Forums / Games / Halo Infinite

Halo infinite looks lost

OP Modod

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. ...
  7. 5
The animated/cartoony art style is fine when done right. I also think the game has some visual issues that currently make the art style look a little rough. I recently watched some Half Life Akyx gameplay and it has an animated, somewhat cartoony style as well and it looks incredible. Once they iron out some of the rough spots which the consensus seems to suggest is almost entirely lighting related, I think we'll all be really happy with the games look.
Textures have to look good in shadow too. Lighting is not a magic wand you can wave around to magically fix even the worse of textures. Sometimes bad textures are just bad and no amount of good lighting can fix them.
Honestly, I think the problem is Halo hasn't decided what its identity really is now. I don't agree that Halo shouldn't stay exactly the same from an artistic perspective throughout its entire existence as a franchise with just updated graphics and maybe a few new sandbox items. However, it also shouldn't lose what makes Halo unique in the first place: awe and wonder, mystery, horror, desperation, stoic heroism, cheeky comments and subtle humor, over-powered human weapons/vehicles (.50 cal pistols with huge trigger guards, 8 gauge shotguns, 14.5mm sniper files, and giant, over-powered recon vehicles that are bigger than a Humvee).
We haven't seen a few of those things in the past several years, and Halo has kind of copied other tactical sci-fi shooters like Titanfall and COD (which copied Titanfall). I think Halo needs to remember what makes it special, while still evolving the franchise with subtle changes: Chief's armor doesn't always have to be exactly the same, but don't make him look like a damn superhero with this super-sleek armor - it should look somewhat bulky and utilitarian, it's okay to re-design the Warthog, but don't make it into a race car hat can't take any damage or handle any bumps, and don't remove iconic weapons like the M6 Magnum and M45/M90 Shotgun, that's not okay.
Not lost, but confused. And do you know who is confused? Parts of this community including myself.
The rather interesting language that some people use such as "prey" , "pursits", "trinity of halo gameplay"...

I am not sure why i feel the way i do towards halo entirely. I dont know why I feel the way i feel towards halo infinite. But I do know I hate the way I feel towards part of this community becasue they think they know why they feel towards those things.
How about lets have a dialogue and discussion before we make up our minds about things? A dialogue, and not a monalogue, not a lecture.
What makes halo halo are many things.
Here are some parts of what I think makes halo, halo.
Simple yet fun, appealing and rich gameplay, aesthetics, characters, story, community, lore, music, ai, sounds, and sandbox (i might be missing like 20 other things :P)
To narrrow that down, some symbolic staples of the franchise, like sheilds as a base trait, the master chief, a halo ring... etc

When we talk about our expereinces with halo, I beleive often times some of us re-imagine what our first expereince was like.
For me, that was halo CE... a halo that started a group of traditions that followed through arguably all the halos... and some other traditions that were followed through a few halos, reintroduced in other halos, removed in others. *Some* of which continued through all 3 of the first trilogy.
Some traditions were introduced after CE, like dual weilding and hijacking in halo 2.

So what halo means and represents is a very diverse set of range of things. For me: something that was present in ALL of the previous halos, including CE,2,3,4, and 5... but not in infinite is a spectacular sky box. *gasp*
Some thing that i believe was in CE,2, and 3... but not in 4 and 5, but in halo infinite is the way campaign gameplay plays out... at least from what *I felt* from seeing someone else play it.
Grapple hook is something new, I dont know how I feel about it yet. Yet you have people who are complaining about its existence, and people who praise it before even playing it themselves or giving it much thought. Im conflicted. not sure how to feel about it, reserving my opinon for now.
Art style: different people can hold different opinions... my opinion is brtues shouldnt be hairless, and that is my only complaint that i recognize as of the moment.

What im doing here is offering you a method of communicating your ideas, thoughts and opinions, being opinionated, while also not being a jerk to others (see what i did there? I was a jerk by being passive aggresive, that, and even this comment, is a poor way of communicating.)
Who is lost? its us. The majority, including 343, including the community, including the og. Identity in philosophy is very complicated. Everything that built up to or is associated with our halo experience contributes. It can even be playing *Xbox*... it can even be the controller... it can be your freinds that you used to play with. Or it could be the specific scenarios that you ended up having while playing halo.
When people say this is halo, or this isnt halo, that is their personal preference , and they are entitled to that. It doesnt mean they are correct or incorrect, but the essence of what they are trying to communicate is true to themselves (unless... they are lying to themselves XD)
Consider that they want to repeat an expereince they found plesant to themselves. I liked in halo 4 flying the broadsword and the music that played during it. I liked lasky. Both of which i associate with halo. I liked evade in halo reach... a feature i actually fantasized having since halo 3. You bet I believe its halo.
How about armor lock, jet packs, thruster packs....
Yes...
But i will make an exception. If it was clearly inspired by other games, to the point where it takes the identity of another franchise, then you might argue then that it seems to be un-halo lol. Or more accurately, it feels more like the expereinces you had another game more than it feels like your previous experiences of halo.

