Poll: Is Halo a generic shooter?

[Celtic_Kerr]

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?

I think Halo has BECOME the generic shooter than simply being one. Recharging health, dual analog control, dual wielding with multiple weapons (only in 2 & 3)... Halo was there during a rather innovative area in FPS games, so it's rather easy to see a little bit of Halo in this, or a little bit of halo in that.

I mean, if you look at "007 Bloodstone" you have sticking to walls, take downs, 3rd person shooting, and cheap shots Focus Kills. It's a completely different game.

But in terms of your gun-run, non-cover-based shooter, Halo has beome the generic shooter

 

[ecoho]

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?

I think Halo has BECOME the generic shooter than simply being one. Recharging health, dual analog control, dual wielding with multiple weapons (only in 2 & 3)... Halo was there during a rather innovative area in FPS games, so it's rather easy to see a little bit of Halo in this, or a little bit of halo in that.

I mean, if you look at "007 Bloodstone" you have sticking to walls, take downs, 3rd person shooting, and cheap shots[/stirke] Focus Kills. It's a completely different game.

But in terms of your gun-run, non-cover-based shooter, Halo has beome the generic shooter

Yes but you forgot it was pretty much the first online console FPS. Other wise i compleatly agree with you

 

[Bigeyez]

Well seeing as how every other shooter that came out immediately after Halo tried to copy Halo then yes at one point it became "generic" in the sense that eveyr other shooter out there was doing the same things it did. It's major failing is that it didn't innovate enough after that happened so it now gets called generic even though it was the originator of the modern XBL era FPS...Although in Halo's defense thank god it is still a really colorful game and hasn't gone all brownish like most shooters these days.

 

[ryai458]

Halo invented the generic bland shooter and never changed, doesn't mean I haven't played and enjoyed it.

 

[Arkley]

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.

I'd genuinely forgotten about the vehicles in Tribes and I'll give you that - I was wrong about the vehicles. But I've played both Tribes and Tribes 2 - the "wide open outdoor areas" in those games are simply not present in the scale you attest to.

Now, let's suppose for a second that they are present in that form. Let's just say for a moment that I agree with you - Tribes did wide open areas with multiple approaches first in a manner equal to or greater than Halo's.

That does not just leave "a grenade button and a slight modification to the health bar". I appreciate a debate with someone who holds an opposing viewpoint, but your attempt to strawman my side of the discussion is ridiculous and lends nothing to your argument but ignorance. What it "leaves" is:

A dedicated grenade button
A dedicated melee button
Two weapon capacity
Regenerating health

Now, let's toss aside two weapon capacity and regenhealth for a second, because those are heavily divisive features. No one can argue their prevalence and impact, but they're not universally approved of, so we'll just pretend for a moment that they don't matter.

That leaves dedicated grenade and melee buttons.

Do you not understand just how revolutionary those two features alone are? FPS before Halo featured grenades and melee that you had to switch to. Hell, many FPS titles didn't even feature grenades. They just weren't worth having. The grenade button alone in Halo changed FPS forever, particularly FPS multiplayer. It created so many more options and strategies and removed a lot of fumbling.

The same goes for the melee button. It seems like such an arbitrary addition, but the impact of not having to switch weapons in order to whack an enemy who got to close is exceptional.

There's a reason these two features have made it into every FPS ever since Halo:CE. It's because they were brilliant, effective, game changing and innovative design choices that add so much more strategy with such simple additions.

Honestly, if you just want to rag on Halo, rag on the fact that it hasn't done anything worth a damn since Halo:CE. But don't pretend that Halo:CE wasn't the father of modern console FPS, because that's just inaccurate.

Oh, and to the guy who posted the pics of dual-weilding in earlier games:
That's not what we mean when we say "Two weapon capacity". We mean the fact that you can only carry two weapons at once, not that you can use two at the same time.

 

[Agrael]

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*

Battlefield is Generic ? In what way - please explain .

