Quantcast
Should Halo Infinite drop Xbox One and go Scarlet exclusive?

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - Should Halo Infinite drop Xbox One and go Scarlet exclusive?

Tagged games:

Should it?

Yes, dump Xbone, next gen exclusive 22 34.38%
 
No, keep it cross gen with Xbone 42 65.63%
 
Total:64
Mr Puggsly said:
curl-6 said:

I'm in two minds on this; on the one hand, yeah, some crossgen 7th/8th gen games looked very pretty on PS4/Xbone like Far Cry 4 and COD Advanced Warfare. But on the other hand, those games still didn't really hold a candle to the best looking games actually made from the ground up for PS4/Xbone, like Ryse or Killzone Shadowfall.

Not great comparisons.

Far Cry 4 is an open world game, much more ambitious than games like Killzone:SF or Ryse. Yet it still had visuals fairly par with those 8th gen exclusives and more impressive in other ways.

When making comparison you should always consider 30 fps vs 60 fps. Advanced Warfare is a 60 fps game and visually is built around that.

Battlefield 4 on X1 and PS4 look arguably better than both Killzone:SF and Ryse. But since its a 60 fps game, it had to pull back on polish.

Honestly, I wouldn't say any crossgen games at all were in Ryse or Shadowfall's league.



Around the Network
curl-6 said:
Mr Puggsly said:

Not great comparisons.

Far Cry 4 is an open world game, much more ambitious than games like Killzone:SF or Ryse. Yet it still had visuals fairly par with those 8th gen exclusives and more impressive in other ways.

When making comparison you should always consider 30 fps vs 60 fps. Advanced Warfare is a 60 fps game and visually is built around that.

Battlefield 4 on X1 and PS4 look arguably better than both Killzone:SF and Ryse. But since its a 60 fps game, it had to pull back on polish.

Honestly, I wouldn't say any crossgen games at all were in Ryse or Shadowfall's league.

Well I played all the games mentioned. You can give the edge to games like Killzone:SF and Ryse, but they're linear games aiming for 30 fps.

Its also worth noting the most ambitious game mentioned is Far Cry 4. Its a dynamic open world with tons of AIs running around, but it worked fine on 7th gen specs. Yet people seem to have impression we need 9th gen consoles to create experiences like that. I'm not sure why people think X1 is holding back a Halo game. What do they expect 9th gen specs to do for the series?



Recently Completed
Crackdown 3
for X1S/X1X (4/5) - Infinity Blade III - for iPad 4 (3/5) - Infinity Blade II - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Infinity Blade - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Wolfenstein: The Old Blood for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Origins for X1 (3/5) - Uncharted: Lost Legacy for PS4 (4/5) - EA UFC 3 for X1 (4/5) - Doom for X1 (4/5) - Titanfall 2 for X1 (4/5) - Super Mario 3D World for Wii U (4/5) - South Park: The Stick of Truth for X1 BC (4/5) - Call of Duty: WWII for X1 (4/5) -Wolfenstein II for X1 - (4/5) - Dead or Alive: Dimensions for 3DS (4/5) - Marvel vs Capcom: Infinite for X1 (3/5) - Halo Wars 2 for X1/PC (4/5) - Halo Wars: DE for X1 (4/5) - Tekken 7 for X1 (4/5) - Injustice 2 for X1 (4/5) - Yakuza 5 for PS3 (3/5) - Battlefield 1 (Campaign) for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Syndicate for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: MW Remastered for X1 (4/5) - Donkey Kong Country Returns for 3DS (4/5) - Forza Horizon 3 for X1 (5/5)

Mr Puggsly said:
curl-6 said:

Honestly, I wouldn't say any crossgen games at all were in Ryse or Shadowfall's league.

Well I played all the games mentioned. You can give the edge to games like Killzone:SF and Ryse, but they're linear games aiming for 30 fps.

Its also worth noting the most ambitious game mentioned is Far Cry 4. Its a dynamic open world with tons of AIs running around, yet it worked fine on 7th gen specs. Yet people seem to have impression we need 9th gen consoles to create experiences like that.

