Talk:Halo: Combat Evolved

Archives

---

• 1: October 2003 — October 2006

Halo2sucks.com

I will be adding a link to that site since it is a pro-halo 1 site. - Shady Joe

Don't you dare add that.

What could be done is adding a critisizm section in Halo 2, and write some inferiorities from H2 that were not present in Halo CE. It's not that I don't think the same- I completely agree that Halo 2 sucked-, but I do not see anything to justify putting it on the Combat Evolved page. 216.237.235.137 20:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, I can add that to the Halo 2 page if it isnt there yet -- MLG Cheehwawa

Grenade accidents

I just added a sentence about accidently hitting the grenade button at crucial times, which could affect gameplay, since it can hurt you and others.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hdgcfcf (talk • contribs)

Umm...Isn't this obvious? bibliomaniac15 Review? 03:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it is... Don't think it's necessary.--SUIT^42! 03:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

You can accidently hit grenade buttons at crucial and non-crucial times in almost any game. Completely ilrelevent to halo.--Can Not 23:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Hehe, I do it all the time in Call of Duty 3. Chronolegion 13:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

I stuck the 'protected' thing on the page for the duration, if someone thinks it should be removed, by all means do so. I'm just getting annoyed on having to revert vandalism on five articles in my watchlist over and over... and over and over. David Fuchs 01:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Only admins can protect pages.--SUIT⁴² 01:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Well aware of that. I put in the request. In the past on other pages tho, that's actually detered vandals. 01:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't put the tag on if it's not actually protected, because the associated maintenance category then becomes confusing. I actually see a couple of good-faith IP edits (though one was original research) in the last day or so, and it's not as if the article is being continually pummelled (unlike some other video game articles, which get a dozen reverts of bad-faith edits a day), so I'm not inclined to protect yet. I do have this page watchlisted, so I'll continue to monitor it. Or you can request protection at WP:RFPP if it keeps up. — TKD::Talk 01:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• The amount of vandalism this article receives on a daily basis is ridiculous. This page should probably be protected, in order to discourage the constant vandalism for at least a little while. JimmyBlackwing 19:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• The amount of vandalism this article receives on a daily basis is ridiculous. This page should probably be protected, in order to discourage the constant vandalism for at least a little while. JimmyBlackwing 19:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed: I'm with David Fuchs on this one; it seems that just about every time I check my watchlist, I've got to revert some edit on this article. It's not as if the article is new or covers a newly-occuring subject; most relevant information is already here, and protecting it wouldn't hurt the usefulness of the article. Even if it's later removed, maybe it will have some (small) permanent impact on the number of vandals. PaladinWhite 23:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed: Just had a request I made for semi-protection denied this week 'level of activity not high enough to justify', etc...just becasue some articles get more activity is no reason to deny protection to a consistent target, semi-protection is completely jutified.PreciousRoi 13:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Multiple Endings

This game is listed under the category "Computer and video games with multiple endings". Are endings different for other difficulty levels? Chronolegion 20:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Somewhat... if you beat it on Legendary, you get a non-canon extra movie at the end... David Fuchs 22:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd call that a multiple-ending scenario. I'd call that more of an easter egg, or something along those lines. The plot still ends the same way on Legendary as any other difficulty, it just shows a clip of the Seargent and an Elite fighting, seeing the Pillar of Autumn about to self-destruct, then hugging in imminent doom. After that it still cuts to Master Chief and Cortana escaping in the craft discussing the outcome.

How could there not be another black man in the marines in space? The "black" ai in the truth and reconsilation wasn't sergeant, obviously as he was killed by sword ellites AND in the book the name was different. If bungie says it is him, it didn't have to be canon did it?

Sergeant Avery wasn't killed by sword elites, he reappears in Halo 2. bibliomaniac15 03:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you understood me. The Model of Sergeant Avery was used on possibly 5 occasions, 3 of them that are actually him. One which wasn't him was in the rescue of Captain Keyes, one in the intro of the game, and the other this ending. His Model was used both in the book and game, only being named in the book for the rescue of captain keyes.

