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

I thought the gameply in the trailer looked really good, actually. Never played a Halo game but I saw some footage here and there from other games, and as far as I can tell this looked right at home. Even if I didn't know which game they were showing I could instantly recognise it as a Halo game. The weapons and gadgets looked nice and it appears that you can use them in a tactical manner, which is always a bonus. I also liked the smooth transitions between vehicle and on foot movement, as well as the fast gameplay. Full right in your face kick ass action - what's not to like? I expect this to be a major system seller, regardless of the downplaying.



Gameplay > Graphics

Substance > Style

Art Direction > Realism

Around the Network
Mr Puggsly said:

I am not exactly sure why people thought this would even look next gen. Its being built for X1 and time is limited to suddenly make it next gen level.

Because it might be releasing on Next-Gen consoles and Microsoft has been promoting the fact?

Mr Puggsly said:

I am actually okay with the presentation because it essentially looks like a cleaner version of Halo 5. From my memory you were pretty critical of the significant compromises made in that game. This is kinda what I wanted from Halo 5 on more powerful hardware, just a clean looking game.

Definitely.

Mr Puggsly said:

As far as lighting goes, that may never be addressed unless we get a ray tracing update. That addition could be a fairly easy way to make a massive change in the overall presentation.

It shouldn't need addressing. 343i is a big developer with lots of intelligent individuals backed by one of the largest tech companies on Earth.

Game engines are generally highly scalable, that isn't being demonstrated this time around, Microsoft needed to drive home the narrative that the "Xbox Series X" is the "most powerful console ever" and actually demonstrate that capability.

Mr Puggsly said:

Wowing people now is more difficult than 2001 I imagine.

Doesn't seem to be an issue for Sony with Death Stranding, Horizon, Last of Us... Been wowing gamers on the visual fronts recently.

Shaunodon said:

'Powered by the Slipspace Engine'

They marketed it this way. They've had time to get it right, and they targeted the launch of Xbox Series X to showcase this title. It should look next-gen. No excuses.

If it's not up to par at launch, it should be delayed.

Ironically, the dynamic lighting and material shaders in the Slipspace engine demonstration was actually pretty impressive... And got me excited for what it could mean for a Halo game.

Sometimes a technical demonstration just doesn't align with the final product sadly.

Mr Puggsly said:

Halo 4 and 5 had exceptional graphics during cutscenes. I'm wondering if Halo Infinite is doing that as well?

Will go without saying, they have stepped up their cutscenes in recent years, taking a page out of Blizzards book I think.

Mr Puggsly said:

Either way, I remember that trailer, but I also remember this one... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBb88gLmJZY

I was always skeptical about the trailer you posted because that was before 9th gen was announced. Maybe that would be PC graphics? Bearing in mind this was always a Xbox One game I guess it kept my expectations realistic.

Even that demonstration showcased some very interesting rendering approaches with depth of field and various post process effects, not to mention the  volumetric fog being affected by different coloured dynamic lights which led to a very good presentation.

Otter said:



Going back to look at the Halo 4 reveal on 360 its interresting to compare. Even though the framerate is stuttering at 30fps, the visuals do appeal to me more here. Hopefully they can soon show off some content which boasts both the gameplay openness of Infinite with some more intriguing enemy types & location because Infinite had a lacking sense of newness imo. Whereas had a Metroid feel to it which got me quite excited actually

Halo 4 on the Xbox 360 had baked global illumination and shadowing, so it looked like it was punching above it's weight for the given hardware.
Dynamic lighting is significantly more demanding on resources.

In saying that, Halo 4 on the Xbox 360 had Subsurface scattering which made character models look extremely impressive... And that is actually Ray Tracing. (Aka. Bounce lighting underneath the skins surface.)

Halo 4 did make a few regressions, for example it's geometric complexity I felt was a step back over Halo 3 in various areas as the developer invested more polygons into character models. (Something had to give.)

