Jump to content

Talk:Halo Wars/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

New Info

Hey, can someone add the new info gained from here: [[1]]

Cheers.

Bungie

Reminder: Halo Wars isn't a Bungie game, so don't add the template or change the developer etc... PureLegend 19:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought Bungie and Ensemble were collaborating on the project, which was why I added it. Peptuck 19:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
They may be lending a helping hand (for canon etc...) but that still doesn't make it notable enough to include, I think. PureLegend 19:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Not quite correct- Bungie owns the IP, and Microsoft own Bungie. So this title should fall (in some way at least) under all 3 of those (+ Ensemble). As Halo Wars is part of the Halo "series", Bungie and Ensemble's templates need to be here because you'll see it listed under games they've created. Microsoft needs only be a category, as they are a friend-of-a-friend in this situation. Make sense? Think of it like a series of novels- even with different authors, there would probably be a template about the overarching world all the novels happen in, but the publishing company wouldn't necessarily warrant a template.gspawn 12:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Microsoft owns the IP, but no longer owns Bungie.--Poh Tay Toez (talk) 22:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Frank O'Conner has said that the only thing Bungie is contributing is the story canon and some basic art design elements. Ensemble is soley developing this game so its not a "Bungie Game." Technically they don't even own the IP, Microsoft Game Studios does. The Templates are being used in an inconsistent manner here than the rest of Wikipedia. For games and Movies it is listed when they person/company is the one making the product. The Halo template should be there, and the Ensemble one (if there is one), but not the Bungie one.

Development's first paragraph needs to be fixed, Halo's first RTS existance was a Mac title and was not designed for PC intialy. It went from RTS to thrid person shooter then went to the PC for development after Oni's less than stellar sales in retail and slowly evolved into an FPS. Even Bungie's own recorded history over the Halo franchise of their development has this stated in their archive with photographic proof of evolving builds of the title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thatconfused1 (talk • contribs) 09:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Spartans

In the trailor the spartans looked extremely different from any spartan seen in the halo universe currently it is rude to assume they are spartan-||s

The game takes place after first contact with the Covenant (2530?) - the only Spartans around then were IIs.Bronzey 23:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

They are Spartan II's in older armor (Mark IV I think) and without sheild tech

Mark IV had no shields (first Spartan armour)
Mark V had shields (Halo 1)
Mark VI had better shields (Halo 2)

Bronzey 08:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Chances are that they are the SPARTAN-II's in Mark IV's, and their appearance could be explained by the over all appearance of the game. The Elites and Marines do not look similar to the ones in Halo or Halo 2, and the SPARTANS could have simply had a redesign. They represent the same thing but have a different appearance.Razer of Chaos 20:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed a reference to the SPARTAN with a speaking role in the trailer being the Master Chief. We have no indication that this is the Master Chief himself, and it certainly did not sound to me like it was done by the same voice actor. While I would not rule out the possibility of the Master Chief being in the game, I think that we should be cautious to not jump to the conclusion that any given SPARTAN is the Master Chief unless the character is directly refered to as such in the material or by official sources. - Fearless Son 22:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, at the moment it should just read "a Spartan", since there's no indication of his identity. And who would put the Chief into an RTS anyway? What if he died? :P Bronzey 00:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
For the moment I choose to refer to him as the "Lead SPARTAN" in this instance, since he is at the front of the formation and speaks for the rest of them, thus I must conclude that he is in charge of SPARTAN Group Omega. - Fearless Son 17:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Is it not more likely for them to be SPARTAN-IIIs the diffrence in armour bulk and look rules out Mark IV's. The Master Chief identifys the small diffrence in appearance from the Mark V armour in the fall of Reach and the armour the SPARTANs are wearing looks similer to the mark Mark VIs desing but does not appear as large, meaning it is more likely to be S.P.I.A (Semi-Powered Infiltration Armor) fact that the lead SPARTAN identifys the unit as Group Omega similer to the Spartan 3s were as the Spartan IIs used colur I.D. The Master chiefs team as 'Blue Squad' etc.

