Talk:Halo 3

Archive

I archived last one, easier now. Please remember new discussions on the bottom. The Walkin Dude 15:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems we have a Halo Hating vandal in here. Somebody put back the 'records' section please

It seems we have a Halo Hating vandal in here. Somebody put back the 'records' section please. He took out the records section. Littlenickle 22:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay fien then I'll add it back myself. Don't remove it this time Littlenickle 17:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The "Records" section was never removed. It was renamed Sales. --Silver Edge 03:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Stuff to do

Way I see it, here's what we're missing right now:

• All the langauge needs to be updated to make sure it's post-release.
• Development needs to be expanded.
• All references need to be properly formatted.
• Get rid of weasel words, anything of that sort.

Anyone else see something we need? David Fuchs ^(talk) 21:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

i think it's too Ad'ish for wikipedia >_> we'll need to fix that too, also, it's sounding like a guide in many of the gameplay parts. I don't think we need to elaborate on the skulls, armor, and etc. Or be specific about the # of points needed in the meta-game, just briefly mention those topics 66.215.77.69 02:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

This has been protected since September 5, maybe we should lift the protection now, it has been over a month since the release of the game and while we can expect some vandalism its not going to be as numerous as it was back there, I'm just saying this because semi-protection can be wrongly interpreted as unstability when reviewing this article. - Caribbean~H.Q. 20:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I unprotected. Hopefully it will have dropped off, but I guess we'll see... David Fuchs ^(talk) 23:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

A good idea Thebestkiano^T|C 13:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I've reapplied semi-protection, since anonymous and new user edits after unprotection didn't look so hot. We can try again in two weeks or so, but given that currently all of the Halo trilogy articles are semi-protected, this may be a case of more or less indefinite semi-protection, unfortunately. In terms of evaluating the stability requirement for GA/FA, vandalism should always be discounted when judging that criterion, so semi-protection should not be a factor. Full protection is usually indicative of a genuine content dispute, and thus is taken into account. — TKD::Talk 20:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Which is kind of weird... I think it's that vandals are going after Halo 3, and then the closest articles available... you'd think a month after release the vandalism would've dropped down a bit... hopefully it won't be an issue for too much longer. David Fuchs ^(talk) 21:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey i know that some people are trying to vandalize this article from keeping it featured so we have to work a bit to revert that Redstarsldr (talk) 20:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Skulls

There are 13 skulls in this game the first one is behind sargent major when he was held hostage in the room by the river. it is on the ledge where the snipperer shoots at you and its too the far left.

Planet at the End

I think it would be a good idea to identify the planet in the legendary ending as a Mechanized planet, because it did seem to be covered with lights. Chamboozer 21:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

That's nontrivial interpretation of primary-source material, and thus original research, which isn't allowed. — TKD::Talk 21:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Should it be mentioned though? How it could be soo many things? Or would that be too close to a forum for the article?The Walkin Dude 17:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

We should identify the planet exactly as it is: a planet with lots of lines of flashing, glowing lights. Peptuck 17:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

And So it is, though it still seems somewhat incomplete... Must jut be me. I've been wondering- should we create a seperate page, listing new vehicles, weapons, and etc that appear in the game? Or does the covenant vehicles in Halo page fulfill that? Also- we need a Human vehicles in halo, to equal the Covenant page. Darkƒire 22:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Unless we get into trivial portions of the additions, like individual weapons, there is no need or reason for a seperate article. David Fuchs ^(talk) 01:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Creation of such a secondary page would probably not be advisable. There is precedent for deleting such sub-pages, and unless anything major has changed (other than Halo 3, that is) I see no reason to reverse the situation. Ourai ^тʃ_с 18:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

No, we shouldn't create a separate page for such trivial material, as a matter of fact we should merge the Covenant vehicles page. - Caribbean~H.Q. 09:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The planet is a forerunner planet —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amerretto (talk • contribs)

Considering the above "mechanized planet" post the planet should be Onyx from the Halo books. The planet was composed of sentinels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Megadeth1539 (talk • contribs)

The planet is a forerunner planet, an interview with a bungie executive stated it. So on the halo 3 page could someone change the last line in the plot section, from 'unidentified planet' to 'forerunner planet' (its literally just before the development section) Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amerretto (talk • contribs)