Halo 4 was a technical showpiece for the Xbox 360, probably the most technically impressive game on the platform and one of the most visually impressive games of the entire 7th gen, it proved the Xbox 360 could "hang there" with Playstation 3 exclusives like Uncharted despite the "power of the cell".




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

Pemalite said:
Mr Puggsly said:

I am not exactly sure why people thought this would even look next gen. Its being built for X1 and time is limited to suddenly make it next gen level.

Because it might be releasing on Next-Gen consoles and Microsoft has been promoting the fact?

Mr Puggsly said:

I am actually okay with the presentation because it essentially looks like a cleaner version of Halo 5. From my memory you were pretty critical of the significant compromises made in that game. This is kinda what I wanted from Halo 5 on more powerful hardware, just a clean looking game.

Definitely.

Mr Puggsly said:

As far as lighting goes, that may never be addressed unless we get a ray tracing update. That addition could be a fairly easy way to make a massive change in the overall presentation.

It shouldn't need addressing. 343i is a big developer with lots of intelligent individuals backed by one of the largest tech companies on Earth.

Game engines are generally highly scalable, that isn't being demonstrated this time around, Microsoft needed to drive home the narrative that the "Xbox Series X" is the "most powerful console ever" and actually demonstrate that capability.

Mr Puggsly said:

Wowing people now is more difficult than 2001 I imagine.

Doesn't seem to be an issue for Sony with Death Stranding, Horizon, Last of Us... Been wowing gamers on the visual fronts recently.

Shaunodon said:

'Powered by the Slipspace Engine'

They marketed it this way. They've had time to get it right, and they targeted the launch of Xbox Series X to showcase this title. It should look next-gen. No excuses.

If it's not up to par at launch, it should be delayed.

Ironically, the dynamic lighting and material shaders in the Slipspace engine demonstration was actually pretty impressive... And got me excited for what it could mean for a Halo game.

Sometimes a technical demonstration just doesn't align with the final product sadly.

Mr Puggsly said:

Halo 4 and 5 had exceptional graphics during cutscenes. I'm wondering if Halo Infinite is doing that as well?

Will go without saying, they have stepped up their cutscenes in recent years, taking a page out of Blizzards book I think.

Mr Puggsly said:

Either way, I remember that trailer, but I also remember this one... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBb88gLmJZY

I was always skeptical about the trailer you posted because that was before 9th gen was announced. Maybe that would be PC graphics? Bearing in mind this was always a Xbox One game I guess it kept my expectations realistic.

Even that demonstration showcased some very interesting rendering approaches with depth of field and various post process effects, not to mention the  volumetric fog being affected by different coloured dynamic lights which led to a very good presentation.

A lot of games are going to be cross gen, but we expect few if any to look significantly better on next gen at launch. Again, based on the 2019 trailer I fully expected a game that looked like Xbox One was the focus. However, if 343 managed to make a really great looking Xbox One game then there would also be less complaining.

MS clearly wants this game out for the Series X launch and that clearly limiting the visual potential. Especially if ray tracing will be an update. Maybe other visual upgrades are planned? I also imagine the campaign is the primary focus, while the MP experience will be kinda bare bones at launch.

To be frank, I don't MS will not be demonstrating the Series X's potential at launch. At best there will be a significant disparity between base console vs Series X. For example, Forza Horizon 4 with higher visual settings, 4K, and 60 fps could be stunning. Perhaps more games will do that between 1st and 3rd party.

I meant wowing people in the sense Halo did in 2001, not just visually. Gears 5 was a impressive game visually that came from MS. I'm looking forward to seeing it Series X as well. Given Xbox One graphics settings were basically low PC settings, with higher resolutions and performance on the One X.

I was pointing out the 2019 trailer is still ain't the 2018 trailer.



Recently Completed
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)

The feeling i have when i look at this gameplay is that it does not look cohesive on how the assets fit with eachother,the characters look like toys on a playground.



Immersiveunreality said:
The feeling i have when i look at this gameplay is that it does not look cohesive on how the assets fit with eachother,the characters look like toys on a playground.

