Hear me out.
I think the base gameplay looks fun and as long as it’s fun I’m not too bothered about the graphics.
(Disclaimer: This is my opinion, if you love open world games all power to you.)
Open world sounds great on paper “wow I can explore the entire ring?” Etc… but I feel like halo, especially with its gameplay works best with a linear style to the campaign.
If they manage to make each mission as action packed and focused as previous games then hats off to them but unless each mission area is as crafted and well thought out as their linear counterparts I feel like gameplay will suffer.
Looking at the map and seeing things like “marine rescue” makes me feel like there will be many smaller side quests which personally sound very samey and underwhelming.
In terms of progression the last thing I want to do is be forced to do a crap ton of repetitive smaller missions to continue with the story.
Linear campaigns allow you to change environments and set pieces level by level truly making it feel like an epic adventure and what you’re doing is actually meaning something.
E.g: In Reach you go from Visegrad Relay, Dogfighting in Space, Evacuating a Crumbling city.
In 3 you go from Earth to The Ark.
I understand 343 wants to focus on the ring and exploration but unless the explorable areas are extremely diverse and the missions are unique and interesting.
(Not saying there wont be great missions and locations but open world games ground you to the location it’s set in implying less diversity in environments compared to other games)
Lets not forget about LASO, Checkpoints, Mission Specific Playthroughs.
Anyway its only 8 minutes of gameplay and you can probably say all of this speculation from me is stupid as we haven’t seen 95% of the game.
I’m just worried Open World and Halo wont gel as well as people think but we’ll have to wait and see and I seriously hope I eat my words.