No; SPI armor is very different from MJOLNIR in appearance, viz. the Ghosts of Onyx cover. -Azathoth117 23:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
The S-IIIs were also not around at Harvest at the beginning of the war. Peptuck 04:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I sorry to say that the Omega team mentioned in Ghost of Oynx was mentioned by Dr. Hasely as she admits that she and the rest of the UNSC do not know were Omega team is, now by understaning that Hasely had emotional concirn for her Sparten II she would very careful to know were every single one died at or were they are currently at best. But looking at the trailer many times these are Sparten IIs for sure since the Sparten IIIs are roughly eleven to fourteen year olds.
Ok now onto the the armor issuse this is kinda hard to figure out but sin i noticed that the Omega teams armor does not have the distinct frontal helment with the two eges sticking out this would suggest Mark IV, this would be my conclussion at best since it is no reliable photo of Mark IV armor currently.
Now onto the Auassault rifle this is clearly a modified MA5B, now if people will read the Fall of Reach will notice on the mission to the astoriod with rebels they use modified MA5Bs, and then read the First Strike on Reach Red Team find prototypes of the Battle Rifle, Now these do look like and sound like BRs but relize just becuase in Halo: CE the MA5B could fire rapidly but no soldier would do this in real life, second looking at the front side of the Ghost of Oynx, the MA5K looks ruffly like the same weapon in the trailer, though they look just as the BR in near deatil this cannot be since then it would destroy the time line chronolgy.
Time of the battle, Ensemble Studios does say in the FAQ section on the Halo Wars home page http://www.halowars.com/faqs.html that the game prior to the first book and would be near the first encounter with the covenant on land. This suggest why in the trailer the commander in the lead warhog in the trailer is surprised when the patrolis killed, with qoute "What the?"
Equipment: did anyone notice that the marines have no LCD screen in the right eye yes!! hears another reason to backup up my reasoning, and the armor moves as if light alloy andkevlar with other materials, this would be more apporient since this would be best against solid hit weapons not plasma or any energy based weapon systems.
Thanks for reading abd remember this stuff exact and I know people will say I'm wrong but I only can give what I knowPopa01 17:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

In [2] , near the left and bottom side, what are those things that look like marines in some really beefed-up armor?

Cyclops power suits. They're the UNSC's builder units. Peptuck (talk) 06:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Inconsistencies

Thank god someone removed the inconsistencies section. Every last one of those is either wrong, or can easily be explained away by the fact that Halo Wars is higher definition than any previous Halo game, thus features like headlights, visual differences etc are fairly moot. The rest can be dismissed off hand due to the fact this is a pre-rendered trailer, non-representative of actual gameplay. -SteveG 06:36, 28/9/06

All of the inconsistencies are based off of a trailer that is pre-rendered and is therefore not in-game. Beowulf7120 12:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed the comment from the first entry because the years were wrong firstly (it said that Halo 1 took place between 2525-2552; when only the first book took place during that time, and the first game itself took place only over the span of a few days in 2552. Beowulf7120 12:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I also removed a comment saying that there was no energy shield on the MJOLNIR Mark V and that there was no ability to hold an AI crystal. That is incorrect, as the Mk V was upgraded with precisely those two upgrades. I re-added this comment, but fixed it to read "Mark IV" instead of "Mark V" in order for it to be correct. Beowulf7120 12:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The 5th entry in this section says that the cloaked elites did not shimmer in Halo 1 but did in Halo 2. I think that the shimmer effect is due to the improvements in the graphics engine, and not as an inconsistency. I think that this entry should be deleted. Beowulf7120 12:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The 6th entry says that the energy sword looks like it is uncloacking, but I think it is merely being turned on. This should be deleted too. Beowulf7120 12:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The last entry says that the Elites that uncloak are unarmed. It is possible that they all have energy swords in their hands but have yet to activate them. This should be deleted too. Beowulf7120 12:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Besides, the Energy Sword is in fact being de-cloaked. Watch it a few times and see.Razer of Chaos 20:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The comment on the Battle Rifle inconsistency is untrue. It never says in the games that the Battle Rifles weren't invented. Only the books say that, and they have been known to be directly contradicted by the games. (remember first strike, when it was contradicted by Halo 2? It said that the covenant knew of humans on earth, but Halo 2 said otherwise.)

Kyle117

No it didn't. Reread First Strike; the Covenant never make mention of Earth, only that they were headed to Sol's coordinates, and even that is a conclusion made by Cortana. There's no proof that the knew Earth was at those coordinates, the Chief even says as much. Peptuck 06:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Staten already stated that the novels are canon regardless, even if it's going to get over-ridden by Bungie. Eric Nylund did *NOT* write the novels out of his ass.

Reality check: I know the urge to hold everything to canon is huge... but c'mon. This is an ENTIRELY different company with an ENTIRELY different art staff. Like the Halo Graphic Novel, all Bungie requires is that there be a close enough resemblance to bear the Halo stamp. Maintaining that, Ensemble has free license to change the art to suit their style. Also (in canon), here's a thought: model years. Some differences are as simple as a product getting a new contract. Instead of Wallaby Arms (made up), maybe the Warthog in the trailer was the Mackabee Foundry version. Same designation, different makers. Happens all the time in (this type of) contracted work. So long as the final version worked right, nobody would care about some visual differences. gspawn 12:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree here. Even in canon, things like Worthogs are not all identical. They can have different markings to designate different groups, their weapons are modular (we have seen Worthogs in the games that are armed with rotery machine guns, rocket launchers, and gauss cannons) and they even have a demilitarized civil version of the Warthog shown in billboards in New Mombassa as the "Hog". As for the marine uniforms, we have already seen two different versions of them in the existing Halo games, so it is no surprise that they are slightly different here. Keep in mind that they are fighting in a winter climate in the trailer, so it would be reasonable so surmise that they are deployed equipped with arctic gear, which is probably why the uniforms look slightly different. - Fearless Son 17:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

