Talk:Halo 4

Archive

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 _{(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. Grizzlei ♥ ツ

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. Grizzlei ♥ ツ

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. Grizzlei ♥ ツ

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. —This unsigned comment was made by Spartan Matt (talk • contribs). Please sign your posts with ~~~~

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. Grizzlei ♥ ツ

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! Grizzlei ♥ ツ

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. Grizzlei ♥ ツ

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 _{(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. --Jugus (Talk | 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. Grizzlei ♥ ツ

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.-- KEEP IT CLEAN ^{Comm Line} _{Transmissions} 16:54, 13 May 2012 (EDT)

This photo on Xbox.com, to be exact.-- KEEP IT CLEAN ^{Comm Line} _{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?-- KEEP IT CLEAN ^{Comm Line} _{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. Grizzlei ♥ ツ

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.-- KEEP IT CLEAN ^{Comm Line} _{Transmissions} 20:19, 14 May 2012 (EDT)

Hmm

Hmm… so Elites can't be playable… that is the only thing that disappoints me. Thoughts?--Shade 22:39, 14 May 2012 (EDT)