Forums / Games / Halo Infinite

( PREDICTIONS ) Open world.. or nah?

OP FridgedCold

I've been rather interested with the fact that most games in 2019-20 have been aiming with the thought of open world on their minds. For example, it really kicked up with the bigger world the Legend of Zelda build in Breath of the Wild. Furthermore, I'd think Halo would fit perfectly with a open world style. The wide range of enemies in the series, weapons, and vehicles just are a proven fact. But the down side is the community wanted a classic Halo experience.. But could you mix the two? Thought this would be a interesting debate, heh.
Hope not. I think 343i tried to "get with the times" with the enhanced mobility system, and it didnt go so well for them when it came to some of the fans. I for one, embraced the enhanced movement, but that's neither here nor there.
So in the sense of "getting with the times" and going for an open world design, could be detrimental to the series. Doesn't have to be a corridor shooter like others, but a vast open world, a-la Far Cry, doesn't exactly fit the mold of Halo. At least for the mainline story.
Hope not. I think 343i tried to "get with the times" with the enhanced mobility system, and it didnt go so well for them when it came to some of the fans. I for one, embraced the enhanced movement, but that's neither here nor there.
So in the sense of "getting with the times" and going for an open world design, could be detrimental to the series. Doesn't have to be a corridor shooter like others, but a vast open world, a-la Far Cry, doesn't exactly fit the mold of Halo. At least for the mainline story.
I agree. If they decided to make the levels bigger and take a less linear approach like in Combat Evolved, I could get behind that for sure.
It is hard , (if not impossible at this point since I don't believe any one has done it) to create a linear story inside of an open world. How do you create story points if you don't know where a player will go first? So I would have to say no. If any thing it will be more akin to C.E. with large explorable areas , but not actually open world.
I hope any way.
There's been a few recent threads on open world set up. Can't find them right now but this is not the first.

I'm going to say the same thing, while it is not unreasonable for a open world halo game (ODST 2) for the 6th game of the Master Chief it doesn't seem like it would fit especially with the past 5 stories. It is better to have a go here and get this done than a hey whenever you want there is this thing over here type story. That being said you could have open world like elements such as a between mission hub on the UNSC Infinity much like the Carrington Institute on Perfect Dark. But other than that it wouldn't fit with the next game.
I dont think it will be open world but i think the sandbox will be up to 3x as big as H1 sandbox.
I don't see the appeal of an open world Halo. First of all, there's the issue that open world games are really, really hard to make. They struggle with empty space which needs to be filled with things for the player to do that seem meaningful in the context of the game. I don't personally trust 343i to be able to do a good open world game, since most developers can't. Secondly, open world games are, ironically, extremely confining. The whole story of a typical modern open world game takes place inside of a 10 km by 10 km square. That limits the options on what sort of story you can tell.

I've played enough open world games to know the struggles they have. I know from experience that for me the value of an open world is primarily in exploration, and once I've been to every corner of the world, there is rarely any replay value for me left. I accept that for the open world games I play, but I wouldn't want a Halo game where I know that after a single playthrough I'd be done with the single player experience. Although that single playthrough might be tens of hours, I know that in the long term I'd get much more value from a well executed traditional campaign.
i doubt it
Hope not. I think 343i tried to "get with the times" with the enhanced mobility system, and it didnt go so well for them when it came to some of the fans. I for one, embraced the enhanced movement, but that's neither here nor there.
So in the sense of "getting with the times" and going for an open world design, could be detrimental to the series. Doesn't have to be a corridor shooter like others, but a vast open world, a-la Far Cry, doesn't exactly fit the mold of Halo. At least for the mainline story.
I agree. If they decided to make the levels bigger and take a less linear approach like in Combat Evolved, I could get behind that for sure.
Yeah, on CE, the level 'Halo' was linear, but allowed the player choice, especially when it came to rescuing the lifeboat survivors. I remember being able to tackle that mission in any order. It was different, and cool, and allowed for more level exploration
Halo is effectively a military sci-fi action movie, its not meant for an open world game, which tends to be slower paced. Its not about a wanderer who walks between settlements of non-combatants doing minor quests for them. Its about a super soldier with a mission. You interact with other military personel almost exclusively, they shouldn't be sitting on their butts giving you side quests, they should be helping you take the fight to the enemy.

Open word game worlds are inherently actually small. To cut down on dead space and let developers focus on what matters, open worlds are small compared to the scale of halo's stories. Heck, between the 2nd and 3rd levels of CE chief travels a longer distance than is possible in any current open world game. Open world would oddly enough completely destroy the scale of halo.

Halo CE had balanced openness with a sense of urgency perfectly.
I hope not, open world is not an "improvement, " its just change. There is nothing wrong with a well built linear game and an open world Halo is inherently going to result in cost the game in other ways. It just isn't worth it for a mainline Halo game.
This post has been edited by a moderator. Please do not post spam.
*Original post. Click at your own discretion.
Spoiler:
Show
More open levels like Halo: CE would be good, but I don't think I would want an open world. I wouldn't mind gigantic levels with multiple objectives which a player can approach in any order that they prefer. Think the mission objectives of Halo: CE's Halo or Halo 4's Shutdown, but on a level the size of Forge World in Halo: Reach. A hub world like Halo 3: ODST's Mombasa Streets might also work.

