Talk:Halo: Combat Evolved/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Spoiler warning

I'm not sure I see the compelling justification for a spoiler warning here - this game has been out for years. Phil Sandifer 19:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• Please explain where in Wikipedia:Spoiler it is said that an old(er) topic may not use spoiler warnings? It doesn't. The enemy type detailed in that section is the game's major plot twist, so no one who had yet to play the game--or have it "spoiled" for them--would know the section contains a spoiler; no one who hadn't played the game would be able to tell that the section title "Allies and enemies" was, in itself, a warning of spoilers. Whether the game's story "common knowledge" or not is not for you, or anyone on Wikipedia, to decide. JimmyBlackwing 19:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

But surely the Flood aren't really that big a twist at this point... they're well-known and have appeared in subsequent games. I'm not sure this spoiler warning hides anything. So again - what's the compelling justification? Phil Sandifer 23:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable to assume that an "allies and enemies" section will detail all friends and foes one will encounter in a game, and that this detail will contain information that one doesn't know about prior to reading the article. So what need exists for an extra warning, which is rather intrusive, adversely affects the flow of the text, and arguably places a disproportionate weight on a relatively insignicant fact? --Tony Sidaway 00:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. 'Sides, it doesn't detail really any details about the Flood - like them and the ring's purpose- that are the de facto spoilers. It's just a general overview. David Fuchs 01:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Saying that they exist is spoiler enough. Also, Tony, in the context of Halo's story, this is about as far from "insigificant" as possible. In most games, the revelation of what enemies will be encountered is not a spoiler. However, in Halo, the Flood represent a large plot element that only comes into play several levels in. And Phil, you have again failed to bring a reasonable argument to the table--someone for whom this would be a spoiler obviously wouldn't have any idea about what the later games included. There are always people who won't know the story of a fictional work, even in reference to literature dating back hundreds of years. Time changes nothing in reference to spoiler warning use. JimmyBlackwing 01:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Suppose I, knowing about The Flood from this article, now try to play Halo. Could you explain how this knowledge would hamper my ability to play the game? --Tony Sidaway 02:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

"Play" Halo? No, it wouldn't hamper your ability to play it, but since when does a spoiler relate to playing? For that matter, how would knowing every major twist in, say, Harry Potter hamper someone's reading of it? Or what about watching a movie or TV series where you already know the "big twist(s)", like The Sixth Sense or The Sopranos? Enjoyment of a work is the factor to discuss, not what you do to experience it the first place. So, with that in mind, yes--knowing about the Flood would be detrimental to a person's enjoyment of the game. JimmyBlackwing 04:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I know about the Flood, which sounds really cool, and you say I'll enjoy the game less? Could you explain this? Won't I be enjoying it all the more knowing that the game is rather more exciting than I thought at first? --Tony Sidaway 05:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Spoiler states that "knowledge of the spoiler would substantially diminish many readers' or viewers' enjoyment of the work", so I'm working with the materials given to me, but to get on with this: no. The revelation of the Flood relies on the shock of not knowing, and many "suspenseful" scenes lead up to it. It's a lot like "Snape kills Dumbledore", in that it completely removes the secret of the plot's most significant twist. I mean, seriously, knowing that Dumbledore dies doesn't make the book "more exciting" because you know it isn't going to be "another ho-hum year at Hogwarts"--it just makes it a tedious wait until it inevitably happens. Another example would be the revelations at the ending of Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater, which knowing about beforehand would almost remove the enjoyment of playing the game, as it is so cutscene and plot-heavy. In reference to the spoiler altering a player's enjoyment of the gameplay, Wikipedia's definition of a "spoiler" invariably refers to a plot element, rendering comment on how it affects the rest of the game's elements unnecessary and almost impossible. JimmyBlackwing 06:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The spoiler tag is redundant. If this article is properly written, it has to give away plot details. There is no other choice for an encyclopedia article about a video game. — Carl (CBM · talk) 06:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like more of an argument to take up with the people at Wikipedia:Spoiler. A spoiler tag can't be considered redundant unless it violates the guidelines listed there, and the one you brought up isn't one of them. JimmyBlackwing 06:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

