Jump to content

Halo Infinite - Now Q3 2021


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, footle said:


flight simulator says “hello”

Indeed, because it's incredibly CPU intensive. I had forgotten about it to be fair, but then Halo Infinite will presumably ship without highly complex flight physics to calculate. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Harsin said:


That's about the worst example you could have chosen. Destiny spent its entire life hobbled in multiple areas because of their decision to make it a 360/PS3 game as well.


I was going to say the same, Destiny 2 is now running on a series s how it should have done when Destiny 2 launched!

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Harsin said:


That's about the worst example you could have chosen. Destiny spent its entire life hobbled in multiple areas because of their decision to make it a 360/PS3 game as well.

Is it? Fuck knows what’s wrong with me then because I had a proper good time with Destiny.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 24/12/2020 at 12:46, Mr. Gerbik said:

It was a stupid idea to make a game that should be the launching platform for everything Halo from now on for the next 10 years, a crossgen title. 

 

 

Works fine for multiple other Service Games. R6: Siege, Minecraft, WoW, Fortnite, Roblox, GTA: Online, World of Tanks, PUBG,  all have done or will reach 10 years of service life while being held back by a shit outdated base line support hardware spec.

 

This discussion for whatever myopic reason only ever concentrates on the X1 console, get rid of that boat anchor, you still have the much larger potential PC audience holding you back as 8C/16T Zen2-class or better CPUs are hardly mainstream, let alone DX12U-class GFX chips or fast I/O.

 

Service Games are all about audience reach, raising the hardware price of entry is counter-productive to that ultimate goal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, mushashi said:

 

Works fine for multiple other Service Games. R6: Siege, Minecraft, WoW, Fortnite, Roblox, GTA: Online, World of Tanks, PUBG,  all have done or will reach 10 years of service life while being held back by a shit outdated base line support hardware spec.

 

This discussion for whatever myopic reason only ever concentrates on the X1 console, get rid of that boat anchor, you still have the much larger potential PC audience holding you back as 8C/16T Zen2-class or better CPUs are hardly mainstream, let alone DX12U-class GFX chips or fast I/O.

 

Service Games are all about audience reach, raising the hardware price of entry is counter-productive to that ultimate goal.

Halo was never about that though was it; it was and should be about pushing the hardware and doing new stuff. Halo for MS should be what Naughty Dog is for Sony. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Stanley said:

Halo was never about that though was it; it was and should be about pushing the hardware and doing new stuff. Halo for MS should be what Naughty Dog is for Sony. 


I’d much rather a shit looking halo that played well than a naughty dog level gfx halo that played like a naughty dog game ;) 

 

I’m with @mushashi as Fortnite looks like shite on a Switch and base XB1 but looks incredible on a series X and that’s in a yonks old engine, there is no way the XB1 is holding back Infinite, if it is maybe they need to get the coalition in to show them how to make a game span in generations - the new Gears stuff is draw dropping on series x and runs on an Xbox....

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Shimmyhill said:


I’d much rather a shit looking halo that played well than a naughty dog level gfx halo that played like a naughty dog game ;) 

 

I’m with @mushashi as Fortnite looks like shite on a Switch and base XB1 but looks incredible on a series X and that’s in a yonks old engine, there is no way the XB1 is holding back Infinite, if it is maybe they need to get the coalition in to show them how to make a game span in generations - the new Gears stuff is draw dropping on series x and runs on an Xbox....

Playing well is baseline, this is Halo after all, but it should also look fucking amazing and be pushing the envelope technically. I mean Gears 5 did - I’ve no doubt when it comes out it will look good though. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

An interesting factoid about Gears 5, it doesn't push CPUs (at least on PC, unlike Cyberpunk)

 

But it's a game with different design goals and scope to the new Halo. Turning it into a wide-linear game would do wonders if you want eye-melting visuals.

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, mushashi said:

An interesting factoid about Gears 5, it doesn't push CPUs (at least on PC, unlike Cyberpunk)

 

But it's a game with different design goals and scope to the new Halo. Turning it into a wide-linear game would do wonders if you want eye-melting visuals.