Like sprint to many many people. Like clamber and slide to many many people. For me, becasue im a noob and I dont play many other games, I find it fine... since i didnt play many other games. If halo had dolphin dive like black ops, maybe then id feel like it didnt belong, becuase it seems something like i would experience in the game i played very often.
Extending this idea, as long as halo remains unique... that seems like the route we want to take with respect to its identity.
That and continuity...
I hate most AAA open world games. To use the cliche phrase: "Deep as an ocean, shallow as a puddle".
Unless you are doing this monumental undertaking like GTA or Elder Scrolls where your games are now regarded as this cultural phenomenon, a once-in-a-decade event, more often than not open world games feel empty and cookie-cutter.

The game also has to look much worse graphically, because unlike previous Halos that only have to worry about loading the mission (and still might hiccup at two scarabs), Infinite has to load the entire game world in the players proximity and all objects therein. From there we get ugly, clumsy pop-ins like the grass and fog attempting to alleviate some of that pressure. You can't stand atop a pile of dead enemies, they vanish and don't leave blood stains because that taxes the engine. Brute Drop Pods explode - why? That seems like an incredibly stupid idea. The user has pinned themselves between the enemy and a bomb, lost some cover, or might have gotten trapped or knocked out inside their pod... the answer is that if the pods aren't going to do anything, they may as well explode and get off the screen.

F2P MP, especially on PC, just reaffirms all this to me. The most popular F2P games more often than not allow for most consumers to play them without having to worry about expensive upgrades. If you're banking on making bank from F2P, you want to attract as broad an audience as possible, which means you can't expect everyone to have a high-end PC.

Which leads to the third and final "mass appeal" kill shot - rated T for Teen.
Diovangelo wrote:
I hate most AAA open world games. To use the cliche phrase: "Deep as an ocean, shallow as a puddle".
Unless you are doing this monumental undertaking like GTA or Elder Scrolls where your games are now regarded as this cultural phenomenon, a once-in-a-decade event, more often than not open world games feel empty and cookie-cutter.

The game also has to look much worse graphically, because unlike previous Halos that only have to worry about loading the mission (and still might hiccup at two scarabs), Infinite has to load the entire game world in the players proximity and all objects therein. From there we get ugly, clumsy pop-ins like the grass and fog attempting to alleviate some of that pressure. You can't stand atop a pile of dead enemies, they vanish and don't leave blood stains because that taxes the engine. Brute Drop Pods explode - why? That seems like an incredibly stupid idea. The user has pinned themselves between the enemy and a bomb, lost some cover, or might have gotten trapped or knocked out inside their pod... the answer is that if the pods aren't going to do anything, they may as well explode and get off the screen.

F2P MP, especially on PC, just reaffirms all this to me. The most popular F2P games more often than not allow for most consumers to play them without having to worry about expensive upgrades. If you're banking on making bank from F2P, you want to attract as broad an audience as possible, which means you can't expect everyone to have a high-end PC.

Which leads to the third and final "mass appeal" kill shot - rated T for Teen.
Sadly you are likely right on all counts.
Diovangelo wrote:
The game also has to look much worse graphically, because unlike previous Halos that only have to worry about loading the mission (and still might hiccup at two scarabs), Infinite has to load the entire game world in the players proximity and all objects therein. From there we get ugly, clumsy pop-ins like the grass and fog attempting to alleviate some of that pressure. You can't stand atop a pile of dead enemies, they vanish and don't leave blood stains because that taxes the engine. Brute Drop Pods explode - why? That seems like an incredibly stupid idea. The user has pinned themselves between the enemy and a bomb, lost some cover, or might have gotten trapped or knocked out inside their pod... the answer is that if the pods aren't going to do anything, they may as well explode and get off the screen.
XD absolutely fantastic thought there.
Ready for the a potentail lore explanation?
The brutes find glory on fighting on the battle feild, retreat and hiding, getting stuck in a malfunction is shameful... and so onward they fight ...
But still why destroy the pod? well you see, they need to secure their tech so it doesnt fall into enemy hands XD.

