Skip to main content

Forums / Games / Halo Infinite

Delayed to 2021 Confirmed

OP UnheardCARNAGE

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 23
  4. 24
  5. 25
  6. ...
  7. 26
Enrico 117 wrote:
Drahicr wrote:
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.
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.

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 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.

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.
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.

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.
Enrico 117 wrote:
Drahicr wrote:
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'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.

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.
You're answering to the wrong guy in the wrong thread. I never said Halo 4 or Halo 5 is innovative, neither do I think so. I said there's no innovation in Halo Infinite, 343 needs a lot of time to fix that awful mess, and a delay until 2022 is what I suggest. So stop wasting people's time with unnecessarily long and pointless comments, please.

Btw the fact that what was shown was "just a demo", and "not a finished product" is nothing more than a very pitiful excuse. First of all, it was supposed to run on an extremely capable PC or console, secondly, publishers show those demos to impress the audience, so they are usually better than the final product (like they did with the first two Halo Infinite trailers, or Watchdog, or Killzone II, or The Last of Us 2, or Metro Exodus, or with almost every single game), unless the publisher is completely stupid.
Enrico 117 wrote:
Enrico 117 wrote:
Drahicr wrote:
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'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.

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.
You're answering to the wrong guy in the wrong thread. I never said Halo 4 or Halo 5 is innovative, neither do I think so. I said there's no innovation in Halo Infinite, 343 needs a lot of time to fix that awful mess, and a delay until 2022 is what I suggest. So stop wasting people's time with unnecessarily long and pointless comments, please.

Btw the fact that what was shown was "just a demo", and "not a finished product" is nothing more than a very pitiful excuse. First of all, it was supposed to run on an extremely capable PC or console, secondly, publishers show those demos to impress the audience, so they are usually better than the final product (like they did with the first two Halo Infinite trailers, or Watchdog, or Killzone II, or The Last of Us 2, or Metro Exodus, or with almost every single game), unless the publisher is completely stupid.
Every time someone argues with you about the art style, you always cycle back to 4 and 5, you treat theses games for some reason or another as the way 343 ''Should'' be going, when they should have never went there, to begin with. It's not an excuse, its a fact, what you saw was a rough demo of an "UNFINISHED'' product, there are bound to be some issues, in the build, and the amount that we saw was not enough gameplay to really state how much really needs to be done. Again, graphics and art style are not mutually exclusive to one another, they can still add grit and textures to the classic models to give them that graphical fidelity without sacrificing the classic look of the armors, weapons, and environments. So most of what we saw in that demo, is something that can easily be fixed within a year.

Also, most of the time, developers don't have a worldwide pandemic cause setbacks that would have likely messed up their scheduling and their ability to polish the demo before the deadline.
Enrico 117 wrote:
Enrico 117 wrote:
Drahicr wrote:
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'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.

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.
Btw the fact that what was shown was "just a demo", and "not a finished product" is nothing more than a very pitiful excuse. First of all, it was supposed to run on an extremely capable PC or console, secondly, publishers show those demos to impress the audience, so they are usually better than the final product (like they did with the first two Halo Infinite trailers, or Watchdog, or Killzone II, or The Last of Us 2, or Metro Exodus, or with almost every single game), unless the publisher is completely stupid.
Also, most of the time, developers don't have a worldwide pandemic cause setbacks that would have likely messed up their scheduling and their ability to polish the demo before the deadline.
Yet Sony and Insomniac Games had no problems showing off what the PS5 can do with the very well polished Ratchet and Clank demo. I'm sorry but the Halo Infinite demo was supposed to show off the power of the Xbox Series X and it failed. I didn't expect Halo Infinite to look totally next gen, but it didn't even look like a top current gen game. There are current gen titles that are years older that look superior to Halo Infinite. It looked bad, there was no wow I need this game moment.
Enrico 117 wrote:
Enrico 117 wrote:
Drahicr wrote:
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.
Every time someone argues with you about the art style, you always cycle back to 4 and 5, you treat theses games for some reason or another as the way 343 ''Should'' be going, when they should have never went there, to begin with. It's not an excuse, its a fact, what you saw was a rough demo of an "UNFINISHED'' product, there are bound to be some issues, in the build, and the amount that we saw was not enough gameplay to really state how much really needs to be done. Again, graphics and art style are not mutually exclusive to one another, they can still add grit and textures to the classic models to give them that graphical fidelity without sacrificing the classic look of the armors, weapons, and environments. So most of what we saw in that demo, is something that can easily be fixed within a year.

