Talk:Halo 3/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Brute Weapons

Bungie has already announced that Brutes will have their "own class of weapons", how come their weapons are combined with the Covenants? I think that protecting this page also is a bad idea, because everyone who can edit it is probably a n00b on halo. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.50.86.61 (talk) 23:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

Brutes are a part of the Covenant, so their weapons are Covenant weapons. Also, its a rather silly assumption to say that those who are allowed to edit this page are "n00bs" just because they are registered editors of Wikipedia; I've been playing Halo for years and own copies of much of the available media, including all four novels and the HGN. If it bothers you that you can't edit the page, sign up and wait a few days. Unprotecting the page isn't a good idea because of the sheer amount of vandalism and incorrect info that gets added in. Peptuck 16:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

They have their own class of weapons because (SPOILER WARNING) since the events of Halo 2 the Brutes and a few other Covenant races are now seperated from the others since the Elites learned of the Prophet's betrayal. So, being their own entities now, they should have their own weaponry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.236.200.31 (talk) 00:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

They're still "Covenant," as both sides still view themselves as members of the Covenant; the humans still certainly view the two factions as Covenant, just that they've started shooting each other as well as humans. And how are we going to handle the weapons that cross over between both factions? Plasma pistols, beam rifles, fuel rod guns, carbines, etc. are all weapons used by both sides, and are all "Covenant". Its simpler just to keep it all under one blanket definition of "Covenant equipment" as that is what it is: gear used by aliens in the Covenant. That they have started blasting each other does not mean they aren't Covenant. Peptuck 03:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, this isn't a character classification guide. Weapons developed by any active member of the Covenant are, by any standard, Covenant. It doesn't matter that there is a civil war going on. A car developed by Japan and exported to America is a Japanese automobile. The argument of whether or not any faction is still a member of the Covenant is irrelevant to this section. Amalga 03:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

If British people moved from Britain, in your terms they'd not be British anymore.

It's a war. Does that mean that if Iraq has a war with the USA, that makes Americans aliens and Iraqis human (or vice-versa)? No. It's the same sort of thing. Just cos they're fighting with each other, it doesn't suddenly transform them into a different life-form. EDIT: Sorry, not trying to be mean.

It seems to me that a civil war would mean a lot, since the elites might not want to be part of the Covenant anymore... It's like saying that America wasn't really a country in 1786 or that Bangladesh is part of Pakistan. From Ghosts of Onyx, it doesn't seem that any elites stayed with the prophets, and that they took some grunts and engineers with them, but I guess it's alright to leave it the way it is now since it's unconfirmed at the moment. I still don't really think elites should be considered part of the covenant anymore though. Dan Guan 02:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

the x button?

did u ever wonder what the x button in halo 3 will do? i think i know what it is going to do! in the new halo 3 trailer the master chief throws a grenade at his feet and then creates a force feild around himself(not the shield that he useually has on from the first and second halo). then, he runs out of the dust blasting at all the brutes in his way. i think that the x button is going to create that force feild around u to give more of an edge to the battle. i also think this feature is going to be for the single player verson of the game only. not for the multiplayer,because if it was for the multiplayer battles it would really suck! if anyone thinks differente please contact me.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by THE6DARK6MAN (talk • contribs) 03:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

Um...No. 1. The bubble isn't mobile 2. IT'S NOT A FRIGGIN GERNADE 3. That be too much of an advantage 4. It'd suck in singleplayer as well!

Well since he can carry four guns now maybe x is for switching between your duel wield and your single wields.Spartan282 04:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I would expect X to be run, like in GOW it's A. The way they have reduced the amount of each grenade you can carry leads me to believe that the shield will indeed be a grenade. Stercus Accidit 17:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

       : Bungie confirmed that it wouldn't be used to run. I'll try to find the source somewhere. It was official that
         it won't be that though. - da newb 6:36 PM, 10 January 2007

They said that the grenades were reduced to make people move around more in multiplayer, and I agree, the shield bubble would imbalance multiplayer too much. And Spartan, you can't wield four guns. They took liberty with some of the shots and showed the Spartans with holstered sidearms, but it's still the same two-three DW config as last time. David Fuchs 20:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Stay on task guys, this is sounding pretty forum-ish.--SeizureDog 01:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah it is... but isn't that the point of this page? (<--that sounded forum-ish too... =D) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.228.170.8 (talk) 11:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

No, not really. It's for discussing improvements or changes (hopefully also improvements) to the article. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 13:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

From the EGM Halo 3 blow-out. It said that the X button was being used in multipalier.Gundam94 22:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The X button is most likey reload as its always been

You really need to read up. The 360 Controller's bumper buttons will be used to reload weapons. The right bumper will reload the main weapon, while the left bumper will reload the left-hand weapon (also, switch grenade types). Amalga 06:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Legendary edition

The article said that the legendary edition will include the first two Halo games. This is incorrect according to all sources I've read, which say it will include cinematics from the first two games. If anyone has different information, please link me to them. Doytch 04:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

You've got it right. Halo 3: Legendary edition will include a disc containing each (important) cutscene from the Halo trilogy in high-definition format. Amalga 03:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

beta now playable?

On November 30, 2006, known Bungie employees (New0001, Evil Otto…Ect) Xbox live usernames (i.e. gamer tags) have been showing the following:

Playing Pimps At Sea (Alpha) Sailing, Yarr!

http://nikon.bungie.org/news.html?item=17301

http://live.xbox.com/en-US/profile/profile.aspx?pp=0&GamerTag=New0001

Stercus Accidit 20:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Can people not read the word "Alpha"? 137.205.74.252 01:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Seems to be the alpha of the beta... Stercus Accidit 17:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

No, it's just the Alpha test, which follows the pre-alpha build that EGM and other publications played, and precedes the Beta test this spring, which will be open to the public. There is no such thing as an alpha of a beta... the concept makes no sense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_stage

Now the Alpha test on the other hand, IS playable, but only to Bungie and select Microsoft employees (approximately 10 000 total).

