Skip to main content

Forums / Games / Halo Infinite

Observations on the July Gameplay - Not Good

OP Sparhawk122

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
After watching the gameplay of Halo: Infinite I've noted these points:

1. Flat looking, sometimes muddy and too clean textures with minimum to no detail.
2. No blood splatter on surrounding environs where enemies are gunned down or killed via melee combat.
3. Lack of grit and dirt on objects/vehicles/enemies/etc. Example the Warthog does not get dirty as it drives through mud. The Pelican does not get damaged on the front window after being hit by three AA guns; nor is the front nose scratched up after crashing into the ground.
4. Brutes look worse without fur and no longer look intimidating. Their face texturing leaves a lot to be desired and has even become a meme due to the extreme low quality.
5. Many of the weapons shown no longer have that Halo look/feel to them with the OG shotgun and Magnum being entirely replaced. Nor do many of them have that metallic feel and punch when firing.
6. Halo: Infinite already has a T for Teen rating on some sites. Which bodes ill for flood to come back. This could also be why there is no blood splatter on the ground anymore; and why there was no red blood when shooting Brutes.
7. Very noticeable object pop in for many in-game assets. Including the following, foliage, fog, Minecraft blocks etc. Even some textures took time to load in. So some serious LOD issues to tackle there. Along with the lighting system that had to reload every time the player exited the tac map
8. No indication of increment weather (Rain, storms, wind??) literally there is no simulated wind in the gameplay. all foliage was completely static.
9. Warthog does not leave tire marks as it drives along the ground through muddy terrain.
10. No splash sounds as Chief walks through water.
11. Bodies disappear extremely fast. So no Halo CE after battle scenes with dead bodies and blood peppering the area.
12. Pylons cluttering up the environment, and ultimately being an eyesore, by making it harder to enjoy the scenery on Zeta Halo. There are ugly looking hexagonal pylons everywhere. And their textures look very muddy.

How is this game even worth it for Xbox Series X when it does not even look like it will utilize the Xbox Series X hardware. This entire reveal was an absolute shambles. Feels like a Destiny wannabe but with worse visuals and cartoony looking characters.

End

EDIT: Was confirmed by 343 Industries that the July gameplay build was a recent build and only "a few weeks old". Not months old like some suspected. So the likelyhood that the graphics and other numerous technical flaws and lack of detail will get addressed by launch date seems even more remote.
I thought the graphics looked fine. I had no problem with any of the things you listed. What ruined it for me and why I won't be buying Infinite is the inclusion of sprinting.
6. Halo: Infinite already has a T for Teen rating on some sites.
Halo Infinite doesn't have an official ESRB rating yet. The sites are just using the rating from the previous game.
Willko wrote:
I thought the graphics looked fine. I had no problem with any of the things you listed. What ruined it for me and why I won't be buying Infinite is the inclusion of sprinting.
The game will be open world. So the level design aka vast open spaces make sprinting a logical inclusion.
I absolutely loved what I saw with the infinite trailer at the Xbox Games Showcase. Graphics have never been a big thing for me especially when it comes to halo. What needs to be nailed is multiplayer and competitive settings. An open world campaign alone was enough to attract new players to the halo community. 343 keep building on what was shown in July, the game looked and felt like Halo. Kudos.
I absolutely loved what I saw with the infinite trailer at the Xbox Games Showcase. Graphics have never been a big thing for me especially when it comes to halo. What needs to be nailed is multiplayer and competitive settings. An open world campaign alone was enough to attract new players to the halo community. 343 keep building on what was shown in July, the game looked and felt like Halo. Kudos.
Some of us care about the singleplayer mate. The story gives the game identity. And great visuals have always been a trait with Halo games.
Willko wrote:
I thought the graphics looked fine. I had no problem with any of the things you listed. What ruined it for me and why I won't be buying Infinite is the inclusion of sprinting.
The game will be open world. So the level design aka vast open spaces make sprinting a logical inclusion.
We had large, open levels throughout the original trilogy and no one ever complained about not being able to sprint through them. Vehicles, teleporters, and mancannons are ways to get through large, open spaces without needing to shoehorn in a gameplay mechanic that has been widely debated and argued for a decade of Halo games.
Willko wrote:
Willko wrote:
I thought the graphics looked fine. I had no problem with any of the things you listed. What ruined it for me and why I won't be buying Infinite is the inclusion of sprinting.
The game will be open world. So the level design aka vast open spaces make sprinting a logical inclusion.
We had large, open levels throughout the original trilogy and no one ever complained about not being able to sprint through them. Vehicles, teleporters, and mancannons are ways to get through large, open spaces without needing to shoehorn in a gameplay mechanic that has been widely debated and argued for a decade of Halo games.
This Halo game will be actual open world.
Willko wrote:
Willko wrote:
I thought the graphics looked fine. I had no problem with any of the things you listed. What ruined it for me and why I won't be buying Infinite is the inclusion of sprinting.
The game will be open world. So the level design aka vast open spaces make sprinting a logical inclusion.
We had large, open levels throughout the original trilogy and no one ever complained about not being able to sprint through them. Vehicles, teleporters, and mancannons are ways to get through large, open spaces without needing to shoehorn in a gameplay mechanic that has been widely debated and argued for a decade of Halo games.
This Halo game will be actual open world.
Ok... I get that. It doesn't change the fact that vehicles, teleporters, and mancannons are great ways to get across large, open areas without needing to ruin the core gameplay.