Source? — TKD::Talk 17:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

If you have no source, we don't even know if it is a planet. remember, this is Bungie we're talking about. Remember Onyx?69.22.71.123 17:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

(I merged the two topics) NOTHING on bungie.net mentions the term "planet". Use the search feature on anything but the forum. Turns up nothing. -- Signed by Wolvereness^{t c} 03:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Easter Eggs

Should we add an article about the easter eggs in Halo 3 like the secret grunt and mongoose on the Halo level and all the other ones? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.188.109.178 (talk) 14:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

No. See WP:GAMEGUIDE. -- Kesh 16:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, that falls under WP:TRIVIA. There was already an easter egg/errors section in this article that has been removed. SpigotMap 16:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

sorry my bad —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.188.109.178 (talk) 20:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The eggs should be at the very least be metioned of them in some way after all they are part of the game and we do want a compleet article don't we? but dont go into detale and give a list that would be unreasable p.s exsuse my spelling(Ralon silver 22:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC))

Hey guys, why don't we put the Sales section in the critical reception article? Named "Reception and impact"?

Honestly every othe major wikipedia article does it, I've seen this been done in hundreds of landmark albums by musicians, movies, books, you name it. Why not in Halo 3? We'll put the reception and the impact Halo had in the same article

Glencoe999 18:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I like the current layout, as the 'Release' section doesn't go into critques, just the facts. But it's up to consensus. David Fuchs ^(talk) 20:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Cast

Debra Wilson, an actress, is not credited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.182.52 (talk) 18:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

GA review

Looks great, I don't see anything particularly wrong. Good friend100 01:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Some comments

I suggest you continue to improve this article to FA status. I see room for improvement in the characters section. Also, remember to update anything such as awards. Good friend100 15:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

FAC?

I'm gonna have plenty of time this week to address concerns. Should I just nominate it for FAC? David Fuchs ^(talk) 21:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I will have a lot of time this week and next week might be a bit busy, I know we are still on hot waters but it seems that now its a good time to create Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Halo 3. - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

While I didn't contribute much to the article other than fixing refs and reverting some cruft I think I'll be able to help now. I'm much better at implementing direct suggestions such as those from a FAC and I finish my exams on Friday so next week I'll have plenty of time to spare. Well done on the article so far, I didn't look at it much since before the GA-push and it's really improved. James086^{Talk | Email} 00:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to apologize for not finishing my review on the article, unfortunately I was busy with RL stuff. Since the discussion there is closed, I'm willing to put in a few cents here. Comment on my talk page should any issues arise.

Prose is better than before, much better. A few minor grammar tweaks are needed (like ambiguity such as using the word "this" and not following it with a noun), but its getting very close. I noticed there are a couple of citation tags that need to be filled in with references. Also, I feel that two images aren't necessary for the different editions; one, definately, but not two, stick with the legendary. Maybe a comment from the composer in the audio section? Seems more about sound effects than music to me... same goes for cast: try and get a comment or something. That's a short note for now, I must be off. I apologize again for the late (embarrassingly so) reply. Zemalia (talk) 05:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

External link

WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided, number 13 says "Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors." Is Halopedia reliable enough? Obviously we can't use it as a source but this is the External links section. Bungie thinks its pretty good [1]. I don't mind either way. James086^{Talk | Email} 08:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Format of Sales

Somebody's gone and moved the sales out of its own paragraph and into reception, however I feel that it was better served by having a seperate section before the actual crtical commentary. In other words, which is better, A:

Marketing and release
Versions
Sales
Reception
Or B:

Marketing and release
Versions
Reception
Sales

Thoughts, then? David Fuchs ^(talk) 12:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the sales stuff should be under "Marketing and release" and leave the awards and reviews to "Reception and impact". Release is more closely related to sales while reception is sort of related to sales but it's more about reviews and what people thought of it. James086^{Talk | Email} 12:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Awards Section

Does having a site listed in the 'awards section' that is stating "the game is nominated eleven times for the GameStooge Awards, scheduled for January 1, 2008." come across as site advertisement? I mean, I see no problem after the awards are given that this is a fact of the game and its popularity and achievements, but this comes across and soliciting site hits. Any opinions?