137.205.74.252 17:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

shield bubble

After watching the video closly, I see that the bubble did not dissipate after sustaining damage, but rather was in perfect shape after the mortor exploded. It actually closed automaticly after 5 seconds, which leads to believe that it has a 5 second energy source that dissipates after activation. Could someone change this, as I am a new member. ThePheonix9

It will probably get a lot of discussion, but I'll change it anyway for now, as I can see it sort of retaining a shape as well. Bronzey 01:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[Edit conflict] I was also thinking this, the shield comes down after the wraith shot had exploded, just the dust was falling. I'm guessing is is indestructable for (5 seconds?) then disipates, of course you must be stationary which means enemies can take aim, but it saves you in situations like that. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 01:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

How do you know it didn't dissipate. It vanished as if it were drained of power. It could be that it may not be destroyed by the mortar immediately, but the mortar drained it of enough power that it couldn't sustain its charge. ANOTHER thing is that it could be indefinitely sustained, and that it only dissipates when you move. But it does dissipate, hexagon by hexagon. JAF1970 17:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It does dissipate, yeah, but if the Plasma Mortar's impact were the real cause of it, then the shield would have gone down immediately. Instead, Master Chief is still stationary and the shield remains in its fully expanded state for a considerable time after the mortar impact. Amalga 18:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect- it's common sci-fi (and Halo canon) that shields linger and fade when they take overwhelming damage. See also: Covenant ships' shields flickering away after taking nuclear hits in the novels.75.7.201.218 15:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Not just sci-fi. Most electronics. Like my CD player. When the batteries are low, it just doesn't turn off right away. It has problems maintaining power, then eventually refuses to start up. JAF1970 03:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Flicker, yes. I am quite aware that the UNSC-issued and Covenant standard energy shields flicker when they take damage. The same cannot be said for the "Bubble Shield," however, where it maintains its structural integrity for a considerable amount of time without showing any sign of wear or give. It almost seems to "wait" until the smoke clears before it shuts down. Even if the mortar were to have drained it of power upon, it's something that would have happened quickly if not at an instant. Amalga 04:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Shooting Star

Haven't seen any discussion of this anywhere, but I am pretty sure the thing mentioned as a "shooting star" cannot possibly be one. It only moves across maybe a couple of degrees of sky in the few seconds it is visible. If it really were a meteor it would be moving much faster. It seems more likely that it is a rocket of some type, but obviously this is speculation. --ABVS 12:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It looks more like a way-out plasma projectile, possibly a mortar or a bomb that the Covenant would have used prior to glassing a planet, which might lend way to the "scream" that can be heard during the transition. Amalga 03:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Bungie says it themselves it was a rocket.

Really? Where? Amalga 03:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Kids in ad are not CGI. They're live actors

According to [1] JAF1970 17:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

And Bungie said the ad was CG. But seriously, look at the little girl when the camera is next to her face; how is that not CG? Peptuck 19:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Whoa, wait, nevermind. Bungie just said they are real kids; Joystiq is right, they were just lit up to make the transition less jarring. Peptuck 19:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

That's kind of scary. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 03:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to be specific, that wasn't Joystiq - it was 1UP. Joystiq just reported the video by the 1UP editors. JAF1970 03:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Beta listings?

Is the beta listings section encyclopedic? It's just a list of sites to go get the beta. Remember Wikipedia is not a repository of links. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 13:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I removed them. — TKD::Talk 15:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Overspecific Weapons

Can we please form an agreement to get rid of the overspecific weapons listings? For example: "SRS99D S2-AM Sniper Rifle (modified from the original)". If it were modified, wouldn't that make it a new variant, and therefore it would have a different designation? Similarly, the "M247 GPMG General-Purpose Machine Gun" was probably copying Halo 2- which again poses a problem, as modifications are likely to make it have a new designation. Aside from this, virtually all of these details are likely fandidates for fancruft, as I think 90% of the people who see the words "pistol" or "shotgun" have some idea of what the weapon is and what it does without needing a designation at all. Can't we just leave the weapon names and be done? I don't see many people struggling to press Bungie on whether the Plasma Rifle is going to be the "Covenant SCB232 Blue Avenging Holy Light" or the "Covenant SCB232d Blue Avenging Holy Light Which is Marginally Different from the First One". Er, you get the idea. When you say "Plasma Rifle", everyone basically knows what you mean. There's no need for designations. 75.7.201.218 16:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. When the game is released and the manual comes out (or we are given bungie approved designations for the halo 3 versions) lets go crazy, but until then lets just state what is known for a FACT. Also, i love the names :) WookMuff 21:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree too. It's just kinda confusing. We want to see "Battle Rifle" not "DMSKGMNSIT395". We want to know the weapon, not it's whole name. If I were greeting you, and my full name was Sam David Shilson-Josing, or something, I would say, "Hi, I'm Sam." not "Hi, I'm Sam David Shilson-Josling." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.228.170.8 (talk) 11:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

Vandalism

Somone Cut The ESPN Starry Night trailer article in Half. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by IAngelofFuryI (talk • contribs) 01:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

Sorry, didn't mean to do that. I was editing and when I saved noted that it had, indeed, been cut in half. I later found it was caused by a less than sign and an exlamation point. Its fixed now though. Sorry about that. 71.138.254.60 04:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Do I even NEED to specify what's wrong with the article? Its filled with your momma jokes for a while now (bad ones at that). FIX IT!

Mongoose/Warthog (Again)

Since it seems to be a subject of contention, I think it fair to being up (for a second time) the issue over the Warthog/ATV. My understanding is this:

• The wreckage behind MC when the camera does the 360 pan is a Warthog, judging by size, wheels, windshield, and the winch on the front. (screencap)
• The vehicle visible when the plasma mortar hits is a Mongoose, judging by frame, foot pedals, the front bumper, and vehicle shape. (screenie)
• The two vehicles are not the same. One is lying on its side, while the other is lying upside down (as you can see under it). Note the differences in front bumper, wheels, and body shape; the two cannot be the same vehicle.
• Therefore, by deduction, there are two pieces of wreckage near Master Chief: a Warthog and a Mongoose.
• To quote Amalga: "TheSittingDuck has it right. Master Chief is thrown from the Warthog and winds up less than 10 scale-feet away. He turns away from the Warthog to retrieve the Assault Rifle, and at this point is facing the general direction of the Mongoose ATV which is more than 10 scale-feet away. When the camera pans out, the Warthog is obscured from view on the left-hand side of the shot."

The article states (currently) that MC is "...taking note of an overturned, damaged Mongoose ATV he'd presumably been thrown from. Although it may appear to be a Warthog from one angle, when the camera switches angles it is revealed to be an ATV, or definitly [sic]] not a Warthog."

I believe that MC was thrown from the Hog, and there's a Mongoose laying nearby. As such, I have reverted the above statement several times. On my last revision, I realized it was the third one in 24 hours, and 3RR lay dangerously close. Therefore, I open this topic up (again) for community consensus to decide what, exactly, the trailer contains (apologies for having been thickheaded to not have thought of this earlier...). Ourai ^т _с 23:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Someone has to know a little bit about 3D modeling to notice the difference. People are too quick to listen to OMG HALO3 CMERCAIL forum threads. Note the distance between Master Chief and the vehicles, and what direction he's facing. When we see the Warthog, its wheels are still spinning and the Chief is no more than seven scale feet from it, looking away from the Warthog to the Assault Rifle.
When he turns to the Assault Rifle, his back is to the Warthog and remains that way when he stands up and activates the shield. He does not turn around whatsoever. When the camera pans out, it reveals that the Mongoose ATV, also overturned, is about fifteen to twenty scale feet away. The Warthog is simply not in the shot because of the camera angle. Bungie and Digital Domain are smart enough to where they don't suddenly overlook such a huge discrepancy.
Pre-rendered footage, also, does not have much of a tendency to have "bloopers" that are so noticeable. Props stay in the shot. Unless Bungie says something different, this explanation stands. Amalga 06:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Apperantly none of you have read anything about it. The screenshots confirm it is an ATV, there is no warthog in the picture. The wheel of the ATV is similar to the Hog, but the design is really different. It needs to be changed back to ATV Superbowlbound 16:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The screenshots don't "confirm." I've read plenty about this footage and I've read nearly every theory on its contents, specifically the Warthog vs. ATV debate. I don't simply believe what I read, especially if it's not coming from Bungie or Digital Domain's mouths. I analyzed the footage on my own and went through it frame by frame by frame, over and over again. So please do not talk to us as if we don't know anything. My explanation is not at all arbitrary--it came from actual research, and not idle glances. Amalga 04:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