Ringworld

Ok somebody is pissing me off. I have been trying to add something about Ringworld by Larry Niven and for some reason people keep reverting it. Considering how much both the world in the book and the world in halo have in common it is hard for me to understand why people keep deleting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.15.123.18 (talk • contribs)

Who says that there's a connection? Analysis of this sort needs to have been pointed out in a reliable source, or it's original research, which is forbidden on Wikipedia. — TKD::Talk 04:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

As per above, the list of possible influences on the main page for the Halo series was deleted, because original research is not allowed. Please respect that Wikipedia does not allow this and turn it into an edit war. Not to mention your grammar is somewhat... lacking. David Fuchs 20:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Yawn...jealous Halo fanboys anyone? Can't admit their precious game is anything less than purely original? 192.154.65.1 00:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Even if the material weren't removed in order to satisfy Wikipedia policies of verifiability and no original research, I don't see how a fictional universe that includes such overtly referential names as the Covenant, Truth and Reconciliation, the Flood, the Ark, MJOLNIR, and Spartan could possibly be seen as "purely original". — TKD::Talk 03:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

....well by that thinking line nothing in the world is original anymore

When was the last time you've seen or read a space opera that was truly original. Sure, each one has its own touches and backstories, but many of the themes and terms are the same, mainly borrowing from the "classics" like Star Trek and Star Wars. Besides, Covenant and Forerunner names could merely be the "best fit" terms in English. As far as the name "Spartan", that is described in the first novel as an homage to the Battle of Thermopylae. Got nothing on MJOLNIR, as I am not well-versed in Norse mythology. Chronolegion 14:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

MIJOLNIR was Thor's Hammer, I believe... But none of the names are that all that relevant. Ultimately what makes it relevant is the science and theory. Its not 'original research', its just factual, Niven presented the model of the ringworld first, he INVENTED it. period. Now you could make the point (and this very point is made in Niven's wiki) that Halo has more in common with the Orbitals of Iain M. Banks, but Niven still originated the concept. If the grammar was less that perfect then correct it, but don't deprive Wiki users of relevant information for the sake of grammar or pedantry.PreciousRoi 10:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Vandalism? I think someone edited the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.172.62.186 (talk • contribs)

Been reverted already. — TKD::Talk 01:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

More Vandalism

I think this article should be protected. What's the point of degrading this game? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SatsukiMikata (talk • contribs)

We only protect or semi-protect articles as a last resort, generally. In my opnion, the activity on this article isn't that high compared to some other targets. Many vandalism sprees are the result of a single user, and, when that happens, it's better to warn/block that user than to protect the article. — TKD::Talk 01:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Glitches

Anyone else think that the glitches are interesting enough to warrant mention? Like how, on PC, you can get outside the barrier around the map "Death Island". Maybe a new section could be started to mention them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.238.170.154 (talk • contribs)

Glitches exist in nearly all games. A section on them would constitute trivia unless third-party reliable sources (forums and blogs generally don't count) were cited to show the relevance/notability of those glitches. — TKD::Talk 01:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

In multiplayer, the heads of the players using the voice chat bob around. Is that a glitch or was it intentional? --76.21.54.178 01:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It would seem to me like it was intentional. If I were to take a guess here, I'd say that they bob their heads to let other people know who's talking. 68.57.97.152 03:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

spoilers

I think my edit to this article proves that people have to be more careful about spoiler warnings. Just recently did I finnaly put a spoiler warning on the biggest plot twist in the game. Schizel

Huh? You haven't edited this article recently. — TKD::Talk 16:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I did it like 2 weeks ago. I brought this up in case anyone thought a random spoiler warning was vandalism, after seeing how much there was on this page. Zombieninja101

