By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - NEW Halo Infinite 4k/60 official trailer

DonFerrari said:

This shows some things, this build isn`t from Jan-Mar but probably something less than 2 months old, possibly less than one month old. Also that they thought it was fine just needing natural progression when they released for use on the conference. Shows that they know it is a problem so no need to excuse it and say Halo isn`t supposed to be a showcase. Also show that they cancelling the beta because of covid being such a big burden will make their ability to correct everything in a couple months to go gold something very hard. So if a delay doesn`t happen we will have a big day one patch and still won`t be a graphical showcase on launch, but since they want it to be a 10 year supported game perhaps after a couple years it can become the prettiest game on the system.

Yeah, its just the way the guy worded it counting weeks. Maybe they thought people would have got wowed by 4K 60FPS aspect? I'm still not sure how that got green lighted tbh, especially when they also released a 1 minute trailer that put the demo in a more positive light.

Saying that, its probably best people picked up on it now rather than them releasing a super unpolished game. They can improve things over time I guess. Though I doubt it will look drastically better in a few months at least they can fix some the fundamental issues like pop in, lighting and crappy textures.



Around the Network
Mr Puggsly said:

Do you honestly believe better looking games would have made the Xbox One X a huge success? I doubt it. However, it probably did pretty well. A base Xbox One plays all the same games well enough. This is why I hope a much cheaper Series S is on the market as well, it should help the userbase.

Games can sell consoles. Games can make or break a console.

The Original Xbox was slow getting out of the gate... Until we got Halo, which then put that particular console on the map.

The Xbox 360 was doing pretty bad due to the RROD image disaster, Halo 3 turned that sentiment around fairly quickly.

Breath of the Wild made the Switch a "must have device" in it's early years.

Sony has taken a strong narrative by showcasing the next-gen leap that the Playstation 5 is offering, it's given gamers a reason to buy one early, what reason is there to buy an Xbox Series X? It's not providing a tangible leap over the Xbox One, all it's games are available elsewhere... And you get arguably better visuals on technically inferior platforms like the Playstation 5.

The Xbox One X was never going to be a "roaring" success due to being painted with the Xbox One brand brush, but I don't think it even managed to be a marginal success like even the Playstation 4 Pro... Part of that is likely due to the lack of exclusives on Microsofts behalf to even push the Xbox One into the mind of gamers and truly showcase what it can do.

Now I am not personally fussy about a game being actually exclusive or not, I don't even care if it spans multiple console generations... It doesn't affect me personally even in the slightest. - Other people care about that stuff though.

But I am fussy if it's not going to showcase the hardware appropriately to it's fullest extent... And I think that should apply to everyone, we should expect the absolute best possible product for any given platform we use.




--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

Pemalite said:
Mr Puggsly said:

Do you honestly believe better looking games would have made the Xbox One X a huge success? I doubt it. However, it probably did pretty well. A base Xbox One plays all the same games well enough. This is why I hope a much cheaper Series S is on the market as well, it should help the userbase.

Games can sell consoles. Games can make or break a console.

The Original Xbox was slow getting out of the gate... Until we got Halo, which then put that particular console on the map.

The Xbox 360 was doing pretty bad due to the RROD image disaster, Halo 3 turned that sentiment around fairly quickly.

Breath of the Wild made the Switch a "must have device" in it's early years.

Sony has taken a strong narrative by showcasing the next-gen leap that the Playstation 5 is offering, it's given gamers a reason to buy one early, what reason is there to buy an Xbox Series X? It's not providing a tangible leap over the Xbox One, all it's games are available elsewhere... And you get arguably better visuals on technically inferior platforms like the Playstation 5.

The Xbox One X was never going to be a "roaring" success due to being painted with the Xbox One brand brush, but I don't think it even managed to be a marginal success like even the Playstation 4 Pro... Part of that is likely due to the lack of exclusives on Microsofts behalf to even push the Xbox One into the mind of gamers and truly showcase what it can do.

Now I am not personally fussy about a game being actually exclusive or not, I don't even care if it spans multiple console generations... It doesn't affect me personally even in the slightest. - Other people care about that stuff though.

But I am fussy if it's not going to showcase the hardware appropriately to it's fullest extent... And I think that should apply to everyone, we should expect the absolute best possible product for any given platform we use.