So what you are saying is that it is OR? Hmm... WookMuff 04:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is original research. Because everything else to be read about it is original research. Superbowlbound implied that we know nothing of the subject and have read nothing. My point was, I've read everything that was said about it and I decided to perform my own analysis of the shot.

The Warthog is mentioned in the article as the vehicle the Chief was thrown from because that is where evidence points to the most. In the shot featuring the Warthog, the Chief has his back facing to the vehicle and is kneeling about six to seven scale feet away. When he picks up the Assault Rifle and stands, he does not rotate at any angle--his back remains facing to the Warthog. He maintains the same orientation when he spikes the Bubble Shield and ducks. At this point, he is now facing the Mongoose which is at least ten scale feet away from him. Relative to the Chief, the Warthog and Mongoose ATV are at opposite ends--the Warthog is simply obscured from the shot. Logic and basic knowledge of 3D modeling.
I'm willing to bet that Digital Domain and Bungie would have reviewed the ad several times and notice such a huge blunder that two drastically different vehicles suddenly traded places inexplicably. Amalga 04:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I have read about it, and I read "Warthog" on 1UP and Frankie's post (the most recent one circulating). Agreed, there is a Mongoose in the second shot with a vehicle. But in the first shot--when the camera does the pan of MC--I believe it's a hog, based on this screencap. The greyish patch on the front is, if you look closely, very similar to the winch on the front of the Hogs in Halo 1 and 2. There is no such winch on Mongooses (Mongoosen?) Also, look at the wheelbase: the suspension visible doesn't match that of the Mongoose. Also, the windshield is clearly cracked in the first vehicle, while no windshield, cracked or otherwise, is in the second vehicle. The wheels are too similar, I think, to be the grounds for a final judgement, but the other factors are. Ourai ^т _с 23:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

с, here's some screens. As you can see the Warthog's wheels are wide and almost rectangular in shape. The Mongoose ATV's wheels, however, feature a lighter design: they are not as wide and are rounded, much like motorcycle tires. They also feature a three-point "spoke." Clearly two different vehicles, each featured alone in two different camera angles. Amalga 04:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Spartans

Guys, Spartans have been CONFIRMED BY BUNGIE. Websites (e.g. 1UP.com) and magazine staff (e.g. Official Xbox 360 magazine) that were invited to Bungie to play Halo 3 were all shown a 17-second clip of ACTUAL GAMEPLAY. A.I. controlled Spartans were in that gameplay, no mistaking it. Please don't remove them again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ras29 (talk • contribs) 04:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

Bungie has denied that there will be AI in Halo 3, or at least said that it's doubtful. The gameplay footage that the 1UP guys (and gal) saw was most likely either singleplayer footage (where NPCs have to be controlled by the AI) or multiplayer footage with other people playing. Unless there's an explicit Bungie quote that there will be multiplayer bots, nothing new has been introduced. Ourai ^т _с 05:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Ras29, please cite that. Just saying "this website" is not sufficient proof, and does not mean "confirmed." Amalga 06:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Correct. In fact, I've read over the same information provided by 1UP.com and haven't seen any mention of the presence of another Spartan. Peptuck 06:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'm quoting from the Official Xbox 360 Magazine here - "When Bungie said blink and we'll miss it, they were right. But then we spotted them - Spartans! It looks like for the first time in a Halo game, the Master Chief will have backup in the form of Spartan warriors. An A.I. Controlled Spartan ran over to control a new type of vehicle we've never seen before.". (crap sorry... forgot to sign in... but it's Ras29 here. And in reply to Ourai, it's definately a single player vid they were talking about, seeing as there were mentions of Cortana, Brutes, the Master Chief, and references to the story line, as well as refering to this video as "the 17 seconds of single-player footage.")—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.228.170.8 (talk) 11:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

I'm doing some checking around to verify this, but I will say that with available information, if there even is a Spartan it cannot be an S-II, because there aren't any left that we know of. All of the surviving S-IIs excepting Maria-062 are either locked up in the Forerunner Dyson Sphere or dead. If it is a Spartan it is likely an S-III from Gamma Company, as most of them were not on Onyx during the events there. Peptuck 14:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay. BTW, the above quote was from the Australian OXM, but it might be in the US one too, I dunno. Just in case you read the OXM and you can't find it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.228.170.8 (talk) 01:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC).

Couldn't it just be a marine in similar armor? I remember people mistook some Halo 2 marines for Spartans after they saw the new armor prior to Halo 2's release.

Why do people keep removing Spartans? There's more evidence that they WILL be in there than that they won't. And the evidence was by Bungie. You can't get more official stuff than that. EDIT: And anyway, aren't there about 5 Spartan-IIs still active? I'm quite sure that they were alive after Halo CE... I haven't read all the novels...

Look, I found a list of Spartans who are still alive. And these are Spartan IIs.... this is from the "Spartan-II Project" on Wikipedia:

• SPARTAN-058 "Linda" [Active Duty, Currently in the Micro Dyson Sphere of Planet Onyx]
• SPARTAN-062 "Maria" [Retired, Currently in Songnam, South Korea, on planet Earth]
• SPARTAN-087 "Kelly" [Active Duty, Currently in the Micro Dyson Sphere of Planet Onyx]
• SPARTAN-104 "Fred" [Active Duty, Currently in the Micro Dyson Sphere of Planet Onyx]
• SPARTAN-117 "John" [Active Duty, Forerunner Ship en route to Earth]

EDIT: Ah, didn't see that someone above mentioned that they're locked in the Dyson Sphere. Sorry, haven't read Onyx.

