Talk:Halo 3

Facts aren't allowed on wikipedia anymore?

Halo 3 is still SEVENTH ranked on Gamerankings, not sixth. I did ask someone to make this TINY, SIMPLE change on the stupidly protected page here, but some moron deleted it as vandalism. It got displaced by the arrival of Grand Theft Auto IV. You can check on the damn site if you have to. Can someone make the change, for crying out loud? Jesus. I remember when you could actually put information on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.41.132 (talk) 05:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Checking the history logs shows no anonymous IP editing for the last month, which means if you made the edit, you have an account capable of editing semi-protected page. If that's the case, use your account to make the edit. If you don't have an account, then you can simply make one, wait a couple of days, and make the edit yourself. The page isn't going to be removed from semi-protected status anytime soon, because vandalism is far too prevalent. Peptuck (talk) 05:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Doing a second check over the history page, I don't even see an instance where vandalism was cited as a reason for reverting an edit made to any of the reception sections, at least over the last couple of weeks. In fact, I don't see anything matching this description at all. Can you point to a specific edit that I might have missed? Peptuck (talk) 05:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't make the change on the actual page, due to protection. I asked someone to edit it in the discussion page, and it was removed as vandalism. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Halo_3&diff=214061904&oldid=214055524 86.29.41.132 (talk) 09:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Huh. Wierd. Looks like the guy doing those edits was committing vandalism disguised as useful edits and disrupting the talk page, judging by the other revisions under that same name. He's been blocked. The removal of your request was just one of many acts of vandalism; a check of his contributions page and talk page shows he was an active vandal. Peptuck (talk) 09:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Stilllllllllll says sixth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.36.124 (talk) 08:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

So? If you have a problem with what the page says, edit it yourself. Peptuck (talk) 15:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

"This page is currently semi-protected, and can be edited only by established registered users." That's probably the issue here. BCWhims (talk) 03:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)BCWhims

Like I said, that can be dealt with as easily as establishing an account and waiting a few days. In fact, in the time between the posting of this initial complaint and now, if 86.29.41.132 had registered an account, they would have been able to make the edits felt necessary instead of complaining about it on the talk page. The page itself is semi-protected for a good reason. Peptuck (talk) 05:09, 9 June 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))

Well can't we all just settle on "cybernetically (sp?) enhanced super-soldier", as I believe the Spartan II's are refered to in the [books/manuals(?)]. 70.184.239.162 (talk) 07:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Well in the game they call him a cyborg but that doesnt make him one, what are the enemies supposed to say, "Stupid cybernetically enhanced super soldier", he isn't a cyborg. As the guy said above me he is just cybernetically enhanced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.109.65.218 (talk) 11:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

In the world of halo he is a cyborg, and thats all there is to it. If a bungie now says that he isnt a cyborg then he isnt, they say he is so he is.

The game calls him a cyborg, HE IS A CYBORG. what we think is unimportant. (121.217.56.178 (talk) 12:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC))

lol, Well yes...what that guy said...He is a cyborg and this is final. Restoral233454434 (talk) 07:37, 13 August 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)

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)

Well Halo 3 wasn't the best seller. It just sold the most compies on its launch date (in shop). However COD4 had more pre-orders so it didn't get this title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.109.65.218 (talk) 11:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Halo 3 made the world record books for most earnings in a 24hour period for any media thingy (movie video game song ETC) in the world and it kept that record until GTA4 came out. No0b3rman —Preceding unsigned comment added by No0b3rman (talk • contribs) 02:58, 13 August 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. Edit:Hmm... Never noticed, maybe I'll look in theater. Jd896 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jd896 (talk • contribs) 00:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

You mean, "Tsavo Highway", right? The TRUE Adoring Fan (talk) 07:28, 29 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)

In general terms: You don't. As you can see, right now there are only 4 websites in the links section. 3 of which are directly MS/Bungie controlled. The other one: Wikia.com is a very large game guide related wiki. Which covers A LOT of more detailed stuff that Wikipedia doesn't. Not even the largest, longest running, and most often updated halo fan site (Halo.bungie.org), is listed. So its a nigh-impossibility that your site will be listed, and kept listed, any time soon. Sorry RC Master (talk) 15:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Weapon Visibility

