable type definition.

 

[manythings]

Back in the day? It was just a run-and-gun shooter, I enjoyed my time with it sure. It had melee, good multiplayer and some fine action. It wasn't that generic.

Now? I would call Halo THE generic shooter since 95% of shooters are endeavouring to be halo.

Wouldn't that make Halo less generic?

I mean, since Halo: CE revolutionized the FPS genre in 2001, and, by your words, now the majority of the games try to copy CE. That makes the other games generic, no? Since all they do is copy from something that is already known, popular and published?

Catching my logic train here?

What I will say, is that Halo hasn't done much to shape up the formula, just take the existing model and added plot. It's still a good model though.

So by taking a thing and only repeating it they aren't in fact just making the same thing over and over they are innovating? It became generic because other people tried to make Halo aswell and instead of doing something crazy like making a better game they just kept making the old game with "new" weapons and enemies.

My logic is this; In the one hand you have vitamin C taken from an organically grown orange, freshly juiced and processed to keep all that natury goodness, In the other hand you have a vitamin C tablet produced by a method perfected in a lab by scientists and technicians then mass produced in a factory. Can you tell me the difference between them? No, because they are the exact same thing. The process doesn't make the product any different if you are after that one thing.

 

[Cureacao]

Halo's generic, it really is. What sets it apart, however, is how polished it is. Bungie has made every aspect of this game so well that it makes a bland experience/FPS amazing fun and outstanding. While the series is not revolutionary (par halo: CE to some extent) they are all excellent games, specially for lan fanatics

 

[Nexus4]

Halo basically created what we consider generic shooters, the early ones were innovative, 3 and reach? not so much.

 

[blankedboy]

It's only generic because every FPS has tried to copy it since Halo: CE.

It was generic when it came out. Seriously, name ONE thing that Halo did, that an FPS before it didn't do better.

Then again, it does work, which I can't say about all FPSes.

 

[Frozen Donkey Wheel2]

what does it do to innovate?

more colorful enemies and environments?

it's still the same-y bang-bang-bang, but with Lasers and aliens.

So you're saying that it's not an innovative FPS because it uses guns? You do see what's wrong with that, don't you?

OT: People tend to forget that Halo has a quite a few features that set it apart from other shooters. Forge, The Theater, and a persistent community that constantly keeps track of the best customized gametypes and maps out there, all add up for a more or less endlessly repayable game.(Keep in mind that these features don't belong to any other shooters out there, bar Far Cry and, recently Black Ops, featuring map editors and a theater mode respectively.)

Of course, while these features are innovative, the core gameplay isn't. It's barley changed in the past decade or so. Of course, I think the formula has aged favorably when compared to the deluge of modern warfare shooters out there, but that's just me. I certainly won't blame you if you want a little more depth to the core gameplay of your shooters then Halo offers.

 

[Nomanslander]

Since when are games that have a lot of earth tones generic?

Here's an argument I've honestly really gotten sick of. Even if you look at shooters, the majority of them do tend to be colorful. Maybe not as colorful as games in the NES days but what did you expect from games made in the 80s. The problem is there are those that just don't like any game to have a darker color palette to it, as if games like Dead Space or Gears would be better suited if they freakin looked like Mario.

Honestly, I wish this group would just stfu and keep their opinions to themselves. I like how dark Gears of War is...er...was, I like how dark Killzone is, and a colorful dystopia just wouldn't work for the Fallout series.

The day I start seeing rainbows in a Silent Hill game is going to be the day I go door to door and kill all you bastards that made this happen.

/lolrage off

 

[Cmwissy]

I believe Halo is the generic brown shooter. Which strangely enough, is a compliment.


Okay, maybe that isn't fair, Call of Duty (And especially it's modern warfare runts) can have half that price.

 

[EvilMaggot]

It's only generic because every FPS has tried to copy it since Halo: CE.

*ahem* no... Crysis, not so much, Half Life 2, not so much, Team Fortress 2, not so much... imo, halo copied the first FPS'ers there was and just put a different skin on it

 

[MrDumpkins]

The first Halo was not generic. It was a trailblazer, a genre definer for its generation. Hell, if it hadn't been as popular as it was, it would probably be looked upon as one of the greatest accomplishments of the 128 bit consoles. But, no. It was loved by the mainstream, and spawned a franchise. So the same people who extoll the virtues of Goldeneye 64 also condemn Halo, even though, in the long run, Halo: CE did far more for console shooters and tried many more new things. By today's standards it can certainly be called generic, but only because so many of the unique aspects it pioneered have been copied so endlessly ever since.

