I can understand the complaints people are making but people are comparing the wrong games to one another.
Now that we know Halo Infinite is an open-world game you MUST compare it to open-world games not corridor designed shooters of the past.
No matter what studio creates the game it is impossible to make an open-world game look as impressive as a corridor designed first-person shooter. In the open world, you cannot put the minute detail into every square inch of the corridor that you would an open world.
So, with that comparison, this game is absolutely beautiful and amazing in absolutely every way. Think about it. This game is beyond gorgeous compared to the open-world games that have come out and advertised for next-gen.
For example, AC Valhalla is only running in 4K 30fps while Halo Infinite will be 4K 60fps native. Do you realize how impressive that feat is?!
I am sure what we saw is also not going to be the final product there will be some more work done on the game.
So, relax people 343 has done something special here. We need to celebrate it.
“This game is beyond gorgeous compared to the open-world games that have come out and advertised for next-gen”
You have to be joking, right?
The demo we saw yesterday looks laughably bad compared to many non next gen open world games. Take a look at RDR 2 or Metro Exodus, they look leagues better than Infinite did.
My main gripe is that the demo seemed like it didnt have its lighting complete, kinda like a missing layer and we know based on some post-show interviews that H:I isn’t using ray tracing right now and not till after launch so we might be seeing a version closer to the Xbox one X.
No one was banging the table for an open world Halo. You know why? Because an open world doesn’t really enhance a tactical FPS shooter like Halo. I’ve said it before and will say it again, the overall campaign will suffer as a result of going with an open world approach. I don’t care how you cut it, it’s going to break up the tight, carefully paced campaigns that gave this franchise a lasting legacy (separate from its industry-leading contributions to online MP). Let’s put aside all the usual “sprint” and “clamber” gripes for a moment and think about campaign. There are plenty of critics here that are still believers in this franchise because it means so much to them and they legitimately care about its future. One of the things these same people have been desiring the most is just a solid Halo campaign after the disappointment of H5. I don’t think taking an open world approach accomplishes that at all.
It’s funny you mention AC here, albeit in an entirely different context. I’ve played through the last two AC games (Origins and Odyssey) in full, including all the minor side quests and collectibles (I’m an achievement junkie). You know how mind-numbing and boring all of those were? In most instances it actually felt more like a chore/obligation to get them all done vs. legitimate enhancements to the playing experience.
> 2533274868491585;2:
> “This game is beyond gorgeous compared to the open-world games that have come out and advertised for next-gen”
>
> You have to be joking, right?
>
> The demo we saw yesterday looks laughably bad compared to many non next gen open world games. Take a look at RDR 2 or Metro Exodus, they look leagues better than Infinite did.
Both running at 4K 30fps. That is the give and take. You want 60fps there has to be some give. For what we got I thought it was great. 4k 60fps.
Open world at 4K(could be dynamic res) 60fps is surely impressive, but so is the Series X hardware. Right now, Halo Infinite does not look like a game that takes full advantage of a machine that is four times as powerful as the Xbox One X. It honestly looked like the Xbox One version of the game. The frequent pop in shouldn’t have occured either with GDDR6 + SSD combo, yet it did. Now I’m hearing that raytracing is being patched in after release? A core graphical feature patched in? Sounds like rushed/problematic development at 343 to me.
> 2737009059272856;4:
> “Less is more”
> “Quality over quantity”
>
> No one was banging the table for an open world Halo. You know why? Because an open world doesn’t really enhance a tactical FPS shooter like Halo. I’ve said it before and will say it again, the overall campaign will suffer as a result of going with an open world approach. I don’t care how you cut it, it’s going to break up the tight, carefully paced campaigns that gave this franchise a lasting legacy (separate from its industry-changing contributions to online MP).
>
> It’s funny you mention AC here, albeit in an entirely different context. I’ve played through the last two AC games (Origins and Odyssey) in full, including all the minor side quests and collectibles (I’m an achievement junkie). You know how mind-numbing and boring all of those were? In most instances it actually felt more like a chore/obligation to get them all done vs. legitimate enhancements to the playing experience.
You do bring up a great point. I played through both Origins and Odyssey from beginning to end and agree with everything that you said.
My point is the graphics. For making an open-world game that can run 4K 60fps and still look great has never been done before.
Also, could 343/Microsoft sell 10 million copies of Halo Infinite as an old school corridor shooter with old school multiplayer? I just do not think you could in this day of Battle Royales and games like Apex Legends, and what Call of Duty has changed into.
