Talk:Halo 3/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Pay attention!!

For nearly 3 hours just now, there were a series of edits throughout the "Gameplay" section by a MichaelRWGillis, that were clear and obvious vandalism. edits he made in case you missed them! And 3 registered wikipedians made minor changes or reverts without reading beyond the first intro paragraph to see these obvious acts of vandalism! The only person that even noticed any of this was a non-registered IP user.

Three hours, and 4 people (who actually interacted with the page) missing the extent of the vandalism is pretty unacceptable to me. Now, I've just gone and manually reverted every single edit that the attacker made to the page, which was tedious, time consuming and shouldn't have had to have been done (I hope there is actually a simpler way of getting back to an old edit).

So please, pay a little bit more attention to the article when reverting vandalism, as there can be slightly more subtle vandalism buried throughout the text. Just undoing the most recent won't cut it. RC Master (talk) 20:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

EDIT: Why is Halo 3 no longer semi-protected anyway? when every other edit seems to be vandalism, and the others are reverts, why is it no longer semi-protected? It makes to sense to me. Surely FA articles around a subject that is still faily active (Number 1 played on the week of 22nd september on XBL!) should be semi-protected as a matter of course? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RC Master (talk • contribs) 20:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Facts aren't allowed on wikipedia anymore?

Halo 3 is still SEVENTH ranked on Gamerankings, not sixth. I did ask someone to make this TINY, SIMPLE change on the stupidly protected page here, but some moron deleted it as vandalism. It got displaced by the arrival of Grand Theft Auto IV. You can check on the damn site if you have to. Can someone make the change, for crying out loud? Jesus. I remember when you could actually put information on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.41.132 (talk) 05:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Checking the history logs shows no anonymous IP editing for the last month, which means if you made the edit, you have an account capable of editing semi-protected page. If that's the case, use your account to make the edit. If you don't have an account, then you can simply make one, wait a couple of days, and make the edit yourself. The page isn't going to be removed from semi-protected status anytime soon, because vandalism is far too prevalent. Peptuck (talk) 05:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Doing a second check over the history page, I don't even see an instance where vandalism was cited as a reason for reverting an edit made to any of the reception sections, at least over the last couple of weeks. In fact, I don't see anything matching this description at all. Can you point to a specific edit that I might have missed? Peptuck (talk) 05:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't make the change on the actual page, due to protection. I asked someone to edit it in the discussion page, and it was removed as vandalism. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Halo_3&diff=214061904&oldid=214055524 86.29.41.132 (talk) 09:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Huh. Wierd. Looks like the guy doing those edits was committing vandalism disguised as useful edits and disrupting the talk page, judging by the other revisions under that same name. He's been blocked. The removal of your request was just one of many acts of vandalism; a check of his contributions page and talk page shows he was an active vandal. Peptuck (talk) 09:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Stilllllllllll says sixth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.36.124 (talk) 08:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

So? If you have a problem with what the page says, edit it yourself. Peptuck (talk) 15:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

"This page is currently semi-protected, and can be edited only by established registered users." That's probably the issue here. BCWhims (talk) 03:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)BCWhims

Like I said, that can be dealt with as easily as establishing an account and waiting a few days. In fact, in the time between the posting of this initial complaint and now, if 86.29.41.132 had registered an account, they would have been able to make the edits felt necessary instead of complaining about it on the talk page. The page itself is semi-protected for a good reason. Peptuck (talk) 05:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

cyborg?

Why does it mention Master Chief is a cyborg, afaik, none of the Halo material (games, books etc) actually states he is a cyborg. Sorry if this has been mentioned before, but an official source of this would be nice =) 77.98.107.157 (talk) 13:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Good catch. He's not a cyborg; he has cybernetic implants, but that doesn't make him a cyborg. I've fixed the statement to match the description in the lead: cybernetically enhanced. Anakinjmt (talk) 15:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

(facepalm) "Cybernetic implants" means that, surprise, he is what is generally considered a cyborg. On top of that, the Halo manuals have always called him a cyborg. Peptuck (talk) 15:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

No they don't. I just checked all three manuals, and they don't call him a cyborg. Besides, cyborgs are part human, part machine that need both to survive. That doesn't fit the Chief. Anakinjmt (talk) 16:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

If you like i can find quotes of the enhancements they recieve during the book 'Fall Of Reach,' in fact i think they are listed on the Wikipedia entry on 'Spartan-IIs' 77.98.107.157 (talk) 19:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Did you even look at the definition of what constitutes a "cyborg" on Wikipedia? The Chief has cybernetic implants, that automatically makes him a cyborg, period. Peptuck (talk) 19:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

What cybernetic implants does he have, and please post some sources? 77.98.107.157 (talk) 19:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The standard-issue neural implants mentioned through the Halo novels, for a start. Peptuck (talk) 19:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Arent all humans in the Halo universe issued with the neural implant, thus making all humans, or at least all UNSC personnel cyborgs? 77.98.107.157 (talk) 19:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, he is technically a cyborg, along with every other soldier, if we use the definition of him having man-made features incorporated into his body. You could consider a person with a cochlear implant a cyborg. Generally the definition is applied to serious replacement or augmentation of the biomass with synthetic material, however, so I'd say that the regular soldiers are 'normal humans' and Spartans are cyborgs. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 19:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I was under never the impression that the Chief had a serious replacement or augmentation of his biomass with synthetics, and I've read and own The Fall of Reach. They're just conditioned to be exceptional soldiers. I know what the definition of a cyborg is, thank you. And, as said before, just because he has some cybernetics doesn't mean we should call him a cyborg. We don't want to mislead people. Anakinjmt (talk) 20:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary; he's far more than just well-conditioned with a shiny suit of armor. Here are some of the upgrades SPARTAN-Is got;

Carbide ceramic ossification; advanced material grafted onto bones to make them unbreakable.

Superconducting fibrification of neural dendrites; alteration of bioelectrical nerve transduction to shieleded electronic transduction.

So yes, they are well-conditioned soldiers, but also with extensive biomodification. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 20:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I still wouldnt say they are cyborgs, shielded electronic transduction i presume is the insulation of nerves for example via myelin sheaths. It isnt hinted anywhere in the series that the spartans recieve any more cybernetic implantation than any other humans in the universe so i would agree that deeming them cyborgs is misleading. Most people would read cyborg as along the lines of the 6 million dollar man, not just a small chip in the bottom of the spartan's neck. 77.98.107.157 (talk) 18:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

See, when I think of "cyborg", I think of The Borg, or of Lobot. I don't think of Master Chief. Anakinjmt (talk) 19:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Since I don't feel like scrolling through all this crap: The Master Chief is a Cyborg, one of the very first chapters of Halo: Combat Evolved refers to him as such. Also, his cybernetic implants AND the fact that his MJOLNIR armor is partially grafted onto his body automatically makes him a cyborg. Sorry, kiddies, but it's true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.92.156 (talk) 20:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

If you're not going to read through it, at least put it at the bottom of the section, which is where I've moved it. His armor isn't grafted onto his body. How else does he change armor between 1 and 2? He goes into cryostasis in armor so that he can be ready for combat at a moment's notice, but he changes armor. I still don't buy he's a cyborg by the conventional definition. Anakinjmt (talk) 21:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

However, Matthew Woodring Stover (who, as the author of a few Star Wars novelizations, probably counts as a reliable source for science fiction) does. He wrote an essay, cited in Master Chief (Halo), called "You Are the Master Chief", in which he spends a good amount of time arguing why the character was (in his opinion, correctly) presented as a cyborg, and neither fully human nor fully machine. Reviews (Computer and Video Games and IGN) have referred to the character unequivocally as a "cyborg". So has the BBC. Can anyone find a reliable source arguing that the Master Chief is not a cyborg? Remember, the issue is not whether the character fits our perceptions or definitions of a cyborg, but what reliable sources have said. — TKD::Talk 00:11, 10 Dece<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lupin/navpop.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css&dontcountme=s">mber 2007 (UTC)

As Anakinjmt says, the conventional definition of a cyborg is someone with machinery sticking out of their body who makes a whirring noise when he moves. That's the old, '80s vision that stuck through the decades; people thought of what robots combined with humans would look like, and since robots back then were the size of a Buick they came to that image. Nowadays we've got virtually natural prosthetics. So I think that the definition will change, and as I said, Master Chief has extensive biomodification; it just isn't visible. Of course, you could count his suit as a prosthetic, as he's plugged into it. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 04:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

