-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Everything wrong with Halo Infinite: (Spoilers) THERE'S A LOT WRONG!
Astral Dog
Member
its no DOOM that's for sure
TheMay30thMan
Member
Have they enabled player collision in multiplayer yet?
R6Rider
Gold Member
whats wrong with it ? rly ? i couldnt even pass coridor levels at start . it was so old ... and just like old halo .. so i didint even reached to "open world " part ... lol how they could make this game and thought that it was good ...
but then elden ring is uter shiet as well ... i mean cmon just look at it ... what year is it ...
but then elden ring is uter shiet as well ... i mean cmon just look at it ... what year is it ...
Last edited:
sw0mp_d0nk3y
Member
I got bored of the campaign pretty quickly, but am having fun jumping into the multiplayer occasionally. Could care less about the battle pass, so the multiplayer is free to me, and pretty frickin good for free. When more maps, modes, forge, etc. come out I'll keep jumping back in. Despite the negativity right now, I expect this game to keep expanding and improving for this whole generation. It's basically a beta right now, and the full game will be more developed in a couple of years. Pretty fun beta, with a lot of potential.
V4skunk
Banned
Did you even play halo4 and 5? Infinite is way better than those two pos's.
343i are shit though and take months too long to update and add shit already in engine like different game modes lol.
Not having Forge is also a huge fuck up.
Dr. Claus
Vincit qui se vincit
Halo 4 was the best thing that 343i has been able to produce. That isn’t to say the product is *good*, but that everything else has been shit. Infinite is by far the worst thing they have made. Just because they have a good gun feel does not make up for how terrible everything else is around it.
V4skunk
Banned
Halo4 is shit. It's the least halo game in the entire series. The only good thing about Halo4 is the lore.
In the Prometheans, Halo 4 gives you bullet spongey enemies that teleport away as soon as you deplete their shield, with a practically undodgeable melee attack. Then it gives you severely limited ammo for the majority of the non-Promethean weapons, and balances the Promethian weapons so only the Light Rifle and Scattershot are useful and the Scattershot involves additional risk. So basically Halo 4 is "designed" around one weapon: the Light Rifle, and the "strategy" is to continuously spam enemies at long range with it until they die.
Halo 4 takes Halo's strategy and sandbox and guts it, turning it into a generic shooter. For more elaboration, see this video, which goes through what is wrong with Halo 4's campaign in painstaking detail:
(The main improvement to Infinite I would say is not "gun feel", but restoring the uniqueness and utility of the sandbox, and giving the player actual tactical options)
Markio128
Gold Member
The last Halo I played prior to Halo Infinite was Bungie’s Halo Reach and that was the last time I played a quality Halo game.
EDMIX
Gold Member
Look...I read the first post, I'm not going to read the second and I read quite a bit and don't mind reading the entirety of a post to get what is being stated.
The meat of this seems to be, after 6 years Halo infinite came with little content, piecemealed out and or WTF did they do lol
The meat of this seems to be, after 6 years Halo infinite came with little content, piecemealed out and or WTF did they do lol
Feel Like I'm On 42
Member
Great post. Sad but oh so true. Everyone wants desperately to love Halo but 343 has killed off the franchise. The campaign is so disappointing and I just can't get over how bad they botched things with the time and resources they had.
343i is a shitty studio. Woke and incompetent. I can't even play Halo 1 and 2 campaigns on my xb1x because they havnt fixed the stuttering they introduced into the games when the Reach patch came out, a year and a half ago. Infinite is worse than Halo 5, not because the look of the world or gameplay is worse but because they didn't have "time" to include all the things that made Halo stand out: varied locations, epic setpieces, a good script, varied combat encounters, etc
343i is a shitty studio. Woke and incompetent. I can't even play Halo 1 and 2 campaigns on my xb1x because they havnt fixed the stuttering they introduced into the games when the Reach patch came out, a year and a half ago. Infinite is worse than Halo 5, not because the look of the world or gameplay is worse but because they didn't have "time" to include all the things that made Halo stand out: varied locations, epic setpieces, a good script, varied combat encounters, etc
Exanthus
Banned
Dr. Claus
Vincit qui se vincit
And you are right. Again, I am not saying Halo 4 is a good game. It's just better than the trash fire that was Halo 5 and Infinite. 343i has done a fucking piss poor job with this franchise from the outset.
Ok, but Infinite addressed the majority of the issues I highlighted. So what makes Halo 4's campaign better than Infinite's?
Dr. Claus
Vincit qui se vincit
Considering Halo 4's campaign is actually finished with a wide variety of locales and isn't a generic open world bland plateau with little to no visual variety? Yes.
Banjo64
cumsessed
Speak for yourself. I put well over 200 hours (conservative estimate) in to Warzone Firefight alone. It was probably much more. That’s without factoring in regular online play.
Well from what I remember Halo 4's campaign mainly takes place in Forerunner structures with some excursions outside to rocky grey/brown outdoor areas. So if it wins in variety, it is not by much. While it has arguably the worst combat of the entire series, compared with Infinite, which has received almost universal praise for its combat. (Even the thread starter doesn't criticise the campaign gameplay).
So you can have a "completed" game that plays like a generic shooter, or a title with extremely polished and satisfying combat that feels like part one of a larger game.
Last edited:
Dr. Claus
Vincit qui se vincit
Yes, I would rather have a completed title that plays genericly or even slightly less than OK than an unfinished, insulting mess.
What kind of question is that?
Hayabusa83
Member
Many of you may not like this but the pinnacle of Halo for me was Reach. The plot of was grounded and dark, the mission types were varied, and finally, it included way more multiplayer and cooperative options than any game that 343 has offered. I won't lie, I enjoyed 343s games to a certain extent, but they effectively butchered Halo because they did not have a defined vision like Bungie. I have replayed the single player of Reach more than any other game in the series, and it just refines everything great about the Halo series up to that point.