A few points I would like to make. First of all, even if there are Spartans on Earth, there is no indication that they would appear in gameplay. I trust Bungie, and Bungie alone, when it comes to information about their game. Unless they say so in no uncertain terms, I would err on the side of safety and not make a poorly sourced statement in the article, such as that "AI controlled Spartans will be in Halo 3". Also, as for the 1UP quote, I guess it provides reasonable certainty; however, I would wait until the information is given in a completely separate source before putting it in. Ourai ^т _с 13:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I had a few more points, too (sleeping on something is the best way to be inspired). When the Xbox 360 magazine says that "the Master Chief will have backup in the form of [AI] Spartan warriors", how, exactly does the writer of the article know that? Did the 1UP folks who (presumably) told them just see a Spartan who did not look like MC and assume? Did Bungie tell them outright? Are they drawing connections between things that might not be connected? What I'm trying to say here is that, until the source of the article is revealed, the article's assertion carries as much weight as a random blogger's; we just have Xbox 360 Magazine's word for it. (Which I don't doubt that they're trustworthy, I still question the accuracy of AI Spartans, seeing as Bungie has denied it). Ourai ^т _с 06:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The people we invited to Bungie for a play testing, and then Bungie said they'd show them footage from single player, and "no one from Bungie would discuss anything about it." Then, the people who wrote the article simply wrote what they saw. They saw Master Chief taking on a Brute in a ghost, and in the background they saw other Spartans helping the Chief. --Ras29 10:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, then that changes things. I would still leave it as a rumour, though, since Bungie has been close-lipped about the whole thing. But if that is what happened, then Bungie appears to have pulled a... Bungie on us. Ourai ^т _с 18:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking--the citation of the article implied that Bungie themselves confirmed that those were SPARTANS in the trailer. I'm inclined to assume they were ODSTs, seeing as their armor looks similar to the MJOLNIR armor (they were mistaken for SPARTANS before Halo 2 was released). I agree with Ourai--best left as a rumor. Amalga 20:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. --Ras29 02:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Cluttered ESPN ad

The ESPN ad section is cluttered by verbosity (that is, saying the same stuff over and over) and grammatically a nightmare. Clean it up and simplify. It looks really amateurish. JAF1970 18:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I modified the section slightly: the first paragraph explains how the ad was created, while the second two describe content. Also cleaned up a bit of the prose so that it reads less like a frame-by-frame analysis and more like an overspecific encyclopedic article. (Once Halo 3 is released, the trailers sections should be merged into one section detailing timeline and general overview of trailer content, since there'll be other things to focus on.) Ourai ^т _с 23:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Any indication that the E3 2006 section needs cleaning up as well? It's depicting several different release dates and some unnecessary information. Amalga 03:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

No, that section LOOKS fine. The ESPN ad was just getting sloppy. JAF1970 21:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Demo rumor needs squashed

This line, "On October 23, 2006, Game Informer reported that in the first half of 2007, a multiplayer demo of Halo 3 will be released over Xbox Live.[14]" should be removed as first, the reference is just based on rumor and unfounded speculation. It's also noted the reference is from October, before the beta was announced. As such, there is no reason to speculate a demo releasing yet. Whoops, forgot to sign it... sorry folks, first day here.Momo Hemo 10:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I half-agree. There is a 'demo' being released, but it isn't really a demo. It's a public beta testing, and a limited number of people will be selected play it, so it won't be released on Xbox Live. more info on www.bungie.net.

The line right after tells about the beta, which is more accurate information. Momo Hemo 16:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Brutes unplayable, video upcoming

...but still there will be upcoming gameplay videos that will feature "new insights into elements of the campaign and will peel back the curtain on a certain prominent character in Halo 3." I'm guessing Johnson. JAF1970 15:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

This is the source, for anyone who's wondering; Bungie's latest update. Ourai ^т _с 02:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

From the Department of Redundancy Department - it was already mentioned in the main article. JAF1970 19:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

That's NOT a warthog

Sorry, that's in no way, shape or form a warthog: [2] That's a Mongoose (especially wheel to chassic ratio, no turret, etc.) JAF1970 19:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The Warthogs don't always have turrets, as demonstrated in the Halo Wars trailer. We know of variants, one with a chain gun and another with a Gauss Rifle. The toys also suggest civilian variants without armaments. The Mongoose also does not have a winch, and its cowl is set a bit higher than the vehicle in the picture. The Mongoose is also less angular. The Mongoose wheels also more closely resemble those of a motorcycle's--the wheels on the pictured vehicle are considerably wider and less rounded. Consider the screenshots I provided to Ourai in the Warthog vs. Mongoose topic; it should be the last post in that one. Amalga 20:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

For precedents on this discussion, refer to [3] and [4]. The vehicle in the image you provided is a Warthog variant (no turret). The vehicle visible later is a Mongoose, which wasn't visible in the first camera pan of Master Chief. Ourai ^т _с 22:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I've never seen a Warthog with wheels that large and fat. JAF1970 00:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Then you haven't seen a Warthog. Compare [5] to [6]. Wheels are the same size. Peptuck 07:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

That's because you're often riding or driving in one. The Warthog is naturally large--larger than it often looks in comparison. The Mongoose's wheels may be larger in diameter but they're built with a radial rim design, are narrower, and have rounded wheels. Amalga 04:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

If you look closely enough, you can tell the two vehicles in the two images are different. Most notably the angle/tilt of the vehicles are much different, and the absence of (what looks like) the grill on the mongoose image. But, I still can't tell if the first one is a warthog, or a different mongoose. -th1rt3en 02:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Whatever armament that could possibly be mounted is conveniently obscured from view. The winch on the front is an indicator, however. Maybe he was traveling alone, hence thought it impractical to bring a heavier, armed variant with no one to man it? Amalga 04:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that the vehicle pictured when the Master Chief first becomes visible is much, much larger than the Mongoose; in fact, it appears to be larger than the Chief, and it is behind him, further away from the camera. There's no possible way that thing is a Mongoose, unless its the supercharged 800 horsepower Titano-Grade Mongoose Supreme for twelve foot tall men. Peptuck 07:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Additional note: check the vehicle behind the Chief against the Mongoose visible in the second image on the article. The vehicle behind the Chief has different tires, different suspension, a larger windshield, a different grille, and a winch and cable, all of which are missing on the Mongoose. It is also big; it is behind the grass clump, which is behind the Chief. You cannot call the size difference as a difference in camera angle, because the vehicle is a decent distance behind the Chief. Again, unless they are making special Mongoose models for Hunters, that thing is not an ATV. Peptuck 07:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Clearly it isn't a warthog. You people can't look at pictures? The wheels are too thin and large. The vehicle looks different too. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Superbowlbound (talk • contribs) 17:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

Yes, we can look at pictures. Such is the basis of this whole debate. You're looking at a different shot--the shot where the camera was panned away and looking at what IS a Mongoose. We're looking at the picture that has Master Chief kneeling in front of a Warthog. Also, as Peptuck mentioned, the WARTHOG was situated amidst a patch of grass. The Mongoose, which is in another shot, is not sitting on any plant life. Amalga 20:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

