Talk:Halo 3

Conspicuous absence of awards

Despite Halo 3's crushing marketing, hype, sales and generally positive reviews, the game fared very poorly on the award side.

It won very few awards overall compared to other games of 2007 such as Bioshock, Call of Duty 4 and Super Mario Galaxy. Not only that, but the game was never even nominated for Game of the Year by any serious or major award or industry publication. (for example, it was not nominated by Gamespot or IGN to be Game of the Year, nor was it nominated by the AIAS awards for GOTY, nor was it nominated by the DICE awards.)

The game was often expected before its release to be the "Game of the Year" and it has achieved anything but that, winning only minor awards from obscure publications and the occasional fan voted award. I think this conspicious absence should be mentioned in the Awards section, as it is already obvious from the short length of that section that the game was not nearly as critically acclaimed as fans believed it would be before its release.

It would also be worth noting that Halo 3 has now been consistently surpassed in both sales per month and popularity on Xbox Live by Call of Duty 4, indicating that Halo 3 is no longer the inevitable number 1 in both categories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.157.91.54 (talk) 05:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Your point being? - Caribbean~H.Q. 05:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes but still, Halo 3 has a lot more features than COD4, it hasn't won many awards for those features, i dont even know if its won any lol. I personally favor Halo 3 as COD4 has become repetitive and people seem to just camp, not like Halo 3, we shoulddo something about this :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.109.65.218 (talk) 11:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

This is not a forum. (121.217.113.36 (talk) 05:09, 25 April 2008 (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 Dece<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lupin/navpop.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css&dontcountme=s">mber 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)

And not to stick my head in the buzzsaw but something to consider is this: A person with a knee replacement or a pacemaker is not a cyborg, so clearly a human can have synthetic replacements and still be human. Conversely, a robot with an exterior of flesh (example: a Terminator) is considered a cyborg even though they clearly don't need the flesh component to survive (it's really nothing more than camouflage).

This has been a bone of contention for decades, whether a character is a robot, an android, a human, or a cyborg based on the levels of modification and whatever the unaugmented form was. "Data" from STNG is considered an android but during First Contact the Borg Queen attached flesh to his body in order to make him look more human. Did that make him a cyborg or was he still an android with skin? It gets even more messy if you've read the Asimov inspired Robot City novels where sapient robots are made with cellular circuits that effectively function much like real human cells. And in the third novel (boringly titled Cyborg) a human is so badly injured the robots save him by transferring his brain into a robot body. While that isn't a new idea, if the brain is all that remains of a person inside a robot, are they a cyborg or just robot with a human brain? (This became an issue with the Three Laws as an average robot could not tell he was human anymore and it became a philosophical debate as to whether he still was human.)

Let's take it further, what if that brain was grown from clone cells and was never a human being in the fullest sense before being place in a robot body? What if it's just a brain tied into a computer with no mobility? Is that a cyborg?

Personally, I think there should be a seperate term for robots with flesh components and a distinction made between a human being with some modifications and a cyborg being a human with extensive modifications. Till then, my sense is that the Chief has been referred to as a cyborg for the sake of brevity and ease of character description. Saying he is a conditioned, modified human being with some cybernetic implants takes a lot longer and requires further explanation, but is closer to what he seems to be. KeeperOTD (talk) 17:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Lol if Master Chief is a cyborg, then i should be arrested cause im Osama Bin Laden. Seriously he is just a guy in a suit with a few implants and years of training. Also the modern military have developed early versions of Mjolnir type armour, e.g exoskeletons, so do the people who wear these become cyborgs?? Cyborgs generally have some sorta big change made to their body, such as a new arm. The Borg from Star Trek are cyborgs, is Master Chief anything like a Borg???

Cyborgs are usely portrayed as Half-Organic lifeform, Half-Machine. But certain people have brought differant races into this subject.

A "Synthetic" shares the phsyical properties of a Cyborg. However, the living, organic side is usely geneticly engineered. Thus, getting the name "Synthetic" rather than the usual "Cyborg". Such as the "Geth" from Mass Effect, and a few Science-Fiction based novels.

Also, one more thing...

I know about all of Masterchiefs Enhancements, however, it does NOT mean he's a Cyborg. Having Titanium grafted to his skeletal structure is like having a person with a pacemaker! He is probebly human, just a "Geneticly enhanced" human instead. Dalawong —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.109.65.218 (talk) 11:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Not to be picky, but if the game calls him a cyborg then thats it. We don't make the game they do, and they say he is a cyborg.(58.165.205.15 (talk) 22:21, 17 May 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)

This is dodgy. Somebody has messed with the text, EG. it says Halo 3 was developed by Nintendo, please sort this out.

