I agree, it is made by many notable games.
Gears of War, Fable, Forza, Ori, Recore, Sunset Overdrive, Quantum Break, Killer Instinct, Crackdown... But Halo generally sits above them all as the single game that defines the Xbox brand.

Thus it can and should be held to a higher standard.

Halo is the Mario to Nintendo or Uncharted to Playstation, it defines a console brands image.

And I am excited for Everwild and Fable that is coming next-gen, especially Everwild... Being a big fan of Breath of the Wild that games visuals really resonated with me, let's hope RARE can bring the gameplay goods.

So whilst collectively you need more than just a single game to make a platform "good". - A single game can make the difference, Breath of the Wild put the Switch on the map, at one point there were more copies of that one game sold than Switch consoles.
See here: https://www.polygon.com/2017/4/27/15449934/zelda-breath-of-the-wild-sales-switch-wii-u

Games like Mario Kart, Smash Brothers have helped keep the momentum going.

The OG Xbox had Halo: Combat Evolved put the entire platform on the map, it brought the attention to gamers who then discovered games like Elder Scrolls: Morrowind, Crimson Skies, Fable and so much more... And Halo 2 kept that momentum going.

The Xbox 360's brand image was marred by the colossal Red-Ring of Death failure, Halo 3 turned that brand image around and made it a must have console and Fable, Gears, Forza kept that momentum going. (Helps that Microsoft's competition dropped the ball also.)
Halo 3 was *the* largest video game launch at the time, it was absolutely massive, the hype was next-level and Bungie absolutely delivered.
https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2017-09-01-halo-3-eclipses-the-industry

I don't think anyone should underestimate the importance and influence that a single game can have on a platforms brand image and success, it makes a big difference.

The SNES for example would not have had the legs it had if it weren't for the likes of RARE with Donkey Kong Country.

Yeah, but it would have floundered if things didn't change. And it did. Microsoft learned.

I think you are an intelligent enough individual to have already made your own decision on which platform you intend to invest in as we enter the next-gen race.

I agree. But I feel the Xbox One X just didn't receive the support it deserved... Especially with earlier released titles not getting patched.

The issue there is that the base Xbox One got a ton of 720P titles early on... And those same games running on the Xbox One X didn't get enhanced... They are still 720P even today.
Where-as those same titles on the Playstation 4 side of the equation were typically 900P-1080P and whilst also didn't get enhanced, generally looked far better.

Case in point: Dragon Age: Inquisition. Full fat 1080P on Playstation 4 Pro, 900P on Xbox One X. And sadly that is one of my favorite franchises.

Or Modern Warefare Remastered is 1360x1080 in multiplayer on Xbox One X and 2880x1620 on the Playstation 4 Pro. Ouch.

Granted in general the vast majority of games on the Xbox One X released in the later years were superior on the Xbox One X, but if you are like me with an expansive library that spans multiple generations, it's notable differentiation to take note of.

I have never cared about exclusivity, I think it's silly and anti-consumer... But I cannot deny that if it weren't for Halo being a timed exclusive, I would never have bothered with an Xbox.
Exclusives give reason to purchase a device, it's as simple as that... And as a PC gamer, it was the excuse needed to purchase an Xbox.

But I also believe that a game should be available to everyone where technically possible, because a good game should be able to be played by everyone.

But in saying that... A game should look the absolute best on the device it releases on, it shouldn't be held back for any reason, there shouldn't be any excuses for it to be held back, PC games look the best despite also having extremely low-end devices, games have proven for decades that they can scale across a wide range of hardware configurations fairly effortlessly... Sadly 343i didn't get that memo with Halo Infinite and now they are trying to save face with their current PR nightmare.

If I am unhappy with the visuals showcased on the Series X, what makes you think I would be content with the Xbox One X visuals?

But yes, I will have a Series X (It's pre-ordered) and I will buy Halo Infinite. And yes, I will provide the criticism where criticism is due, I want Microsoft to do better, because that benefits all gamers.

If you're arguing MS should do better with the Halo IP then we saw in the 8th gen, I absolutely agree. Frankly, if Halo Infinite has a satisfying campaign and the game isn't a buggy mess, we would already be seeing them move it to a better place.

Quality games matter. Fortunately for Sony and MS, they also benefit greatly from having notable 3rd party content. While Nintendo platforms are more dependent on strong 1st party releases.