SO SICK OF THIS TOPIC!!! There are TWO SEPERATE VEHICLES, a warthog AND a mongoose. Noone is saying that the Mongoose is a warthog, and so the people who keep saying "nuh uh, thats not a warthog its a mongoos" need to pay attention instead of soldiering on with their confusion. TWO VEHICLES. Quit it, ok? End of frickin' discussion. WookMuff 21:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Just because you're sick of this topic doesn't mean it has no merit for discussion. If you don't wish to discuss it, then stay out of the discussion. Don't talk to us as if we were uneducated morons. The most logical, likely explanation was given in the current article (common sense would say it's true), but until Bungie comes out with word, the issue will not be laid to rest. Amalga 04:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

You are right, the fact that it has no merit for discussion is why it has no merit for discussion. And if my comments made you feel like an uneducated moron i apologize, as i neither meant to impugn anyones intellect or education, merely call to attention peoples pigheadedness and inability to step back, look at the facts, and accept them, preferring to ignore one another and misunderstand to put forward their own opinions. And if you find that offensive, i apologize also. WookMuff 04:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Facts? Really? Because last time I checked, this was OR, and you previously disagreed with my position the first time this was addressed. As far as any sign of offense, I'd be a pansy to take offense to things I read on the Internet posted by someone whose path mine will never cross. Sadly, Bungie has been lax on providing any information on the matter--either because they feel it would too early unveil any confidential elements, or simply because they don't feel like it. Either way, we've received no confirmation, hence the unending debate. So if you can manage to weasel this info out of Frankie O'Connor's mouth, you may just put an end to the pigheadedness. People are more likely to back off when Bungie's tag is slapped on. Amalga 05:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I disageed? I don't recall weighing in on this topic, but if i did i am very sorry. But yeah, hehe pansy :) Love that word, so takes me back to my childhood (not calling you childish, mind, just not a word you hear much now what with the rampant vulgarity in kids mouths) WookMuff 05:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

This is an annoying topic. Obviously if people just looked at the articles above they'd see the same agruement. Who says it can't be a civilian warthog? In the Graphic Novel you see a scene where a civilian says "Maybe I should buy the new 'Hog'"

A new point brought up by the Viddoc Bungie released: the "it has no turret" argument is pretty much dispelled, as they show an animation of a Brute throwing aside a Warthog that has no turret on the back. Peptuck 18:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Timeframe: ESPN Advertisement vs. Halo 3 Announcement

Has there been any indication by official sources as to whether or not the ESPN Advertisement occurs before or after the Halo 3 Announcement trailer? All I've heard so far is that there is not a large time gap between the two events. Amalga 04:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The ESPN ad was meant from the start to be an advertisement proper, being completely CGI, no gameplay, and so on. I would assume that the ESPN ad does not fit in Halo 3's chronology, and does not depict any particular in-game event. Much like the really cool Halo 2 trailer ("Betcha can't stick 'em," anybody?), I doubt that the trailer can be fit into chronology, simply because it can't logically fit. However, if one had to guess, I would say that ESPN comes after Announce, simply because the really big white cloud in the background looks a lot like the clouds over the Forerunner structure seen in Announce. (If, however, they are the clouds in question, it means that the two events are not far apart, and MC is in two places at once--another reason why ESPN isn't canon). Ourai ^т _с 05:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Check out the damage on Chief's armour in the ESPN ad, it definately takes place after the E3 announcement. And he had a warthog so he could easily have travelled the distance. Who says there's not a large time gap anyway?

Bungie says there's not a large time gap. "It takes place near or around the events of the E3 trailer," says Frankie O' Connor in an impromptu Q&A session about the ad. Amalga 04:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

"not far away is a mongoose" ???

Umm one of the captions on one of the pictures says "Master Chief using the new "Bubble Shield" device, which causes a shield to appear around him. Nearby is a Mongoose ATV". it seems to me that the atv is a fair distance away and that the statement should be revisedSkynet1216 01:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

From the camera angle used in the image in the article, it would seem so. Check this one (taken directrly from the trailer); considering that the two are about the same distance from the camera, I would say that the Mongoose is fifteen to twenty feet from MC, and no more than 15 from the Bubble shield (keeping in mind that MC is at least 7' tall). "Nearby" seems appropriate. Ourai ^т _с 02:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Obviously not far enough away to avoid the mortar explosion. It's in the shot, and close enough to where it's very visible. Whether or not it's "far away" or "close by" is irrelevant at this point. People know it's there, and that's what's important. Amalga 04:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Well i guess bungie and gearbox should do a better job with the CGI.Skynet1216 22:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

And this comment referring to what? Because the ad's CGI looks spectacular from any standard. There were no bloopers. Sounds like they did a pretty good job. Amalga 06:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

"Et Tu, Brute?"

This video was released on Xbox Live Marketplace today and has been announced by Major Nelson on his blog www.majornelson.com The video is exactly seven minuts long and the marketplace downloads weigh 336.07MB for the 720P version and 96.70MB for the 480P version. It can also be found online here. I Just thought a new section should be added covering the information availble from this video. Here is another link for information more information--CoolVaughan 18:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Biggest news: it's confirmed the Elites and Humans have formed an alliance. JAF1970 21:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Where do they say that? Peptuck 22:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't look like it. Espcially with all those animations of Brutes tackling and breaking humans, and Master Chief shooting some down. Do you mean Covenant and humans? Because I don't remember that being confirmed either. -- Viewdrix 21:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't recall anything in the video saying that the Elites and Humans have formed an alliance. It was mentioned, however, that the Elites have "left the Covenant." If need be I'll go to the video and give a minute-second reference. Amalga 03:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

On Xbox Marketplace, they state right on the Vidoc description that the Humans and Covenant have joined forces. hehehe JAF1970 04:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

On the XBM's video description... and where is Bungie's word on the matter? XBM gets things wrong, you know. I've read many of their movie descriptions and some are already off--who's to say they're not errant with this as well? The video itself is the source--not XBM's summaries. Amalga 05:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, this is pretty funny. Let's take this in steps: 1. Halo 2 ends with Johnson and Arbiter cooperating to kill the final boss. 2. The Vidoc says the Elites have left the Covenant. 3. The Arbiter learns the true nature of the rings. 4. The description says humans and elites have joined forces. So... what do you think the Elites would do if they left the Covenant - wander around aimlessly? Take on the Covenant themselves? Old detective line: if it sounds like a duck, looks like a duck, smells like a duck... IT'S A DUCK. JAF1970 05:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

What exactly is the Vidoc description? After all, the Elites in Ghosts of Onyx have no intentions of joining up with the humans even after leaving the Covenant; in fact, they even say that they are forming their own version of the Covenant. Peptuck 06:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Obviously you've never gone hunting; it obviously smells like a duck, looks like one, and sounds like one--of course, you find out the hard way that it's a decoy and you have an arrow protruding out of your neck.