Fixed FalkonG4 (talk) ~ZR~ 12:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey dont have a go at Halo 3 like that. Atleast Bungie don't just abandone their game as soon as it's complete, like other companies seem to do. Seriously COD4 is a lot more repetitive than Halo 3, at first it was fine, but if you play it often as i do you notice that all anyone does on that game is camp. Halo is not repetitive as Bungie are always changing things, when was the last time COD4 brought out another set of maps or gametypes? Also you dont get any criticism about the Foundry/Theatre do you??? are you guys jsut ignoring these features?

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))

Most over-rated game??? Lol anyone who provided that award would probaly be a anti-halo guy ^^ Plus if it did get that award (which it didn't) Bungie probaly would of potsed something on the news. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.109.65.218 (talk) 11:56, 22 April 2008 (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

The new ones are being released on April 15th. That should probably be put in there.--68.102.132.45 (talk) 20:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I have reason to believe the map pack after the Legendary map pack will be "Mythic" map pack. Bungie have talked of codenamed maps such as "Moonbase Alpha", and unfinished maps such as "Warthog Inc"... Dalawong —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.109.65.218 (talk) 11:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

Just wondering who works out the rankings anyway??? Games in their first few weeks of sales usually would outrank other games. Also you can't expect Halo 3 and COD4 to hold theirs ranks forever can you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.109.65.218 (talk) 11:58, 22 April 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)

Saw one in New York the other day. Three, in fact. Can't remember which store it was, but it was on Wall Street. Somewhere after the 1950s ticker tape parade plaques. Just got to look around I guess! PS sorry for engaging in irrelevant discussion, but I couldn't resist.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 06:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Strangely enough I saw one recently, too. Only one, and the box was kind of beat up (although I'm sure the contents are fine). So I guess Yeti Hunter is right. You have to look around and get lucky. As an aside - I've seen tons of the Limited Editions. --Magus05 ^(talk) 01:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Wrong again. Local EB Games here in Ontario have PLENTY of Legendary Editions left, including TONS of Helmet cases, mainly because people don't want the giant helmet creeping about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.58.111 (talk) 03:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Description of the Master Chief

He is considered one of the last of the soldiers from the Spartan project. Spartan II project is the correct definition, is it not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.170.197.10 (talk) 17:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The distinction was changed as the SPARTAN-II and SPARTAN-III Project articles were merged to SPARTAN Project. David Fuchs ^(talk) 23:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

He might not be the ONLY soldiers left. A few other suviving Spartans such as Kelly and Spartan-III's might be heading to, or may already be at Onyx; the shield world. Which could continue the Legendary ending cutscene of Halo 3? Dalawong —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.109.65.218 (talk) 11:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Spoilers

im new to wikipedia and was wondering shouldn't we have a spoiler alert before the synopsis im not sure wat wikipedias rules are on that thanks for your time —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xper0072 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia used them in the past, but no longer does: WP:SW Tar7arus (talk) 19:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Also Master Chief is not the last Spartan alive, just the last one still in active combat, as the rest are stuck in Onyx.

Halo 3 Multiplayer

Shouldnt we mention the "Double XP Weekend"? This, as far as I know, is a gamemode where instead of 1XP for a win, you earn 2. I dont think I myself would be the correct person to add this, anyone willing to step up to the challenge? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slickwiki (talk • contribs) 14:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

How did this get featured? The multiplayer section is utter crap, so would anyone be for expanding it in or even giving it its own page? Information on the ranking system, maps, armour permutations, events and achievements would easily fill another article ◄Ultre► (talk) 19:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place for tiny details on armor permutations; there's a good reason that the section is lean. Read WP:FICT. David Fuchs ^(talk) 20:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

There's a difference between lean and lacking content. Information on the CONTENTS of multiplayer could improve the article, rather than a few lines. ◄Ultre► (talk) 15:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Such articles have been deleted before. David Fuchs ^(talk) 20:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Such as? I fail to see a reason for the deletion of an article for including further information on it ◄Ultre► (talk) 17:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

On this topic I must admit I am rather undecided. On the one hand, at the moment it is clear and concise, and details the methods and hard/software .. thingies (Trueskill, ability to use XBL and LAN connnections, splitscreen etc.), but on the other hand, very little is said about the multiplayer itself. We have included a plot for the campaign mode, which could be similarly thought of as unnecessary extras in the same vein, so why can we not include more details n the multiplayer aspect? Perhaps as a separate page rather than being added to this one? Or failing that, remove plot information. This latter suggestion goes against my nature, but it would at least keep the standards the same for both sections. Or maybe I'm being too radical?Lichtonatus (Disagree? Talk to me about it) 20:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.211.221.198 (talk)

More images

I think this article needs more images its looking dull but enough to not give the plot of the game away.

