Talk:Halo 4/Archive 3

RvB
Does anyone know what was the thing on Sarge's back in the version set on Wraparound? Alex T Snow 03:19, 18 April 2012 (EDT)


 * I got the impression it was just a jetpack. --  Specops306   Autocrat     Qur'a 'Morhek   04:24, 18 April 2012 (EDT)

I hope that isn't the alpha, it looks like its just layed on his back. Jac0bBau3r1995 08:55, 18 April 2012 (EDT)


 * I didn't guess because I can't think of anything that should look anything like that. It looks like a suitcase or something :/ Alex T Snow 12:57, 18 April 2012 (EDT)
 * Suitcase? That's a jetpack. Nothing else.--  Col. Spartacus  Talk Page Contributions  14:21, 18 April 2012 (EDT)
 * How do you know it's a jetpack?--184.3.48.27 18:15, 18 April 2012 (EDT)
 * Its obviously a jet pack, or maybe a jet booster on the back of the armour. From what I've seen, all spartans have them on their backs in Halo 4 so far. Don't forget about the boosters on the back of the Chief in the Preview Trailer, they look almost exactly a like.Siphon 117 18:31, 18 April 2012 (EDT)


 * They don't all have it, not Chief either, only Sarge, and only in one of the two videos. It's large, roundish, and black. Alex T Snow 20:06, 18 April 2012 (EDT)


 * Alright then, please explain what the large devices on the back behind the shoulders are? They all have them. Also, what would those things be on John's back? They obviously are some kind of booster, most likley for zero-g situations. If you look at Johns back, he has them. Compare them to whats on the back of the Spartan-IVs. I'm not trying to be obnoxious, but they do look very similar in shape and design.Siphon 117 20:47, 18 April 2012 (EDT)


 * Zero-g boosters and jetpack, two different things. But it is true that Chief's and S-IV's gadget on the back look similar. I can tell you it's not a holstered weapon. — S331 Bubbleshieldhud.svg(COM • Mission Log • Profile) 21:38, 18 April 2012 (EDT)
 * I watched the the RvB promotion and it looked like a jetpack. So that's why I thought it was a jetpack. So 184 (in reply to your snide comment), how the hell do you know it's not a jetpack? (Does anyone else think this discussion doesn't belong here?)--  Col. Spartacus  Talk Page Contributions  22:02, 18 April 2012 (EDT)

I don't understand this, it totally unnesecery. It's obvious it's not a weapon, we have seen the icon of the jet pack and it looks simaler, we know it's in the game so why are we having this discussion? Jac0bBau3r1995 22:13, 18 April 2012 (EDT)
 * Exactly, this discussion is completely unnecessary.--  Col. Spartacus  Talk Page Contributions  22:16, 18 April 2012 (EDT)

Jackals ONLY in concept art
So far Jackals are only in concept art. This does not mean that they will actually appear in Halo 4 so they should be taken off the Species list. --ADinoSupremacist 19:59, 18 April 2012 (EDT)


 * And I might as well say it, before someone tries to use this as an excuse, we ALL know with 99% certainty Jackals (or Pelicans, etc) will be back, but to avoid confusion on the page, concept art doesn't count. Just clarifying. Alex T Snow 20:08, 18 April 2012 (EDT)

I almost hate how long it didn't take to Google this. I suggest you start using these tools instead of instigating a potential edit war.
 * ADino, the reason the Infinity wasn't included on the list until recently is because it had only appeared in concept art (until it was confirmed to be a part of the game). However, the Kig-Yar were confirmed to be in the game in an IGN article and shown in concept art. Google can do amazing things, maybe you should use it.--  Col. Spartacus  Talk Page Contributions  22:08, 18 April 2012 (EDT)
 * Speaking generally on this issue, do you think it might be worth including things that appear in concept art, but label them as such in the appearence list? It gives the information individuals seek, but makes it clear that they haven't been confirmed to appear in the game proper.--Hawki 00:32, 19 April 2012 (EDT)
 * No, because there may be something shown in concept art that isn't in the final game. It is better to only list confirmed appearances.--  Col. Spartacus  Talk Page Contributions  09:07, 19 April 2012 (EDT)
 * Adding to Hawki's suggestion, it may be a neat addition to give it it's own three tier (you know those equal sign thingies) section and give a clear and prominent disclaimer that they are not confirmed, only notably seen in concept art. It would simply be an all inclusive list with no character/weapon/vehicle/etc. separation, simply an alphabetized list with a picture source to the element rather than a simple book/page citation.
 * Sounds like a good idea. The only problem is that I can't think of anything that has only been shown in concept art at the moment. Most of the stuff shown in the concept art has now been confirmed to be in the game.--  Col. Spartacus  Talk Page Contributions  15:49, 19 April 2012 (EDT)
 * There's a couple things (OXM UK cover Human weapon [assault carbine, plasma rifle?]), Sentinels, etc. Nothing notable at the moment though, but could always be a nice backdoor option if the need arises.
 * Not to be changing the subject but I looked-up and saw the weapon you were talking about and it looks bad-ass. Clearly has UNSC written on the side of it (w/ a new logo) and kinda looks forerunner-ish, plus its big and looks like a Human energy weapon prototype. Or either that, a portable MAC gun. Would post the pic but don't wanna catch the copyrigtht heat so its on my C:/ for now. Thanks for the tip. --Killamint 20:12, 19 April 2012 (EDT)

Like the look of the new weapon it looks high tech anyway. I have always wanted bungie to add more hightech weapons like this on the human side and looks 343 have every intention of doing that with this particular weapon. Lets hope the spartan laser is on the menu as well and the gauss warthog. Looks like a magnetic coil weapon of somekind and its human because of the UNSC on the side of the gun. Weather it uses plasma or is a rail gun is beyond me lets wait and find out.