Let’s hope so then. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

This game is cursed. It just won't end well for the developers or Halo's audience. Imagine how maddening and crushing it must be to be working on a project as huge and important as this, only to have the direction and timeline of it completely fucked because of some feedback on the internet. I really believe that 343 should have stayed true to their original vision and then tweaked the game on release, rather than shitting the bed and delaying because of some stupid fucking memes. Heaping even more expectation on it by delaying it a year isn't going to reduce the amount of pure negativity that people will direct at the game just for the sheer sport of it. Allowing the game to become a design by committee project by the likes of Reddit and ResetEra is a disaster.

 

What they showed initially looked great to me and I was looking forward to playing it. It looked like a proper Halo with tons of potential. We could be playing that right now if the worst of the internet hadn't lost its collective mind.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Stanley said:

Yeah, no. 

3rd person? Yes. 

Cover shooters? Yes. 

Graphical showcase for platform? Yes. 

Franchises that started in 360/PS3 era? Yes. 

 

Halo is none of those things. The PlayStation equivalent is Killzone. Not in terms of quality, but what the game represents for the platform. 

 

So... Yeah. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, squirtle said:

3rd person? Yes. 

Cover shooters? Yes. 

Graphical showcase for platform? Yes. 

Franchises that started in 360/PS3 era? Yes. 

 

Halo is none of those things. The PlayStation equivalent is Killzone. Not in terms of quality, but what the game represents for the platform. 

 

So... Yeah. 


Gears is good to play but shit story, ND are good story but shit to play - seems the media prefer story to gameplay these past couple of gens, maddening!

Link to post
Share on other sites

99% of them have shit story, it is all about gameplay. Story has almost nothing to do with the quality of a game and its gameplay. The story is a simple garnish on top of what should be a great gameplay dish

 

 

If a games designer starts from a position of "what story do I want to tell"? then he should give up and write a novel or a film. Invariably most games that result from that starting point will be useless.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Clipper said:

99% of them have shit story, it is all about gameplay. Story has almost nothing to do with the quality of a game and its gameplay. The story is a simple garnish on top of what should be a great gameplay dish

 

 

If a games designer starts from a position of "what story do I want to tell"? then he should give up and write a novel or a film. Invariably most games that result from that starting point will be useless.

 

 

I'm generally of the opinion that any given game in any given genre can be instantly improved by stripping out a 50% of the dialogue and cutscenes but at the same time there's been a bunch of games in recent years that tell stories that only make sense as videogames. Disco Elysium, Outer Wilds, Hades, Heaven's Vault.

 

Games like that where the story and the gameplay can't be separated are fascinating.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, squirtle said:

That's a very, very narrow view of what constitutes a video game. 

for what constitutes a videogame - no I dont believe that is narrow. Gameplay is paramount in a videogame experience, the story is almost always irrelevant or a distraction and usually tacked on even in our most lauded examples - hard hitting heartfelt cutscene for our hero and then stabs 27 bad guys in the neck post cut scene - utter hilarious nonsense.

 

For an interactive narrative experience then sure my statement would be narrow. However I wasn't talking about interactive narrative experiences - I would and do treat those very differently. But I can't think of many AAA games, that attempt to do that.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, matt0 said:

 

I'm generally of the opinion that any given game in any given genre can be instantly improved by stripping out a 50% of the dialogue and cutscenes but at the same time there's been a bunch of games in recent years that tell stories that only make sense as videogames. Disco Elysium, Outer Wilds, Hades, Heaven's Vault.

 

Games like that where the story and the gameplay can't be separated are fascinating.

unfortunately of the 4 mentioned I have only played two (Outer Wilds and Hades) and I disliked both of them which puts me in a small minority I realise. Outer Wilds didn't appeal on a gameplay level and therefore my only time with it consisted of it throwing a story at me which was ok but I didn't like the gameplay so didn't click at all. Hades is a forum darling and obviously a very well regarded game but the gameplay loop just causes me to bounce off, too busy and too button mashy for my old brain... story didn't even register with me when I played it.

 

In my post I was careful to use phrases like "99%" and "most" as there are exceptions, FF7 springs to mind. It is a fairly basic story but it carries you along and the gameplay fits in with the story pretty well. Mass Effect 2 is a close one but that's because I love Star Trek so it felt like each mission was playing a Star Trek episode - altho the same old cognitive dissonance kicks in. I might give Death Stranding a go as reviews indicate that it might be closer to a success.