The Elites are self-sufficient, a species dependent on its own kind to survive. They don't need the Covenant, and they don't need the UNSC. Granted, there may be a truce--an agreement between the Elites (and their companions) and the UNSC to put off their own skirmishes for now in favor of their collective survival. Truce =/= Alliance. This is hardly "omg r ppl sux k& we b frendz?" The only reason you're presenting your "detective" argument is because you were called out on lack of sufficient proof, and now you're lashing. Weasel the words "omg Covenant + Humans lol" out of Bungie's mouth, and concede I shall. Bungie has the final word, not XBM's editors. End of story. Amalga 06:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to agree. The XBM description states that the alliance is "tenative", which means it is neither stable, permenant, nor enduring at that point, and it doesn't necessarily mean that it is all-inclusive; it could simply be referring to the Arbiter's joining with the humans at the end of Halo 2. As I keep saying, the remainder of the Elites, particularly in Ghosts of Onyx, are very, very willing to shoot humans. Peptuck 07:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that there appears to be a revamped HUD in the Vidoc... 72.83.118.187 22:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The only HUD shots you see are taken from Halo 2 gameplay. The only scenes from actual H3 gameplay are near the end, and there is no HUD visible (but there is a shotgun, which looks different). Ourai ^т _с 23:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that there is a video on 1up that shows the revamped hud. I will try to find the video. They said that the shield bar was moved to the top, that the radar was now a little bit oblong, and that the outline of the helmet could be seen. I think it was the video analysis of the "Et Tu, Brute?" vid doc. - da newb 10:06 PM 10 January 2007

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Da newb (talk • contribs) 03:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

That barely even qualifies as real gameplay footage. With all the placeholders visible in the clip, it's obviously a very rough representation of gameplay used only to demonstrate the new Brute AI. Amalga 05:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

On another note of the vidoc, can anyone explain why you see grunts in formation around brutes even though they have alligned with the elites?Skynet1216 16:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Because they're not all aligned with the Elites. Peptuck 21:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Sided with the prophets...

 Jackals
 Brutes
 Drones
 Grunts?
 Sided with the seperatists
 Hunters
 Elites
 Grunts?
 Humans
 That is my conclusion. I agree that the grunts will follow both sides.
User:Moviemaker 12:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Clean-up

I really think that the whole article needs cleanup. We're just adding new information in a new section each time. The "Et tu Brute" information, for example, should go in the gameplay or confirmed elements section. It's starting to become a very messy page... --Ras29 22:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, but besides going through and organizing the info a little more/deleting older stuff, I'm frankly for leaving it more or less as it is. When the game actually comes out we'll be deleting 99% of the current info. David Fuchs(talk • contribs) 01:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Update: I went through and shredded the article; I deleted info about the release date which was obviously out of date, and there was some trailer stuff that i moved. It should read a little better now. David Fuchs(talk • contribs) 18:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Cool. Looks good! --Ras29 09:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Brute Ranks

Hey guys, when I was watching the ViDoc yesterday, I saw something interesting. Everyone knows that there is three known ranks:

• Brute Minor/Regular
• Brute Captain
• Brute Chieftain

Well, i've found out that within these ranks, are a number of sub-ranks. What I mean is that we all know each of the ranks official colors: Regular(Blue), Captain (Red), and Chieftain (Gold). But each of these ranks has different Brutes with different Armor. Here are the additional colors I found:

• Brute Minor/Regular (Green)
• Brute Captain (Green and Blue)
• Brute Chieftain (Red)

I'm thinking that each of those colors either is a symbol of their unit, or a higher rank in that rank class. I'd like to hear your thoughts as well. Thank you for reading. Tonster 17:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Probably true but it is too speculative to put into this article. We'll have to wait and see. If someone can find a source though... - da newb 10:12, 10 January 2007

Hunters with loyalists?

It seems unlikely that the hunters would remain in the covenant considering they are allied with the elites and not the covenant as a whole. At the end of halo 2 the elites were not just breaking off by themselves, the hunters and the grunts had sided with them. Is there some source for the inclusion of the grunts and the hunters with the other 'covenant faithful?' Tetracycloide 18:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The game itself is the source. On the level, "The Great Journey," a squad of Hunters aid you against the Brutes. Also, later in the level, a couple of Hunters are imprisoned by the Brutes and it's up to you to free them. It makes sense, because Hunters and Elites hold each other in high respect due to how they treat each other on the battlefield. Where did you read that they did otherwise? Asides from the Elites, the Hunters seem to bear either resentment or apathy towards the other Covenant castes. Amalga 21:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Grunts are fighting alongside Brutes in Gravemind, High Charity, and the Vidoc. Peptuck 02:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not positive, but I'm pretty sure there are Grunts on both sides of the Civil war. Probably because they are mearly a slave race they will take orders from either. It probably just depended on where they were at the start of it. As for Hunters, they are deeply respectful of the Elite race. Hunters would only converse with Elites before the Civil war. I doubt they like the Brutes if not hate them for their attempted genocide of the Elites."Cast in the name of God, ye not guilty" 03:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Seems like everyone that has posted here agrees with me, that the hunters would follow the elites and do what they did. so i feel compelled to ask again, why are they listed under the 'covenant loyalists' along side the brutes? Tetracycloide 18:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The Hunters aren't listed with the Covenant Loyalists in the "Confirmed Elements" section. Unless there's another part of the article that states that they remained loyal. Now, we DO know that not all Grunts left with the Elites--some did remain loyal to the Prophets. But as far as Hunters go, I myself don't know of any evidence stating that they remained with the Covenant. Amalga 04:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

They aren't listed there anymore but they where when i posted about it. Tetracycloide 19:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

XBOX LIVE PUBLIC

Bungie has confirmed to EGM that players will be able to make their custom games public whenever they decide to create a lobby within Halo 3. Here are the links: http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3155452 http://www.1up.com/do/previewPage?cId=3155479 - Shady_Joe

As per the rules stated in the first post, new topics are to be made at the bottom of the page. Please remember this in the future--also, please remember to sign your posts using four tildes "~". Even though this is old news, I've inserted the information to the "Other Confirmed Facts" section of the article. Amalga 06:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

To person editing "we lost him"

That refers to them thinking he is dead. The chief responds by saying "not yet." Obviously if they lost contact with him then he can't dispute that. But if they think he is dead and he isn't then that response would be appropiate, you can dispute being dead if you are still alive, but not losing contact if you clearly have. ALSO IF HE CAN STILL HEAR THEM THEN CONTACT COULDN'T HAVE BEEN LOST!!!!!

Also the aircrafts are banshees. That has been confirmed. Now I just have to find it. But why the heck would they change? It hasn't been confirmed they are anything else so therefore they are banshees. Can you prove they are aircraft? What if they were just there? Maybe they were natural structures? So if they aren't banshees then they aren't aircrafts. Superbowlbound 20:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The Chief's reply ("Not yet") was not a communications broadcast. Therefore, his reply was simply a soliloquy (a speech made to no one but himself). The comment, "I think we lost him" was made when a Marine had attempted to establish contact and received no reply, due to the fact that the Chief's helmet was on the ground. There was no inference as to his death--simply that they are unaware of his current position and are unable to establish contact. If you are trying to contact army personnel and are unable to do so, then you have lost contact. The clip isn't suggesting that they believe he's dead--they obviously don't even know where the Chief is or what has happened to him. He simply is not responding.