But creating a Halo game with a Far Cry-like open world? I think that would be really limiting for Halo Infinite's gameplay and storytelling.
I suspect it'll be more semi-open world, not full on open world. So in theory there'd be plenty to explore but not open world so more time could be spent on creating different levels since it might repetitive if all the environments are the same.
I would not be a fan of that.
Halo is effectively a military sci-fi action movie, its not meant for an open world game, which tends to be slower paced. Its not about a wanderer who walks between settlements of non-combatants doing minor quests for them. Its about a super soldier with a mission. You interact with other military personel almost exclusively, they shouldn't be sitting on their butts giving you side quests, they should be helping you take the fight to the enemy.

Open word game worlds are inherently actually small. To cut down on dead space and let developers focus on what matters, open worlds are small compared to the scale of halo's stories. Heck, between the 2nd and 3rd levels of CE chief travels a longer distance than is possible in any current open world game. Open world would oddly enough completely destroy the scale of halo.

Halo CE had balanced openness with a sense of urgency perfectly.
True, and I'd add: marines perform abysmally when facing enemies (as opposed to facing you when you aggravate them). The two common ways to rectify this glaring issue have been to bestow onto them more health/armor (as in Halo 2) or to increase their numbers.

Reach introduced the concept of marine fireteams that would follow the player after encountering him, but it was mostly in theory, limited to five soldiers, and they often died too quickly. Not sure how H5 implemented it. In Halo CE (Halo, TnR, AotCR) and H3 (The Storm), there were situations where human NPCs who had been saved would progress alongside the player and you could ideally gather up to 16 of them. This would be a way to increase their numbers without giving them an overwhelming advantage from the onset, since it'd be optional to rescue them. But then don't make it near impossible to rescue them, as is the case with the stranded marines on 343GS and Floodgate. More like the ones you find on Infinity.

Of course, devs could actually try to improve marine AI to perform better, but marines shouldn't outshine Chief so the Bungie philosophy of keeping them dumbed down and barely tolerable is somewhat understandable. H3 Arby and HR Noble Team are examples of intrusive NPCs (although I liked Arby). On Nightfall, Jun completely destroys any chance at stealth. I believe there's a way to prevent him from alerting everyone, but the player shouldn't have to go out of his way to arrange this. Commands to stop them from making off with vehicles and charging senselessly into battle will likely circumvent their deficiencies, but I haven't actually played H5 so I don't know what Blue Team is like.

Open levels (while still being linear), noted as HCE missions Halo and TnR, seem to work better than an open world scenario. Even H3 missions The Ark and The Covenant furnish good examples.

More open levels like Halo: CE would be good, but I don't think I would want an open world. I wouldn't mind gigantic levels with multiple objectives which a player can approach in any order that they prefer. Think the mission objectives of Halo: CE's Halo or Halo 4's Shutdown, but on a level the size of Forge World in Halo: Reach. A hub world like Halo 3: ODST's Mombasa Streets might also work.

But creating a Halo game with a Far Cry-like open world? I think that would be really limiting for Halo Infinite's gameplay and storytelling.
Shutdown seems to get overlooked due to the shortcut (although from a speedrunning standpoint, it's much appreciated). The easter eggs (power weapon spawns) were largely irrelevant even when playing through the game normally, since they weren't really needed to even the odds. I think there'd have been more urgency on that mission if there had been marines or even Covie separatists stranded in those towers (optional rescue, of course).

Mombasa Streets managed to make repetitive environments and backtracking work (a common complaint for HCE missions), although it lacked the actual stealth element.
It worked well in ODST, but that was due to the story. It was meant to take place in a single city. Whereas a usual Halo campaign visits numerous different locations, that couldn't feasibly be connected by an open-world.

While all levels are technically linear, their linearity can be masked by good level design, and open spaces. This seems far more likely to me than true open-world.
It worked well in ODST, but that was due to the story. It was meant to take place in a single city. Whereas a usual Halo campaign visits numerous different locations, that couldn't feasibly be connected by an open-world.

While all levels are technically linear, their linearity can be masked by good level design, and open spaces. This seems far more likely to me than true open-world.
Besides the much smaller scale of ODST, the game wasn't quite 'open world' like most 'open world' games are. Mombasa streets is more like a hub for a set of linear campaign missions, the missions doing most the story telling. It doesn't have as many eastereggs, collectables, or side missions that open world games usually have.
It worked well in ODST, but that was due to the story. It was meant to take place in a single city. Whereas a usual Halo campaign visits numerous different locations, that couldn't feasibly be connected by an open-world.

While all levels are technically linear, their linearity can be masked by good level design, and open spaces. This seems far more likely to me than true open-world.
Besides the much smaller scale of ODST, the game wasn't quite 'open world' like most 'open world' games are. Mombasa streets is more like a hub for a set of linear campaign missions, the missions doing most the story telling. It doesn't have as many eastereggs, collectables, or side missions that open world games usually have.
Yes, that's true. A hub-world is a better description than an open-world.
I'm not so sure if they'd be capable of pulling off the open-world idea for Halo as most other games identify open world, and as we generally associate the term with. When I hear the word "open-world", I'm thinking of something like a large area with missions and little side things you can do, with a vast area with all sortsa little details covering the place. Games like Ghost Recon: Wildlands, Destiny 2(though only in the whole "quests" and "adventures" aspect), and Red Faction: Guerilla(long ago) typically come to my mind, with a more probably popular choice being something like GTA V.

Trying to imagine Halo, which for a while has been relatively restrictive in terms of missions, being open-world isn't really something that sounds like it'd 343's forte. Chances are the closest thing they can get to is something on par with the spacious level design as Halo: CE had, with longer missions travelling through vast/open areas. Would it be an interesting take if they can do it right? I'd be down to see what they can do. However, I think it'd be a bit safer to guess that they're going for level design closer to CE's.