You could have every sci-fi author under the sun (bar the ones from bungie) saying hes a cyborg but it still wouldnt make it so as it isnt their universe. Can we have an actual quote from the Halo:CE novel saying he is a cyborg? And may i also repeat, that the cybernetic chip that EVERY MARINE in the halo universe is issued with is for identification, ie, the equivalent of a dog tag, watch the arms race promo video for H3 and you will see. The master chief has no further 'cybernetic enhancements.' As for the metal grafted onto his bones, would you say that wolverine from xmen is a cyborg? I still dont think this quantifies as a reason to call him a cyborg, spartans arent dependent on the material grafted to their bones; as they could be surgically applied, they could be surgically removed obviously at great risks. My final point; master chief is in no way irreversibly connected to the MJLONIR armor; the mark IV was difficult to remove and put on as it was very heavy and complex; but asides from that it is never implied that it cannot be removed. For example we see in the graphic novel Maria testing out the MJLONIR V or VI, which clearly wouldnt be grafted to a retired spartan just for testing. All in all i agree extensive biomodification is a far more appropriate as cyborg is very misleading.77.98.107.157 (talk) 21:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, if Bungie were ambiguous about whether he were a cyborg, and reliable secondary sources described him as such, we would defer to those sources, rather than try to find a label as mere Wikipedia editors. But, as you requested, here's an explicit first-party citation to show that there is no ambiguity. Look at page 5 of the original Halo: Combat Evolved manual, available here: "On Reach, a secret military project to create cyborg super-soldiers takes on newfound importance." This goes on to refer explicitly to the SPARTAN-II Project and to the SPARTAN-II on the Pillar of Autumn. — TKD::Talk 00:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Kay, how about this? "Master Chief is described as a cyborg; however he bears little similarity to the traditional cyborg." That seems pretty fair. Anakinjmt (talk) 00:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Excellent; now, we just need to find a reference in the books or games that specifically calls him a cyborg. I've got the first three books, so I can try to sift through those. Only have the first Halo, however. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 00:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The neural implant is for more than identification, its what allows Spartan-IIs to interface with the MJOLNIR armor, that's why their implants had to be replaced before they could use it in Halo:The Fall of Reach. Also, In Halo:The Flood, it mentions that Cortana actually uses his brain for processing power and storage. A direct link between the brain and machine, that sounds like a cyborg to me. I don't think it needs a "non-traditional" qualifier. Mad031683 (talk) 00:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I gave one, above, from the manual of Halo: Combat Evolved. — TKD::Talk 00:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

We would need a source that explicitly says that there is little similarity. Otherwise, we're taking primary-source material and making analytical claims that aren't borne out by the material that's there; this would pretty much be a clear-cut case of original research. We can certainly cite the cyborg bit to the manual and/or some of the secondary sources that I listed above, but, as far as I'm aware, no one, first-party or otherwise, calls the Master Chief a "non-traditional" cyborg, or implies that he is so. To do so on our end would be adding analysis that isn't borne out explicitly by the sources. — TKD::Talk 00:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

We don't need to be cite-crazy. I think saying he bears little similarity to the traditional cyborg falls under WP:OBVIOUS. He certainly isn't what people think of when they think of cyborgs. Anakinjmt (talk) 01:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:OBVIOUS means that sufficient context should be provided, even if seems like you're stating the obvious, not that we can make analytical claims that seem obvious. It's not clear, at least to me, that a critical reader would accept this sort of "traditional" caveat without a source that clearly states as much, especially given that a term such as "traditional" inherently injects subjectivity into the statement (and thus is subtlely non-NPOV as well; who has defined "traditional"? or even a less value-judgment-laden term, "usual"?). — TKD::Talk 01:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

To extend my thought further, we only need to cite that Bungie presents him as a cyborg; this would be verifiable. Then, whether the character meets the reader's preconceived expectations of a cyborg, if any such expectations exist, is something that we can leave for that person to decide, without imposing an explicit value judgment on that (it'd be a different story if reputable sources had that analysis for us, in which case we could relay what those sources have said). Readers can investigate more about the character's history at Master Chief (Halo) and SPARTAN Project if they are, in fact, curious or critical enough to want to figure out how the character's formation and role relates to any preconceived notions of a cyborg, super-soldier, science-fiction protagonist, or whatever category the reader wants to think about. — TKD::Talk 02:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

(retab) Different interpretations of WP:OBVIOUS, I guess. I think it's obvious Master Chief doesn't fit the traditional mold of a cyborg. I don't have a problem with him being called a cyborg in the article, considering there's a cite for it, but it is obvious to me and I'd bet 500 grand to anyone else that Master Chief is one of the last thought of when people think of cyborg. He's not even on the list of cyborgs in fiction. Anakinjmt (talk) 02:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC) If you're considering the Master Chief specifically, then he could technically be a cyborg through the amount of medical operations and mechanized flash cloned organs he has inside of him. I'm not sure if the books state that he ever had an operation, but its very probable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.9.74.251 (talk) 02:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

It was removed unilaterally by an IP editor some time ago. If someone wants to, the entry can be restored with a citation, although the lists in that article are getting a bit unwieldy. — TKD::Talk 02:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

So what your saying, is that the Terran Marines in Starcraft are also cyborgs? Inhibitor chips are mechanical so that automatically makes many high ranking officers in the military also cyborgs. Oops, guess what? My dog is a cyborg. Seriously, get a life man. Master Chief is just bad-ass, and it doesnt matter what he is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.170.197.10 (talk) 18:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am saying that all of those people, and your dog, are cyborgs (although I don't know anything about Starcraft so I'll take your word for it) by the most general definition. Mad031683 (talk) 16:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Instead of going by the popular definition of "cyborg" and going by the actual definition of the term, yes, every single one of those exmples is considered a cyborg. They may seem a whole lot less impressive to you than fictional cybernetic entities, but that doesn't change the simple fact that they are a combination of biological and mechanical parts. Peptuck (talk) 19:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

You wouldnt go around bandying the term cyborg for his dog though would you? So surely some consideration about that must be taken here? As for the manual citation, does it not also refer to MC being the last living spartan, but we know that is not the case.CrabCam (talk) 22:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

As far as the UNSC know, all the remaining Spartan-IIs and IIIs were lost at Onyx, so it would not be hard to say that by the events of Halo 3 the Chief is seemingly the last spartan. Actually, now that the threat is over, I wonder when Halsey is gonna pop her head outta that Dyson Sphere... but I digress. David Fuchs ^(talk) 23:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I seem to recall a grunt in Halo: Combat Evolved calling the Master Chief a "Nice cyborg" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.53.87.6 (talk) 22:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, one of the chapters in Halo: Combat Evolved (It is in the level Pillar of Autumn to be exact) has the name "AIs and Cyborgs first", could be intended by Bungie. Sgtjohnsonx (talk) 09:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Few things:

1. Yes the Chief is infact a cyborg due to the enhancements he has undergone.

2. The Grunts Say "Bad Cyborg" not "good", this happens when the player kills a large number of AI around a grunt.

3. The term "cyborg" in regards to the Chief should be used in the Halo sense in which yes he is a cyborg.

I've probably made nosense here, but I think it clears some things up. Recent idiot

The Halo: CE Bungie map editor allows the user to customize all the game entities. It universally refers to the player character as "cyborg."

68.230.161.164 (talk) 23:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

While by definition, the Chief is technically a cyborg - I don't think I agree with him being called one in the article. Maybe it's just me, but I feel like the word cyborg has a certain stigma attached to it. Whether logical or not, there are many things that are technically cyborgs that we would never dream of calling a cyborg. For example, anybody who uses a wheelchair. Or somebody with a prosthetic leg (or my dog who has a metal rod in his leg because he broke it). I don't call my dog a cyborg, I don't call the veteran who lives down the street a cyborg, and I don't call my grandpa a cyborg. --Magus05 ^(talk) 21:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

And not to stick my head in the buzzsaw but something to consider is this: A person with a knee replacement or a pacemaker is not a cyborg, so clearly a human can have synthetic replacements and still be human. Conversely, a robot with an exterior of flesh (example: a Terminator) is considered a cyborg even though they clearly don't need the flesh component to survive (it's really nothing more than camouflage).

This has been a bone of contention for decades, whether a character is a robot, an android, a human, or a cyborg based on the levels of modification and whatever the unaugmented form was. "Data" from STNG is considered an android but during First Contact the Borg Queen attached flesh to his body in order to make him look more human. Did that make him a cyborg or was he still an android with skin? It gets even more messy if you've read the Asimov inspired Robot City novels where sapient robots are made with cellular circuits that effectively function much like real human cells. And in the third novel (boringly titled Cyborg) a human is so badly injured the robots save him by transferring his brain into a robot body. While that isn't a new idea, if the brain is all that remains of a person inside a robot, are they a cyborg or just robot with a human brain? (This became an issue with the Three Laws as an average robot could not tell he was human anymore and it became a philosophical debate as to whether he still was human.)

Let's take it further, what if that brain was grown from clone cells and was never a human being in the fullest sense before being place in a robot body? What if it's just a brain tied into a computer with no mobility? Is that a cyborg?