I can see myself getting both 9th gen consoles. Although, Series X appeals to me because I feel their 1st party content is more fun and Gamepass. Meanwhile I may get a PS5 eventually to access more games and maybe it will improve my PS4 library.

Its a mixed bag with mid gen upgrades. Some content will be better on the Pro, some on the One X. For what its worth, the most active games on Xbox One generally benefit significantly with the One X.

Meanwhile the Series X may improve resolutions in Xbox One games. Gears Ultimate apparently was doing 4K in a Digital Foundry video.

I guess we will have to wait and see what Halo Infinite becomes in the end. Right now it looks a 8th gen game with 4K/60 fps and a cleaner presentation. If it gets great improvments over time, that would be great.

I wasn't suggesting you will be happy with Halo Infinite graphics on any platform. But if its a good game, play it on something else you already own.

I haven't committed to Series X at launch, but how it handles BC content will be a big reason for me to upgrade. At this point I would gladly spend $500 just to greatly reduce or eliminate load times.

With all this Halo talk I started replaying Halo 5 on my X1X. It honestly looks better than I remember and I am finding myself less annoyed with the visual compromises. I forgot the game also does a lot of things well in a very steady 60 fps title. Impressive assets, lighting, and fun gameplay even if the campaign is meh.

So if Halo Infinite essentially has a similar but more polished presentation along with a more satifying campaign, I will be happy. I guesss I am easy to please. And ofcourse bring back split screen.

I am also curious to see if Halo Infinite can maintain 60 fps even with split screens. That is not something we've seen before. Hopefully the Series X will brute force 60 fps in Halo MCC split screen.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure Infinite was built for the XBO and is being scaled up for XSX, rather than being built for the more powerful hardware and being scaled down like in the case with Battlefield. If that is indeed the case, then Infinite is arguably a current-gen game that's being given a boost in fidelity and/or performance on next-gen hardware, which is what is likely going to be the case with most other cross-gen games being released this fall.

Halo may have been technically impressive, but that does not translate to having visuals that were, by the standards of its day, at the absolute cutting edge, at least not in any immediate, superficial way obvious to the average gamer. For example, character models were not as impressive as in many other games from the era, and its environments were geometrically simple. At the surface level, it looked nice because of its art style, and it wouldn't surprise me if its simplicity also is how Bungie were able to create such large environments for a 2001 title.

I still think CE looks nice and has held up better than many of its contemporaries, but that's more because of its simplicity and art style rather than having the most eye-blistering graphics of its day (also, its scale is still impressive for a linear game). It did not appear to win many awards in its day for graphics, either, which seems to suggest that, even if a lot of people thought it looked nice, it wasn't the most graphically impressive game of its day. There were a number of other games from the time that, at least to me, were better-looking, at least at the immediate surface level.

Moving past just CE, Halo 2 did improve things over Halo CE by quite a bit, but took sacrifices in other departments. It has noticeable LoD issues, with often glaring pop-in. Its levels (at least the intended play space, excluding nominally out-of-bound areas) are also smaller and more constrained. Even things like particle effects were sorely lacking.

Halo 3 was already beaten by several other notable early Gen 7 console titles. Halo 3 did have good lighting and, unlike many of its contemporaries, good use of color, but again it wasn't exactly the most immediately impressive game graphically (human character models in particular were... not great).

Reach and Halo 4 did look a lot better than Halo 3, but again they were released later in the generation, and there were various sacrifices or shortcuts made to make them look that nice. For example, as I mentioned in my earlier post, Halo 4 has the most linear and constrained levels in the series, and many of its textures leave a lot to be desired. Even then, there were other late Gen 7 games that looked better than Reach and Halo 4.

Halo 5 was not all that impressive when it came out. There were many games that looked better. Sure, it ran at 60 fps, but that came at a cost. I didn't think it looked all that great running on a base-model XBO. A lot of the game barely looked like a step up from the 360. It was lacking split-screen as well, something that was sacrificed to attain its high frame rate. The game looks a lot nice running on a One X, but there are still other games that blow it away.

Infinite is an open-world game running at 4K & 60fps. Is that not technically impressive, despite the other issues? There isn't a single open-world game this generation that does that. Most don't even target 1080p/60fps. Fidelity of other visual assets is prioritized over frame rate. Even with the power of next-gen systems, having an open-world game running at 4K & 60 fps would be a massive accomplishment, and almost certainly would come at the cost of some other aspect of the game's visuals. Most open-world games probably won't target both 4K and 60fps, and I imagine that given the choice most developers would target the latter over the former. For example, what we've seen of Horizon: Forbidden West is shaping up to be an absolutely gorgeous (assuming the final game looks close to the trailer's graphics), but A) it's being developed exclusively for a next-gen system, and B) is apparently targeting 30 fps. I imagine there will be other open-world games as well that look better than Infinite, but do so largely by targeting lower frame rates and/or resolutions and by being developed exclusively for next-gen hardware.

