Poll: Is Halo a generic shooter?

[Grounogeos]

Halo is the kind of game that makes every FPS that comes after it "generic."

 

[SnakeCL]

I feel like calling something "generic" is just a cop-out for any sort of discussion.

FPS games have remained relatively unchanged for years, its almost like if you call Halo games "generic" then you're going to have to call every FPS since the original 3d paradigm was invented "generic". Heck, one could man an argument that the "Half-Life" series is generic.

 

[Woodsey]

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

Every? You must be 'avin' a laugh guv.

OT: Yes.

 

[Phlakes]

Halo 1 revolutionized console FPSs and was probably the best of its generation, but 2 and 3 didn't really add anything to the formula, obviously. Reach definitely helped and (along with the others) still provides an experience unique from other games, just not their own series.

So no, it's not generic.

 

[Zhukov]

Uhh... sort of.

Halo: CE was innovative. (Whether its innovations were good or bad is up to you.)

But now those innovations have been copied so many times that they have become the norm. And since the Halo games haven't really changed much over the years, they too have become generic.

...

The only mechanic that has been copied over and over is the regenerating health. I haven't seen anything else from Halo being copied in many games.

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

 

[redisforever]

other games just do what Halo did.

Which is what exactly? Other then the regenerating health there isn't anything Halo did that was entirely new. The online play did not really kick off until Halo 2 so that doesn't really count.

I have been playing shooters ever since the original Doom which was released more then 7 years before Halo 1, and while I did enjoy my time with the game there wasn't anything in the game that I thought was in any way revolutionary. The regenerating health was nice, but it wasn't game changing since you still had health packs.

What makes the Halo fanboys so extremely annoying isn't that they think the game is great, that is just their opinion and they are entitled to it, what makes them annoying are their retarded claims that Halo somehow either invented all of the things seen in the game as if they never even existed prior to the game's release, or that all of the things seen in the game had "never been done well before" which is a giant load of crap.

What I meant is, Halo didn't really invent anything new, but Bungie put everything together into one package, which FPS's now take most things from. I totally agree with what you're saying about the fanboys, but that happens not only with Halo, but almost any series.

 

[TheTaco007]

The problem is that Halo was the thing that kicked off a bunch of generic shooters. It WAS very original, but then everyone started copying it, and now there's a bunch of Halo Clones that we call "generic shooters."

So basically, Halo was original, but became generic because everyone tried to make their own Halo.

 

[sagacious]

Halo is a trend setter. It was different at the time it came out, but It has become generic over time as the rest of the genre catches up to it.

So, yes and no? Anyone who has played Halo can attest to it not being brown (rather colorful, actually as most games don't have blue and or pink explosions) And it is only generic in regards to the slow-moving, two-weapon, regenerating health that it helped to make a Genre standard.

 

[nipsen]

..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.

 

[InsanityBaronOfAtrocity]

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.

 

[Fluse]

The only thing innovative about halo combat evloved was the platform it was released on... Since then its been generec space marine fps all the way.

 

[Arkley]

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.

 

[Fluse]

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.

 

[Not-here-anymore]

It certainly changed the main platform of FPS gaming from PC's to consoles, at least in the eyes of developers and the vast majority of the public.
The regenerating health was new. The melee system was... if not entirely new, at least different (i.e. not a separate weapon), and the 2 weapon thing wasn't something I'd seen pre-Halo.
Is it generic now? Well... Do most FPS's have regenerating health etc... yes. So I suppose that it could be argued that the answer is yes. But it does try to change some things with each instalment (and I'd like to see what other people want from any series when they say it needs more innovation in each iteration), so I would personally be inclined to say it's not generic.
Accusations of generic-ness would have to be backed up with games from which Halo shamelessly steals within the same genre.
Examples:
Medal of Honor (the new one)- generic. Stole everything from CoD, and did it badly.
Army of 2/Kane and Lynch - likewise, but from Gears of War.

Hell, way back when, every FPS had healthpacks, ridiculous movement speeds, and the ability to hold all the weapons in the game, with the rarest most powerful ones being found last and having the least ammo. And they were all referred to as Doom clones. If that's the genre standard, then the two big FPS brands upon which all other FPS's at the moment seem to be based are not generic, and are borderline revolutionary.

I will accept the possibility of there being a bias to my comment based on the fact that I like Halo, as long as others are willing to accept that their opinions on any given subject are not necessarily the only possible viewpoint.

 

[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.