Is this true open world?

Games Halo Infinite
1

One thing 343i have avoided like the plague in their marketing is the term open world. They have mentioned open or sandbox but never open world specifically, possibly knowing that that label carries certain connotations. In fact, unless I’m mistaken, Joe Staten said himself (I think it was in one of the Inside Infinite blog posts) that we should not think of Infinite as a true open world game, but more so a sandbox shooter. As to what exactly that means, your guess is as good as mine.

From I’ve been able to gather, there is still a lot of confusion about what this game, as a whole, is going to be. Those that want Halo to fully embrace open world design have already decided that it’s going to be an open world game ahead of time, while those that don’t necessarily care for it are worried about to what degree that’s true.

My assumption thus far has been that Infinite resembles something more akin to an “open world lite” type of thing, where it borrows certain elements from open world games but it does not emphasize them or depend on them to the same degree as, for example, Ubisoft games do.

You can notice a similar thing with the minor RPG elements we’ve seen from the latest campaign reveal. There are options to upgrade Chief’s equipment which are tied to doing the side-objectives, but it doesn’t seem to be as involved or expansive as it would be in proper RPG’s, kind of like how the new DOOM games handled their progression systems, to the degree that unlocking abilities feels natural and organic, not grindy. Also, I’ve heard many people assume that Infinite is just going to have one big map instead of being segregated into large levels or hubs (which I’m leaning towards).

If my assumptions are correct, Infinite is trying to fill a space between linear shooter and open world RPG. This could either come off as a lazy attempt to cater to multiple audiences or it might actually successfully fill that new niche depending on execution. Question is, WOULD a sandbox driven formula like we’ve experienced in the flights FIT this style of design? I think the answer to that question currently is not so much the sandbox (because we know it’s pretty good), but meaningful enemy interaction. The biggest problem with Far Cry games I think is precisely the lack of good enemy design, leading to games in which you are supposed to fight a huge number of times during the course of the game, but every engagement feels practically the same and uninteresting despite having many different kinds of weapons and tools at your disposal. In the latest Inside Infinite, the enemy design team outlined the need for distinct enemy classes, each of which would behave differently and require different approaches to take down efficiently. This definitely harkens back to the classic trilogy’s philosophy, the chess-like design of the AI.

Another aspect I’m particularly interested in is how each of these engagements are going to be spread throughout the campaign. In classical linear game design, each interaction is built to be unique, meaning the game always has some new scenario or arrangement to throw at you for the entire duration of the game (I believe classic Halo encapsulates this, as well as other shooters like Half Life and Resident Evil 4). For example, the Silent Cartographer feels distinct from Assault on the Control Room, Assault on the Control Room feels distinct from 343 Guilty Spark, etc. and it gives the impression that you really are progressing through a journey, discovering new things as you go. This has to do with more than just enemy variety. It’s got to do with pacing, level layout, aesthetics, music, and so on. Will Infinite be able to pull that off with the kind of open sandbox design it’s going for, or will it feel mostly the same through what I’m guessing is going to be the longest campaign yet?

RPG elements and side objectives are not a convincing way of giving the impression of progression by themselves. It depends precisely on the same principles I talked about in the previous paragraph. IS unlocking the shock-grapple worth the effort I have to go through clearing outposts? ARE the outposts themselves all laid out in such a way that they each feel unique? How many side objectives are there? If there are many and they each feel similar, that might lead to the sensation of repetitiveness. Hopefully, 343i have asked themselves the same questions while designing Infinite’s campaign.

2

I was saying this in another thread: 343i doesn’t want to call it “open world” because of (some rather weird) things they associate with the term. That’s the only reason I can see why they’re not calling Halo Infinite “open world”. But I think the final section of the February Inside Infinite makes it pretty clear that the game is open world. It tells us that “Infinite’s world [notice the singular] is incredibly large, and its vast combat zones connect seamlessly to each other”, that “you have more freedom than ever before to choose your path through the world” and you can “fly to a floating ring fragment across a gap of stars”, and “your journey between story missions is entirely up to you”. And of course that “it’s the most open […] Halo game ever.”

So, we have the most open Halo game with a seamless world where you have the freedom to choose your path between story missions. By 343i’s description, the game has a seamless open world. So, unless they have a very unusual understanding of the world “seamless”, an open world game is exactly what is being described here.

3

I just think of it as a bigger version of ODST with some more freedom/choices involved.

4

I find it amusing that people keep comparing it to Ubisoft titles, SP will be much much smaller than recent Ubi games. It’ll feel like ODST times 2 in terms of size/scale.

5

What I was thinking “flexible, but linear missions” and I know the bloggers love to take clips of information and just run with it, but I think back to what CE was supposed to be.

On the flipside, like others have said studios like Ubisoft and Rockstar have made these pretty garbage “open world” missions, where it’s the same thing pasted in different areas of a map. So I’m intrigued to see how roaming around Zeta works, etc.

6

> 2533274825830455;2:
> It tells us that “Infinite’s world [notice the singular] is incredibly large, and its vast combat zones connect seamlessly to each other”, that “you have more freedom than ever before to choose your path through the world” and you can “fly to a floating ring fragment across a gap of stars”, and “your journey between story missions is entirely up to you”. And of course that “it’s the most open […] Halo game ever.”