I'm not trying to give the game a free pass. It does clearly need some polish. But much of what I've seen isn't constructive criticism. The reactions have far too often not been "Needs work" but rather:

Too many people are just being negative for the sake of being negative, something that is, sadly, far too commonplace on the internet. Sure, there are some level-headed analyses to be found, but too much of the criticism of Infinite's visuals involve simply shitting on the game by using totally hyperbolic language and memes using cherry-picked frames. If all you knew of Infinite is what you read on the internet and saw in a handful of memes, you'd swear that it was the ugliest game in recent history. It's not. It already looks fine for what it is. Not great, but fine (and the cutscenes look amazing, IMO).

It does need work, though. I know it. You know it. 343I knows it (and has addressed it). We all know there is clearly a lot of room for improvement in regards to LoD, lighting, and even minor blink-and-you-still-won't-miss-it issues like facial animations. Digital Foundry went over a lot of this. But just because it needs more polish does not mean it's ugly, yet so many are treating it as if it were a hideous abomination and an embarrassment to the franchise. Too much of the internet thinks in terms of absolutes. Everything is either a zero or a ten, with no in between (to reference user scores on Meta). Everything has to be "OMG! Mind blown!" or "Shit sux." Too much of what passes for conversation on the internet is like that. And that's what I'm objecting to. Maybe I'm just burned out by the constant barrage of negativity in the world, but I just really did not like how something that put a smile on my face (in a year where there hasn't been a lot to smile about) was instead considered an insult by so many other people.

Halo has always been a case of "always someone better" in the graphics department. Not a one of them could claim to indisputably the best-looking game of its day. And that's fine. Halo never needed to be the king of the graphics hill. It always looked good enough. Not the best, but more than adequate. And the games were still great regardless (well, to varying degrees, at least; I've had my fair share of criticisms of the games). And as always, even if Infinite gets more polish but still doesn't have mind-blowing next-gen graphics, that's fine, because gameplay matters more than graphics. Pretty visuals can accentuate the experience, but having fun is the most important thing. That's a point that gets lost in these discussions, which make it seem like visuals are the single most important aspect of a game. So much time and effort has been focused on Infinite's graphics that discussion over its mechanics seems like it gets lost in the mix.

If it can do 120fps multiplayer it should 60fps splitscreen I guess.

And no problem you being satisfied with the game playing great even if looking 8th gen, games this gen already look great. But in the bigger picture it is a little underwhelming that they couldn't make it a graphical showcase.

If you're arguing MS should do better with the Halo IP then we saw in the 8th gen, I absolutely agree. Frankly, if Halo Infinite has a satisfying campaign and the game isn't a buggy mess, we would already be seeing them move it to a better place.

Quality games matter. Fortunately for Sony and MS, they also benefit greatly from having notable 3rd party content. While Nintendo platforms are more dependent on strong 1st party releases.

I can see myself getting both 9th gen consoles. Although, Series X appeals to me because I feel their 1st party content is more fun and Gamepass. Meanwhile I may get a PS5 eventually to access more games and maybe it will improve my PS4 library.

Its a mixed bag with mid gen upgrades. Some content will be better on the Pro, some on the One X. For what its worth, the most active games on Xbox One generally benefit significantly with the One X.

Meanwhile the Series X may improve resolutions in Xbox One games. Gears Ultimate apparently was doing 4K in a Digital Foundry video.

I haven't committed to Series X at launch, but how it handles BC content will be a big reason for me to upgrade. At this point I would gladly spend $500 just to greatly reduce or eliminate load times.

With all this Halo talk I started replaying Halo 5 on my X1X. It honestly looks better than I remember and I am finding myself less annoyed with the visual compromises. I forgot the game also does a lot of things well in a very steady 60 fps title. Impressive assets, lighting, and fun gameplay even if the campaign is meh.

So if Halo Infinite essentially has a similar but more polished presentation along with a more satifying campaign, I will be happy. I guesss I am easy to please. And ofcourse bring back split screen.