Okay I kept my speculating brief. Anyway I say we try out Grizzlei's idea if we receive anymore concept art showing items that may be in the game, w/ the disclaimer. --Killamint 18:06, 27 April 2012 (EDT)


 * I agree. Also, if we limit mention of concept art only things (let's say, Pelicans) to the Halo 4 page. So, we'd mention (for Pelicans again) that Pelicans appear in concept art on this page, but there should be NO mention of Halo 4 Pelicans on any other page (including the Pelican one) until confirmed. Obviously, no making new pages for unconfirmed things either. This way, at launch we can just remove stuff that didn't appear (if there is any) from the list on this page, and ta da, no more incorrect info. Just an idea :) Alex T Snow 04:57, 28 April 2012 (EDT)


 * Actually (A little off-topic I know), the video of Conan O'Brien and Andy Richter doing voice overs shows a rough, pre-rendered pelican inside the Infinity. There are even things moving on-screen. I'd call that pretty solid confirmation of Pelicans. Linky 98.177.237.76 09:40, 28 April 2012 (EDT)

Plot Development
I was looking at the plot and have come up with a logical idea. Since we are dealing with a brand new trilogy of such, I was thinking the segments under Plot that pertain to the development of the story could be moved to a new section under Development titled "Plot" or "Story". For instance, the parts that say, "Halo 4 marks the return..." ending with "...of Halo 3", "The story of Halo 4...." ending with "....has faced before", and "Unlike the original trilogy..." ending with "...to Halo 4's story" could be moved to this new section while retaining the "-Official summary" and actual game story that we received from Game Informer. Any thoughts? --Killamint 18:06, 27 April 2012 (EDT)

I am confused n what you mean. Jac0bBau3r1995 23:46, 27 April 2012 (EDT)

Removal of "titles"
Before I edit them out and cause a potential edit war, what is the point of "Titles"? They're not listed on any other Halo game page. What is the point? --ADinoSupremacist 22:28, 30 April 2012 (EDT)
 * How about let's have a discussion first, Specops. Just because its never been on another page doesn't mean it can't be included or given a trial run. Now this sort of thing is seen on many other wikis, and even in the past on here, we've had enemy type lists for the Covenant and Flood. This sort of thing will be accessible for UNSC ranks, Covenant and Unknown enemy types/ranks, and Forerunner rates (such as Prometheans). The latter of which is not an organization so much as a group of people, same with Sangheili aristocrats/swordsmen. Of course this can always be removed if the enemies and ranks get out of hand down the line, but until then, this is a good idea that I believe can further accessibly for users to read existing or potentially well written information.
 * Honestly, I cannot see why we should have a section on titles and ranks in the article. It's going way too much into detail that it could amount to redundancy (almost absolutely). We've never done so in any article before in Halopedia (not even our latest article on "Halo: Reach"), and I don't see why we should start with this one. Also, it creates issues with content that has no direct connection to the article. For example, it is not disputed that Aristocrats in the Sangheili society are the only ones capable of wielding the energy sword, but what relevance has it to the game? Similarly, I don't understand why we need to list out all the ranks and titles when we could simply put that in front of the character's name (i.e. MCPO John-117, Arbiter Thel 'Vadam). Sure, it creates potential traffic for less-visited articles, but the issue in hand is the relevancy. On that note, articles on UNSC ranks are still severely outdated and lack that "well-written information". — subtank  23:40, 1 May 2012 (EDT)
 * Couldn't help but stop by briefly. I'm with Subtank on this one. It's unnecessary and potentially misinformative. The aristocratic relevance to Energy Swords may have disbanded with the Covenant after Halo 3. Or the Elites we've seen may be a renegade faction like Refumee's heretics from Halo 2. - TheLostJedi  00:13, 6 May 2012 (EDT)

Forward Unto Dawn
If I come up with a more relevant way to mention the Mk. IV armor, can I put it back in? It seems quite important. Infernal-Blaze
 * Its already included on the Forward Unto Dawn main page if I remember correctly. If you insist on putting it anywhere, put the Mark IV mention on there. :) Also, please remember to add a signature to your talk posts with " ~ ". Thank you!
 * I don't see how there could be a relevant way for Mark IV to be in Halo 4. Halo 4: Forward Unto Dawn is a separate piece of media that takes place years before Halo 4. As far as the MIV being in Halo 4, I'd say that's only possible through: Flashback, armor customization, Grey Team or SoF's Red Team magically appears. --ADinoSupremacist 17:18, 1 May 2012 (EDT)
 * It may be included with the Prologue that's been announced, but otherwise, it has no place on the main Halo 4 page.
 * Well, given that it seems like there are a lot of ships that got sucked into this shield world, maybe SoF did too. I think it's very likely it'll appear somewhere, given how well 343 has been actually using the rest of the universe, which was my only complaint about Bungie. Alex T Snow 18:31, 1 May 2012 (EDT)
 * I don't imagine there'd be room for bringing back the Spirit of Fire and her passengers and crew. While, yes, it would be nice if we got an ending for their story, Halo 4 should be about the Master Chief, and his future, rather than the past of the Halo fiction. Incorporating older characters distracts from that. Maybe they are on Requiem, maybe they're not. We don't know, and it's a bit presumptive to declare anything. --  Specops306   Autocrat     Qur'a 'Morhek   22:59, 1 May 2012 (EDT)


 * I meant in the new trilogy somewhere, probably not 4. Alex T Snow 20:08, 3 May 2012 (EDT)