Also, most of the time, developers don't have a worldwide pandemic cause setbacks that would have likely messed up their scheduling and their ability to polish the demo before the deadline.
You must be high or something, I didn't write anywhere I prefer Halo 4 or Halo 5 art style, nor I ever suggestes to use that art style, can you stop telling lies? I talk about the gameplay you talk about the graphics. The graphics are objectively horrible and can't be fixed in just one year, more so because 343 isn't a good studio, but it's not a very big deal to me, I don't care to discuss about graphics, I'd rather talk about gameplay, and how even that can't be fixed in just one year because it lacks innovation.

About the demo, what your keep misunderstanding is that yes, the game is "UNFINISHED", but that little 8 minute demo, was supposed to be more polished than the final game. That what they usually do. If 343 was not capable to polish even just 8 minutes of the game, as you suggest, good luck at polishing a game that's supposed to last 10 years. Keep in mind Halo Infinite was supposed to release in 2020, so the plan after the show was to polish the rest of the game to the same degree of the demo, and then ship it. It may be the case that 343 showed an unfinished slice of the game, but that would be a big mistake on their part, not something you should keep justify. Stop finding excuses for 343, they ruined H4, H5, H:TMCC and they're ruining H:I, if they purposely showed an unfinished demo, then they're purposely damaging the game. That demo repelled so many fans and other people watching, H:I is already set for a bad launch. That's one more reason to go till 2022 for its release and let every body forget about that terribile demo.
Enrico 117 wrote:
Enrico 117 wrote:
Enrico 117 wrote:
Drahicr wrote:
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.
Every time someone argues with you about the art style, you always cycle back to 4 and 5, you treat theses games for some reason or another as the way 343 ''Should'' be going, when they should have never went there, to begin with. It's not an excuse, its a fact, what you saw was a rough demo of an "UNFINISHED'' product, there are bound to be some issues, in the build, and the amount that we saw was not enough gameplay to really state how much really needs to be done. Again, graphics and art style are not mutually exclusive to one another, they can still add grit and textures to the classic models to give them that graphical fidelity without sacrificing the classic look of the armors, weapons, and environments. So most of what we saw in that demo, is something that can easily be fixed within a year.

Also, most of the time, developers don't have a worldwide pandemic cause setbacks that would have likely messed up their scheduling and their ability to polish the demo before the deadline.
You must be high or something, I didn't write anywhere I prefer Halo 4 or Halo 5 art style, nor I ever suggestes to use that art style, can you stop telling lies? I talk about the gameplay you talk about the graphics. The graphics are objectively horrible and can't be fixed in just one year, more so because 343 isn't a good studio, but it's not a very big deal to me, I don't care to discuss about graphics, I'd rather talk about gameplay, and how even that can't be fixed in just one year because it lacks innovation.

About the demo, what your keep misunderstanding is that yes, the game is "UNFINISHED", but that little 8 minute demo, was supposed to be more polished than the final game. That what they usually do. If 343 was not capable to polish even just 8 minutes of the game, as you suggest, good luck at polishing a game that's supposed to last 10 years. Keep in mind Halo Infinite was supposed to release in 2020, so the plan after the show was to polish the rest of the game to the same degree of the demo, and then ship it. It may be the case that 343 showed an unfinished slice of the game, but that would be a big mistake on their part, not something you should keep justify. Stop finding excuses for 343, they ruined H4, H5, H:TMCC and they're ruining H:I, if they purposely showed an unfinished demo, then they're purposely damaging the game. That demo repelled so many fans and other people watching, H:I is already set for a bad launch. That's one more reason to go till 2022 for its release and let every body forget about that terribile demo.
Where did I ever say you ''prefer'' Halo 4 and 5, I said, you keep referring to them as the direction Halo should be going over the classics( gameplay-wise) as you put it. Gameplay-wise, 4 nor 5 should never be the example Halo should follow. Infinite is definitely on the better track going with 3's equipment. What is inherently wrong with the "GRAPHICS" that some textures and polish can't fix? Again, you are connecting your displeasure with the art style, with the graphics, the art style is finally back to where it always should have been, the graphics is what needs the polish. The only thing that could even agree that should be changed is the Brutes armor and animations, but again that is not something that is going to take another 2 years to do.