 

[XT inc]

Balancing issues aside what more do you people want from a friggin fps. You got your array of guns, A huge game, A more free flow multiplayer than just some hallways and people camping above you. A map editor that lets you now fuze objects to make whole structures, A customization system that is there if you want it and not if you don't. Whether general or recruit you are on the same ground not getting killed because someone who plays vastly more than you has akimbo rangers with tier 2 perks and kill streaks.

Theater mode, just as a thing that is there is amazing for the creative community. At the end of the day it is the mold these new games are made of, hell if you don't copy what Halo 3 and reach did you are pretty much going to burn for it. Its lego fps, you build and set up the game the way you want it to be, User friendly to the nines like I said "what more do you people want"

 

[GeneticallyModifiedDucks]

Generic? Yes. Brown? No. It uses a lot more more colors than the average shooter and the art style is appealling. More people need to realise that "brown shooter" actually means a shooter than is, well, brown.

 

[WorldCritic]

It wasn't generic originally, but by the time the third game came out, the Halo style of FPS was the established norm, thus making Halo a generic shooter.

 

[The Cheezy One]

It established generic. Which might be good or bad. Like inventing marmite.

 

[PleasantKenobi]

There are two things in this thread that make me sick with anger.
Firstly, the fact that so few people seem to grasp what genre actually equates to. It is a way of classifying something. It does not make a text, whether it be video game, movie or novel bad if it fits within a respective genre.

On top this, Genre in other mediums of entertainment and art focus upon things such as themes and narrative, yet we seem to be horrendously bogged down discussing gameplay mechanics in this forum.

This leads on to the second thing that I absolutely despise. The reiteration of a previous person?s argument, just for the sake of putting a post in on a subject, is absolutely retarded. This thread even has a fucking poll at the beginning for you to notch up your opinion for a cumulative total, no need to post what someone else has already stated. Read the thread before putting your in your contribution?

And now for what I would like to say: leading on from my first point, Halo should be considered in terms of narrative conventions, as well as gameplay, when considering its genre, and whether it is ?generic?. The whole super-marine fighting alien?s is not original, no. But the framing of the initial Halo?s story within the tragic heroism of trying to keep the co-ordinates of Earth out of covenant hands is interesting, do you not think? How about the ?ultimate weapon? of some extinct race being a form of space zombies? I am, for one, an avid hater of gameplay sections related to The Flood, but from a narrative perspective they are pretty cool. Do you see what I mean about the game being unconventional in other areas of what defines a genre?

And then lets discuss one of my pet opinions here. One gentleman stated, and I quote:

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.

ODST had a weak feature set, but the single player experience was possibly the best of the series. The leanings towards a noir aesthetic, in visual presentation, setting and music really made the game stand out to me. The fractured narrative showing the action through flashbacks also really helped to make the game a step above other Halo titles in at least originality of presentation. So let us give credit where credit is due, ODST had some really good writing, and it makes me wonder why the rest of the games aren?t so interestingly written.

And for the record, I like St. Anger too.

 

[The Rockerfly]

What other game has forge and theatre mode

I rest my case

 

[The Ambrosian]

There should be a "It's kinda generic, but it's still executed very well, so it doesn't really matter" kind of option, because that's how I feel.

EDIT: I MISSED MY 500TH POST FUUUUUU D:

 

[TitanAtlas]

Halo is kinda generic it doesnt possess anything new and it surely didnt revolucionized FPS industry has we know it.

It inserted some different aspects yes (jumping like hell, and shield regeneration), but beyond that its has common has they come.

The first one was interesting tough, had a neat story to it, and loads of delicious easter eggs for people to find, but beyonf that it just got over-hyped (i have to say Halo2, 3 and ODST dont ring any bells). I admit tough Halo Reach was goddam awsome...

What halo has that got it so much populorized it was the multiplayer, heck theres people that never even played the single player, and went straight to the multiplayer fun.

At the time tough the only big difference Halo had from other games is that it was set in space, and fighting aliens... so yeah halo is has ordinary has they come...