Tom —Preceding comment was added at 07:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Its the same as saying the a actor is nominated for a award its not floging the oscers or the such its just a statment of fact. unless theres a link in wich case remove the link as a rule of thumb —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.236.232.33 (talk) 09:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

cyborg?

Why does it mention Master Chief is a cyborg, afaik, none of the Halo material (games, books etc) actually states he is a cyborg. Sorry if this has been mentioned before, but an official source of this would be nice =) 77.98.107.157 (talk) 13:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Good catch. He's not a cyborg; he has cybernetic implants, but that doesn't make him a cyborg. I've fixed the statement to match the description in the lead: cybernetically enhanced. Anakinjmt (talk) 15:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

(facepalm) "Cybernetic implants" means that, surprise, he is what is generally considered a cyborg. On top of that, the Halo manuals have always called him a cyborg. Peptuck (talk) 15:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

No they don't. I just checked all three manuals, and they don't call him a cyborg. Besides, cyborgs are part human, part machine that need both to survive. That doesn't fit the Chief. Anakinjmt (talk) 16:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

If you like i can find quotes of the enhancements they recieve during the book 'Fall Of Reach,' in fact i think they are listed on the Wikipedia entry on 'Spartan-IIs' 77.98.107.157 (talk) 19:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Did you even look at the definition of what constitutes a "cyborg" on Wikipedia? The Chief has cybernetic implants, that automatically makes him a cyborg, period. Peptuck (talk) 19:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

What cybernetic implants does he have, and please post some sources? 77.98.107.157 (talk) 19:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The standard-issue neural implants mentioned through the Halo novels, for a start. Peptuck (talk) 19:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Arent all humans in the Halo universe issued with the neural implant, thus making all humans, or at least all UNSC personnel cyborgs? 77.98.107.157 (talk) 19:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, he is technically a cyborg, along with every other soldier, if we use the definition of him having man-made features incorporated into his body. You could consider a person with a cochlear implant a cyborg. Generally the definition is applied to serious replacement or augmentation of the biomass with synthetic material, however, so I'd say that the regular soldiers are 'normal humans' and Spartans are cyborgs. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 19:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I was under never the impression that the Chief had a serious replacement or augmentation of his biomass with synthetics, and I've read and own The Fall of Reach. They're just conditioned to be exceptional soldiers. I know what the definition of a cyborg is, thank you. And, as said before, just because he has some cybernetics doesn't mean we should call him a cyborg. We don't want to mislead people. Anakinjmt (talk) 20:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary; he's far more than just well-conditioned with a shiny suit of armor. Here are some of the upgrades SPARTAN-Is got;

Carbide ceramic ossification; advanced material grafted onto bones to make them unbreakable.

Superconducting fibrification of neural dendrites; alteration of bioelectrical nerve transduction to shieleded electronic transduction.

So yes, they are well-conditioned soldiers, but also with extensive biomodification. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 20:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I still wouldnt say they are cyborgs, shielded electronic transduction i presume is the insulation of nerves for example via myelin sheaths. It isnt hinted anywhere in the series that the spartans recieve any more cybernetic implantation than any other humans in the universe so i would agree that deeming them cyborgs is misleading. Most people would read cyborg as along the lines of the 6 million dollar man, not just a small chip in the bottom of the spartan's neck. 77.98.107.157 (talk) 18:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

See, when I think of "cyborg", I think of The Borg, or of Lobot. I don't think of Master Chief. Anakinjmt (talk) 19:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Since I don't feel like scrolling through all this crap: The Master Chief is a Cyborg, one of the very first chapters of Halo: Combat Evolved refers to him as such. Also, his cybernetic implants AND the fact that his MJOLNIR armor is partially grafted onto his body automatically makes him a cyborg. Sorry, kiddies, but it's true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.92.156 (talk) 20:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

If you're not going to read through it, at least put it at the bottom of the section, which is where I've moved it. His armor isn't grafted onto his body. How else does he change armor between 1 and 2? He goes into cryostasis in armor so that he can be ready for combat at a moment's notice, but he changes armor. I still don't buy he's a cyborg by the conventional definition. Anakinjmt (talk) 21:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