Personally, I think there should be a seperate term for robots with flesh components and a distinction made between a human being with some modifications and a cyborg being a human with extensive modifications. Till then, my sense is that the Chief has been referred to as a cyborg for the sake of brevity and ease of character description. Saying he is a conditioned, modified human being with some cybernetic implants takes a lot longer and requires further explanation, but is closer to what he seems to be. KeeperOTD (talk) 17:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Lol if Master Chief is a cyborg, then i should be arrested cause im Osama Bin Laden. Seriously he is just a guy in a suit with a few implants and years of training. Also the modern military have developed early versions of Mjolnir type armour, e.g exoskeletons, so do the people who wear these become cyborgs?? Cyborgs generally have some sorta big change made to their body, such as a new arm. The Borg from Star Trek are cyborgs, is Master Chief anything like a Borg???

Cyborgs are usely portrayed as Half-Organic lifeform, Half-Machine. But certain people have brought differant races into this subject.

A "Synthetic" shares the phsyical properties of a Cyborg. However, the living, organic side is usely geneticly engineered. Thus, getting the name "Synthetic" rather than the usual "Cyborg". Such as the "Geth" from Mass Effect, and a few Science-Fiction based novels.

Also, one more thing...

I know about all of Masterchiefs Enhancements, however, it does NOT mean he's a Cyborg. Having Titanium grafted to his skeletal structure is like having a person with a pacemaker! He is probebly human, just a "Geneticly enhanced" human instead. Dalawong —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.109.65.218 (talk) 11:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Not to be picky, but if the game calls him a cyborg then thats it. We don't make the game they do, and they say he is a cyborg.(58.165.205.15 (talk) 22:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC))

Well can't we all just settle on "cybernetically (sp?) enhanced super-soldier", as I believe the Spartan II's are refered to in the [books/manuals(?)]. 70.184.239.162 (talk) 07:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Well in the game they call him a cyborg but that doesnt make him one, what are the enemies supposed to say, "Stupid cybernetically enhanced super soldier", he isn't a cyborg. As the guy said above me he is just cybernetically enhanced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.109.65.218 (talk) 11:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

In the world of halo he is a cyborg, and thats all there is to it. If a bungie now says that he isnt a cyborg then he isnt, they say he is so he is.

The game calls him a cyborg, HE IS A CYBORG. what we think is unimportant. (121.217.56.178 (talk) 12:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC))

lol, Well yes...what that guy said...He is a cyborg and this is final. Restoral233454434 (talk) 07:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

A.I. Constructs and Cyborgs first! -Acutally, if we look at the [1] article right now, there is an idea presented in there of a "lobster" cyborg. Inhuman mechanical on the outside, with a human on the inside. He almost perfectly fits this discription of a cyborg.--137.205.69.164 (talk) 14:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe the gravemind refered to him as mind and metal or something like thatTortinshaar (talk) 15:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

¿fps?

can anyone put at how many fps (fotogramas per seconds) runs halo 3 --200.118.32.224 (talk) 22:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

either 50 or 60 frames per second--Yeti Hunter (talk) 22:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's 30FPS--Roeas (talk) 05:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

30 unique frames are rendered every second during normal gameplay. Which are all transported out in full over progressive AV connections such as HDMI or VGA. These TVs then display each frame twice for 60Hz. Or, they are sent out over the connection twice, I'm not sure which it is.

When outputting to an interlaced display/format (CRT TVs, component) these 30 frames are split into 2 fields of upper and lower, and outputted in a 60 Hz format.

Its 60hz output all the way though, because its easy to double up the 30 'real' frames to make a 60hz signal. Trying to somehow map 30 frames to a 50hz signal is messy, so they don't allow that. And actually rendering 25 frames instead of 30 introduced physics glitches in Halo 2 (AKA Superbounce). So they didn't want to repeat that in Halo 3.

Anyway, I thought this was all explained in the article? RC Master (talk) 10:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Sales section a little misleading?

1.In the sales section it says "By November 30, 2007, Halo 3 had sold 5 million copies worldwide, and as of that point, (and this next part is in BIG BLUE BOLD WRITING SO THAT EVERYONE READS THIS PART IF THEY ARE JUST SKIMMING OVER THE ARTICLE) was the best-selling video game of 2007 in the U.S." However COD4 overtook it (as stated on the COD4 wikipedia page) and this isn't mentioned here, which is slightly misleading. 2.In the intro it simply says "and was the best-selling video game of 2007 in the U.S.". Again, as stated above, not particularly true. Could someone (a)tell me how wrong I am (b)correct it please? Thank you! Paul5121 (talk) 20:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Pretty sure you are wrong, e.g.[2] --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 20:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

That part only links to a relevant article, it isn't in "BIG BLUE BOLD WRITTING", the link is valid there is no reason to remove it. - Caribbean~H.Q. 21:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe what you are getting confused with is that Halo 3 was the best-selling game in the US, as stated. CoD was the best-selling worldwide. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 21:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah that must be it. Thanks for clearing that up. Paul5121 (talk) 19:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Well Halo 3 wasn't the best seller. It just sold the most compies on its launch date (in shop). However COD4 had more pre-orders so it didn't get this title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.109.65.218 (talk) 11:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Halo 3 made the world record books for most earnings in a 24hour period for any media thingy (movie video game song ETC) in the world and it kept that record until GTA4 came out. No0b3rman —Preceding unsigned comment added by No0b3rman (talk • contribs) 02:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Katana/All Achievements

I was looking through and I see that there isn't anything about the Katana or Security/Marathon helmet(so called because it looks like the helmet from Bungie's other game, Marathon) unlocked by achieving all of the Halo 3 achievements. I do not know where this could enter into the article, so I was wondering if it should and can be added? Just something possibly overlooked.

Rooster212 (talk) 23:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not included because that information falls under the Wikipedia is not a game guide policy or WP:FANCRUFT or WP:TRIVIA. It's essentially non-notable or non-encyclopedic information relating to the game. ^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 23:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Master Chief's Mark VI armor

I think this should be in the trivia section. If you look closely at Master Chief's gloves, it has five holes in the second game and three holes in the third one although Chief did not receive a new armor. Edit:Hmm... Never noticed, maybe I'll look in theater. Jd896 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jd896 (talk • contribs) 00:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Look at the links above.(121.216.0.160 (talk) 11:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC))

contribs) 23:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Addition to Voice Cast Section

Hello.

In the voice cast section, could someone please add Steven Blum? HE has a small part in the game at the start of "The Road" level, in the underground Warthog garage.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.188.196.119 (talk) 10:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

You mean, "Tsavo Highway", right? The TRUE Adoring Fan (talk) 07:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

External Links

How would I go about getting my website, gamephobic.com, listed under the external links? Is this even allowed? Any info would be greatly appreciated.. thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oakley56fila (talk • contribs) 22:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

In general terms: You don't. As you can see, right now there are only 4 websites in the links section. 3 of which are directly MS/Bungie controlled. The other one: Wikia.com is a very large game guide related wiki. Which covers A LOT of more detailed stuff that Wikipedia doesn't. Not even the largest, longest running, and most often updated halo fan site (Halo.bungie.org), is listed. So its a nigh-impossibility that your site will be listed, and kept listed, any time soon. Sorry RC Master (talk) 15:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Weapon Visibility

In the article it says "all" carried weapons are visble "either holstered or slung across the player's back". This is not true when carrying two weapons AND a support weapon, as only one weapon can be carried either on the back or on the hip, and one in the player's hands. Since no weapons are dropped when picking up a support weapon, one weapon must be stored out of view. The TRUE Adoring Fan (talk) 07:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Then put it in, I will if you haven't.(121.217.56.178 (talk) 08:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC))

Downloadable Content Section

Bungie said that it wouldn't be wholly accurate to call Avalanche a remake, and that they consider it to be a "reimagination." http://www.bungie.net/News/content.aspx?type=topnews&cid=13382 Moonbase Alpha has also been referred to as Spacecamp. The name is initially used in a Humpday Challenge. http://www.bungie.net/News/content.aspx?type=topnews&cid=13262 It was later said that they were the same map. http://www.bungie.net/News/content.aspx?type=topnews&cid=13264 Also, the Bungie Pro promotion is over. It ended with the price drop of the Legendary map pack. No one wanted to discuss these before, but it was reverted back when I made the changes. What is the proper approach here?BCWhims (talk) 20:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)BCWhims

Characters 3 and 4 from Co-op

I recall Bungie gave back stories for the two elites that the third and fourth co-op players take the role of when playing the campaign mode. Would it be appropriate to mention these two elites in the characters section of the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ExtremeD harry (talk • contribs) 06:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

They are linked to in the Covenant section of Characters of Halo, which summarizes the backstory. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Critical Reception and Impact section

I don't know, but the end of this sentence in the last paragraph doesn't seem to make much sense to me. - "The Game Informer review also criticized the occasional repeated environments and poor final boss battle but ultimately gave the game the Game of the Month award other well received games." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.5.118.233 (talk) 17:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

no criticism?