I feel Xbox is made by many notable games, not just a Halo game. Halo certainly brought attention to Xbox in the early 2000s, but I wouldn't argue they single they made Xbox successful alone.

OG Xbox was a new competitor, so a big title was great to have. It at least helped make Xbox relevant along with a bunch of other games that were console exclusive.

Xbox thrived in spite of RROD because many notable games, 3rd parties were supporting Xbox more and the PS3 was expensive.

Switch didn't need BotW to succeed, certainly helped though.

You trying to sell me a PS5? Because you have my attention. I guess in a nutshell, I'm more concerned about Halo Infinite being good than the graphics. That is what will ultimately impact that game.

I don't see much of a point in debating whether or not Xbox One X was a success. Pro and One X were the same concept, but One X just did it better.

Some people might get "fussy" about true exclusivity, but I think in the grand scheme you have more customers putting games on PC and doing cross gen for a period. I personally believe MS putting all on on PC was a great idea given many PC gamers aren't necessarily interested in consoles, especially outside of the US and western Europe. Maybe Oceania as well.

My stance is if you aren't happy with the graphics MS has showcased, then maybe you shouldn't buy a Series X. You have a Xbox One X and a PC I assume, so you'll have access to Halo Infinite regardless.



Recently Completed
River City: Rival Showdown
for 3DS (3/5) - River City: Tokyo Rumble for 3DS (4/5) - Zelda: BotW for Wii U (5/5) - Zelda: BotW for Switch (5/5) - Zelda: Link's Awakening for Switch (4/5) - Rage 2 for X1X (4/5) - Rage for 360 (3/5) - Streets of Rage 4 for X1/PC (4/5) - Gears 5 for X1X (5/5) - Mortal Kombat 11 for X1X (5/5) - Doom 64 for N64 (emulator) (3/5) - 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:

I feel Xbox is made by many notable games, not just a Halo game. Halo certainly brought attention to Xbox in the early 2000s, but I wouldn't argue they single they made Xbox successful alone.

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.

Mr Puggsly said:

Xbox thrived in spite of RROD because many notable games, 3rd parties were supporting Xbox more and the PS3 was expensive.

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

Mr Puggsly said:

You trying to sell me a PS5? Because you have my attention. I guess in a nutshell, I'm more concerned about Halo Infinite being good than the graphics. That is what will ultimately impact that game.

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.

Mr Puggsly said:

I don't see much of a point in debating whether or not Xbox One X was a success. Pro and One X were the same concept, but One X just did it better.

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.

Mr Puggsly said:

Some people might get "fussy" about true exclusivity, but I think in the grand scheme you have more customers putting games on PC and doing cross gen for a period. I personally believe MS putting all on on PC was a great idea given many PC gamers aren't necessarily interested in consoles, especially outside of the US and western Europe. Maybe Oceania as well.

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.

Mr Puggsly said:

My stance is if you aren't happy with the graphics MS has showcased, then maybe you shouldn't buy a Series X. You have a Xbox One X and a PC I assume, so you'll have access to Halo Infinite regardless.

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.






--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

hinch said:
DonFerrari said:

This shows some things, this build isn`t from Jan-Mar but probably something less than 2 months old, possibly less than one month old. Also that they thought it was fine just needing natural progression when they released for use on the conference. Shows that they know it is a problem so no need to excuse it and say Halo isn`t supposed to be a showcase. Also show that they cancelling the beta because of covid being such a big burden will make their ability to correct everything in a couple months to go gold something very hard. So if a delay doesn`t happen we will have a big day one patch and still won`t be a graphical showcase on launch, but since they want it to be a 10 year supported game perhaps after a couple years it can become the prettiest game on the system.

Yeah, its just the way the guy worded it counting weeks. Maybe they thought people would have got wowed by 4K 60FPS aspect? I'm still not sure how that got green lighted tbh, especially when they also released a 1 minute trailer that put the demo in a more positive light.

Saying that, its probably best people picked up on it now rather than them releasing a super unpolished game. They can improve things over time I guess. Though I doubt it will look drastically better in a few months at least they can fix some the fundamental issues like pop in, lighting and crappy textures.

