Talk:Halo 3/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

The New York Times' Charles Herold's comments are absolute rubbish

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Explicitly closing this thread per JayKeaton, in favor of a fresh discussion at Talk:Halo 3#Balancing the POV. — TKD::Talk 14:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

---

"Halo 3 is a prettier Halo 2". That's obviously not true. If you want an example on how different a sequel can be from it's previous title then compare halo 2 and halo 3. Every other critic on the planet would say he's wrong as well. Please delete this nonsensical garbage. Samsonite867 17:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Look I'm serious about this. If we don't discuss this withen the next 24 hours I'll log onto my main account and fix this myself. Samsonite867 20:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Um... you should only have one account you edit from. As for the quote, I removed it, simply because it was blatant POV. One reviewer does not deserve the undue weight of a paragraph. David Fuchs ^(talk) 20:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Every game is a prettier version of what came before it, thats called progress. However you cannot simplify the legions of changes between the two in such a simplistic term. Not mentioning graphical updates, you got saved flims, online co-op, rebalanced weapons, equipment, new guns/vehicles, true HD and surround sound compatibility, Forge, online stat tracking (H2 had this, but its been far improved), etc. While I do think we should post both positive and negative reviews, we should find negative reviews that actually say something substantial. This one just dismissed the game without really explaining why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.174.221.169 (talk) 21:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Because the reviewer is stupid is not the reason to leave it out. I removed it because of Wikipedia's undue weight policy. While there are numerous people who dismiss Halo 3 as Halo 2.5, in terms of real, published reviews, the view is distinctly in the minority so far. If we start seeing three or four other reviews like that one (or, if someone finds them already out there) we'll be sure to add it back in (albeit not with a vanity paragraph for one single reviewer.) David Fuchs ^(talk) 22:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

"Rubbish?" "Nonsensical garbage"? "Blatant POV"? I think you two may be exaggerating a bit. Every review is one person's point of view. In order to make an article NPOV, it's necessary to show reviews from various people. It's not my fault other editors didn't add quotes from reviewers. Herold didn't give a score so it was necessary to quote him. I can understand removing some of the quotes (since the rest of the section is lacking in quotes) -- but I don't think removing the whole review is necessary. It's not a "vanity paragraph" -- it's a few quotes from his review. You don't have to agree with what he said. It was published in the The New York Times. It's cited. It's there to balance out the quotes like "Halo 3 transcends video games" and "Halo 3 is the future." If someone finds better quotes in the review, you're welcome to put them in the article. Metacritic rated the Herold review as a score of "81" so I don't see what all the fuss is about; Metacritic also lists scores of 80, 80, 85, 88, 88, and 88 so a score in the 80s is not unheard of[1]. It's not an attack on anyone personally. It's just a review. And if you read the whole review, you'll see it's a positive review. I'll be adding it back into the article later, with fewer quotes. --Pixelface 23:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Read WP:QUOTE. The point is not to throw in five different quotes from one reviewer. It's to summarize the important critical reception. David Fuchs ^(talk) 00:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

That's an interesting proposal, but I can't quite seem to find anything about multiple quotations in Wikipedia policy. If you really want to go by that non-guideline, the Herold review follows it anyway. It's sourced. It's worked into the body of the article. It was given in context. The only issue may be "long quotations...remove attention from other information." Again, that's more a problem with the reviews without quotes. Do you want to paraphrase the Herold review and interpret it?

"Summarize the important critical reception"? Do you mean represent views fairly, proportionately and without bias? On Metacritic, 14% of reviews are in the 80s (7 out of 50) and on Game Rankings, 11% of reviews are in the 80s (5 out of 45) and this article cites none of them (nevermind the user ratings of 8.4 on Game Rankings, 7.8 on Metacritic, and 9.0 on GameSpot). If the rating is 95%, I don't think it's unreasonable to quote 9 positive reviews and 1 (relatively) negative review. Right now the article mentions 10 reviews in the 90s or above in the Reception body. There are negative quotes from Gamespy and IGN. Gamespy gave the game a 100 and IGN gave the game a 95. How about a review in the 80s?

We wouldn't want to give undue weight to all the scores of 90 and above now would we? I've shortened the Herold bit. How about this?