why criticism is not included here with all this shit surrounding the native resolution? even COD4 has "criticism", is this section removed from fanboy protected articles or what? Cliché Online (talk) 08:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Because Cliche, we aren't disruptive people like you. Keep it up, you will be blocked. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 12:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Look under the "Critical Reception and Impact" section. Sections marked "Criticism" are, by the nature of the title of the section, inherently violations of NPOV. I also like your inherent accusation that the admins who protected the page did so for "fanboy" reasons, and not, like, say, to prevent vandalism and trolling. Peptuck (talk) 13:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

"Criticism" is a bad title anyway, its easer to put both the good and bad together.(121.217.56.178 (talk) 05:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC))

Both articles have a "reception" section where both positive and negative points are highlighted. So I really don't know what you're talking about. RC Master (talk) 15:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Is it worth including the very common criticism from split-screen gamers that bungie bizarrely failed to develop full screen HD in split-screen mode? A lot of gamers were very upset by this, and it features in literally hundreds of online discussion all round the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.205.152.130 (talk) 09:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Find a reliable source (ie not a blog or forum post), and it can be included.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 10:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Sales figures

Does anybody know of a source that can provide this article with more recent sales figures? The latest shown on here is from early january, half a year ago, this should be updated just as the article for COD4 has an update dated in early june. Ghyslyn (talk) 05:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC) VGChartz gives 8.7 million, but it's not a reliable source... I haven't found any more recent figures either so far. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 12:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Halo 4 Already In Development!!!

It seems that almost every gaming site has an article on Halo 4!! It has been officially confirmed that Halo 4 is in full development by bungie...[[3][[4]][[5]][[6]][[7]][[8]][[9]][[10]][[11]][[12]][[13]][[14]][[15]][[16]][[17]][[18]][[19]][[20]][[21]]... The list keeps going on! there is HUNDREDS of sites that have this article and i think we should add an article on Halo 4!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.3.193.180 (talk) 01:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Not a single link above is to a reliable source: some of those are stated April Fools jokes, to boot. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Too bad most of these are just a gues here and a lie there, somehow I take Bungies word for this over mostly unimportant sites (not all of them).(58.165.200.247 (talk) 07:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC))

All that has been confirmed I believe is that they are working on a game that takes place in the Halo Universe, not necessarily "Halo 4".Dvferret (talk) 17:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, well there will be Halo 4 and I'm sure Bungie has confirmed that although, it is not known if it will be a sequel to Halo 3 or based in the Halo Universe. Because at the end of Halo 3 the ship was heading to the planet Onyx which brings the thought of a sequel. So who knows..but it's most possibly a sequel...but yes there will be Halo 4(although I'm not too sure) Restoral233454434 (talk) 07:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Bungie hasn't confirmed anything, and there's no evidence the Dawn was headed toward Onyx. Peptuck (talk) 08:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Well okay they may have not 100% confirmed it but there is evidence it was heading towards Onyx. Even watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yygn_vlH5a4 Watch it. Watch it all closely he's heading towards a forerunner planet. He'll land on it...he'll have to, to continue to Halo 4. Restoral233454434 (talk) 19:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

There's no part of the video indicating he's heading for a Forerunner world, much less Onyx. Peptuck (talk) 22:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

No official announcement. Since Halo 3 being confirmed the end of the story arc, the Legendary ending is is just likely up to the imagination of the gamer of how will Master Chief's fate be. The Phantomnaut (talk) 20:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought bungie made an announcement that halo 3 was the end of this story arc. And that the next halo series will infact be master chiefless, but really nothing else. i cant go to bungies site right now to find it, but I will try. this could have just been hinting about the new DLC announced today though, that is more halo 3 levels, master chief-less. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.99.65.63 (talk) 20:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

There will not be a Halo 4. Bungie allready said taht Halo 3 is the end of the triology. Read the back of the Halo 3 game it self. Mine states in the first 3 sentences.~~Jon~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.34.111.9 (talk) 19:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know...its tough to say...For example..in 2001, when Sonic Adventure 2 came out for the Sega Dreamcast, in the game itself, it said "Sonic Adventure 2. Last episode. Wishes are eternal." it was supposed to be the last game of the main series and continue with a new series. However, Sonic Hereos came out 3 years later and continued the main story...inbetween those 3 years, Sonic Team released several spin-off games...so will Bungie pick up the main story in the next 3 or 4 years and release games like ODST and other spin-off games to keep the blood flowing? not sure, maybe they will...who knows...tough to say --J miester25 (talk) 12:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Onyx was destroyed in the Halo novel Ghosts of Onyx, so how can it be the planet he was drifting towards? 92.4.164.217 (talk)

Maybe that is what the next book will be about? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Littlefatmonkey (talk • contribs) 08:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, Bungie has confirmed that there will be no Halo 4, or at least one produced by Bungie. Halo 3:ODST has definitely been confirmed, but that is more of a prequel. Also, your sources are definitely not reliable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwakin21 (talk • contribs) 16:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The link is here, http://www.bungie.net/News/content.aspx?type=topnews&cid=15806 the fifth question from the bottom. this is definitive. It does leave open the possibility of something similar to Sonic, but knowing Bungie, they wouldn't dare make a sequel to such a great game after a three year hiatus. The short of it: Don't hold your breath, there isn't a Halo 4. Spartan S58 (talk) 19:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Continuing development

Recently, Bungie made a video to Edge Magazine with hints of new content (especially at the end with possible map creation), should we mention a bit about it even though not thoroughly confirmed yet? The Phantomnaut (talk) 20:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Short answer: no. We're not a crystal ball, and we aren't a place for publishing rumors, no matter how pervasive, unless highly credible or in the now. It will appear in good time (judging by Bungie's own hints, possibly at PAX) so we can sit tight and wait. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 21:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Simple...just what he said: No...this could be a rumor we don't want people confused. Restoral233454434 (talk) 00:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

But we should say they allouded to new content in the video(144.137.92.25 (talk) 09:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC))

It's a good idea but it can lead to rumors with the origin being this Wiki even though the additions are apparent. So taking a chance is not a good idea and plus, with Penny Arcade Expo on the way, we can just wait a bit longer. The Phantomnaut (talk) 05:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

why

is there the same infobox twice in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dropgood12 (talk • contribs)

Looks like random vandalism. I've taken it out. --McGeddon (talk) 15:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The Art of Halo 3

Look [http://www.amazon.com/Art-Halo-Prima-Official-Book/dp/0761560726/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1220426398&sr=1-1 here]. Is anywhere here an article about the book? --84.164.124.250 (talk) 07:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Not really much to say about it- its predecessor The Art of Halo didn't have enough information for its own article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 12:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

New Achievements and Auto Update

Some one should add the new info from the last Bungie update, the new achievements are confirmed! There is still more to come they only hinted at the new things to come this month. Valo sweet 666

Yes, there are new achievements. Here is a list: Vidmaster Challenge: Lightswitch (0 points) – Get to the rank of Lieutenant in any playlist in the new EXP progression system. Vidmaster Challenge: 7 on 7 (0 points) – Enter into any ranked or social playlist with 7 EXP on the 7th of the month. Vidmaster Challenge: Annual (0 points) – After 9/25/08, complete Halo on 4-player Legendary LIVE co-op, with Iron, and everyone in Ghosts. Double Double (25 points) – On a Legendary map, get two Double Kills during any ranked or social match. Poor Yorick (25 points) – On a Legendary map, get 3 Oddball melee kills during any ranked or social match. Came…From…Behind (50 points) – On a Legendary map, get 3 assassinations during any ranked or social match. Defend This (50 points) – On a Legendary map, get a flag melee kill during any ranked or social match. Flag Dropped (25 points) – On a Legendary map, get 2 flag carrier kills during any ranked or social match. Road Rage (25 points) – On a Legendary map, get 5 Warthog chaingun kills during any ranked or social match. Look Both Ways (50 points) – On a Legendary map, get a Splatter Spree during any ranked or social match. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jd896 (talk • contribs) 00:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

*DONE* The new achievements are mentioned in the DLC section --RC Master (talk) 01:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Halo related announcement

Microsoft had cut short their showing at E3 and stopped the announcement that Bungie was going to make on that day. That much is said on the page. However, the fact that Microsoft is giving Bungie their own event for this announcement is not noted. This seems insignificant, but should it be added or would that belong to a different section or page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.72.23.148 (talk) 21:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Bungie will also be making a number of changes to the playlists and the ranking system. Should this be in the article or is it irrelevant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.108.81.7 (talk) 18:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Since a teaser trailer has already been shown related to this superintendent thing, I'm not sure how accurate the "own event" thing is. As for the XP change, this is already mentioned in both the "multiplayer" and "DLC" sections. No need to dwell on it further, its not a huge change. As for the playlist change, I've just made and edit to the MP section to say thats a regular thing --RC Master (talk) 19:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Title Update 2

Halo 3's current version is 1.2, someone with rights please update the version. Bungie has just annoucned on there website http://bungie.net// that TU2 Has arrived. Whilst not all players are resiving the update strait away, I think that it is safe to say that the game version has been elevated from 1.1 to 1.2.