In the article it says "all" carried weapons are visble "either holstered or slung across the player's back". This is not true when carrying two weapons AND a support weapon, as only one weapon can be carried either on the back or on the hip, and one in the player's hands. Since no weapons are dropped when picking up a support weapon, one weapon must be stored out of view. The TRUE Adoring Fan (talk) 07:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Then put it in, I will if you haven't.(121.217.56.178 (talk) 08:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC))

Downloadable Content Section

Bungie said that it wouldn't be wholly accurate to call Avalanche a remake, and that they consider it to be a "reimagination." http://www.bungie.net/News/content.aspx?type=topnews&cid=13382 Moonbase Alpha has also been referred to as Spacecamp. The name is initially used in a Humpday Challenge. http://www.bungie.net/News/content.aspx?type=topnews&cid=13262 It was later said that they were the same map. http://www.bungie.net/News/content.aspx?type=topnews&cid=13264 Also, the Bungie Pro promotion is over. It ended with the price drop of the Legendary map pack. No one wanted to discuss these before, but it was reverted back when I made the changes. What is the proper approach here?BCWhims (talk) 20:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)BCWhims

Characters 3 and 4 from Co-op

I recall Bungie gave back stories for the two elites that the third and fourth co-op players take the role of when playing the campaign mode. Would it be appropriate to mention these two elites in the characters section of the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ExtremeD harry (talk • contribs) 06:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

They are linked to in the Covenant section of Characters of Halo, which summarizes the backstory. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Critical Reception and Impact section

I don't know, but the end of this sentence in the last paragraph doesn't seem to make much sense to me. - "The Game Informer review also criticized the occasional repeated environments and poor final boss battle but ultimately gave the game the Game of the Month award other well received games." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.5.118.233 (talk) 17:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

no criticism?

why criticism is not included here with all this shit surrounding the native resolution? even COD4 has "criticism", is this section removed from fanboy protected articles or what? Cliché Online (talk) 08:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Because Cliche, we aren't disruptive people like you. Keep it up, you will be blocked. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 12:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Look under the "Critical Reception and Impact" section. Sections marked "Criticism" are, by the nature of the title of the section, inherently violations of NPOV. I also like your inherent accusation that the admins who protected the page did so for "fanboy" reasons, and not, like, say, to prevent vandalism and trolling. Peptuck (talk) 13:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

"Criticism" is a bad title anyway, its easer to put both the good and bad together.(121.217.56.178 (talk) 05:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC))

Both articles have a "reception" section where both positive and negative points are highlighted. So I really don't know what you're talking about. RC Master (talk) 15:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Is it worth including the very common criticism from split-screen gamers that bungie bizarrely failed to develop full screen HD in split-screen mode? A lot of gamers were very upset by this, and it features in literally hundreds of online discussion all round the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.205.152.130 (talk) 09:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Find a reliable source (ie not a blog or forum post), and it can be included.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 10:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Sales figures

Does anybody know of a source that can provide this article with more recent sales figures? The latest shown on here is from early january, half a year ago, this should be updated just as the article for COD4 has an update dated in early june. Ghyslyn (talk) 05:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC) VGChartz gives 8.7 million, but it's not a reliable source... I haven't found any more recent figures either so far. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 12:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Halo 4 Already In Development!!!

