Skip to main content

Forums / Games / Halo Infinite

Add back blood staining on ground

OP Toxhicide

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. ...
  5. 3
Blood staining needs to be added back, Halo has felt very very off since it has been removed. Less immersed, more gimmicky, feels like I'm shooting plastic enemies. I never knew how much I missed it until it was gone and I just cant unsee it whenever I play the newer games. It really needs to be added back.
I agree. In Halo 5 it felt like you were firing BB pellets. With blood splatter it feels like the weapon is doing real damage
I would love to see blood splatter make a return to Halo. I can remember in Combat Evolved, trying to paint the walls with the blood of our enemies.

Fun times.
Halo 5 technically has plenty of blood splatter, they just don't have any HUMAN blood. Play a round of Warzone Firefight where you defend the armory against the Covenant and there will be plenty of splatters, scorch marks and bullet holes left on the inside.

I think the bigger problem is that the decals de-spawn way too quickly.
I would like the blood to be like Halo CE, where there was a ridiculously and comically large amount of it. Getting hit by a plasma pistol overcharge produced such a hilariously large amount of blood. And of course, punching fallen enemies to paint the hallways. I liked that about CE, and it never got to a point where someone might think "this is a bit too much, I think I'm going to be sick".

Mongerty wrote:
Halo 5 technically has plenty of blood splatter, they just don't have any HUMAN blood. Play a round of Warzone Firefight where you defend the armory against the Covenant and there will be plenty of splatters, scorch marks and bullet holes left on the inside.

I think the bigger problem is that the decals de-spawn way too quickly.
While that may be true, I find that the supposed blood splatters end up looking like some kind of bird poop...although you are absolutely right that things despawn far too quickly. Interestingly, in Halo 4, I sometimes come across a blood splatter that somehow persisted for quite a while. I guess Halo 4 gets away with that because it despawns literally everything else in multiplayer, and campaign too, to some extent. I really hate that about Halo 4.
yeah in halo 5 it feels like your shooting paintballs. even at aliens, the blood barely stains the ground and looks like blue bird poo. The blood stains dont even last too, but in halo CE it stayed.
The issue here is that especially human blood, but really extreme gore of any description will limit you, ratings-wise and the decision has very much been taken to try and keep the game as open and accessible as possible. Even including it but with a default toggle-off can leave you with issues.

The issue with allowing any item in-game to linger simply comes down to performance and memory. Halo 4 was pushing the limits of the 360 so had to despawn things pretty fast, but for anything running server-side it also just opens possibilities for sync errors etc. Given Infinite is cross-gen, my suspicion is while things will remain longer than 4's did, they won't remain anywhere like indefinitely.

Especially given Infinite's biggest audience will be via Game Pass I think decisions to keep the game accessible are the right ones
This is about the only minor addition I would strongly advocate for, that and bullet holes/burn marks on the environment. The it should look like a mess after combat. Not sure how they would implement this in maps as large as Infinite's though. Maybe they could despawn when you get far enough away or if you aren't around for a while.
Mongerty wrote:
Halo 5 technically has plenty of blood splatter, they just don't have any HUMAN blood. Play a round of Warzone Firefight where you defend the armory against the Covenant and there will be plenty of splatters, scorch marks and bullet holes left on the inside.

I think the bigger problem is that the decals de-spawn way too quickly.
Didn't notice much of that myself to be honest, most MP I play in H5 is against Spartans so I don't see a thing.
Toxhicide wrote:
Mongerty wrote:
Halo 5 technically has plenty of blood splatter, they just don't have any HUMAN blood. Play a round of Warzone Firefight where you defend the armory against the Covenant and there will be plenty of splatters, scorch marks and bullet holes left on the inside.

I think the bigger problem is that the decals de-spawn way too quickly.
Didn't notice much of that myself to be honest, most MP I play in H5 is against Spartans so I don't see a thing.
I agree. Blood was practically non existent in Halo 5 compared to previous Halo games. I would like to see a return to the Halo CE levels of blood at the very least. Time will tell, but with 343i I'm not holding my breath on this one. In my opinion,,, it's time we got a Halo that's a representation of the books.

Brutes especially, they've always been pretty tame, it would be good to see them eating their victims and ripping the arms off enemies, it's what they sometimes do. Halo games have always been "safe" with content. With todays tech I want it cranked up. Id software took DOOM and turned it up to eleven.

Id Software made DOOM 2016 what they wanted it to be in 1993, but couldn't because of limitations. I want Halo Infinite to use todays tech and go that extra mile too. A bit of blood splatter and gore should not be an issue imo.
they have to bring it back, its one of those passive details that help immerse players...
Would love this but unlikely considering it not being a M rating
Would love this but unlikely considering it not being a M rating
Not rated yet
It's a catch 22 isn't it.

Something that adds immersion (blood) vs something that potentially increases population (T-rating).

I guess it comes down to the increase in population from the T-rating vs the drop in population of those who refuse to play without blood.

And, more realistically, what proportions of those populations are likely to hang around for longer and spend more money.

From a developer's point of view, a game such as Halo, which only dabbles a little bit in horror/gore - is going to need a strong narrative excuse to go all bloody on us.
Darwi wrote:
It's a catch 22 isn't it.

Something that adds immersion (blood) vs something that potentially increases population (T-rating).

I guess it comes down to the increase in population from the T-rating vs the drop in population of those who refuse to play without blood.

And, more realistically, what proportions of those populations are likely to hang around for longer and spend more money.