Have you seen the original trailer?

I don't think anyone had a problem with the actual art direction. They're just struggling to reach the visual fidelity to make it really shine.



Around the Network
Mr Puggsly said:

A lot of games are going to be cross gen, but we expect few if any to look significantly better on next gen at launch. Again, based on the 2019 trailer I fully expected a game that looked like Xbox One was the focus. However, if 343 managed to make a really great looking Xbox One game then there would also be less complaining.

"Other Games" are not Halo.
"Other Games" are not AAA platform exclusives.
"Other Games" are not supposed to be showcasing a platform in the absolute best possible light to showcase hardware potential.

Thus I can and will hold my expectations for Halo higher than other titles, they initiated the hype, they deserve the criticism when they fall short.


Mr Puggsly said:

MS clearly wants this game out for the Series X launch and that clearly limiting the visual potential. Especially if ray tracing will be an update. Maybe other visual upgrades are planned? I also imagine the campaign is the primary focus, while the MP experience will be kinda bare bones at launch.

If anything, post-launch content is meh, if the features aren't there on launch then it needs to be critiqued and judged accordingly, either way... If the Xbox Series X isn't going to push the graphics side of the equation, then there is less of a reason to buy one, better off with a Playstation 5 instead if you want the next-gen experience.

Remember Halo 5 released without forge, split screen, co-op, theater and only a few maps, by the time some of that was added into the game... A chunk of the community had already forgotten about the game and moved on, the games review scores were also lower as a result... And deservedly so.

Mr Puggsly said:

To be frank, I don't MS will not be demonstrating the Series X's potential at launch. At best there will be a significant disparity between base console vs Series X. For example, Forza Horizon 4 with higher visual settings, 4K, and 60 fps could be stunning. Perhaps more games will do that between 1st and 3rd party.

It will be interesting to see if the platforms success takes a hit... Either way, if they aren't interested in demonstrating the console appropriately, maybe not launch the console at all until they feel the inkling to do so?

A single game can make or break a console.

Mr Puggsly said:

I meant wowing people in the sense Halo did in 2001, not just visually. Gears 5 was a impressive game visually that came from MS. I'm looking forward to seeing it Series X as well. Given Xbox One graphics settings were basically low PC settings, with higher resolutions and performance on the One X.

I was pointing out the 2019 trailer is still ain't the 2018 trailer.

Gears 5 is old news already, don't really care for it being "Series X enhanced". - It's a cool feature, but not the reason I would like to buy a next-gen console if I can already play it on my Xbox One X.

Yes. I get the 2019 trailer is not the 2018 trailer, that much is obvious from just the dating alone.

One trailer was a technology demonstration just like the Unreal 5 engine demo on the Playstation 5, the other was a game trailer.
Both have very similar technical underpinnings being based on the same engine, I have already elaborated on some of the impressive technical demonstrations like the dynamic lighting of the volumetrics and so forth.



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

Shaunodon said:
Immersiveunreality said:
The feeling i have when i look at this gameplay is that it does not look cohesive on how the assets fit with eachother,the characters look like toys on a playground.

Have you seen the original trailer?

I don't think anyone had a problem with the actual art direction. They're just struggling to reach the visual fidelity to make it really shine.

Damn that's a good looking trailer and the ''gameplay'' of that vehicle driving through the field does look different than what was shown some days ago.



To quote what I said over at Era:

Personally, when I was watching the demo for the first time, the graphics weren't the first thing on my mind. The gameplay was. And gameplay will always be the single most important aspect of any game. Infinite looks like it will be incredibly fun. The amount of interactivity has obviously been increased, and I imagine the grapple hook and being able to toss things like fusion cores aren't all there is in that regard. Vehicle damage looks like it's being expanded upon (that suicide Grunt blew the whole tire off the rim on the Warthog). And the level design. Holy shit, at the level design. This is what I've been looking for in a Halo game for a very long time.