I don't see why not, go on ahead and put the Mark IV onto the Halo 4 page..............on Halo Nations. There's hardly any speculation here. Saying that the Spirit of Fire might have been sucked into Requiem (while I would like that) is like saying that Beta Red is comprised of Class-II Spartan-IIs. --ADinoSupremacist 15:26, 4 May 2012 (EDT)


 * Oh, I didn't meant to add SoF to the page, I just meant it's possible we'll see it at some point. Sorry for the confusion. Alex T Snow 22:11, 4 May 2012 (EDT)

Forge Confirmed
Yeah, Forge has been confirmed. Link

Where do should I add this? In the trivia? ~Jman98~ 01:34, 4 May 2012 (EDT)


 * Trivia means "information that has little importance". "Halo 4 has Forge." Is this information important? Yes. It's not a piece of trivia. Place it in the main sections, and, in this case, probably "Gameplay and design" section. Remember, trivia is not a place to put random info!— S331 Bubbleshieldhud.svg(COM • Mission Log • Profile) 02:02, 4 May 2012 (EDT)


 * Alright, just wanted to be sure. ~Jman98~ 01:21, 5 May 2012 (EDT)

Wraparound not on Requiem
I watched the interview where Frank O'Connor is said to say that Wraparound takes place "in" Requiem, he doesn't say that at all. All he says is that Wraparound takes place inside a Forerunner Shield World. Also if I remember correctly, the multiplayer takes place before Halo 4 and I doubt the Infinity showed up to Requiem before John did. Despite the fact that I edited the artcile to this it was reversed. --ADinoSupremacist 21:32, 7 May 2012 (EDT)
 * Yeah, no where did he mention it was set on Requiem. However, given that Wraparound is set in a Shield World, it would make a lot of sense that the said Shield World is Requiem.--  Col. Spartacus  Talk Page Contributions  22:54, 7 May 2012 (EDT)
 * Buuuuuuuuut we should leave it until we have better evidence. Alex T Snow 23:53, 7 May 2012 (EDT)
 * Please don't spam the page. We're not changing anything until we have confirmation.--  Col. Spartacus  Talk Page Contributions  23:57, 7 May 2012 (EDT)
 * I actually agree with this. If the multiplayer is set before the game's campaign (and thus before the UNSC comes across Requiem) it makes no sense the Spartan-IVs would be sparring in a holodeck simulation of a yet-undiscovered shield world. If we get a confirmation that it is Requiem, then it can be updated. But so far, it could be any shield world for all we know. --<font color="MidnightBlue">Jugus (<font color="Gray">Talk  | <font color="Gray">Contribs ) 01:02, 8 May 2012 (EDT)
 * Agreed. I brought this issue up a while ago and even changed it on both pages, but it was reverted for this | reason. Excuse me for misunderstanding this, but we can't have two shield worlds in-game? I didn't find that legitimate enough to revert it. What's the big deal? It only makes an "appearance" in the Infinity's combat chamber. We already have confirmation that Wraparound is in an unidentified shield world; 343 never stated it was in Requiem. If they did please show me. --Killamint 05:27, 8 May 2012 (EDT)
 * Wraparound was never confirmed to be on an unidentified shield world, only that it was on a shield world. And there's no source that suggests multiplayer is set before the campaign; it most likely takes place around the same time as Spartan Ops given the inter-connectivity of all game modes, Spartan Ops of which will be concurrent with Campaign. Back to the setting of Wraparound, Requiem and Trevelyan are the only likely shield world settings for the map. And while sure, we have no concrete evidence that the map is set on Halo 4's primary location, the inclusion of what is a near-identical setting like Trevelyan is unlikely at best. For the moment, just to satisfy everyone's pesky little opinion (this was sarcasm), we should keep it under the Requiem "tab," though make a note both on the Halo 4 page and in the trivia section for Wraparound that the location is an educated assumption.

If that's the case then it should be allowed that the Spec-Ops and Minor Elite combat harnesses are in the game as well. They're not confirmed but the Elite in the game sure do look like their wearing those harnesses. It's an educated assumption. I'm staying with my OP with the fact that Wraparound is not confirmed to be apart of Requiem. For all we know the UNSC could have found more Shield Worlds as they have clearly found several Halo Rings (03, 07) on their own. --ADinoSupremacist 15:38, 8 May 2012 (EDT)
 * @Grizzlei, I understand what you are saying but I'm just going by the fact they said "a shield world", not "Requiem". But if you can add the note that would be great. That way we have clarification on the issue until its confirmed otherwise (just like with the shotty). I'm sticking by my opinion regardless but I'll take a note/trivia pill. @ADinoSupremacist, What was said above is based on fact and what 343 has stated. 343 hasn't released any info on these new covie models. So its strictly your opinion, so best to wait till 343 says something about it. I'm sure we're get more info in the weeks ahead. We gain something new everyday just about.--Killamint 17:08, 8 May 2012 (EDT)

Watcher
That leak of MacFarlane toys stuff, wherever it came from, mention someting called a "Watcher", that is larger than the other figures. Maybe this? Alex T Snow 00:59, 13 May 2012 (EDT)


 * Looks nothing like the Sentinel variant.--Hawki 06:28, 13 May 2012 (EDT)


 * Oh, I didn't know we had pictures, but I found the link in the next section. It's large and Sentinel-y, but not the same. Alex T Snow 17:29, 13 May 2012 (EDT)