• Charles Herold of The New York Times wrote "Halo 3 is Halo 2 with somewhat better graphics. That’s all you really need to know. If you loved Halo 2, you will feel just the same about Halo 3. If you played Halo 2 and couldn’t figure out what all the fuss was about, Halo 3 is not the revelatory experience that will change your view of the series forever." Herold said "the game never achieves the visual heights of top Xbox 360 games like BioShock and Gears of War" and "Halo 3’s multiplayer abilities make a far more persuasive argument for purchase than its single-player campaign."

Do you think The New York Times is not a reliable source? It seems that it's User:Samsonite867 that has a problem with the quote and that editor has 2 edits to their name and is an admitted sockpuppet. If that user thinks a New York Times review is "nonsensical garbage" and "rubbish", perhaps he/she needs to read the policy on neutral point of view. --Pixelface 01:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

You guys are all being gay. Of course this shouldn't go into the article, it's an obvious error. Anyone who has ever played Halo 3 knows it's by far the best Halo yet. Besides, the New York Times is not a reliable source simply because...well as mentioned above...the guy is a moron. -- Road to a million usernames 75.34.66.83 02:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you have anything relevant to add to the discussion? Jesus... Anonymous~Source 03:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

What it seems like to me is that people are just LOOKING for reasons to keep negative reviews out of the article, their main argument being POV issues. What we have here is a case of rabid fanboyism leaking into this article. You know any die-hard Halo fan is going to work night and day to keep negative responses out of this article. You guys forget what POV is when making an article... As long as the ARTICLE ITSELF stays neutral, then there should be nothing wrong with it. A third party review in the article doesn't affect the neutrality of the article. However, if this petty bickering keeps up, we might as well just take 'criticisms' out of the article, because both positive and negative reviews are going to be labeled as NPOV until Jesus comes back. Anonymous~Source 03:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

"Negative reviews are obvious errors and of course they shouldn't be in the article"... this is all I am hearing from you guys. I cannot believe what I am seeing here, you zealots keep posting these outragous comments on the talk page and the article keeps turning more and more POV because the only comments that are left are the extremely positive ones (because "Of course this shouldn't go into the article, it's an obvious error. Anyone who has ever played Halo 3 knows it's by far the best" and "New York Times" is not a reliable source simply because...well as mentioned above...the guy is a moron". I do not even live in America, but this is the first time I have EVER heard anyone say that the New York Times is not a reliable source. This is madness! No, this is Halo obsessed fans controlling Wikipedia. JayKeaton 15:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Section break

Comment: I'm not opposed to the review because he badmouths Halo 3 (although he is making some moronic blanket statements). But (going on what I was talking about earlier) NPOV does not entail "Ooh, this was the lowest rated review, let's put in a paragraph dedicated to that." This article should provide critical commentary- saying "Halo 3 is really just Halo 2.5" is a useless, throwaway quote. Will casual readers have played Halo 2, so they have a basis of comparison? No. Instead, we should address specific criticism- so in other words, you can put in "Herold said "the game never achieves the visual heights of top Xbox 360 games like BioShock and Gears of War" because that addresses a specific complaint. David Fuchs ^(talk) 11:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

