Talk:Halo: Combat Evolved Anniversary

From Halopedia, the Halo wiki

Revision as of 20:16, August 29, 2011 by The Unbalanced Warrior (talk | contribs) (→‎Headlong?: new section)

Firefight Map

Should we mention the "different and new" firefight map that will be available, I'm keeping my fingers crossed for flood. —This unsigned comment was made by Spartan Jack490 (talkcontribs). Please sign your posts with ~~~~

I think it's worth a mention. From this Sparkcast (http://halo.xbox.com/Content/assets/en-us/Podcast/waypointrss.xml), I also believe that it might be Flood. They could have been joking, but Frankie and the other 343 members were hinting heavily at The Library. -TheLostJedi 16:07, 7 June 2011 (EDT)

I agree, but how would that be playable? Are they going to put it in the Reach matchmaking?--Bdgroot-117 04:40, 10 June 2011 (EDT)

I got the impression the maps are just new Reach maps, on the Reach MM disc, like Mythic II was for Halo 3. Alex T Snow 04:52, 10 June 2011 (EDT)
Quite so. According to the Sparkast I linked there will be another disc with the Campaign disc for Halo: CEA. That disc will have the 7 new maps, although they also spoke of a voucher code that will come with the purchase, to download those 7 maps, allowing players to play all of Reach's maps if they choose to. This could all be subject to change though. It's still a few months before the game's release. -TheLostJedi 20:21, 12 June 2011 (EDT)

How about the hold out point on the level Halo where you have to defend the marines, bungie hinted that might make an appearance.

  • How do jou mean?--Bdgroot-117 17:45, 26 June 2011 (EDT)

Artistic Licence

The new helmet is strange, it doesnt look exactly like the old one. It doenst look smooth. 84.130.203.147 15:25, 9 June 2011 (EDT)

As of right now, it sounds like 343 is still fixing/redoing a lot of stuff in the game, the helmet and armor included. Hopefully the stuff we've seen so far isn't the final version SPARTAN-347 17:20, 9 June 2011 (EDT)

They said they've already fixed the helmet. Alex T Snow 17:24, 9 June 2011 (EDT)
True, also if you watch carefully, all of the appearances of Chief in the trailer aren't consistent. For instance, in the reveal shot where it switches from the old Chief to the new, his armour looks a bit weird. But later... freeze the frames around when it has a clip of online Co-op play. The Chief in that clip looks better. -TheLostJedi 20:26, 12 June 2011 (EDT)

...You know, another possibility could be that the Mk. V that we've seen in Reach (the whole suit, not just the armor pieces) is actually the Mk. V [B] (the privatized variant made for the SPARTAN-IIIs), and what we're seeing in Halo: Anniversary is the straight-up Mk. V SPARTAN-347 00:17, 19 June 2011 (EDT)

I don't think so, because such an important piece of info would be mentioned somewhere. Also, it's not really common for there to be a privatized variant of an entire suit. Jorge uses the same base suit as the rest of Noble team, so a special Spartan-III private Mk V variant is out of the question. I honestly think that 343 wanted to keep the suit like the original in order to preserve John's image. The Mk V in Halo: Reach is a sort of redux made to bring the old Mk V into a new, grittier light. If John used the Reach model for Mk V, it wouldn't feel right. However, I wish 343 would make it a little bit more like the Reach version just for canon and aesthetic reasons...--File:PENGUIN4.gifFluffyEmoPenguin(ice quack!) 14:14, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

Terminals

Were will the terminals be placed in the "new" campain?--Bdgroot-117 16:17, 14 June 2011 (EDT)

will anyone but this it seems like campaign and new maps for reach which will likely be released as dlc later on?butthead4

According to Frankie, each level will have one Terminal to be found, and that these will be relatively easy to find and won't result in being killed while viewing it by nearby enemies. -- Specops306 Autocrat Qur'a 'Morhek 21:21, 14 June 2011 (EDT)
What the hell is butthead4 trying to say? --Felix-119 14:46, 16 June 2011 (EDT)
I have no idea "A Penny saved is a Penny earned" 14:49, 16 June 2011 (EDT)

You mine putting a reference on that, SpecOps? Vegerot (talk) 13:36, 17 June 2011 (EDT)!