Watcher and Crawler Fake? Also no Leaks allowed?
If I remember correctly, leaks are not allowed. Also how do we know that this Watcher and Crawler are real? --ADinoSupremacist 16:50, 13 May 2012 (EDT)
 * Of course no leaks are allowed. But where did you get information that this is a leak? Also, you should contact the person who reverted your edit as they told you to do. The Watcher and Crawler were seen in one the sources you removed.-- <tt>KEEP IT CLEAN</tt> <font color="Black"> Comm Line <font color="Black"> Transmissions 16:54, 13 May 2012 (EDT)
 * This photo on Xbox.com, to be exact.-- <tt>KEEP IT CLEAN</tt> <font color="Black"> Comm Line <font color="Black"> Transmissions 16:56, 13 May 2012 (EDT)
 * I think both of us may be confused. Spoilers are definitely not allowed until the game's release, but as far as leaks are concerned, I'm not sure. Do leaks fall under the same criteria?-- <tt>KEEP IT CLEAN</tt> <font color="Black"> Comm Line <font color="Black"> Transmissions 17:07, 13 May 2012 (EDT)
 * I would think leaks would be okay, so long as there's solid evidence and maybe if we note that the info is leaked. For example, we have that picture for the figures, I think that's good enough evidence. But leaked or otherwise, no spoilers. Alex T Snow 17:31, 13 May 2012 (EDT)

Something's off with that "Watcher." It looks familiar. Also, why would the "Crawler" and "Watcher" get full body shots, while Cortana and the blue spartan only have head and shoulders? Missing Mandible 19:09, 13 May 2012 (EDT)
 * Both Cortana (well kinda)and the Spartan Soldier have figures that are fully-grown adults while the Crawler and Watcher are smaller forms. And as for this being a spoiler, this figure card would have been released as soon as San Diego Comic Con in July. There's nothing spoiler-y about it as 343i intends to fully introduce our new enemies before Halo 4 launches.
 * Right, if 343 says something officially, it's not a spoiler, and can be added to the page, right? That's my understanding. Like the info on the first level where John wakes up and fights the boarders. Alex T Snow 22:07, 13 May 2012 (EDT)


 * "Something's off with that "Watcher." It looks familiar." Take another look at the composite shot of the "Ancient Threat" pic on the Halo 4 page & see if that doesn't ring a bell... As I understand it, the new enemies are supposed to be able to come together and more effectively deal with certain threats... I see no reason why this couldn't be applied literally as well as tactically... DJenser 13:36, 14 May 2012 (EDT)

Until 343i has any say on this, I'd say we keep the "Watcher" and "Crawler" off Halopedia. For all we know this could have been a fan who photoshopped some pictures. Otherwise we could use any potential leak as a source. --ADinoSupremacist 20:09, 14 May 2012 (EDT)
 * Yeah.....because photoshopped images are the only type of images shown on xbox.com.-- <tt>KEEP IT CLEAN</tt> <font color="Black"> Comm Line <font color="Black"> Transmissions 20:19, 14 May 2012 (EDT)

In accordance with Halopedia policy I will not post the link, but I can verify that this is in fact REAL. The package that was photographed was an SDCC exclusive Series 1 Master Chief figure. The second photo, which is not shown in the link, reveals the figure contained within. The other characters listed there are real as well, though the lighting obscures at least one.

Back on topic, the Watcher I believe is in fact a form of Sentinel; in the 2011 "Halo: The Essential Visual Guide" on page 167, which is the entry for Sentinels, it mentions a "Watcher" model. Up until now, we have had no idea what the Watcher-class Sentinel even looks like, and we don't really know its function, even now. Inspecting the structure of the entity in question, from its overall shape, to the orange lines and especially the yellow-orange central eye, this would strongly suggest that it is in fact a Sentinel.

As for the Crawler, its harder to tell, but I would imagine that it could also be form of Sentinel. The size of its image is hardly clear, but its coloration which is practically a metallic, along with its smaller limbs, and the blue and yellow-orange lights, especially on its dominant arm, is also very similar to known Sentinel models. Its overall form would suggest, in my opinion, that it may have some aerial capabilities as well, like all other known Sentinel types.

Another factor to consider is that below the line up of 'coming soon' figures, is an enthusiastic caption of a "secret enemy figure" that will be released during the holiday season. This figure is not only a deluxe character, but is promoted as being unlike anything that has appeared before in the Halo universe. Aside from its different packaging and scale, this figure is going to be none other than a form of the "Ancient Enemy" that has been alluded to so often.

Given that we know that 343 wants to hold as much as they can back about the new foe, they probably want to ensure that the figures released prior to the game do not reveal more than they are willing to show. With that in mind, I would say that the Watcher and the Crawler are newly-encountered types of Sentinels, that could very well accompany the more traditional Aggressor, Constructor, and even Enforcer-classes.

Speaking of which, back in with this year's early toy fair, Mega Bloks showed their upcoming Halo line-up. Amongst the more familiar sets was a Halo 4 themed one, which showed a red Spartan firing at an oncoming Sentinel, which had a very familiar shape and even two shields facing forwards. This adversary was swooping towards the Spartan while two Aggressors fired their beam weapons in support.

Afterwards, I looked at Youtube video about Mega Bloks's line-up, and sure enough, this 4-character set appeared, showing that the Spartan's adversaries were indeed Sentinels, with an Enforcer-class Sentinel as the main assailant.

Given that it would appear that at least up to three or more Sentinel types will present on Requiem alongside the Covenant, and the package's clear distinction between the Crawler, Watcher, and the "secret enemy," I think it is more than plausible that these two characters are in fact new types of Sentinels.