Please correct it unless i am wrong in version detail... Direct Link to news : http://www.bungie.net/News/content.aspx?type=topnews&cid=15545 (J3nk0J1 (talk) 10:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC))

*DONE* I've just reintroduced the "version" section to the infobox at the top of the article, that now has 1.2 in it. --RC Master (talk) 01:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Next mappack

The next mappack will be called "Mythic", players discoverd this from the new achivements with auto update 2. Valo sweet 666 —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC).

Although that is definitely implied, its not concrete proof. For all we know, there could be 3 sets of map packs which are all considered to contain "mythic" maps. Better to wait until there is a "the upcoming map pack will be called "the mythic map pack"" statement by Bungie / MS. Wikipedia isn't a 'latest news' site. So it really doesn't matter about waiting to put it in. We have to make sure its right. RC Master (talk) 20:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The achievments say mythic maps, by looking at all other DLC, its safe to say the 6 maps are all in one pack. Bungie wouldnt split the mythic into more than one set calling them all the same thing, at least they have not done that before. Valo sweet 666 12:00, 07 October 2008 (UTC)

We can't predict the future, nor should we try. We wait until we get a reliable source. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

What? If anything, past experience indicates that the mythic map pack will be in two lots of 3, not one group of 6. FYI, the "Cold Storage" map is retroactively considered part of the Legendary map pack for playlist purposes. Theres a counter-example already. --RC Master (talk) 18:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

If you read the magazine Game Informer Bungie talks about the mythic map pack being available in January of 2009. Its a download off of marketplace when you play Halo3. Its the issue where they have master chief on the cover and it says Halo 3 Recon69.34.111.9 (talk) 18:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)Jon

Keep it clean

On the marketplace, there is something called "Keep it Clean". It mentions something about the campaign. I can't tell, it's too jumpy. For a more knowledgeable and relaxed Wikipedia- Nemesis646 (talk) 18:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

yeah the video is hard to make up but there's def something there. 134.126.209.179 (talk) 19:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

From what I heard it is an extension of the current Halo 3 game, possibly downloadable. Should we add a Future section for the game to alert readers of the "Keep It Clean" trailer?71.113.6.142 (talk) 00:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Not right now. While it seems quite obvious there's some tie-in to Halo 3, it's original research to add it in until the connection is verified by a reliable source. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Isn't Bungie.net a reliable source? 71.113.7.139 (talk) 17:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but Bungie has only released a teaser trailer, they haven't said, "Ok, the Halo 3 you saw means that Halo 3 is getting X Y and Z." Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Surely the trailer can be referenced as mentioning Halo 3, but to what precise amount it is related is as yet unknown. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.199.103 (talk) 10:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Last time I checked IGN is a reliable resource, including Halo.Bungie.Net since its one of the biggest communities, plus also to say that bungie.net itself isn't a reliable resource is like saying a Horse is a deer. Add it in. Ripster40 (talk) 23:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes they are. But Wikipedia is not the place to post rumors and speculation on unannounced products. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 23:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Ahh nevermind, the topic is moot, I just found out that there is an article up and running already about Halo 3: Keep it Clean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ripster40 (talk • contribs) 03:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Humans and the Ark

Okay, why did Truth needed either Keyes or Johnson to activate the Ark and why did the Flood need Master Chief and the Arbiter to shut it down? I can think of a reason: because then the Flood could reach Truth sooner. However, Gravemind is directly under the activation platform when Master Chief and the Arbiter have stopped everything, surely Gravemind could have done something by itself? The only similarity I could see was that a human was needed to activate etc. Who does know this? Mallerd (talk) 17:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

You want to know why? If you have played halo 1 you will know. You remember how Captain Keyes became a flood? Gravemind IS captain Keyes. Gravemind let Truth activate the ring because it was the perfect plan to eliminate the Spartan. Truth activates the ring; Truth gets killed; Gravemind lets Spartan+Arbiter go as he thinks they will get killed by the flood. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Halo3geekornerd? (talk • contribs) 10:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

It's hinted in the expanded universe (Halo: The Flood, for example) that humans are related to the Forerunner in some way, and they have a natural instinct around Forerunner technology. It is further implied in the games a reclaimer (or human) is needed to activate the installations. While the human=reclaimer thing is pretty apparent by the end of Halo 3, any digging deeper is original research and synthesis. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I was wondering why there was this giant (and perhaps only one) portal to the Ark had to be exactly on Earth, lol. I don't really care about that whole original research, I just wanted to know. As long as I know what the truth about things is. Mallerd (talk) 18:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

You're not going to find much on Wikipedia due to our notability rules, however the Halo wiki (halo.wikia.com) has lots of info if you're interested. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, (WP notability policy is flawed,fight the power!) Mallerd (talk) 15:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC) - :Too bad no ever uses there WP:COMMON —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ripster40 (talk • contribs) 01:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC) - For some reason people dismiss WP:IAR. That's sad as well. Mallerd (talk) 19:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC) - :WP:IAR is not something that should ever be taken lightly. One person cannot choose to invoke IAR. A consensus must be reached to invoke IAR. I honestly am not aware of it ever being used before (though I'm sure someone could prove me wrong by doing some checking). It's never dismissed, but it is a very last resort. We strive to follow the guidelines and rules whenever possible for as long as possible because we know they work. Anakinjmt (talk) 19:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

343GS quote: "You are the child of my makers. Inheritor of all they left behind. You are Forerunner!" <--- I think thats pretty clear. RC Master (talk) 20:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

None of this matters to *this* article, this isn't a forum so cut the chatter.(124.179.20.97 (talk) 08:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.20.97 (talk) 08:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Additional Points of Interest

Does anyone else feel that there are still some bits missing from the article? It gives a pretty good general representation of Halo 3 but I for one feel that things such as community content creation should get a mention at least somewhere, as well as the extensive bungie.net integration: you don't often, if at all, get that in games. But I honestly don't know where it should go in the article. There was an interesting statistic which popped up recently as well: over 50 million unique files have been uploaded to Bungie.net in the first year of Halo 3s life. That seems like quite an interesting point. "Reception and impact" maybe? But at the moment thats all just how reviewers initially reacted to it last year. Thoughts? --RC Master (talk) 01:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

synopsis-plot-first paragraph-fifth line

typo: no space between enormous and slipspace. Please fix; I can't. --Mbabbitt2003 (talk) 12:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Got it. --McGeddon (talk) 12:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Update On Halo3 ranking systematics

This is just a recommendation that another fellow wikipedian/admin could collaborate information and produce a hyperlinked article branch to mention the new ranking system introduced by Bungie.These include having experience boosting in each separate playlist. clcheung 11:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wongdai (talk • contribs)

Gameplay section issues

I believe that the Gameplay section of the article has some issues not befitting an FA; these are not nearly significant to warrant a Review, but should be mentioned:

• Is it really necessary to know that the player's holstered weapons are visible? Doe it have that big an impact on gameplay?

  Actually, it does. On maps like Guardian, there are powerful CQB weapons called Gravity Hammers. They are quite visible when 
  holstered, and it does force any opponent to hesitate to bring the fight close. Also, power weapons are also visible, and can attract
  attention from opponents. Erikster (talk) 20:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• "The game's strong vehicular component has been expanded..." The number of vehicles would have to be expanded "from" somewhere, but that is unspecified and makes the use of the adjective "strong" ambiguous.
• "Although some vehicles usable in campaign are not available on the default layout of any standard map in multiplayer due to balance concerns." That's not a sentence, and the reader can't comprehend what it's trying to explain: are there "non-default" layouts that allow these excluded vehicles to be used?

  As for this question, yes. In Halo 3's Forge mode, you can add/remove weapons, vehicles, spawns, etc. The idea is that you can share 
  your modified versions of these maps. However, the sentence you quoted may be refering to the vehicles that are found in campaign but not
  multiplayer, like the Shade turret or Troop Warthog (with the multiple passenger seats). I'll find a way to explain this in the article 
  Erikster (talk) 20:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• "Players can turn into a Forerunner Monitor (ed comment, the sentence has number disagreement because players turn into a monitor) and edit and manipulate objects in-game. However, there is a limit to the amount of objects that can be placed on each map. This limit is called a budget and it varies depending on the map." This is over-detailed as it deals w/ in-gameplay jargon when unnecessary.
• "The Saved Films are only game data (not an actual video) and this allows the file sizes to be smaller than a true recording. Saved films are played back at whatever resolution the Xbox 360 is currently set to, regardless of which resolution was used when the film was recorded. All games are recreated in real-time on the Xbox 360 using the Halo 3 engine." This delves into technical detail; perhaps is should be shortened, or made into a footnote.
• "A.I. behavior was improved over Halo 3's predecessors..." I thought one of the main criticisms of the game was unreliable ally A.I.; this should be clarified somewhat.
• "Skulls" are mentioned twice, with two levels of detail. The description in the second paragraph perhaps goes into too much detail.