One thing I enjoyed so much about the original game was all the potential for exploration and the general scale it had. I spent hours back in the early 00s trying to get to the bottom of the Silent Cartographer and other normally out of reach locations. I played Assault on the Control Room entirely on foot one day as a self-imposed challenge, and it gave me new appreciation for the sheer scale of that level. But subsequent games were lacking when it came to that kind of scale, with narrower, more constrained levels, sometimes with artificial barriers like invisible walls and (beginning in Reach) soft-kill barriers. The only truly large areas in later games were mostly empty spaces designed for fast-moving flying vehicles (e.g., Long Night of Solace, New Alexandria, Shutdown). But now in Infinite we have these truly massive levels with so much opportunity for exploration. It looks like something I'd spend hours just exploring.

As for the visuals, yeah, it's clearly unfinished and needs some polish. And I can understand some people expecting an eye-melting graphical tour de force. The engine demo trailer was, on a technical level, prettier than the gameplay demo. But the gameplay demo is a months-old build of a cross-gen open-world game (or at least with open-world elements; I don't think it's been confirmed to be one big contiguous map) running at 4K+60fps. So, on the one hand, the 2018 engine demo did set expectations that the demo did not deliver on. But on the other hand it's an older build and there's a very high likelihood that the demo is not representative of what the final product will look like (as others have pointed out, it wouldn't be the first time a game received significant polish from trailers to the final game). Also, should anyone have really expected a Halo game to be on the cutting edge of game graphics, especially one that's a launch title that also has to run on the XBO and at the scale, resolution, and frame rate 343i is aiming for?

Halo CE wasn't exactly the best-looking game of its system or its general time back in 2001, at least from a purely technical perspective. Halo 2 pushed the graphics forward in some ways, but had many sacrifices made to its visuals as well (some environments looked ugly even back then, and the pop-in was atrocious in many parts). Halo 3 wasn't the most impressive-looking game around in 2007, and its character models were terrible (the lighting was solid, though). Reach and Halo 4 looked better (but still not close to the best of their generation), but they came out years after Halo 3, and in Halo 4's case it had a lot of bad textures as well as the most linear and constrained levels in the series to achieve what it did in other areas. And Halo 5 was not even remotely in the same league as a lot of other games from earlier in this generation.

But art design is arguably as important if not more so than graphical bells & whistles. Artistically, I think Infinite looks great. It looks nice and uncluttered, without that typical overwrought 343i art style from 4/5. I also love how they're moving back to designs inspired by Bungie's art style. We've already seen that the Chief's armor is 95% identical to the Halo 3 design (the shoulders are the biggest difference). The Elites look just like Reach-style Elites. The Grunts are inspired by their Reach designs. The Jackals are back to being vultures instead of lizards. Even some of the Brute designs hearken back to Halo 3.

So, while the demo wasn't exactly the most graphically advanced, it showed a game that looked like a blast to play, and it's still my most anticipated game of the fall.

To add to that, Digital Foundry did a good job of explaining how the choice of using dynamic lighting and even things like the angle of light in the level in the demo impacts the look of the game, and how it could be improved. For what the game is and given the context of the demo, I think it looks okay compared to most other titles in its genre. Not great, but good enough. And that's fine. And it can be made to look better. And even if it's not the prettiest game even at launch and even after the post-launch ray-tracing update, I still think the gameplay is more important than the technical merits of its graphics. I see so many discussions about how graphics aren't the most important thing for a game, and then we end up seeing a game torn to shreds over its graphics even though it's from a series not exactly known for having the latest and greatest in state-of-the-art graphics. I just don't get it. When are graphics important, and when are they not?