 

This is way off topic now so I'll leave it there but I have enjoyed/liked/loved all the Halo games and I have no clue what the story is and I don't care as it is garnish. Same goes for Gears, Tomb Raider, Uncharted (although I liked that less), Days Gone, GTA etc etc

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Clipper said:

for what constitutes a videogame - no I dont believe that is narrow. Gameplay is paramount in a videogame experience, the story is almost always irrelevant or a distraction and usually tacked on even in our most lauded examples - hard hitting heartfelt cutscene for our hero and then stabs 27 bad guys in the neck post cut scene - utter hilarious nonsense.

 

For an interactive narrative experience then sure my statement would be narrow. However I wasn't talking about interactive narrative experiences - I would and do treat those very differently. But I can't think of many AAA games, that attempt to do that.

 

 

A certain level of density of mechanics, which is what is casually referred to as gameplay, does not make a game. Tacoma, Gone Home, Her Story, Everyone's Gone to the Rapture, What Remains of Edith Finch, The Vanishing of Ethan Carter, Dear Esther, Journey,  Virginia, Bound... The list is huge. All of these are mechanically light, but are still video games and are driven by their narrative. Is snap not a card game because it doesn't have the mechanics of bridge? Is Snakes and Ladders not a board game because it doesn't have the mechanics of Risk? 

 

Also, I think you are overly harsh on the first Halo's story. It's a simple, well told, heroes journey in three acts and the game would be less if it wasn't there. It's when they tried to complicate it in the sequels that it became a whole lot worse. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, squirtle said:

A certain level of density of mechanics, which is what is casually referred to as gameplay, does not make a game. Tacoma, Gone Home, Her Story, Everyone's Gone to the Rapture, What Remains of Edith Finch, The Vanishing of Ethan Carter, Dear Esther, Virginia, Bound... The list is huge. All of these are mechanically light, but are still video games and are driven by their narrative. Is snap not a card game because it doesn't have the mechanics of bridge? Is Snakes and Ladders not a board game because it doesn't have the mechanics of Risk? 

 

Also, I think you are overly harsh on the first Halo's story. It's a simple, well told, heroes journey in three acts and the game would be less if it wasn't there. It's when they tried to complicate it in the sequels that it became a whole lot worse. 

With the nearly all of the examples given in the first paragraph I think of them as interactive narrative experiences. They are predominantly about their story, the gameplay that is there is the "garnish" in this instance. I would , and have, played them for their story - I wouldn't play them for their gameplay mechanics  as a game because the "game" part isn't the meat here. To me they are different beasts completely. Nearly all of them could be transferred to the new netflix interactive implementation and work. Minecraft Story Mode exists on netflix and as a "game" I have played both and I get as much game from either implementation, very little. However they are great experiences.

 

I have ignored your comparisons to card/board games as, to me, they are both games just vary in complexity - like saying would space invaders be as much of a game as halo as it compares simple vs complex gameplay mechanics and of course both are games and very good ones. If you want to try that route then asking to compare a fighting fantasy book to a game of risk would be more interesting as fighting fantasy does bridge the gap between game and story pretty well (as does tabletop RPG D&D). All of those are way more successful than most videogame attempts to bridge the gap which invariably end up as either one thing or the other (game or interactive story) - rarely is the bridge gapped.

 

As for Halo? meh, it is barely a story. And I don't feel it is "less" of a game because I think the story is just garnish, a framing mechanism. If it had no story beyond go here and take on this set of enemies in whatever way you want - then go to this structure and take it over and find the macguffin - then go here and take on these troops using these tools... That would be just as good and barring a nice "halo" setting that is the story. Perfunctory.

 

 

EDIT - I dont want there to be misunderstanding here , I have no wish to say that the examples you gave were "lesser" or lacking as interactive pieces of entertainment or art - they are fantastic. My issue is that the vast majority of videogames (and mostly AAA examples spring to mind) the story is either stupid or overdone or irrelevant or suffers from horrible cognitive dissonance. The big blockbuster market is full of studios and game leads telling us about their fantastic story but they are invariably bobbins cut scenes OR cut scenes of angst interspersed with the actions of a sociopathic murderer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.