I'd make these changes myself, but a lot of these details were present in the version of the article [22] that made it through the FA process, so maybe these things are important to the article in the opinion of the people who passed it as FA. --Hydrokinetics12 (talk) 07:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Other issues

One more note: is it really appropriate to list Halo 3 as "Most Addictive Video Game Fueled by Dew," considering that Game Fuel was part of the game's marketing? Oh, and another thing, I think the bit that Master Chief "one of humanity's greatest warriors" should be altered somehow. (I personally can't believe I'm pointing that out, but it's bothering me somehow.) --Hydrokinetics12 (talk) 07:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

What About The Skulls?

Has everyone forgotten about the skulls? They are an important feature of Halo 3. Apparently there are also skulls on Halo 1, but I have looked everywhere. If anyone finds them could they tell me where the are? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Halo3geekornerd? (talk • contribs) 10:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Mythic Map Pack

The Mythic Map Pack is not in the Downloadable content section, I think it should be added, but I can't do it since its a protected page. Heres a good source you can use.Bungie.net The maps that are included are Orbital, Assembly, Longshore, Citadel, Sandbox, and Heretic. Heres a site where you can look up information on the map pack.Vader703 (talk) 00:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The relevant content is in the article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 01:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

No editing

There are a few points I'd like to make. The fact that this article has quite a stubby plot and includes some mistakes makes it a flaw. Many, many Wikipedians want to change the Halo 3 page and make it better. But since a little bronze star indicating that this page is featured is there, no one can edit it. I'd just simply like to remove the lock and allow eager Wikipedians to do their job and correct the mistakes.

By the way, how do you make yourself able to edit those annoying star-marked pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HowlingRabbit334 (talk • contribs) 11:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, pages are only protected in cases of extraordinary vandalism, and other similar situations; the article is not currently under any protection. You should be able to edit at will. (The little bronze star indicates that Halo 3 is a featured article, one of Wikipedia's best; however, this does not entitle the article to any special treatment, like unnecessary protection.) GlassCobra 14:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

It was semi-protected because I forgot to put an expiry date; I've unlocked it now. However, I should point out that the plot, though it may seem stubby, is in accordance to guidelines (see WP:PLOT and WP:WAF.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 15:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

So, uh, hey, where's all those Wikipedians lining up, baying and howling to please oh please be allowed to edit this article? Because I see only one person making vague and general statements. What mistakes are there in the plot section? Peptuck (talk) 16:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: aaaaand the very first thing that happens to the article when protection is pulled? Vandalism. Shock and awe. Peptuck (talk) 01:30, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

editing

i just made a new account cause i forgot my other one, and howcome i cannot edit the halo 3 page? i wanted to post a screenshot showing the ability to take turrets of their stands, but there is no edit button. is it locked or something?

SabreWolf111 (talk) 03:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

It is currently semi-protected due to vandalism, meaning anonymous and new users cannot edit, yes. I removed an edit similar to what you described due to WP:NFCC, the policy which governs copyrighted image use. In short; we have to provide compelling reason for fair use of the image, and one of the criteria is sparing use of nonfree images. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 03:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

You people(the writers of wikipedia) are to D@@@,how to put this.....fragile about the content of wikipedia. If you take a photo with your camera you own that photo. there is no law of where you have to copyright a personal photo you took to use it. dont believe me look it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.34.111.9 (talk • contribs)

You have a slim grasp on copyright. Yes, whoever takes a picture owns the copyright to that picture, but taking a picture of a copyrighted item does not mean the original copyright owner's rights 'disappear'; the image is a derivative work and the picture-taker cannot freely license their image because they do not own the rights to the copyrighted item they photographed. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

At any rate that picture wouldn't be needed because it doesn't relate to or imporove the article. on a side note you would only be allowed to use it as a machimina so it won't be allowed here.(58.168.78.208 (talk) 05:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC))

Merchandise

I can't edit it, but under the advertising section, there should be a sub-section with a paragraph about the merchandise that they sold.

Some stuff that they sold or gave away for free was Mountain Dew Gamer Fuel, Spartan and Brute Controllers, Faceplates, Slurpee Flavors and Cups, a Halo Themed Xbox 360, and more.

They also had been selling custom merchandise on bungiestore.net like calendars, posters, pens, mousepads, shot glasses, lanyards, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VoltairesDreamComeTrue (talk • contribs) 21:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

There are 10 levels

actually, there are ten levels

the opening scene can be completed in either legendary, heroic, or normal, and shows the medal at the bottom of the screen for single player and co-op, just like the rest of the levels in the game. this means there are ten levels...there are 10 levels..10 times u can get legendary, ten levels...--J miester25 (talk) 15:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I think this was covered, something along the lines of 10 seconds < level, not =. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.78.208 (talk) 23:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

time means nothing...its still a level no matter how long it is. --J miester25 (talk) 15:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The point is this was covered, go back go over all of that and bring it back to life only if you have new things to add, not debate old ones, like a link to bungie saying "there are ten levels".(139.168.114.230 (talk) 06:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC))

Just so you know, for the Controversy, the Judge also claimed Halo 3 was more responsible for the mother's death than the son.

While it's obviously wrong, I believe it should be covered. Source here. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not really germane to Halo 3 in terms of the game itself; it would be much better as part of video game controversy where it can be listed with the dozen other guy snaps, video games are to blame-type stories. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 22:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I mean, the subject is covered here as well. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 01:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

October 2007? So this happened between one and five weeks after the game was released? Sounds like Halo 3 can't really have had that much to do with his "insanity".--Yeti Hunter (talk) 03:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

HD Resolution

Seeing as the Xbox 360 can only go up to 1080i HD i can not bring the game up to full HD only a Playstation 3 would be able to handle full 1080p HD. With its BlueRay Disk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.122.0.26 (talk) 21:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The Xbox 360 can, in fact, upscale to 1080p. This is cited in the article, and numerous other sources can be found. Storage medium is a red herring, since games aren't pure video. — TKD::Talk 00:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Developer

Are we sure it is developed by Ensemble Studios? As far as Im aware, its developed by bungie, and the rts game based on the halo universe, halo wars is developed by Ensemble. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.81.124.249 (talk) 22:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

It was vandalism, intentional or misinformed. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 22:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Halo 3 - German

Please fill in the Article the German Version: de:Halo 3. Gruß, --84.164.121.208 (talk) 17:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

10 billion campaign kills

Is it worth mentioning that the covenant kill counter hit 10 billion on bungie's web site? While it may just be a bit of trivia, it is a rather huge number. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newmansan (talk • contribs) 15:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Trivia. Nobody would care in the slightest except hardcore gamers, and I don't see how it can be neatly incorporated into the body of the text rather than a point all on its own. The only place it might go would be in a discussion of the game's ongoing popularity, but the number is pretty meaningless to anyone who doesn't play regularly. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 23:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Not only is it of little relevance to the general public, it's just a statistic that has no context on its own. Not even hardcore gamers can make decent sense of it because there are a buttload more enemies in some levels and difficulties than in others, and some people run through the levels without killing that many, and some sit there and methodically pick off every single one. It's like saying that X million square inches of LCD screen have been sold. It's artificial homogeneity. — TKD::{talk} 23:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.224.150 (talk) 06:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

On what grounds? The total number of campaign kills would have no meaning to someone unfamiliar with the game, likely unimportant to a 'casual' player and it is probable that a 'hardcore' player would already know this, if they cared at all. It seems illogical to shoehorn this information into an otherwise well-structured article. -Birras (talk) 03:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

As a "Hardcore" gamer myself, I find all your attitudes toward hardcore gaming very offensive. You seem to suggest that we are grossly interested in the game so much as to memorize such meaningless, trival information such as how many Covenant kills have been registered on Bungie.net. I believe I speak for many when I say I could give two shits about Campaign. Such a statistic may please some whimsical, trival interest, however it would not come close to being remembered. Now explain to me the mysterious and complex spread of bullets associated with the Battle Rifle and I may be interested. --70.184.239.162 (talk) 08:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Not worth mentioning on its own. A general comment about the amount of time invested in the game by players covers the entire subject. RC Master (talk) 17:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Total Gross of Halo 3

Why is it so difficult to find the total gross for Halo 3? I can't find it anywhere. Did I just happen to miss it? Siddhartha21 (talk) 15:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Newest Tutorial

((editsemiprotection)) Could someone please add this link to the halo3 definition. It is the newest and easiest way to get recon!! Video Tutorial!

