Poll: Is Halo a generic shooter?

[tlozoot]

I see a lot of people on these forums bandy around one term: "Another generic, brown shooter."

Quite apart from this being an overused line that lost all trappings of originality and humour it might of originally had, I think it's often misused.

Whenever a discussion of Halo arises I see the criticism "It's just another generic, brown shooter." I find this hard to swallow personally. For one Halo is not brown. Halo is bright and colourful compared to many games of the generation.

Is Halo generic? Of course it is, but not in the derrogatory way people often refer to it as. Generic, after all, simply means as pertaining to a genre. Halo is indeed generic in that it carries the hallmarkrs of the first person shooter genre, but does it deviate from the established traits of the genre enough to be called out as 'generic'?

Firs, what do you think are the established traits of an FPS that must be deviated from for a game to avoid the shame of 'being generic'?

Secondly, do you think Halo has enough elements to deviate from these established points?

Lastly, bearing the above points in mind, do you think Halo is any more 'generic' than any shooter you think isn't? Generic compared to Call of Duty? Medal of Honour? Battlefield? Half Life? Team Fortress?

As a side-discussion, do you think that being generic is actually a bad thing? Is a game that does nothing new, yet does everything very well, not still a good game, despite not doing anything particularly different?

 

[Berserker119]

It might be a bit more generic now, that more franchises have come out, but it's not generic.

 

[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.

 

[katsumoto03]

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

 

[Chappy]

I'm not sure so correct me if I'm wrong but isn't Halo Reach the first game yet that has multiplayer and singleplayer 'Armour abilities' that you can switch out and change and has a unique and better reticle bloom system changing to way you have to fire and time your shots.

I didn't play the first one but Halo 3 did remind me of other shooters I played before however I feel Reach has some new innovations and good stuff in it.

 

[hermes]

No.

Halo was really good and innovative when it was released, almost TEN YEARS AGO. The reason why it looks so generic now is because its was used as a mold for every shooter this side of Modern Warfare.

 

[Veldt Falsetto]

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

Kinda this, but I think that it doesn't do enough to get out of the generic zone. I like how reach added in armour abilities but I don't think it did enough to jump out at anyone. Even games like Haze have something interesting about them, if Halo wanted to be a big shooter that was innovative, it would try something new each title, but then again...no one would like it if it did that.

 

[TomLikesGuitar]

Of course not...

Halo has been overdone, of course, but in no way is it generic.

Anyone who says it is is misinterpreting the very definition of the word.

CoD, CounterStrike, Battlefield, and Medal of Honor are generic shooters.

Hell even a brown game isn't necessarily a generic shooter. Gears was completely brown and was in no way a generic shooter.

Angry stupid people just like to generalize games based on misconceptions and/or bad experiences.

But seriously this thread was a bad idea. *flame shield*

 

[fix-the-spade]

It was pretty generic ten years ago. Now that it's been a decade with no significant innovations...

 

[The Lunatic]

I can't see how anyone could say it isn't.

 

[ZephrC]

When the first Halo came out, nobody tried to claim it was generic. It was an interesting new game. It might not have been completely revolutionary, but it put enough neat little tweaks on all the existing cliches that it was unique and most people found it quite fun.

On the other hand, it hasn't changed much since then, has it?

So overall, if you asked me if say... Halo: Reach were generic, I'd probably agree. It's well made for what it is, but it's also a bit generic. You didn't ask that though. You asked if Halo as a whole was generic, to which I would say no. Halo basically solidified the norms for the genre, and maintaining a bit of consistency throughout a series doesn't make the whole series generic.

That's how I feel about the matter anyway.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

eh if halo is generic of the average of the generic, then i would be a much much bigger shooter fan than i am now. so no i dont believe it is really all that generic.

is it generic in the space marine demi god savior kind of way?

yes of course.

does it use the same basic HUD and controls as most fps's?

why yes of course.

but beyond that, i can't really group it together with too many other things.

 

[Epilepsy]

I'm not sure so correct me if I'm wrong but isn't Halo Reach the first game yet that has multiplayer and singleplayer 'Armour abilities' that you can switch out and change and has a unique and better reticle bloom system changing to way you have to fire and time your shots.

I didn't play the first one but Halo 3 did remind me of other shooters I played before however I feel Reach has some new innovations and good stuff in it.

You are wrong, holy crap you are wrong.

EDIT: No offence.

OT: Halo stands out to me as the ultimate generic title. Not only does it really not do anything different from other games, it doesn't change significantly from game to game... Hell it doesn't even change WITHIN the game. To me, the antonym of "generic" is "innovative", and i doubt anybody has really had a moment while playing Halo when they think "oh man, this [new exciting thing] is really cool, it really is a change of pace from say, shooting the same enemies again and again." (That said, i haven't played ODST, and the detective mode MAY qualify for that statement... if you're a retard.)

 

[Arkley]

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.

 

[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.

 

[TheTim]

you have to think back, In 2001, it was very innovative and helped make the fps genre the most popular in gaming.

 

[Snork Maiden]

As a side-discussion, do you think that being generic is actually a bad thing?

Following on from that, if being generic is bad, should Halo change what it is just to escape that label? Each Halo is different enough that people can fairly readily pick and choose favourites, which is enough for me - I don't feel as though I've wasted my money on any Halo title.

 

[Sixcess]

I can only comment on the single player campaign, having never delved into online multiplayer, and as far as single player is concerned Halo looks good, plays smoothly and has a first class presentation and soundtrack. It's also very very accessible, just pick up and play. It's not hard to see why it's been so successful.

But... although the visuals are polished the only thing more repetitive than the enemies are the environments - especially in the first game. It plays smoothly because the limited weapons, regenerating health and linear level design means there's little to no thought required. It's Doom, only dumbed down and with nicer graphics.

So yes, it is generic, because it delivers exactly what you expect from a shallow shoot 'em up and will never do anything unexpected.