Don't get me wrong. I love pretty graphics as well. I was blown away by the UE5 gameplay demo from a few weeks back, for example. But graphics aren't everything. Given the choice between the two, I'd rather have a game that's a 10/10 in the fun department but maybe only a 7/10 in the graphics department than one with stunning visuals but mediocre gameplay mechanics. The negative reactions to Infinite's graphics honestly did surprise me, and as I said in my post on Era the technical aspects of the graphics were the last thing on my mind. For example, I didn't notice things like "Craig the Brute's" face until someone pointed it out to me after the fact. When I was watching the demo, I was simply smiling at how fun the game looks and how so many classic designs are returning in addition the new stuff. And speaking of the new stuff, it's certainly possible that the Banished could add a lot more new stuff to the sandbox, especially in the vehicles department with all the crazy machines they had in Halo Wars 2.

Last edited by Shadow1980 - on 29 July 2020

Shadow1980 said:

To quote what I said over at Era:

Personally, when I was watching the demo for the first time, the graphics weren't the first thing on my mind. The gameplay was. And gameplay will always be the single most important aspect of any game. Infinite looks like it will be incredibly fun. The amount of interactivity has obviously been increased, and I imagine the grapple hook and being able to toss things like fusion cores aren't all there is in that regard. Vehicle damage looks like it's being expanded upon (that suicide Grunt blew the whole tire off the rim on the Warthog). And the level design. Holy shit, at the level design. This is what I've been looking for in a Halo game for a very long time.

One thing I enjoyed so much about the original game was all the potential for exploration and the general scale it had. I spent hours back in the early 00s trying to get to the bottom of the Silent Cartographer and other normally out of reach locations. I played Assault on the Control Room entirely on foot one day as a self-imposed challenge, and it gave me new appreciation for the sheer scale of that level. But subsequent games were lacking when it came to that kind of scale, with narrower, more constrained levels, sometimes with artificial barriers like invisible walls and (beginning in Reach) soft-kill barriers. The only truly large areas in later games were mostly empty spaces designed for fast-moving flying vehicles (e.g., Long Night of Solace, New Alexandria, Shutdown). But now in Infinite we have these truly massive levels with so much opportunity for exploration. It looks like something I'd spend hours just exploring.

As for the visuals, yeah, it's clearly unfinished and needs some polish. And I can understand some people expecting an eye-melting graphical tour de force. The engine demo trailer was, on a technical level, prettier than the gameplay demo. But the gameplay demo is a months-old build of a cross-gen open-world game (or at least with open-world elements; I don't think it's been confirmed to be one big contiguous map) running at 4K+60fps. So, on the one hand, the 2018 engine demo did set expectations that the demo did not deliver on. But on the other hand it's an older build and there's a very high likelihood that the demo is not representative of what the final product will look like (as others have pointed out, it wouldn't be the first time a game received significant polish from trailers to the final game). Also, should anyone have really expected a Halo game to be on the cutting edge of game graphics, especially one that's a launch title that also has to run on the XBO and at the scale, resolution, and frame rate 343i is aiming for?

Halo CE wasn't exactly the best-looking game of its system or its general time back in 2001, at least from a purely technical perspective. Halo 2 pushed the graphics forward in some ways, but had many sacrifices made to its visuals as well (some environments looked ugly even back then, and the pop-in was atrocious in many parts). Halo 3 wasn't the most impressive-looking game around in 2007, and its character models were terrible (the lighting was solid, though). Reach and Halo 4 looked better (but still not close to the best of their generation), but they came out years after Halo 3, and in Halo 4's case it had a lot of bad textures as well as the most linear and constrained levels in the series to achieve what it did in other areas. And Halo 5 was not even remotely in the same league as a lot of other games from earlier in this generation.

But art design is arguably as important if not more so than graphical bells & whistles. Artistically, I think Infinite looks great. It looks nice and uncluttered, without that typical overwrought 343i art style from 4/5. I also love how they're moving back to designs inspired by Bungie's art style. We've already seen that the Chief's armor is 95% identical to the Halo 3 design (the shoulders are the biggest difference). The Elites look just like Reach-style Elites. The Grunts are inspired by their Reach designs. The Jackals are back to being vultures instead of lizards. Even some of the Brute designs hearken back to Halo 3.