Here is the unhidden link if needed: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7b-npLi_ppU —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.197.39.24 (talk) 06:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

How to unlock specific in-game armours (through cheating or otherwise) is beyond the scope of Wikipedia. RC Master (talk) 18:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Online

Should there be a screenshot of a multi-player game? Maybe even use a picture from an MLG event. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.188.117.77 (talk) 21:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Platforms

Is XBOX 360 the only platform that you can play Halo 3 with? Or can you play it with XBOX too?--Rollersox (talk) 16:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Halo 3 can only be played on xbox 360....

124.183.132.164 (talk) 09:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Like all games labelled "Xbox 360". --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 14:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Halo 3 beta (merge/delete)

• Merge Although I'm originally the person who proposed the delete, following the expansion of the article, I now feel that the points made would be more suitable to a merge. Certainly the usage stat alone of the beta would be notable enough as long as it is properly references. Miyagawa (talk) 09:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
• Redirect to Halo 3 marketing. Any scraps of info should go in Halo 3 marketing#Public beta testing. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 13:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
• Redirect to Halo 3 marketing. Agree with above. Releases of Demos and Betas are part of marketing and since Halo 3 has it's only marketing article it should be included their primarily with maybe a sentence in this article. 203.59.45.96 (talk) 10:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
• Redirect agree with above ⊕Assasin Joe ^talk 18:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Platforms

Is Halo 3 only on the XBox 360 or will it be released for windows? NarSakSasLee (talk) 12:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Chances are, like the previous two games, it'll be out for Windows one day, but no official word about if or when it will arrive. I mean, it took, what, three years for Halo 2 to appear on Windows? --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 14:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply it took me two months to notice I had a question that went unanswered! NarSakSasLee (talk) 22:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I only just arrived on this page and hadn't actually noticed the date when I responded, since I tend to let things as old as that go unanswered to prevent bumping unnecessary threads. :P --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 22:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Well I am grateful that you did respond. I thought that this article was supposed to be really popular and thought that loads of people would answer this type of stuff, but strangly its the opposite. NarSakSasLee (talk) 00:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I know, it is confusing, isn't it? It's because it's a featured article and very little new information is coming out about it. Therefore, it's mostly left well enough alone to preserve its FA status. It's counter-intuitive, but it makes sense. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 00:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I suppose so, but I mean its Halo 3, the hype was almost similar to Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2. NarSakSasLee (talk) 16:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

And when that reaches FA status, editors will likely withdraw from there too. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 16:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

That is quite strange. I thought FA articles are the most popular articles on here and would assume mathematically that this would mean more editors trying to look after the article. But it makes sense if editors go on to other stuff and try to improve that. Most likely when this was pre-FA there was probably a lot of editors here writing in the information. Anyway its quite cool. NarSakSasLee (talk) 16:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

That's the thing. Everyone's gone on to other articles because there is very little to improve right now. Hell, even the vandals are ignoring this page (which actually does defy all reason), so people don't even have to come back to revert vandalism. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 16:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Halo 3 has already been released on PC. You can download a fan created emulator to be compatible with the PC. You can then join xbox 360 gamers and verse them. Alot of people are doing that now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.40.173 (talk) 20:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

← Yeah... nobody cares about 360 emulators. Just saying... --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 20:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Vehicles

I got into a enemy covenant tank. didnt know you could...does the turret work on that thing? You know where the enemy rakes u with his ghosts or watever, u can somehow shoot the driver inside. Just wondering if its on mp with a few guys or something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asfd666 (talk • contribs) 04:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

In campaign it is possible to highjack the enemy Wraith, the driver can fire the mortar and a passenger can use the turret. It can also be done on multiplayer, although the Wraith is featured on very few maps that are in rotation. In matchmaking the only playlist you will find a Wraith is Social Big Team. You can always try it in custom games/forge by putting a Wraith on the map. The1337gamer (talk) 08:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Creation of Halo Waypoint

This is a copy of my post from Xbox Live as you guys are more likely to help with this.

I created Halo Waypoint yesterday while in school because it was dumb for it to not have a wiki when it is in itself it's own application and technically another addition to the Halo series. I also added the link to the dissambiguation. It has several functions that are worth noting. I only made a brief summary of it because I am and was at school and I don't have time. Please help me to create this in your spare time. I plan on working on it a lot after I get ungrounded this weekend. Pikupurphat 17:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

2553?

I thought all Halo games took place in 2552? I never realized it Halo 3 took place in 2553...--Rollersox (talk) 16:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The end of Halo 3 has a monument saying March 3rd 2553. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 18:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

That depends on how long it took for the Arbiter to get back to Earth. It might've been December 15, 2552 Earth-based time when Master Chief got lost...--Rollersox (talk) 18:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I got that from Halopedia. Until Bungie sorts out the timeline, that'll have to do. Besides, the Arbiter would be original research. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 19:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

See the timeline at halo.xbox.com;[23] (Silverlight required) the game takes place from 2552 to 2553. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Thanks.--Rollersox (talk) 03:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Versions

Can somebody provide me with the Versions Table THAT displays multiple images and info, I need to add a similar box to another game, so i can improve my wikipieda skills.

Thank You. FPlusPSN (talk) 08:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The table is transcluded to this article from {{Template:Halo 3 versions}}. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Slice 'n' Dice

I just tried to link to the phrase Slice 'n' Dice and found that it redirects here, yet the body of this article does not mention the term. Is this a waste of a potential article? --Nigelj (talk) 15:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea why it's redirected here. Do what you want with the page, I can't think of any reason for it to be related to Halo. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Halo 3 is only rated M for the online gameplay.Ninja-Matt22 (talk) 22:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

It does redirects here.~(74.163.16.27)~-Tailsman67 of Sonic News Network and others — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.163.17.213 (talk) 23:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editsemiprotected}} i wish to change the part where you clearly state that halo 3 end's the halo story line, though a halo 4 sounds unlikely i wish to make the point that the story is not over as the master chief is freee floating in space, not a fitting end of a story

I have removed , which complete the storyline of the Halo trilogy.

I hope that is what you meant; it was unreferenced so I could remove it.

In future, please specify exactly what to change. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  10:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Reintrodcuce Wait what? The statement was entirely correct. All the threads started in Halo: Combat Evolved have been resolved. The rings, the human & covenant war, the flood, guilty spark etc. Just because the characters have stuff that can happen in the 'future' to them, doesn't mean its not over. The fact that Halo 3 completes the storyline of the trilogy is even self evident in the plot section of the article. Not every single peice of prose in the article needs a specific citation. And besides, one has to look no futher than the official promotion for evidence for a possible citation. [24] 'Finish the fight', 'pulise pounding climax', 'concluding chapter' no?

I vote for a reintroduction of said statement. In fact, this is all just silly, I'm putting it back in myself. RC Master (talk) 19:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit Request

There is a typo in reference 84. Should be blame not blam —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.186.175.116 (talk) 05:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done ALI ^{nom nom} 01:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request

Please execute the following correction: section Halo 3#Plot, exchange the link target of link text "vitrification" from "http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?vitrification" to Glass transition. Thank you very much, --Geist, der stets verneint (talk) 20:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Did it myself; for I am autoconfirmed now. --Geist, der stets verneint (talk) 20:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Halo 3 sells 10 million copies worldwide

Somebody include this in please - http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=halo+3+10+million&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=7e46ad9b77ec82e2 68.185.9.2 (talk) 07:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that content and the related figures are unreliable, as it originates from VGChartz. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Merging articles

The Halo 3 marketing article should be merged with this one. I know when I talked about this in that article's talk page, I had the support of at least four at the time.

I don't think there should be separate articles for the marketing of this or any other video game, so why not merge it back with Halo 3, yea? TrevelyanL85A2 (talk) 00:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Halo 3 Multiplayer ending April 15th

Microsoft's Marc Whitten said that after April 15, users of the Xbox Live service will no longer be able to play Halo 3 on Xbox LIVE.

"This isn't a decision we made lightly, but after careful consideration, it is clear this will provide the greatest benefit to the Xbox Live community," Whitten said. "And as we look down the road, we'll continue to evolve the service with features and experiences that harness the full power of Xbox 360. To reach our aspiration, we need to make changes to the service that are keeping gamers from purchasing other Xbox 360 games."

Whitten said Microsoft will be reaching out directly to those affected by the change. Those Halo 3 players that are effected will receive the new Xbox 360 formatted Halo: Reach game to "test".

In the note, Whitten referenced the company's work to support the upcoming Project Chief add-on that will bring gesture and voice recognition to Halo: Reach with Kinect for Xbox 360 later this year.

"We'll share more details soon, but in the meantime I want to assure you that the best is yet to come for Xbox Live," he said. "I believe we'll look back on 2011 as a landmark year in gaming and home entertainment, and I couldn't be more excited about what we have in store."