W:SPOILER makes it clear that spoiler tags should not be used unless there is a specific reason that goes beyond merely discussing plot details. There is no such reason apparent here and you haven't raised one. Several others (4?) have pointed out that the tag isn't necessary. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I've given specific reasons. It isn't my fault I'm getting ganged up on by the anti-spoiler patrol who insist that none of them are valid. JimmyBlackwing 17:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you've misread the guideline. Nowhere in the guideline is it asserted that "knowledge of the spoiler would substantially diminish many readers' or viewers' enjoyment of the work". It says that a spoiler tag may be used if this is the case. You have to show that this is the case. In our articles on Harry Potter, moreover, you will find a full description of all the plot of every work, without any spoiler tags.

There are millions of fans of Harry Potter the world around. Most of them have read the book of the Half Blood Prince, and so they know the how and the why. But they'll be going to see the film when it's completed and released. Why, if as you seem to claim here the story has already been spoiled by their having read the novel? --Tony Sidaway 08:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I was pointing that out because it says "enjoyment" and not "ability to experience", or whatever. You misunderstood me. In the case of Harry Potter, the story elements remain in sections where they will obviously be present ("Plot"). In this case, a story element is revealed outside of a specially named section. As for Harry Potter fans going to see the movie, that is a weak argument. There are dozens of reasons, including "I want to see how badly they screwed it up", "I want to see what kind of atmosphere they gave the movie", "I want to see how well they portray the characters from the book", "I like watching movies more than reading books", "I saw the last one, so I want to see another"... the list could go on almost forever. I have already given the reasons why the Flood spoiler diminishes the player's enjoyment of the work, and yet you remove the spoiler tags because several people who apparently haven't even read the guideline come in demanding the removal of spoiler tags, all for completely different reasons. One guy says that an old work can't use them, while another says all spoiler tags should be removed from video game articles. I'm adding them back until this discussion is finished. JimmyBlackwing 17:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

You have not given reasons why this article needs spoiler tags. Spoiler tags are not for every article on a fictional subject - there needs to be some special reason to include them here beyond the mere fact that this article discusses the details of the game, which is what the article is supposed to do after all. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I've given the "special reason"--the details are revealed in a section where they will not obviously be to the casual reader. This isn't a "spoiler warnings on a section titled Plot" type deal. JimmyBlackwing 00:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

(←) The section is "Allies and enemies". Of course this has to discuss plot details, since the plot is what makes allies and enemies. Any section that can reasonably be expected to contain spoilers doesn't need a spoiler tag - this includes character lists, plot summaries, and anything else where the only source of information is the plot. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

"Allies and enemies", in probably 95% of first-person shooter articles, would not contain spoilers--major examples include games like the Half-Life series, the Doom series, GoldenEye 007 and the Quake series. No reasonable person could be expected to assume that this article is one of the 5% that would have spoilers in such a section, particularly considering that it is a subsection of gameplay. That brings the number closer to 95% of all videogame-related articles; gameplay, by definition, has nothing to do with the plot. Sure, some gameplay sections have plot details in them, but they are few and far between. Also, the section has more sources of information than the plot, as shown by the final paragraph--AI-related elements. If I must, I'll just rename it to something more fitting, since I always found it to be a clunky and misleading title. JimmyBlackwing 01:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The Allies and Enemies section is a spoiler by nature, no matter what article it's in. The reader who looks at it had better expect to be spoiled, why else would you read up on the allies and enemies of the game? That's why spoiler tags are redundant and inappropriate in sections like this. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