You have got to be kidding me. Just because YOU think that Halo is the best game ever, doesn't mean that bad reviews do not exist. And that review being POV!?! Reviews and ALL critics reviews are by their pure ESSENCE the critics point of view. "Will casual readers have played Halo 2, so they have a basis of comparison?"... what a load of BS! This other quote is in there that glorifies Halo 3 "Halo 3 transcends video games. It is a global entertainment experience. Just as Lord of the Rings: Return of the King and Spider-Man 3 brought to a close two of the most lucrative and epic film trilogies of all time" is useless too because will casual readers have seen those movies? Will the casual reader even know what an Xbox is? Your logic defies belief, you Microsoft circle jerk buddies just want to remove every negative statement and replace them all with positive ones. Wikipedia is NOT your own personal wank fest for only the games you love. JayKeaton 14:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I read David's latest point differently: He's arguing about wording and length of the criticism, not that it should be excluded. I think that the "Halo 2.5" criticism is accessible enough to be understood by a general audience, but I do agree that (a) we don't need to spend an entire paragraph on it (I've yet to see a featured article that spends a whole paragraph on a single contemporary review), and (b) it would better to elaborate with specific points, so as not to leave the reader asking, "In what way was that comparison meant? Graphics? Gameplay? Both?" Lastly, can we please stop throwing around personal derogatory opinions, both about reviewers and fellow editors? — TKD::Talk 18:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for interpreting me correctly... I never said the review was POV like it was a bad thing- I'm simply stating that there is more to NPOV than throwing quotes from both sides of the fence at an issue. If he's referring to Halo 2's graphics, then sure, but that should be explicitly stated, otherwise it does little to illuminate criticism of the game itself. David Fuchs ^(talk) 19:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It's important to represent views proportionately. The article does have Gamespy and IGN stating their opinions on shortcomings, but like I said before, the Gamespy review is a 100 and the IGN review is a 95. The game didn't get an aggregate score of 100% so reviews that rated the game lower should be represented. The text of the Critical reception section has 11 positive quotes, and the table has 4 more additional positive scores not previously mentioned in the Reception text. I don't think it's unreasonable to include one review that rated the game lower than a 90 (which 15% of critics did according to Metacritic[2]). How about this?

• Charles Herold of The New York Times described Halo 3 as a "slickly produced, exciting, well-made shooter" but said "the game never achieves the visual heights of top Xbox 360 games like BioShock and Gears of War". Herold said the plot "feels like a bit of a throwaway, a rather short adventure with a predictable story" with sometimes hokey dialogue. He wrote that the multiplayer matches "make a far more persuasive argument for purchase than its single-player campaign" and said for those who have played Halo and Halo 2, the game is like "Halo 2 with somewhat better graphics."[3]

Is that OK? The New York Times review wasn't the worst review, but we could include one of those if you'd like. I just thought that the New York Times may be a better source. Jon Wilcox of Total Video Games rated the game an 8/10 and said the graphics disappoint and also said "One of the top multiplayer experiences available on any console (as expected) redeems a largely disappointing Campaign."[4] Jeremy Swindle of 360 Gamer Magazine rated the game an 8/10 and said "The single player campaign is not anywhere near as compelling or as epic as is billed. Anyone new to Halo probably won't see what all the fuss is about, completely confused as to why this third installment is so important to so many people. It's good, and there's enough here to make for a memorable game, but how memorable depends mostly on how invested you are in the franchise already."[5] Cam Shea and Bennett Ring of IGN Australia gave the game a score of 8.9 said the game didn't live up to expectations. Cam Shea said he was "disappointed" and wrote, "the reality is that the game's pretentious PR campaign meant that every cheesy line of dialogue, or example of the story taking itself too seriously (of which there are many), had me rolling my eyes."[6] Daniel Weissenberger of Gamecritics.com said "Halo 3's biggest flaw is that [it] never rises to the level of epic storytelling or gameplay that the premise suggests, even demands." He said the level design is repetitive and that the gameplay "has absolutely nothing new to offer." He also described the plot as simplistic and concluded, "There's almost nothing here that I didn't play five years ago in the first Halo, it's just a little more visually polished. It's a good game to be sure, but not a great one, and by no means is it the genre-defining experience that we were promised."[7]

Would you like to include one of those reviews instead of the New York Times review? --Pixelface 21:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't care which you add, just that you address not the reviews, but the complaints. Herold is disappointed by the "throwaway" story, as is Jon Wilcox. You can summarize those in a sentence or two: "Total Video Games (or reviewers for, whatever syntax) and New York Times found fault in the "throwaway" plot and ultimately dissapointing campaign.(refs here) And I'm not saying the waxing going on in the positive section is great, either; it certainly needs to be cut down. David Fuchs ^(talk) 22:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