However, Matthew Woodring Stover (who, as the author of a few Star Wars novelizations, probably counts as a reliable source for science fiction) does. He wrote an essay, cited in Master Chief (Halo), called "You Are the Master Chief", in which he spends a good amount of time arguing why the character was (in his opinion, correctly) presented as a cyborg, and neither fully human nor fully machine. Reviews (Computer and Video Games and IGN) have referred to the character unequivocally as a "cyborg". So has the BBC. Can anyone find a reliable source arguing that the Master Chief is not a cyborg? Remember, the issue is not whether the character fits our perceptions or definitions of a cyborg, but what reliable sources have said. — TKD::Talk 00:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

As Anakinjmt says, the conventional definition of a cyborg is someone with machinery sticking out of their body who makes a whirring noise when he moves. That's the old, '80s vision that stuck through the decades; people thought of what robots combined with humans would look like, and since robots back then were the size of a Buick they came to that image. Nowadays we've got virtually natural prosthetics. So I think that the definition will change, and as I said, Master Chief has extensive biomodification; it just isn't visible. Of course, you could count his suit as a prosthetic, as he's plugged into it. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 04:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

You could have every sci-fi author under the sun (bar the ones from bungie) saying hes a cyborg but it still wouldnt make it so as it isnt their universe. Can we have an actual quote from the Halo:CE novel saying he is a cyborg? And may i also repeat, that the cybernetic chip that EVERY MARINE in the halo universe is issued with is for identification, ie, the equivalent of a dog tag, watch the arms race promo video for H3 and you will see. The master chief has no further 'cybernetic enhancements.' As for the metal grafted onto his bones, would you say that wolverine from xmen is a cyborg? I still dont think this quantifies as a reason to call him a cyborg, spartans arent dependent on the material grafted to their bones; as they could be surgically applied, they could be surgically removed obviously at great risks. My final point; master chief is in no way irreversibly connected to the MJLONIR armor; the mark IV was difficult to remove and put on as it was very heavy and complex; but asides from that it is never implied that it cannot be removed. For example we see in the graphic novel Maria testing out the MJLONIR V or VI, which clearly wouldnt be grafted to a retired spartan just for testing. All in all i agree extensive biomodification is a far more appropriate as cyborg is very misleading.77.98.107.157 (talk) 21:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, if Bungie were ambiguous about whether he were a cyborg, and reliable secondary sources described him as such, we would defer to those sources, rather than try to find a label as mere Wikipedia editors. But, as you requested, here's an explicit first-party citation to show that there is no ambiguity. Look at page 5 of the original Halo: Combat Evolved manual, available here: "On Reach, a secret military project to create cyborg super-soldiers takes on newfound importance." This goes on to refer explicitly to the SPARTAN-II Project and to the SPARTAN-II on the Pillar of Autumn. — TKD::Talk 00:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Kay, how about this? "Master Chief is described as a cyborg; however he bears little similarity to the traditional cyborg." That seems pretty fair. Anakinjmt (talk) 00:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Excellent; now, we just need to find a reference in the books or games that specifically calls him a cyborg. I've got the first three books, so I can try to sift through those. Only have the first Halo, however. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 00:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The neural implant is for more than identification, its what allows Spartan-IIs to interface with the MJOLNIR armor, that's why their implants had to be replaced before they could use it in Halo:The Fall of Reach. Also, In Halo:The Flood, it mentions that Cortana actually uses his brain for processing power and storage. A direct link between the brain and machine, that sounds like a cyborg to me. I don't think it needs a "non-traditional" qualifier. Mad031683 (talk) 00:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I gave one, above, from the manual of Halo: Combat Evolved. — TKD::Talk 00:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

We would need a source that explicitly says that there is little similarity. Otherwise, we're taking primary-source material and making analytical claims that aren't borne out by the material that's there; this would pretty much be a clear-cut case of original research. We can certainly cite the cyborg bit to the manual and/or some of the secondary sources that I listed above, but, as far as I'm aware, no one, first-party or otherwise, calls the Master Chief a "non-traditional" cyborg, or implies that he is so. To do so on our end would be adding analysis that isn't borne out explicitly by the sources. — TKD::Talk 00:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