But there is no "Allies and enemies" section in this article. JimmyBlackwing 06:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Well that's Carl, Phil, David and Tony for no spoiler tag, and Jimmy for spoiler tag. So why does the spoiler tag keep getting replaced? It seems pretty clear to me that there is no consensus for it. --Tony Sidaway 04:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Give me a day or two and I'll have this place crawling with people supporting the spoiler tags. A few people--who have never edited this article before--suddenly taking interest means nothing. We can call in reinforcements forever and it won't make a difference, because as soon as one side starts reaching a consensus, the other will call in more editors. If that's what you want to happen, then fine. It's what goes on at Wikipedia:Spoiler, so why not here? JimmyBlackwing 06:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see that you appear to be advocating edit warring. --Tony Sidaway 06:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring and explosively large discussions are two very different things. JimmyBlackwing 06:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

True. We can live with discussions. --Tony Sidaway 07:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy. Votes don't count. Halo is one of the finest examples of a videogame with a decent plot element; indeed this is one of the reasons mentioned in the article for its great success. If significant plot elements are discussed (and they are - Jimmy's point about the Flood being a big revelation after a suspenseful lead-up is relevant), I believe a tag is perfectly justified. --Yeti Hunter 08:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with you that votes don't count. But why is this article so different? We don't even currently have a spoiler tag on the Fantastic Four sequel, although it's barely three weeks since release. This could change, obviously, subject to consensus, but generally it seems that "plot elements are discussed here" is not enough argument to support a spoiler tag.

One thing that I keep having to come back to is that the knowledge of the Flood in some way spoils the game. Yet Jimmy himself acknowledged that, for instance in the case of the Harry Potter films, knowledge of the plot and indeed the ending doesn't spoil the films for the many fans. So there seems to be inconsistency here. In what way does knowledge of the plot harm enjoyment? --Tony Sidaway 09:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't say I am typical of most players, but knowing about the Flood didn't hamper my enjoyment of Halo back when I first played it. I actually liked it more, because I was creeping through the swamp looking at the all the clues, and was actually much more aware of whats going on. By the by, this discussion has been offered as "evidence" of sorts of at a Cabal request- I felt I kinda had to add myself to the involved parties even though I haven't been actively removing many because of this. Read it all at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-06-27 Spoiler. David Fuchs 14:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks like another unfortunate editor has fallen into the 'compelling reason' web. Don't waste time trying to appease the whims of the anti-spoiler brigade. Compelling reason means whatever they want it to, in practice it means 'never'. It would be better to argue directly on Wikipedia Talk:Spoiler to get the guideline overturned.--Nydas^(Talk) 15:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• I see that once again the same old anti-spoiler hooligans have shown up again to blast the spoiler tags, and then berate the editors who have tracked and contributed to the article. What's intriguing to me is that these same editors have, on other pages, acknowledged the compromises when an editor makes compelling arguments for keeping a spoiler warning. Jimmy has done that here, but his argument is ignored. A consensus? More like a shout-down match, very ugly to behold. ... Further, I notice that most of those removing the spoiler tag had NOT shown up on this article's History page UNTIL they started removing the tag. This is clearly edit warring, and malicious editing to prove a point. WHICH if you're familiar with guidelines and policies, is very sternly discouraged. Wikilawyering aside, jumping into a page you'd not otherwise be interested in, and berating the editors who actively contribute to them, is poisonous to the Wiki Community. Go find other hobbies, anti-spoiler punks. Your antics are not amusing or in the best interests of WP. Leave the spoiler here. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 21:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Other editors have identified my comment above as a personal attack on other editors, and as "poisoning" the discussion. Neither were my intention. Jimmy invited me to review the discussion and the issue, and contributed my views if I had any. I simply looked at the History of the article, and it appeared to me that newcomers to the page were removing the tag (as the only contribution) and then arguing against its reinstatement with those who appeared to have older, more frequent contributions to this page. I'm sorry if someone's feelings were hurt here. My only intention was to voice support for those with more involvement with this article and their views. If the consensus of long-time contributors is that the spoiler warning is no longer needed, fine. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 12:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• • I find it puzzling that both you and Nydas are complaining of disruption. As far as I can tell, we were having a perfectly useful discussion about spoilers and their use on this page, and then several people blew in and decided to declare the entire discussion bankrupt and completely derail any efforts to try to come to an agreement. Phil Sandifer 22:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