Again you claim it lacks "Innovation'' yet we have not seen enough gameplay to determine that. I would say if the rpg elements and the open world elements are done well the that would be innovative, or atleast it has a chance to be. We also don't know whats in store for Forge or Multiplayer, heck I would say if 343 could improve Forge to a point where it could not only create Firefight (if we wanted) but a Battle Royal, then that in and of itself could have the potential to not only revolutionalize Forge but BR's in general. Imagine a Battle Royal, that can keep updating thanks to Forge, Imagine a Zombie outbreak mode on a Battle Royal size map, image gamemodes like Capture the Flag or Assault being implemented into the Battle Royal as mini objectives, heck if we can forge ai, Imagine ais coming in and attacking. There are many ways that 343 could still innovate Infinite, with its gameplay having to follow trends. Giving us the classic arena experience we have been wanting for years now, while still giving something new that expands the sandbox.

You do realize when you are dealing with stable builds of a game, you have to be very carefull when trying to polish it, as to not break it. Have you forgotten how much of a buggy mess Halo 2's demo was and how Bungie was sweating bullets hoping it did not even crash? We don't know what went on behind the scenes and we likely never will, but I would gander a guess that, the global pandemic on top of the shutdowns, and the fact that Microsoft nor 343 was likely prepared for something like this, makes me think that this being slapped on them suddenly, royally screwed their schedule and made it harder for them to get the demo polished enough to reveal, especially if they are having complications with the game itself.
eviltedi wrote:
Enrico 117 wrote:
Enrico 117 wrote:
Drahicr wrote:
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'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.

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.
Btw the fact that what was shown was "just a demo", and "not a finished product" is nothing more than a very pitiful excuse. First of all, it was supposed to run on an extremely capable PC or console, secondly, publishers show those demos to impress the audience, so they are usually better than the final product (like they did with the first two Halo Infinite trailers, or Watchdog, or Killzone II, or The Last of Us 2, or Metro Exodus, or with almost every single game), unless the publisher is completely stupid.
Also, most of the time, developers don't have a worldwide pandemic cause setbacks that would have likely messed up their scheduling and their ability to polish the demo before the deadline.
Yet Sony and Insomniac Games had no problems showing off what the PS5 can do with the very well polished Ratchet and Clank demo. I'm sorry but the Halo Infinite demo was supposed to show off the power of the Xbox Series X and it failed. I didn't expect Halo Infinite to look totally next gen, but it didn't even look like a top current gen game. There are current gen titles that are years older that look superior to Halo Infinite. It looked bad, there was no wow I need this game moment.
Different games, different studios, different work ethnics. We don't know how far along most of those games were in their development, no how ambitious those games are actually being in comparison to their respective franchises. Also most of those games, likely are not be held back by their predecessor's console, a move more spurred by the decisions of Microsoft than 343. Also I feel the "Wow'' factor should be in the gameplay, and modes that Infinite can offer, not how pretty the "Flowers'' can look or how "Shiny'' armor on the Warthog and shine.
eviltedi wrote:
Enrico 117 wrote:
Enrico 117 wrote:
Drahicr wrote:
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'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.

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.
Btw the fact that what was shown was "just a demo", and "not a finished product" is nothing more than a very pitiful excuse. First of all, it was supposed to run on an extremely capable PC or console, secondly, publishers show those demos to impress the audience, so they are usually better than the final product (like they did with the first two Halo Infinite trailers, or Watchdog, or Killzone II, or The Last of Us 2, or Metro Exodus, or with almost every single game), unless the publisher is completely stupid.
Also, most of the time, developers don't have a worldwide pandemic cause setbacks that would have likely messed up their scheduling and their ability to polish the demo before the deadline.
Yet Sony and Insomniac Games had no problems showing off what the PS5 can do with the very well polished Ratchet and Clank demo. I'm sorry but the Halo Infinite demo was supposed to show off the power of the Xbox Series X and it failed. I didn't expect Halo Infinite to look totally next gen, but it didn't even look like a top current gen game. There are current gen titles that are years older that look superior to Halo Infinite. It looked bad, there was no wow I need this game moment.
Different games, different studios, different work ethnics. We don't know how far along most of those games were in their development, no how ambitious those games are actually being in comparison to their respective franchises. Also most of those games, likely are not be held back by their predecessor's console, a move more spurred by the decisions of Microsoft than 343. Also I feel the "Wow'' factor should be in the gameplay, and modes that Infinite can offer, not how pretty the "Flowers'' can look or how "Shiny'' armor on the Warthog and shine.
Still does not change the fact that the Halo Infinite demo was supposed to show off the Series X and promote itself, it did neither. Even the Halo 5 beta that launched a YEAR before that game showed more promise than the Halo Infinite demo, both in gameplay and graphics, same game, work ethic and studio too. Halo Infinite demo was a fail. Except gameplay, but even that left more doubt imo.
eviltedi wrote:
eviltedi wrote:
Enrico 117 wrote:
Enrico 117 wrote:
Drahicr wrote:
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'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.