Yep, not sure they though just being 4k60fps would wow us since even X1X had 4k60fps games and Pro had almost that in GTS. If a game looks current gen it would be quite easy to see it being even 4k120fps (like Dirty and seems like Halo Infinite MP).

I do agree that for gamers it is better that they had the chance to get pissed now rather than when the game launch. And yes they can make some improvements in the remaining time.

It becames to odd when PS5 being 10-20% weaker could have most of the games show on their presentation looking much better than most of the games on Xbox presentation, and if we talk about the best looking then the gap is just to enormous.



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

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Around the Network

Honestly, Halo Infinite looks cool. :)



Pemalite said:
Mr Puggsly said:

I feel Xbox is made by many notable games, not just a Halo game. Halo certainly brought attention to Xbox in the early 2000s, but I wouldn't argue they single they made Xbox successful alone.

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.

Mr Puggsly said:

Xbox thrived in spite of RROD because many notable games, 3rd parties were supporting Xbox more and the PS3 was expensive.

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

Mr Puggsly said:

You trying to sell me a PS5? Because you have my attention. I guess in a nutshell, I'm more concerned about Halo Infinite being good than the graphics. That is what will ultimately impact that game.

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.

Mr Puggsly said:

I don't see much of a point in debating whether or not Xbox One X was a success. Pro and One X were the same concept, but One X just did it better.

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.

Mr Puggsly said:

Some people might get "fussy" about true exclusivity, but I think in the grand scheme you have more customers putting games on PC and doing cross gen for a period. I personally believe MS putting all on on PC was a great idea given many PC gamers aren't necessarily interested in consoles, especially outside of the US and western Europe. Maybe Oceania as well.

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.

Mr Puggsly said:

My stance is if you aren't happy with the graphics MS has showcased, then maybe you shouldn't buy a Series X. You have a Xbox One X and a PC I assume, so you'll have access to Halo Infinite regardless.

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.

Last edited by Mr Puggsly - on 01 August 2020

Recently Completed
River City: Rival Showdown
for 3DS (3/5) - River City: Tokyo Rumble for 3DS (4/5) - Zelda: BotW for Wii U (5/5) - Zelda: BotW for Switch (5/5) - Zelda: Link's Awakening for Switch (4/5) - Rage 2 for X1X (4/5) - Rage for 360 (3/5) - Streets of Rage 4 for X1/PC (4/5) - Gears 5 for X1X (5/5) - Mortal Kombat 11 for X1X (5/5) - Doom 64 for N64 (emulator) (3/5) - 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:
Pemalite said:

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.

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.



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

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Pemalite said:

We haven't had a cross-generation Halo game release before. - But that's just an excuse, game engines and effects are scalable, Battlefield 3 used an engine that did just that where it scaled from 24 players on Xbox 360 in multiplayer to 64 players on PC.

Levels sizes, effects and more were all reduced.. In that instance the PC was the lead platform and it looked and played like an early 8th gen title, but scaled downwards to 7th gen devices.

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.

Pemalite said:

I do have to disagree that Halo wasn't a technical showpiece, it most certainly was, the Pixel Shader 2.0 effects on PC in combination with the Parrallax mapping was impressive stuff back in the day, plus the open environments with vehicles was new and novel.

On Xbox, obviously the console didn't have hardware support for Pixel Shader 2.0 effects, but it did have support for 1.0 - 1.4 shader effects and it leveraged them extensively for material assets like metal surfaces, it looked great... And that game was doing things that just wasn't possible or being showcased on Gamecube or Playstation 2, it was leading the industry.

Halo: Combat Evolved was also a title that was frequently used in benchmarking on the PC due to how intensive and impressive it's technicals were back in the day.
For example: https://www.anandtech.com/show/1174/18

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.

Pemalite said:



I agree, art design is extremely important, but great art design does NOT need to come at the cost of "graphical bells and whistles". - You can actually have both, many games do have both.

A game with good Art direction though can punch above it's technical underpinnings, case in point: Breath of the Wild... But that is more out of need on Nintendo's behalf due to their low-end hardware choices for their devices. It is what it is.

Infinites Art isn't the issue in this instance though, the assets are actually of good quality for the most part, it's the lighting and some of the material shader work that is letting it down... Plus missing some alpha effects that we have grown accustomed to on various assets from the Halo franchise in order to conserve bandwidth.

