Talk:Halo 3/Archive 10

message: Comment: I'm not opposed to the review because he badmouths Halo 3 (although he is making some moronic blanket statements). But (going on what I was talking about earlier) NPOV does not entail "Ooh, this was the lowest rated review, let's put in a paragraph dedicated to that." This article should provide critical commentary- saying "Halo 3 is really just Halo 2.5" is a useless, throwaway quote. Will casual readers have played Halo 2, so they have a basis of comparison? No. Instead, we should address specific criticism- so in other words, you can put in "Herold said "the game never achieves the visual heights of top Xbox 360 games like BioShock and Gears of War" because that addresses a specific complaint. David Fuchs (talk) 11:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have got to be kidding me. Just because YOU think that Halo is the best game ever, doesn't mean that bad reviews do not exist. And that review being POV!?! Reviews and ALL critics reviews are by their pure ESSENCE the critics point of view. "Will casual readers have played Halo 2, so they have a basis of comparison?"... what a load of BS! This other quote is in there that glorifies Halo 3 "Halo 3 transcends video games. It is a global entertainment experience. Just as Lord of the Rings: Return of the King and Spider-Man 3 brought to a close two of the most lucrative and epic film trilogies of all time" is useless too because will casual readers have seen those movies? Will the casual reader even know what an Xbox is? Your logic defies belief, you Microsoft circle jerk buddies just want to remove every negative statement and replace them all with positive ones. Wikipedia is NOT your own personal wank fest for only the games you love. JayKeaton 14:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I read David's latest point differently: He's arguing about wording and length of the criticism, not that it should be excluded. I think that the "Halo 2.5" criticism is accessible enough to be understood by a general audience, but I do agree that (a) we don't need to spend an entire paragraph on it (I've yet to see a featured article that spends a whole paragraph on a single contemporary review), and (b) it would better to elaborate with specific points, so as not to leave the reader asking, "In what way was that comparison meant? Graphics? Gameplay? Both?" Lastly, can we please stop throwing around personal derogatory opinions, both about reviewers and fellow editors? — TKD::Talk 18:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for interpreting me correctly... I never said the review was POV like it was a bad thing- I'm simply stating that there is more to NPOV than throwing quotes from both sides of the fence at an issue. If he's referring to Halo 2's graphics, then sure, but that should be explicitly stated, otherwise it does little to illuminate criticism of the game itself. David Fuchs (talk) 19:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't care which you add, just that you address not the reviews, but the complaints. Herold is disappointed by the "throwaway" story, as is Jon Wilcox. You can summarize those in a sentence or two: "Total Video Games (or reviewers for, whatever syntax) and New York Times found fault in the "throwaway" plot and ultimately dissapointing campaign.(refs here) And I'm not saying the waxing going on in the positive section is great, either; it certainly needs to be cut down. David Fuchs (talk) 22:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I would ask that you not make personal attacks or assumptions about me or other editors you are in disagreement with here, Jay, because frankly it makes you look foolish. For your information, I do not work for Microsoft. I have been a Mac user since the Mac IIci. And your comments completely disregarded my point. Wikipedia is not a collection of quotes. Wikipedia is not supposed to echo one reviewer's comments for a paragraph. Does the 'positive' comments/criticisms sections need to be cleaned up? Yes, I'm in the process of making reference tags out of the reception table and using that to source, and then I'll remove the pointless comments. I'm sorry if I'm not anti-Halo enough for you; I'm simply trying to get this article up to decent quality, but there are only so many hours in a day and only so many helpful editors. David Fuchs (talk) 00:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was not a personal attack, it was an evaluation of your invested bias into the Halo franchise which my effect your better judgment when it comes to being NPOV in the development of articles JayKeaton 01:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It absolutely was a personal attack - one of several above. Your attitude here has been less than helpful, to say the least.  You really need to tone down the ad hominen vitriol and limit your discussion to the article itself. -- Satori Son 12:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Section break

message: It describes the backword recording process, and it's rubish how they did it. It needs grammar cleanup and correction. You don't have to start over playing a film from a slayer game and various others. I know you have to start over from campaign films, and you can't record them either. I don't think you can record in reverse, just jump backwords while NOT recording. This ALSO needs references, so I think it should be removed until corrected and cited. Wolvereness 18:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can, infact, go backwards while not recording.  It's called rewind. Tabor 02:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