Use common sense. If the Chief had actually broadcast a message to the Marines to inform them of his position, he would have received some sort of confirmation. A broadcast message entails a response from at least one personnel unless the order to maintain radio silence was given, something obviously worthless at this point.

And it should be obvious enough--the Marines know that the Chief does not die so easily. Any suggestion of his death would incite panic because of his importance alone.

And if you're going to call them Banshees, cite your source--just because you call them Banshees does not constitute "confirmation." They're clearly aircraft--they're flying and are not organic lifeforms. Goodness, by your logic, UNSC Longswords wouldn't be considered aircraft, either. Fail.

Quit talking like everyone's a moron but you, and learn some tact. The article's purpose is to inform--not "sound cool" like what you're obviously trying to accomplish by adding unnecessary dramatics. Oh, and typing in all capital letters doesn't make you smart or correct. Amalga 05:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

A few things: First, how am I trying to make the article sound cool? Second, how does he hear the marine if his helmet is off? (Wow, genius). Third how do you know the banshees, err aircraft, weren't land vehicles blown into the air by and explosion. And if they were banshees in the announcement trailer then why wouldn't they be banshees here? And when it says aircraft

I think of airplane (clearly the wrong idea). And I know typing in CAPS doesn't make me sound cool, loser, its so you notice that I added something and so that you see something is there. Superbowlbound 20:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

He hears the Marine because "we lost him" was said when he already had gotten his helmet back on (wow, genius). "Third how do you know the banshees, err aircraft, weren't land vehicles blown into the air by and explosion" You're the one who said they were Banshees, Cletus. You were asked for citation and failed to provide such. Aircraft refers to any, and all, manned or unmanned vehicles that--gasp--fly; if all you can think of is United Airlines, your brain needs fixin'. "omg master chief dead but he isnt" Yeah, unneeded dramatics. Your logic = fail. And sign your posts. Amalga 19:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

"The comment, "I think we lost him" was made when a Marine had attempted to establish contact and received no reply, due to the fact that the Chief's helmet was on the ground. " I was repyling to that actually. Read the rest of the post before rebuttling me next time. Also you can't prove the banshees, err Unitified objects, were flying. And tell me honestly, does anyone believe that it isn't a banshee. I could find 2000 examples of extrapolation of wikipedia that use this same method, but you are the only person that can't understand it. " "omg master chief dead but he isnt" Yeah, unneeded dramatics. Your logic = fail." umm, I didn't say that and how is that dramatic? They think he's dead but he isn't. Its fact, but only you think that is refers to contact. Answer me why he would repond by saying "not yet" if they were refering to contact. Then this can end. Please answer my post after reading all of them this time. It can save a lot of trouble. Superbowlbound 20:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Who gives a ****? Why not say something like... "The marine the says 'I think we lost him,' leaving it up to the viewer to interpret what it means."--NJ Rock 06:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Well then maybe there shouldn't be any speculation? It only seems fair. Its not confirmed they think either way. Superbowlbound 18:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

"Answer me why he would repond by saying "not yet" if they were refering to contact. Then this can end" People talk to themselves. It's called a monologue--speaking as if talking to someone, but in reality it's nothing more than thinking out loud. Ever been driving with somebody who has road rage, yet contains it within the confines of the vehicle? They sure aren't talking to anybody.

"Its fact, but only you think that is refers to contact." vs "Well then maybe there shouldn't be any speculation? It only seems fair. Its not confirmed they think either way." First, you tell me it's fact that they think he's dead, and now you refer to it as unconfirmed speculation. If it's unconfirmed, why did you insert it into the article in the first place? I didn't write the "lost contact" bit because I believe that was the actual case--rather that it is an objective, unbiased description of what was happening. Seeing as we, the viewers, have a better idea of what has happened to Master Chief, there is absolutely no reason or call for speculation on what the Marines "think" happened--it's irrelevant. Death, unconsciousness, damaged equipment--for whatever reason, Master Chief was not responding. Obviously they can't contact the Chief--hence, "loss of contact." Oh, and you started this argument--after your clearly speculated viewpoint was removed from the article, you chose to contest it knowing that it was unconfirmed. Amalga 22:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Alright. I had to read the article a several times over to figure out how to work this all in, but I've revised the opening section of paragraph 4 to be as objective and unbiased as possible. I wrote the "lost him" bit back in because it needed to work with Master Chief's quote ("Not yet") in the article.
--Upon regaining his composure, the Chief takes note of a nearby Assault Rifle and stows the weapon away. The voices of unidentified Marines are heard over the radio; an urgent voice gives the order to fall back. A following dialogue indicates that the Chief is unaccounted for; it appears that the Marines have "lost him." Gazing at a strange cloud formation in the distance he replies, "Not yet".--
That should do it. It gives favor to neither side of this debate and still gives the necessary information to understand what's going on. The situation is dire, they don't know what happened to the Chief, and obviously he knows he's not hurt too badly and he can hear them just fine. No one needs to know what the Marines think happened, and no one needs to know whether or not the Chief just broadcast a reply or is talking to himself.

SuperBowlBound, it is not that you were incorrect. It is the fact that you entered information knowing that it was your own speculation alone--speculation that wasn't needed to understand the video. If it was indeed confirmed, then all you needed to do was cite your source--something I asked you to do before this debate even got started. So if you have official confirmation, give it. Otherwise, wait until you do. It could have been simply left at that. This is not in any way intended to accuse, but rather to provide some insight as to why I called you out. Amalga 23:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, who would have thought something so small as "what are the things in the sky?" would attract such heated debate? i freeze-framed it, and quite frankly they look like Pelican's providing air support to me. I'm not saying that's what they are, only what they look like. and the master Chief doesn't need a helmet to communicate. remember the thing they have in the back of their heads? they have to do something, am i right? and i agree that putting unsourced information is just asking for trouble, but put the poor guy some slack! SpecOps306

I gave plenty of slack. The initial act was that he put in unnecessary, unsourced information, so I edited it out and left a note there telling him why. It could have just been left alone, but he just had to argue.