> 2724945845976881;5:
> > 2533274868491585;2:
> > “This game is beyond gorgeous compared to the open-world games that have come out and advertised for next-gen”
> >
> > You have to be joking, right?
> >
> > The demo we saw yesterday looks laughably bad compared to many non next gen open world games. Take a look at RDR 2 or Metro Exodus, they look leagues better than Infinite did.
>
> Both running at 4K 30fps. That is the give and take. You want 60fps there has to be some give. For what we got I thought it was great. 4k 60fps.
The problem with that is I’m sure 90% of the player base couldn’t care in the slightest about 4k.
I can’t see them using that as an excuse to give us a game that looks worse than some 360 titles.
> 2724945845976881;1:
> I can understand the complaints people are making but people are comparing the wrong games to one another.
>
> Now that we know Halo Infinite is an open-world game you MUST compare it to open-world games not corridor designed shooters of the past.
>
> No matter what studio creates the game it is impossible to make an open-world game look as impressive as a corridor designed first-person shooter. In the open world, you cannot put the minute detail into every square inch of the corridor that you would an open world.
>
> So, with that comparison, this game is absolutely beautiful and amazing in absolutely every way. Think about it. This game is beyond gorgeous compared to the open-world games that have come out and advertised for next-gen.
>
> For example, AC Valhalla is only running in 4K 30fps while Halo Infinite will be 4K 60fps native. Do you realize how impressive that feat is?!
>
> I am sure what we saw is also not going to be the final product there will be some more work done on the game.
>
> So, relax people 343 has done something special here. We need to celebrate it.
Aiming for 4k 60fps is what ruined the presentation, you have to pick graphical fidelity (High Texture Quality, Lightinb effects) or higher frames when making a game. And they chose higher frames.
> 2724945845976881;1:
> Now that we know Halo Infinite is an open-world game you MUST compare it to open-world games not corridor designed shooters of the past.
Why? It’s not like I asked them to make it open world. I would’ve been completely fine with a traditional mission-based campaign. If 343i decides to make their job harder, that’s not for me to worry. I can compare it to whatever I feel is appropriate.
> 2724945845976881;1:
> So, with that comparison, this game is absolutely beautiful and amazing in absolutely every way. Think about it. This game is beyond gorgeous compared to the open-world games that have come out and advertised for next-gen.
Eh. There are multiple current-gen open world games I find better looking, because they have more inspiring art styles. Apart from that, there are also some open world games from the current-gen that look decidedly more next-gen in my opinion.
> 2724945845976881;1:
> For example, AC Valhalla is only running in 4K 30fps while Halo Infinite will be 4K 60fps native. Do you realize how impressive that feat is?!
Well, that’s probably where a substantial portion of their graphics budget disappeared. Everybody can judge for themselves whether chasing 4K is worth it.
> 2724945845976881;7:
> Also, could 343/Microsoft sell 10 million copies of Halo Infinite as an old school corridor shooter with old school multiplayer? I just do not think you could in this day of Battle Royales and games like Apex Legends, and what Call of Duty has changed into.
That’s an extremely limited description on a hypothetical “Halo Infinite”, but yes, it is entirely possible.
> 2533274795123910;11:
> > 2724945845976881;7:
> > Also, could 343/Microsoft sell 10 million copies of Halo Infinite as an old school corridor shooter with old school multiplayer? I just do not think you could in this day of Battle Royales and games like Apex Legends, and what Call of Duty has changed into.
>
> That’s an extremely limited description on a hypothetical “Halo Infinite”, but yes, it is entirely possible.
What some don’t seem to get or don’t want to is the fact that not a lot of people will change their main go-to game because another game just implements stuff from other games (and not even that good/fresh/unique from the looks of it lol) to appeal to as much people as possible. I know that it’s business at the end of the day and compromises have to be done. Nonetheless a lot of people before have brought up that games like CS:GO, R6S, Doom (2016 & Eternal) maintained their roots and core and improved on that rather than just chasing trends for allegedly quick $$$. I am, right now, for the most part disappointed with what we’ve seen and read. I am however cautiously curious about the MP. I, and a lot of other people, would’ve loved to see them dare to develop an arena shooter that respects it’s roots, improves on the core (without all the trendy stuff) and just make an unique type of game that would stand out and not try to join the ranks on the current established stuff that gets recycled over and over again.