So whilst yes, it looks like a good game, it's overall presentation still leaves more to be desired... It's constructive criticism and 343i seems to be taking note and making moves to improve and rectify that... Basically we are going to get a better game due to constructive criticism.
Case in point: https://www.vgchartz.com/article/444668/halo-infinite-dev-your-voice-matters-and-is-heard-following-criticism/

The issue I have is people taking an "apologetic" perspective on this and giving it a free pass for whatever reason, that doesn't result in a net benefit for the consumer, if we hold developers to a higher standard and demand higher quality products, then us consumers end up winning in the long run and the developer keeps evolving and improving as a result.

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.



Visit http://shadowofthevoid.wordpress.com

In accordance to the VGC forum rules, §8.5, I hereby exercise my right to demand to be left alone regarding the subject of the effects of the pandemic on video game sales (i.e., "COVID bump").

Shadow1980 said:
Pemalite said:

We haven't had a cross-generation Halo game release before. - But that's just an excuse, game engines and effects are scalable, Battlefield 3 used an engine that did just that where it scaled from 24 players on Xbox 360 in multiplayer to 64 players on PC.

Levels sizes, effects and more were all reduced.. In that instance the PC was the lead platform and it looked and played like an early 8th gen title, but scaled downwards to 7th gen devices.

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.

Pemalite said:

I do have to disagree that Halo wasn't a technical showpiece, it most certainly was, the Pixel Shader 2.0 effects on PC in combination with the Parrallax mapping was impressive stuff back in the day, plus the open environments with vehicles was new and novel.

On Xbox, obviously the console didn't have hardware support for Pixel Shader 2.0 effects, but it did have support for 1.0 - 1.4 shader effects and it leveraged them extensively for material assets like metal surfaces, it looked great... And that game was doing things that just wasn't possible or being showcased on Gamecube or Playstation 2, it was leading the industry.

Halo: Combat Evolved was also a title that was frequently used in benchmarking on the PC due to how intensive and impressive it's technicals were back in the day.
For example: https://www.anandtech.com/show/1174/18

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.

Pemalite said:



I agree, art design is extremely important, but great art design does NOT need to come at the cost of "graphical bells and whistles". - You can actually have both, many games do have both.

A game with good Art direction though can punch above it's technical underpinnings, case in point: Breath of the Wild... But that is more out of need on Nintendo's behalf due to their low-end hardware choices for their devices. It is what it is.

Infinites Art isn't the issue in this instance though, the assets are actually of good quality for the most part, it's the lighting and some of the material shader work that is letting it down... Plus missing some alpha effects that we have grown accustomed to on various assets from the Halo franchise in order to conserve bandwidth.

So whilst yes, it looks like a good game, it's overall presentation still leaves more to be desired... It's constructive criticism and 343i seems to be taking note and making moves to improve and rectify that... Basically we are going to get a better game due to constructive criticism.
Case in point: https://www.vgchartz.com/article/444668/halo-infinite-dev-your-voice-matters-and-is-heard-following-criticism/

The issue I have is people taking an "apologetic" perspective on this and giving it a free pass for whatever reason, that doesn't result in a net benefit for the consumer, if we hold developers to a higher standard and demand higher quality products, then us consumers end up winning in the long run and the developer keeps evolving and improving as a result.

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.

Don't reduce it so much.

The two biggest problems is that we had they claiming Halo Infinite was made from the ground up to take advantage of Series X power, that Xbox One wouldn't hold it down but still it looks more like a current gen game (and not the prettiest one).

Also on the no current gen game is open world and 4k60fps, well Series X is over 10x stronger than current gen consoles. Well Days Gone is a game that looks very nice, have massive hordes and enemies all around, is open world and run fine 1080p30fps on base PS4 (checkerboarded 4k on Pro) and uses UE engine as a lot of 3rd party games and with a team that isn't big and worked on portable games before. So if we do the generic math of 4x more power for the native 4k and 2x more power for 60fps (from what Pema and CGI say it isn't really that much more) you would need about 8x more power than PS4 had, so XSX would do it just fine and would still have power to spare.

MGS V runs at 60fps on PS4 and X1, open world and 1080p.

So yes it is expected that a open world 4k60fps would have a lot of drawbacks and sacrifices on graphical department it still should easily look better than current gen games.



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

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."