On the Battle Rifles discussion, they make sense. When mentioned in First Strike, it is possible that when they said new, they meant new to the SPARTANS or haven't be used before. The Battle Rifle could have been around long before Halo 1, but only in small amounts. So let me give you a real-life example. The standard issue assault rifle in the U.S. is the M16, but awhile ago there were weapons being designed to replace them, one of the likely ones being the XM8. If it had passed, the change wouldn't have been done with over night, you would see deployed soldiers still carrying their M16s and others with XM8. Spirit of Fire could have been on of the first ships to get the Battle Rifles, the early steps of the Assault Rifle being phased out. There are many ways to explain the presence of the Battle Rifle, but it is not inconsistent. Razer of Chaos 13:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I just thought I would point out that this could be the same sort of situation as the Assault Rifle. The original Assault Rifle used in Halo 1 was the MA5B, while the one in Halo 3 is the MA5C, a modification. In addition, the existance of the toned down MA5K Assault Rifle was mentioned in the novels. Perhaps these are merely early versions of the Battle Rifle, I do not think it is an inconsistancy. Hunter076 19:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The article says that the events of Halo Wars take place 20 years after Halo 1. This is grossly wrong, the events take place in 2531 on Harvest and other close by planets. It is 20 years before Halo 1. I edited it to reflect it already. --ItsYourEmpire09 (talk) 22:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

It was vandalism. Congratulations. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 22:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Turret

There is a gun-turrent in the trailer. Should be mentioned. JAF1970 14:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

When is it shown? Peptuck 19:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Turrets can be seen rising from the top portion of the outer columns/landing pods on all the unidentified UNSC dropships. The barrel configuration seems to be of a more round, gatling-gun inspired design than the triangular design seen on Warthogs. User:Liljef33639

Skyhawk?

The article mentions that one of the unidentified UNSC vehicles may be a Skyhawk. If I remember correctly, the Skyhawk was a fan creation and not actually apart of the Halo universe. Can someone confirm this? Razer of Chaos 20:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I have not heard of a Skyhawk, perhaps whoever wrote that section meant to say Pelican. Beowulf7120 20:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

UPDATE: I retract my last statement as I have recalled that a Skyhawk Jump Jet was in the first Halo novel; The Fall of Reach. So it is possible that the Skyhawk is in this game, but since there are no pictures of one that I know of, it is not possible to confirm or deny its existance in this game. Beowulf7120 22:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The Skyhawk Jump Jet was used in the Fall of Reach to test the Master Chief in his brand new Mark V armour. It is real, but hasn't been seen anywhere else except in that book and now, maybe, Halo Wars. Bronzey 01:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Its also possible that the fighter could be a variant on the Strike Fighter shown on the Halo 2 Limited Edition DVD. Peptuck 03:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Hinted at in the Age of Empires book?

That second paragraph in the article has really annoyed me. The AOE5 picture has nothing to do with Halo. It is a hypothetical situation of 5 Age of games, with the image for AOE5 completely non-Halo and merely generic sci-fi. "This may have been intended to represent Master Chief from the Halo universe" is just bloody wrong. The picture has nothing to do with Halo Wars. It's a completely different IP. So frankly, this statement is inaccurate: "Halo Wars was first hinted at in the art book that came with the collector's edition of Age of Empires 3." And this statement is original research: "This may have been intended to represent Master Chief from the Halo universe."—Abraham Lure 20:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

It was not a hint.

"A hint at the creation of Halo Wars was the shut-down of a fan-made mod for the RTS game Command and Conquer Generals: Zero Hour called Halogen." The Halogen team has said multiple times that was not the reason and the idea is a little farfetched. Unless there are other sources that say otherwise, I am removing it.Razer of Chaos 20:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Their mod was most likely shut down because of copyright infringement. There have been numerous mods given cease-and-desist letters from companies for copyright ingringement. That being said, I see no reason why the above quote should be included in the article. Beowulf7120 22:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Recommending it be added. Slashdot, Kotaku, many sources have covered Halogen's shutdown as a possible repercussion of HW. Wooty 05:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd recommend adding it as well. While infringement was cerntainly the official reason, it probably came up because of a coming RTS. http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3153524 has some quotes from a developer conjecturing that a RTS may be in the works. Pforhan 12:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Also recommend adding it. How was it not a hint? They only issued a cease-and-desist recently. If it was just for the copyright status it would've been done long ago.
Enfestid 12:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
False logic. I could easily argue that if it was because of ES' game, it would've been done long ago (as the game has been under development for quite a while). Regardless, saying it is a hint is original research and POV, though would be admissable if put in a way which suggested some see the cease-and-desist as a hint, and was then referenced with a reliable source.—Abraham Lure 02:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Alternative: If this is as big an issue as it's being made out to be, its most likely large gaming news sites such as IGN and the like have made the connection openly. Find something like that to cite and state it such as "It has been speculated that..."--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 17:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

A link to 1up was already posted, that should qualify as a "Large gaming news site". Really its an open secret, Microsoft and Bungie will never admit it, but really, what are the odds that a mod would be allowed to go on for three years and then get shutdown right before the announcement of a new RTS? Keep in mind that this was a very prominent mod, Bungie and Microsoft knew it existed long before it was closed. There really is no question as to the reason and timing for its closing. Now because this isn't "official" and never will be (and as such is unverifiable), I don't know if its appropriate for Wikipedia, but I do know that its the truth.65.188.254.26 06:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Albatross?

