Talk:Halo 3/Archive 3

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Brute Weapons

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: Stay on task guys, this is sounding pretty forum-ish.--SeizureDog 01:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: No, not really. It's for discussing improvements or changes (hopefully also improvements) to the article. James086Talk | Contribs 13:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title: the x button?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Legendary edition

message: 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)
replies: text: Seems to be the alpha of the beta... Stercus Accidit 17:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: beta now playable?

message: 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)
replies: text: [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. James086Talk | Contribs 01:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  shield bubble 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Really? Where? Amalga 03:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Shooting Star

message: According to  JAF1970 17:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: That's kind of scary. James086Talk | Contribs 03:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Kids in ad are not CGI. They're live actors

message: 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. James086Talk | Contribs 13:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I removed them. — TKD::Talk 15:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beta listings? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Overspecific Weapons 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Mongoose/Warthog (Again) 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Demo rumor needs squashed 

message: ...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)
replies: text: This is the source, for anyone who's wondering; Bungie's latest update. Ourai т с 02:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From the Department of Redundancy Department - it was already mentioned in the main article. JAF1970 19:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Brutes unplayable, video upcoming

message: Sorry, that's in no way, shape or form a warthog:  That's a Mongoose (especially wheel to chassic ratio, no turret, etc.) JAF1970 19:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: For precedents on this discussion, refer to  and . 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)
replies: text: I've never seen a Warthog with wheels that large and fat. JAF1970 00:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then you haven't seen a Warthog. Compare  to . Wheels are the same size. Peptuck 07:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: That's NOT a warthog

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Timeframe: ESPN Advertisement vs. Halo 3 Announcement 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  Well i guess bungie and gearbox should do a better job with the CGI.Skynet1216 22:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  "not far away is a mongoose" ??? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Cool. Looks good! --Ras29 09:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean-up 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: Grunts are fighting alongside Brutes in Gravemind, High Charity, and the Vidoc. Peptuck 02:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: They aren't listed there anymore but they where when i posted about it. Tetracycloide 19:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hunters with loyalists? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  XBOX LIVE PUBLIC 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The Release Date (Again...) 

message: You can find them on Halo related sites, but don't post em here. darthbob 23:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: No Halo 3 Iraq Photos

message: *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)
replies: text: *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)
thread_title: Some Cleanup

message: 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)
thread_title:  Properly sourcing "confirmed" elements. 

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