EDIT: correction: I should have said "CONTINUE to ruin the core gameplay."
Willko wrote:
Willko wrote:
Willko wrote:
I thought the graphics looked fine. I had no problem with any of the things you listed. What ruined it for me and why I won't be buying Infinite is the inclusion of sprinting.
The game will be open world. So the level design aka vast open spaces make sprinting a logical inclusion.
We had large, open levels throughout the original trilogy and no one ever complained about not being able to sprint through them. Vehicles, teleporters, and mancannons are ways to get through large, open spaces without needing to shoehorn in a gameplay mechanic that has been widely debated and argued for a decade of Halo games.
This Halo game will be actual open world.
Ok... I get that. It doesn't change the fact that vehicles, teleporters, and mancannons are great ways to get across large, open areas without needing to ruin the core gameplay.

EDIT: correction: I should have said "CONTINUE to ruin the core gameplay."
From what I have heard sprint may be an opt in option for whoever starts a match for multiplayer matches.
Willko wrote:
Willko wrote:
Willko wrote:
I thought the graphics looked fine. I had no problem with any of the things you listed. What ruined it for me and why I won't be buying Infinite is the inclusion of sprinting.
The game will be open world. So the level design aka vast open spaces make sprinting a logical inclusion.
We had large, open levels throughout the original trilogy and no one ever complained about not being able to sprint through them. Vehicles, teleporters, and mancannons are ways to get through large, open spaces without needing to shoehorn in a gameplay mechanic that has been widely debated and argued for a decade of Halo games.
This Halo game will be actual open world.
Ok... I get that. It doesn't change the fact that vehicles, teleporters, and mancannons are great ways to get across large, open areas without needing to ruin the core gameplay.

EDIT: correction: I should have said "CONTINUE to ruin the core gameplay."
From what I have heard sprint may be an opt in option for whoever starts a match for multiplayer matches.
Whether or not sprint is enabled for the current multiplayer match you're in doesn't negate most of the negative effects sprint has on the sandbox. Suppose you're in a non-sprinting multiplayer match. You're still subject to the increased aim assist that has to be present because of sprint. You're still playing in stretched out maps that exist because of sprint. The effective weapon ranges are all still increased because they're balanced for sprint. Opting into a multiplayer match without sprint fixes the issue where there's a disconnect between map traversal and combat. But, it doesn't fix any of the other areas of the sandbox that sprint ruins.
Willko wrote:
Willko wrote:
Willko wrote:
Willko wrote:
I thought the graphics looked fine. I had no problem with any of the things you listed. What ruined it for me and why I won't be buying Infinite is the inclusion of sprinting.
The game will be open world. So the level design aka vast open spaces make sprinting a logical inclusion.
We had large, open levels throughout the original trilogy and no one ever complained about not being able to sprint through them. Vehicles, teleporters, and mancannons are ways to get through large, open spaces without needing to shoehorn in a gameplay mechanic that has been widely debated and argued for a decade of Halo games.
This Halo game will be actual open world.
Ok... I get that. It doesn't change the fact that vehicles, teleporters, and mancannons are great ways to get across large, open areas without needing to ruin the core gameplay.

EDIT: correction: I should have said "CONTINUE to ruin the core gameplay."
From what I have heard sprint may be an opt in option for whoever starts a match for multiplayer matches.
Whether or not sprint is enabled for the current multiplayer match you're in doesn't negate most of the negative effects sprint has on the sandbox. Suppose you're in a non-sprinting multiplayer match. You're still subject to the increased aim assist that has to be present because of sprint. You're still playing in stretched out maps that exist because of sprint. The effective weapon ranges are all still increased because they're balanced for sprint. Opting into a multiplayer match without sprint fixes the issue where there's a disconnect between map traversal and combat. But, it doesn't fix any of the other areas of the sandbox that sprint ruins.
Last I checked it only really hurts PvP for some players who don't like the extra gameplay depth and get salty.

I only really play the campaigns. So sprint does not bother me. If anything it adds to immersion. Because Spartans per canon are extremely fast sprinters.
Willko wrote:
Willko wrote:
Willko wrote:
Willko wrote:
I thought the graphics looked fine. I had no problem with any of the things you listed. What ruined it for me and why I won't be buying Infinite is the inclusion of sprinting.
The game will be open world. So the level design aka vast open spaces make sprinting a logical inclusion.
We had large, open levels throughout the original trilogy and no one ever complained about not being able to sprint through them. Vehicles, teleporters, and mancannons are ways to get through large, open spaces without needing to shoehorn in a gameplay mechanic that has been widely debated and argued for a decade of Halo games.
This Halo game will be actual open world.
Ok... I get that. It doesn't change the fact that vehicles, teleporters, and mancannons are great ways to get across large, open areas without needing to ruin the core gameplay.