I never said Infinite was an "insulting mess", and I don't see how you can describe the game that way either. The plot and levels all tie together in a self contained fashion, and the game follows the classic Halo formula of alternating "open world" exploration with combat in confined spaces. There is none of the monotony of Halo's library or Halo 2's Flood sections. There is no "Cortana" level from Halo 3.
What is missing is a "conclusion" to the ultimate threat, but that's no different to Halo 2 for example. And I think you could make a case that Halo 2 feels less finished due to the more inconsistent level design (see the first level), and the fact the ending is completely chopped off.
Edit: And what about Halo: Reach as a comparison point, which is just a collection of vaguely linked "missions" taking place during a war we already know was lost?
Last edited:
Dr. Claus
Vincit qui se vincit
I know you didn't. I did. The game is an insulting mess. You are also right that there is none of the monotony of LIbrary or Halo 2's flood, as the entire game is a monotonous slog. At least with Halo 1 and 2, they were relegated to only a couple levels. Not the entire "Campaign".
Not even close.
What does it matter if we knew the war was lost? We knew Chief would win the day at the end of 3 as well. There was no other way it could have ended. Still miles better than anything released by 343i.
LordCBH
Member
The best thing I can say about Infinite is “at least it’s not 5.”
But 5 still launched with co-op, even if it was online co-op only. I could STILL play thst crappy campaign with my friends. Can’t do that with Infinite. 343 is incompetent and has no actual idea what they’re doing with Halo.
But 5 still launched with co-op, even if it was online co-op only. I could STILL play thst crappy campaign with my friends. Can’t do that with Infinite. 343 is incompetent and has no actual idea what they’re doing with Halo.
You've restated your position without providing any real evidence to support it. Take the Halo level Silent Cartographer. Is that an insulting mess? Well, if not, then consider that the basic structure of that level is a large outdoor LZ, and then a labyrinthian series of corridors to clear inside it. That’s exactly what Infinite emulates with the outdoor Banished encampments followed by indoor dungeons.
Oh, but the Infinite dungeons are longer? Well what about Cairo Station in Halo 2, or Sacred Icon, or the Arbiter or The Oracle or High Charity? What about Truth and Reconciliation in Halo 1 or Keyes or the Maw?
I could very well make an argument that the entire Halo series is an "insulting mess" filled with identikit corridors interspersed with some vehicular setpieces.
Dr. Claus
Vincit qui se vincit
Imagine trying so desperately to defend a blatantly unfinished game that insults the players, fans, and has greedy MTX on top of all of that. You warriors never change.
Imagine being able to substantiate your points without having to resort to strawmen and character attacks. Imagine that (like, Halo 1 & 2) a game can be unfinished but still have redeeming qualities.
(I rank the campaigns in the order Halo 3 > Halo 1 > ODST > Halo 2 > Halo Infinite > Halo: Reach > Halo 5 > Halo 4).
64bitmodels
Reverse groomer.
This thread has aged like fine wine
Represent.
Represent(ative) of bad opinions
Most of Microsoft’s big hitters this gen are in development hell, I fear they’ll all share the same fate as this game. Some of them have shown no gameplay after being announced 3 years ago. That’s not at all a sign of competent game development. MS needs to hire more talent and not just throw money at everything
Gamer_By_Proxy
Member
You posted this in the wrong thread, but still a strong point. I hate when I miss any text.
Feel Like I'm On 42
Member
You think Infinite has a better campaign than Reach? Are you out of your fucking mind?
Infinite has none of what made those games great. All Infinite has going for it is an open world that brings back a little of the vibe of the sandbox areas from the first game. Aside from that it has none of the things that made those games so great except for good feeling weapons and movement.
The problem is you can have the best feeling "core combat" ever and still turn out to be an awful, unfinished mess of a game. Where are the different exotic locales that were a staple of every Halo? 1 biome and 1 type of forerunner dungeon type area throughout the entire game is the biggest sin. Where are the amazing setpieces? Where is the story and structure that ties the open world together? Worst of all is the lack of combat variety. Despite having this huge open world, the entire game amounts to going from base to base and taking out waves of enemies. Each combat encounter plays out exactly the same.
What he was trying to explain to you is how this is all a product of an unfinished game. They didn't have time to flesh out the world, give us more than 1 biome, and make sure the gameplay felt diverse. They didn't have time to have proper story and cutscenes hence the audio logs. The parallels between this game and Phantom Pain are huge.
I think he got frustrated because you're not seeing the obvious with this game or you don't want to see it. Time will not he kind to this game. I don't know what reviewers were smoking to think the campaign was good and that's part of the frustration for us. This is the game is probably going to kill the franchise for good or at least make it very hard to come back from. Try replaying the campaign and see if you still feel like it's a decent Halo.
TheThreadsThatBindUs
Member
Epic thread bump.
Halo Infinite is so bad, my man here would rather talk about Paper Mario 64 than this game.
You just perfectly described Halo 4 – only also with a broken sandbox and bullet sponge enemies – which was the point of comparison for the discussion, not the original Halo series. I never claimed Infinite could hold a candle to Halo 1-3; just that it had some redeeming qualities compared to Halo 4, which shipped with fundamentally broken gameplay.
I put Reach in a different category because to me it felt even more disjointed than Infinite, consisting in a collection of loosely connected military objectives at different points in a sprawling war that was never well explained to the player. But you're entitled to like it if you want to, and since it's reasonable to prefer spectacle over cohesion I don't see any point arguing my case. It's just a subjective preference after all.
Last edited:
jigglet
Banned
Lmao I clicked on the wrong thread haha
Feel Like I'm On 42
Member
Fair points