So, while the demo wasn't exactly the most graphically advanced, it showed a game that looked like a blast to play, and it's still my most anticipated game of the fall.

To add to that, Digital Foundry did a good job of explaining how the choice of using dynamic lighting and even things like the angle of light in the level in the demo impacts the look of the game, and how it could be improved. For what the game is and given the context of the demo, I think it looks okay compared to most other titles in its genre. Not great, but good enough. And that's fine. And it can be made to look better. And even if it's not the prettiest game even at launch and even after the post-launch ray-tracing update, I still think the gameplay is more important than the technical merits of its graphics. I see so many discussions about how graphics aren't the most important thing for a game, and then we end up seeing a game torn to shreds over its graphics even though it's from a series not exactly known for having the latest and greatest in state-of-the-art graphics. I just don't get it. When are graphics important, and when are they not?

Don't get me wrong. I love pretty graphics as well. I was blown away by the UE5 gameplay demo from a few weeks back, for example. But graphics aren't everything. Given the choice between the two, I'd rather have a game that's a 10/10 in the fun department but maybe only a 7/10 in the graphics department than one with stunning visuals but mediocre gameplay mechanics. The negative reactions to Infinite's graphics honestly did surprise me, and as I said in my post on Era the technical aspects of the graphics were the last thing on my mind. For example, I didn't notice things like "Craig the Brute's" face until someone pointed it out to me after the fact. When I was watching the demo, I was simply smiling at how fun the game looks and how so many classic designs are returning in addition the new stuff. And speaking of the new stuff, it's certainly possible that the Banished could add a lot more new stuff to the sandbox, especially in the vehicles department with all the crazy machines they had in Halo Wars 2.

Entire post: Exactly! The game just needs to have a satisfying gameplay. Nice graphics would be welcomed but they should never be the one and only thing that matters.

Bolded: Right? One the one hand a lot of people say they are happy with the current level of graphics, we even had a thread for this exact topic just recently. On the other hand this very thread (read: a lot of the comments in it) suggest that excellent graphics are necessary for a game to be successful, no matter how good the gameplay feels. There appears to be some sort of disconnect.

I would love to know how much the general audience is aligned in regards to the connection between graphical fidelity and perceived value. In real life I know some people who truly believe that games with bad graphics cannot be good, my own brother being one of them. Of course that's just anecdotal and in no way represantitve, but I am very sure that this mindset applies to a very large number of gamers. I think many gamers want to feel wowed and blown away. I would like to call this the 'surface level enjoyment'. When it looks good, it must be good. When something else looks better, then that must be better. Simple logic. This helps to keep our minds in order and organised. So I believe that these graphics we see here in Halo Infinite, which in comparison look not like people would expect them to be, may leave a bad first impression in many minds and some may believe that this is a sub-par product.

On the contrary, I think The Order 1886 is such a game that excells on the surface level and blew some people away. But when we dig deeper and find out that the gameplay is weak and boring, even the shiniest graphics won't help anymore. That's the 'core level enjoyment' to me. A game needs to be thrilling and exciting, it must feel good to play it. Graphics are nothing but a vehicle to this, instead the core mechanics and level designs are the main driver. As gamers we can only find this however if we look past the surface level. Gamers should be more sophisticated and seek the core level enjoyment rather than shiny graphics. If I look at the trailer here, the core gameplay looks absolutely fine to me. I have never played a Halo game but this actually sparks my interest.

Having said all that, good graphics and good gameplay do not necessarily need to be a trade-off. Yet, I am sure we can all agree that out of the tens of thousands of games that exist only a very tiny selection achieves both. That's the Metroid Prime level of enjoyment. In fact, many many many many examples exist that indeed suggest it's a trade-off, especially in these modern times when developers won't take risks and won't stray away from tried and true formulae. We see so many nice looking games that drop so many jaws but after a while we hear how hollow and dull they actually are. I think developers feel the need to push for graphics rather than gameplay because the customer demands it. It is us gamers who constantly fall for pretty graphics because we think in simple patterns. Good graphics means good game. But unfortunately this will never stop, I guess. That's just how we the customers try to avoid the risk of spending money on a product that won't live up to our own expectations. I would love to the see the day when this trend changes.