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.
Btw the fact that what was shown was "just a demo", and "not a finished product" is nothing more than a very pitiful excuse. First of all, it was supposed to run on an extremely capable PC or console, secondly, publishers show those demos to impress the audience, so they are usually better than the final product (like they did with the first two Halo Infinite trailers, or Watchdog, or Killzone II, or The Last of Us 2, or Metro Exodus, or with almost every single game), unless the publisher is completely stupid.
Also, most of the time, developers don't have a worldwide pandemic cause setbacks that would have likely messed up their scheduling and their ability to polish the demo before the deadline.
Yet Sony and Insomniac Games had no problems showing off what the PS5 can do with the very well polished Ratchet and Clank demo. I'm sorry but the Halo Infinite demo was supposed to show off the power of the Xbox Series X and it failed. I didn't expect Halo Infinite to look totally next gen, but it didn't even look like a top current gen game. There are current gen titles that are years older that look superior to Halo Infinite. It looked bad, there was no wow I need this game moment.
Different games, different studios, different work ethnics. We don't know how far along most of those games were in their development, no how ambitious those games are actually being in comparison to their respective franchises. Also most of those games, likely are not be held back by their predecessor's console, a move more spurred by the decisions of Microsoft than 343. Also I feel the "Wow'' factor should be in the gameplay, and modes that Infinite can offer, not how pretty the "Flowers'' can look or how "Shiny'' armor on the Warthog and shine.
Still does not change the fact that the Halo Infinite demo was supposed to show off the Series X and promote itself, it did neither. Even the Halo 5 beta that launched a YEAR before that game showed more promise than the Halo Infinite demo, both in gameplay and graphics, same game, work ethic and studio too. Halo Infinite demo was a fail. Except gameplay, but even that left more doubt imo.
Again, Microsofts and 343's schedule was most definitely thrown off by the pandemic. I don't think you understand how, even a few months of lockdown, can set back the development of the Console and the games. I is likely 343 expected a more complete version of the Series X to be completed sooner so they could have used that hardware for the showcase rather than guestimate specs from a pc. Covid, threw a lot of business and even society really off course as it literally came out of nowhere and spread far to fast for most of us to actually prepare something. Microsoft and 343 just did not have any plans in place for something like this and given how unexpected it was, I don't blame them for not thinking a world wide pandemic would hit us out of the blue. Also we really did not see that much gameplay, nor did we get enough examples on the exploration aspect of the campaign nor how the Grapple Hook and other equipment can be used. I am certain, once we finally get a multiplayer trailer, that is when we will get a better representation of Infinites gameplay.
eviltedi wrote:
eviltedi wrote:
Enrico 117 wrote:
Enrico 117 wrote:
Drahicr wrote:
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'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.

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.
Btw the fact that what was shown was "just a demo", and "not a finished product" is nothing more than a very pitiful excuse. First of all, it was supposed to run on an extremely capable PC or console, secondly, publishers show those demos to impress the audience, so they are usually better than the final product (like they did with the first two Halo Infinite trailers, or Watchdog, or Killzone II, or The Last of Us 2, or Metro Exodus, or with almost every single game), unless the publisher is completely stupid.
Also, most of the time, developers don't have a worldwide pandemic cause setbacks that would have likely messed up their scheduling and their ability to polish the demo before the deadline.
Yet Sony and Insomniac Games had no problems showing off what the PS5 can do with the very well polished Ratchet and Clank demo. I'm sorry but the Halo Infinite demo was supposed to show off the power of the Xbox Series X and it failed. I didn't expect Halo Infinite to look totally next gen, but it didn't even look like a top current gen game. There are current gen titles that are years older that look superior to Halo Infinite. It looked bad, there was no wow I need this game moment.
Again, Microsofts and 343's schedule was most definitely thrown off by the pandemic. I don't think you understand how, even a few months of lockdown, can set back the development of the Console and the games. I is likely 343 expected a more complete version of the Series X to be completed sooner so they could have used that hardware for the showcase rather than guestimate specs from a pc. Covid, threw a lot of business and even society really off course as it literally came out of nowhere and spread far to fast for most of us to actually prepare something. Microsoft and 343 just did not have any plans in place for something like this and given how unexpected it was, I don't blame them for not thinking a world wide pandemic would hit us out of the blue. Also we really did not see that much gameplay, nor did we get enough examples on the exploration aspect of the campaign nor how the Grapple Hook and other equipment can be used. I am certain, once we finally get a multiplayer trailer, that is when we will get a better representation of Infinites gameplay.
And again. Despite the pandemic Sony and Insomniac produced that fantastic gameplay demo. To that you replied different work ethic, studio and game, but 343i get a break because of the same global challenges ? Sorry, 343i and Microsoft dropped the ball here and you're just shifting goal posts to defend them, yet other studios are releasing demos and full games through it all.