There is a noticeable technical difference though between games built for the 8th gen systems and those built as crossgen. Doubtless the same will apply to 8th and 9th gen systems, is all I'm saying.



curl-6 said:
Mr Puggsly said:

Well I played all the games mentioned. You can give the edge to games like Killzone:SF and Ryse, but they're linear games aiming for 30 fps.

Its also worth noting the most ambitious game mentioned is Far Cry 4. Its a dynamic open world with tons of AIs running around, yet it worked fine on 7th gen specs. Yet people seem to have impression we need 9th gen consoles to create experiences like that.

There is a noticeable technical difference though between games built for the 8th gen systems and those built as crossgen. Doubtless the same will apply to 8th and 9th gen systems, is all I'm saying.

The technical differences were more like effects and assets over game design. The only game at launch that really felt next gen was Dead Rising 3, albeit one of the most unpolished launch 8th gen exclusives.

I mean there are more ambitious games on 7th gen than Knack, Killzone:SF, Ryse and Forza 5 (Forza 4 with more bugs, less content and better graphics). We never saw anything quite like Dead Rising 3 on 7th gen though.



Recently Completed
Crackdown 3
for X1S/X1X (4/5) - Infinity Blade III - for iPad 4 (3/5) - Infinity Blade II - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Infinity Blade - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Wolfenstein: The Old Blood for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Origins for X1 (3/5) - Uncharted: Lost Legacy for PS4 (4/5) - EA UFC 3 for X1 (4/5) - Doom for X1 (4/5) - Titanfall 2 for X1 (4/5) - Super Mario 3D World for Wii U (4/5) - South Park: The Stick of Truth for X1 BC (4/5) - Call of Duty: WWII for X1 (4/5) -Wolfenstein II for X1 - (4/5) - Dead or Alive: Dimensions for 3DS (4/5) - Marvel vs Capcom: Infinite for X1 (3/5) - Halo Wars 2 for X1/PC (4/5) - Halo Wars: DE for X1 (4/5) - Tekken 7 for X1 (4/5) - Injustice 2 for X1 (4/5) - Yakuza 5 for PS3 (3/5) - Battlefield 1 (Campaign) for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Syndicate for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: MW Remastered for X1 (4/5) - Donkey Kong Country Returns for 3DS (4/5) - Forza Horizon 3 for X1 (5/5)

Mr Puggsly said:
DonFerrari said:

Sony already beats MS on the visual front and quality of the games even when MS can use X1X that is stronger than PS4Pro to showcase their first party, and big part of the guilt would go to baseline X1.

So comes a new gen Sony first party go straight for PS5 (and sure thing may even do some enhanced version of their latest 2-3 years PS4 games to have a good start), 3rd parties will do crossgen no doubt, but first party haven't been focusing much on crossgen after finishing their last project that may have missed a gen only release (delays or the like).

Do you really think MS developing whatever game they may have to go on X1 baseline will look better even on Scarlet than whatever Sony puts exclusively on PS5?

I agree that Sony makes more visually impressive games. That may happen in the next gen as well, cinematic experiences has been Sony's focus. Quality or gameplay in general is very different though. I spend more time with Gears, Halo and Forza then pretty much any of Sony's stuff. That's because those MS IPs I mentioned are fun to play versus Sony's narrative driven games. Which is fine, I like that Sony and MS focus on different styles of games.

You're missing my point. I believe games can be built to function on a base X1 or PS4 and still offer next gen visuals on 9th gen hardware. Off the top of my head consider Crysis 3. If was designed to work on 7th gen but its still considered a great looking PC game because the PC version was truly the lead on visual effects and assets.

Or another title, Battlefield 4 which was crossgen. Again, built to function on 7th gen but the 8th gen version still shows a significant generational leap in performance, effects and assets.

Again, I'm just saying games can support last gen while looking much better on the next gen platform. I'm also not suggesting all games should be crossgen.