text: You cannot actually "rewind", you can only "skip" back. Also some game modes do not let you rewind at all JayKeaton 02:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The confusion here stems from the fact that you are NOT viewing a film. What you are seeing is rendered in real time by the games engine. Since the graphics cannot be rendered in reverse, it must skip back and re-render sections instead of rewinding. The reason you can't pluck small sections out of campaign is due to the way the game engine redoes the level and has to re-trigger events and such. Given enough time, I'm sure this could have been done, but it wasn't.157.174.221.167 19:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recording 

message: Why do the Covenant attack the humans?  I know about the great Journy and everything, but what does it have to do with the humans?  Is it because of the teleporter thing on Earth in Halo 3? Moenbro 19:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The covenant attacked the humans due to the prophets seeing them to be similar to the forrunners, and more importantly, a threat. Thusly they were named an affront to the gods.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.245.38.202 (talk) 19:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Read the books. Stupidone0 22:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Do not read the books, they cannot be considered canon to the official Halo games. The games explain that the prophets see the humans as heretics to their religion so the humans must be exterminated JayKeaton 14:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually the official books are considered canon, as they follow the "Halo Bible" set out by Bungie. This effectively amounts to Bungie being part of the book-writing process, checking facts against the otherwise unreleased facts, and cross-referencing so that already-released facts stay as facts. The Official books are official, and thus canon. Tar7arus 15:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

text: They do have nothing to do with the article. But the fine folks at Bungie have stated that the books are canon. David Fuchs (talk) 00:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Joseph Staten says the books are canon  (the 3rd last question). James086Talk | Email 02:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I am talking about the books that are published, with Bungie logos on them, endorsed by Bungie. These: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7. None other than those. All 7 of them are canon. It doesn't matter if the authors didn't know the plot of Halo 3. Unless in Halo 3 it directly contradicts something said in one of the books then it doesn't invalidate their information. Bungie hadn't written the story of Halo 2 and 3 when the first game was made, does that mean that the original Halo is not canon? No, the same applies for the books. If they were no longer canon a Bungie employee, most likely Frankie, would have said so. James086Talk | Email 12:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Actally, judging by the connections between Ghosts of Onyx and Halo 3, Nylund did know some of the secrets of Halo 3. Peptuck 13:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The forerunners have been extinct for 10 000 years, so they can't directly communicate with the Covenant. Also if you play through Halo 3 and read the terminals you learn that the forerunners seeded Earth and the last Forerunner planned to live out the rest of his days on Mount Kilimanjaro. Humans are also the descendants of the Forerunners according to 343 Guilty Spark. James086Talk | Email 09:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Joe Staten himself - one of Bungie's big story gurus - is writing Contact Harvest; he's had the HSB since day one. Peptuck 15:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Covenant 

message: I've added a section detailing the future of the Halo story-arc post-Plot. Feel free to edit it so that it conforms to Wiki's guidlines if need be.--NLUT  —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 14:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Future of the Story

message: The first sales reports for Halo 3 are in for the UK. It turns out that Halo 3 is not the fastest selling game in UK history, a game called "Grand Theft Auto San Andreas" was three years ago and still holds that record. We may need to start down playing the exagerated awesomeness of Halo 3 now that reality starts setting in JayKeaton 16:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Source? If true we need to fine tune what records were set. Was it the fastest in the UK, the US, the world, by preorders or by first day sales, etc.? The one there is no debate about is the monetary value, which while being less impressive due to inflation and pricing differences, is still an accomplishment of note.157.174.221.167 19:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  really inflation should be calculated in if it is for all time. also will halo3 sales be determined of cost of game * number of halo 3 copies sold or cost of game * number of copies sold + # of halo3 accoesories sold * cost of those accessories (ie the legendary edition helmet and such) 74.104.90.230 20:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Its English Language, not geographical area. Just as these figures shouldn't be US-centric, they should not be UK-centric either. Nobody (that anyone is listening to) is saying that Halo is the fasest selling game of all time. The record in question is whether it made the most amount of money in a 24 hour period than any other game, movie, book, etc. By all accounts it did break this record. If you have sources otherwise, please provide them, but please stay on topic to the record we are talking about.157.174.221.167 19:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But the statements about sales can imply that it is the fastest selling game, and if you google "fastest selling" and "halo 3" there is a lot of interest about it world wide JayKeaton 21:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome to the internet. Almost everyone of those stories are written by American writers and intended for American audiences. Just because other people around the world can read it as well, does not mean that it must cater to them. I'm not saying its right, but thats the way it is. Also I must retract my previous statement. They are now saying that Halo3 is the fastest selling game in US history by dollar amount by making $300 mil in the first week. these records are not false just because they are stated a certain way. Every media outlet does this for everything. This game is no exception. As I said before, to try and say it did not reach the record would cause more confusion and misunderstanding than stating it the way every other entertainment company does.157.174.221.168 17:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: First sales reports in

