Poll: Is Halo a generic shooter?

[tlozoot]

I actually voted "no it's innovative" for a laugh expecting mine to be the only vote. Well I am appalled. Tried to play that new Reach thing. Jesus. Christ. Even with a few drunk mates on co-op we couldn't bear more than 15 minutes of that game. Over and over the same thing same formula. Argh. Bored just thinking about it.

What would that same formulae be that was repeated for 15 minutes, out of interest?

Personally I found Reach's campaign successful in mixing up the combat scenarios.

 

[teebeeohh]

halo is generic console shooter the same way wolfenstein(the original, mind you) is generic, it basically was the first of it's time so everything that came after it just borrowed heavily, and halo failed to reinvent itself over the last ten years. The best thing that can be said about halo is that it's not 3rd person or cover based

 

[Acidwell]

You need an "Other" option.
OT: If you are purely talking about Halo 1 then no it isn't, it had quite a few new ideas in it and a very good multiplayer, the only thing the second improved on was the multiplayer and since the second one one it has become very very generic.

 

[Grey_Focks]

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

A different opinion ofcourse, but more importantly, how the hell do you have almost five thousand posts after just joining in june? that's a thousand posts per month! I don't know whether to be impressed or afraid.

OT: It depends on your definition of generic. Technically anything that can be categorized under a genre is generic, but that really doesn't seem to be how all of you are judging. You guys all seem to be using it in the slang way, which would mean cheap, plain, or undesirable. By THAT definition, no, it is obviously not. It's at this point that I guess all of you have your own definition for the word "Generic" or you aren't exactly sure what Halo is.

You all seem to be using it as a synonym for "samey", if I had to guess. By THAT definition, I would also say no it isn't. I mean in terms of modern day shooters, how many are really like Halo? Now if you were to ask is Battlefield of Honor: Modern Warfare 2 "generic"...that's a whole different story.

EDIT- actually, most of you just seem to be answering the question "Is Halo a good game?" and that really is entirely in the eye of the beholder. In my opinion yes it is, but that really has nothing to do with how generic it is or isn't.

 

[mokachill]

its generic because its genre defining... it changed the FPS like nothing since and (to my knowledge, i'm a relatively young gamer) nothing before it. that said... its probably one of my most hated series (don't ask me to make that make sense, i cannot do it)

 

[TelHybrid]

Halo seems to stick to a formula that many find enjoyable. It deviates somewhat from the set norm in some areas, but plays it safe as a series. The first Halo started off a new set standardm with the prospect of being limited to 2 weapons, regenerating health, and the control scheme. It was more adaptable for consoles than most shooters around at the time, and felt easier to pick up. Some could argue that it casualised the genre somewhat.

These days most shooters seem to mimic this set standard, even the popular Call of Duty series. Before, shooters allowed players to carry multiple weapons, and made use of health bars. Nowadays most use the 2-weapon regenerating health system, even PC shooters.

Before Halo, FPS territory was mostly PC based (bar some exceptions such as Goldeneye and Perfect Dark), and console itterations were somewhat overlooked.

Halo makes changes to its system in some subtle ways, Halo 2 bringing online to the series, and increasing the popularity of console online gaming, as well as introducing dual wielding, Halo 3 bringing items such as bubble shields, changeable match types, forge, Halo 3 ODST didn't really add much apart from firefight, which mimiced Gears of War's horde mode, Halo Reach took a step back somewha by introducing the class system, though through these classes they brought new abilities such as the jetpack.

The differences between the Halo series and other game series are subtle, some of the 'innovations' have been brought to us by other series, it could be argued that it's a generic series, but its impact on the genre, even if it's just through its sheer popularity, is rather abundant.

 

[Chechosaurus]

I suppose something that effectively created its own strand of an entire genre could be could generic... Fact of the matter is, Halo isn't really a clone of anything that preceded it but rather a template for a lot of things that came after it. I personally can't think of many shooters that follow a Halo style at all. a brightly coloured super-solider fighting jet-packing dinosaurs in space is hardly generic.

 

[Dastardly]

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?

It is innovative in that a dish that uses exotic vegetables with rice is different from a dish that uses meat with rice. It is "generic" in that it is still a rice-based dish. Halo added some interesting and different details, but it did add them to a particularly well-formed mold. It did have a somewhat stronger narrative than other FPS games at the time, but that isn't necessarily innovation.

 

[Assassin Xaero]

I once asked someone why Halo was so great, and everything he named was from Quake II. So yes, Halo is generic in my eyes.