Gameplay > Graphics

Substance > Style

Art Direction > Realism

Pemalite said:
Mr Puggsly said:

A lot of games are going to be cross gen, but we expect few if any to look significantly better on next gen at launch. Again, based on the 2019 trailer I fully expected a game that looked like Xbox One was the focus. However, if 343 managed to make a really great looking Xbox One game then there would also be less complaining.

"Other Games" are not Halo.
"Other Games" are not AAA platform exclusives.
"Other Games" are not supposed to be showcasing a platform in the absolute best possible light to showcase hardware potential.

Thus I can and will hold my expectations for Halo higher than other titles, they initiated the hype, they deserve the criticism when they fall short.


Mr Puggsly said:

MS clearly wants this game out for the Series X launch and that clearly limiting the visual potential. Especially if ray tracing will be an update. Maybe other visual upgrades are planned? I also imagine the campaign is the primary focus, while the MP experience will be kinda bare bones at launch.

If anything, post-launch content is meh, if the features aren't there on launch then it needs to be critiqued and judged accordingly, either way... If the Xbox Series X isn't going to push the graphics side of the equation, then there is less of a reason to buy one, better off with a Playstation 5 instead if you want the next-gen experience.

Remember Halo 5 released without forge, split screen, co-op, theater and only a few maps, by the time some of that was added into the game... A chunk of the community had already forgotten about the game and moved on, the games review scores were also lower as a result... And deservedly so.

Mr Puggsly said:

To be frank, I don't MS will not be demonstrating the Series X's potential at launch. At best there will be a significant disparity between base console vs Series X. For example, Forza Horizon 4 with higher visual settings, 4K, and 60 fps could be stunning. Perhaps more games will do that between 1st and 3rd party.

It will be interesting to see if the platforms success takes a hit... Either way, if they aren't interested in demonstrating the console appropriately, maybe not launch the console at all until they feel the inkling to do so?

A single game can make or break a console.

Mr Puggsly said:

I meant wowing people in the sense Halo did in 2001, not just visually. Gears 5 was a impressive game visually that came from MS. I'm looking forward to seeing it Series X as well. Given Xbox One graphics settings were basically low PC settings, with higher resolutions and performance on the One X.

I was pointing out the 2019 trailer is still ain't the 2018 trailer.

Gears 5 is old news already, don't really care for it being "Series X enhanced". - It's a cool feature, but not the reason I would like to buy a next-gen console if I can already play it on my Xbox One X.

Yes. I get the 2019 trailer is not the 2018 trailer, that much is obvious from just the dating alone.

One trailer was a technology demonstration just like the Unreal 5 engine demo on the Playstation 5, the other was a game trailer.
Both have very similar technical underpinnings being based on the same engine, I have already elaborated on some of the impressive technical demonstrations like the dynamic lighting of the volumetrics and so forth.

Many other games are cross gen, so is Halo Infinite.  Halo Infinite isn't a Series X exclusive. Halo isn't going to really showcase what Series X is really capable of. I think criticism is fine, but its kinda like people are pretending they have great expectations when the writing was already on the wall. Either way, hope it's good.

PS5 might feel next gen sooner. That wouldn't surprise me unless multiplats really impress early.

Halo Infinite will certainly be affected negatively for being slim in content at launch. But we now see users may come post updates in this era.

Xbox is not dependent on a single game or IP. They don't even care to give it true exclusives and every MS game is on PC. I don't know if this is a great strategy but I like it.

A Series S console could also help them thrive. Same 9th gen games on cheaper hardware could do well.

Next gen consoles aren't launching with a ton of notable content. So I guarantee last gen enhanced games will be getting attention as well. Cyberpunk is launching on 8th gen only I believe, but I imagine its still best on 9th gen.



Recently Completed
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)