Oh. Very few would consider a spoiler warning "vandalism"; they're provided by a standard template. However, there are certain editors strongly opposed to the use of spoiler warnings, the rationale being that one should expect to find spoilers in an encyclopedia article, particularly in sections entitled "Plot" or "Synopsis". I personally don't have a strong stance, so I tend to just respect the consensus of everyone else on the page. — TKD::Talk 04:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but it was under "allies and enemies", the reason being that level 4 - my favorite - would have sucked had I known about the flood Zombieninja101

Halo engine

Perhaps this info simply isn't out there, but there's no mention of the graphics, physics, and AI technology used in Halo. Vranak

I know absolutely nothing about the engine, besides that it was used in Stubbs the Zombie as well. Dåvid Fuchs (talk / contribs) 22:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Valve and id Software talk freely about their tech, I guess Bungie keeps things hush-hush. Vranak

Maintenance work: Article too big; split proposal

I would propose the spliting of the Reception section into a new section. This article is already very big and I think it would be quite useful and practical to split this section off, leaving in the main article a {{ main|article }} or similar tag. Perhaps the Novelization section could combine into this new article; giving the article a more general content; a sort of Halo in popular culture, o something similar. I would leave you guys to decide. What would be desirable would be to split a few sections off and make this article a little bit more manageble. See Wikipedia:Article size Francisco Valverde 16:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Halo is a large subject, and as such requires a large article to fully cover it. Many quality featured articles are even bigger than this one (see Final Fantasy VII). Also, splitting a vital section like Reception into another article would cripple this article's comprehensiveness, which is something required from featured articles. Finally, an article dedicated solely to Halo's reception, or Halo in popular culture, would quickly be deleted or merged as non-notable. JimmyBlackwing 19:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with the above. Besides, every FA video game article has the following sections: Story, Gameplay, Development and Reception. Those are the most basic elements of any quality article about a game.DreamingLady 07:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Multiplayer

This setup was revolutionary for a console game, but was often deemed impractical.

OK, I'm kind of a newb here so I paused before I deleted this comment and source entirely. "Often deemed impractical"? The given source being a single games review site (currently offline) I'm not even really sure if this is useful information at all. Seems to me like its just secondhand POV. Unless someone can give a sound reason not to otherwise I'll prolly end up doing it eventually, especially if the sourced site remains offline indefinitely.PreciousRoi 13:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• This is definitely an important piece of information, but it could use a little rewriting and a few more sources. Many reviewers found this setup impractical, and the reference was meant to solidify that fact. Now that the link is broken, I'm going to need to find some more sources. But thanks for giving us the heads-up before you changed it. JimmyBlackwing 18:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• is it really? I'm not so sure, it definitly needs to be reworded. The criticism in the GameSpot article you linked to seems kinda baseless. "But the cost and setup required to play Halo in this way simply make it impractical for most game players." referring to the four copies of the game, Xbox consoles, controllers, and displays neccessary for 16 players...but thats completely spurious logic, assuming that one person would be responsible from providing all that is neccessary. Is making people aware that some game reviewers made, what in hindsight appears to be a baseless criticism important information? I'm not convinced. A little later in the article it brings up the issue of the large maps, this criticism is at least valid, but unrelated the the 'impracticality' described.PreciousRoi 07:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• Whether GameSpot's observation lacks logic or not isn't up for us to decide. Multiple notable sources deemed the LAN-only multiplayer impractical, and as a result it's covered in the article. If need be, I'll continue to add more references until you're satisfied. JimmyBlackwing 21:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• I say it lacks logic, although as said that's not for us to decide and it should remain in the article. Although it does need to be reworded. Zombieninja101
• I just don't see the point of including it. But if you're bound and determined it MUST stay, it needs to be moved to the Reception section and reworded.PreciousRoi 13:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• It would be impossible for the sentence to remain in context if it was moved to Reception. We'd practically have to merge Multiplayer into Reception to give it context. Also, this isn't the only part of the article with critical reception outside of the designated section—see Allies and enemies, and Audio. Spreading it out like this keeps the Reception section from becoming bloated with redundant information. As to rewording the sentence, it looks fine to me with the addition of "by critics". What did you have in mind? JimmyBlackwing 18:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• And I'm still not convinced it needs to remain at all. How 'often' was it 'deemed' impractical? What about it was considered so impractical? As it is the statement is already taken out of context, its a single portion of a whole game review. The setup was revolutionary for a console game. Fine, solid. Someones impressions of it belongs under Reception. I refute that you'd have to merge Multiplayer into Reception to give the statement context. What kind of context does it need? Some critics found the multiplayer setup impractical. There. Stick that under impressions and you're done. Better still cut the whole thing and 'unbloat' the article a bit by removing some unneccessary information.PreciousRoi 11:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