As nobody has actually justified out why the spoiler tag is needed here beyond the fact that the Flood are an opponent discussed in a section clearly about the opponents, I am going to remove the tag again. This article is supposed to be a spoiler, that's the point of an encyclopedia article - to discuss the relevant plot details, gameplay, and critical reception. There is no need to warn about things that are supposed to be there. — Carl (CBM · talk) 05:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

No article is "meant to be a spoiler", and no reasonable user could expect the largest plot element in a game to be revealed in such a fashion. Also, I note that your reasoning doesn't comply with what is spelled out in Wikipedia:Spoiler; by your logic, no article should have a spoiler warning. If every article on Wikipedia is meant to be a "spoiler", then we might as well delete the {{spoiler}} template. Strangely, this hasn't happened, and a guideline has sprung up to support limited use of the tag. How, then, is your reasoning justified? JimmyBlackwing 06:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Articles about fictional topics are expected to contain spoilers in various places. There is consensus that in truly extraordinary circumstances a spoiler tag may be used, but otherwise they should be avoided. In particular, anyone reading this article who reads the section on gameplay is expecting learn about... the gameplay. I have yet to see why this article is different than any other random game article. So, like most of them, it doesn't need a spoiler tag.

Also, based on your edit summary, you seem to feel that if you don't find a response quickly enough you are entitled to insert the tag again, which isn't correct - until the tag is justified and there is consensus to include it, it shouldn't be here. That's the point of the spoiler guideline - that only when there is consensus that a particular spoiler is different enough to deserve a tag should a tag be used. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

This is an extraordinary circumstance. Readers are learning about plot elements in the gameplay section. Very few, if any, other game-related articles contain plot elements in their gameplay sections, hence the need for a warning. JimmyBlackwing 22:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

What else would the gameplay section talk about except the plot of the game as it's played? The spoiler warning in question is in a section titled "Combatants", which is somewhat mistitled since it is meant to describe the enemies the character faces. It seems natural that in order to discuss the enemies in the game it's necessary to divulge some plot information, and the section title is clear enough there. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The section details enemies, allies and AI; "Combatants" is not misleading. Also, the gameplay of most games is not connected to its plot in any relevant way. The same goes for enemies--the story of most games is disconnected from what enemies are faced. No reasonable reader can be expected to assume that the game's largest plot twist is revealed by the existence of a certain type of enemy. JimmyBlackwing 23:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

If the plot twist is the existence of the enemy, then the reader had better expect to learn it when they read a list of the enemies in the game. If someone doesn't want to learn about all the enemies, they would avoid reading a list of them. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The existence of the Flood is detailed in the plot section. They just happen to be necessary for inclusion outside of it, which is why a warning is required--no one who had not played the game/had the plot twist revealed to them would expect it. No one could be expected to expect it. A spoiler warning is completely justified. JimmyBlackwing 01:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

(←) What would someone reading a list of the player's enemies expect to find? — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

An extremely detailed game guide, just like what most "enemy lists" are on this site. In this case, they would be surprised that the section not only details AI and allied NPCs, but large plot elements, all in a concise manner. JimmyBlackwing 05:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with JimmyBlackwing here. It is not normal for an explanation about enemies to reveal major plot spoilers for a video game, so this is an exceptional circumstance. Philip Reuben 20:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Can either of you explain to me exactly what is the "plot element" you're talking about? — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