Naturally, I could be wrong about the Crawler, but the Watcher is very likely to be a Sentinel.--Exalted Obliteration 22:48, 14 May 2012 (EDT)


 * Well, I did mention just above that the Halo Wars "Super Sentinels" are technically called Watcher Sentinels. Alex T Snow 02:39, 15 May 2012 (EDT)


 * Just to let you know that that entry was unsourced and based upon speculation. Super Sentinels are not Watchers Sentinels. We simply know nothing about Watcher Sentinels other than it is a Sentinel variant.... but this is going off topic.— subtank   06:46, 15 May 2012 (EDT)


 * Ah, I didn't know that. Well, nevermind that theory then. It is interesting that the Watcher was mentioned by name in the visual guide. Alex T Snow 04:54, 16 May 2012 (EDT)

Spartan Laser for Halo 4
Has anyone herd the what they plan on doing with the spartan laser for halo 4 if its going to be included or has it been replaced with the rail gun. Spartan Matt 23:32, 14 May 2012 (EDT)
 * I assume the Rail Gun is the replacement, wich I like, as a MAC is way more UNSC like than a laser. Alex T Snow 02:39, 15 May 2012 (EDT)
 * Lasers were around long before weaponized rail systems were introduced into Earth militaries.
 * True, but within the Halo verse, MACs are always seen when there's a heavy weapon, and there are almost never lasers. Alex T Snow 04:54, 16 May 2012 (EDT)

Not to be a wise guy but this seems like an unnecessary topic. If I remember correctly it was deleted a while ago. Can't jump to conclusion that the railgun will replace the spartan laser- speculation. For all we know they both could be in the game (like the BR & DMR). Best to wait for a 343i update before asking questions, otherwise I would post on forum, not discussions. -- Killamint   KillaEX  13:14, 20 May 2012 (EDT)


 * Fair enough. Alex T Snow 16:23, 20 May 2012 (EDT)

Which piece of the puzzle did you get?
I got 07/32, it shows a piece of John's shoulder and some of the Forward Unto Dawn. Col.  Snipes  4  50  10:12, 15 May 2012 (EDT)
 * Piece 04/32. Showing what seems to be the Dawn also.-- <tt>KEEP IT CLEAN</tt> <font color="Black"> Comm Line <font color="Black"> Transmissions 10:28, 15 May 2012 (EDT)


 * I didn't get a piece. I feel so left out.
 * The sadness pile doesnt stop from getting taller. --  Specops306   Autocrat     Qur'a 'Morhek   08:08, 16 May 2012 (EDT)

Cyclops II under MJOLNIR?
The Cyclops II is the second gen of the Cyclops line. The Cyclops I is a modified version of the MJOLNIR Mark III. So shouldn't the Cyclops II not be under vehicles and should actually be under the MJOLNIR line? --ADinoSupremacist 18:45, 25 May 2012 (EDT)


 * According to Halsey's journal and The Essential Visual Guide (page 44), the Mark I-III exoskeletons were not part of the MJOLNIR program. When the exoskeletons proved unsuccessful, Halsey's team moved on to MJOLNIR and the HRUNTING team picked up the Mark III design. The first version of MJOLNIR was simply called MJOLNIR. In 2535, the ONI brass told Halsey to release upgrades in a scheduled manner rather than as soon as they became available, so she tacked on the Mark IV designation to suggest continuity with the earlier program. --Courage never dies. 18:59, 25 May 2012 (EDT)

War Games, not Infinity is the name
During the 343i community playdate last night I asked David Ellis what the difference was between Infinity and War Games. Essentially the Multiplayer is called Infinity. Infinity is divided up into two sections: War Games, Spartan Ops. War Games is the standard multiplayer such as Slayer, BTB, etc. So it's like this:
 * Infinity
 * Spartan Ops
 * War Games

I don't quite know how to edit the Halo 4 multiplayer section with this new info. Could somebody else do it? --ADinoSupremacist 19:12, 25 May 2012 (EDT)


 * See Talk:Infinity (mode).— subtank   19:25, 25 May 2012 (EDT)

Separation of weapons/armor abilities sections
Per above, it will not be happening. It makes the list too complicated and confusing, so we should stick to simply listing the items the way we're doing at the moment (In alphabetical order, of course).-- <tt>KEEP IT CLEAN</tt> <font color="Black"> Comm Line <font color="Black"> Transmissions 14:21, 28 May 2012 (EDT)
 * This has my approval, whether or not people will adhere to it. :P

Why are some leaks allowed and some not?
As you can see in my discussion on the Watcher and Crawler, I talked about that since leaks are not allowed they should not be on this wiki. Yet they are. So I'm assuming that leaks are allowed. Yet the new leaks that have been revealed are not allowed. Whose to say certain leaks are allowed? --ADinoSupremacist 15:17, 28 May 2012 (EDT)


 * Those action figures were leaked content? Wasn't aware of it. :/ — subtank   16:03, 28 May 2012 (EDT)
 * As to address why certain leaks are allowed, I guess the damage done cannot be fixed since it would be administratively unworkable; the content has made into many revisions in the articles. To remove these revisions at such a large scale would be to break the wiki's attribution policy which ensures that ever user's contribution will be properly attributed via history log. I would suggest take the initiative (be bold) and remove leaks (real or fake) from articles when you see them. — subtank   16:31, 28 May 2012 (EDT)
 * There's certainly a difference when it comes to leaks like these. For the recent multiplayer one, its a bit of a bad area considering that its nowhere near a final build of the game, and some content may just become fodder for the deleted material template later on. Otherwise, things like the McFarlane card leak is more acceptable, given that it was a final product (in this case, for San Diego ComicCon) and less importantly, these elements will be revealed at E3 next week during their campaign demo (as confirmed by Geoff Keighley). That's why I think leaks as a whole should always be taken with a hint of doubt and should be discussed as to whether or not it should exist. However, I don't believe that any pictures or media of said leaks, regardless of their attribution, etc., should be included.