 

[Flame Sama]

I don't understand how other games copying Halo makes Halo the generic one. Is it generic in a lot of aspects? Yes. The story for example-very terrible. But the Forge mode and the multiplayer change up enough to keep it interesting-I don't see how you can play Halo CE, then Halo 3, and then Halo 2, and then Halo Reach and not miss a beat, they all play extremely different, coming from someone with over ten thousand games played online between 3 and Reach...

ODST was a fart, nothing more should really be said about it. It's the St. Anger of Halo games as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Legendsmith]

Two weapon capacity. The melee button. And, yes, regenerating health.

The "grenade" button was also pioneered by Halo. Previously, you had to switch to a seperate weapon to throw grenades, just like you had to switch to melee weapons.

Vehicles that you could enter, drive and leave at will had not been done before - vehicle sections were precisely that; vehicle sections.

Such expansive, outdoor areas with multiple methods for approaching your target had not been done before.

And also, as you pointed out, two weapons, melee button and regenerating health.

Halo really did lead the way in its time.

Try and look up Starsiege: Tribes, a game released 3 years before Halo Combat Evolved. Or Tibes2 released the same year as Halo Combat Evolved.

Vehicles that you could enter, drive and leave at will - check

expansive, outdoor areas with multiple methods for approaching your target - check

And as far as i remember, you where limited to a 2 weapon + melee + granades setup. main weapon + side arm. altho, it is a long time ago so im only 90% on that one.

that leaves you with a granade button and a health bar modification, not exactly a revolution if you ask me.

Pretty much this. People just don't realise that there were innovative FPS games before Halo.
Example:

 

[josemlopes]

In HALO:CE, the first time you drove the Warthog into the tunnels in the second level, tell me if it was generic? You even had the rest of the ring in the sky to watch.

Also, you had a great variety of scenery, and you had also a good amount of vehicles. In its time generic would be if the game was the first level over and over.

 

[Iwata]

Halo is the very definition of a generic shooter. Does that mean I hate or dislike it? No.

 

[Clockwork Scarecrow.]

I might be a bit biased but bear with me:

When the first one came out it was actually fairly off the rails, largely responsible for the weapon carrying limitation and not having to change weapons to melee and throw grenades. It also had copious amounts of driving which a lot of games didn't have, also the friendly NPCs were useful and reasonably competant.

The second game didn't innovate a lot and kept to the same standards. In my mind the best was getting to play as the Arbiter, it was a big surprise and something I genuinely enjoyed, partly because I theorized that he and the Chief would go toe to toe against each other. The friendly AI was a bit better and you could give them more effective weapons, which made things more interesting when you could "build" a tailor-made squad.

Halo 3 didn't do much different but it's just so fucking fun.

ODST was different, it was darker, at night-time anyway, and reasonably difficult to the extent that some minor skirmishes could feel like desperate pitched battles.

Reach, like Halo 3 didn't do much different, but again it's just good old fun.

I don't mind if it's generic, as long as I enjoy it.

 

[josemlopes]

Two weapon capacity. The melee button. And, yes, regenerating health.

The "grenade" button was also pioneered by Halo. Previously, you had to switch to a seperate weapon to throw grenades, just like you had to switch to melee weapons.

Vehicles that you could enter, drive and leave at will had not been done before - vehicle sections were precisely that; vehicle sections.

Such expansive, outdoor areas with multiple methods for approaching your target had not been done before.

And also, as you pointed out, two weapons, melee button and regenerating health.

Halo really did lead the way in its time.

Try and look up Starsiege: Tribes, a game released 3 years before Halo Combat Evolved. Or Tibes2 released the same year as Halo Combat Evolved.

Vehicles that you could enter, drive and leave at will - check

expansive, outdoor areas with multiple methods for approaching your target - check

And as far as i remember, you where limited to a 2 weapon + melee + granades setup. main weapon + side arm. altho, it is a long time ago so im only 90% on that one.

that leaves you with a granade button and a health bar modification, not exactly a revolution if you ask me.

But was Starsiege generic? Hell no, so just because some features are present in both games that means that the one that came out later is the most generic thing on earth.

No, generic is when there is just too much of something to call it new. Like the last Medal of Honor. They could avoid being generic if they decided to keep WW2, since now no one does WW2 games. I serioulsy dont understand why the hell they made MOH in the present.

 

[Wintermoot]

storie wise? yes
gameplay wise FUCK NO
how much does the fanbase care about the story? not a flying carp, in other words another generic shooter #707