Interview with Dan Ayoub here, providing details on the terminals.
Highlight:
"Terminals debuted in Halo 3, it was text, it was a little difficult to find. So we're going to make the Terminals more accessible, they will be easier for people to find and we're going to use them to tell a story of the Halo ring, and if you find them all you may find that we've laid down some foundation for the other Halo game we talked about today."
— Dan Ayoub

-- Specops306 Autocrat Qur'a 'Morhek 01:28, 18 June 2011 (EDT)

thanks!--Bdgroot-117 16:53, 24 June 2011 (EDT)

Flood

The main thing that struck me personally, was the Flood. I mean, they didn't appear in reach, so it only shows that they'll have to make all new graphics, correct? With that, I am wondering if the Flood will appear in Firefight, and if so, how will they appear. --~Jman98~ 17:36, 18 June 2011 (EDT)

Watch the trailer at 0:53. you can see flood. BushWookieCamper

The legs on the elite combat forms look like those of the Halo: Reach - style elites, so I'd say it's safe to say the rest of their design has been updated too SPARTAN-347 00:15, 19 June 2011 (EDT)

Maybe they used the Halo 3 Flood models and touched them up a bit. Bioniclepluslotr 21:53, 30 July 2011 (EDT)

BOB Zealot?

I saw the picture at the bottom of the article. Its description was a BOB Zealot. Why the hell is it a BOB? Just because it has white armor? I don't get it.

Whoops forgot to sign it. Themrhalo007File:WORT WORT WORT.jpgFile:TrapLARGE.jpg 21:06, 9 July 2011 (EDT)

Yes. Zealots do not have white armour. Alex T Snow 16:56, 3 July 2011 (EDT)

No, it;s not a zealot, if you noticed the armor is being used differently from Reach, that is one of the invisible guys you fight throughout that mission, He also has no shields like they do. —This unsigned comment was made by ArchedThunder (talkcontribs). Please sign your posts with ~~~~

What are you talking about? Its not an invisible one. Just watch this video. 7:37 Now did you see that Golden elite with the energy sword. THAT was the Zealot. And did you see another Elite with an energy sword? No. And why you think he has no shields, idk. Clearly he lives though a needle combine! Themrhalo007File:WORT WORT WORT.jpgFile:TrapLARGE.jpg 15:39, 16 July 2011 (EDT)
Please sign your comments PRESIDENT1234 19:18, 4 July 2011 (EDT)
This isn't Halo Reach, shields have nothing to do with the damage the needles do, maybe you should play CE again. ArchedThunder

Marathon symbols ?

Will be again be able to see the Marathon symbols in the game ? Like on Keyes, PoA and such ? Mcz117chief 14:58, 4 July 2011 (EDT)

I think not. It's Bungie's trademark, and they even avoided to use it in Reach PatrickRus 15:44, 4 July 2011 (EDT)

But that was because of Microsoft, as the Marathon series is owned by the Microsoft, but since 343i is working in conjunction with Microsoft, I hope we will be able to see them again. Mcz117chief 16:18, 4 July 2011 (EDT)

Halo is property of Microsoft Game Studios and it's subsidiary, 343 Industries. Bungie still however maintains full rights to the Marathon franchise. User:CommanderTony/Sig

Then why didn't they use it in reach?--1-10 12:34, 14 July 2011 (EDT)

The symbol will not be in the game as we can see simply by looking at the logo. The original had the Marathon symbol in the center, as seen here: [1] but the new one has replaced it with a monitor as seen here: [2]. As commander Tony said, Marathon belongs to Bungie but Halo belongs to Microsoft therefore Microsoft will not use the symbol without Bungie's permission. As for why it wasn't in Reach, that is most likely due to Halo belonging to Microsoft at the time despite Bungie making the game--Soul reaper 13:28, 14 July 2011 (EDT)

New skulls

http://halo.xbox.com/en-us/news/headline/special-halo-combat-evolved-anniversary-pre-order-bonuses/111729 Someone mind adding it to the article?

