Talk:Precursor

Damn
We know barely anything about the Forerunners, and now Bungie has to throw in another uber-race of ultra-powerful beings? This is starting to get really confusing. And mind, it was sort of confusing from the start. Perhaps Flood are Precursors? Just puttin' it out there, let those theories roll.Metaridley 20:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

god? that seems the best answer lol.

Durandal? --Dragonc laws (talk ) 05:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Meta-Ridley is right, Bungie you jerks (I Don't mean it, don't send your Ninja's on me). But I don't think the Flood ARE Precursors, but could be the product of the precursor's stupidity (Like Godzilla)--'Bugger | Bug Me | Bugged''  00:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)--Bugger | Bug Me | Bugged ''' 00:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The precursors are obviously a race of super inteligent gerbils that created a ringworld called HAPLO, Huge Ass Pastry Lobbing Orbibthingy. The Forerunners were hampsters that ran on there forelegs (hence "Forerunner") and decider to mimic this down to the name, but sohumans me dirt covered the P and they named it Halo. Then a hunter wrote a poem about walrus dung and the prophets watched NASCAR.

The page says that the structures where "Moved to Halo". I was begining to think that the Precursors created halo. But then I remembered all the Forerunner Glyphs and Terminals and droped the Idea... Imchicken1

Heh, Bungie's only hinted at Precursors. You've got a ton more to go buddy. The whole Forerunner thing isn't even figured out yet. Pop quiz, "Who killed the "Precursors"? That oughta blow your mind. (Although I personally think the Precursors created the Flood, after all, they could travel between galaxies, and the Flood is "extragalactical in origin.")LemonDragon 06:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Halo 4
I don't think bungie would add a whole new mystery at the end of the trilogy unless they had something good in mind. Maybe we'll learn a lot about the forerunner and these guys will become the new mystery species. So i'll be the first to say it; Are humans Precursors? DA DA DA...

Why are the precursors listed as tier 0? The beastiarum's technological advancement listed Tier 0 as a theoretical ceiling. So if the Forerunners have the precursors as an example of Tier 0, then Tier 0 is no longer theoretical like it said. All it was saying is that the Precursors are more advanced than the Forerunners, not that the Precursors are Tier 0.


 * Tier 0 is the highest it goes. And since the Forerunners were the most advanced species at the time, and the Precursors were even more advanced, they created a new tier for them. --  Councillor  Specops306  -  Kora   'Morhek  05:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I understand that, but how can Tier 0 be a "theoretical Ceiling," meaning there is no specific example, when supposedly they have the example of the Precursors? The wording seems off to me from the Beastiarum to indicate that the Precursors are a Tier 0 Civ.

"As the Forerunners had no examples of civilizations with technological accomplishment greater than themselves - with the exception of the Precursors - this is a theoretical ceiling. They can travel intergalactic and accelerate the evolution of intelligent life"

Take a look at the wording. Remove "with the exception of the Precursors," and it still is a complete sentence. Read it while ignoring that phrase, then add it back in and it seems to indicate that the Precursors are the only civ more advanced than the Forerunners, but are not necessarily a Tier 0 civ. Just because a civ is more advanced than another does not mean that they are another Tier above the other. South Korea is about 1 year ahead of the USA in terms of electronics. Does this mean that South Korea is a Tier above the USA? No. Both civs are in the same Tier (if South Korea has a space program). st

The Tier 0 thing is designed to be similar to the Covenant belief.

The Covenant Believed that the Forerunners became trans-sendant or watever, and they worshipped them as if it were true. The Forerunners believed that the Precursors died out and became trans-sendant. Can you see it? The Precursor thing is the Forerunner religeon.Forerunner 12:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

spelling
How do you spell "transsentient"

is it


 * 1) transsentient
 * 2) transentient
 * 3) trans-sentient

I've looked everywhere I can't find it. Make sure to change the name on Sentient Beings as well.LemonDragon 06:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)