In Halo, until half way through the game the only enemies you encounter are the Covenant as you race to figure out how to use the ringworld as a weapon. However Cortana suddenly mutters about how the Covenant released something, and now they're afraid... you travel to this swamp to find your captain, but you find crazed allies, lots of blood, dripping goo... the Flood are revealed at the height of the level, and subsequently you learn the real reason the rings were created were to starve the Flood by killing all sentient life in the galaxy. David Fuchs 23:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Which of those plot elements is actually in the section that has a spoiler warning? As far as I can tell, the only spoiler there is that the Flood exists, and some basic info about that. I don't see what information that's actually in that section is so unusual that it needs to be tagged. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Unindent (spoiler discussion continued)

(can't keep up with the colons, so starting anew) That's my reasoning for not having the warning. To me, the Flood existing is an integral part of the plot, but the true nature of Halo is the true "spoiler" or turn or whatever you want to call it. The info in the allies and enemies section is basic enough. David Fuchs 00:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

They're both spoilers. Players do not find out about the Flood until level 6, in a 10 level game, and they are intended to be a surprise. It even says so further down the article:

"This version of the game featured Halo-specific fauna, which were later dropped because of design difficulties and the creatures' "detract[ion] from the surprise, drama and impact of the Flood."[58]"

If the developers themselves specifically tailored the game towards this surprise, then there is hardly any case against it: saying that they exist is a spoiler. Further, it not only mentions them, it goes into fine details about them. Before you bring up their mentioning later in the article, I must note that, besides being named, no details are revealed--it doesn't even say what a "Flood" is. JimmyBlackwing 09:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any fine details there that would not be expected in a general description of the character. The question is not whether there are any plot details at all - of course there are some, since all information about characters in the game comes from the plot. The question is whether the information could reasonably be expected where it sits. Not every spoiler needs a spoiler tag. The entire content about the Flood is this:

A secondary enemy is The Flood, a parasitic alien life form that appears in three main variants.[26] Infection Forms, the true form of the Flood, are fragile, but often travel in swarms. Combat Forms result from humans and Covenant Elites who are infested by Infection Forms, and have hideously deformed bodies. Bloated Carrier Forms serve as incubators for new Infection Forms. When wounded or near a potential victim, they explode suicidally to damage other nearby life forms and to release their spores.

Please explain what in those sentences is so different from every other character in every other game that this one needs a spoiler tag. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

It couldn't be reasonably expected, as it is a plot twist revealed 60% of the way through the game. The description tells us exactly what the Flood are: small, parasitic alien life forms that travel in large groups, and happen to be capable of "infesting" other life forms. It isn't like describing the Zerg from StarCraft--players know exactly what those are just by reading the manual. This is like telling readers that Bruce Willis is dead in the header. The twist is that there is a life form besides humans and Covenant forces on the apparently-barren Halo. A further twist is that they "infest" other life forms. Both of these things are revealed 60% of the way through the game, and both of these things are revealed in "Combatants". No one who had played 50% or less of the game would know that this section contained anything more than information about the Covenant or human soldiers. JimmyBlackwing 20:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

This is vital plot information that cannot be expected or deduced to be there beforehand. I know of no other work of this kind that keeps completely mum about an entire side.
Furthermore, please don't use the spoiler tags' scarcity as an argument for destroying the rest. You know that they were removed en masse with no thought given to the effects, and that there's been no time at all to put any back with the rules forced on them. Should we have to restore thousands of tags simultaneously to prove the validity of any of them? --Kizor 23:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

J: Nobody who hasn't see the ending of a movie knows the ending, but we routinely describe the ending of a movie in a plot section without a spoiler tag, because plot sections are meant to include the whole plot. A section on enemies is meant to describe all the enemies, no matter how far into the game they appear. It isn't that a player of the game reasonably expects it - it's that a reader of the article expects that a section on nemies iwll discuss enemies. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's supposed to describe all of the enemies, but it isn't like spoiler tags remove information--they just give the reader a heads-up. If they want to play the game sometime in the future, then they will probably choose not to read. If they don't, or have already played the game, they will probably choose to read it. As Kizor said, though, it is extremely uncommon for a work of this kind to make no mention of a side for most of the game. A reader will expect descriptions of enemies, yes, not descriptions of enemies that reveal the largest twist in the game's plot. The section is called "Combatants", after all, and not "Plot". JimmyBlackwing 02:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Since the section is called combatants, it's our job to list all the (major) combatants. The tag is just redundant, as it would be in a plot section. I don't see how anyone can read a section on enemies and not expect to read about all the major enemies. The point of us being encyclopedic is that we cover all the important information. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Except the existence of an enemy force usually isn't the plot twist of the whole game. In this case it is. --MichaelLinnear 04:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