We should have no reason to "soften the blow" to Microsoft on this one. This was a huge release so unless you work for Microsoft I don't see any reason not to include negative comments. I am sure that David Fuchs would jump for glee at the thought of adding another positive view to the article, but he cannot handle a fair handed negative comment by one of the worlds most famous newspapers. I do not think that David Fuchs is able to leave his bias behind on things like this, so David Fuchs cannot make this article the best it can be JayKeaton 00:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I would ask that you not make personal attacks or assumptions about me or other editors you are in disagreement with here, Jay, because frankly it makes you look foolish. For your information, I do not work for Microsoft. I have been a Mac user since the Mac IIci. And your comments completely disregarded my point. Wikipedia is not a collection of quotes. Wikipedia is not supposed to echo one reviewer's comments for a paragraph. Does the 'positive' comments/criticisms sections need to be cleaned up? Yes, I'm in the process of making reference tags out of the reception table and using that to source, and then I'll remove the pointless comments. I'm sorry if I'm not anti-Halo enough for you; I'm simply trying to get this article up to decent quality, but there are only so many hours in a day and only so many helpful editors. David Fuchs ^(talk) 00:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It was not a personal attack, it was an evaluation of your invested bias into the Halo franchise which my effect your better judgment when it comes to being NPOV in the development of articles JayKeaton 01:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It absolutely was a personal attack - one of several above. Your attitude here has been less than helpful, to say the least. You really need to tone down the ad hominen vitriol and limit your discussion to the article itself. -- Satori Son 12:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

However, my points still stand about the attitude of some of the editors. JayKeaton 21:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Section break 2

I'm not going to keep arguing with you, Jay, because it's pretty obvious you're biased against Halo 3. If you are not going to judge my actual comments and instead insist I am in bed with Microsoft, then I won't respond to you any longer, and I'll work on the article myself. David Fuchs ^(talk) 11:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

You say you are not interested in arguing, yet you keep on keeping-on posting in this section while ignoring the points I try to bring up with you. JayKeaton 03:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry Jay, but Discussion pages are for getting general concensus on what to change in an article, while maintaining Wikipedia guidelines. The general concenus is that you are wrong. Almost every change you have made or suggested violates wiki guidelines for either being wayyy to POV, being worded poorly, or simply being a bad example of something. We are NOT against posting negative reviews of this game, but we insist they be well worded, fair criticisms.157.174.221.167 19:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Please read the entire discussion >_> You will see that there is a lot of outright bias towards the game, and a lot of editors are not afraid to show it. Sadly it seems that some people are just too afraid to accept negative reviews of Halo 3, which is madness, rejecting a source just because they do not agree with the reviewer (and have no illusions, if you actually read this talk page you will see that it really is because they do not agree with the reviewer "THat guy was completeyl retarded", "this [reviewers] logic is prodigiously flawed", "[the reviewer] didin't do it with justifiable reasons" (since when did the New York Times have to justify it's position on a title it's reviewing?)... look, you have people here that are literally arguing with reviewers, saying that they can list off reasons why the review was wrong so that negative reviews wont make it in the article. Since when did Wikipedia take votes to see if content will pass editors POV to make it in the articles? People are putting their own opinions of this game in a higher priority over veteran reviewers and newspapers. If you cannot accept that, then maybe you need glasses to actually see it JayKeaton 02:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Please listen to what I am saying. I have NO PROBLEM putting in negative reviews. This game is not perfect and I'm not trying to say that it is. I think David said it best above "This article should provide critical commentary- saying "Halo 3 is really just Halo 2.5" is a useless, throwaway quote. [...] we should address specific criticism- so in other words, you can put in "Herold said "the game never achieves the visual heights of top Xbox 360 games like BioShock and Gears of War" because that addresses a specific complaint." Give real, descriptive examples is all I'm asking. Also, please lay off the personal attacks. Just because I disagree with you does not mean I cannot read. Lastly my statement about POV above is not because I think the reviews are POV. Its because I think your inclusion of them is POV because you are focusing on posting the most negative reviews you can find regardless of their content. I am not against negative points, just find descriptive ones.157.174.221.168 17:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow you morons it's not the fact that he hated Halo 3...That's not why we dont' want it in. It's the fact he gave a completely nonsensical bull**** reason for docking on the game. Let's say he reviewed the xbox 360 and said it's basically the xbox 1 with pretty graphics. Now obviously he's wrong, like he's wrong with his Halo 3 bull****; but I guess we'd HAVE to add it in because "THE NEW YORK TIMES SAID IT! OMG OMG OMG WE GOTTA ADD IT IN!!" Yeah that's what I thought, keep bull**** like that moron out of the article. Beatlesaregreaterthangod 00:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

