Talk:Halo Infinite

RfC (Request for Comments): Is it too early to create Halo Infinite? (2018)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This way we can have more than only one opinion.

Is it too early to create a page for Halo Infinite? Editorguy117 (talk) 02:48, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

• Yes. This doesn't need an RfC. Read WP:TOOSOON. Other than a 2 minutes trailer and some very minor details, nothing has been revealed. Refbombing the article with 2 dozens sources that all say the same thing ("Halo Infinite was announced!") but don't actually offer any substantial information does not mean create a separate article. There is not even a release window for the game yet. No reason why you can't just expand the 1 line section on the franchise article until actual information and concrete details are available. --The1337gamer (talk) 06:12, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
• This sort of question should be resolved at WP:AFD, not via an RFC (or edit warring). This is what AFD is for. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:12, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
• Yes. It is way too soon to have an article for it. A RFC is not needed for this. AdrianGamer (talk) 15:33, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Just wanted to ensure that WP:OWN was enacted

Needed more than one opinion due to WP:OWN, thanks! Editorguy117 (talk) 02:55, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

This has nothing to with WP:OWN. There is nothing to "own" here; it's a redirect. And I certainly did not revert the creation of this article without a good reason. The topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. There simply is not enough information on the topic to warrant having a separate article yet. And note that notability is not inherited; just because it has "Halo" in the title, doesn't mean it automatically qualifies for having an article immediately. Note that Halo 5: Guardians didn't get an article until almost year after its initial announcement. It was repeatedly reverted back to a redirect because it was too soon for an article. --The1337gamer (talk) 17:11, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

On the new Xbox

Beevil, your rationale behind your recent revision was that the description of the upcoming fourth-generation Xbox consoles as "fourth-generation Xbox consoles" "[only made] sense if the Xbox One was referred to in this article as the third generation Xbox." The third-generation platform is called "Xbox One", and its consoles are called "Xbox One", "Xbox One S", and "Xbox One X" respectively. So really, saying Halo Infinite will be released specifically on the Xbox Series X warrants the description of the game being released for Xbox One, Xbox One S, and Xbox One X as well. Related discussions on this topic can be found at Talk:Xbox Series X and Categories for Discussion. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 22:40, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Honestly, we'll have to see how Xbox One titles are promoted/packaged after Series X is released. Microsoft has just thrown a very confusing wrench into the machine: listing both platforms separately implicates, per previous precedent of console compatibility, that the Xbox Series X requires a different SKU of the game in order to run it. How it's being explained right now appears to implicate that there would only be a singular version of the game, that would run at stronger graphics settings/etc. if run on Series X than normal Xbox models, much like the existing concept of games that can be "Xbox One X Enhanced". In fact, the XGS head outright compared their new approach to PCs (i.e. basically, having minimum "system requirements" abstracted via the model line). However, we cannot simply say the game runs on "Xbox", since that could incorrectly suggest compatibility with the original model from way back when. ViperSnake151  Talk  17:01, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Sperasoft as developer

Hi - I added Sperasoft as a co-developer for Halo Infinite in the development section. Halo Infinite is being developed by 343 Industries with assistance from Skybox Labs and Sperasoft.[19][20]

Someone seems to have removed Sperasoft and the source, despite this being confirmed multiple times by 343, Sperasoft themselves and news outlets. Sperasoft even appears elsewhere on the wikipedia page. I would edit Sperasoft back in to correct the mistake/vandalism but the page has been locked. Can someone please update the development section accordingly?

Sources:

https://sperasoft.com/news/2020/08/sperasoft-collaborates-343-industries-halo-infinite-development/ https://www.windowscentral.com/sperasoft-support-studio-halo-infinite — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.8.30 (talk) 15:47, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Progression

I think we should at least have that the progression system is controversial and that fans want it to be better, and say why, rather than just "fans criticized the progression" I will add the reasons why. I think it's only fair that people know that 64.107.56.5 (talk) 18:29, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

We cover what's listed in reliable sources according to due weight of coverage. There's sources that exist in the article mentioning the battle pass is a point of disagreement, but in terms of listing more articulated complaints from players we'd need the sources to do it, beyond just the sentiment of forums or Twitter threads. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Bloomberg article on development?

Recently, Jason Schreier wrote an article on Halo Infinite's development. Could it be used? https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-12-08/how-microsoft-s-halo-infinite-went-from-disaster-to-triumph

Bloomberg is a good source so I don't see why not. If you want to include aspects that are more the author's opinion than actual information about the games' development such opinions should only be included if there is a large portion of the video game journalism community that shares the same sentiments. For example, when it says in the Wikipedia article that many saw the game as a return to form for the series that was fine to include because most journalists seem to hold that view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrGoldenfold007 (talk • contribs) 13:50, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

It would be fine as a reliable source. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:53, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Development, contractors

The Bloomberg article states that "... contract workers to the point of making up half the studio according to estimates.". I have personal knowledge that it was above 60%. Is this a significant difference? Can personal, though accurate, information be used? Also due to COVID some contractor periods were extended to 21 months. BRS (talk) 02:39, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

@Brskl: Unfortunately not, we don't allow original research. You'd need to find to find a reliable source that says this. — Manticore 10:53, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Craig the Brute into Halo Infinite#Pre-release

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was no conesnsus. One major argument for merging, two saying it should be cut down, and two opposing albeit lightly This has been opened long enough. Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:52, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

---

It seems like this Brute meme article does not say very much that is not already explained in the Halo Infinite article and there is a significant WP:OVERLAP. The meme did not travel very far beyond Halo fans and was a flash-in-the-pan sort of thing that was largely forgotten about later. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:47, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I honestly don't have a real opinion on this as the creator of the Craig the Brute article and I'm not opposed to a merge, but in my opinion some details within the article would be undue to incorporate here. There is a lot of coverage on the specifics of 343 embracing the meme in a non-trivial manner, but shoving all of it into an article meant to solely be about the game could potentially be undue. I feel that there is some justification to keep it separate. NegativeMP1 15:59, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

I think the level of detail is definitely excessive for this article, but there's not really enough meat for a standalone article. A summary of a few lines in the vein of "Made memes making fun of the game, 343 referenced it in the game" covers it fine. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:32, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Agree with both Zxcvbnm and David Fuchs. OceanHok (talk) 07:31, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Although there is some overlap, I don't think merging the two would result in a better reading experience as a whole package. Imoutofchoices (talk) 17:32, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Weak oppose There's surprisingly enough sourcing to make this less of a notability issue and more a pragmatic one on overlap. Time fading the relevance of a meme is not really relevant so long as there was, at one point or other, significant coverage about the phenomenon, which seems to be the case. That said, I agree that the key hook is that the fan reaction to the trailer had some relationship to delays and changes to the visual design of the game, and this could be covered under the game's development section. I guess my contention is that doing so would probably place undue significance on the influence of the meme on the development process, or whittle away quite a lot of sourcing that is fine in its own standalone article. But there's certainly merit in a merge. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 12:31, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.