I do not remember reading about a dropship class called Albatross; the only dropship class I can recall is Pelican. Does anyone know of the Albatross class dropship? If not, then the unidentified UNSC dropship should be changed to Pelican and not Albatross. Beowulf7120 17:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

A crashed Albatross dropship is a landmark in the Halo 2 mulitplayer map "Relic" (part of the expanded multiplayer content.) It is larger than a Pelican but has a similar form, and (in the map) has a Worthog held in an internal bay. - Fearless Son 22:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Fearless Son is right, it says theres a crashed Albatross on relic in the booklet that comes with the map pack disc. The albatross is a bit like a pelican with shorter wings and instead of a passenger bay, it carries a metal box similar to a shipping crate.James086 02:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I see. Well since I do not have the map pack, I did not know that there was a dropship class called Albatross. Thanks for clearing that up. Beowulf7120 17:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


Ahh, I made the change to Albatross a very long time ago (before i had an account on wiki). It is a valid ship in the halo universe and it looks pretty darn close in the trailer. You can see atleast %50 of the ship. Why has it been removed from the article? Is it not worthy of a mention?

We don't have confirmation that it actually is an Albatross. Peptuck 23:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes there is also an albatross in the level Sandtrap in Halo 3. If this is wrong please correct me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Littlefatmonkey (talk • contribs) 06:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Leader?

Are we sure that the elite that is shot down by marines with battle rifles is the leader? It's the first elite in that flank but is there anything indicating that it is a "leader"? I understand that it may mean it is leading the rest (being infront) but the word leader gives the impression that it's in charge. Off topic however, it doesn't appear to be armed, when it dies I couldn't see anything fall from it's hands, not even where it makes a throwing motion over it's shoulder. Perhaps it should be reworded into the "first elite into the fight" or something else not indicating rank. James086 02:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

That's a good point, I'll do it now. Bronzey 06:41, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
True. The Elites have a system of honor that glories the first to be into battle, and the highest honors go to those who make the most kills. For all we know, that might have been a lower-ranking Elite that the higher-ranking ones "let have" that easy kill, for the sake of gaining experience and honor. A lack of experience fighting humans would seem to explain why the Elite was so interested in examining the corpse afterward. This is just speculation on my part though. - Fearless Son 18:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


its hard to belive that any on the feild are the leader. feild masters usally stay on the high ground to observe the battel.(sorce, halo:the flood)

I disagree with the above. Field Masters do not stay back, since when have you ever seen a gold-plated Elite standing in the background of a battle? In fact, they're usually the ones up at the front, wielding Energy Swords. The Field Master described in "The Flood" (I forget his name) I would say was a special cace; did 'Zamamee not say that he was a coward? Hunter076 17:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

Noticed a Nod(refrance) to the RTS Starcraft just when the Elites uncloack, That secne is very similer to when a large attack force uncloacks under the cloaking field of an Arbiter(air unit) flying overhead Starcraft/orginal

Would be nice if thats added,

Along with other things of the sort, --Brad 20:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, it might just be a coincidance, is it absolutely dead-on similar or just a scene that looks like the one from Starcraft? Generally, without confirmation that it is actually a nod to the game (from Bungie or Ensemble), I would just wait until it can be proven as a deliberate thing. Bronzey 01:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Original Research is frowned upon. As are Trivia sections in general, for that matter.—Abraham Lure 01:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
The only ways I ever see this being article worthy are a)The devs come out and says it b)Blizzard makes an accusation of it or otherwise asserts it c)it gets noteable (and hence citeable) mainstream attention. Otherwise its more or less OR.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 17:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Dual Wielding Swords

If you look at this picture: [3] (and if that doesn't work go to http://www.halowars.com/images.html and bring up the image in a new window), near the bottom and middle of the picture appears to be an Elite holding two energy swords with marines charging him. However, since this is not an in-game picture, Elites may or may not use two swords at once in the game. Regardless, should this be mentioned in the article?

