Forums / Games / Halo Infinite

THE ART STYLE

OP STEELBARBER

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 4
  4. 5
  5. 6
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. ...
  9. 9
tsassi wrote:
They meant "intricate" not as in "small", but as in "complicated".
Ah, okay. But really I wouldn't say they're over-designed; that's more a personal view issue, I would imagine. I don't think Bungie had a clear notion going forward what the role of the Forerunners was to be beyond "they set off the Halo's, left a bunch of artifacts, and disappeared." They're shrouded in mystery for a lot of the games, and I personally enjoy the expansion that we've seen. As well as the complexity of their constructs and facilities; they seem more on-par with elements such as the giant unidentified ancilla on the Halo 3 map Cold Storage. Or technologies like the Automated Turret equipment. Compare your picture of the Ark Cartographer to structures on Genesis, or even the interior of the Kamchatka facility, and it's not all that much more complex. There is symmetry, conformity, and a uniform cleanliness that does visually tie together. Even when you get the bits that have multiple moving objects, they work together in concert and do not compete visually with one another.

Which speaks strongly to the ideologies that we're finding prevalent in Forerunner society; order among complexity.

With constructs like a Guardian, they're a larger machine and not really comparable to architecture. We've never seen a construct as large as them, however there was a depiction in one of the Halo 3 terminals (I forget which one) of a Forerunner ship or construct that from what I remembered seemed pretty complex as well.
Well, it's obviously subjective. We're talking about art, after all.

I knew from the get go that the Guardian was an extreme example, and that not all Forerunner designs have that amount of complexity. But it's easier to point out the features from something that takes them to the extreme. While a lot of the Forerunner structures of 343i are less complex, the same differences are there, just more subtle. Take for example that Kamchatka picture. Sure, it does have symmetry, there are some clear parallel lines and large flat surfaces. However, there are still a lot more orientations of surfaces and lines than you'd see in classic Forerunner designs, as can be seen on the darker parts of the foreground floor, as well as the ceiling. If you look straight down the middle, the wall angle changes constantly. The structure lacks the repetition I'd expect from Forerunner architecture.

In contrast to the Kamchatka picture, consider the one from Halo 4. If you look at the walls and the doorway, there are precisely three types of lines at play on each side of the corridor: one perpendicular to the floor, one parallel to the floor, and one in between. Every structure is then built out of these three lines which, despite the complexity of the scene, gives a clear sense of order. This is much more what I'd expect from Forerunner architecture.

When it comes to Genesis (in general) I think it's overall much cleaner than a lot of other Forerunner structures in Halo 5 because of the constant use of circles. However, if we look at the picture you linked, I think that back part where everything connects kind of ruins it. The circular part is certainly well-ordered, but then that order is messed up by the variety of angles and surfaces that don't seem to follow any common direction. And I stress that it's not just about the symmetry, which this structure obviously has. The repetition of shapes I think is an equally important part, and is what is missing in 343i's designs.

On a completely different note, I have to say that I don't personally like the expansion of the Forerunner lore. I preferred the mystery and their more passive involvement in the story. This obviously influences my views on Forerunner designs. For example, it means that while I acknowledge that Forerunners as a realistic culture would have different styles of design, I regard it as more important to have a unified style that gives an instantly recognizeable setting for the game. Also, I do not like how Halo 4 and 5 portray "active" in their Forerunner designs, which very broadly covers many parts of the architecture, as well as the existence of the whole Promethean faction. This, of course, has nothing to do with the above discussion of complexity, but is just a general remark on how I personally feel about 343i's take on Forerunners.
tsassi wrote:
Over-designed? Also Halo 3 (and Reach) had quite a bit of "intricate detail" for what the 360 could process. Right down to readable warning labels on the Spartan Laser.
They meant "intricate" not as in "small", but as in "complicated". The design language in Bungie games was overall simpler than in 343i games. For example, the Forerunner architecture of Bungie consisted largely of simple, large geometric shapes that make use of a few different angles, straight lines, and repeating patterns. See, for example The Ark Cartographer. 343i's style, on the other hand, has a lot more going on. There are a lot more (and smaller) parts, a lot more angles, less clear patterns, more rounded and complex shapes. Overall, there's much more going on. See, for example, a Guardian.

