Halo Infinite: How Long To Beat (And 100% Complete) The Campaign

Are collectibles and such missable in story missions or are they all in the open world?

Wait, 8-10 hours, I thought that was considered DLC nowadays

Excited to play and happy it's not 30+ hours of filler.

On what difficulty did he do his run, @FraserG?

I usually go through the game on Hardcore for my first run, which enables me to look around for skulls and collectibles, etc., and then go through a second time on Legendary. I only ever play solo too.

The reason I ask about the difficulty is because if it is 40-45 hours on Normal, then you can probably add about 10 more for Hardcore, and maybe around 70 hours for a Legendary 100% run-through. A solo Legendary run, for me at least(!), usually entails a high number of deaths and restarts, so even that 70 hours could be conservative in estimate...

@FraserG Thanks. Unfortunate but not a big deal for people who don’t care about collectibles.

I remember spending hours and hours on the Halo Exhibition demo on the original Xbox, trying to get out of the map. Zooming in on plants, driving out into the ocean. But then again I was a lot younger haha. Really looking for to this! Can't wait to get lost

@Justifier I’m like you. When I’m in the mood I want to simply marathon a story so I like that I can do that. However, I also will be exploring everywhere and soaking everything up my first time.

In my experience 8-10 hours is pretty typical for a Halo campaign. 6 years since Halo5 so personally I was hoping for a bit more, but I'm assuming they're calling it Halo Infinite for a reason so maybe more content will be added at a later date?

Campaign duration is perfect at 8-10 hours.

My question is, can Spartan cores be wholly disabled? I want to collect them. But I don't want any of the stuff adding anything. I just want a baseline, non shoehorned, pure shooter experience.

Not this tired RPG LITE stuff everyone seems to want to push.

I'm going to take my time in this and just explore around. I'm definitely going to be into this for 20+ hours

Pretty standard for a shooter, and a Halo game. I just hope the open world is meaningful to spend a lot of time in and not just empty filler. R&C was too short for a full price game despite being a 10 hour shooter as well. Spiderman PS4, the open world felt mostly like padding and filler to slow down progression without adding much, and that was especially true with Miles which felt like an 8 hour game and could have done without the open world that had nothing in it but collectibles for hunting.

Hopefully there's a reason to actually play in this big sandbox other than hunting for hidden coins that justifies 6+ years dev time to deliver what sounds like a pretty normal Halo campaign. That might mean I play very little of it now, holding off for coop in the future. If it's short and I play much of it now I'll never actually want to bother with the coop when it's released.

@FatalBubbles unfortunately I hear a lot of the story, lots of stuff that happen in between Halo 5 and Infinite, occurs off-screen and can only be learned about by finding these audio logs.

@Tharsman that seems like a breath of the wild or borderlands 1 style of storytelling. That’s not bad if it’s done right. I’m looking forward to at least trying it out.

@NEStalgia Couldn't agree more about Spider-Man. People LOVE that game. For me, once the traversal mechanics wore off about two hours in, I found it tedious to get around in. What would have been a 10/10 solid 8-10 hour experience for me ended up being a 6 or 7/10 slog. I get that they want people to feel good about spending their $60 but there's a fine line there. I'm down for 8-10 hour campaign that I can come back to and play again at my option to 100%. Despite how many people rag on Far Cry, that's exactly how I play those games. They're really not that long if you just focus on the story missions, and they're a blast to plow through again later for the extras.

Great, 8-10 hour games are useless. All campaigns should be minimum 30-50 hours long not including all collectibles and 100% completion. The longer the better.