Those statements are still pretty vague. The world being referenced as singular doesn’t necessarily indicate a single map, but if it did, these combat zones could still be separate and distinct from one another (and perhaps become progressively more so), we might just get to go to them without some type of loading screen or hard transition, like with the Pelican.

Most open world games incorporate some type of formulaic, repetitive style of design and grinding for resources to fill the vast amount of space and pad out the playtime - that’s what a lot of people associate open world with because that’s the kind of design open worlds normally come with. My question is to what degree that’s the case with Infinite.

7

I’m really hoping it’s more like ODST where you have an “open world” hub to find secrets and do side objectives, but the actual story missions are linear, cinematic, hand-made creations that really sell the emotional side of the story. IMO, since ODST was a dlc game, I felt it wasn’t given the time and effort to properly explore it’s most unique feature (a feature that it spearheaded for Halo). I just don’t want 343 thinking, “Well ODST did this, and not everyone liked it so we’re gonna something waaaay different,” even ODST wasn’t perfected. And when I say “linear”, I don’t mean railroad-y levels like H4’s Reclaimer where it just feels like you’re watching the game, but levels like Tsavo Highway, where you have an obvious path to follow, but you can get creative with how you want to follow it.

I’ll admit that there’s a weird vagueness around some the campaign details, but that could be 343 just not wanting to spoil too much.

8

> 2533274825830455;2:
> I was saying this in another thread: 343i doesn’t want to call it “open world” because of (some rather weird) things they associate with the term. That’s the only reason I can see why they’re not calling Halo Infinite “open world”. But I think the final section of the February Inside Infinite makes it pretty clear that the game is open world. It tells us that “Infinite’s world [notice the singular] is incredibly large, and its vast combat zones connect seamlessly to each other”, that “you have more freedom than ever before to choose your path through the world” and you can “fly to a floating ring fragment across a gap of stars”, and “your journey between story missions is entirely up to you”. And of course that “it’s the most open […] Halo game ever.”
>
> So, we have the most open Halo game with a seamless world where you have the freedom to choose your path between story missions. By 343i’s description, the game has a seamless open world. So, unless they have a very unusual understanding of the world “seamless”, an open world game is exactly what is being described here.

AWESOME, can’t wait to play

9

I’m hoping it is a really huge open world even if it’s exploring a massive forest with lakes and rivers and unknown forerunner structures with more underground structures with no ßanished being in certain areas would be awsome.

10

> 2535419393377481;6:
> Those statements are still pretty vague. The world being referenced as singular doesn’t necessarily indicate a single map, but if it did, these combat zones could still be separate and distinct from one another (and perhaps become progressively more so), we might just get to go to them without some type of loading screen or hard transition, like with the Pelican.

How do you understand the word “seamless”? If I can’t walk from zone A to zone B, describing them as “seamless” is just false advertising to me. I wouldn’t want to think 343i would be falsely advertising the game.

> 2535419393377481;6:
> Most open world games incorporate some type of formulaic, repetitive style of design and grinding for resources to fill the vast amount of space and pad out the playtime - that’s what a lot of people associate open world with because that’s the kind of design open worlds normally come with. My question is to what degree that’s the case with Infinite.

But that’s not what an open world game is. Like this is my issue with 343i not wanting to call the game “open world”. They don’t do it because they associate things with it that have nothing to do with being “open world”. Any game that primarily takes place on a single large level is open world. Heck, it doesn’t even have to be a single level. Borderlands has individual smaller levels divided by hard loading zones, but it’s open world game, because you can freely and nonlinearly travel back and forth between each of them. It’s that idea of being freely able to move between areas of the game world in a completely nonlinear fashion, no matter how it’s divided up, that is at the heart of “open world”.

11

I have a feeling it will be like Mass Effect. You have a map where you can travel around but you can’t exactly go from A to Z, you need to move through hubs and gradually move into other ‘areas’.

12

> 2533274825830455;10:
> > 2535419393377481;6:
> >
>
> How do you understand the word “seamless”? If I can’t walk from zone A to zone B, describing them as “seamless” is just false advertising to me. I wouldn’t want to think 343i would be falsely advertising the game.

Seamless could mean seamless transition. Otherwise, what would be the point of saying that it’s seamless? It could mean the existence of separate zones but that transitioning between them is somehow seamless, or it might not mean that at all. That’s why it all seems inconclusive to me.

> 2533274825830455;10:
> But that’s not what an open world game is. Like this is my issue with 343i not wanting to call the game “open world”. They don’t do it because they associate things with it that have nothing to do with being “open world”. Any game that primarily takes place on a single large level is open world. Heck, it doesn’t even have to be a single level. Borderlands has individual smaller levels divided by hard loading zones, but it’s open world game, because you can freely and nonlinearly travel back and forth between each of them. It’s that idea of being freely able to move between areas of the game world in a completely nonlinear fashion, no matter how it’s divided up, that is at the heart of “open world”.

It’s probably because they don’t want to give people false expectations. In some sense, open world has become a genre onto itself, so using it as a technical descriptor might not work the way it’s intended. There are some who would argue that something like Borderlands is not a “true” open world for that reason. It’s also why BL, and games like it, are never specifically advertised as open world even though you could make the case that they technically are.

Technicalities aside, sandbox shooter seems to be their preferred term which leads me to believe that Infinite somehow deviates from that mainstream idea. Even if the deviations are subtle, they could make a difference. Marketing can be especially -Yoink- about these things.