Honestly I think these reviews are over the top. The multiplayer is free on Steam and I played a lot the first weekend and it looked at ran great 144fps most of the time. But it felt like a 20 year old game. TDM and CTF on relatively small maps. Come on. It just doesn’t seem like it’ll last very long like this.

The Halo series was always about the set pieces and it's a shame that Halo Infinite doesn't have that. That's got to be the biggest disappointment. That's usually the sacrifice that all the open worlds make, you end up losing variety of environment and repeat the same looking places that eventually feel generic because they become cookie cutter and not hand crafted individual levels.

Im currently playing through the Halo Campaign (Master Chief Collection) and having a blast. (Played through Reach when the game was released). Hopefully Infinite will become available at some point as un upgrade to the Master Chief Collection, that's some serous value (and the remastered graphics for the most part look great).

WaltSee wrote on Dec 6, 2021, 17:25:
I was never a fan of the Halo games--largely because of the graphics at the time--but this looks like something I might actually want! I don't recommend the ARS review, however, as he does little but criticize it and post screenshots that look a good deal worse than the others I've seen in these reviews--and he states that he thinks the graphics looked better in the 2015 game, all of which seems to explain why he commits the cardinal sin of not revealing what platform he reviewed the game on! Until near the end of this arms-length critique, that is...

Near the bottom of the review, this is what ARS published:

"But what about PC, you might ask? We're left asking that question, too. Despite our repeated requests, Xbox reps denied us access to the game's PC build on either the Windows Store or Steam ahead of this week's embargo lift, even though the company's review guide includes instructions for how to access the game's pre-release PC build. Based on the Xbox team's unwillingness to budge on this point, we're sounding the alarm about Infinite's PC version until further notice—especially since that leaves us unable to test performance across various PC specs. (We're also left wondering how the PC version's ultra-widescreen support will play out in both standard gameplay and cinematic cut scenes.)"


You might ask? Seems fairly important to me...;)

Finally, we see it's been reviewed on an xBox--many of the screenshots come from official Microsoft/xBox origins. (We don't know which xBox, either!--Series S, looks like.) But he wants to "sound the alarm" on the PC version, for some strange reason, simply because ARS didn't/wouldn't buy a copy of the PC version to review. Wonder how all of these other sites managed the PC version and their accordingly gorgeous PC screenshots then?

I don't much care for multiplayer or co-op, but I do always prefer single-player versions of games, so it isn't a big issue for me. But this reviewer didn't find much that he appreciated about the game--stands out like a sore thumb in the nest of all of these other reviews, imo.

Next time, ARS, please put the platform the game is reviewed on at the top of the review, with meaningful stats like GPU onboard ram, system ram, specific Xbox model, etc. ad infinitum. I don't think that is asking for too much, and I don't mean to pick on ARS, either, because several of the other reviews were also a bit deficient in that regard as well.

So ya may want to check out the MCC (Master Chief Collection) as the graphics have been improved since their original release.
Reason they won't show the PC Build is because this is the major Hallmark Franchise for the Xbox consoles. If you want to see how it performs I suggest downloading the Multiplayer part. It is EXTREMLY solid and tight control wise and performance wise.

Also ACG does show that he's running on a 2080ti.

RogueSix wrote on Dec 6, 2021, 14:26:

Maybe they actually wanted to have a decent narrative this time? You can't have both. A campaign made for coop automatically means a shallow garbage story because you need to make everything fast food and skippable.

I doubt its even this and simply comes down games take more time to make along with their features these days. A lot of "aaa" games today are held together by bubblegum in the code, you just wouldn't know it. Even innocuously seeming things like an elevator are challenging to implement. So scaling that up for cross-platform co-op and coding that to make sure it works correctly and seamlessly for all clients isn't a cake walk for a big game like this, so to me its no wonder they had to decide on what they could pipeline reasonably for release.

Steele Johnson wrote on Dec 6, 2021, 17:27:

HorrorScope wrote on Dec 6, 2021, 17:09:
You can create a game for coop to be as deep single player, we've long past that. Can you make a game that is mostly coop and be shallow on story? You bet.

You think Baldurs Gate 3 is limiting story telling and branching because of coop? I don't see it. It's one of many I could talk about. All depends how you design it.

Exactly! And if I were to "join" someone else's game to play co-op, then I'd be happy if he makes the choices. If I cared about choices, I'd play single-player

To your last part and some coop games are now putting in a vote/choice in-game to move branches one way or the other, so everyone has a say.

Yong Yea's PC review is quite positive but mentions some hitching, fps drop and detail pop-in.

HorrorScope wrote on Dec 6, 2021, 17:09:
You can create a game for coop to be as deep single player, we've long past that. Can you make a game that is mostly coop and be shallow on story? You bet.

You think Baldurs Gate 3 is limiting story telling and branching because of coop? I don't see it. It's one of many I could talk about. All depends how you design it.