(←) It's not in any way novel to have a new enemy appear in the middle of a game. Not even a first person shooter - there are always new enemies that appear in the middle to end of the game to make the difficulty increase. The question isn't whether this is a plot detail, it's why it would be so unexpected to warrant a spoiler tag. The fact that the Flood is a combatant and is listed in a section on combatants means that the reader is expecting to learn about it, along with all the other combatants, when he or she reads that section. The mere fact that it is a spoiler doesn't mean it needs a spoiler tag. — Carl (CBM · talk) 05:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Every spoiler tag covers a spoiler, and the sole reason for this is "because it's a spoiler". This is the only reason for the tag's existence: it gives readers a heads-up that a spoiler is on the way. Again, by your logic, there shouldn't be any spoiler tags, on any articles. Your reasoning is not supported by WP:SPOIL. JimmyBlackwing 05:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:SPOILER makes it clear spoilers are only used in rare occasions where either the location of the spoiler is unexpected (not an issue here) or the spoiler is somehow different than similar spoilers in similar articles (not an issue here). The mere fact that a detail is a spoiler does not warrant a spoiler tag - that's the point of the whol WP:SPOILER guideline. — Carl (CBM · talk) 05:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you need to read the guideline again. That's not what it says. JimmyBlackwing 05:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Huh? "In Wikipedia articles, for purposes of style and clarity, the use of spoiler alerts is minimized, though they are acceptable as an exception to our general guideline, no disclaimers in articles, when there is consensus for their inclusion." Note the word "minimized". Also, "Spoiler warnings should not be used when they can be replaced by more accurate heading information." — Carl (CBM · talk) 05:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Note the word "consensus", which is clearly against you. 3 people have agreed with me, without my request, in the last 2 days. You have not had any support during that time. That isn't counting the others who have arrived. I'm not going to turn this into a "consensus war", because that's Tony's game, but I thought I should point it out. Anyway, yes, use is minimized, but this is minimal use. Also, this spoiler could not be replaced by more accurate heading information--the heading is as clear as possible, and it still cannot warn users of the imminent spoiler. This is an exception to the rule: no one could expect it, because very few works have their entire plots based on a single, easily-revealed element. The spoiler is both different and unexpected, if you insist on using your criteria. JimmyBlackwing 06:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The header already in place warns the reader about the spoiler - it says the section is on combatants, and the only information you are claiming is a spoiler is the identity of one of the combatants. — Carl (CBM · talk) 06:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Which is the plot twist of the game, and the focus of the latter half of it. --MichaelLinnear 06:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The appearance of new enemies which you describe as "not in any way novel" is an upgrade in the opposing force. That's common. A scene that turns the entire situation on its head isn't. --Kizor 07:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Could you explain that in more detail? How is the appearance of the Flood any different than a new enemy appearing in the middle of another game? Of course if the new enemy is different than old ones the gameplay will feel different, but it's still just a new enemy to challenge the player. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The number of articles that current include spoiler tags is seven (out of 1,869,580). I fail to see how the use of a spoiler tag on this one of those seven pages violates the "minimized" clause, especially when several people are arguing for its inclusion and have provided clear justification. Philip Reuben 16:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The 'minimized' clause is prejudicial to discussion and should be scrapped. It just encourages judgements like 'well, we've got more than ten today, so we can't have another one'.--Nydas^(Talk) 15:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)