It is not just the New York Times that said it. Many other sources have said it too, like IGN, the popular quartertothree, and also everyones favourite Joystiq's Zero Punctuation too. There are many negative ones and there are even hugely negative comments in even the positive reviews too. I understand that it is hard to accept after you have invested years of your life into the Halo franchise or the Halo articles, but the fact is some people just didn't think Halo 3 was all that special at best, and thought that it was a huge disappointment/failure at worst. And the coldest, hardest thing to accept is that these people are more important than you and thousands of people read those critics opinions. JayKeaton 02:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

uh what? I'm sorry buddy but IGN themselves said that i'd be hard to argue that Halo 3 is not the greatest shooter on next-genc onsoles atm, and easily the best shooter on the xbox 360. STop pulling up b.s. "facts" out of your ass. The fact is that Halo 3 has been recieving a huge, prodigious amount of praise. So much so that generally everybody said it lives up to the hype. Only a small, insignificant fraction of people said the game was lame. And their reasons for saying it was bad was laughable. You fail, try again. Beatlesaregreaterthangod 18:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Please stop making personal attacks. The fact of the matter is that there is a sizable number of reviews out there with negative opinions by reliable sources, and, regardless of whether any editor agrees with their rationales, these opinions must be given due weight in the article, per neutral point of view. — TKD::Talk 18:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, as Metacritic shows, there haven't really been any flat-out overall bad reviews of the game in absolute terms, but there are many reviewers who have said that the game doesn't meet the hype in one or more ways. These ways should be noted. — TKD::Talk 18:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[link to one of the IGN reviews of Halo 3] JayKeaton 05:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

"Bad" reviews? I think the minimum score so far is 81%. That's hardly a BAD review. It may not be amazingly positive like most reviews have been, but the reviewer still thought that it was, overall, quite a decent game. So to say there have been "negative" reviews is in my opinion incorrect. Perhaps change the wording to something like "some reviewers were less impressed, yet still noted that it was a strong game".--Yeti Hunter 08:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes, even the worst reviews score pretty high. But even still, some people can't seem to cope with ANY criticism of Halo 3, they want the article to only have tame criticisms like "the campaign was very slightly too short". Some editors LOVE all things Halo and they can't cope seeing any critic giving their professional and paid opinions of it :( JayKeaton 01:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I personally really enjoyed the game, however I feel that it did not quite live up to the hype it created. Though it was no doubt a good game that deserves a good score, I personally was a bit disappointed with how it ended seeing as it left WAY too many questions unanswered that I hoped would be answered. It also in my opinion did not have the same "chemistry" that Halo 2 had by having such a limited view point (you for the most part only saw the game through the Master Chief's eyes, unlike in Halo 2 when you could better understand the character and situations by switching the view point between UNSC and Covenant), the game would have been much better in my opinion if they included cut-scenes from say the Prophet of Truth's or another important Covenant member's perspective.

Again, I really liked the game and in my opinion it deserves high marks in the high 80s to low 90s area out of 100, but at the same time it was not as great as this Wikipedia article seems to portray it as; there are most definitely some more flaws in the game that need to be mentioned. Part of making an article on Wikipedia work is presenting opposing view points so that it keeps things neutral. I believe that there should be just a bit more criticisms of the game mentioned so as to keep things from appearing biased.--Lucky Mitch 05:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Guys, the NYT review is mentioned in the article as are some others regarding the shortcomings of the game. Is anyone proposing we change the article from what it looks like now? If so let's discuss that because this argument isn't productive. James086^{Talk | Email} 05:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I propose that we leave this thread and continue any further discussion on balancing the POV of the article in a new and fresh thread at the bottom of the talk page. Well, not really propose, more like that is what is going to happen. Anyway, we should continue this below so that this large clump of text here can finally soon be archived and easily accessed again for examination JayKeaton 14:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. -- Satori Son 14:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

JayKeaton, that review that you showed us is the worst and most controversial review in the set of Halo 3 reviews they have on their page. The fact remains that IGN themselves said it'd be hard to argue that Halo 3 is NOT the greatest FPS out there on next-gen consoles.