AR fixed

Just thought I'd let people know YAY :) Alex T Snow 19:16, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

Please upload a picture to the article. 24.60.143.195 02:55, 19 July 2011 (EDT)

I'll get on that. Alex T Snow 04:36, 19 July 2011 (EDT)

I'm confused

Is Halo: CE Anniversary going to be a standalone retail game or DLC for Halo: Reach? even after reading the article through several times, i still don't get it. 24.60.143.195 02:56, 19 July 2011 (EDT)

It's a standalone retail release, built using the Reach engine, but including Reach multiplayer and seven exclusive maps, like Halo 3: ODST being packaged with the Halo 3 multiplayer. -- Specops306 Autocrat Qur'a 'Morhek 07:12, 19 July 2011 (EDT)

It's not on the Reach engine -ArchedThunder

Just the Reach graphics engine is how I heard it, regardless, gameplay has literally not been touched at all. Alex T Snow 09:09, 20 July 2011 (EDT)

It isn't the reach engine, it is a completely new engine made by Saber. —This unsigned comment was made by ArchedThunder (talkcontribs). Please sign your posts with ~~~~

The engine from CE is the same, the graphics though have been revamped.--1234fansofHalo 12:38, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

Yes they have the CE engine, but when running the new graphics it using using a new graphics engine. ArchedThunder

Old or New Engine?

I know that this game uses the original engine, but would people like it better if it used the Reach engine (minus equipment and all the stuff that wasn't in the original game). What I mean by the Reach engine is the ability to swap weapons with allies, have UNSC vehicles be destructible, and have the same weapon and AI behaviors as in Reach, but map layout and stuff that was exclusive to the original game (such as the original assault rifle) will have the original behaviors. I know keeping the old engine gives it that vintage and classic feel that was important to the game when it first came out, but would people really buy a game that they already have just because they updated the graphics? For me, I guess I would give it a try, maybe rent it, but I don't know if I'll buy it just for the graphics. Anyways, what do you guys think: is new engine or old engine better? Bioniclepluslotr 16:50, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

I get what you mean, for sure about the weapon swapping, but the point is they're not touching gameplay at all. Period. Alex T Snow 18:32, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

Are they changing animations? Bioniclepluslotr 23:13, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

Only graphics. Alex T Snow 23:22, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

And multiplayer? It says that it includes Reach's multiplayer, so is it like ODST having Halo 3's multiplayer? Bioniclepluslotr 07:34, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

Classic MP maps

Will the new multiplayer maps be available for use with the Reach disc once this game is played or installed or is it only available on this game's multiplayer? Bioniclepluslotr 07:39, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

It is Reach's multiplayer and they have said that they will allow you to download the map pack for free when you purchase the game so you can play them on the Reach disk ArchedThunder

If I rent or borrow the game, does it still work, or do I have to enter some code that came with the game? I don't remember what happened with the Halo 3 and ODST map thing. Bioniclepluslotr 11:47, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

Changes in Canon

Since Reach graphics are used, won't canonical stuff about appearance also change? For example, Zealots are Gold in the original trilogy, but not in Reach. This can be explained canonically right now that the Reach Zealot armor is an older version, but if the ones in this game are now using the old armor, won't that mess up how to explain it? Bioniclepluslotr 21:52, 30 July 2011 (EDT)