This is what "over-designed" is referring to. The aesthetic of 343i looks noisy. In Bungie's games, there's of course detail, but the detail at different levels, but the smaller detail tends to follow the structure of the larger detail, which gives an impression of a very clean and ordered aesthetic. The detail is either subtle, clearly structured, or natural (e.g., wear, erosion, etc.). For 343i, this is less often true, and more often the relation between different details is much hazier. It feels as if the details aren't there to complement each other, but to compete, which makes the visual appearance feel very busy, and over-designed.
I'm sorry but the phrase over-designed is literally a substitute for they changed the art style and I dont like it. Ducks for you that they now have the ability to be more Intricate in design. As technology gets better the more people will add design, no matter the game. Just cuz the graphical ability of halo CE was limited to that era doesn't mean I'm forever going to make my game look like that even though I have the ability to make it look better. Humanity has a tendency to make things look "over-designed" look at old Norse design, Intricate and beautiful. But no screw that it's to over designed.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rDnyS3erhvo he makes the best case I think.
Odesses wrote:
tsassi wrote:
Over-designed? Also Halo 3 (and Reach) had quite a bit of "intricate detail" for what the 360 could process. Right down to readable warning labels on the Spartan Laser.
They meant "intricate" not as in "small", but as in "complicated". The design language in Bungie games was overall simpler than in 343i games. For example, the Forerunner architecture of Bungie consisted largely of simple, large geometric shapes that make use of a few different angles, straight lines, and repeating patterns. See, for example The Ark Cartographer. 343i's style, on the other hand, has a lot more going on. There are a lot more (and smaller) parts, a lot more angles, less clear patterns, more rounded and complex shapes. Overall, there's much more going on. See, for example, a Guardian.

This is what "over-designed" is referring to. The aesthetic of 343i looks noisy. In Bungie's games, there's of course detail, but the detail at different levels, but the smaller detail tends to follow the structure of the larger detail, which gives an impression of a very clean and ordered aesthetic. The detail is either subtle, clearly structured, or natural (e.g., wear, erosion, etc.). For 343i, this is less often true, and more often the relation between different details is much hazier. It feels as if the details aren't there to complement each other, but to compete, which makes the visual appearance feel very busy, and over-designed.
I'm sorry but the phrase over-designed is literally a substitute for they changed the art style and I dont like it. Ducks for you that they now have the ability to be more Intricate in design. As technology gets better the more people will add design, no matter the game. Just cuz the graphical ability of halo CE was limited to that era doesn't mean I'm forever going to make my game look like that even though I have the ability to make it look better. Humanity has a tendency to make things look "over-designed" look at old Norse design, Intricate and beautiful. But no screw that it's to over designed.
You're getting needlessly worked up over someone elses opinion. Obviously, it's a matter of opinion, and you don't need to think it's over-designed just because others do. However, calling it "over-designed" is certainly more than just a substitute for "I don't like it". It seeks to explain why I don't like it. Not only that, but in the second paragraph I tried to explain how some of the changes might lead someone to call many of the Forerunner designs of 343i "over-designed".

When it comes to technological improvements, you're making yourself a strawman here. Nobody's suggesting that 343i shouldn't make use of the increased graphics performance of the Xbox. However, "detail" is not the same as "complex design" nor does it imply it. Detail can come in many forms that complement the simple design language.

There's also an important context here. I can admire all of the above intricate medieval woodwork, the complex faces of Gothic churches, or the frescos of Baroque buildings. They are all highly complex, but that's how they've always been. That's their style, that's their gimmick. However, Forerunner design was not always complex. Up to Halo Reach it always had certain simplicity to it. That was the style, but then it changed. And just like I wouldn't want all the Baroque buildings be reworked to look more modern, and minimalist, I don't like the Forerunners being reworked to look more complex.
I can't even begin to explain how happy I am to see the forerunner buildings look like forerunner buildings again. If it was anything that really bothered me about the h4 and h5 style it was the forerunner architecture
Not much Forerunner buildings to be seen in the trailer but I thought what we did see was very like Ragnarok from Halo 4 MM. I personally thought Halo 4 nailed the whole Forerunner look and feel especially when you first entered the Warthog area in Requiem, that vista was just amazing with all the little licks i.e the horse in background, the moving lights on surfaces and even the jagged rock faces. I loved the way skulls and other stuff was hidden in rock formations.