And you're thinking of the neural implants--I know they store information but I don't know if they're built to actually contact anybody. I admit on my errant statement about Master Chief's helmet being on the ground--but I stand on my case. It was unnecessary information, and the aircraft were named without citation or confirmation, and that's why it was edited out. While I disagree with any suggestion of death, I never said he was wrong--I simply disagreed and felt it wholly unnecessary to claim what the Marines were thinking at the time. End of story. It's been edited to reflect no speculation whatsoever, so let it die. Amalga 05:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not confirmed fact that the aircraft are banshees, and even frame by frame they're blurred (to me like blurry banshees). However, pelicans do not leave air trails, and the aircraft in the promo clearly do, which means they can't be pelicans. It's not likely they're Longswords since those have never been used planet-side in any books, and Seraphs haven't been seen in the halo games at all, nor in use planet-side either. So, by process of elimination, and the facts that at 28 seconds, there are plasma shots coming from the sky and both banshees and these aircraft leave contrails, the aircraft are banshees.

Also, the neural implants definitely aren't radios, otherwise Spartans just wouldn't have radios in their helmets at all. Dan Guan 03:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

CITE IT. This should never have to be said over and over again. If you're going to stick a name in the article, CITE IT. Otherwise, leave it alone. The article isn't the place to push your opinions. If you think it's a Banshee and have no REAL evidence (evidence ≠ "I think it is"), then leave it on the talk page and out of the article. Amalga 04:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

It's really fun and pointless to argue over one word, but my point is that they are banshees because they can't be anything else; plasma shoots down at the ground from the sky at 0:28 seconds, and they leave trails in the sky in the ad, just like banshees. Also, they look like banshees, but w/e, Amalga, you probably won't ever change your mind because it's too minor a thing to be exactly supported by released info from Bungie. No offense or anything. So the word will probably stay as aircraft forever. Dan Guan 00:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The insertion of Banshees into the game is already confirmed to begin with. Whether or not those aircraft were Banshees, which I think they are, has absolutely no sway on what the commercial reveals. I'm not the one getting all hung up "over one word." You are. You edited it thinking you knew everything about the world, and are now throwing a hissy fit because someone said you didn't, just like the person before you. Rules are rules--if you're naming something that isn't readily obvious to the human eye, cite it. If not, leave it alone. You failed to acknowledge this, and that's why your edit was removed. Offended? Cry me a river. Amalga 01:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Lol, I began my response with "It's really fun and pointless to argue over one word", and I put together stuff that I thought was obvious, but it clearly wasn't. You seem to like exaggerating. I couldn't not respond to your rant, to clarify, so feel free to type a short "You're still stupid" or something and this almost flame war can end. Dan Guan 01:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

This "almost flame war" would have ended before it began if everyone didn't insist on arguing that their uncited insertions are perfect and canonical. Your edit was taken out because it was uncited and based on what you think is infallible logic. Everyone seems to assume that because I took it out, I think they're something else. I think they're Banshees--heck, I know they're Banshees. Does it matter what they are? Is it obvious what they are? No. That's why they're not given specific mention. You're the one who just had to make a fuss. You're the one who took it here. You're the one who perpetuated the debate after you failed to recognize a simple rule. Quit your martyr act. Amalga 02:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Although I still don't agree with you, I didn't post that stuff... Superbowlbound 01:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

End. Dan Guan 04:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The Release Date (Again...)

For the last time, people, Bungie has announced nothing regarding a release date besides a vague "2007." Until Bungie announces a specific season, month, or date, don't modify the page to state otherwise. I have seen everything from "November x, 2007" to "Fall 2007" and even the recent changing of the release date to a simple "TBA" with no year attached (odd, considering that the only thing we know about the release date is that it will be sometime in 2007). While the public beta's Spring release reduces the possible release dates (Winter/Q1 '07 is out, obviously), any guesses of a specific release date or even a month or season is just that: a guess. Furthermore, any and all release dates provided by retailers or any non-Bungie source is in no way to be regarded as anything remotely official or accurate. Just because Gamestop says "November" doesn't make it so.

I realtered the release date in the template box to read "2007", and it should remain that way until Bungie announces something more specific. JGoodman 14:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, is it really necessary to add a bunch of unofficial release dates provided by retailers, etc.? JGoodman 03:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

There is also a post about a web page called PLAY.COM which says that the release date is 27/04/2007 Link--> [7] 71.226.113.58 04:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Completely irrelevant. PLAY.com is NOT Bungie. They're just another retailer. The release date they provide may as well have been made up by fanboy on a video game forum. Is there something about "Bungie has not announced a release date" that people don't understand? JGoodman 04:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

No Halo 3 Iraq Photos

You can find them on Halo related sites, but don't post em here. darthbob 23:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we don't need to post them, but we could at least add a line noting that Bungie has allowed real time testing by people not in their office and drop a link to a site with pics. 69.51.65.60 18:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

No. First of all, it's not official--the amount of fan content on Wikipedia, and especially in this case, needs to be kept at a minimum. It's also strange enough that Bungie themselves haven't exactly said anything about the leaked footage. Until they do, it's just not safe to be putting that up here, especially from unreliable sources. Amalga 00:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Some Cleanup

• The contraversy over "Sword"/"Source" has died down enough to just leave the link- fix'd.
• The references section is waaayyy too long- and a lot of the references are just pointers to other references. Can we just leave some of these as external links, without a footnote? To back this up, 90% of these troublesome errors are just links to articles discussing videos, or to Bungie Weekly Updates. We have links to the videos, and HBO has a weekly update search engine- so all of those footnotes are superflous in the first place.gspawn 17:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• And after trying to start this on the sword/source reference, I found out that link is in fact also broken. Along with redoing the cites, all of the links needs rechecked. I don't have the time now, or I'd do it myself.gspawn 17:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Properly sourcing "confirmed" elements.

When adding material to the "Confirmed Elements" section, please be sure than you give the proper sources. For example someone added the MA5K assault rifle featured in Ghosts of Onyx to the list, but they gave Halopedia as their source. Halopedia, a fan-made wiki, did not provide a source of its own when claiming that the MA5K will appear in Halo 3. So far, the only confirmed assault rifle is the MA5C. Another person included "unknown Brute weapon" in the list. While properly sourced as being seen in the vidoc, the weapon in question was a poorly-rendered one from the pre-alpha build. I doubt this qualifies as a "confirmed weapon" as it really could be anything (e.g. an early Spiker model) or simply a placeholder weapon. JGoodman 03:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Game engine

Has Bungie announced which game engine they will be using? --Ras29 06:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Er, technically, yes. It's the "Halo 3" engine. Bungie produces 90% of their content in-house with homebrew tools- often directly coded by or with the cooperation of Mat Noguchi. This certainly includes two in-house tools- Sapien and Gorilla- that are used to do most of the work. Anyone who has Halo:Custom Edition (the PC one) will be very familiar. These tools get completely rewritten and upgraded for each new Halo game. Bungie also licenses the Havok physics engine for ragdol effects and such as of Halo 2. So basically, it's the "Halo 3 engine" is the H2 engine, rebilt, with new tools, plus Havok (again). Make sense? 209.153.128.248 21:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I thought I had read somehwere they used one of the versions of Unreal. Just clearing that up. Thanks. --Ras29 04:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)