Sorry but quality Sony also had MS beat hands down this gen, it isn't even a point of opinion and preference. General public acclaim and reviewers would give the edge to Sony.

We are missing your point simply because you are wrong and won't accept it. Pemalite have gone the length to explain everything to you but you dismiss as "just better graphics that are easy to implement on the better HW, not being hold down by the baseline". Devs won't develop two maximized, well polished, quite different games to have the best possible on X1 and Scarlet at the same time. They will just like this gen, make the game work on X1 and them just give a pixel bump for Scarlet.

Sure you can have a significant difference between the two versions, but the more difference the more money expended and that is something third parties don't like very much. There is a reason for all the complains of parity between versions, and although people thought it was MS bribing the devs the truth was that they made a game that worked on both HW and them just gave some small touch ups, nothing extraordinary.

The more you keep expecting X1 baseline for games and that it won't impact the port on Scarlet the more you'll be disappointed.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Around the Network
Pemalite said:
Mr Puggsly said:

PC versions of games during the 6th and 7th gen software often had effects that simply couldn't be duplicated on consoles. Hence, developers were raising the bar on high end gaming PCs even while supporting vastly inferior consoles. People often blame consoles for slowing down gaming visuals, but developers have the option to push visuals on PC even while supporting consoles.

Fundamentally though it is the same game with some design limitations.

Crysis being a prime example...

Crysis 1 was built with PC hardware in mind first and foremost... Which meant various design philosophies were made possible for the first time, almost an open world, industry-leading graphics effects, physics, destruction, lots of freedom.

And then Crysis 2 dropped with it's console-optimized game engine, levels were smaller and more claustrophobic, less player choices, smaller draw distances and  didn't push the PC or technology front as hard. - It used more modern effects like deferred lighting, tessellation and so on... But Crysis 1 had a multitude of technical edges in the rendering department despite being on the older CryEngine 2.

This is an example where having to build a game with inferior platforms (from a technical perspective) can hold back a games design choices in an extreme case to the detriment of gameplay.

Crysis 3 did turn things around as Crytek placed the PC as the priority platform, but rendering wise it was still being hamstrung by 7th gen hardwares rendering paradigms... Imagine what that game could have potentially been if Crytek weren't spending time, resources and money on making sure the game ran efficiently on 7th gen hardware?

But the point I am trying to convey is that certain game design choices need to be made in order to continue support for older devices.
But yes, we can agree, goes without saying as the precedent is there.

Yeah, this is a point that needs to be emphasized. The way a lot of developers seem to handle different SKUs of hardware is to design things to the lowest common denominator and then scale up by bolting on more expensive rendering techniques as options and sometimes bundling in higher resolution assets. But the animation rigs are typically what they are, the scripting and AI routines are what they are, the use of physics are what they are, etc. Cutting ties with lower end SKUs allows the implementation of more complex AI routines, running more scripts at once (i.e. more characters on screen doing a greater variety of things), deeper usage of physics (better and more accurate destruction or the allowance for better rigging and animation), etc. Whether a developer has the resources or makes the decision to do these things (and do them well) is another discussion, but at least the potential for a higher ceiling of what is implemented is there. That much should be seen as undeniable. Having said that, even just having the better hardware still requires know how and proper design to make use of it the right way - and that ties in directly with my confusion for Halo 5's campaign, and I'm not talking about the story.

For me Halo 5 was a letdown simply because the AI in the campaign was poor which made the gameplay less fun, despite a lot of work being put into the player movement. Watching many documentaries on the making of it's hard for me to discern whether this was by poor design choices, lack of time/effort put into it, a combination of the two, or just completely botching on executing their vision. All I know is that the result was that the scale of battles was larger with more enemies on the screen and more action, but each enemy being a lot simpler in its behaviours and none being all that much fun to fight. I know they wanted the Spartan teams as a feature in the game so that meant scaling up battles to fit the AI help you'd be getting. And then at that point I guess they scripted as heavily as they could given the CPU resources they had left. But if the CPU was better they could have made the routines more varied and potentially used better path finding algorithms for coop companions, etc. That's just a case study and that's my concern for Halo Infinite. I want the enemies to be fun and varied to fight and I hope that their design choices don't hamstring it in the same way Halo 5 was, especially since it has to still support OG X1, S, and X1X.