@swedetrap Yeah, I kind of blame Disney for probably limiting what could be done in their world, and to be fair to Insomniac, if you look at past Spiderman games from Activision and the like, they're not fundamentally very different, though the PS2 games actually had physics to the swinging that made it a lot more interesting than the repetitive animations, but my takeaway is that Insomniac just isn't great at open world. Much of Spiderman is the inFamous formula, and I absolutely love inFamous, but Sucker Punch just seems to have a much tighter handle on "the Ubisoft formula" than Insomniac. The world has next to nothing in it. Collectibles, towers, random popup crimes that get boring after the 4th one, they're all the same thing. And as you said, navigating gets tedious and repetitive fast, it's just the same thing constantly, and it's not a particularly engaging activity. Real physics might make it interesting, but it doesn't have that. I think if you had to actually grapple onto actual things it may have been a cool mechanic, but as it is, you just keep pressing R2 and it keeps swinging even if you're not near a thing to swing from. The missions were good and elaborate, and if you forget the open world and make it a linear game it would have been a good, PS2 style linear action game. But the open world is just so completely empty. It's a glorified map screen. It's not used for much of anything, and certainly no emergent gameplay. I'm not really a Marvel or Spidey fan, but I went into the game expecting Insomniac wouldn't let me down. But I was kind of disappointed by it.

If you compare it to FH, the activities aren't different really. Backpacks = XP boards + Barn Finds. But what makes FH's open world meaningful is the minute to minute engagement. The world is a barrier and it's a varied set of barriers. There's trees, hills, the physics makes you interact with it all differently, so while smashing an XP board is no more interesting than picking up a backpack, the act of getting to it is much more engaging than "swing to spot on map, through symmetrical city grid, crawl on wall, get backpack." The world makes each one an engaging activity.

The subject matter makes the open world uninteresting, too. It's just modern NYC. What can you do to make modern NYC remotely interesting? It's just a grid of squares with thugs in back alleys, and a Panera or CVS on every other corner with hipsters selling $400 hand woven keychains in Brooklyn lol! At least inFamous had the dark and seedy Empire City to keep it interesting.

I'm hoping Halo does more of value with its world than Spiderman.... It needs to be dynamic.

@NEStalgia Absolutely. Infamous SS was my favorite PS4 game behind Days Gone. I felt both were very underrated. I tried to play the first two Infamous games via PS Now (my PS3 died a long time ago) but the streaming latency made it nearly impossible, even on my fiber connection.

@swedetrap What harmed Second Son, I think, is that it was so obvious it was rushed for release window and felt incomplete. It had a big buildup and then just kind of stopped without even fully exploring areas the game led you to believe you'd be exploring, and so many of the checkpoints to capture felt kind of repetitive with just one type of enemy. When you compare to 1 & 2 where the first was divided into districts with a different leader and enemy type, and the second was that crazy comic book rampage through the old south, Infamous felt very diminished in scale and variety. I loved it, and I loved it enough to want more of it, but I think existing fans went into it hoping for something even bigger and more explosive than 2, and while we got prettier, I think we got something a little smaller overall. Only concrete enemies, and a smaller set of "biomes" if you will. I compare SS to what GoT would be if the game ended when you take Castle Kaneda back. And I feel like SP really intended to have that whole 'rest of the game' they have for GoT in SS. The setup was there and never materialized. It was still underrated though.

PS Now can be spotty depending on where you are in relation to the datacenter. I've had decent luck with PS3 games, but it's inconsistent different days. Most people definitely prefer inFamous 2 to 1. I personally prefer 1. Yes, it's dated, and so there's some repetition to it. But that noire feel it has is something that I think gave it a really unique identity. Though it's been quite a while since I've played it and my opinion could be rose tinted.

To all the trolls crying about the length (@OliverOwen). Halo 2 and Uncharted 3 is 9 hours for straight campaign. So, this is standard length for narrative driven shooters, with a lot more exploration length than others, given the huge overworld and secondary things to do in it.

Sounds perfect to me. I wouldn't want an FPS campaign to last more than 10 hours anyways, and I seem to play these games slow enough to where it takes me a bit longer.

You have do play Halo on heroic not normal on first play through.
Then go back and have four arse handed to you on legendary.

40-45 hours is an over-estimate by far. I achived 100% completion on Legendary in just under 21 hours.