And also don't give me this "people say it did not live up to the hype" bull****. Generally news articles on the internet all said it lived up to hype. Just google "halo 3 lives up to hype" or "halo 3 hype" and you'll find thousands of articles saying it lived up to the hype. Face it, Halo 3 is undoubtfully the greatest 360 game out there, and arguably the best next-gen came out there. Littlenickle 23:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Recording

It describes the backword recording process, and it's rubish how they did it. It needs grammar cleanup and correction. You don't have to start over playing a film from a slayer game and various others. I know you have to start over from campaign films, and you can't record them either. I don't think you can record in reverse, just jump backwords while NOT recording. This ALSO needs references, so I think it should be removed until corrected and cited. Wolvereness 18:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

You can, infact, go backwards while not recording. It's called rewind. Tabor 02:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

You cannot actually "rewind", you can only "skip" back. Also some game modes do not let you rewind at all JayKeaton 02:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The confusion here stems from the fact that you are NOT viewing a film. What you are seeing is rendered in real time by the games engine. Since the graphics cannot be rendered in reverse, it must skip back and re-render sections instead of rewinding. The reason you can't pluck small sections out of campaign is due to the way the game engine redoes the level and has to re-trigger events and such. Given enough time, I'm sure this could have been done, but it wasn't.157.174.221.167 19:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Covenant

Why do the Covenant attack the humans? I know about the great Journy and everything, but what does it have to do with the humans? Is it because of the teleporter thing on Earth in Halo 3? Moenbro 19:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The covenant attacked the humans due to the prophets seeing them to be similar to the forrunners, and more importantly, a threat. Thusly they were named an affront to the gods. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.245.38.202 (talk) 19:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Read the books. Stupidone0 22:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Do not read the books, they cannot be considered canon to the official Halo games. The games explain that the prophets see the humans as heretics to their religion so the humans must be exterminated JayKeaton 14:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually the official books are considered canon, as they follow the "Halo Bible" set out by Bungie. This effectively amounts to Bungie being part of the book-writing process, checking facts against the otherwise unreleased facts, and cross-referencing so that already-released facts stay as facts. The Official books are official, and thus canon. Tar7arus 15:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The books should have nothing to do with the Halo 3 article as they are not canon JayKeaton 00:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

They do have nothing to do with the article. But the fine folks at Bungie have stated that the books are canon. David Fuchs ^(talk) 00:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

They are useless to the game articles as they are NOT, I repeat NOT made by Bungie themselves. JayKeaton 00:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Joseph Staten says the books are canon [8] (the 3rd last question). James086^{Talk | Email} 02:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

To Halo 2. I doubt very much that the writers of the fan fics were privy to the secrets of Halo 3 JayKeaton 09:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I am talking about the books that are published, with Bungie logos on them, endorsed by Bungie. These: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7. None other than those. All 7 of them are canon. It doesn't matter if the authors didn't know the plot of Halo 3. Unless in Halo 3 it directly contradicts something said in one of the books then it doesn't invalidate their information. Bungie hadn't written the story of Halo 2 and 3 when the first game was made, does that mean that the original Halo is not canon? No, the same applies for the books. If they were no longer canon a Bungie employee, most likely Frankie, would have said so. James086^{Talk | Email} 12:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Actally, judging by the connections between Ghosts of Onyx and Halo 3, Nylund did know some of the secrets of Halo 3. Peptuck 13:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The books are considered canon by Bungie. Point in case is the fact that Halo 3 has direct references to both Fall of Reach and Ghosts of Onyx. Peptuck 13:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