But how do you know that the McFarlane card leak was real? Somebody could have faked that for all we know. So basically the McFarlane card is only acceptable because it could mess up some things despite the fact that it could be fake while the leaked pictures/video which can't be fake is not allowed. Also soon after the Watcher and Crawler were posted here I discussed why they weren't allowed since they were leaks, clearly admins didn't care.--ADinoSupremacist 16:44, 28 May 2012 (EDT)
 * QR code leads directly to McFarlane's website and pictures of the figures are concurrent with designs seen in Halo 4, yet at angles we haven't seen of said characters. So, unless this figure card was created by someone at Microsoft Studios with the means available to fake it, I highly doubt it.

Wikipedia link
Just scrolling down the page this morning and the link to Wikipedia's Halo 4 article caught my eye. Honestly, I don't really see any reason why we need to include such links on game articles such as this, given Wikipedia's notability standards and our expansive detailing of every little thing. Any other thoughts on this?
 * The only reason I really see why the link would be needed on the page would be for references- someone here (or there) may have been using it as a "bridge" so that they can update the wiki Halo 4 page without having to look far for sources/information. However the rate that page gets updated is desperately slow, the only thing new added to the page lately has been the cover art. I guess it wasn't needed but I do visit the page every now and then just to see what has been changed [just because]. However, I never used the link here to get there anyway. -- Killamint   KillaEX  12:56, 30 May 2012 (EDT)

Solar facility not confirmed to be apart of Requiem
I brought this discussion up once but I don't see why it died out. So far it's been confirmed that War Games takes place BEFORE Halo 4. So far, it seems Master Chief is the first human to be inside Requiem. While is is not confirmed, I'm pretty sure the facility is from Trevelyan or possibly other Shield Worlds the UNSC may have found. Since it is not confirmed, it should stand to reason NOT to group up Wraparound as a location within Requiem. It would be like listing the Chief's new armor as Mark VII or GEN2.--ADinoSupremacist 21:59, 28 May 2012 (EDT)
 * Uphill battle- I already tried it twice. The only thing I can say (or what has been told to me) is wait till more specific information is released and/or the game is released itself. -- Killamint   KillaEX  13:29, 30 May 2012 (EDT)

I don't understand though. All the signs point towards it not being in Requiem. The fact is that there is NO EVIDENCE to support that it's inside Requiem. --ADinoSupremacist 20:22, 30 May 2012 (EDT)
 * And what evidence is there pointing to the facility not being on Requiem?-- <tt>KEEP IT CLEAN</tt> <font color="Black"> Comm Line <font color="Black"> Transmissions 20:24, 30 May 2012 (EDT)

New Find, need to know if it's alright for the page.
I was going through officially released Halo 4 screenshots when I noticed [[Media:Requiemplanets.jpg|this]]. If you look at the left hand side of the screen you can see what appears to be a holographic projection of various planets. I doubt that those would be enlarged planets of other solar systems lightyears away. The only explanation is that these planets are within the same system as Requiem. What I'm asking is if I can do something like this:
 * Requiem System
 * Unidentified Shield World
 * Requiem
 * Various Unnamed Planets--ADinoSupremacist 22:16, 28 May 2012 (EDT)


 * They might as well be the stars in the blue-tinted stellar cluster which is seen in the background when the Dawn approaches Requiem. Let's wait until we can get a more accurate idea of what the hologram is really about. --<font color="MidnightBlue">Jugus (<font color="Gray">Talk  | <font color="Gray">Contribs ) 01:29, 29 May 2012 (EDT)

My speculation is that those are other Shield Worlds and that Requiem is apart of a small cluster of Shield Worlds.--ADinoSupremacist 02:18, 29 May 2012 (EDT)


 * The first three games all showed that the Forerunners have a thing for gigantic holograms for specific information. In the first game you had the display in the Control Room, which (along with the separate hologram of the ring, itself) had a hologram of the Threshold-Basis system, showing Installation 04 as being in the middle of the two. Halo 2 showed us a display of the array. Halo 3 showed us a hologram of the galaxy, along with one of the Ark.--  Fore  run  ner '' 10:52, 29 May 2012 (EDT)


 * @ADinoSupremacist It's an okay idea but it's too soon and we don't know if this is the "Requiem system". Like you said, it's nothing more than speculation which means its not true/fact, which means it shouldn't go on the article. So like Jugus said, its best to wait till we get more information. -- Killamint   KillaEX  13:39, 30 May 2012 (EDT)

Arctic BR pre-order
So after noticing that it looked like the Arctic BR skin was only available at EB Games in Canada, I checked out all the websites of all the Gamestops and affiliate stores around the world. Although most of them don't have information on pre-order bonuses, it does appear that the Arctic skin is also offered at Gamestop Italy. Link is here. How should we reconcile this with the info on the page? With a note maybe?--  Rusty  -  112  22:46, 28 May 2012 (EDT)

Archive
This talk page is getting long, about the same length as Archive 1, and random. E3 is coming next week and there's bound to be a host of new information that will come in along with suggestive topics and questions that people will be posting afterwards, and this may clutter the already cluttered talk page. I know we still have some topics active on the current page but still. I believe we got our last "Halo 4 fix" last bulletin (aside from the pre-order skins and a crazy gameplay leak) and the next one will probably just talk about E3 itself. Suggest it be archived (i.e. Archive 3) to make space for E3 2012? -- Killamint   KillaEX  13:41, 30 May 2012 (EDT)
 * Go ahead.
 * Will do. I just hope that nobody gets angry at me once I make the move. -- Killamint   KillaEX  14:04, 30 May 2012 (EDT)
 * Okay, how do you move it? I tried it the first time and it didn't come out the way I thought it would so I had to revert it. -- Killamint   KillaEX  14:31, 30 May 2012 (EDT)
 * I think we should hold off the archive for another month. It hasn't gone out of control yet. — subtank   16:02, 30 May 2012 (EDT)
 * Okay, I guess I can wait- maybe up to like 24 topics. I already failed to move it right the first time. Do you think you can correct my mistake? It turned this into an archive w/ a redirect. If you go to the move page you'll see another archive with a 3 next to it. If you can delete it that would be great cause I didn't know how to move the page properly. Maybe if someone can show me how to move it properly for future reference. -- Killamint   KillaEX  16:36, 30 May 2012 (EDT)
 * Archiving a talk page is relatively straightforward: just copy the entire content and paste it into the archive page. Leave the original talk page as it is. :P — subtank   17:34, 30 May 2012 (EDT)
 * Thanks, I'll try that next time. Hopefully I won't screw that up too. -- Killamint   KillaEX  11:53, 31 May 2012 (EDT)