It seems that almost every gaming site has an article on Halo 4!! It has been officially confirmed that Halo 4 is in full development by bungie...[[2][[3]][[4]][[5]][[6]][[7]][[8]][[9]][[10]][[11]][[12]][[13]][[14]][[15]][[16]][[17]][[18]][[19]][[20]]... The list keeps going on! there is HUNDREDS of sites that have this article and i think we should add an article on Halo 4!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.3.193.180 (talk) 01:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Not a single link above is to a reliable source: some of those are stated April Fools jokes, to boot. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Too bad most of these are just a gues here and a lie there, somehow I take Bungies word for this over mostly unimportant sites (not all of them).(58.165.200.247 (talk) 07:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC))

All that has been confirmed I believe is that they are working on a game that takes place in the Halo Universe, not necessarily "Halo 4".Dvferret (talk) 17:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, well there will be Halo 4 and I'm sure Bungie has confirmed that although, it is not known if it will be a sequel to Halo 3 or based in the Halo Universe. Because at the end of Halo 3 the ship was heading to the planet Onyx which brings the thought of a sequel. So who knows..but it's most possibly a sequel...but yes there will be Halo 4(although I'm not too sure) Restoral233454434 (talk) 07:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Bungie hasn't confirmed anything, and there's no evidence the Dawn was headed toward Onyx. Peptuck (talk) 08:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Well okay they may have not 100% confirmed it but there is evidence it was heading towards Onyx. Even watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yygn_vlH5a4 Watch it. Watch it all closely he's heading towards a forerunner planet. He'll land on it...he'll have to, to continue to Halo 4. Restoral233454434 (talk) 19:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

There's no part of the video indicating he's heading for a Forerunner world, much less Onyx. Peptuck (talk) 22:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

No official announcement. Since Halo 3 being confirmed the end of the story arc, the Legendary ending is is just likely up to the imagination of the gamer of how will Master Chief's fate be. The Phantomnaut (talk) 20:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought bungie made an announcement that halo 3 was the end of this story arc. And that the next halo series will infact be master chiefless, but really nothing else. i cant go to bungies site right now to find it, but I will try. this could have just been hinting about the new DLC announced today though, that is more halo 3 levels, master chief-less. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.99.65.63 (talk) 20:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Continuing development

Recently, Bungie made a video to Edge Magazine with hints of new content (especially at the end with possible map creation), should we mention a bit about it even though not thoroughly confirmed yet? The Phantomnaut (talk) 20:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Short answer: no. We're not a crystal ball, and we aren't a place for publishing rumors, no matter how pervasive, unless highly credible or in the now. It will appear in good time (judging by Bungie's own hints, possibly at PAX) so we can sit tight and wait. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 21:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Simple...just what he said: No...this could be a rumor we don't want people confused. Restoral233454434 (talk) 00:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

But we should say they allouded to new content in the video(144.137.92.25 (talk) 09:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC))

It's a good idea but it can lead to rumors with the origin being this Wiki even though the additions are apparent. So taking a chance is not a good idea and plus, with Penny Arcade Expo on the way, we can just wait a bit longer. The Phantomnaut (talk) 05:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

why

is there the same infobox twice in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dropgood12 (talk • contribs)

Looks like random vandalism. I've taken it out. --McGeddon (talk) 15:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The Art of Halo 3

Look here. Is anywhere here an article about the book? --84.164.124.250 (talk) 07:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Not really much to say about it- its predecessor The Art of Halo didn't have enough information for its own article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 12:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

New Achievements and Auto Update

Some one should add the new info from the last Bungie update, the new achievements are confirmed! There is still more to come they only hinted at the new things to come this month. Valo sweet 666

Yes, there are new achievements. Here is a list: Vidmaster Challenge: Lightswitch (0 points) – Get to the rank of Lieutenant in any playlist in the new EXP progression system. Vidmaster Challenge: 7 on 7 (0 points) – Enter into any ranked or social playlist with 7 EXP on the 7th of the month. Vidmaster Challenge: Annual (0 points) – After 9/25/08, complete Halo on 4-player Legendary LIVE co-op, with Iron, and everyone in Ghosts. Double Double (25 points) – On a Legendary map, get two Double Kills during any ranked or social match. Poor Yorick (25 points) – On a Legendary map, get 3 Oddball melee kills during any ranked or social match. Came…From…Behind (50 points) – On a Legendary map, get 3 assassinations during any ranked or social match. Defend This (50 points) – On a Legendary map, get a flag melee kill during any ranked or social match. Flag Dropped (25 points) – On a Legendary map, get 2 flag carrier kills during any ranked or social match. Road Rage (25 points) – On a Legendary map, get 5 Warthog chaingun kills during any ranked or social match. Look Both Ways (50 points) – On a Legendary map, get a Splatter Spree during any ranked or social match. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jd896 (talk • contribs) 00:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Halo related announcement