But yes, the reason you stated is more likely the actual reason.
saifa117 wrote:
Diovangelo wrote:
The game also has to look much worse graphically, because unlike previous Halos that only have to worry about loading the mission (and still might hiccup at two scarabs), Infinite has to load the entire game world in the players proximity and all objects therein. From there we get ugly, clumsy pop-ins like the grass and fog attempting to alleviate some of that pressure. You can't stand atop a pile of dead enemies, they vanish and don't leave blood stains because that taxes the engine. Brute Drop Pods explode - why? That seems like an incredibly stupid idea. The user has pinned themselves between the enemy and a bomb, lost some cover, or might have gotten trapped or knocked out inside their pod... the answer is that if the pods aren't going to do anything, they may as well explode and get off the screen.
XD absolutely fantastic thought there.
Ready for the a potentail lore explanation?
The brutes find glory on fighting on the battle feild, retreat and hiding, getting stuck in a malfunction is shameful... and so onward they fight ...
But still why destroy the pod? well you see, they need to secure their tech so it doesnt fall into enemy hands XD.

But yes, the reason you stated is more likely the actual reason.
Red Dead: Redemption 2 managed to have dead bodies stay on the map for a decent amount of time. And that game was not even built for next gen....

If Halo: Infinite can't have somewhat persistent dead bodies and dropped weapons in an open world that will be smaller then RDR2's map, then that's 343 dropping the ball.
qlimm wrote:
Sorry, I had to stop reading at "prey on nostalgia."

You act as if the community didn't throw a tantrum every time 343 tried to be original.
Because 343 obviously don't care. Else they would not rip out classic Halo weapons like the Magnum and Tactical Shotgun....
Oh boy, one of them again.

1. I'm a Halo Fan since the beginning and you know what? I have zero problems with them removing these weapons. I hardly ever used them in the Games, the Magnum i used only at the Start of Halo, then never again really, the same goes for the Shotgun in every game. I either used the AR or BR 99%.

2. They can add them in at a later point, Multi and Solo and probably will seeing how people are crying about them.

3. Have them try at least SOMETHING new in case of Weapons, people are whining about the Grapple, the Bulldog, the Sidekick etc.

Has the entire Halo Community turned into needy little kids in the past years? Am I the only grown up here who wants 343 to give a chance? The only thing I was not happy about with 343's Halo was the Story in Guardians, everything else I enjoyed, Halo 4 I enjoyed both Story and Multiplayer.
saifa117 wrote:
Ready for the a potentail lore explanation?
The brutes find glory on fighting on the battle feild, retreat and hiding, getting stuck in a malfunction is shameful... and so onward they fight ...
This is funny because I remember the Brutes constantly using their Coward Cover bubble shields when I played through Halo 3
qlimm wrote:
Sorry, I had to stop reading at "prey on nostalgia."

You act as if the community didn't throw a tantrum every time 343 tried to be original.
Sorry but if you don't have it in you to read the comment you have zero right to enter the discussion. Evidently you lack the context to make any worthwhile contribution to the discourse due to your laziness.

I don't recall 343i doing anything original.
Followed trends and copied successful contemporaries or a mediocre cult starwars shooter. Spartan ops being an exception and in the case of spartan ops the community took issue with execution not concept as previously mentioned.
Bungie era halo consistently set trends in the industry 343i has chased them. Please provide evidence of your argument and actually read the comments if you want people to take you seriously.

In terms of sandbox elements they added that weren't just redskins of old weapons. I loved the stick det. Mostly though we got varients of existing weapons. The mantis is great. Prometheans are full of potential but 343i haven't made use of the unique traits they created and in H5G they moved away from that concept to make them less distinct as a faction.
sprint and slide is not really an advanced movement. H5 was advanced because of how extreme they all were, especially when paired with thrusting, hover, and ground pound. They all lacked weight which resulted in players catapulting across maps. At the end of the day though, sprint has been a part of the halo franchise for almost 8 yrs now. Removing it does not make sense. So they did what they had to do, dumb down H5s movement system, and reintroduce more sandbox elements from H3.

Also to be fair, what a "standard" halo experience is will completely vary person to person. For some, it's about the sandbox (something infinite is leaning into), for others its purely a compelling campaign, or fleshed out co-op experience. Hell, and for many its just shooting aliens in the face and tea bagging your friend. There is no universal with Halo no matter how much people claim there is. To me, that looked like Halo and I can look past the polish issues cause it's petty at best to complain about visuals (not artstyle) in a demo. Many reactions online also seem to criticize the game for that fact which I find hilarious. I listened to a podcast where they were like "that looked like halo but I wanted something different."