This is deffianatly worth noting don't you think —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.89.104.233 (talk) 13:48, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I smell an April fool, especially since the first paragraph is worded almost exactly the same as the "we're shutting down Xbox Live for Xbox 1" press release (which was written by Whitten)[25]. Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.ðɒn/ ^(talk) 14:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

...And they say that Kinect capabilities will come to Reach, referencing it like it's already been announced. I'd say it's false. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:19, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Work needed

Hello everyone - An editor has nominated this article for FAR. However, as the first step (of notifying interested editors on the talk page to see if work can be completed without a FAR) was not completed, the FAR has been placed on hold so that this notification can be placed. Here is the text of the FAR nomination, as a starting place for work. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 01:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Start of copied text

I am nominating this for featured list removal because it does not look to have been kept up in the ~4 years since its was nominated to FA level. Specifically:

• 1a and 1b
  • the gameplay section is far too detailed. While going over the basics and some of the more complex aspects is part of any game article, this one becomes WP:GAMEGUIDEy. Specifically going into details such as how to use Forge, the minutia about gameplay video size and bungie's website, going into minute details into the game's scoring, going into possible WP:COATRACKy detail on Xbox Live's ranking system, etc. The prose is also quite verbose such as "On a single console, up to two players can play a campaign and up to four can participate in a versus competitive multiplayer match through use of a split screen."
  • The plot is far more detailed than necessary for a stand-alone game like this. The plot alone (let alone the setting and characters) takes up a huge chunk of the article. While not a plot only article, it goes into far more detail than is necessary for the average reader.
  • DLC - first of all I think the organization bad, but specifically about point 1b, it basically goes into far more detail than necessary for what amounts to patches and additional game elements, particularly since they lack commentary.
  • There seems to be a lack of info on the staff. If they are important, their should be relevant commentary near them otherwise its undue weight to list them; most video games don't list their voice actors unless they have said commentary, are mentioned in development/production, etc.
  • Finally, the place that seems lacking is actually in the reception, speficially the awards. The prose lists the awards, but doesn't really give any details about why they were given those awards. That may not exist for everything, but I know its there for several of them. This and the cast info are why we use prose instead of just using lists.
• 1c
• the article doesn't use general refs and there are a lot of paragraphs and info that don't have inline citations and aren't summary sentences. Too many to list. Some sections are better than others.
• 2a
  • minor, but since I'm listing the issues, the last sentence is WP:COATRACKy in that it doesn't really need to mention the date of the previous release, let alone that its a sequel (that it had 3 in its title and was previously mentioned as a franchise should be enough to assume [[[WP:COMMMONSENSE|the average reader]] will realize its a sequel to Halo 2.
• 2b
  • There appears to be too many subdivisions, but this could be due to 1a and 1b. It also doesn't follow the WP:VG/GL for placement of certain info like beta test info should be in development rather than gameplay (its not a part of final product), but part of its development.
• 1d
  • Too much fair-use material, several of which is inappropriately labeled. Several of these are hosted on commons so its an issue that involves them too.
  • File:Halo3standard.JPG - Fair use image inappropriately labeled; making an artistic rendition of primarily copyrighted material doesn't remove the copyright burden
  • File:Halo3limited.JPG - ditto
  • File:Halo3legendary.JPG - ditto
  • File:Masterchief cortana h3.png - since there is a character article, the image should be there. There's no reason it needs to be here. It might be different if the spinout article didn't exist.
  • File:Halo 3 final boxshot.JPG - poorly written fair use rationale. Doesn't explain why is needed really.
• 4
  • As mentioned above, it had a few items that seem to be coatracky and goes into excessive detail in the in-game aspects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jinnai (talk • contribs)

Also:

• Sources:
  • Questionable reliability:
    • 2
    • 29
    • 50
    • 53
    • 64
    • 67
    • 68
    • 75
    • 79
    • 82
    • 85
    • 104
    • 110
    • 111
    • 119
    • 121
    • 123
  • no publisher
    • 33
    • 55
    • 60
    • 124
  • Inconsistant citation style
    • 65 vs. 76
    • 94 - bare url29
    • This one probably has more, but those ones I could easily spot.陣内_Jinnai 15:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree with some comments, disagree with others. I haven't looked at this article really in the four years, but you can't presume readers are knowledgeable about the games, so that requires more story details than a standalone game. Some refs above are fine, others aren't, others are okay but it would be easy to swap in better refs for the same content. I'll go through the images today since that's what I have the most time for right now. As to the rest I'm in the middle of finishing up a term so my availability will be somewhat limited until the end of next week when I can really dedicate some hours to working on it. Thanks for the review. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

It's true you cannot presume they are familiar with the game, but that is no excuse to bloat the plot with backstory. There are far more complex games and books with far less plot info. Plot should deal with this game and this game alone.

Refs I'm not sure about being reliable; that's why I listed them as "questionable". I'm not saying those are definatly unreliable, but just suspicious.陣内_Jinnai 16:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Copy that. I'm going to start gutting some of the refs (as many are kind of unneeded) and start archiving the others. I've removed the images and downsized the covert art (it was way larger than it needed to be.) I think the lack of development will be the most difficult, but reception shouldn't be too much of a chore, that content's easy to find, although the section really needs to be restructured. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:45, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

←Reworked the cover art FUR. I'm done with my grading, so I should be able to get into the full-scale improvements. I'll prolly start gutting it to begin. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 01:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe I've removed all the unreliable refs. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:55, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Shifted some of the problem content around, and have begun to truncate the gameplay section. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:07, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

All dead links sorted, and I think the gameplay section is in a much better position (although it needs to be referenced better...) any thoughts? Working on reception next. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:03, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I think these comments would be better put to use on the FAR page: Wikipedia:Featured_article_review#Halo_3. Clay (talk) 20:54, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 63.131.200.159, 5 September 2011

Hello, I noticed some outdated information included in the article about Halo 3. In the 3rd paragraph, it states: "As of January 3, 2008, Halo 3 sold 8.1 million". According to VGChartz, it has sold 11.31 million copies as of current. The information can be found on http://gamrreview.vgchartz.com/sales/6964/halo-3/ This new information should replace what is currently written, as well as in the "Sales" section of the article, end of the first paragraph, where it again states "As of January 2008, 8.1 million copies have been sold".

63.131.200.159 (talk) 00:29, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Not done: According to the consensus at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources VGChartz is not a WP:Reliable source so we need a different source for the change in numbers. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 09:49, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 January 2012

Please change "As of January 2008, 8.1 million copies have been sold." to "As of 2011, 14.5 million copies have been sold."

Here is the source:

http://halo.xbox.com/en-us/games/overview/halo3

Thanks

92.16.15.95 (talk) 14:32, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Not done: This is the third place on wikipedia I have had to post the following because of someone's inability to parse the English language, though I do admit that the sentence structure in question is pretty labyrinthine and over complicated. Anyway, Let's start by reading the source closely. For ease of reference, here is the offending sentence:

"Halo 3 is the concluding chapter in the Halo trilogy—an international award-winning action series that grew into a global entertainment phenomenon, selling more than 14.5 million games worldwide, logging more than 650 million hours of multiplayer action on Xbox LIVE."

Notice the use of a dash above. Everything after the dash is an aside that is separate from the first part of the sentence since there is not a second dash to indicate this interjection has come to an end. That leaves us with the following complete thought:

"an international award-winning action series that grew into a global entertainment phenomenon, selling more than 14.5 million games worldwide, logging more than 650 million hours of multiplayer action on Xbox LIVE."

So the clause "selling 14.5 million games worldwide" is further developing the preceding clause, "an international award-winning action series that grew into a global entertainment phenomenon." That's just how the English language works.

Also, check out http://on-screen.blogspot.com/2007_02_01_archive.html, a blog post from February 2007, which has the exact same language. The language on the Halo 3 web page is clearly from a press release issued sometime before Halo 3 was even released, perhaps even from the original press release announcing the game. Halo 3 has probably sold more than 8.1 million copies by now, but someone needs to come up with a different source to prove it. Indrian (talk) 14:45, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Permission to edit.

I'd like permission to edit this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kylebiddle (talk • contribs) 02:44, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Link Decay fix

There is a citation that needs a slight fix to its URL to work properly.

Players may also save up to 100 films of gameplay to their Xbox 360's hard drive, viewing the action from any angle and at different speeds.

The url "http://www.bungie.net/content.aspx?link=h3betaSavedFilms" needs to have "http://www." replaced with "http://halo." due to a site restructuring. It is currently invalid. Rothnihalias (talk) 07:50, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Synopsis - Setting and characters

Halos have diameter of 10,000 kilometers, not "several hundred kilometers". LoL. You probably got it from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_(megastructure) which defines a generic massive structure as being at least 100km wide. Edit pls. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.11.80.83 (talk) 03:01, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. Thank you for the noting the error. Plasmic Physics (talk) 03:20, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

how much this game,i mean a MB,GB also TB

Please tell me how much the....... mean MB,GB also TB