---

Also, I've read this entire thread and I think there's an interesting discussion to be had on the topic but I think it could have been framed differently. A lot of arguments I'm seeing are simply that MS has already announced it for X1/X1X and so making it exclusive to next gen would be horrible and I agree it would be a terrible move. I also agree that it makes business sense to take advantage of the established userbase on X1/X1X to sell more software and bolster service subscriptions.

But now thinking as a user, not as the company, what if they hadn't announced it for specific platforms and said it was coming 2020. Would you want it for X1/X1X as well as Scarlett or just Scarlett? Would you prefer to be able to play it on hardware you already have or prefer to have them go all out on the design and implementation of the game without the ties to 8th gen hardware?



I’ll admit, if Halo Infinite were exclusive to Scarlett, I’d buy the console at launch, something I otherwise don’t really want to do. So I’m glad it’s cross-platform.

Putting that personal bias aside, I’m not sure there’d be much to gain from Infinite dropping Xbox One at this point. The game almost certainly started development with the system in mind, and this deep into its development cycle, most of the relevant design decisions resulting from the game being cross-gen have probably already been made. At this point, I don’t see how a decision to go Scarlett exclusive can be anything more than a financial one. And from a consumer standpoint, we have nothing to gain from that.



trasharmdsister12 said:

For me Halo 5 was a letdown simply because the AI in the campaign was poor which made the gameplay less fun, despite a lot of work being put into the player movement. Watching many documentaries on the making of it's hard for me to discern whether this was by poor design choices, lack of time/effort put into it, a combination of the two, or just completely botching on executing their vision. All I know is that the result was that the scale of battles was larger with more enemies on the screen and more action, but each enemy being a lot simpler in its behaviours and none being all that much fun to fight. I know they wanted the Spartan teams as a feature in the game so that meant scaling up battles to fit the AI help you'd be getting. And then at that point I guess they scripted as heavily as they could given the CPU resources they had left. But if the CPU was better they could have made the routines more varied and potentially used better path finding algorithms for coop companions, etc. That's just a case study and that's my concern for Halo Infinite. I want the enemies to be fun and varied to fight and I hope that their design choices don't hamstring it in the same way Halo 5 was, especially since it has to still support OG X1, S, and X1X.

Halo 5 as a title has allot of inconsistencies in general. Although the game may output at 60fps, it's certainly not a 60fps game... It would have been better off being a 30fps title.

Even the Xbox One X enhanced version of the game doesn't fix it, there are still short draw distances for objects and shadowing, some character animations only update at 15-30fps, some texture animations are only 10fps... I could go on.

And that is before we touch on the topic of Req points wrecking the game.
I thought Halo was far more enjoyable when you actually had to employ strategy to gain and control points on a map that featured power weapons/vehicles/power ups... Or work hard to kick the enemy out of an area. - Now it's all loot-box filled and it added absolutely nothing to the gameplay.

Scripting wise I think 343i did well, could have been better if we had more CPU time of course... And Warzone might have benefited from even larger multiplayer population caps for a map.

Mr Puggsly said:

Battlefield 4 on X1 and PS4 look arguably better than both Killzone:SF and Ryse. But since its a 60 fps game, it had to pull back on polish.

Ryse was certainly limited by 7th gen technology, hence it's tiny scope, closed in levels and the ball-and-chain known as CryEngine.

Killzone: SF used an engine that wasn't hamstrung by 7th gen constraints and didn't look to bad... It was an early title in the Playstation 4's lifetime, so it didn't showcase the best use of the hardware... That didn't happen until Horizon: Zero Dawn which is an absolute stunner.