The second Halo couldn't have been called generic at the time - it was still arguably the best of its kind when it was released - but it was the beginning of what would become the Halo strategy: minimal changes, no new innovation. However, it was a technically superior game to the first, it did attempt a couple of new things and, most importantly, it succeeded at online console play like nothing before it.

Halo 3 is where the accusations of genericism start to gain weight. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure it's a fine game - critics certainly seemed to like it - but it continued to lack new innovation. This was largely excused at the time because "omgnextgenhalo!". The trails blazed by Halo: CE were commonplace in shooters now. Halo 3 was, technically, proficient in all areas. It was almost certainly better than its immediate competition. But no one can argue that the series wasn't beginning to stagnate as early as its third entry.

Halo ODST is probably the most divisive of the lot, excluding Halo Wars. It attempted some new things, but the new things it attempted weren't any good. Everything else was the same as ever. The multiplayer offered nothing significantly new, the campaign was too short, it was dull, it should have been a $15 expansion for Halo 3.

And then there was Reach. A Halo game that added very little that was new, and the stuff that was new barely affected the unchanged gameplay at all. You might point out that Halo "has bright colours", but since when has graphical style excused stagnant gameplay? Of course, I suppose I can't criticise it too much, I mean, the thing sold like...well, like a Halo title. And yet, while nothing worth a damn has changed, it's still fun. A lot of fun, especially with friends.

Halo is a game series with five major titles released over almost a decade that has barely changed at all since the 2001 original. It is a game with a silent space marine protagonist who shoots aliens with big guns, and takes place in a universe where humanity is at war with an alien alliance. It is a game with regenerating shields, a two-weapon limit and run&gun gameplay.

Yes, it is generic. There is no argument here - it is the very best example of a generic shooter. If I wanted to show someone an example of a generic shooter, I would show them Halo.

That doesn't mean it isn't good.

Halo CE to Halo 2: Nothing new. You're right about that for sure.

Halo 2 to Halo 3: Halo 3 added equipment, which changed up gameplay a lot. Added forge, theater, file sharing and a bunch of other community features. Don't understand what wasn't innovative of forge or theater, both of which have never been done well on a console game before it.

Halo 3 to Halo 3: ODST: Went down a notch, multiplayer stolen from gears, a little funner, campaign short, nothing innovative, detective mode tacky. Agree with you that it should have been 15 bucks

Halo 3: ODST to Halo: Reach: Refined forge to be the best map editor(note, not saying creator) on a console ever, many freedoms. Added armor abilities, which if you're telling me doesn't change gameplay a lot you are either retarded or never played the games enough to realize the effect they have on gameplay. It completely changed up the way encounters are fought and map movement and control is used.

So other than halo CE to Halo 2, there has been plenty of innovation in halo games.

Though this is mostly multiplayer I'm talking about, single player didn't change at all really.

 

[E rac]

Halo CE to Halo 2: Nothing new. You're right about that for sure.

This is the sort of statement that drives me crazy. I find that a major 'innovation' occurred between CE and 2, the health system. Unfortunately, this has since essentially ruined the shooter genre in general.

Though this is mostly multiplayer I'm talking about, single player didn't change at all really.

You're saying they were all linear slogfests? If you think that CE was linear, play it again. The best example I can give off the top of my head is Silent Cartographer. It gives you the ability, if you want, to get a warthog anywhere, including inside the installation. How you go about the missions is up to you. In Halo 2 onwards it boils down to Canyon, Clearing, Canyon, Illogical forerunner installation with linear path (Mombassa fits in this), Clearing, Ooh ship with everything locked, Canyon. You can't get much more linear than that without playing the Linear RPG (Great game, far superior to any Halo besides CE). Not innovation, but it is change.


In conclusion, The only innovation that any of the Halo sequels brought to the table was the health system, which has actually hurt the shooter genre(It has made the market stronger since the games are seen as being easier to pick up. Remember: if you are getting shot in real life, sitting behind a box for two seconds is better then patching up your wounds with a medkit.) Forge is NOT an innovation as it has existed for many years (Anyone ever heard of Cube?)
/AngryRant

Halo CE was not generic when it was released, and still isn't. The rest of the series is very generic and, frankly, quite poor.

 

[Kurokami]

..first one was neat. Bungee had made Oni and that underwater on the rails shooter in the same look before, but Halo was a good game. Vehicles and co-op and all that - great title.

..Halo 2 was generic as sawdust four minutes in, though.

This.

I enjoyed the first, cared very little for anything that followed.

 

[HuntrRose]

it's generic in the same way that a rifle is a weapon.

that doesn't mean it's bad, just not great, one of many. It uses the same formula as all the others and doesn't stand out from the crowd.