It was clear from the Halo Infinite demo there are issues after 5 years of development. Yes, the pandemic has contributed, but as I stated other studios have coped. Microsof failed in the first show with no gameplay, both they and 343i failed with the Halo Infinite reveal. As stated, I didn't expect true next gen gameplay and graphics, but I expected a polished demo.

You can use any excuse you want to, but the Halo Infinite demo was very poor, and it didn't do the job it needed to do.
eviltedi wrote:
eviltedi wrote:
eviltedi wrote:
Enrico 117 wrote:
Enrico 117 wrote:
Drahicr wrote:
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'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.

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.
Btw the fact that what was shown was "just a demo", and "not a finished product" is nothing more than a very pitiful excuse. First of all, it was supposed to run on an extremely capable PC or console, secondly, publishers show those demos to impress the audience, so they are usually better than the final product (like they did with the first two Halo Infinite trailers, or Watchdog, or Killzone II, or The Last of Us 2, or Metro Exodus, or with almost every single game), unless the publisher is completely stupid.
Also, most of the time, developers don't have a worldwide pandemic cause setbacks that would have likely messed up their scheduling and their ability to polish the demo before the deadline.
Yet Sony and Insomniac Games had no problems showing off what the PS5 can do with the very well polished Ratchet and Clank demo. I'm sorry but the Halo Infinite demo was supposed to show off the power of the Xbox Series X and it failed. I didn't expect Halo Infinite to look totally next gen, but it didn't even look like a top current gen game. There are current gen titles that are years older that look superior to Halo Infinite. It looked bad, there was no wow I need this game moment.
And again. Despite the pandemic Sony and Insomniac produced that fantastic gameplay demo. To that you replied different work ethic, studio and game, but 343i get a break because of the same global challenges ? Sorry, 343i and Microsoft dropped the ball here and you're just shifting goal posts to defend them, yet other studios are releasing demos and full games through it all.

It was clear from the Halo Infinite demo there are issues after 5 years of development. Yes, the pandemic has contributed, but as I stated other studios have coped. Microsof failed in the first show with no gameplay, both they and 343i failed with the Halo Infinite reveal. As stated, I didn't expect true next gen gameplay and graphics, but I expected a polished demo.

You can use any excuse you want to, but the Halo Infinite demo was very poor, and it didn't do the job it needed to do.
I don't think it is worth answering to ChaoticPentrath, he/she must be trolling or something. Just leave him/her in his/her fantasy world.
Drahicr



You do realise during that "5" years they were also building the Slipspace engine, that alone could have taken 2 to 3 years of their development time alone. Again we don't know what challenges Sony or Insomiac faced vs 343 or Microsoft. I would gander that Microsoft is the one that slacked with the new Xbox, forcing 343 to have to keep playing catch up during development. I mean my god, Microsoft has still not revealed the price of the damn thing yet. So I feel a lot of issues were just do to 343 only have guestimate specs to work off of and having to keep changing things once Microsoft gave them more finalized specs.

I am not saying the demo was perfect, it indeed had its issues, but you can't say "Halo Infinite" is a horrible game, from a few graphical pop ins and missing textures from and likely Alpha build of the game. Yes, normally things would be polished for a presentation, but normally the devs have some form of dev kit or some version of the console to polish that build off to truely show it off, 343 had you use guestimate specs on a pc to show it off, implying that they ether don't have a dev kit with the finalized specs, or something is wrong with the Series X itself. Also the game is being built for all platforms of Xbox and pc. I feel its going to lack due to that decision, which most definitely was Microsofts doing.
Enrico 117 wrote:
eviltedi wrote:
eviltedi wrote:
eviltedi wrote:
Enrico 117 wrote:
Enrico 117 wrote:
Drahicr wrote:
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'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.