Battlefield 4 with it's Frostbite engine on the other hand... From a visual perspective comes up short in many rendering aspects when compared to what the Decima engine was showcasing, it too was hamstrung by 7th gen constraints.
Frostbite did have it's advantages being a 60fps engine though with it's insane draw distances... And games like Battlefield 1 and Battlefield 5 now that they have left the 7th gen constraints behind took a step up in the visuals department.

EA has constantly iterated Frostbite constantly, always improving and refining at a rapid pace, adding new technologies and rendering techniques and it's paid off, it's one of the best game engines out there.

It's actually interesting... The PC doesn't have the hardware leaps like consoles do, we get yearly updates... Yet it's blatantly obvious when the umbilical cord of a console generation gets cut as the baseline takes a step up and visuals, games and so on take a leap forward... So it's baffling when people try to argue that older console technology doesn't hold anything back. It certainly does... And the Xbox One is the low-end baseline for this entire generation.

trasharmdsister12 said:

But now thinking as a user, not as the company, what if they hadn't announced it for specific platforms and said it was coming 2020. Would you want it for X1/X1X as well as Scarlett or just Scarlett? Would you prefer to be able to play it on hardware you already have or prefer to have them go all out on the design and implementation of the game without the ties to 8th gen hardware?

As an owner of every Xbox platform, I would like for the Xbox One/Xbox One X cord to be cut as soon as possible, thus I have a preference for it being Scarlett exclusive from an end-user perspective... I want to be wowed.

But that is coming from someone who will jump on Scarlett on release day... Provided certain hardware features are met.



Pemalite said:
trasharmdsister12 said:

For me Halo 5 was a letdown simply because the AI in the campaign was poor which made the gameplay less fun, despite a lot of work being put into the player movement. Watching many documentaries on the making of it's hard for me to discern whether this was by poor design choices, lack of time/effort put into it, a combination of the two, or just completely botching on executing their vision. All I know is that the result was that the scale of battles was larger with more enemies on the screen and more action, but each enemy being a lot simpler in its behaviours and none being all that much fun to fight. I know they wanted the Spartan teams as a feature in the game so that meant scaling up battles to fit the AI help you'd be getting. And then at that point I guess they scripted as heavily as they could given the CPU resources they had left. But if the CPU was better they could have made the routines more varied and potentially used better path finding algorithms for coop companions, etc. That's just a case study and that's my concern for Halo Infinite. I want the enemies to be fun and varied to fight and I hope that their design choices don't hamstring it in the same way Halo 5 was, especially since it has to still support OG X1, S, and X1X.

Halo 5 as a title has allot of inconsistencies in general. Although the game may output at 60fps, it's certainly not a 60fps game... It would have been better off being a 30fps title.

Even the Xbox One X enhanced version of the game doesn't fix it, there are still short draw distances for objects and shadowing, some character animations only update at 15-30fps, some texture animations are only 10fps... I could go on.

And that is before we touch on the topic of Req points wrecking the game.
I thought Halo was far more enjoyable when you actually had to employ strategy to gain and control points on a map that featured power weapons/vehicles/power ups... Or work hard to kick the enemy out of an area. - Now it's all loot-box filled and it added absolutely nothing to the gameplay.

Scripting wise I think 343i did well, could have been better if we had more CPU time of course... And Warzone might have benefited from even larger multiplayer population caps for a map.

It absolutely has a lot of inconsistencies and interesting design decisions. I simply wanted to focus on one example of how more CPU performance could have been leveraged to expand on or improve gameplay as that was the focus of your discussion with Puggsly.

Halo was once my favourite gaming franchise, and potentially franchise of anything. And it maintained that status through to Reach. So let's not even get me started on the design decisions, the REQ packs on Warzone, the competitive play focus through things like enhanced mobility and weapon handling and the knock on negative effect it had on level design, AI, weapon handling, and more. And that's not even getting started on the blatant design of the campaigns to REQUIRE knowledge of the extended universe, trying to force people to buy into comics and movies and novels. But yeah, let's keep this about strictly hardware. I'd have preferred they shelve the mainline franchise for the rest of this gen and kept Halo Infinite fully for next gen while making another spin off in another genre like Halo Wars 2. Hell, a Warthog Racing standalone smaller scale game with a track builder (i.e. Forge) would be awesome as a standalone, electronic release.