RoflOhLol (talk) 18:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. It already has more images than most other gaming articles and adding more also would provide copyright issues and make it more trouble than it is worth. --Xander756 (talk) 18:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Lol you wouldnt get copyright issues from adding a few images. If there were Copyright issues then they wouldnt let you download images from Bungie.net would they? Needs more images, even if it already has more than other articles, add more images to them too if you are unhappy that Halo has more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.109.65.218 (talk) 11:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that the images must be used under Fair use, which dictates that only a minimal number of images be used. That is policy and it is not going to change so adding more images is not plausible. James086^{Talk | Email} 11:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

¿fps?

can anyone put at how many fps (fotogramas per seconds) runs halo 3 --200.118.32.224 (talk) 22:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

either 50 or 60 frames per second--Yeti Hunter (talk) 22:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's 30FPS--Roeas (talk) 05:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

30 unique frames are rendered every second during normal gameplay. Which are all transported out in full over progressive AV connections such as HDMI or VGA. These TVs then display each frame twice for 60Hz. Or, they are sent out over the connection twice, I'm not sure which it is.

When outputting to an interlaced display/format (CRT TVs, component) these 30 frames are split into 2 fields of upper and lower, and outputted in a 60 Hz format.

Its 60hz output all the way though, because its easy to double up the 30 'real' frames to make a 60hz signal. Trying to somehow map 30 frames to a 50hz signal is messy, so they don't allow that. And actually rendering 25 frames instead of 30 introduced physics glitches in Halo 2 (AKA Superbounce). So they didn't want to repeat that in Halo 3.

Anyway, I thought this was all explained in the article? RC Master (talk) 10:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Mistake in story

The picture of Cortana and Master Chief escaping The Ark is incorrectly labelled - it says that Installation-00 is the new Halo ring, but Installation-00 is The Ark - the new Halo ring is still Installation-04, as it is the one that replaces the old one. Plus, Guilty Spark says before he dies that he is the Monitor of Installation-04, and since he takes to the new Halo as his own ring, lets assume it's 04. Anyway, I'm going to change that; I'm just making this so nobody changes it back, like they usually do. --Roeas (talk) 05:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The new Blackout Map

The map is a remake from Halo 2, not the first halo. Valo_sweet_666 —Preceding comment was added at 13:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. ^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 15:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Ye it is a remake of Lock Out, although it is slightly better and instead of being a forrunner lab type thing, its a human oil rig sorta thing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.109.65.218 (talk) 11:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

NOT A REMAKE

Bungie has clearly said that Avalanche is NOT a remake of Sidewinder, but merely a map that looks somewhat the same. I will get you guys the link as soon as I get home school.

Moenbro (talk) 14:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

according to the announcement page on Bungie.net:

"[Avalanche] is a lovingly crafted reimagination of Halo: Combat Evolved classic Sidewinder. It wouldn’t be wholly accurate to call it a “remake,” but elements of Avalanche are certainly culled from Sidewinder – it has the same familiar U-shape, multiple ways from base-to-base, and a whole sandbox full o’ vehicles to play with. But there are many, many changes too."

And one of the people being interviewed stated:

"I started with the unwieldy geometry straight from the original Sidewinder file and then worked to beat it into submission in the architecting stage."

I think stating it's a remake is fair enough. Nitpicking about detail and changes would be unnecessary. Bungie might not call it a remake but people will probably still consider it one based on similar setting, design, and layout. Not to mention that the last weekly update had a mouse-over image comparison of Avalanche and Sidewinder. ^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 15:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Saying its not a remake is just splitting hairs, Bungie just don't want it to look they've run out of ideas. Also will there be any more new maps after the Legendary Map Pack??? If there is what would they call it... "The Spartan Pack" ??? lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.109.65.218 (talk) 11:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Reference to TS Eliot

I just read Eliot's "Hollow Men" and the poem ends by repeating the line, "This is the way the world ends." Doesn't Cortana say this somewhere...maybe when the structure inside Earth fires into the air? I think somewhere in the article it should be noted...because it's pretty nifty that Bungie would a) even know who Eliot is and b) make such a blatant reference to the poem. I wonder what the connection between the poem and the Chief is...what sort of statement is Bungie making about their own worldview, and how does it impact the message of the game? 96.229.63.68 (talk) 18:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe that is mentioned in the Cortana article, or failing that in a section of Halo (series). Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

unfortunately it isn't in either of those...i searched for "hollow" and "eliot" and the quote, and didn't find any mention —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.229.63.68 (talk) 19:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

1- orignal rearch. 2- bungie has never made such a claim. so guesswork is what this amounts to.