for what its worth I definitely agree with Killamint. A small amount of time to let discussions close couldn't hurt though.--Weeping Angel 17:32, 30 May 2012 (EDT)

I suggest it be archived once all the hype from E3 has died out. If we archive it now, we'll just have to do it again next week when this page gets flooded with new sections and comments. Better to archive all of this and save some time and work.-- <tt>KEEP IT CLEAN</tt> <font color="Black"> Comm Line <font color="Black"> Transmissions 18:14, 30 May 2012 (EDT)
 * Yeah I never thought of the opposite effect of archiving too early. Yeah I'm starting to think it is too early. Okay will do. -- Killamint   KillaEX  11:53, 31 May 2012 (EDT)

Locust and deadeye helmet.
The new weekly bulletin says that the pre order bonuses are only skins and not armor, so you don't get the Deadeye and Locust helmets, you get the Deadeye and Locust skins.ArchedThunder 00:41, 31 May 2012 (EDT)


 * That's a relief, I was worried they were going to make me choose to not have certain armours. Skins I don't care too much about. Alex T Snow 17:43, 2 June 2012 (EDT)


 * Ooh, I hate store-exclusive pre-order bonuses! ...Because I want to have them all, you see.  Also, does anyone know what skins come with the Limited Edition? I can's  seem to find any specifics.  --Bruce2401 23:21, 3 June 2012 (EDT)

I haven't heard, but lets not let this turn into a forum type discussion. Jac0bBau3r1995 01:51, 4 June 2012 (EDT)
 * Exactly. Let's keep discussions on topic please.-- <tt>KEEP IT CLEAN</tt> <font color="Black"> Comm Line <font color="Black"> Transmissions 11:57, 4 June 2012 (EDT)

Watcher and Crawler.
The Watcher and Crawlers are enemies, it doesn't matter that they are mechanical. They need to be under the enemy section. ArchedThunder

and if they stay in equipment/tech. the knight should go their too. Jac0bBau3r1995 17:51, 4 June 2012 (EDT)

Didact
That was the didacts symbol at the end of the trailer, should we list his appearance? Jac0bBau3r1995 18:12, 4 June 2012 (EDT)

scratch that, as soon as i went back to the page it was listed. Jac0bBau3r1995 18:17, 4 June 2012 (EDT)

UNSC Fighters? Bombers?
Whatever they are, they should be mentioned somewhere. [These]. Alex T Snow 23:02, 4 June 2012 (EDT)
 * I see what you mean, they look similar to the Longsword starfighter but much, much smaller. I added it to some text in The Commissioning as "Unidentified UNSC starfighter" but it may get reverted if someone disagrees (hence, I added the question "Safe to add?") As far as on this article, I say we leave it alone until it actually appears in some screenshot or cutscene. The Commisioning is the only place it shows up so far. -- Killamint   KillaEX  12:56, 6 June 2012 (EDT)


 * It can stay there, since it's not known to actually be in the game. I just wanted to make sure it was mentioned somewhere. Alex T Snow 17:20, 6 June 2012 (EDT)

Cryptum
Can i get a source for the picture being a cryptum Jac0bBau3r1995 23:56, 4 June 2012 (EDT)


 * Exactly what I was thinking. As far as I know, it's just a flying Forerunner orb. While it's a possibility, the supersonic flight part doesn't quite line up with the descriptions from Cryptum. It might as well be the Didact's personal command ship for all we know. --<font color="MidnightBlue">Jugus (<font color="Gray">Talk  | <font color="Gray">Contribs ) 01:47, 5 June 2012 (EDT)
 * Nevermind. Guess it's just a flying Cryptum then. --<font color="MidnightBlue">Jugus (<font color="Gray">Talk  | <font color="Gray">Contribs ) 05:09, 5 June 2012 (EDT)

Spartan Laser?
Is there a reason the spartan laser not in the weapons list? It has been confirmed on the Halo Official site, and I just wanted to know why its not on there. Would someone please add it, I don't know how.Siphon 117 12:18, 5 June 2012 (EDT)
 * ✅. Go here for future reference on how to make edits. -- Killamint   KillaEX  12:37, 5 June 2012 (EDT)

Forerunner Sniper Rifle
That's my guess. Alex T Snow 16:40, 5 June 2012 (EDT)

Are you meaning the weapon in the Knights hand, or the weapon on the spartans back?Siphon 117 23:01, 5 June 2012 (EDT)


 * In the Knight's hand. Alex T Snow 17:20, 6 June 2012 (EDT)
 * It is a Lightrifle.-- <tt>KEEP IT CLEAN</tt> <font color="Black"> Comm Line <font color="Black"> Transmissions 17:35, 6 June 2012 (EDT)
 * But the front end is different, and this one is huge. Alex T Snow 20:05, 6 June 2012 (EDT)