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.
Btw the fact that what was shown was "just a demo", and "not a finished product" is nothing more than a very pitiful excuse. First of all, it was supposed to run on an extremely capable PC or console, secondly, publishers show those demos to impress the audience, so they are usually better than the final product (like they did with the first two Halo Infinite trailers, or Watchdog, or Killzone II, or The Last of Us 2, or Metro Exodus, or with almost every single game), unless the publisher is completely stupid.
Also, most of the time, developers don't have a worldwide pandemic cause setbacks that would have likely messed up their scheduling and their ability to polish the demo before the deadline.
Yet Sony and Insomniac Games had no problems showing off what the PS5 can do with the very well polished Ratchet and Clank demo. I'm sorry but the Halo Infinite demo was supposed to show off the power of the Xbox Series X and it failed. I didn't expect Halo Infinite to look totally next gen, but it didn't even look like a top current gen game. There are current gen titles that are years older that look superior to Halo Infinite. It looked bad, there was no wow I need this game moment.
And again. Despite the pandemic Sony and Insomniac produced that fantastic gameplay demo. To that you replied different work ethic, studio and game, but 343i get a break because of the same global challenges ? Sorry, 343i and Microsoft dropped the ball here and you're just shifting goal posts to defend them, yet other studios are releasing demos and full games through it all.

It was clear from the Halo Infinite demo there are issues after 5 years of development. Yes, the pandemic has contributed, but as I stated other studios have coped. Microsof failed in the first show with no gameplay, both they and 343i failed with the Halo Infinite reveal. As stated, I didn't expect true next gen gameplay and graphics, but I expected a polished demo.

You can use any excuse you want to, but the Halo Infinite demo was very poor, and it didn't do the job it needed to do.
I don't think it is worth answering to ChaoticPentrath, he/she must be trolling or something. Just leave him/her in his/her fantasy world.
Yep, when people don't have an actual rebuttal to anything, they just try to discredit the person, rather than rebuttal what they said. This strawman mentality is sad honestly, you are so fixated that you are right, you won't consider any points given to you, and instead, resort to petty discredit, rather than having a civial debate. You sir, are the one not worth replying too.
DrahicrYou do realise during that "5" years they were also building the Slipspace engine, that alone could have taken 2 to 3 years of their development time alone. Again we don't know what challenges Sony or Insomiac faced vs 343 or Microsoft. I would gander that Microsoft is the one that slacked with the new Xbox, forcing 343 to have to keep playing catch up during development. I mean my god, Microsoft has still not revealed the price of the damn thing yet. So I feel a lot of issues were just do to 343 only have guestimate specs to work off of and having to keep changing things once Microsoft gave them more finalized specs.

I am not saying the demo was perfect, it indeed had its issues, but you can't say "Halo Infinite" is a horrible game,from a few graphical pop ins and missing textures from and likely Alpha build of the game. Yes, normally things would be polished for a presentation, but normally the devs have some form of dev kit or some version of the console to polish that build off to truely show it off, 343 had you use guestimate specs on a pc to show it off, implying that they ether don't have a dev kit with the finalized specs, or something is wrong with the Series X itself. Also the game is being built for all platforms of Xbox and pc. I feel its going to lack due to that decision, which most definitely was Microsofts doing.
Bold - That's the thing though, eviltedi isn't saying Halo infinite is or will be a horrible game. He's saying (at least I think lol) what Microsoft/343I showed did not in any way show off the power of series x, where as Sony And insomniac were able to show off the power of the PS5 And they had to deal with the same pandemic. No you're right that we don't know how far things were along with the new Halo or how things were with ratchet & clank but if Halo wasn't ready then they should have delayed it. They didn't and they got a pretty big backlash for it. Not only that, but it was a double punch in the face because They also failed to show off the power of series x.

Halo infinite is supposed to be the flagship game for Microsoft's next generation console and that game looked nowhere near next generation and I mean, no where!! And I know things like graphics and sound aren't everything but let's be realistic here...most of the time what convinces a person to buy something is how amazing it looks. If it ends up playing like crap then it doesn't matter how amazing it looks word will get around and it will ultimately fail...But the selling factor for most games is how it looks. I can tell you right now if series x launched with the new Halo game and it looked like what we saw and stores were running it on their demo screen and they had a PlayStation 5 with whatever game running beside, most people would consider Microsoft's new system to be a joke compared to Sony's. They would probably make comments like it doesn't look next generation at all why am I going to spend 500 plus dollars on this... So as much as people don't like to admit it graphics are a huge thing in a game.

Also for the record what 343 showed was a build for several weeks prior. They confirmed that. It wasn't 6 months old or anything like this... so to me that's even scarier to think this is what it looks like and they thought that was acceptable to show. If I were Microsoft I would have delayed the whole announcement because I don't know how they didn't think they were going to get any kind of backlash for what they showed because it definitely did not look anywhere near next generation.