DonFerrari said:
Mr Puggsly said:

I agree that Sony makes more visually impressive games. That may happen in the next gen as well, cinematic experiences has been Sony's focus. Quality or gameplay in general is very different though. I spend more time with Gears, Halo and Forza then pretty much any of Sony's stuff. That's because those MS IPs I mentioned are fun to play versus Sony's narrative driven games. Which is fine, I like that Sony and MS focus on different styles of games.

You're missing my point. I believe games can be built to function on a base X1 or PS4 and still offer next gen visuals on 9th gen hardware. Off the top of my head consider Crysis 3. If was designed to work on 7th gen but its still considered a great looking PC game because the PC version was truly the lead on visual effects and assets.

Or another title, Battlefield 4 which was crossgen. Again, built to function on 7th gen but the 8th gen version still shows a significant generational leap in performance, effects and assets.

Again, I'm just saying games can support last gen while looking much better on the next gen platform. I'm also not suggesting all games should be crossgen.

Sorry but quality Sony also had MS beat hands down this gen, it isn't even a point of opinion and preference. General public acclaim and reviewers would give the edge to Sony.

We are missing your point simply because you are wrong and won't accept it. Pemalite have gone the length to explain everything to you but you dismiss as "just better graphics that are easy to implement on the better HW, not being hold down by the baseline". Devs won't develop two maximized, well polished, quite different games to have the best possible on X1 and Scarlet at the same time. They will just like this gen, make the game work on X1 and them just give a pixel bump for Scarlet.

Sure you can have a significant difference between the two versions, but the more difference the more money expended and that is something third parties don't like very much. There is a reason for all the complains of parity between versions, and although people thought it was MS bribing the devs the truth was that they made a game that worked on both HW and them just gave some small touch ups, nothing extraordinary.

The more you keep expecting X1 baseline for games and that it won't impact the port on Scarlet the more you'll be disappointed.

I wont debate who makes quality. What critics want in games is not what I or many other gamers necessarily want. The most popular games are gameplay focused, not narative driven.

I'm simply saying games can be crossgen and still offer ompressive visuals on superior machine. Hence, the Scarlett version of game can have 9th gen visuals even if a 8th gen were to exist.

Developers could use Scarlett as the lead for a game and get a 3rd party to strip down a game for 8th gen. Forza Horizon 2 on 360 for example was a very similar product using an older engine. CoD games came to Wii thanks to stripped down ports. I'm sure you could of other examples. Some games will also scale to previous gen easier.

Ultimately. Im just saying most project could function on the previous gen hardware. You're focusing on potential exceptions.



Recently Completed
Crackdown 3
for X1S/X1X (4/5) - Infinity Blade III - for iPad 4 (3/5) - Infinity Blade II - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Infinity Blade - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Wolfenstein: The Old Blood for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Origins for X1 (3/5) - Uncharted: Lost Legacy for PS4 (4/5) - EA UFC 3 for X1 (4/5) - Doom for X1 (4/5) - Titanfall 2 for X1 (4/5) - Super Mario 3D World for Wii U (4/5) - South Park: The Stick of Truth for X1 BC (4/5) - Call of Duty: WWII for X1 (4/5) -Wolfenstein II for X1 - (4/5) - Dead or Alive: Dimensions for 3DS (4/5) - Marvel vs Capcom: Infinite for X1 (3/5) - Halo Wars 2 for X1/PC (4/5) - Halo Wars: DE for X1 (4/5) - Tekken 7 for X1 (4/5) - Injustice 2 for X1 (4/5) - Yakuza 5 for PS3 (3/5) - Battlefield 1 (Campaign) for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Syndicate for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: MW Remastered for X1 (4/5) - Donkey Kong Country Returns for 3DS (4/5) - Forza Horizon 3 for X1 (5/5)