Also I am 15 and know who Eliot is off the top of my head, so it isnt odd in any way that bungie might. (121.217.113.36 (talk) 09:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC))

Actually, this is not original research. The Cortana letters page on Bungie.org makes mention of the T.S. Eliot references, right there in the first letter, and I believe later in the page it is mentioned that the letters originated from a Bungie computer. This gives us a good source for the information, so this is neither original research (from a Wiki user, anyway) nor guesswork.

Also, 96.229.63.68, Cortana says the line in the E3 trailer for the game. :) 67.175.71.101 (talk) 03:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

There are two OTHER references to Elliot. Listen to the tracks from the Halo 3 OST and listen to the songs "Dread Intrusion" (on Disc 1) and "Black Tower" (Disc 2). When you get to the part with the odd sounding voice. STOP IT and open up a audio editing program such as audacity. Load the song in audacity and highlight that section of the track that contains the voice. Reverse this section and you here Gravemind talking about something. The audio from "Dread Intrusion" is 98% similar to a few parts from the "Hollow Men" Poem. The pther one is something about Elites and Humans. Recent idiot —Preceding comment was added at 15:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Legendary Map Pack Citation

In the downloadable content section, in the part about the Legendary Maps, why is the same citation put at both start and the end of the same sentence, especially when it doesnt really seem to fit in at the end KP-TheSpectre (talk) 20:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Fixed AP Shinobi (talk) 01:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

dlc typo

in the downloadable content section, it is mentioned that the heroic maps 'were free on March 25', indicating a one-time deal. however, it should read something like 'are free as of march 25' indicating that they are and will be free.

Fixed. ^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 21:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Sales section a little misleading?

1.In the sales section it says "By November 30, 2007, Halo 3 had sold 5 million copies worldwide, and as of that point, (and this next part is in BIG BLUE BOLD WRITING SO THAT EVERYONE READS THIS PART IF THEY ARE JUST SKIMMING OVER THE ARTICLE) was the best-selling video game of 2007 in the U.S." However COD4 overtook it (as stated on the COD4 wikipedia page) and this isn't mentioned here, which is slightly misleading. 2.In the intro it simply says "and was the best-selling video game of 2007 in the U.S.". Again, as stated above, not particularly true. Could someone (a)tell me how wrong I am (b)correct it please? Thank you! Paul5121 (talk) 20:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Pretty sure you are wrong, e.g.[1] --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 20:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

That part only links to a relevant article, it isn't in "BIG BLUE BOLD WRITTING", the link is valid there is no reason to remove it. - Caribbean~H.Q. 21:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe what you are getting confused with is that Halo 3 was the best-selling game in the US, as stated. CoD was the best-selling worldwide. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 21:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah that must be it. Thanks for clearing that up. Paul5121 (talk) 19:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Katana/All Achievements

I was looking through and I see that there isn't anything about the Katana or Security/Marathon helmet(so called because it looks like the helmet from Bungie's other game, Marathon) unlocked by achieving all of the Halo 3 achievements. I do not know where this could enter into the article, so I was wondering if it should and can be added? Just something possibly overlooked.

Rooster212 (talk) 23:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not included because that information falls under the Wikipedia is not a game guide policy or WP:FANCRUFT or WP:TRIVIA. It's essentially non-notable or non-encyclopedic information relating to the game. ^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 23:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Master Chief's Mark VI armor

I think this should be in the trivia section. If you look closely at Master Chief's gloves, it has five holes in the second game and three holes in the third one although Chief did not receive a new armor.

Look at the links above.(121.216.0.160 (talk) 11:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC))

contribs) 23:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Addition to Voice Cast Section

Hello.

In the voice cast section, could someone please add Steven Blum? HE has a small part in the game at the start of "The Road" level, in the underground Warthog garage.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.188.196.119 (talk) 10:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

External Links

How would I go about getting my website, gamephobic.com, listed under the external links? Is this even allowed? Any info would be greatly appreciated.. thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oakley56fila (talk • contribs) 22:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)