At the end of the day, you're never going to get the game that you want. Halo has gone through this rampage cycle with every release (outside of maybe HW2). People will be mad cause its not what they personally want, they will play it, they will move on. As for a delay, eh I'm fine if it happens, I'm fine if it doesn't. The games multiplayer is ftp and it's on gamepass, if PUBG could thrive (and that was a mess technically) then Halo can as well, especially when the entire multiplayer suite is apparently free to play.
I disagree with your stance on AM, for me a multi directional slide and an air hike, clamber slide and sprint are very much AM. But you could argue against that although not this thread.
I think their is a clear set of elements that can be called standard. Seeing as there was 5 games released back to back that reatured them.
Also I was satisfied with every bungie game at release even when they weren't exactly what I hoped. The free to play model isn't right just because it's profitable
knick93 wrote:
Modod wrote:
Halo infinites reveal left me feeling interested and with time I grew to hate it but why?
The post reach games have struggled with identity. Being a spiritual reboot clearly attempting to prey on nostalgia infinite misses every mark imaginable.
CE established an exaggerated stylised art for the series that bungie remained faithful to. 343i chose to take a more cluttered modern military scifi style that could be more easily Co pared to call of duty or titan fall but the use of plastic toy like textures made this style more confusing trying to be more kid friendly and realistic at the same time.
Now we seem to have the plastic toy feel in a style that attempts to be classic but isn't. It's gone to a cartoony extreme and uses designs that fit an rts but look silly in fps. It claims to return to old sensibilities but clings to advanced movement becoming a middle space that fails to serve either audience, the old school halo fans and the modern generic future shooter fans. The lighting looks abysmal as did the textures and the surfaces flatness doesn't seem to make much of any Ray tracing they add in post launch. The signs towards varients of weapons is disheartening. Also the issue people have had with the stories and characters 343i used so far is all about poor execution so abandoning things like blue team, spartan ops ect and using exterior fiction to plug in holes is one of the worst things they have done. This game better address every plot point introduced in a halo shooter left in resolved and provide explanation. Most people have no idea what happened in 4 or how we got to 5 from requiem. It seems that even when complaint are heard it doesn't change the real issue, the people in charge didn't understand what made the franchise special and even when they try to appease fans critisms they miss the point of contention and fail to understand what halo is. So here we have a second phase of reinventing the franchise and its trying to appeal to 2 opposing factions of players while ticking off the open world box and service game destiny box. While halo can be wonderful with some open world additions it's not very exciting to see them attempt it before they have shown they can make a standard halo experience.
I hope they get delayed a year and have the time to polish the game so at the very least it's complete and feature rich at launch because the core mechanics are already feeling off. For example they bring back “equipment" as a nod to halo 3 yet all I say was armour abilities and halo 4 design choices. Gone are the halo 3 design philosophies of modular even play. All of halo 3s equipment could be turned against the user. The drop wall is built to serve the user only while the bubble in 3 could save your enemy as much as kill them depending on skill and situation. The same goes for grav lifts, the grapple shot is all about player power and agency but not in the quintessential halo way of sandbox driven situational gameplay. This is very much a get power to be stronger and have an advantage over using the right tool at you disposal to accomplish one's goal.
I'll give it a go with GP but as it stands this marks the 3rd strike the halo franchises fear of being itself has killed interest for me. How about you?
I agree especially about what you said about the equipment. Its not implemented in the right way. Like someone else said, Favyn had a video talking about it. The equipment in h3 was neutral and could be used for or against your team or the enemy. Infinite equipment only helps the person picking it up. It seems cheap and not as skillful. Shooting through the bubble wall seems extremely broken for multiplayer.

I'm also really disappointed with this game. I thought infinite was really going back to claasic and now they just are going to release a bizarre mix of classic and abilities. I'd rather keep playing mcc, especially on pc.
I've seen a few mention favyn must check out that video today.
Modod wrote:
The post reach games have struggled with identity.
I recall that when Reach launched, there was a similar level of discontent over the grittier, darker art style. Funny how suddenly there are a ton of posts lumping that game in with the original three as some kind of 'classic Bungie' style.