My guess would be a new forunner weapon that just hasn't been confirmed yet. It does look like the Lightrifle, but is a bit longer and has a larger scope.Siphon 117 22:04, 6 June 2012 (EDT)
 * Like Siphon117 said, it hasn't been confirmed yet, so its best to wait till we get more info. Nice to point it out though. -- Killamint   KillaEX  10:16, 7 June 2012 (EDT)
 * Yep, that's all I was doing anyway, since it's easy to miss. :) Alex T Snow 11:11, 7 June 2012 (EDT)

News
http://halo.xbox.com/halo4#!halo-evolved/gameplay/31afe32b-0e07-45c0-9424-3adc6e1eadca Jac0bBau3r1995 14:43, 6 June 2012 (EDT)

Features section
The game isn't even out yet and our features section (consisting of all elements; characters, units, weapons, etc.) is already as long as a released game. For Halo 4 and future titles, I suggest that at a certain point such as it is right now, a collapsible menu template be put in place to relieve the improper balance and exceptional length of the future sections as to not discourage readers from believing that this article is simply one bullet point after another. We could either use the Scroll Boxes as a crude, yet simple, means of compacting these lists into appealing and manageable sections. Or as usual, we could take from Wookieepedia and use their App template, which consists mainly of a reduced table of contents that, by clicking on one of the types (character, etc.) will instantly scroll you down to your desired area; furthermore, you can open and close it at your leisure.

As well, I'm sure one of you more technically inclined kiddos can conjure something up that would work swimmingly that nobody else has. Thanks and have a great day! :)

Love,


 * We could actually trim it down by removing those that inherit notability from content that actually makes an appearance. We don't need the following sections:
 * Event: the game takes place on Requiem. This itself, while a feature, does not need to be listed under the Features section as it can be integrated within the article's Plot summary section. Battle of Kholo is a mere mention and not a feature of the game.
 * Locations: the game is set on Requiem; as such, the section should focus only on places set on Requiem. All other locations are simply mere mentions or those that inherit notability from other features. We could simply remove these locations.
 * Organisations: unnecessary information. Most of what has been listed inherits notability from other features (i.e. Iruiru Armory listed because it produced the Carbine). I suggest trim it down to those that actually make an appearance in the game.
 * If we remove/trim the above sections, the content under Features would reflect the actual features in the game better than it currently does. That being said, I don't see the need to add a template for the section. — subtank   10:18, 8 June 2012 (EDT)


 * Since it seems like you said that the game only takes place on Requiem, I was also thinking that we could do something specifically for the Multiplayer maps in terms of a template. It would have sections for a small thumbnail, the map's name, its setting (specific > planet > system [if applicable]), an official description, as well as what map pack (release/day one, etc.) it is in. That could easily knock out some of the clutter already caused by the inclusion of multiplayer content.


 * So, essentially a template that provides an overview of the multiplayer maps in a game? I think it should only be used separately from the game article for the reason being that it would make the game article a bit too long.
 * Halo 4, for now, has a total of ten multiplayer maps. It is projected that six new multiplayer maps will be added from two map packs along with episodic chapters being added to the game every week after the launch date. In total, this would amount to 20+ maps to be covered in the game article. To cover this in a form of a template would make the game article a bit wee too long; a simple list with links would be better. Perhaps we could use the template in Infinity (mode) instead? — subtank   14:02, 8 June 2012 (EDT)

Spartan not an organization,
Why is it that Grizzlei has it set up that Spartan is an organization? BTW it only has S-IVs in it and not S-IIs. If anything, it should be the Spartan Program. The Spartan-IV program is under ONI, yet it's now not listed as that. Also it's under Naval Special Warfare Command. Spartan is the "lowest" of the ladder when it comes to Organizations (which exception of Crimson and Majestic who follow under)--ADinoSupremacist 23:54, 9 June 2012 (EDT)
 * Its newly established canon introduced in Halo 4. Its not some sort of evil Innie conspiracy. Change anything that doesn't fit, but Spartan Branch exists for the Fours and the voluntold Threes.
 * Because it is. Read the sources on that page.-- <tt>KEEP IT CLEAN</tt> <font color="Black"> Comm Line <font color="Black"> Transmissions 00:20, 10 June 2012 (EDT)

Cyclops Mk II vs "Mini" Cyclops
Just a minor issue I would like to solve quickly. I have a small conflict with the Cyclops Mk II and the "mini" cyclops I saw in the E3 campaign trailer & screen shot (5) on the Halo 4 web site showing Masterchief standing near it. I added it as a new feature in Halo 4 but it was reverted for this reason. However, based off what I saw this "Cyclops" is MUCH smaller than the 30 foot tall Cyclops II on Adrift and also someone else (I don't like calling names out) did agree from my understanding. Plus it looks significantly different and possibly unmanned. It does have similar features like the similar shaped gun and rocket arms but overall its just different & smaller. In the screen shot showing MS, it looks as though MS can barely run under it. On Adrift we see S-4's clearly running under the Cyclops II's legs. I say we add it back to the page at least for now until its confirmed otherwise. I also say we change it on the E3 trailer as well. I had it added as "UNSC powered exoskeleton" but now I was also thinking more along the lines of "UNSC powered mech" simiply because it appears unmanned. ? ? -- Killamint   KillaEX  10:39, 13 June 2012 (EDT)


 * After enhancing that image, it looks like you're mostly right. The design of the walker in that image shares some similarities with the Mark II. However, it looks small because of the angle it was shown.— subtank   11:19, 13 June 2012 (EDT)


 * Thanks for adding it back. It just looks like a different walker. Now there's a possibility that it is the Mark II but 343i simply redesigned it and made it smaller but I doubt it. Lets see what happens. 343i may update us with info on it (why show it in the trailer and not say anything about it?). If it turns out I'm wrong, I'll gladly delete it unless someone beats me to it. -- Killamint   KillaEX  11:36, 13 June 2012 (EDT)