It's not like you can't change the color of something...--ハローファン (H1234-NET) 21:56, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
I didn't think it every actually called the gold Elites in CE Zealots. I wrote a big thing about this on the General talk page, but basically the way I see it is the gold Elites are Generals, not Zealots. Zealots act as strike team, but Generals are tough bosses who guard locations, like in CE. Alex T Snow 03:49, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
I think a bigger issue is the backwards retconning of things. They're using a remastered Mark V model instead of the one in Reach as well as using weapon models more similar to those in CE. All the while mixing in models FROM Reach like the Pelicans, Marines, enemies, and such.--File:PENGUIN4.gifFluffyEmoPenguin(ice quack!) 16:28, 2 August 2011 (EDT)
Any changes will be purely asthetic and will only create minor breaches in cannon. Who really cares if the remodeled pelican has a vent on it where there wasn't one in the original? It won't matter, and any differences could be explained by them being just a "variant" of the original. pestilence Phil, pestilence! 17:48, 2 August 2011 (EDT)
Or by the fact that it is the same type of Pelican, just the design is different, it is no different than them constantly changing the look of Covenant species, weapons, vehicles, and architecture. ArchedThunder

I think that in non-sepfic objects or beings (IE: weapons, vhecles, etc), we should treat canonically the same as CE, ide: retconned by the newer games.

My reasoning is that the gameplay has to be the same, models are contrained by the same hitboxes. you can see in trailers that the weapons, and enemny species look dispronarnte to their current state, but not to the ce versions. I'm not signed in right now, but i'm jabberwock xeno 24.154.119.139 21:42, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

Theater Mode

Is theater mode a possibility for the campaign? The developers said that they wanted to keep the game the same except for graphics, but adding theater won't hurt, would it? Bioniclepluslotr 21:55, 30 July 2011 (EDT)

Firefight map on Reach engine?

Do we know if the Firefight map will be included with the second disc (if there is one) that has the Reach maps on it, or will it run off of the Anniversary engine on the main disc? The way the info was worded suggests the former.--File:PENGUIN4.gifFluffyEmoPenguin(ice quack!) 16:19, 2 August 2011 (EDT)

I heard that there's only one disc, and that it includes Reach multiplayer, but technically, Firefight is separate from Multiplayer, so it may not be included. I think that the matchmaking will have certain playlists from Reach that will let players play against players with the Reach disc, but have separate co-op playlists for this game's campaign, and no firefight playlists. Bioniclepluslotr 21:26, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

Physics engine

Well, considering the info that was provided to use, the physics engine is the same as in the original halo:ce. I was wondering, how do you think will work the death animations and ragdolls ? Most of you probably remember/know how dead bodies "melted" when they were partly over the edge of some kind. How will this work in the nev version ? Will they still "melt" even in the new graphics layer ? Mcz117chief 02:44, 3 August 2011 (EDT)

I feel that all the old animations mixed with new character models will cause some problems, such as a character's armor passing through itself (arm sinks into chest). Plus the cutscenes are going to look odd. I wish they at least change the cutscenes to look more like the newer ones. Bioniclepluslotr 17:49, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

Which means ghosts won't explode when they die. Just catch on fire... right? --XSuperGamerTalk 12:58, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
Covenant vehicles exploded in the original game, there was just no plasma - it was like a gasoline explosion. Covenant vehicles are indestructible when not currently being ridden.-- Forerunner 13:44, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

Energy Swords

Since everything is being updated, we'll be able to use energy swords in this game right? They won't just disintegrate... RIGHT? --XSuperGamerTalk 12:47, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

Only graphical/audio updates; gameplay remains the same... so yes, they will disintegrate.— subtank 12:52, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
Which also means............ we won't be able to drive the wraith........ --XSuperGamerTalk 12:57, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

Multiplayer maps need their own pages already.

There is no reason for the maps not having their own pages yet. They aren't just straight ports, though you can forge them to be the classic version, and they are maps for Reach. They need their own damn pages.