Remember the vast majority of Halo 4 was played in a Forerunner structure.

Cant wait for Infinite
Odesses wrote:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rDnyS3erhvo he makes the best case I think.
What case ? That video is just his opinion on what makes Halo, according to what I watched he thinks fair starts make Halo. He also needs to research a bit more, at 5.45 he mentioned assault rifles in Halo 2. I stopped watching right there.

I think the older art style makes Halo, I think too much has been changed. I would like to see a blending of old and new because I honestly think some of the new art is amazing, but so is the old, I'm being a bit cautious though, all we have seen is an engine demo, a very impressive demo, but a demo non the less.
I'm trying to compile some screenshots of Bungie-era Forerunner architecture - inside and outside - to give some better comparisons.
everything feels like halo and thats what matters
StillEuan wrote:
I can't even begin to explain how happy I am to see the forerunner buildings look like forerunner buildings again. If it was anything that really bothered me about the h4 and h5 style it was the forerunner architecture
Not much Forerunner buildings to be seen in the trailer but I thought what we did see was very like Ragnarok from Halo 4 MM. I personally thought Halo 4 nailed the whole Forerunner look and feel especially when you first entered the Warthog area in Requiem, that vista was just amazing with all the little licks i.e the horse in background, the moving lights on surfaces and even the jagged rock faces. I loved the way skulls and other stuff was hidden in rock formations.

Remember the vast majority of Halo 4 was played in a Forerunner structure.

Cant wait for Infinite
I can see the similarities in ragnorark and the structure in the trailer but at the same time ragnorark kinda felt like my exception to the new forerunner style because it's completely connected and still resembled the old bungie design in a way. The biggest problem I had with the new forerunner stuff was floating towers and everything being disconnected just to feel super futuristic rather than that ancient feel they use to have.
treyt12 wrote:
everything feels like halo and thats what matters
Hear hear to that, man.

The biggest problem I had with the new forerunner stuff was floating towers and everything being disconnected just to feel super futuristic rather than that ancient feel they use to have.
The thing is that the Forerunners were always super futuristic. They built seven giant ring planets in space, and a big petal one outside the galaxy. They were ancient to humanity, but so advanced and "futuristic" it was insane. Always. The aesthetic really should reflect that, rather than blocky structures limited by the day's technology.
ill give you a good answer...

personally halo 4s armor looked good except the visor and stuff.. it was realistic... wasnt a big fan of halo 2s armour.. it just looked off like a person couldnt fit in it..

a real spartan armour to me is halo wars 2 jerome armour it looks... AMAZING did you guys not see the cutscenes from halo wars 2 THAT IS HALO

they could have left the new armour but return to the original art style or halo wars 2 style. boom done thats it game over that fixes everything..

i dont really mind mc going to his halo 2 armour.. but i kinda do.. maybe he can one day go back to even jeromes armour

movement mechanics? find a middle ground allow sprinting sprinting wont make or break the game.
I feel a bit disappointed, because it doesn't look like a sequel to Halo 5 but a Halo Combat Evolved side game. I like the current Chief armor a lot and the floating forerunner structures. The problem to me is that Halo 5 art style was ideal but too plastic, this one, from what the trailer show looks plastic the same way.
I agree, especially with how the the art style was portrayed for the Forrunners. It captures their status...or former status as a hyper advanced civilization. So I at least hope they keep THAT the same and well.....I'll admit, I liked the new and diverse spartan armors they had going in 5. Chief including, but of course I know people are going to disagree but that's my ten cents. But still excited none the less for the rest of the game and potential story.
I feel a bit disappointed, because it doesn't look like a sequel to Halo 5 but a Halo Combat Evolved side game. I like the current Chief armor a lot and the floating forerunner structures. The problem to me is that Halo 5 art style was ideal but too plastic, this one, from what the trailer show looks plastic the same way.
I agree, especially with how the the art style was portrayed for the Forrunners. It captures their status...or former status as a hyper advanced civilization. So I at least hope they keep THAT the same and well.....I'll admit, I liked the new and diverse spartan armors they had going in 5. Chief including, but of course I know people are going to disagree but that's my ten cents. But still excited none the less for the rest of the game and potential story.
Complexity does not equal status. Their was a grace, elegance to their original trilogy design.