I am also curious to see if Halo Infinite can maintain 60 fps even with split screens. That is not something we've seen before. Hopefully the Series X will brute force 60 fps in Halo MCC split screen.

If it can do 120fps multiplayer it should 60fps splitscreen I guess.

And no problem you being satisfied with the game playing great even if looking 8th gen, games this gen already look great. But in the bigger picture it is a little underwhelming that they couldn't make it a graphical showcase.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure Infinite was built for the XBO and is being scaled up for XSX, rather than being built for the more powerful hardware and being scaled down like in the case with Battlefield. If that is indeed the case, then Infinite is arguably a current-gen game that's being given a boost in fidelity and/or performance on next-gen hardware, which is what is likely going to be the case with most other cross-gen games being released this fall.

Halo may have been technically impressive, but that does not translate to having visuals that were, by the standards of its day, at the absolute cutting edge, at least not in any immediate, superficial way obvious to the average gamer. For example, character models were not as impressive as in many other games from the era, and its environments were geometrically simple. At the surface level, it looked nice because of its art style, and it wouldn't surprise me if its simplicity also is how Bungie were able to create such large environments for a 2001 title.

Moving past just CE, Halo 2 did improve things over Halo CE by quite a bit, but took sacrifices in other departments. It has noticeable LoD issues, with often glaring pop-in. Its levels (at least the intended play space, excluding nominally out-of-bound areas) are also smaller and more constrained. Even things like particle effects were sorely lacking.

Halo 3 was already beaten by several other notable early Gen 7 console titles. Halo 3 did have good lighting and, unlike many of its contemporaries, good use of color, but again it wasn't exactly the most immediately impressive game graphically (human character models in particular were... not great).

Reach and Halo 4 did look a lot better than Halo 3, but again they were released later in the generation, and there were various sacrifices or shortcuts made to make them look that nice. For example, as I mentioned in my earlier post, Halo 4 has the most linear and constrained levels in the series, and many of its textures leave a lot to be desired. Even then, there were other late Gen 7 games that looked better than Reach and Halo 4.

Halo 5 was not all that impressive when it came out. There were many games that looked better. Sure, it ran at 60 fps, but that came at a cost. I didn't think it looked all that great running on a base-model XBO. A lot of the game barely looked like a step up from the 360. It was lacking split-screen as well, something that was sacrificed to attain its high frame rate. The game looks a lot nice running on a One X, but there are still other games that blow it away.

Infinite is an open-world game running at 4K & 60fps. Is that not technically impressive, despite the other issues? There isn't a single open-world game this generation that does that. Most don't even target 1080p/60fps. Fidelity of other visual assets is prioritized over frame rate. Even with the power of next-gen systems, having an open-world game running at 4K & 60 fps would be a massive accomplishment, and almost certainly would come at the cost of some other aspect of the game's visuals. Most open-world games probably won't target both 4K and 60fps, and I imagine that given the choice most developers would target the latter over the former. For example, what we've seen of Horizon: Forbidden West is shaping up to be an absolutely gorgeous (assuming the final game looks close to the trailer's graphics), but A) it's being developed exclusively for a next-gen system, and B) is apparently targeting 30 fps. I imagine there will be other open-world games as well that look better than Infinite, but do so largely by targeting lower frame rates and/or resolutions and by being developed exclusively for next-gen hardware.

I imagine they're settling with underwhelming graphics to hit the launch. At best the final product should clean up problems in the trailer.

Maybe MS could have it both ways if future patches actually are a vast improvment in the presentation. But the odds of that happening seem slim.

Its the complete lack of decals that's jarring. No mud on tyres on the Warthog. No steps on wet mud. No blood on floor. No bullet holes, no scorch marks left after explosions.

Shadows or lighting just looks flat. Hardly any hard shadows left by well anything even under flood lighting for the Elite inside the small base. Little to no SSAO on enemies. Guns missing lighting from muzzle flash. Explosions and grenades don't emit any light.

Even smaller minute details like grenade teleporting because MC never had it in his hand before thown and ship clipping through tree. Then then you have inconsistent resolution on textures and some enemy animations stuck in last gen. Foliage is completely static.... Everything just looks a little too clean and lack imperfections etc etc.

I mean its not even standard stuff, its quite shocking that they thought it was okay to show that build off (apparently was an old build of the game)

Saying that, the game does look quite fun to play. Which is the main thing and graphics can be updated. I would say they should delay it until its ready but that's just me.

Does everyone except me just own 4k HDR 120-144hz Oled TVs?
Are they more common than I think?