From a developer's point of view, a game such as Halo, which only dabbles a little bit in horror/gore - is going to need a strong narrative excuse to go all bloody on us.
A T rating over an M will not guarantee more money or players. If the game is good players will buy it and invest in it regardless of ratings or content. If 343i are in catch 22 situation over an M or T rating affecting the popularity of the Halo franchise, that's worrying. Making the best game possible should be their only concern. Do that and the rest takes care of itself.
eviltedi wrote:
Darwi wrote:
It's a catch 22 isn't it.

Something that adds immersion (blood) vs something that potentially increases population (T-rating).

I guess it comes down to the increase in population from the T-rating vs the drop in population of those who refuse to play without blood.

And, more realistically, what proportions of those populations are likely to hang around for longer and spend more money.

From a developer's point of view, a game such as Halo, which only dabbles a little bit in horror/gore - is going to need a strong narrative excuse to go all bloody on us.
A T rating over an M will not guarantee more money or players. If the game is good players will buy it and invest in it regardless of ratings or content. If 343i are in catch 22 situation over an M or T rating affecting the popularity of the Halo franchise, that's worrying. Making the best game possible should be their only concern. Do that and the rest takes care of itself.
I would imagine that an M rating would mean a lot of Xmas stockings don't get to be stuffed with Halo Infinite.

That would hurt...

And I'm assuming that it will be locked out of GamePass for anyone 16 or under.

I don't know the numbers... but 343 will have a fair idea. And they will have a fair idea of which parts of the population are more likely to splurge on microtransactions etc.

Yes. Best game possible. But also balanced with a game that is as profitable as possible. I'm sure decisions such as this are done for valid marketing reasons.
I hope so. Makes it seem so much more grounded.
Darwi wrote:
eviltedi wrote:
Darwi wrote:
It's a catch 22 isn't it.

Something that adds immersion (blood) vs something that potentially increases population (T-rating).

I guess it comes down to the increase in population from the T-rating vs the drop in population of those who refuse to play without blood.

And, more realistically, what proportions of those populations are likely to hang around for longer and spend more money.

From a developer's point of view, a game such as Halo, which only dabbles a little bit in horror/gore - is going to need a strong narrative excuse to go all bloody on us.
A T rating over an M will not guarantee more money or players. If the game is good players will buy it and invest in it regardless of ratings or content. If 343i are in catch 22 situation over an M or T rating affecting the popularity of the Halo franchise, that's worrying. Making the best game possible should be their only concern. Do that and the rest takes care of itself.
I would imagine that an M rating would mean a lot of Xmas stockings don't get to be stuffed with Halo Infinite.

That would hurt...

And I'm assuming that it will be locked out of GamePass for anyone 16 or under.

I don't know the numbers... but 343 will have a fair idea. And they will have a fair idea of which parts of the population are more likely to splurge on microtransactions etc.

Yes. Best game possible. But also balanced with a game that is as profitable as possible. I'm sure decisions such as this are done for valid marketing reasons.
The inclusion of blood won't make any difference to sales, every year I see kids queuing with parents for the latest CoD at my local GAME. Besides, all the Halo games I own are PEGI 16 and all have a good amount of blood except Halo 5. I've seen many PEGI 16 / T rated games with more blood than Halo 5.

No idea what you mean with gamepass. Nothing is "locked out" by default as you need to be 18 to officially make an account.

The people that spend the most on games are the ones earning the money. Most teens and pre teens do not have the same disposable income as working adults do. I get requests from my children regularly for DLC, my first question is what is it for, not what's the rating of the game.

Games should be about progression and not regression. Halo had blood since day one, and that along with other things have been removed with 343i. I think it's a bad move to change a game's design at any level. Halo has changed and lost too much, time to get back to what we loved and that includes blood.
eviltedi wrote:
Darwi wrote:
It's a catch 22 isn't it.

Something that adds immersion (blood) vs something that potentially increases population (T-rating).

I guess it comes down to the increase in population from the T-rating vs the drop in population of those who refuse to play without blood.

And, more realistically, what proportions of those populations are likely to hang around for longer and spend more money.

From a developer's point of view, a game such as Halo, which only dabbles a little bit in horror/gore - is going to need a strong narrative excuse to go all bloody on us.
A T rating over an M will not guarantee more money or players. If the game is good players will buy it and invest in it regardless of ratings or content. If 343i are in catch 22 situation over an M or T rating affecting the popularity of the Halo franchise, that's worrying. Making the best game possible should be their only concern. Do that and the rest takes care of itself.
What you're forgetting is that this sentence is as subjective and vague as it can be.
What "best" means for the developers at 343i doesn't necessarily align with your expectations of "best".
Maybe their "best game" simply doesn't see the need for blood splattered on the ground.
SMOK69KMK wrote:
eviltedi wrote:
Darwi wrote:
It's a catch 22 isn't it.

Something that adds immersion (blood) vs something that potentially increases population (T-rating).

I guess it comes down to the increase in population from the T-rating vs the drop in population of those who refuse to play without blood.

And, more realistically, what proportions of those populations are likely to hang around for longer and spend more money.

From a developer's point of view, a game such as Halo, which only dabbles a little bit in horror/gore - is going to need a strong narrative excuse to go all bloody on us.
A T rating over an M will not guarantee more money or players. If the game is good players will buy it and invest in it regardless of ratings or content. If 343i are in catch 22 situation over an M or T rating affecting the popularity of the Halo franchise, that's worrying. Making the best game possible should be their only concern. Do that and the rest takes care of itself.
What you're forgetting is that this sentence is as subjective and vague as it can be.
What "best" means for the developers at 343i doesn't necessarily align with your expectations of "best".
Maybe their "best game" simply doesn't see the need for blood splattered on the ground.
That was not the actual point... Yes it can be subjective and vague but I didn't present it that way. When you exclude the sentence before it you lose the context, and you take the topic off course.
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. ...
  5. 3