But, I do think the old Halo armour was far more unique and realistic than how it is in 343. Honestly, armour; like plate? Has never been overly complex to be necessarily effective ect. I'd like a compromise, a mixture of Halo OG and new. Like HW2.

But, I do think Chief should keep his iconic and badass H3 look. H3 chief eats H5 chief alive anyday.
Their was a grace, elegance to their original trilogy design.
Not really. I'm still compiling pictures (it's back-to-school, so my job has been insane), but a lot of the "original designs" (they changed, even within the Bungie Trilogy) were blocky and clunky looking (even with the graphics taken out of consideration.) I mean, look at the Sentinel Enforcer versus the Retrievers. It shows one level of technology to build a sentinel like the Enforcer, with it's crusher-arms and Needler-like attacks, but it shows a different sort of technology (and some, myself included, would argue a more superior show) to make a sentinel that doesn't have mechanically connected parts - rather using magnetics - and attacks with a wide array of energy weapons.
Their was a grace, elegance to their original trilogy design.
Not really. I'm still compiling pictures (it's back-to-school, so my job has been insane), but a lot of the "original designs" (they changed, even within the Bungie Trilogy) were blocky and clunky looking (even with the graphics taken out of consideration.) I mean, look at the Sentinel Enforcer versus the Retrievers. It shows one level of technology to build a sentinel like the Enforcer, with it's crusher-arms and Needler-like attacks, but it shows a different sort of technology (and some, myself included, would argue a more superior show) to make a sentinel that doesn't have mechanically connected parts - rather using magnetics - and attacks with a wide array of energy weapons.
I can understand that. But, if you ask me. Bulky or mechanical doesn't mean a lack of elegance.

Besides, it might be more hyper-technological ect. But, that doesn't make it necessarily superior. Look at the ring, simplistic and just incredibly powerful. The ring never needed magnets or any of that high fantasy style crap.

It's like having big pauldrons on your armour in medieval times, its just over doing it. The whole point of the forerunners is simplistic yet powerful. That's how the design should be, not this over-complicated ugly mess.

Don't need to have a 'superior show' of power. That just isn't important. Nor does it fit Halo's GOOD artstyle. And, to the people who think 4/5's artstyle is better, should keep in mind that Halo has been in the dumpster as far as popularity since said new artstyle came. And its 50% why.

Additionally, you compared the Retrievers to the Enforcers. They're both somewhat similar, and made for different jobs. But, lets compare the IMPORTANT things. Enforcer/Sentinels vs Prometheans. You know what? I can remember what the former looks like. The latter? Is a damn mess, its ugly. It's boring.
Their was a grace, elegance to their original trilogy design.
Not really. I'm still compiling pictures (it's back-to-school, so my job has been insane), but a lot of the "original designs" (they changed, even within the Bungie Trilogy) were blocky and clunky looking (even with the graphics taken out of consideration.) I mean, look at the Sentinel Enforcer versus the Retrievers. It shows one level of technology to build a sentinel like the Enforcer, with it's crusher-arms and Needler-like attacks, but it shows a different sort of technology (and some, myself included, would argue a more superior show) to make a sentinel that doesn't have mechanically connected parts - rather using magnetics - and attacks with a wide array of energy weapons.
Halo 2 also has the mechanical bridge on Delta Halo, which seems out of place considering we already saw light bridges in Halo CE. Whatever the reason, the less advanced aesthetic on Delta Halo was almost certainly intentional, and not really representative of the Forerunner design people think of when they think of the original trilogy.

In general, for the pictures you're compiling, you'll have to keep two things in mind. First, even if you get someone to agree that some particular Forerunner design in the original trilogy is not elegant, that doesn't really change anything, since the claim isn't that everything in the original trilogy is elegant, but that the Forerunner aesthetic is meant to be elegant. Secondly, elegance is awfully subjective. Just because you find something clunky looking, doesn't mean others will.