Good eye, it should be noted next to the Energy Sword. If anyone doesn't agree, feel free to take it out.Razer of Chaos 21:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Well spotted. I added to the article that it was concept art because often it is an artists imagination rather than confirmation of the element in the game, but we should keep the dual wieldable note in the article.James086 06:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
It IS an RTS, and barring there being some uber-1337 dual wielding unit, that would not happen in the game. (as in, Starcrafts' unique units, for example).gspawn 17:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

True, but it might also follow in the steps of Dawn of War, an RTS where it is possible to customize the units by upgrading squads with different weaponry. Some members of the squad may carry flamers while another unit in the same squad fires with a rocket launcher. Unfortunately all we can do at the moment is speculate.The Gamer 00:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Now this is pure speculation. I'm going to start off right with that but here me out. If anyone remembers the original halo videos from back when it was supposed to me a mac RTS (some of these vids were shone in one of the various "making of" segments, most likely the one in the H2 Collector's but I dont recall clearly), it was set up somewhat in the form of an RTS in which you could at given times take control of individual units IIRC. I believe they gave that as the reason that halo developed into what it eventually became, that they further extended this until the RTS elements were phased out. If that is the case it offers another possible explanation to the energy swords along with the one that The Gamer offered. In any case we shouldn't discount the possibility entirely. With the currently small quantity of game art, it is likely they included that for a reason. (If nothing else to spark this kind of debate, haha)--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 17:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, it is a known Bungie hype-building tactic to throw out herrings for fans to spot and tear appart looking for a meaning that is not there. Ensamble might have adopted something of that marketing style for this game. Heh.  :) - Fearless Son 18:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Another place where there is an elite with two swords is the Halo Wars theme on the Xbox 360 (which you can also see on the Xbox site. [4] Again though this is only concept art but since its now been seen twice its not just a one-off artist fooling around. DarkPingu 11:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Unlike the first concept art, this Elite is pretty easy to spot. The whole picture emphasizes the fact that it is holding two swords. At the very least, the image is designed to say, "Hey, look at this Elite using two swords." It could be a simple marketing technique (trying to get people to buy the game because they think you can dual-wield), or it could be a blatant answer to the "can they dual-wield swords?" question. Good find. The Gamer 00:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd say it is pretty likly Elites would be able to dual-wield. Half-Jaw does so in the Halo Graphic Novel, and the only reason it isn't done in Halo 2 is because it didn't make any real sense with that gameplay. In Halo Wars, it makes sense to do that. I am sure they at the very least want to put the concept into the game. Razer of Chaos 13:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Hence, 'Elite'? Definition 1.a: A group or class of persons or a member of such a group or class, enjoying superior intellectual, social, or economic status and 1.b: The best or most skilled members of a group I say this because if there is any unit type that should have special powers or abilities, such as dual wielding, it be the 'leet. --MikeNGo (talk) 03:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Plasma Shot

The article shows that the plasma shot that killed the first marine and injured the second was fired from either a Plasma Rifle or Plasma Pistol. However, the shot was blue, suggesting it was Plasma Rifle. Should it remain as is or changed to Plasma Rifle?Razer of Chaos 21:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

As with the SMG look-alike, it is possible that Covvie weaponry changed from HW to H:CE. But you are probably right, as a Plasma Rifle would be the most likely weapon because of the colour. If nothing else, the fact that Elites usually wield Rifles over anything else (Swords aside) seems to confirm the nature of the weapon as a Plasma Rifle. I'd change it to Rifle (but I'd also bet that Pistols will be in the game as well). Ourai т с 00:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Battle Rifle

Please do not add anything more about the Battle Rifle inconsistancies to this article - it has been noticed and is already mentioned in the Confirmed Elements section. Any more is just speculation and should be left out until confirmation of what exactly the rifle is. Thanks. --Bronzey 08:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Just to butt in half a year later: we also don't know when Battle Rifles like the ones seen in the trailer were actually adopted by the UNSC. First Strike describes a scoped rifle with auto-zoom and less ammo than an MA5B, but it never mentions a name or designation. More likely than not, the rifles seen in the trailer are older models of the current rifle, or may even be the current rifle; the UNSC was using the MA5B back in 2525, too. Peptuck 05:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Unclear Concept Art

I was looking at the concept art [5] and I noticed not only a sniper rifle (which I added to the article) but the soldier looking back (who is yelling something) is holding what appears to be a new weapon (it's definitely not a battle rifle). I don't know if we can add it to the article because we can only speculate as to what it is. Also I think there are some Brutes (to the left of the artillery explosions the large dark shapes) but I can't be sure that they aren't Elites. Can anyone else shed light on this? James086 Talk | Contribs 11:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

For the rifle, I'm not sure; all the rifles in the concept art are stylized and may not be perfectly in synch with the versions in the games and Bungie artwork. As for the "Brutes" I think that they're either actual Brutes or likely Hunters. Peptuck 01:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

It may be a M99 Special Application Scoped Rifle which was used by Sgt. Johnson in the novel Contact Harvest during operation TREBUCHET[[6]] Also note that concept art are ways for artists to flesh out ideas of environments, units, etc. without the restrictions of a game engine (or whatever else) and are not necessarily canon. Now what could that crashed ship be? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Foehammernecho (talk • contribs) 12:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Shortsword

The fighter has now been identified in concept art as the UNSC Shortsword.[7]

Must be a variant of the Longsword...

