4 Is "Halo" Just Geek for "Generic"?

I think I need to preface this post with a quick note, to avoid all the angry hate-mail I'm bound to get for this article. This article is not intended to slam or stick-it to Halo (no pun intended). I do in fact play Halo at multiple friends' houses, and I do find that Halo 3 online multiplayer is far superior to much of the current first-person shooter game market. I also appreciate the fact that Halo 3 is not completely broken, unlike Halo 2 (BXR should not work as an intsta-kill, and mastering glitches should not be the reason someone is better than me at the game- but I digress). Halo 3 is very, very fun to play, especially with friends and online. I was never much of a fan of the campaign at all, actually. I don't think Halo is a bad game, by any means, but I do find it to be a very typical shooter that maybe excelled in its time, but like Goldeneye 007, has been surpassed many times by myriad other games (Call of Duty, Bioshock, Half-Life 2 [Ep. 1 + 2]). With that said, let's dive in.

It seems that Halo has gotten quite the crowd since its inception- for better or for worse. When Halo: Combat Evolved was first announced, the prospect of a gorgeous mainstream first-person shooter coming to Macintosh computers was out-of-this world cool. Naturally, Microsoft followed up the announcement by buying Bungie and leaving Mac users out to dry until much, much later.

The game met with excellent critical appeal and quickly became known as the first functioning first person shooter on a console, the Xbox. Up until Halo's release, games like Half-Life (1), Doom, and Duke Nukem were the more popular games. The issue is, of course, debated- some people think that Goldeneye 007, Perfect Dark 64, and Deus Ex, were the true landmarks, despite their imperfections by today's standards.

First ever screenshot of Halo
from the original keynote presentation

Popular belief is that Halo popularized online play. This is, in fact, untrue- it was not until Halo 2 that Xbox Live was incorporated. Halo: Combat Evolved had only LAN and offline multiplayer. Brilliant HUDs and split-screen action were the key in making this game so fun when playing with other people.

anAside: A year after Halo came out, a "true" successor to Goldeneye 007 came out for the Xbox, Ps2, and Gamecube- Nightfire. For me, this game had exactly what Halo lacked: bots. Halo has no bots. It still doesn't, in its third iteration, either. Word is ODST might have it, but who knows?

The franchise then took off with Halo 2 and it's online component, Halo 3, and Halo Wars. Hype is quite high for the coming Halo 3: ODST and Halo: Reach (the latter maybe incorporating Natal motion control).

Negative criticism (from myself, included) for the series has been mostly around the very poor in-game plot (which was rectified, to some extent, through the book series that elaborates on the story), lack of variety in weaponry, and hardly any use of the [Havoc] physics engine.

Other slammers claim the Halo series is being "milked" for its brand-name, and there will never be an "end" as promised with the announcement of Halo 3 and Reach. Where there's money to be made, Microsoft is there. For that point, I am inclined to agree.

In a quiet revelation, recently, I noticed something on from Game Informer magazine. Just after Halo: Recon was announced, Game Informer did their cover story on it- giving much of the world a first look. Then, in the next issue of GI, after Recon was re-named ODST, an article clipping stated something along the lines of "An Already Generic-sounding Game Gets Even More Generic".

And this all brings me to my point- is Halo the very definition of "generic gaming"? I have always though first-person shooters are incredibly similar and are the embodiment of what non-gamers think of when they think video games. Point, shoot. Move on. Point, shoot.

Halo, of course, takes this to the extreme. I have found it to be a bored, lackadaisical attempt at revolutionizing the gaming industry. I heard one commenter call the sequels the "Madden-update of the FPS genre". The story can't hold a candle to the very worst Star Trek, Babylon 5, Firefly, or Star Wars episodes- and I don't consider the books to be official cannon (I shouldn't have to buy/read a supplement to get my standard storytelling). Weapons are variations on Quake at best, with the only gun they came up with being the Needler until Halo 3. Plasma versions of regular guns do not constitute originality, and gun balancing was pretty much absent in Halo: CE. One could argue that point in Halo 2/3.

Bear in mind that Halo 3 did incorporate some things I liked, that varied up the gameplay (i.e. the bubble shield and gravity hammer). And I did appreciate the three factions in Halo 1 (story-wise) with the Sentinels vs. Flood. Vs. Covenant. But they lost me with all that prophet stuff.

There are instances when FPS games hit a sweet spot, as in Half-Life 2- definitely one of the best games of all time.

Nevertheless, without Halo, we wouldn't have Caboose, Donut, and the whole Red vs. Blue gang. So thank you, Bungie!

Finish the fight. (Not really, though.)

PLEASE reply if you have anything to say on this! Keep it clean and don't just say things to say them. Think it out before you post. I know this is bound to incite some angry sentiments, but read the whole article. Thanks for reading!