message: Quote from the Halo 2 article:
Halo 2 for Windows Vista will link with the Games for Windows - Live network and have some interoperability with the Xbox Live network, as stated in the new FAQ section of Windows Vista flavor of the popular game on Bungie's official website. Bungie has stated that it will also have networking features of its own, resembling Halo PC's inclusion of free internet capabilities. This did not happen. Halo 2 released with LAN support, but Live is required for any Internet gaming.
This idea bother's me. Microsoft make Halo 3, but it was only developed only for the Xbox 360. No Windows XP, no Windows Vista, just Xbox 360. That means that Microsoft didn't include a Windows port for this game. For people who like the Halo trilogy, they must buy an Xbox 360 system. Should this be considered a Criticism?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Megamanfan3 (talk • contribs) 18:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Halo 2 for Windows didn't come out until 2007 (the game was originally released in 2004). If you can find a reliable review that mentions it, fine, but I think most reviews are focusing on other aspects for criticism. — TKD::Talk 18:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also as a note, Halo PC (halo 1) wasn't released until about 3 years after it's console release either. While it may leave some PC gamers feeling alienated, it is by no means a new concept for game publishers and is actually the rule more often than the exception.157.174.221.167 19:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Xbox Live-Games for Windows Live Interconntectivity 

message: umm, why are we skipping 2 level (22 % of the game btw)? I condensed two paragraphs to one and shortened them substantially. However we should still include something such as what i wrote. Please explain Superbowlbound 22:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Frankly, it's not important. Plot summaries should be just that; plot summaries. The master chief gets up, fights the baddies, and the Flood show up. But all in all not much happens in the first two levels which impact the rest of the plot. David Fuchs (talk) 00:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

text: (update) Ok, the paragraph is much better. But we should probably keep the plot at or under six paragraphs. Also, we need to clean up some redundancy- saying 'Truth' and 'Ark' a billion times in a paragraph makes for awkward reading. David Fuchs (talk) 01:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  To the person who keeps removing my paragraph 

message: The idea that this game has actually in fact broken any records shouldn't be mentioned in the article, or atleast add a non-misleading statement.
By only quoting revenue, any recent high-anticipation game be called the "fastest selling game", largely due to inflation.
The List of best selling video games article only uses unit sales, so obviously a source of such for halo 3 is needed, alot of games on that list could well have done better than halo in initial sales, including the much older, best selling ever 1998 half life. Rodrigue 23:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um... Half Life hasn't broken any sales records... Super Mario Bros still holds the top. And no one is saying that it's broken sales records, only gross. Which is just like any movie being #1 in wherever- they are counting ticket revenue and gross, not actual (net) profit. And inflation has nothing to do with how fast a game sells- price is what you are thinking of, maybe? David Fuchs (talk) 01:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove Sales Records section 

message: Someone feels the need to keep posting the 640p figure here. The vast majority of people who look here will simply be confused by this. There is absolutely no way to output anything at that resolution. This is the reason we removed the entry entirely since people kept going back and forth about whether we should put the native resolution, or the available output resolution. The 640p figure really seems to be nothing but fancruft since it won't actually effect the output of the box. Besides then you'd have to explain how the xbox hardware actually renders two different 640p frames (one for textures and one for effects like HDR lighting and such) and then merges then before ever getting to the hardware's upscaling utility that it uses for all its games. In other words, lets just remove it.157.174.221.167 20:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a quick thanks to whomever made the edit. The way it is now should cover all bases.157.174.221.168 17:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "picture format" entry in the table up top 

message: There's a video of the documentary shown on the sci-fi channel over at MLG which might have some useful out-of-universe info. It doesn't seem to work in my browser though so I can't be sure. I'll keep trying but could someone else take a look? James086Talk | Email 09:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm watching it now... so far it just appears to be celebs fawning over it, but there's still 15 minutes to go! David Fuchs (talk) 19:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Halo 3 documentary 

message: I removed an unsourced line saying stores recieved the game "well after" the release date, it was unsourced and I think well after implies more than a few days. Mad031683 18:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Well after the release date" 