We've already had this argument, but we will create these pages once there is sufficient information. Perhaps this sufficient information will come out at Halo Fest. Also calm the frak down, you don't need use curse words--ハローファン (H1234-NET) 23:58, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
If you think damn is a curse word then....are you 10? Anyways we know a lot about Beaver Creek/Battle Canyon and Damnation/Penance. Besides as I have said before that is a stupid reason not to have pages for them, not knowing much about the maps never stopped us from making new pages before, in fact in the Halo 3 days we would map pages for the maps when all we knew was their code name. There is absolutely ZERO reason why they shouldn't have their own pages.ArchedThunder
Your acting like an immature child, don't use caps and calm the frak down.--ハローファン (H1234-NET) 14:56, 18 August 2011 (EDT)
lolwut —This unsigned comment was made by ArchedThunder (talkcontribs). Please sign your posts with ~~~~
Also learn to sign your comments.--ハローファン (H1234-NET) 21:26, 23 August 2011 (EDT)

Headlong?

I see here that we have 'conformed’ that the Halo 2 remake is Headlong. However the link to prove this is broken and just leads you to the IGN home page.

Reason to keep it: I have done some outside research on this, and found that other people also said this “Warthog violence” video conformed the remaking of Headlong.

Reasons not to keep it: I can conform that this video DID exist on the 26th of august (using Google's cache), But this video does not exist on IGN anymore. Now they might have taken it down because it really was a slip and wanted to get it out of the public…but it also very well could have been taken down for other reasons. The bottom line is we can't go and see if the video did in fact prove the remaking of Headlong.

My question is do we continue to use this no-existing video as proof, or do we take down the Headlong information?

--The Unbalanced Warrior 20:15, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

Headlong?

I see here that we have 'conformed’ that the Halo 2 remake is Headlong. However the link to prove this is broken and just leads you to the IGN home page.

Reason to keep it: I have done some outside research on this, and found that other people also said this “Warthog violence” video conformed the remaking of Headlong.

Reasons not to keep it: I can conform that this video DID exist on the 26th of august (using Google's cache), But this video does not exist on IGN anymore. Now they might have taken it down because it really was a slip and wanted to get it out of the public…but it also very well could have been taken down for other reasons. The bottom line is we can't go and see if the video did in fact prove the remaking of Headlong.

My question is do we continue to use this no-existing video as proof, or do we take down the Headlong information?

--The Unbalanced Warrior 20:15, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

Headlong?

I see here that we have 'conformed’ that the Halo 2 remake is Headlong. However the link to prove this is broken and just leads you to the IGN home page.

Reason to keep it: I have done some outside research on this, and found that other people also said this “Warthog violence” video conformed the remaking of Headlong.

Reasons not to keep it: I can conform that this video DID exist on the 26th of august (using Google's cache), But this video does not exist on IGN anymore. Now they might have taken it down because it really was a slip and wanted to get it out of the public…but it also very well could have been taken down for other reasons. The bottom line is we can't go and see if the video did in fact prove the remaking of Headlong.

My question is do we continue to use this no-existing video as proof, or do we take down the Headlong information?

--The Unbalanced Warrior 20:16, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

Headlong?

I see here that we have 'conformed’ that the Halo 2 remake is Headlong. However the link to prove this is broken and just leads you to the IGN home page.

Reason to keep it: I have done some outside research on this, and found that other people also said this “Warthog violence” video conformed the remaking of Headlong.

Reasons not to keep it: I can conform that this video DID exist on the 26th of august (using Google's cache), But this video does not exist on IGN anymore. Now they might have taken it down because it really was a slip and wanted to get it out of the public…but it also very well could have been taken down for other reasons. The bottom line is we can't go and see if the video did in fact prove the remaking of Headlong.

My question is do we continue to use this no-existing video as proof, or do we take down the Headlong information?

--The Unbalanced Warrior 20:16, 29 August 2011 (EDT)