The game doesn't look next-generation sadly. It does look clean.
But the pop-in, flat lighting, the sprite-work that sticks out... Doesn't leave me with much faith.
In saying that, it also doesn't look bad, so as long as they nail the gameplay it might be okay, unfortunately though, first impressions last and the first impression is always going to be a visual one... Even this trailer doesn't really show the visuals in the best light.
But some of the new gameplay toys look fun.
I'm curious for your take on this: What can they possibly do with the time they have left, and would it be worth delaying 6 months or possibly even a year?
They could implement Voxel based Global Illumination.
The assets are actually high quality, some of the specular highlights (I.E Brutes teeth) and texture maps were exceptionally good.
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.
Don't forget the lack of alpha transparencies, they saw fit to use allot of non-transparent effects, it does save allot of bandwidth, which fits in with the base Xbox One's capabilities...
To be fair, the game was never intended to be a next gen game, it was designed with base X1 hardware in mind at 60fps with an open world design.. which is quite ambitions for base X1.
To also be fair... That is also not our problem, once Microsoft starts pushing the narrative that it's a next-gen title, then expectations will obviously shift to match... Microsoft needed to match those expectations.
Halo was always a graphical showpiece for the console it releases on.
I get the feeling too many gamers are too graphic focused these days. Halo was never a Crysis when it comes to visuals, Halo always carried great art styles and offered top of the line gameplay for its genre. Halo 4 and 5 was where 343 tried to go for the more realistic route and focusing on visuals over gameplay which was some of the major criticisms for those games at the time. Infinite seems to be focusing on what made Halo great in the first place, unfortunately that comes at a cost.
Halo was always pushing the graphics envelope until Halo 5 came along when 60fps got prioritized.
Halo 1 and 2 were pushing some impressive shader and parallax effects back in the day, Halo 3 was pushing a HDR lighting pipeline in conjunction with things like Tessellated water.
Halo 4 had subsurface scattering and screen space ambient occlusion.
They were some of the most visually impressive games on their release using some of the latest technologies.
Yes the good art was an additional layer on top, but Halo was a technical showpiece for Xbox, lets not kid ourselves.
You can have great art and the latest and greatest rendering effects, one doesn't come at the cost of another.
Fingers crossed we will see improvements with added Ray-Tracing if they offer it. If they don't, it doesn't bother me, i play Halo for the story and gameplay foremost so i am more interested in seeing what the game offers in those terms.
I am hoping they use the Ray Tracing for improved lighting rather than reflections or shadowing, it's the lighting that lets it down the most.
And like you, I play Halo for the Gameplay and Story, but... I also want it to be a game that leads the industry on the technology front like it used to, so constructive criticism on it's visual representation isn't a bad thing, one thing Microsoft tends to do is listen to community uproar. - Although in this instance that doesn't seem to be the case, Halo 5 was a dropped ball on the visual front as well. (Plus gameplay and story was pretty average.)
Its more than that.
Tree's/grass is static, doesnt move at all, its lifeless.
Characters, talk without animations (face doesnt move).
When they die (the brute that dies in the air), its just frozen in animation as it drops down, from the moment it died in the air.
You toss a grande onto a enemy (those that stick onto enemies) they dont panic and run around in panic and spout their lines, like in old halo games.
Agree. The grass though I think is fine. They seem to be very high quality assets.
The tree's though remind me of Halo: Combat Evolved assets, they likely wanted to harken back to that art style... But the static nature of those assets makes the world seem uninteresting...
And that sucks, because the new Zen processors should open up a TON of possibilities in allowing for more micro-details in simulation quality.
The A.I stuff, it's hard to tell the A.I routines from such a short video, but there are some new A.I scripting that seemed impressive, like a Brute throwing a Grunt, need to see more gameplay to really get an idea on the extent of the new A.I routines.
Theres so many inconsitancies with this.
Some enemies have shadows, some that should dont.
Indeed. And I agree. The shadowing is likely a result of the lighting model they opted for, which just isn't a good fit for the game.
Halo Infinate looks rushed.
Thats the best way to explain it.... I know supposedly they have had years to do this, but it doesnt look like it.
Its lacking polish and consistancy.
I don't think it looks rushed, it just looks incomplete, it just needs some more time in the development pipeline... I would personally be okay if they delayed it for 6-12 months in order to fine tune everything.
I would rather a late good game than an early shit game.
Plus they did some game engine swaps which would have restarted development.
NX Gamer covers gives his impressions on the Xbox conference and analysis including Halo Infinite. He doesn't even think Slipspace is a new engine.
Probably because it isn't.
Like most game engines, developers/publishers don't discard the old and start again from scratch, they build upon and rewrite parts of the engine and rebadge it as something new.
Case in point... The Creation engine from Skyrim Bethesda marketed as a "new" game engine, but in reality it's still based on Gamebryo which in turn is still based on Net Immerse from the 90's.
Call of Duty still has snippets of code from the Quake Engine, Source still has snippets of code from Quake as well, they don't discard everything and start from scratch, they improve on already established foundations, it's cost effective and allows for faster development time.
To me Slipspace has a very clean look as it lacks heavy post-processing, which reminds me of Quake, but some of the shader effects reminds me of the Halo engine aka. Blam!
So I will go out on a limb and say they took the old Halo Engine and overhauled it from top to bottom, which comes with it a heap of old and new nuances.