We don't need to be cite-crazy. I think saying he bears little similarity to the traditional cyborg falls under WP:OBVIOUS. He certainly isn't what people think of when they think of cyborgs. Anakinjmt (talk) 01:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:OBVIOUS means that sufficient context should be provided, even if seems like you're stating the obvious, not that we can make analytical claims that seem obvious. It's not clear, at least to me, that a critical reader would accept this sort of "traditional" caveat without a source that clearly states as much, especially given that a term such as "traditional" inherently injects subjectivity into the statement (and thus is subtlely non-NPOV as well; who has defined "traditional"? or even a less value-judgment-laden term, "usual"?). — TKD::Talk 01:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

To extend my thought further, we only need to cite that Bungie presents him as a cyborg; this would be verifiable. Then, whether the character meets the reader's preconceived expectations of a cyborg, if any such expectations exist, is something that we can leave for that person to decide, without imposing an explicit value judgment on that (it'd be a different story if reputable sources had that analysis for us, in which case we could relay what those sources have said). Readers can investigate more about the character's history at Master Chief (Halo) and SPARTAN Project if they are, in fact, curious or critical enough to want to figure out how the character's formation and role relates to any preconceived notions of a cyborg, super-soldier, science-fiction protagonist, or whatever category the reader wants to think about. — TKD::Talk 02:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

(retab) Different interpretations of WP:OBVIOUS, I guess. I think it's obvious Master Chief doesn't fit the traditional mold of a cyborg. I don't have a problem with him being called a cyborg in the article, considering there's a cite for it, but it is obvious to me and I'd bet 500 grand to anyone else that Master Chief is one of the last thought of when people think of cyborg. He's not even on the list of cyborgs in fiction. Anakinjmt (talk) 02:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC) If you're considering the Master Chief specifically, then he could technically be a cyborg through the amount of medical operations and mechanized flash cloned organs he has inside of him. I'm not sure if the books state that he ever had an operation, but its very probable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.9.74.251 (talk) 02:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

It was removed unilaterally by an IP editor some time ago. If someone wants to, the entry can be restored with a citation, although the lists in that article are getting a bit unwieldy. — TKD::Talk 02:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

So what your saying, is that the Terran Marines in Starcraft are also cyborgs? Inhibitor chips are mechanical so that automatically makes many high ranking officers in the military also cyborgs. Oops, guess what? My dog is a cyborg. Seriously, get a life man. Master Chief is just bad-ass, and it doesnt matter what he is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.170.197.10 (talk) 18:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am saying that all of those people, and your dog, are cyborgs (although I don't know anything about Starcraft so I'll take your word for it) by the most general definition. Mad031683 (talk) 16:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Instead of going by the popular definition of "cyborg" and going by the actual definition of the term, yes, every single one of those exmples is considered a cyborg. They may seem a whole lot less impressive to you than fictional cybernetic entities, but that doesn't change the simple fact that they are a combination of biological and mechanical parts. Peptuck (talk) 19:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

You wouldnt go around bandying the term cyborg for his dog though would you? So surely some consideration about that must be taken here? As for the manual citation, does it not also refer to MC being the last living spartan, but we know that is not the case.CrabCam (talk) 22:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

As far as the UNSC know, all the remaining Spartan-IIs and IIIs were lost at Onyx, so it would not be hard to say that by the events of Halo 3 the Chief is seemingly the last spartan. Actually, now that the threat is over, I wonder when Halsey is gonna pop her head outta that Dyson Sphere... but I digress. David Fuchs ^(talk) 23:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I seem to recall a grunt in Halo: Combat Evolved calling the Master Chief a "Nice cyborg" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.53.87.6 (talk) 22:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, one of the chapters in Halo: Combat Evolved (It is in the level Pillar of Autumn to be exact) has the name "AIs and Cyborgs first", could be intended by Bungie. Sgtjohnsonx (talk) 09:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Few things:

1. Yes the Chief is infact a cyborg due to the enhancements he has undergone.

2. The Grunts Say "Bad Cyborg" not "good", this happens when the player kills a large number of AI around a grunt.

3. The term "cyborg" in regards to the Chief should be used in the Halo sense in which yes he is a cyborg.

I've probably made nosense here, but I think it clears some things up. Recent idiot

The Halo: CE Bungie map editor allows the user to customize all the game entities. It universally refers to the player character as "cyborg."