Exactly! And if I were to "join" someone else's game to play co-op, then I'd be happy if he makes the choices. If I cared about choices, I'd play single-player

I was never a fan of the Halo games--largely because of the graphics at the time--but this looks like something I might actually want! I don't recommend the ARS review, however, as he does little but criticize it and post screenshots that look a good deal worse than the others I've seen in these reviews--and he states that he thinks the graphics looked better in the 2015 game, all of which seems to explain why he commits the cardinal sin of not revealing what platform he reviewed the game on! Until near the end of this arms-length critique, that is...

Near the bottom of the review, this is what ARS published:

"But what about PC, you might ask? We're left asking that question, too. Despite our repeated requests, Xbox reps denied us access to the game's PC build on either the Windows Store or Steam ahead of this week's embargo lift, even though the company's review guide includes instructions for how to access the game's pre-release PC build. Based on the Xbox team's unwillingness to budge on this point, we're sounding the alarm about Infinite's PC version until further notice—especially since that leaves us unable to test performance across various PC specs. (We're also left wondering how the PC version's ultra-widescreen support will play out in both standard gameplay and cinematic cut scenes.)"


You might ask? Seems fairly important to me...;)

Finally, we see it's been reviewed on an xBox--many of the screenshots come from official Microsoft/xBox origins. (We don't know which xBox, either!--Series S, looks like.) But he wants to "sound the alarm" on the PC version, for some strange reason, simply because ARS didn't/wouldn't buy a copy of the PC version to review. Wonder how all of these other sites managed the PC version and their accordingly gorgeous PC screenshots then?

I don't much care for multiplayer or co-op, but I do always prefer single-player versions of games, so it isn't a big issue for me. But this reviewer didn't find much that he appreciated about the game--stands out like a sore thumb in the nest of all of these other reviews, imo.

Next time, ARS, please put the platform the game is reviewed on at the top of the review, with meaningful stats like GPU onboard ram, system ram, specific Xbox model, etc. ad infinitum. I don't think that is asking for too much, and I don't mean to pick on ARS, either, because several of the other reviews were also a bit deficient in that regard as well.

You can create a game for coop to be as deep single player, we've long past that. Can you make a game that is mostly coop and be shallow on story? You bet.

You think Baldurs Gate 3 is limiting story telling and branching because of coop? I don't see it. It's one of many I could talk about. All depends how you design it.

RogueSix wrote on Dec 6, 2021, 14:26:

Steele Johnson wrote on Dec 6, 2021, 13:04:
I can see tacking on a multiplayer mode later (deathmatch, etc), but co-op campaign? It doesn't seem right, especially for Halo

Maybe they actually wanted to have a decent narrative this time? You can't have both. A campaign made for coop automatically means a shallow garbage story because you need to make everything fast food and skippable.

Since this is Halo, the campaign may still be garbage even without coop, but at least there is a slightly higher chance for a better quality outcome due to the lack of campaign multiplayer.

I don't feel Halo games have had fewer or shorter cutscenes than most single player shooters like, say, Dead Space 1 & 2. Halo co-op has always taken an "eh, what the hell" approach to integrating multiple characters into the storyline -- it just doesn't bother. There's only one Master Chief in the Halo universe and he's kind of a big deal as he singlehandedly flies bombs out of spaceships or whatever, but eh, what the hell. There aren't any quick time events or dialogue choices, but lots of other singleplayer shooters don't have those either.

If "meaningful choices" is your metric for a good story, it sounds like anything that's not an FPS-RPG is out of the running in your book. The cutscene issue seems like a non sequitur. I think it's possible to beat practically any video game while skipping all the cutscenes (except for, like, the Max Payne games, which didn't let you skip). Mission critical information isn't presented in cutscenes without being mirrored in a quest log or objectives list. The Half Life games don't have any cutscenes, and most people like the story in those well enough.

It's kind of refreshing that a big AAA game is not a massive train wreck on release. It's been one disaster after another recently.

ACG didn't mention crashing and gave it a thumbs up.
He did however miss coop and said it would add to the game.

Steele Johnson wrote on Dec 6, 2021, 15:12:
I agree. I've played plenty of co-op based games that had a decent story and didn't need to adjust anything because of co-op. Having an additional player barely makes a difference during a single-player campaign.

It matters a lot and makes a huge difference. One quick example is that you can not have any meaningful(!) choices and/or consequences in a coop game. A coop game needs to be made so you can just run & gun through the content and let's be honest: That's exactly what people do. Watching cutscenes or listening to dialogue must be made optional in a coop game and let's be honest once again: You will only get to see or listen to story content if you are lucky enough to play a coop game with a close friend and you both agree to pay attention to the story. Otherwise, if you play with random people online, you are going to be kicked from the group in no time for taking too long if you DARE watch a cutscene or listen to a dialogue.

That's why any story content always needs to be optional in multiplayer games and that's why you can not have real player agency or meaningful choices and consequences as soon as coop enters the stage. I prefer it if single player and multiplayer/coop are strictly separated.