If you're compiling your pictures in an attempt to disprove something, the task is fundamentally misguided. Rather than trying to find examples of things you personally find unappealing and showing them to people in an attempt to disprove something, you should go in with the understanding that other people already like the style of the original trilogy, and try to understand what it is that they like.
I'll admit, I liked the new and diverse spartan armors they had going in 5.
As far as armor customization goes, I say the more the merrier. I believe the more choices they give to the player, the better. Yes, there is a difference between an abundance of quality armor choices and then an over abundance of redundant hot garbage for the sake of microtransactions, let's get that out out the way. But having options is good. Even goofy ones. Just make sure the old classics are there (your Marks, your Security, Recon, Noble Team's armor, ODST, Scout, CQB, EVA, etc.) and your new favorites (Fotus, Nightfall, Herioskrill, Osiris & Blue Team's armor, and yes, Seeker for the hell of it. Seeker should be the new Recon. lol).

Look on the bright side ... now that we're going back to Chief's classic Mark VI, maybe we'll finally get his Halo 4-5 era Mark VI in matchmaking. We can have Mark IV's, V's, classic VI's, and ... I'm gonna call it "nanobot" VI's running around in Slayer. It'll be great.

That said, I'm pretty excited about artstyle change overall. Halo 4 is a gorgeous game, but I (especially in retrospect and after seeing H2A and HW2) think it probably strayed a tad too far.
the art style is subjective if its good or not. i'm personaly fine with the new style, but i liked the old better.
gameplay has to be good (which is also subjective)
Don't need to have a 'superior show' of power. That just isn't important. Nor does it fit Halo's GOOD artstyle.
What is "good Halo" is subjective, though. I don't think it can be conclusively shown that it's the artstyle specifically that's affected Halo's "popularity" (even then, that's hard to prove, I think, as most arguments for it seem to focus on Multiplayer) to even 50% of the reason.

However, a "superior show of power" was entirely the Forerunner way, both to subjugate lesser species, and even to gain political footing in their own rates and nations.

Quote:
But, lets compare the IMPORTANT things. Enforcer/Sentinels vs Prometheans. You know what? I can remember what the former looks like. The latter? Is a damn mess, its ugly. It's boring.
That's your opinion. I remember what all of them look like, and the function of the Promethean Knights fits with their function. They were created by the Didact as Composed-driven armagers to combat the Flood with no risk of infection. Having "floating joints" would practically ensure that they can't be torn limb from limb by Flood combat forms, as there's no joint to break. Pull an arm off, and it can just pop right back where it was. I think they're no more ugly than the Enforcer, which frankly I think looks like it'd fit more with Star Wars than Halo; it was a lot less ellegant than Sentinel Aggressors.

tsassi wrote:
If you're compiling your pictures in an attempt to disprove something, the task is fundamentally misguided.
For the screenshots that I'm taking, I'm more trying to side-by-side compare complexity, symetry, and "aesthetic noise" (as best can be told from graphical limitations) between Bungie's Forerunners and 343's. The issue that I'm trying to tackle is whether or not 343's Forerunner designs are "over-designed" compared to the overall design of Bungie's Forerunners.
It appears they’re going back to the classic art style that appeared in Halo Wars 2, but some things look a little too cartoony and like Fortnite for me. I hope this isn’t the case, but this was mainly just showcasing the engine after all. I’m sure they know making things look like Fortnite wouldn’t go over well.
Yes it is still very cartoony. That's why it looks like a different game. I will keep my expectations very very low
Halo was always cartoony. I hope it’s not unrealistically cartoony like Fortnite is. There is a possibility they’ll try to attract the Fortnite and Overwatch crowds with a mix between Fortnite and regular Halo, but that’d still be too cartoony for my tastes. Halo 2A‘s cartoony art style worked the best and I hope they lean towards that route.
Ya, I mean, Master Chief looked pretty "real" to me at least. Halo has always had a bit of a cartoony look minus maybe Reach. Just look at the Halo 3 Elites.
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 4
  4. 5
  5. 6
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. ...
  9. 9