Microsoft had cut short their showing at E3 and stopped the announcement that Bungie was going to make on that day. That much is said on the page. However, the fact that Microsoft is giving Bungie their own event for this announcement is not noted. This seems insignificant, but should it be added or would that belong to a different section or page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.72.23.148 (talk) 21:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Bungie will also be making a number of changes to the playlists and the ranking system. Should this be in the article or is it irrelevant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.108.81.7 (talk) 18:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Title Update 2

Halo 3's current version is 1.2, someone with rights please update the version. Bungie has just annoucned on there website http://bungie.net// that TU2 Has arrived. Whilst not all players are resiving the update strait away, I think that it is safe to say that the game version has been elevated from 1.1 to 1.2.

Please correct it unless i am wrong in version detail... Direct Link to news : http://www.bungie.net/News/content.aspx?type=topnews&cid=15545 (J3nk0J1 (talk) 10:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC))

Next mappack

The next mappack will be called "Mythic", players discoverd this from the new achivements with auto update 2. Valo sweet 666 —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC).

Keep it clean

On the marketplace, there is something called "Keep it Clean". It mentions something about the campaign. I can't tell, it's too jumpy. For a more knowledgeable and relaxed Wikipedia- Nemesis646 (talk) 18:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

yeah the video is hard to make up but there's def something there. 134.126.209.179 (talk) 19:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

From what I heard it is an extension of the current Halo 3 game, possibly downloadable. Should we add a Future section for the game to alert readers of the "Keep It Clean" trailer?71.113.6.142 (talk) 00:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Not right now. While it seems quite obvious there's some tie-in to Halo 3, it's original research to add it in until the connection is verified by a reliable source. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Isn't Bungie.net a reliable source? 71.113.7.139 (talk) 17:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but Bungie has only released a teaser trailer, they haven't said, "Ok, the Halo 3 you saw means that Halo 3 is getting X Y and Z." Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Surely the trailer can be referenced as mentioning Halo 3, but to what precise amount it is related is as yet unknown. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.199.103 (talk) 10:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Last time I checked IGN is a reliable resource, including Halo.Bungie.Net since its one of the biggest communities, plus also to say that bungie.net itself isn't a reliable resource is like saying a Horse is a deer. Add it in. Ripster40 (talk) 23:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes they are. But Wikipedia is not the place to post rumors and speculation on unannounced products. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 23:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Ahh nevermind, the topic is moot, I just found out that there is an article up and running already about Halo 3: Keep it Clean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ripster40 (talk • contribs) 03:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Humans and the Ark

Okay, why did Truth needed either Keyes or Johnson to activate the Ark and why did the Flood need Master Chief and the Arbiter to shut it down? I can think of a reason: because then the Flood could reach Truth sooner. However, Gravemind is directly under the activation platform when Master Chief and the Arbiter have stopped everything, surely Gravemind could have done something by itself? The only similarity I could see was that a human was needed to activate etc. Who does know this? Mallerd (talk) 17:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

It's hinted in the expanded universe (Halo: The Flood, for example) that humans are related to the Forerunner in some way, and they have a natural instinct around Forerunner technology. It is further implied in the games a reclaimer (or human) is needed to activate the installations. While the human=reclaimer thing is pretty apparent by the end of Halo 3, any digging deeper is original research and synthesis. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I was wondering why there was this giant (and perhaps only one) portal to the Ark had to be exactly on Earth, lol. I don't really care about that whole original research, I just wanted to know. As long as I know what the truth about things is. Mallerd (talk) 18:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

You're not going to find much on Wikipedia due to our notability rules, however the Halo wiki (halo.wikia.com) has lots of info if you're interested. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, (WP notability policy is flawed,fight the power!) Mallerd (talk) 15:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Too bad no ever uses there WP:COMMON