 

[The Funslinger]

Halo was one of the first fps games to have a "just a couple of grenades and two weapons only and you heal over time" fps games since then owe at least that to halo. If you had to list the top five most successful fps series of the last few years, halo and CoD would definitely be in there. Most of these pertain to the usual military shooters, where as halo is one of the handful of VERY successful sci-fi fps games. The load out systen in reach definitely helped add something new.

All in all, I would say halo pertains to the genre in most of the ways a good fps must, but it isn't just another generic shooter. Not by a long shot.

 

[Sjakie]

Yes, Halo is as generic as they come.
When CE came out nothing about it was innovative. Everything in it had been done before in other (PC) FPS. Yet, it was a pretty good shooter. Same with all the games in the series.
At the time, lots of other shoothers where still quite colorfull. The rise of military FPS games around the same time, made everything "brown". A trend that Halo did not follow, which is a nice touch.

 

[thedoclc]

Halo is the Seinfeld of FPSes; after shocking the entire genre, it's been imitated so much that it's been displaced and nowadays seems quaint and generic only because everyone followed in its footsteps.

Edit: After seeing Trinity on my badges, it's The Matrix of FPSes. If you hadn't seen the Matrix when it came out and watched it now, it'd be awfully hard to understand why audiences were so shocked when it was first released. It really was (one of the?) first Hollywood smash hits featuring Western themes, Hong Kong wire-fu, and that definitive technopop style.

 

[GeorgW]

It all depends on what you mean by generic. I think it's quite generic, but it also helped establish the norm, so that's to be expected.

 

[Human_Sacrifice]

Of course it has colour. A black-and-white shooter would be pointless, you'd shoot your teammates.

 

[Vrex360]

I also get sick of hearing the 'Halo is generic' line, because really when you look at what the standard shooters of gaming look like, it actually kind of stands out.
Sure, certain aspects of the game have been copied for others but let me tell you, nothing but Halo will ever feel like Halo.
Hearing the grunts quip while I blast away in the brightly colored environments with a gun that shoots pink blasts of death is an experience better than any other 'total realism' shooter out there.

Yes other shooters have a quick button for melee attacks, but how many of them let you do this with a giant hammer? Yes there have been rebounding health meters, but at the same time without the element of an energy shield, what contextual sense does it make?
Point is, even though other games have copied the formula, Halo remains feeling like Halo. I never get flashbacks to Halo playing any other FPS.
Combination of music, ambiance and familiar sounds and visuals help remind me that I am playing a Halo game.

I literally only need to see one in game screenshot to instantly think to myself:
"Yep, that's Halo alright."

Even games like Reach and ODST where the presentation is notably different, retain that feeling. I mean when you see the MA5c Assault Rifle with the little readout saying '60' you know that this is Halo, not Call of Duty, not Medal of Honor, not Half Life... it's Halo.
I see the green sphere of the Jackal shield or the awe and mightiness of the Elite in screenshot, dead giveaway.

In fact as easy as it is to recognize Halo just from looking at a few screenshots. I literally have difficulty telling the Call of Duty games and the Medal of Honor games apart. Especially these new ones set in the modern times, sameish weapons, sameish enemies and similar look in graphics.
Point is, if someone showed me a screen shot from say, COD Black Ops and a screenshot from Medal of Honor (the new one) I probably wouldn't be able to tell them apart. If I wasn't told, I wouldn't know it.

And yet, give me a Halo screen shot, alongside a Half Life one, a Quake one and any number of sci-fi shooters, I'll pick out Halo in an instant. It's immediately recognizable, as is its protagonist. And so in some respects, what with being able to spot a Halo screenshot without any problem, I certainly don't think it's 'generic' and certainly not 'brown'.

So no if you ask me, the game isn't generic. True in terms of design it isn't the most original, but still there's a lot of great stuff to be had and a lot of fun times I've had playing it. So while there are similarities, nothing will ever feel quite like it.

So as far as I'm concerned, Halo will never be generic. Not for me anyway.