I've been a fan since CE and I can honestly say that reveal of a Halo game was by far the most disappointing I've seen out of any of them. It looked very average and not next generation at all and it definitely did not make me want to rush out and buy their new system that's for sure!! I might of been unsure of things I saw, gameplay for one and some other stuff in Halo 4 reveal way back when but Halo 4 looked incredible!!! when they showed it and still made me want to buy it.
the delay is fine by me as long as they have something to share every now and then, like how they showed Jega and the MK VII armor.
DrahicrYou do realise during that "5" years they were also building the Slipspace engine, that alone could have taken 2 to 3 years of their development time alone. Again we don't know what challenges Sony or Insomiac faced vs 343 or Microsoft. I would gander that Microsoft is the one that slacked with the new Xbox, forcing 343 to have to keep playing catch up during development. I mean my god, Microsoft has still not revealed the price of the damn thing yet. So I feel a lot of issues were just do to 343 only have guestimate specs to work off of and having to keep changing things once Microsoft gave them more finalized specs.

I am not saying the demo was perfect, it indeed had its issues, but you can't say "Halo Infinite" is a horrible game,from a few graphical pop ins and missing textures from and likely Alpha build of the game. Yes, normally things would be polished for a presentation, but normally the devs have some form of dev kit or some version of the console to polish that build off to truely show it off, 343 had you use guestimate specs on a pc to show it off, implying that they ether don't have a dev kit with the finalized specs, or something is wrong with the Series X itself. Also the game is being built for all platforms of Xbox and pc. I feel its going to lack due to that decision, which most definitely was Microsofts doing.
Bold - That's the thing though, eviltedi isn't saying Halo infinite is or will be a horrible game. He's saying (at least I think lol) what Microsoft/343I showed did not in any way show off the power of series x, where as Sony And insomniac were able to show off the power of the PS5 And they had to deal with the same pandemic. No you're right that we don't know how far things were along with the new Halo or how things were with ratchet & clank but if Halo wasn't ready then they should have delayed it. They didn't and they got a pretty big backlash for it. Not only that, but it was a double punch in the face because They also failed to show off the power of series x.

Exactly right. Thank you.
They can take as long as like with this push back the way I see the better the game is a launch the happier I am it could mean more content and less bugs and it's not a rushed development
Lemme tell ya. The halo infinite release day was not a good one for me.
Day started out with my friend calling to tell me her grandma passed from covid, and her mom was now hospitalized.
Put on the news, and my favorite baseball player of all time was appearing with the president, both with no masks, and announcing he's been invited to throw out the opening day pitch for my team.
Disgusted, I waited for the infinite release.
What I saw was not next gen.
Halo 5 looked better.
The gameplay was weird. I'm not gonna rant.
After watching it 3 times, I came to the conclusion that halo, and the Xbox, were dead. Only reason to get a next gen Xbox would be for halo for maybe a couple years. I'm a 152 in h5, and just had to accept I'd never personally see my infinite "reward" because this was it. I was going to finally get a PlayStation. All the years playing halo were done.
I was OVERJOYED to hear it was being delayed. Could not believe things at halo and Xbox had sunk to this.
As far as I'm concerned, if 343 has to scrap all of it and start over, I'm ok with it. If halo infinite won't be on Xbox one, just the new console, I'm ok with that. Bummer, but I'm ok. I'll wait 2 years. Seriously. Because without a truly great halo game, there is no reason to continue with Xbox at all.
Bold - That's the thing though, eviltedi isn't saying Halo infinite is or will be a horrible game. He's saying (at least I think lol) what Microsoft/343I showed did not in any way show off the power of series x, where as Sony And insomniac were able to show off the power of the PS5 And they had to deal with the same pandemic. No you're right that we don't know how far things were along with the new Halo or how things were with ratchet & clank but if Halo wasn't ready then they should have delayed it. They didn't and they got a pretty big backlash for it. Not only that, but it was a double punch in the face because They also failed to show off the power of series x.

Halo infinite is supposed to be the flagship game for Microsoft's next generation console and that game looked nowhere near next generation and I mean, no where!! And I know things like graphics and sound aren't everything but let's be realistic here...most of the time what convinces a person to buy something is how amazing it looks. If it ends up playing like crap then it doesn't matter how amazing it looks word will get around and it will ultimately fail...But the selling factor for most games is how it looks. I can tell you right now if series x launched with the new Halo game and it looked like what we saw and stores were running it on their demo screen and they had a PlayStation 5 with whatever game running beside, most people would consider Microsoft's new system to be a joke compared to Sony's. They would probably make comments like it doesn't look next generation at all why am I going to spend 500 plus dollars on this... So as much as people don't like to admit it graphics are a huge thing in a game.

