Talk:Halo 4

The media embargo has been lifted. --Halo face 09:31, 5 March 2012 (EST)

Note to all editors
Remember to follow the Citation tag at the top of the page when adding new information.--


 * Also note that this article and anything related to it will be under strict supervision from the Patrollers and Administration team. Try to avoid edit-warring; failing that, protection will be implemented and users might get blocked.— subtank  11:47, 5 March 2012 (EST)

Mecha from the recent trailer
Is that really a Cyclops, as it's stated in the article now? It seems to be much bigger then the one from Halo Wars, and it could be a very different project. PatrickRus 11:03, 5 March 2012 (EST)

Were was it confirmed this was a Cyclopes any way? Jac0bBau3r1995 14:22, 5 March 2012 (EST)


 * A number of articles and videos, including this one. --Jugus (Talk  | Contribs ) 14:27, 5 March 2012 (EST)

Next gen. Xbox
The first sentence in Gamplay and design mentions that the last 2 installments in the reclaimer trilogy will be on the next generation console. I visited the source and it didn't mention that. Should that be deleted or was it confirmed somewhere else?


 * Thanks for pointing it out, I've removed it. If the information provided is unreferenced or the reference doesn't say anything of the kind, then it needs to be removed until someone can provide one. --  Specops306   Autocrat     Qur'a 'Morhek   06:33, 6 March 2012 (EST)

MA5
There's now in game evidence for the MA5, not that I thought they'd remove the AR. First is the game mode seen in the trailer is "BR Slayer", meaning the BR is not the starting weapon. More importantly, the ammo counter on the HUD shows four bullets on the top row when the BR is full, meaning one full bar is 32 rounds. Perfect for the standard weapon. :) Also, the H4 BR's stock looks like the DMR, the pistol grip and bottom of the front end looks like the H3 BR, and the carry handle and rest of the top doesn't look very close to anything (other than being a large FAMAS style carry handle again) EDIT: Actually, in first person it reminds me a lot of Crysis's SCAR. Alex T Snow 02:10, 6 March 2012 (EST)

I thought it was already confirmed seeing as the figure had an MA5 rifleJac0bBau3r1995 08:44, 6 March 2012 (EST)


 * True, but I was just pointing out some in-game stuff. Alex T Snow 14:21, 6 March 2012 (EST)
 * Wouldn't BR Slayer mean Battle Rifle Slayer, and why would it not be the starting weapon if that is what the name of the game is?--

I think he ment that if there's BR slayer then that would be a speciel type of slayer therefore normal slayer would have AR as starter. Jac0bBau3r1995 17:08, 6 March 2012 (EST)

More Screenshots
I have a quick question. I know we have several development screenshots posted under the article (others posted under "Making Halo 4: First Look" article) but should a seperate page be made for more screenshots (similar to the concept art)? This site has 84 screenshots available. Just a quick thought. Killamint 17:07, 7 March 2012 (EST)

Well on that sight it's like stop motion of the game play. There are 3 shots of the spartan 4 of at slightly different angles.
 * We have a page for the images.--

Covie, and assassinations are back and the Cyclopes is only scenery
Waypoint! http://halo.xbox.com/blogs/Headlines/post/2012/03/08/The-Halo-Bulletin-30712.aspx Jac0bBau3r1995 02:20, 8 March 2012 (EST)

Edit Conflict
per above, seriously check these close-up images of Master Chief holding the BR. you started the edit-war and have no legitimate reason to undo my edits. HA came  17:05, 8 March 2012 (EST)
 * "This article is about an upcoming game. Editors must cite sources for all contributions to this article. Edits that do not follow this standard will be reverted without notice. For more information, see the Citation Policy."

- Template at the top of the page.
 * Follow the rules and it will stay.--
 * i've already provided the source. I don't know how to add it in since it appears weird in preview. since you started this stupid edit-war, you should add it in as you now know what the source is. learn to make proper edits. don't remove/undo legitimate edits. HA came  17:09, 8 March 2012 (EST)
 * I was removing them because you weren't following the rules. And seriously? Don't ever talk down to anyone.--


 * Since you are currently enforcing this policy on me, why not do the right thing and fix it for me? Being a "veteran" member, I thought that's what they should do... not simply undoing and just spout out "blah blah blah learn this policy". The citation policy page has nothing on how to add in a citation for images (don't know how to make it into a link.. it's showing a big image under the references section). And I will only talk down on people (not to the point of harassing them) if they do not have legitimate reason on undoing my edit. HA came  17:16, 8 March 2012 (EST)
 * Okay, gents, let's put an end to this. The citation that is needed can be seen within the black box in the photo on the right.--The All-knowing Sith&#39;ari 17:24, 8 March 2012 (EST)
 * @Hacame: I did have a good reason to revert your edit. It's called following the rules stated at the top of the page. Furthermore, I did not have time fix it as I had prior obligations in my own life that I had attend to. Did you see my first comment? I gave you a link to a page that would help you put a citation in the article. The tag says that edits that don't follow the policy will be reverted without notice. Edit: You started the edit war, just look at the page history. Also do you really expect me to help you when you send me a message saying "effing help me"?--


 * Not to be jumping in the middle of this "war" but I find it inappropriate to be using anyone's username in a title for discussion especially for this reason. It's almost as if Spartacus is being put on blast. I recommend the title be changed to "Edit Conflict", or something of that nature. Just my suggestion. I may change the title later today if no one else does. If you find that to be problematic or unnecessary let me know. I feel it should be changed.--Killamint 12:54, 9 March 2012 (EST)
 * Yeah I agree. I changed it. This edit war is over now, by the way.--
 * Kool. The situation goes back to what subtank said at the top. Whatever the case lets move on. --Killamint 14:54, 9 March 2012 (EST)

Year
Since it was stated that the games takes place 5 years after the end of Halo 3 it would be approximately 2558 (2553 + 5 = 2558). So with that being said should the actual year of the game be added to the article somewhere and also added to the Timeline? Or would it be best to wait till 343 states it's 2558? --Killamint 10:07, 10 March 2012 (EST)
 * Wait until 343i says so.--