Apprently according to concept art it's a totally different ship - kinda uninspired title though. It's a bomber that launches off the ground and can bomb from the air. Bronzey 10:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Interestingly, the original working title of the "Longsword" heavy fighter shown in Halo: Combat Evolved was to be a "Longbow", named after its shape as seen from above. I recall seeing this name written on some concept art for it on Bungie's website. Still though, the fact that the Longsword is specified in the books as being a "heavy fighter" class of craft suggests that there are also "light fighter" classes of craft, and the name "Shortsword" makes some logical sense. - Fearless Son 23:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

According to something I read on the Halo Wars forum, Ensemble has realised Shortsword is a pretty unoriginal name and so they're going to change it. Bronzey 05:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

U.F.O.

I think that big ugly transport lookin thingy is not a skyhwk, but an albatross, from the Halo 2 multiplayer expansion thingy.

No Skyhawk craft are seen in this trailer, only Pelican and Albatross dropships and Shortsword fighters

Leaked Screenshot

The gameplay scene showed on the screen in the leaked screenshot in this article is a screencap from the trailer. The leaked screenshot is a fake. 71.145.178.200 23:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

tone of article: biased?

might just be me, but i realised that someone has edited the article to include rude language, and refers to UNSC soldiers as "most incompetent soldiers" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MuRocks (talk • contribs) 06:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC).

Vandalism. if you see it, revert it. Peptuck 06:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

"Added a link in the external section for a place to download the Trailer." - Lucky Foot 20:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Halogen

Shouldn't it be mentioned that this game was announced right around the same time that MS and Bungie sent their notorious Cease and Desist order to the Halogen team, working on their own version of a Halo RTS for the Command and Conquer Generals engine? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.49.43.98 (talk) 01:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC).

Does that have any actual relevance to Halo Wars beyond coincidental timing? Peptuck 03:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I would imagine they have quite a bit in common, since Halogen was simply a fan-made version of Halo Wars. --Eptin 18:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, the mod was in beta and given the Cease and Desist order two days before Halo Wars was announced.

Skyhawk

I don't remember seing the Skyhawk announced for Halo Wars ANYWHERE. Shouldn't it be removed until we have confirmation? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.75.131.228 (talk) 20:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

People may be confusing the Skyhawk with the Sparrowhawk - I'll remove the Skyhawk until it's confirmed. Bronzey 07:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Content alert

Halo Wars will reveal itself in July article at XB360 FB. JAF1970 22:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

.......(almost 1 year later) Yeah...well..its in 2008 and this game still hasn't came out....wow.......TheLightElf (talk) 17:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Name of the ship

Under the section where it talks about the X06 trailer, I'm pretty sure the name of the ship is called the Pillar of Autumn, not the Spirit of Fire. But I'm just basing that off the book Fall of Reach. If anyone can tell me why I'm wrong, then please do.

Fall of Reach's events - particularly the ones surrounding the Autumn - take place in 2552. Halo Wars takes place int he early stages of the war with the Covenant, in 2525 and beyond, revolving around the events of the Spirit of Fire's battles against them. Peptuck 01:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

If you actually do some RESEARCH on the Halo Wars Website and fan pages, you will find the Ship is called Spirit of Fire, load an image, and while it is loading you will see the UNSC Emblem and the Shi['s name pop up while it is loading. Lawnmowers Rock! 13:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

They are different ships. :) Bronzey 07:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Even the demo video mentions this when we are being shown the units, special abilities, ect. The guy even states at the beginning that there where receiving supplies from the Spirit of Fire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.169.244.29 (talk) 02:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Co-op

Where has it been confirmed that halo wars will support Co-op? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.104.242.66 (talk) 08:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

No-where, I'll remove that from the infobox until we get confirmation. For that matter, I haven't seen anything about multiplayer either. But I'd assume it's been said somewhere I've missed. Bronzey (talk) 08:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I found a confirmation and will add it to the article. James086Talk | Email 04:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Great, must've missed that :P Bronzey (talk) 10:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

"sections of the game's official website suggest that it will be possible to play as the Covenant."

The article should cite said sections. Insert Neat Username Here 23:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Scarab

I know it's a little nitpicky, but underneath the Scarab picture reads "The Covenant Scarab". Should it not be "A Covenant Scarab"? Saying the Scarab refers to the only one, or one of few. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.170.197.10 (talk) 15:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It can also refer to a class of things, i.e. The American F22 can blah blah blah... It's technically correct but it could lead some people to believe there's only one, so I'll make the change to be more precise. Mad031683 (talk) 16:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Single/multiplayer?