Also for the record what 343 showed was a build for several weeks prior. They confirmed that. It wasn't 6 months old or anything like this... so to me that's even scarier to think this is what it looks like and they thought that was acceptable to show. If I were Microsoft I would have delayed the whole announcement because I don't know how they didn't think they were going to get any kind of backlash for what they showed because it definitely did not look anywhere near next generation.

I've been a fan since CE and I can honestly say that reveal of a Halo game was by far the most disappointing I've seen out of any of them. It looked very average and not next generation at all and it definitely did not make me want to rush out and buy their new system that's for sure!! I might of been unsure of things I saw, gameplay for one and some other stuff in Halo 4 reveal way back when when but Halo 4 looked incredible when they showed it and still made me want to buy it.
Well then I will admit, I misread, his intention, still though that doesn't change the fact that an unpolished build of the game, isn't going to really show off the game properly to the audience. Also my argument was mainly explaining the likely reason behind getting such a demo, rather than the polished demos of the past. I understand that a demo is meant to represent both the console and the game, but as we have heard, Halo Infinite had been going thru quite the development hell, ( most likely due to Microsoft) and 343 had to reveal what they had, because Microsoft was fixated on releasing it this year. In fact it was likely thanks to 343 revealing what they did that spurred the fan backlash that allowed them to convince Microsoft of the delay they needed. I really do feel Microsofts meddling has had a big impact on Infinite and why it is in this state it is in. I mean this isn't the first time they have meddled, remember, Halo 5 was meant to be vastly different story-wise then what we got, because Microsoft stepped in and caused a rewrite I would not be surprised if similar things had not happened this time, only this time, thanks to Covid, we were able to see it before things fully baked in yet.

Look I know how important Halo is, but you have to realize that a lot of what makes up Halo's art style is this more colorful and cartoon aspect to it. Halo in some regards is supposed to look colorful and shiny, which is more down to the art style than anything graphical. Textures can help to take away the plastic look, but I sorry, its not meant to look like Modern Warfare or other more gritter looking games. I feel many people have been so accustomed to the more detailed, mechanical look of 4 and 5, that they have forgotten the look of the classic Halos.

I am aware that the build is a few weeks old, but that in and of itself does not age the actual build. That is just how current they were able to get that build stable, that does not mean that build had had the polish, texturing, or even finished ai implemented yet into it, as it was likely only meant to be a demo shown off for E3, heck I would not be surprised if what we saw was not actually meant to be the demo, they wanted to show off as generally the levels they show off in a demo are prerendered and are not necessarily actual levels are missions in the game, which usually means 343 would have more control over the events that happen within the demo, what we saw instead, is the reason why most game devs don't used their ''work in progress'' builds to show off their games.

Again, they used a old build or a work in progress game to show the gameplay. I don't know nor do I think we will ever know what spurred them to used the unfinished build as a show off, rather than the prerendered trailers of old, my only guess is that Covid made it impossible to get that build in a stable and poslished state before they had to reveal it, so they had to rush and get their current build fixed up, to present that. Regardless, the game will look better by launch as most of what was complained about is not that hard to fix, hell they may have actually been able to polish and finish atleast the campaign by this year had the stuck with the Splitting the Multiplayer and Campaign idea, and released the Multiplayer at a latter date, or vice versa. This is Halo, your not going to get some over the top visual effect, Halo's "Inhancements'' have always been in the sandbox and how it can improve, and what underlining features can be added. Meaning, what may be lacking in visual fidelity, it may make up in Ai Behavior, the amount of ais they can have you encounter at once, how indepth features can be in multiplayer and campaign ect. Hell they are boasting that forge is powerful enough to make a Battle Royal mode from it, so that right there would be where most of the next gen inhancements would be going. The visuals would be the last thing to ever see any major improvements.
Pretty much every AAA title gets delayed at some point. This was the first time it was delayed. So it really isnt that big a deal. Microsoft clearly asked them deep in the game to make an xbox series x exclusive into a multiplatform game. 343 has no experience developing multiplatform games launched at the same time. Combine the lack of experience with a lack resources. They dont have the studio set up like Activision or EA. Sure Microsoft does own quite a few studios but they are scattered across the realm and have never really had to pull together for a multiplatform game.
But as long as the design is good then it doesnt matter. A little extra time will make a big difference.
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 23
  4. 24
  5. 25
  6. ...
  7. 26