 

[Ildecia]

what does it do to innovate?

more colorful enemies and environments?

it's still the same-y bang-bang-bang, but with Lasers and aliens.

So you're saying that it's not an innovative FPS because it uses guns? You do see what's wrong with that, don't you?

OT: People tend to forget that Halo has a quite a few features that set it apart from other shooters. Forge, The Theater, and a persistent community that constantly keeps track of the best customized gametypes and maps out there, all add up for a more or less endlessly repayable game.(Keep in mind that these features don't belong to any other shooters out there, bar Far Cry and, recently Black Ops, featuring map editors and a theater mode respectively.)

Of course, while these features are innovative, the core gameplay isn't. It's barley changed in the past decade or so. Of course, I think the formula has aged favorably when compared to the deluge of modern warfare shooters out there, but that's just me. I certainly won't blame you if you want a little more depth to the core gameplay of your shooters then Halo offers.

ok.

ok.

don't get butt-hurt man. What did my post say? "what does it innovate?" and you answered it. thank you for answering my question. chill.

 

[MrDumpkins]

Halo CE to Halo 2: Nothing new. You're right about that for sure.

This is the sort of statement that drives me crazy. I find that a major 'innovation' occurred between CE and 2, the health system. Unfortunately, this has since essentially ruined the shooter genre in general.

Though this is mostly multiplayer I'm talking about, single player didn't change at all really.

You're saying they were all linear slogfests? If you think that CE was linear, play it again. The best example I can give off the top of my head is Silent Cartographer. It gives you the ability, if you want, to get a warthog anywhere, including inside the installation. How you go about the missions is up to you. In Halo 2 onwards it boils down to Canyon, Clearing, Canyon, Illogical forerunner installation with linear path (Mombassa fits in this), Clearing, Ooh ship with everything locked, Canyon. You can't get much more linear than that without playing the Linear RPG (Great game, far superior to any Halo besides CE). Not innovation, but it is change.


In conclusion, The only innovation that any of the Halo sequels brought to the table was the health system, which has actually hurt the shooter genre(It has made the market stronger since the games are seen as being easier to pick up. Remember: if you are getting shot in real life, sitting behind a box for two seconds is better then patching up your wounds with a medkit.) Forge is NOT an innovation as it has existed for many years (Anyone ever heard of Cube?)
/AngryRant

Halo CE was not generic when it was released, and still isn't. The rest of the series is very generic and, frankly, quite poor.

You're right, I totally forgot about the innovation of the health system, for better or worse

And I'm not saying it's a linear slugfest, it's got about as much variety as other games, I would say that the silent cartographer was more the exception than the norm though, most of the other times the game has been pretty linear, though I'm not saying I didn't like it, I just don't feel that the game is worth 60 dollars for the campaign alone.

 

[Eumersian]

I always thought Halo was maybe not as much generic as perhaps simplistic. When I played it, it was definitely cool. Halo was the first FPS I ever played that featured large open spaces, and I always enjoyed looking at the environments, or at least most of them. Halo 1 certainly breathed a new life into the genre by adding these things. Halos 2 and 3 also had their moments, but not as many. They can be treated as "generic" by the definition you gave in the OP. It's like, Halos 2 and 3 were "generic" to Halo 1, where Halo 1 was radically different, and Halos 2 and 3 bloke the mold much less than Halo 1 did, making them more "generic" in regards to Halo 1.

I've never thought that being generic is a bad thing absolutely. For example, take the Legend of Zelda. Hell, even include Starfox Adventures for a little extra flavor. Every full 3d Legend of Zelda game plays almost exactly the same, with the exception of Twilight Princess. But even in Twilight Princess, the overall model is relatively unchanged. Starfox Adventures had also basically modeled itself off of this type of game, which is why some people didn't like it. But I think of it like "it doesn't matter if still plays well" or something. Those games I've found to be rather generic, but the basic model of that type of game is really fun to play. This means that it doesn't matter to me if they are basically the same game, since they're fun to play regardless.

 

[Mortrialus]

I'm willing to give a pass to the original Halo game because it was actually innovative with its combat to an extent.

What almost no one remembers from back in the day is that Halo streamlined and unconvoluted combat by a good margin. In almost FPS before it, using a melee weapon or grenade required switching weapons to use them and healing still did the whole medic kit thing. Yes there were other games that did that but none of them brought them all in at once.

Anyway I'm not a big fan of FPSs but Halo doesn't deserve the railing it gets for being generic. That said I'm not going to comment on the other games in the series.