message: "Certain vehicles usable in campaign are not available in multiplayer due to balance concerns." This is not true. Can someone please remove it? There was some confusion about the Hornet since it is not on any of the maps by default, but it can be added like any vehicle when setting up a multiplayer game or in the Forge. Also this is not referring to things like the Pelican or the Shadow since it states "usable" and it mentions those in the previous statement.157.174.221.167 19:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the Transport Warthog isn't usable in multiplayer I don't think, so the statement is still accurate. ♦TH1RT3EN talk ♦ contribs 19:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hmm...oh yeah...disregard my stupid moment above.157.174.221.168 16:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Neither is the Anti-Vehicle Warthog or anti-air Wraith, is prowler avaliable? (66.215.77.69 04:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The prowler is available in multiplayer. You can't pilot the anti-air wraith in campaign though. James086Talk | Email 09:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I disagree. My friend and I found out a way to drive an Anti-air wraith. It takes a few tries to get it right. Call me a liar if you want, but that thing kicks. Moenbro 19:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Certain vehicles unusable 

message: i dont know if it would be considerd to be a spoiler or a walkthrough or something but shouldnt the new aurmors be at leats mentioned.  i may not own the game but i know many who do and i have played it.  i figure that they should be under fetures.  it may have been introduced in halo 2 but halo 3 clearly expands on this feture.  any other ideas?--Had24get2ice 16:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that's necessary.--60 Delta 19:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

text: It wasn't introduced in halo 2, its a completely new feature. Maybe a sentence under features would be ok Mad031683 15:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically, it was introduced in halo 2, because what is the elite, but a different set of armour? his gameplay is exactly the same for multiplayer(except for the fact that his head is bigger and his HUD is different).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by AR3tarded tiger (talk • contribs) 18:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The hit-boxes (area which the game recognises a hit when shot at) are identical for elites and spartans, so the only difference is the appearance & HUD. James086Talk | Email 09:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  new aumors 

message: Someone needs to rework the Setting/Story paragraph. Parts of it don't even make sense.
Darthben 17:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Examples? Peptuck 18:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing 

message: There's a billion articles on how it made 300 million in it's first week. Add this in or what?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beatlesaregreaterthangod (talk • contribs) 00:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Need a link for citation first. Stabby Joe 01:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I already did. James086Talk | Email 06:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Don't know why I had to get a cocky response, it was a simple request. Stabby Joe 23:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  There's a billion articles on how it made 300 million in it's first week. Add this in or what? 

message: "Halo 3's campaign encompases ten levels, which complete the storyline of the Halo trilogy."
Aren't there only nine? Oren0 18:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch! There are nine. I corrected that sentence. — TKD::Talk 18:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are 10 if you count the opening cutscene (where Master Chief lands in the jungle). It's listed on the "Select Level" page which is probably why the article said 10. I agree that it should say 9 however because the cutscene doesn't really count. James086Talk | Email 00:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting. I'd count that basically as a prologue (not as a full level). Given that the achievement for completing the last level is an IX (Roman numeral 9), it seems that this is probably the most accurate assessment. — TKD::Talk 05:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ten levels? 

message: [here] is an interesting link about American churces hosting Halo nights to woo in the young people. Not sure if it is relevenet, or it it has even sparked any kinf of serious religious debate, but it was big enough for the New York Times to report on it. Oh wait, someone above said the The Times was not a good source. JayKeaton 00:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's interesting and kind of scary. I think it's worth mentioning, though I'm not sure which section. James086Talk | Email 00:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hallowed be they Holy Rings 

message: Who's the smart guy that put Halo 3 platform's Xbox 360 and Playstation 3, i highly doubt any Halo game is going to come out for a playstation console. Halo 1 and 2 were for xbox because of microsoft's involvement and Microsoft has been in quite a feud with Sony for the past years. I checked the Halo 3 website as well, the case is marked "Only On XBOX 360" So please people keep it for Xbox 360 because thats how it is. Dont Change unless the platform is PC. cuz there is discussion for plans on that.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.96.84.18 (talk) 08:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only platform on the article at this moment is Xbox 360, it was probably vandalism that was quickly removed, this article is one of those topics that are currently hot and it attracts a lot of vandalism. - Caribbean~H.Q. 08:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: PS3?!?

message: Should Someone put something about this being the last Bungie game being made while under the Microsoft Games Label?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071009/ap_en_ot/games_news_bytes;_ylt=AugRRLo1dImnFjSFlfmppegK77EF Mallow's Basement 12:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, (1) they will still be using Microsoft Games as a publisher (just that MS Games won't be a first-party publisher to them), and (2) that information is probably better suited for Bungie Studios, and, to the extent that it affects the development of future Halo-branded games, in Halo (series). — TKD::Talk 14:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bungie Split? 