8 minutes of gameplay isn't enough for a good comparison, but IMO what we saw was aesthetically closer to the original trilogy than 4, 5 or even Reach. There are some graphical problems like a lack of shadows and detail, texture pop-in, wonky animations etc but in terms of the art style, it looks very close to classic Halo.
Raz Raptre wrote:
Modod wrote:
The post reach games have struggled with identity.
I recall that when Reach launched, there was a similar level of discontent over the grittier, darker art style. Funny how suddenly there are a ton of posts lumping that game in with the original three as some kind of 'classic Bungie' style.

8 minutes of gameplay isn't enough for a good comparison, but IMO what we saw was aesthetically closer to the original trilogy than 4, 5 or even Reach. There are some graphical problems like a lack of shadows and detail, texture pop-in, wonky animations etc but in terms of the art style, it looks very close to classic Halo.
Reach had only one ability per person and hardcore was no abilities. Reach had a darker art style like ce. Reach felt more like halo than halo 4 or 5 imo.

The art style looks like its trying to be more like classic, but a lot of things look plastic and the colors look too bright. It does look more classic than halo 4 or 5, but it just doesn't really look like the classic art style though.
Agreed with your entire statement.

Though in all fairness if they fixed three things I would be content.

Bring back the flood.

Bring back blood and blood splatter on the ground.

Drastically improve the graphics so as the gameplay does not look toy-like and plastic.
I thought Flood as well, but it's not gonna happen if the game is rated Teen.

Edit: Never mind, I thought it was confirmed the game was teen. Apparently it's not.
knick93 wrote:
Raz Raptre wrote:
Modod wrote:
The post reach games have struggled with identity.
I recall that when Reach launched, there was a similar level of discontent over the grittier, darker art style. Funny how suddenly there are a ton of posts lumping that game in with the original three as some kind of 'classic Bungie' style.

8 minutes of gameplay isn't enough for a good comparison, but IMO what we saw was aesthetically closer to the original trilogy than 4, 5 or even Reach. There are some graphical problems like a lack of shadows and detail, texture pop-in, wonky animations etc but in terms of the art style, it looks very close to classic Halo.
Reach had only one ability per person and hardcore was no abilities. Reach had a darker art style like ce. Reach felt more like halo than halo 4 or 5 imo.

The art style looks like its trying to be more like classic, but a lot of things look plastic and the colors look too bright. It does look more classic than halo 4 or 5, but it just doesn't really look like the classic art style though.
Reach -Yoinking!- fundamentally broke Halo - Reach is the start of Halo 4 and 5. I cannot stand people who defend Reach whilst complaining about 343i changing Halo, because it's all Reach's fault, because Bungie were bored of Halo and wanted to try copying Battlefield. And Reach looked nothing like CE, nothing at all - CE is not dark and gritty, the only ones close to that is the Flood levels.
xsv wrote:
sprint and slide is not really an advanced movement. H5 was advanced because of how extreme they all were, especially when paired with thrusting, hover, and ground pound. They all lacked weight which resulted in players catapulting across maps. At the end of the day though, sprint has been a part of the halo franchise for almost 8 yrs now. Removing it does not make sense. So they did what they had to do, dumb down H5s movement system, and reintroduce more sandbox elements from H3.

Also to be fair, what a "standard" halo experience is will completely vary person to person. For some, it's about the sandbox (something infinite is leaning into), for others its purely a compelling campaign, or fleshed out co-op experience. Hell, and for many its just shooting aliens in the face and tea bagging your friend. There is no universal with Halo no matter how much people claim there is. To me, that looked like Halo and I can look past the polish issues cause it's petty at best to complain about visuals (not artstyle) in a demo. Many reactions online also seem to criticize the game for that fact which I find hilarious. I listened to a podcast where they were like "that looked like halo but I wanted something different."

At the end of the day, you're never going to get the game that you want. Halo has gone through this rampage cycle with every release (outside of maybe HW2). People will be mad cause its not what they personally want, they will play it, they will move on. As for a delay, eh I'm fine if it happens, I'm fine if it doesn't. The games multiplayer is ftp and it's on gamepass, if PUBG could thrive (and that was a mess technically) then Halo can as well, especially when the entire multiplayer suite is apparently free to play.
Please allow me to correct you and add my thoughts.
Sprint ALONE completely changes the playstyle of the game. As for having all of the abilities of Halo 5, the (enhanced) mobility/gameplay just goes from broken to absurd.
* ''At the end of the day though, sprint has been a part of the halo franchise for almost 8 yrs now. Removing it does not make sense.'' Halo, for 9 years (2001-2010) had no sprint, so by your logic, adding it after 9 years does not make sense.
* ''Also to be fair, what a "standard" halo experience is will completely vary person to person.'' No, standard Halo has a definition, the same arena style formula was used from ce to 3, with additions such as equipment that worked flawlessly with the sandbox, what you think varies from person to person looks to me like different peoples favorite aspects of Halo.