68.230.161.164 (talk) 23:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

While by definition, the Chief is technically a cyborg - I don't think I agree with him being called one in the article. Maybe it's just me, but I feel like the word cyborg has a certain stigma attached to it. Whether logical or not, there are many things that are technically cyborgs that we would never dream of calling a cyborg. For example, anybody who uses a wheelchair. Or somebody with a prosthetic leg (or my dog who has a metal rod in his leg because he broke it). I don't call my dog a cyborg, I don't call the veteran who lives down the street a cyborg, and I don't call my grandpa a cyborg. --Magus05 ^(talk) 21:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Criticism

In keeping in line with Wikipedia's neutral view point, a Criticism section (as seen on most major Wikipedia articles) has been necessary, and I'm surprised it's been evaded or removed (fanboy vandalism?) to this date. Due to its mainstream, non-core-gamer audience, and stale, repetitive gameplay, the Halo series has actually been the target of much criticism, so this must be a part of the article if Wikipedia's "neutrality" stance is to be believed. To remedy this problem, I have created the section, including a notable, reliable source. There are more and better sources available, of course, but this will due for now. Feel free to add more information on the series's criticism as long as you have reliable sources as well. --Josh1billion (talk) 05:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

There is already negative critism in the main paragraph of "Critical reception and impact" there is no real need to branch it on a separate section of its own unless we are considering doing so with the possitive reception, if not its better to keep both of them merged. - Caribbean~H.Q. 06:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The standard procedure with most Wikipedia articles is to keep them fairly separated, as you'll notice that most major articles have an independent "Criticism" section. --Josh1billion (talk) 07:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

This is not the case. It might be common, but it's discouraged. --McGeddon (talk) 15:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

"Criticism" falls under "Reception and Impact." Creating a completely seperate section for criticism is unnecessary and not neutral. Criticism of Halo 3 should go in "Reception and impact" as criticism is a form of reception. Peptuck (talk) 10:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed that in your initial comment, it's made quite clear that you don't care for the game. That's fine, however, I would argue in the interest of being totally neutral, that people that are against the game not add negative criticism, but allow the people here that do like the game add it. I'm just afraid of the article coming across as non-neutral. Anakinjmt (talk) 14:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I did a run-through of the C&R section of the article, and I have to say that it feels quite neutral to me. There's at least ten notable, reliable sources that criticize the game, and considering the general score of 94/100 from Metacritic, that's enough negative weight when compared with the praise its received. Peptuck (talk) 18:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Just as I suspected, it appears that some Halo 3 fanboy/Wikitroll has removed the section without any legitimate reasoning. I will reinstate it now. --Josh1billion (talk) 21:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL please. I do not like being called a troll, and there is plenty of reasoning behind why that edit was removed; perhaps you should look back through the history page and note the reasoning in the edit summary? Peptuck (talk) 22:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Separate criticism sections are specifically discouraged, Josh. The existing "Critical reception and impact" section is exactly where cited review criticism should go. --McGeddon (talk) 15:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd also suggest you check out WP:Vandalism before casually throwing around vandalism accusations against good faith edits. Just because someone disagrees with your edits, it does not make it vandalism. Peptuck (talk) 06:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

We need a section that emphasizes CONSUMER criticism, not criticism from gaming outlets. It should include influential critics of halo, anyone from Penny Arcade to Ctrl Alt Del, as well as general complaints. Write about how the singleplayer campaign is 4 hours long at most, seen by many as exceedingly repetitive, that the online game is unbalanced and has changed little in 7 years, that kind of thing. Because hundreds of thousands, if not millions of customers like myself bought halo 3 expecting a hell of a lot more than we actually got. It would be most fanboy like to ignore these obvious flaws: the article as it currently seems to imply halo 3 is the best game that has ever existed, and any but the hardcore fanboy will disagree.

142.179.73.188 (talk) 18:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Those sound more like personal complaints than reputable ones. How exactly is one suppossed to find reliable cricism outside of established gaming websites and reviews, because those are exactly where one goes to find that kind of criticism? In fact, that's the whole point behind most gaming groups' reviews, and every single featured video game article on Wikipedia uses reputable reviews for its sources regarding criticism, as those are the only reliable sources. Peptuck (talk) 18:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Class-action lawsuit

Weren't Microsoft/Bungie sued over Halo 3? Not a word of that in the article. Does anyone have the details? I'd like to see a controversy section.