message: Someone should add the problems that many people are having with Halo 3
Such as the scratched legendary editions and the "failed to load content" problem  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.33.77.65 (talk) 20:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the scratched disks are already mentioned under Versions (it was the limited edition that had the problem, not legendary). As for the failed to load content problem I assume you're talking about the "Failed to download data from the Halo 3 server" message, that's been a fairly minor problem in my experience but do you have a good source for it? Mad031683 21:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Problems

message: The Campaign section is kind of a disaster, I worked on it a little but it probably needs a complete rewrite. I'll get around to it if somebody doesn't beat me to it. Mad031683 23:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it kinda is. I'm swamped in real-life college apps and FACs, so I guess you're on first. I think the Halo 2#Campaign section is pretty good, of course you'll have to take into account the meta-game and stuff added. I wouldn't worry as much about sources, since those are easy to find; really first and foremost it needs prose editing. David Fuchs (talk) 00:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, made some changes, I'd do more but these people actually expect me to do some workMad031683 16:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Campaign 

message: The end of the multplayer section as a small piece of vandalism: "If at the beginning of the first level you commit suicide 150 times using frag grenades then you jump 30 times you will recieve all unlockable armor." As im too lazy to create a wikipedia account i guess ill just post it on here. Thanks to anyone who changes it :D  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.44.218 (talk) 20:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Xanzzibar reverted it about half an hour ago. Make sure to bypass your web browser's cache to see the updated page. — TKD::Talk 20:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiplayer Section Vandalism 

message: Do you think we should make an easter eggs section? people may want to know about the cavemen hugging a teddy bear on the first level or the guy trying to get into the amunition room? and many more yet to be discovered--Crypto 138 22:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Precedent is that Easter eggs are considered game-guide material, and that is one of the things that Wikipedia is not. See video game featured articles for the breadth and depth expected of an encyclopedic video game article. — TKD::Talk 22:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Easter Eggs

message: Is there any news of map packs in the making or on the verge of release. If so, should that be put into a section of the article like an "updates" section?  Stewy5714 15:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jeez, man, the game just came out! Seeing as the map packs for Halo 2 didn't come out until a year later, there's going to be a lag. David Fuchs (talk) 16:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map Packs 

message: Unless I missed it, there is nothing that says anything about the new ranking system in Halo 3. Someone should probaly add that in somewhere.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brandon boudreaux (talk • contribs) 22:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ranking System 

message: First time requesting something like this. At the end of the Halo 3 plot summary, "severed section of the Dawn is seen drifting towards what resembles the night side of a planet.", if you notice carefully, the night side of the planet has what appears to be several massive cities. I believe them to be the Forerunners, the ones who pushed the button. I cannot edit this myself, so maybe someone else can. Thanks. --BigBrango 17:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a reliable source for that analysis? Non-obvious observations of visual media need to be sourced in order to avoid original research. — TKD::Talk 17:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ending

message: I believe that we should include at least a small section regarding the armors under the feature section of this article, and include a picture of one of the sets or an in-game picture of someone playing with just such an armor.
Included in this, I believe we should possibly write something about the Hyabusa armor and the skulls found in the hex of the game, and what bungie has done with the recon armor and the flaming hyabusa armor. 
All in all, i believe this is important to the gameplay (the armor) and that the fiasco is important to this fact.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newmombasa (talk • contribs) 13:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless all of this has covered by a reliable third-party source (forums, self-published sites, and most blogs don't count), such a section on a "fiasco" as proposed would violate policies on verifiability, no original research, neutral point of view, and Wikipedia is not a soapbox. — TKD::Talk 14:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

text: And, even if it has, Wikipedia is not a game guide and avoiding undue weight apply. — TKD::Talk 14:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The New Armors and the Armor 'fiasco' 

message: http://news.google.com/news?ndsp=20&svnum=10&um=1&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&tab=wn&q=halo+3+box+office
Look at all of those articles. We're adding this in. Littlenickle 17:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are you treating it like a threat... This is Wikipedia, go ahead and add it in! David Fuchs (talk) 16:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

text: What's to say that the reason for the decline is because of Halo 3? It could just as easily be attributable to terrible movies that came out. There is a lot of inferring from a lot of those articles since there's really no way to prove Halo 3 was the reason for poor sales other than speculation. Strongsauce 16:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Still, it's been widely reported; it's not our place to judge whether or not it's true. David Fuchs (talk) 18:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Add it in sales/records etc... I wonder if there is an actual source on WHO said this, and if they really refered to Halo3. Wolvereness 03:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Halo 3 Triggers Worst Box Office October in Eight Years