You're issue is, you keep talking as if Halo 4 and 5 were innovative( news flash they weren't) Halo 4 was nothing more than a Graphically updated downgrade Halo Reach, and 5 was some other advanced mobility shooter out on the market with a (albeit loosely based) Halo skin slapped on it. There was nothing ''innovative'' about 4 and 5, hell 5 did not even have half the content Reach had at launch. You saw 8 minutes of a stable alpha and you are complaining that the physics, graphics, and ai are worse than previous "FINISHED" games? The problem with 343's art style is that it takes up too much detail, this means models need to keep being updated, thus time keeps having to be spent reinventing things with each iteration, meaning features we love have to be sacrificed for them. The simplicity of Bungie's designs means that Bungie could get away with reusing models in-between games and only giving them slight graphical overhauls between games. Bungie did not have to worry if those nuts and bolts and wires and gears were present on this Warthog or if that armor look ''mechanical'' enough to seem like it would realistically work.Enrico 117 wrote:I didn't realize you could read people's minds ("most of the comments were from people who think everything should be ultra modern with "amazing" graphics"). I didn't talk about graphics at all.Drahicr wrote:There's nothing wrong with bringing old stuff back to a game series, whether it's gameplay style, weapons, visual style and so on. In no way at all did the 8 minute demo look like it resembled a 20 year old game (i.e it looked very much like something new). Instead it looked like a throwback to the first halo game but with modern touches. I see no problem with that. If you and others think that's "dumb" then you aren't really halo fans.Enrico 117 wrote:Drahicr The Nokia 3310 is also 20 years old, more or less, it still works great today, but everybody is using smartphones instead. It's because of innovation. For the same reason, you should be able to realize that: "because it worked" is a dumb answer to the question: "how are people ok with a 20 years old gameplay style?". As I said, I love the old Halo games, they work well, but it is not a reason to stop innovation and make Halo Infinite feel like a 20 years old game. It's not a valid justification in the slightest. It is the worst mistake 343 could do. The few remaining old fans will be happy for some days, until they realize they were bored of Halo Infinite before it even released, no new fan at all is going to buy a bad version of an old game they didn't like, Halo Infinite is gonna be dead after a few months. Old Halo fans are the worst thing that could ever happen to this franchise, you're slowly killing the franchise.
You can have both innovation and things that already exist at the same time, the demo proved that. People said it reminded them of halo 1 but most of the comments were from people who think everything should be ultra modern with "amazing" graphics. That my friend is "dumb". It's that's kind of thinking that makes the big name devs churn out copy paste games again and again, calling then "innovative" and "game changing".
Now if they turned out to be just rebooting the original game (which they are not) that would be also dumb, force awakens dumb, but since the demo showed us references to halo 5, the game is a sequel. It's a safe bet the game will offer players something new and dare i say it.....innovative...
I surely hope the game turns out to be new and innovative, but we can only speak about what was shown. That demo was supposed to be representative of the final product, or something very close to that. I'm not talking about the graphics which, it is prooven, they look worse than Halo 3, but I'm talking about the gameplay. 20 years old games did the same stuff Halo Infinite does in 2020. It would be "modern" if they had a different spin on the only two new features coming to Halo: grappling hook and open world. If you take Halo CE, the grappling hook from the old Bionic Commando, and the open-world from GTA III, you would get a better game than Halo Infinite. The demo didn't even show hints of innovations, never mind proving that old and new can coexist.
The idea that asking for something innovative with better "amazing" graphics makes devs churn out copy paste games, makes me laugh. Asking for a game to be exactly as it was in 2006, instead, isn't "making devs churn out copy paste games", right?
Look, there's a balance between new and old, Halo Infinite's gameplay is a step backward from H5, it gets closer to Halo 3, don't even try to say the graphics are new or modern, the sounds are outdated, the music is a rehashing of the usual tunes, the AI isn't better than the AI in Halo CE, the physics are worse than in Halo 3, I don't even wanna talk about the grappling hook and the open-world, because it is the most basic and boring way I've ever seen those mechanics being implemented in a videogame. Fine, I'll take some of that old stuff gladly, but what, for the love of God, is new in Halo Infinite? Nothing, zero, nisba, nada, null. Absolute void innovation.
Also the original Halo's were still able to ''Innovate'' without completely changing the gameplay or sandbox. Halo 2 introduced duel wielding that really did not change the gameplay as the dual-wielding for the most part was optional. Same in Halo 3, with the equipment, these features did not break the already established gameplay but instead it enhanced it. Duel wielding gave a new dynamic to the golden triangle and equipment gave players better ways to traverse and interact with the sandbox. Halo's "Innovation" was not stealing elements from other popular shooters and incorporating it into Halo, but instead, finding new ways to innovate the sandbox, while preserving the classic gameplay. Its not the "Gameplay'' that needed innovation, it was the sandbox. Look at Forge, for instance, Forge was a game-changer for Halo 3 and is the main reason it's still relevant even to this day, innovation to halo should be trying to find that next "Forge" or next "Firefight" things that actually improve the sandbox and longevity of the game itself rather than adding in features that were designed for other games. That's not innovation, that's not even creativity. If you want that style of ''gameplay'' go play games that were designed around that gameplay. Halo was built to be a skill-based arena shooter, not a class-based, mobility shooter. Taking away those arena aspects, takes away what made Halo feel like Halo and in a lot of ways is what separated Halo from the plethora of mobility shooters we have today. It gave Halo its own identity and gave you something that was not only its own unique experience, but thanks to Forge and the many other customizable options Halo has, means you get to also play it any way you want and get far more replay value from it, than you would those other games.
Also things like the Grapple Hook is honestly just something that can be a hit or miss, not all of Halo 3's equipment was perfect( looking at you Flare and Radar Jammer) and in some ways felt pointless to the game, but that did not make the game horrible for their inclusion either.