Beamer wrote on Dec 6, 2021, 12:45:

Theo wrote on Dec 6, 2021, 12:18:

Steele Johnson wrote on Dec 6, 2021, 11:50:
Why no co-op? I mean, that's one of the main reasons why I loved the first 2 games. It was all about romping through the levels with a friend (couch co-op, original xbox)

Co-op is coming next year apparently. so the game is ready, only its not.

This is one of the most controversial parts of the game, but to me, it kind of feels like it shouldn't be.

You could:

1) Have most of the game now, and co-op later
2) Have the entire game later

The monetization around this game seems stupid, but modes coming later never bothers me quite as much. It feels dumb for a dev to do it, because it hurts adoption, but I'd rather some fully baked modes today and more fully baked modes later than all modes later.

How are you surprised? Considering every game released since 2020 has had some sort of issues due to the pandemic? Also they want Holiday sales.

Steele Johnson wrote on Dec 6, 2021, 11:50:
Why no co-op? I mean, that's one of the main reasons why I loved the first 2 games. It was all about romping through the levels with a friend (couch co-op, original xbox)

It's coming in 2022

HoSpanky wrote on Dec 6, 2021, 15:01:

I listen to crashing/performance issues in games with a heavy amount of skepticism. I work at a computer store, and I get "my computer runs poorly, and I'm only running (insert low resource software name here)". Inevitably, we find that it works JUST FINE, and then they say "oh, I also have (insert system-destroying software here)".

It's a professional computer site having consistent crashing issues we're talking about, not the average clueless Joe from the neighborhood.

It was mentioned in my comment too...

Beamer wrote on Dec 6, 2021, 14:55:

RogueSix wrote on Dec 6, 2021, 14:26:

Steele Johnson wrote on Dec 6, 2021, 13:04:
I can see tacking on a multiplayer mode later (deathmatch, etc), but co-op campaign? It doesn't seem right, especially for Halo

Maybe they actually wanted to have a decent narrative this time? You can't have both. A campaign made for coop automatically means a shallow garbage story because you need to make everything fast food and skippable.

Since this is Halo, the campaign may still be garbage even without coop, but at least there is a slightly higher chance for a better quality outcome due to the lack of campaign multiplayer.

I kind of disagree. The original Halos had fine campaigns with great co-op.
Not every game needs to be The Witcher 3. In fact, most games shouldn't be The Witcher 3.

I agree. I've played plenty of co-op based games that had a decent story and didn't need to adjust anything because of co-op. Having an additional player barely makes a difference during a single-player campaign. The cheesy trick for most is just include the specific player model during the cutscenes lol! On the other hand, I very rarely find a game that has a good enough story to keep my attention in general. Most bore the hell out of me, including The Witcher 3 😀 I can think of maybe a small handful of games that had a story worth following in all the years I've been a gamer. But yeah, personal taste matters

Simon Says wrote on Dec 6, 2021, 14:50:

From the reviews I read/watched, what I take away is:

-Lots of graphical bugs and issues, deep lack of polish especially highlighted by DigitalFoundry's review
-Slow performance on PC despite much beefier specs ( 6900XT/3090 SLOWER than XsX makes absolutely zero sense ), and crappy'ish graphics even compared to Halo 5. See computerbase.de testing.
-Strange crashing issues with "lower" end setups ( RX580/GTX1060 ), again computerbase

Some lauded the game for "this is what happens when you delay and let the developers do their job".

I disagree vehemently...

The game is half-baked. I'll try it in a year.

I listen to crashing/performance issues in games with a heavy amount of skepticism. I work at a computer store, and I get "my computer runs poorly, and I'm only running (insert low resource software name here)". Inevitably, we find that it works JUST FINE, and then they say "oh, I also have (insert system-destroying software here)". Ah yes, thanks for wasting our time and your money. Point is, people are ALWAYS running other shit. Is the game buggy? Oh, very likely. I mean, name a single game that released without a followup patch (or several) within the first week or two.

I'll be waiting a bit on this one anyway, as I'll wait for the co-op campaign, and probably a little after that so they can fix issues with it. I don't know about the single player performance, but the multiplayer runs butter smooth on my i5/1660 laptop.

RogueSix wrote on Dec 6, 2021, 14:26:

Steele Johnson wrote on Dec 6, 2021, 13:04:
I can see tacking on a multiplayer mode later (deathmatch, etc), but co-op campaign? It doesn't seem right, especially for Halo

Maybe they actually wanted to have a decent narrative this time? You can't have both. A campaign made for coop automatically means a shallow garbage story because you need to make everything fast food and skippable.

Since this is Halo, the campaign may still be garbage even without coop, but at least there is a slightly higher chance for a better quality outcome due to the lack of campaign multiplayer.

I kind of disagree. The original Halos had fine campaigns with great co-op.
Not every game needs to be The Witcher 3. In fact, most games shouldn't be The Witcher 3.