EDIT: correction: I should have said "CONTINUE to ruin the core gameplay."
From what I have heard sprint may be an opt in option for whoever starts a match for multiplayer matches.
Whether or not sprint is enabled for the current multiplayer match you're in doesn't negate most of the negative effects sprint has on the sandbox. Suppose you're in a non-sprinting multiplayer match. You're still subject to the increased aim assist that has to be present because of sprint. You're still playing in stretched out maps that exist because of sprint. The effective weapon ranges are all still increased because they're balanced for sprint. Opting into a multiplayer match without sprint fixes the issue where there's a disconnect between map traversal and combat. But, it doesn't fix any of the other areas of the sandbox that sprint ruins.
Last I checked it only really hurts PvP for some players who don't like the extra gameplay depth and get salty.

I only really play the campaigns. So sprint does not bother me. If anything it adds to immersion. Because Spartans per canon are extremely fast sprinters.
well, per canon, Spartans can lay prone to snipe. Spartans can peek around corners too. Are you also arguing for Halo to steal these gameplay mechanics from other games? Or, does your "canon" argument only extend to sprinting?

Quote:
Last I checked it only really hurts PvP for some players who don't like the extra gameplay depth and get salty.
It adds complexity without really adding much in the way of depth. Depth and complexity are two very different things.
ask any devs, making a vertical slice is a pain in the -Yoink- and expensive. Putting in the polish needed is a waste of energy and in many cases, adding all the systems that may be there, just is not worth it
ask any devs, making a vertical slice is a pain in the -Yoink- and expensive. Putting in the polish needed is a waste of energy and in many cases, adding all the systems that may be there, just is not worth it
That attitude does not quality make.
ask any devs, making a vertical slice is a pain in the -Yoink- and expensive. Putting in the polish needed is a waste of energy and in many cases, adding all the systems that may be there, just is not worth it
That attitude does not quality make.
its still a business. If the demo costs 100 grand or more and it pulls people away from the main game (in this case, it would pull them away longer given e3 was canceled) it becomes no longer worth it. Sure, the demo has a poor showing but if the final product is better as a result (we don't know) no one will remember the demo.
ask any devs, making a vertical slice is a pain in the -Yoink- and expensive. Putting in the polish needed is a waste of energy and in many cases, adding all the systems that may be there, just is not worth it
That attitude does not quality make.
its still a business. If the demo costs 100 grand or more and it pulls people away from the main game (in this case, it would pull them away longer given e3 was canceled) it becomes no longer worth it. Sure, the demo has a poor showing but if the final product is better as a result (we don't know) no one will remember the demo.
Reportedly 500 million dollars and extended development window by 2 years to equal 5 years in total, is not enough time to get a good quality sample out the window?

Let's not beat around the bush here. Something happened behind the scenes. A. Last minute changes with poor leadership decisions or B. Just plain laziness and complacency.
ask any devs, making a vertical slice is a pain in the -Yoink- and expensive. Putting in the polish needed is a waste of energy and in many cases, adding all the systems that may be there, just is not worth it
That attitude does not quality make.
its still a business. If the demo costs 100 grand or more and it pulls people away from the main game (in this case, it would pull them away longer given e3 was canceled) it becomes no longer worth it. Sure, the demo has a poor showing but if the final product is better as a result (we don't know) no one will remember the demo.
Reportedly 500 million dollars and extended development window by 2 years to equal 5 years in total, is not enough time to get a good quality sample out the window?
Well, we know infinite was meant to come out earlier in UE4. However, the engine did not have the tools needed so they built slipspace (which takes a lot of money and manpower to do). They then had to move everything to slipspace which is not an easy task. We also know they scrapped the original story idea given the response to 5 and leaned into the banished after their reception in HW2.

None of this is a result of poor leadership, if anything its a result of solid leadership deciding a route and making the needed changes to fulfill that goal. As a result of all that time passing, the game got pushed to being a flagship title for the XSX (who knows when that was decided). Demos are built from the ground up and they built it for E3 which was supposed to be 3-4 months ago. Once E3 got canceled, production most likely stopped on the demo until it was decided it was going to be shown in July (honestly, prob a response to the May showcase). With that amount of time, the idea to shift development from the game to that demo just is not worth it. Out of Risk and Reward, its lower risk for the demo to be mediocre given the games on gamepass so people will play it anyway and that once the games out, it will be judged on what it is, not how the demo looked. Plus, it be better press to say its a vast improvement over the demo and how everyone was wrong (we don't know but I am looking at it from a marketing perspective)
let's just accept for what it is... it's not like we could do better...
let's just accept for what it is... it's not like we could do better...
The people doing the fan-made project, Installation 01, looked like they were doing better. At least they understood that sprint ruins the feel and flow of Halo's style of gameplay and were smart enough to leave it out entirely.
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5