The latest Halo Wars interview features this image: http://i.gametap.com/web30/eMagazine/emag_halowarsqa_2_f9c70.jpg

It features two teams, Covenant and UNSC, as red and blue. Because they look so different from any other unit colours we've seen, I believe it is an indication of either online multiplayer or a single player scenario (i.e. not campaign). Just wondering: is there any sources floating around that could confirm which one it is, so it can be added to the article? Will single player feature anything other than the campaign? Bronzey (talk) 10:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Update: I've just checked some old monthly updates and it seems there is skirmish games on single player - meaning that image is either a human vs AI or a human-human multiplayer game. Bronzey (talk) 11:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Unreal Engine

Can anyone find a source for the Unreal Engine? I can't. Also does anyone have the October 2007 OXM because it needs a citation too. James086Talk | Email 02:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Command & Conquer

The game demo looks *very* much like C&C in terms of unit and game balance. Infantry/GI. Warthog/HUMMV. Scorpion/M1 tank. MAC gun/Orbital Ion Cannon. etc. Would citing the C&C game itself be appropriate? Can anyone think of a better source? Or alternatively, does anyone think this observation unencyclopedic? ANTIcarrot (talk) 22:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Just making that observation seems to be original research. You'd probably have to find some notable sources stating a similarity first. TH1RT3EN talk ♦ contribs 23:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I think it's acceptable to say that C&C is heavily influential to any RTS development team. But that itself doesn't make it worth a mention ;) --Beeurd (talk) 23:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Saying Halo Wars is similar to C&C is like saying Halo is similar to Doom. Every RTS game ever made since '95 is fundamentally influenced by C&C. Peptuck (talk) 08:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Source found. http://www.edge-online.com/magazine/halo-wars-just-add-strategy "Halo Wars is a completely generic RTS." Told you so. :P Remember there are two ways to do unorigonal research: Find something and then add it. Or see something blatantly true and then go looking for sources. ANTIcarrot (talk) 11:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Um, all that source says is that, in their opinion, Halo Wars is a generic RTS. It makes no connection whatsoever to C&C. Hell, C&C isn't even mentioned. Peptuck (talk) 17:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

GameInvasion.net

Hey guys (I'm from upstate NY, guys means men and women), I saw that you took down the GameInvasion link and I was wondering the reason why. The GameInvasion site loads faster than the Bungie site and everything is directly from Bungie (and I don't mean ripped or embedded, I mean from Bungie). Now, I wouldn't have posted it at all if the videos were seen as duplicates to the main site, but the speed was my main reason for the post. Now, Atlan, you wrote this to me (Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it.) which is the reason for this post. If GameInvasion is seen as advertising and promotion, then GamePro, GameSpot and IGN could be considered the same thing. If they are they because of profiling, they are profiling data given to these sites by Bungie, which is the same as GameInvasion, only with videos. Also, since external links do not alter search engine rankings, there would be no other reason for me to post about GameInvasion except to better the wiki. If the main problem was the link to GameInvasion, that I can understand after re-reading the guidelines and could be considered promotion of a site and I apologize for the over site. I do however feel the high def videos at a faster load and additions to the library in the future (GameInvasion seems to get exclusive videos all the time from different publishers it seems) would prove a useful and accepted addition to the readers of this wiki.

Upon your approval I wish to resubmit the link to GameInvasion's Halo Wars profile page. Thank you for your time JPalumbo (talk) 21:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Based on the above, I don't see why the link can't be posted if it has some notable, useful content that can meaningfully add to the article. But then again I'n no expert on Wikipedia intricacies - go ahead and put it in if it seems relevant to you. Certainly if it features videos and content that other sites don't it deserves to be in there. Bronzey (talk) 08:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
That website has no content that can't also be found on the developer's website. Per Wikipedia policy to keep the number of external links to a minimum, it makes no sense to add GameInvasion.--Atlan (talk) 11:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Release date and info from CVG?

Shouldn't the release date be cited? Considering that the game is still under development this is probably the most important piece of information that needs to be correct. Also, there was information on ComputerAndVideoGames.com that has quite a bit of relevance, namely the section on how Halo Wars was concieved under "Halo-down." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.72.131.237 (talk) 21:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed AP Shinobi (talk) 01:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
How reliable a source is GameStop? That's who we're citing for the release date. Has Ensemble announced anything? Joyous! | Talk 02:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The release date is for a Saturday, this can't be correct. Xbox 360 titles usually ship on a Friday. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.106.48.33 (talk) 15:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The official web site, http://www.halowars.com/faq.aspx says "Q: When will “Halo Wars” be available? A: Updated! Everywhere March 3rd." I couldn't trace back to any direct sources for the EU and JP release dates. It also seems a bit weird they would release it in other areas first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharknice (talk • contribs) 08:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Bungie Studios Removed

In the table on the right that has the basic info about the game it says Bungie Studios and Ensemble Studios. Bungie Studios is NOT involved in any way to Halo Wars. Microsoft Studios owns all rights to Halo, it characters, name, etc. Bungie only claimed the rights to the Master Chief. Microsoft Studios then hired Ensemble Studios to do the game. I am removing Bungie Studios from the developers list since they are not involved in the making of this game. Please reply here before replacing Bungie Studios if you think it was vandalism, etc. AP Shinobi (talk) 15:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Bungie has a small role in that they helped with the in universe aspects but I agree that they shouldn't be listed as a developer because their role is miniscule. I think they only warrant a mention in the development section, something like "Bungie aided Ensemble in the design of the universe and story" or something like that (note it would need a citation). James086Talk | Email 02:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, I will personally add that in ASAP. AP Shinobi (talk) 15:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Added :) AP Shinobi (talk) 00:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

MJOLNIR

Im pretty sure that the spartans at the end of the video were spartan 3s. The armour they have on is SPI armour I think. The Spartan 2s (like MasterChief)have MJOLNIR armour. Anyway I think thats how it is correct me if im wrong.