--ShadowCode 08:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Apparently they were (that is, MS was sued, Bungie was named co-defendant). When I get back from school I'll add in a mention- prolly go in 'versions' since it leapfrogs off the scratched discs. David Fuchs ^(talk) 12:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

New awards

Associate press just named it the most overrated game of 2007 > needs to be added —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.50.73.143 (talk) 19:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

lol wut. I just checked AP. They haven't run a Halo article in the last month. Peptuck (talk) 20:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

New topics go at the bottom of the page. Care to provide a link? Anakinjmt (talk) 23:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

A quick check of his contributions shows that this one is just an IP vandal. I doubt we'll see a link. Peptuck (talk) 06:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Nice catch(211.31.85.242 (talk) 10:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC))

WP:VG assessment

This is indeed a very solid article; however I don't think the sourcing is quite up to A-class standards yet. There are a few statements which appear to be unsourced - it may be that the sources are there, but I'm not looking hard enough for them. Feel free to cross these off when you've found sources/pointed out how blind I am:

• Gameplay: conversely, some vehicles are only found in multiplayer.
  •  Done James086^{Talk | Email} 03:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
• Campaigns: There are also various Forerunner computer terminals hidden throughout the campaign which can be accessed and provide background storyline information.
  •  Done James086^{Talk | Email} 03:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
• I'd put ref 31 at the end of the entire sentence myself as it's used to source the whole thing.
  •  Done Seems somebody else had already done it. James086^{Talk | Email} 03:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
• Audio: Distant gunfire sounds, which may first seem like prerecorded ambient sound, may often be the result of an actual firefight happening elsewhere in the game.
  •  Done James086^{Talk | Email} 03:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
• Cast: Members of the Halo machinima Red vs. Blue (Burnie Burns, Gus Sorola, Matt Hullum, Jason Saldaña, Geoff Ramsey, and
  • I can find sources like this which say the cast of RvB has a cameo in Halo 3, but I can't find one listing their names, would that suffice? James086^{Talk | Email} 03:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    •  Done They're in the game credits in the Instruction Manual, page 31. ♦^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 03:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
• Development: Due to the cliff-hanger ending of Halo 2, many observers correctly speculated that Bungie's new project was indeed, Halo 3.

Joel Heyman) were also featured. Those are the ones which jump out at me; there may be others which I didn't stop. Sources are the only things I have a problem with, and it's relatively speaking a minor problem. Otherwise, great work. Una Laguna^Talk 09:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

We also need citations for the first few statements under the Graphics section:

...This engine builds upon the technologies of the Halo 2 Engine (and previously the Halo Engine) and is re-optimized for the architecture of the Xbox 360.^{[citation needed]} ... After the closing of the multiplayer beta, motion blur was added to gameplay only.^{[citation needed]}

♦^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 04:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

 Done sourced. David Fuchs ^(talk) 00

04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

DLC Maps

anyone know when the maps will be available for free? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.43.48 (talk) 00:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

This is somewhat off topic, but the maps will be made available in Spring 2008, this will be due to the fact that a newer map pack will be released. (Stated by Bungie if I remember) Recent idiot

Gamerankings

The ranking for Gamerankings needs to be changed. With the arrival of RockBand, Halo 3 is now the seventh highest ranking game for XBox 360. Its always useful to keep the page accurate!

Haywire27 (talk) 19:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I suggest then that you be bold and change it. Anakinjmt (talk) 20:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

OMG Se7en! *NM* —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.174.17.237 (talk) 23:48, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I would change it, but it won't let me. Haywire27 (talk) 13:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

duesnt this only have partical protection(211.31.189.93 (talk) 09:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC))

It looks like Haywire had just registered for an account on the day he brought this topic up. Partial protection protects the page from being edited by IPs and newly registered editors. He should be able to edit the page by now; if not, then please provide a link putting Rock Band's score, and I'll add it in myself. Anakinjmt (talk) 20:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Ceratainly. - Caribbean~H.Q. 20:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Well Bungie does love its sevens. Other than that, an accurate ranking should be put in. Recent idiot —Preceding comment was added at 13:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It's back to 6th now. James086^{Talk | Email} 07:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Prophets

