You wouldn't have a problem if Halo Infinite had the same/similar graphics as Halo 5's bad textures (https://static1.gamespot.com/uploads/original/1188/11888561/3068485-8777959797-Halo5.png)? Textures that looked worse than Halo 3 (https://i.imgur.com/KK8IkbL.jpg)? Fair enough, but I'm super proud of 343 Industries for taking the direction they are with Halo Infinite. A long development time, incredible graphics (The original Halo trilogy introduced ground breaking graphics for its time when each game came out). This is the direction they should take the main Halo games in. If Halo 6 was on the same/similar engine as Halo 5 with those graphics instead, that would be really unacceptable looking in modern day in my opinion.
How about a more niche and stylistic look on the visual department which doesn't require too much from the hardware.I would be inclined to agree, but if the announcement trailer is anything to go by, looks like that's not going to to happen. I'm fairly certain that trailer was in-engine, though probably not representative of the final graphical fidelity. I'd expect the final game to look like a somewhat toned down version of that.
Allowing the large maps, more AI and whatever else you wanted.
I don't feel like what we need is to push the graphics all the time. It's time to advance other stuff.
Yes, I notice the difference between 30 and 60 fps. I never thought I'd do, and that people exaggerated when they said going to 30 after being used to 60 is sickening / jarring. I'm not too far off from those experiences.
EDIT: I wouldn't ditch 60 fps for better campaign graphics. Frankly, graphical fidelity in games is at the point for me where I put game responsiveness even in single player ahead of graphics. Heck, if this game was everything I wanted, but hadn't advanced graphically from Halo 5, I wouldn't have the slightest problem with that.
While I can't speak for tsassi on that matter, one would have to assume that in the case of it being "Halo 5 bad" graphics, it'd be consistent through and through
Unlike the screenshot you posted where parts of the textures aren't up to par with the rest of the game.
As far as I'm concerned with graphics, the only time you actually notice how good they are is when you start the game up, and whenever the game decides to shove it in our face when you look at some massive set piece with incredible details and what not.
This is my experience, and to me it's quite ironic, the thing I'm least interested in when playing a game, is the graphics, they're the things we see, but when playing I couldn't care less about them as long as the gameplay is good, I actually forget about the graphics when playing. Can you honestly say that after 100 hours in, that the graphics of the game you're playing is of any importance?
Graphics are hyped up and showcased because it's the easiest to convey to people, and to talk about. How advanced the new tech in the engine is, how many more polygons they can fit in and what kind of new normal/bump mapping tech they've got which has reduced whatever which allows them to do something. It sounds so impressive, and it must be even more impressive to people who do not understand that kind of language.
Thinking back, I do not recall many games which are hailed because they "pushed graphics" forward, but because of the gameplay, neither do I recall many of the games with "impressive graphics", quite the opposite, I recall games which had good gameplay, but not really the best graphics, I also recall the games which didn't go nuts on getting the best imaginable graphics, but those that went with a more stylistic approach.
The graphics will not be the "main selling point" of Halo Infinite in 2-3 months, if they are, they better be some eye-blood inducing goodness, or the game is in an extremely sad state gameplay and content wise.