Nomad13 (talk) 19:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)Nomad13Nomad13 (talk) 19:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)5-12-08

The Spartan 3 project starts in 2531 only just begun when Halo Wars is set and they weren't actually ready for combat until much later. Also the helmet of the SPI armour is very different (see the cover of Halo: Ghosts of Onyx). We can't actually add that infomation anyway because it needs to be verified by a reliable source (which would mean a statement from one of the developers). James086Talk | Email 01:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Things to include

The following are links that I plan to use as sources in the article but I don't have time at the moment. If someone else wants to implement the info that's fine but I will get around to it eventually. James086Talk | Email 09:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Eh, I'm one of those guys who doesn't feel like improving articles until they are released... :P Here are some more:

Most of this is development, I suppose. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 13:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

According to G4...

Tonight, a rep for Halo Wars showed us footage of the game on G4. He said that this game was slated for a spring release for next year...Is this a new release date?--Smashbrosboy (talk) 02:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep, Ensemble just announced it. Also the worst kept secret surrounding the game (playable as covenant) was confirmed. [8] James086Talk | Email 12:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

PC version?

Any release for it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.80.175.66 (talk) 15:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Nope. No announcement has ever been made for a PC version. Peptuck (talk) 17:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

It's never going to happen. Everyone says it will eventually because RTS's are for computers, but that's bull. This is asked in every interview about the game, and the response is always the same: No, we won't release it for computer. No, we'll never get talked into it. No, it's not going to be a sucky game because it's only on console. Thudunder (talk) 06:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Someone added that it was coming to Windows Vista on the "Quick Info" part of the page. I changed it because it will never be on Vista. --ItsYourEmpire09 (talk) 00:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

All of the above reasons are completely irrelevant due to the fact that ensemble studios is closed and don't exist enough to make it. However if they didn't close then they probably would have made it on the windows platform as not only would it be consistant with the halo franchise but also with ensemble which in the time they were in business only made PC games
tl;dr: nothing to do with "that is bull" 94.193.25.207 (talk) 21:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

official box

Microsoft just sent it out to me and other press. Actually, Joystiq just posted it on their site, too. JAF1970 (talk) 18:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I cropped it down to the physical art and reuploaded it :P It's nicer to me that way, more pixels for the actual art. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Gamestop release date

Gamestops sends out the preorder for Halowars 2/02/09 Poohman0 (talk) 00:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

That means absolutely nothing. They simply have dates that fit the general time period the game is expected to release, and change relatively often.Halofan333 (talk) 19:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The actual release date is February 2, 2009. I've heard it from Multiple sources, not just Gamestop. Bungie's blog listed the "Mythic Map Pack was coming with the LCE of Halo Wars" Which they later state that the final retail product of the game is due in February 2009. --ItsYourEmpire09 (talk) 00:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually There are multpile credible sources citing Microsoft that say it comes out February 28, 2009. That is what our page should reflect. --ItsYourEmpire09 (talk) 19:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The Flood

Why does it say they are not in the game, the last CG trailer talks about infection, and the preview on the Xbox Marketplace shows the flood at the end of it.....please fix the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.192.59.2 (talk) 20:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Here http://www.gamespot.com/xbox360/strategy/halowars/review.html?tag=topslot;title;2 a review from gamespot look at the beginning at The Bad "Flood not playable at all".Nuevo003 (talk) 01:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The Flood are in it, just not playable. Stabby Joe (talk) 20:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Plot?

So just wondering where's the plot section? Were people editing it and overal removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.73.198 (talk • contribs)

The game hasn't been released yet. There aren't many confirmed concrete details of the plot available. — TKD::Talk 21:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Details such as characters, et al were removed due to vandalism, but as the game has not been released yet there are no real plot details currently. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk) 22:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The reception section really needs to be expanded

Especially to highlight negative and positive criticism, I vote it should be changed to mixed given that a major website gave it a fairly negative review also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.177.182.57 (talk • contribs)

The game has an 82% critic average, and Gamespot's review is a significant outlier (that should be mentioned and will, but one publication does not equate a "mixed" reception.) --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk) 03:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Fuchs, its clearly gained a "generally favorable" reception so it wouldn't be "mixed", however of course we will need to keep balance and expand on the cons as much as the pros. Stabby Joe (talk) 20:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Halo_Wars/Archive_1&oldid=1140142818"