Edit: I totally forgot to somewhat answer to OP. It would’ve been more interesting if the SP was mission based but every mission offered a huge area of the ring, in different settings, one main and a couple of secondary objectives (and secrets of course), with room between start to finish to explore freely (for example: Crysis and Crysis: Warhead did something similar) and different vehicles and combat encounters.
> 2724945845976881;1:
> I can understand the complaints people are making but people are comparing the wrong games to one another.
>
> Now that we know Halo Infinite is an open-world game you MUST compare it to open-world games not corridor designed shooters of the past.
>
> No matter what studio creates the game it is impossible to make an open-world game look as impressive as a corridor designed first-person shooter. In the open world, you cannot put the minute detail into every square inch of the corridor that you would an open world.
>
> So, with that comparison, this game is absolutely beautiful and amazing in absolutely every way. Think about it. This game is beyond gorgeous compared to the open-world games that have come out and advertised for next-gen.
>
> For example, AC Valhalla is only running in 4K 30fps while Halo Infinite will be 4K 60fps native. Do you realize how impressive that feat is?!
>
> I am sure what we saw is also not going to be the final product there will be some more work done on the game.
>
> So, relax people 343 has done something special here. We need to celebrate it.
> 2724945845976881;1:
> Now that we know Halo Infinite is an open-world game you MUST compare it to open-world games not corridor designed shooters of the past.
> 2533274868491585;2:
> “This game is beyond gorgeous compared to the open-world games that have come out and advertised for next-gen”
>
> You have to be joking, right?
>
> The demo we saw yesterday looks laughably bad compared to many non next gen open world games. Take a look at RDR 2 or Metro Exodus, they look leagues better than Infinite did.
No loading, native day night lighting cycle, full open world, crazy draw distance.
Add all that on top of Halo shooting mechanics and you have a recipe for something truly amazing. Really Infinite just exposes optimists and pessimists.
> 2724945845976881;1:
> So, with that comparison, this game is absolutely beautiful and amazing in absolutely every way. Think about it. This game is beyond gorgeous compared to the open-world games that have come out and advertised for next-gen.
No, it’s not.
Have you seen Red Dead Redemption 2 running on a Xbox One X? It’s a huge open-world game that is truly gorgeous.
Halo Infinite will hopefully be a fun Halo game. It’s not going to be a graphical showpiece for the Xbox Series X (or even the Xbox One X). The game is releasing in a few months and there simply isn’t enough time for any substantive improvements to the game at this point.
Horizon zero dawn looks much better and is on weaker hardware; and is it truly running at 4K? They sacrificed good visuals for that? What’s the point of 4K if the visuals aren’t good?
> 2724945845976881;1:
> I can understand the complaints people are making but people are comparing the wrong games to one another.
>
> Now that we know Halo Infinite is an open-world game you MUST compare it to open-world games not corridor designed shooters of the past.
>
> No matter what studio creates the game it is impossible to make an open-world game look as impressive as a corridor designed first-person shooter. In the open world, you cannot put the minute detail into every square inch of the corridor that you would an open world.
>
> So, with that comparison, this game is absolutely beautiful and amazing in absolutely every way. Think about it. This game is beyond gorgeous compared to the open-world games that have come out…
looks back at Ghost Recon: Breakpoint being played on PC
> AC Valhalla is only running in 4K 30fps while Halo Infinite will be 4K 60fps native. Do you realize how impressive that feat is?!
I would be fine if it runs at 1080p 60FPS as long as it campaign looks gorgeous and filled by rich details. To be honest I don’t even mind the resolution as long as it’d HD. And if 4K 60FPS it means we’ll have graphical downgrade, I’d rather stick to 1080p/2k
> 2533274968894951;6:
> Open world at 4K(could be dynamic res) 60fps is surely impressive, but so is the Series X hardware. Right now, Halo Infinite does not look like a game that takes full advantage of a machine that is four times as powerful as the Xbox One X. It honestly looked like the Xbox One version of the game. The frequent pop in shouldn’t have occured either with GDDR6 + SSD combo, yet it did. Now I’m hearing that raytracing is being patched in after release? A core graphical feature patched in? Sounds like rushed/problematic development at 343 to me.
100% this. Isn’t this the flagship title for the brand new “most powerful console on the planet”? If is that so Microsoft really failed to convey that impression because the game looks objectively several years old. Look at Far Cry 4(2014) it looks better than Infinite. Evem with the 4K 60fps open world, I suppose this console could handle it and show beautiful graphics with performance. The demo clearly has some shades, ambient occlusion and textures turned off because it is unbelievable that you have pixelated objects just a few feet away. It needs serious work.