"Still oblivious to the true nature of the rings, the Covenant High Prophet of Truth and the remaining loyalist Covenant proceed to head to Earth, where they believe the Ark is buried." This sentence taken from the article isn't true. The prophet were well aware the power and functions of the halos. The prophets with hold the truth from the other covenant (elites, grunts, brutes). None of the other covenant know the truth until the Arbiter finds out which is the plot for Halo 3. If you think about it it makes sense. How would the Arbiter have found out if none of the Covenant knew. Guess I'm just a Halo nerd but I don't know it should be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Woodcutter631 (talk • contribs) 15:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

To tell the truth, the Covenant may have some inkling of Halo's true nature after all. When you board the Scarab in "The Ark", you can overhear one of Truth's public sermons, and in it he mentions that he had led them to the Ark because it was a "shelter from Halo's fire". That only makes sense if he and the rest of the Covenant do believe that the ringworlds can harm them if they aren't sheltered from the blast. Peptuck (talk) 16:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

But it's a tenuous connection at best. The Arbiter learned from the Heretic leader; there's no indication that the Prophets learned of this as well. David Fuchs ^(talk) 21:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

But they try to turn them on at times before. however, what if he has only learned the true power of the rings around the end of halo 2? but it does fit together. an elite army wins in space and a human army will win in land encounters. Turning on the rings would give him an otherwise unatainable victory. but we are never told this. All we have to go on is what is said and done, and it is always said that truth thinks the rings will make him a god. so no proof no change. but if sombody can find proof of this.... wow. so it will need to say out of the article as long as its just "mmm I wonder".(58.109.62.151 (talk) 23:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC))

I guess maybe Halo: Uprising (if it finally concludes) will give some indication, but I think it's undebatable that Truth didn't know the truth about the rings, at least to the end of Halo 2, which is the last area we can account for. Sure, he fled by the Forerunner ship, but if he had known that the firing of Halo would wreck devastation on a galactic scale i think he would have uncovered the Ark and gotten the hell 'outta dodge before he got Tartarus to activate the ring. Either way, I think the wording in the article can stand. David Fuchs ^(talk) 00:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

In Contact Harvest, we learned that the Prophets are fully aware that the Humans are Forunner, but decide to lie to the rest of the covenant for the greater good. Their goal is to completely eliminate all of the humans - the rings (which aren't spoken of much in the book) are kind of on the back burner. It's not until Halo that the first ring is actually discovered - and after fighting humanity for so long (it's like at least 20 years at that point), a quick solution probably sounds good to them - hence the sudden desire to activate the ring. I think it's entirely possible that the prophets know what the rings do - given that they are lying to the covenant about the humans, and that they suddenly take great interest in activating the rings. Also notice how in Halo 2, when they wanted to activate ring 05, the prophets didn't go down and do it themselves. They fled for the Ark, and had Tartarus and brutes go to activate the ring. It's fairly obvious that the prophets have at least a basic understanding of what all these artifacts do. --Magus05 ^(talk) 22:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

But it seems rather stupid of them to assume that they could reach and activate the Ark (buried and all) before Tartarus activated the ring- in fact, it would have made more sense for them to head for the Ark to begin with. David Fuchs ^(talk) 23:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

They did. The game opens with the covenent reaching earth. They were there for the ark, but didn't expect to find humans living there. It all fits perfectly. Why would they be looking for the ark if they truly believed that lighting the rings would make them Gods? Why not just do it and forget the ark? --Magus05 ^(talk) 06:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

FAC? redux

Think it's about time to go for FAC once again? I posted a comment on WP:FAC about reviewers not reappearing to refactor comments, and it's fine to note that they didn't appear pending comments, so that shouldn't be an issue again. David Fuchs ^(talk) 23:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess, but this is the second time that I encounter this behavior on a VG FAC, we can just hope that it doesn't become a tendency. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm being bold and nominating it. I don't think the featured topic nom should be affected by this so I see no harm. James086^{Talk | Email} 14:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Beats me having to do it ;) I'll try and assist with concerns as much as I can. David Fuchs ^(talk) 22:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Legendary Edition

I doubt it, but if anybody knows if the Legendary Edition is still avalible, could you please let me know? HaloFanatic 8:40 20 January 2008

This doesn't really concern the article. But just for the record - no, you probably aren't going to find a legendary edition sitting in a store somewhere. --Magus05 ^(talk) 21:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)