ambiguity

There was a phrase under "gameplay" that was quite ambiguous about assassinating an enemy without alerting someone's allies. I'm to lazy to correct it, so I thought it ought to be on the talk page LIMEY 20:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• Attempted to clarify.PreciousRoi 13:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

102 references?!

Geez people, the references section is almost as long as the article! Remember: you only need references for items that are likely to be controversial, not ever single statement in the article! Maury 20:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, citations are required for every piece of information taken from another source. As the entire article was written from gathered information, the number of references naturally must be high. JimmyBlackwing 20:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Umm, nothing about that statement is true. Feel free to peruse Wikipedia:Citing sources. Are you seriously suggesting we need a reference for The player can move around and look up, down, or to either side.?! It would need a reference only if it weren't true. References for what weapons are in the game was six sentences long and has a reference for every one! Just quote the manual once, if you must. Then they follow that with a four-sentance section on grenades with another four references?! Come on. This continues through the entire article. Maury 20:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• • Every statement should be sourced, to ensure that it is not original research. Nowhere does it say that there is such a thing as "too many references". This article was almost unanimously supported when it was nominated for featuring, and the amount of references has only gone down since then. If you have a bone to pick with articles using over 100 references, then Final Fantasy VII would be the place to go before Halo. This is particularly because I purposefully emulated the design of that article with this one. JimmyBlackwing 20:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

How is stating that a FPS game allows you to look up and down is OR? Do you honestly think people would go "hmm, I don't believe THAT, I'm going to check the references!". It's like saying "the sun will rise tomorrow" is OR if not sources. It sounds to me like I'll have to do it myself, but that's fine. Maury 21:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

There are many first-person shooters which do not allow the player to look up or down. The statement example you gave would be both original research and speculation, and would need to be sourced to ensure that it was a verifiable claim. Also, making a change when it is contested is bad Wikipedia form, which I will be forced to revert. JimmyBlackwing 21:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

As a five-year veteran, admin, and author of something on the order of 1000 new articles, I am well aware of what is and is not RVable. Combing refs and removing them in favor of see-alsos is not an RVable edit, and doing so would be in violation of good form. Your comment on what constitutes OR is simply incorrect, as can be seen in Wikipedia:No original research; "novel narrative or historical interpretation." That you can look up or down in Halo simply doesn't fall into this category in any possible stretch of the imagination. Maury 21:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• Unless it's cited, it is not verified. You are proposing that a featured article should not be as fully verified as possible. Any information lacking a source may be removed at any time, per WP:V. Sources need to be cited:

"

• To improve the overall credibility and authoritative character of Wikipedia.
• To credit a source for providing useful information and to avoid claims of plagiarism.
• To show that your edit is not original research.
• To ensure that the content of articles is credible and can be checked by any reader or editor.
• To help users find additional reliable information on the topic.
• To reduce the likelihood of editorial disputes, or to resolve any that arise."

• No Wikipedia policy backs up the removal of perfectly reliable citations. JimmyBlackwing 21:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)