* ''At the end of the day, you're never going to get the game that you want.'' Thats accepting defeat, thats how i see it, unless you voice your opinions and let everyone know that what we got so far isnt what we or the franchise deserved, then yea, by all means you re not getting the game you want.
True, sprint fundamentally changes Halo and has since Halo Reach and those changes equate to far less popular Halo titles (H4 & H5, and Reach.
knick93 wrote:
Raz Raptre wrote:
Modod wrote:
The post reach games have struggled with identity.
I recall that when Reach launched, there was a similar level of discontent over the grittier, darker art style. Funny how suddenly there are a ton of posts lumping that game in with the original three as some kind of 'classic Bungie' style.

8 minutes of gameplay isn't enough for a good comparison, but IMO what we saw was aesthetically closer to the original trilogy than 4, 5 or even Reach. There are some graphical problems like a lack of shadows and detail, texture pop-in, wonky animations etc but in terms of the art style, it looks very close to classic Halo.
Reach had only one ability per person and hardcore was no abilities. Reach had a darker art style like ce. Reach felt more like halo than halo 4 or 5 imo.

The art style looks like its trying to be more like classic, but a lot of things look plastic and the colors look too bright. It does look more classic than halo 4 or 5, but it just doesn't really look like the classic art style though.
Reach -Yoinking!- fundamentally broke Halo - Reach is the start of Halo 4 and 5. I cannot stand people who defend Reach whilst complaining about 343i changing Halo, because it's all Reach's fault, because Bungie were bored of Halo and wanted to try copying Battlefield. And Reach looked nothing like CE, nothing at all - CE is not dark and gritty, the only ones close to that is the Flood levels.
I hated Reach with a passion. The gameplay was needlessly clunky, and bloom made 1v1 encounters feel like a game of chance since a spammer still had a chance to beat someone that was pacing due to luck. Waiting for someone to come out of armorlock killed pacing, jet packs made map design pointless, ugh. The overuse of forge maps in matchmaking was out of control to the point where when I think of Reach maps all I can remember is gray blocks on grass. There was also that constant motion blur that gave me a headache to look at for any length of time. The campaign also caused plot holes in the continuity and the original books had to be updated and rereleased to fix those holes.

I completely regret purchasing the Legendary edition of that game.
Im a huge fan of halo, stop playing after 4. Story was meh, overall doesnt felt like halo. Never played halo 5. Im having a blast with mcc on PC, and after seeing the infinite gameplay it just doesnt look good to me. Cant put my finger on what exactly but its just not halo.
knick93 wrote:
Raz Raptre wrote:
Modod wrote:
The post reach games have struggled with identity.
I recall that when Reach launched, there was a similar level of discontent over the grittier, darker art style. Funny how suddenly there are a ton of posts lumping that game in with the original three as some kind of 'classic Bungie' style.

8 minutes of gameplay isn't enough for a good comparison, but IMO what we saw was aesthetically closer to the original trilogy than 4, 5 or even Reach. There are some graphical problems like a lack of shadows and detail, texture pop-in, wonky animations etc but in terms of the art style, it looks very close to classic Halo.
Reach had only one ability per person and hardcore was no abilities. Reach had a darker art style like ce. Reach felt more like halo than halo 4 or 5 imo.

The art style looks like its trying to be more like classic, but a lot of things look plastic and the colors look too bright. It does look more classic than halo 4 or 5, but it just doesn't really look like the classic art style though.
Reach -Yoinking!- fundamentally broke Halo - Reach is the start of Halo 4 and 5. I cannot stand people who defend Reach whilst complaining about 343i changing Halo, because it's all Reach's fault, because Bungie were bored of Halo and wanted to try copying Battlefield. And Reach looked nothing like CE, nothing at all - CE is not dark and gritty, the only ones close to that is the Flood levels.
I never said ce was gritty. Ce's art atyle is dark, but not as dark as Reach. Reach is not the best halo game imo, but I personally enjoyed playing reach. There is only one ability in reach and it feels more like halo than halo 4 and 5.

Reach would have been better without abilities or bloom, but it's not bungie's fault 343 made worse changes to halo.
343 is their own company and they make their own decisions. They chose to make halo 4 and 5 worse than reach.
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. ...
  7. 5