To note – the first thing ever communicated to Humankind by the Covenant was "Your destruction is the will of the Gods, and we are their instrument." It is concievable that one of two things are true: 1) The Forerunner ("Gods") specifically communicated to the Covenant that they wanted Humankind (their descendants) to be killed, or 2) what others suggested, that the hierarchs interpreted them as an affront to the Forerunners. HunterXI 00:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The forerunners have been extinct for 10 000 years, so they can't directly communicate with the Covenant. Also if you play through Halo 3 and read the terminals you learn that the forerunners seeded Earth and the last Forerunner planned to live out the rest of his days on Mount Kilimanjaro. Humans are also the descendants of the Forerunners according to 343 Guilty Spark. James086^{Talk | Email} 09:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

and according to the gravemind, and the prophet of truth, gravemind said on the level cortana i think "why has the son(the chief) of my enemy(origional enemy was the foreunner) come here?" and that "the sins of the father pass to the son", and ttuth said "there was a reason your ancestors(foreunners) did what they did(activate the halos)" and many other things —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clone627 (talk • contribs) 23:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

look guys the books are official cannon, and bungie actually endorses the guys who do it. Darthblaze99 13:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Guy[i]s[/i] actually, with Contact Harvest, 3 authors have had access to the Halo Bible to write their stories. If anyone has any questions regarding anything Halo 3, feel free to message me via talk page. Also, it's about time for an archive. The Walkin Dude 15:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Joe Staten himself - one of Bungie's big story gurus - is writing Contact Harvest; he's had the HSB since day one. Peptuck 15:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Future of the Story

I've added a section detailing the future of the Halo story-arc post-Plot. Feel free to edit it so that it conforms to Wiki's guidlines if need be.--NLUT —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 14:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

First sales reports in

The first sales reports for Halo 3 are in for the UK. It turns out that Halo 3 is not the fastest selling game in UK history, a game called "Grand Theft Auto San Andreas" was three years ago and still holds that record. We may need to start down playing the exagerated awesomeness of Halo 3 now that reality starts setting in JayKeaton 16:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Source? If true we need to fine tune what records were set. Was it the fastest in the UK, the US, the world, by preorders or by first day sales, etc.? The one there is no debate about is the monetary value, which while being less impressive due to inflation and pricing differences, is still an accomplishment of note.157.174.221.167 19:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

really inflation should be calculated in if it is for all time. also will halo3 sales be determined of cost of game * number of halo 3 copies sold or cost of game * number of copies sold + # of halo3 accoesories sold * cost of those accessories (ie the legendary edition helmet and such) 74.104.90.230 20:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Source is chart track. The facts are that Halo 3 is not the fastest selling game in the UK and this is English Wikipedia, not American Wikipedia, so as far as records go this is one so far that Halo 3 did not break. JayKeaton 23:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Its English Language, not geographical area. Just as these figures shouldn't be US-centric, they should not be UK-centric either. Nobody (that anyone is listening to) is saying that Halo is the fasest selling game of all time. The record in question is whether it made the most amount of money in a 24 hour period than any other game, movie, book, etc. By all accounts it did break this record. If you have sources otherwise, please provide them, but please stay on topic to the record we are talking about.157.174.221.167 19:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

But the statements about sales can imply that it is the fastest selling game, and if you google "fastest selling" and "halo 3" there is a lot of interest about it world wide JayKeaton 21:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to the internet. Almost everyone of those stories are written by American writers and intended for American audiences. Just because other people around the world can read it as well, does not mean that it must cater to them. I'm not saying its right, but thats the way it is. Also I must retract my previous statement. They are now saying that Halo3 is the fastest selling game in US history by dollar amount by making $300 mil in the first week. these records are not false just because they are stated a certain way. Every media outlet does this for everything. This game is no exception. As I said before, to try and say it did not reach the record would cause more confusion and misunderstanding than stating it the way every other entertainment company does.157.174.221.168 17:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

No Xbox Live-Games for Windows Live Interconntectivity

Quote from the Halo 2 article:

Halo 2 for Windows Vista will link with the Games for Windows - Live network and have some interoperability with the Xbox Live network, as stated in the new FAQ section of Windows Vista flavor of the popular game on Bungie's official website. Bungie has stated that it will also have networking features of its own, resembling Halo PC's inclusion of free internet capabilities. This did not happen. Halo 2 released with LAN support, but Live is required for any Internet gaming.

This idea bother's me. Microsoft make Halo 3, but it was only developed only for the Xbox 360. No Windows XP, no Windows Vista, just Xbox 360. That means that Microsoft didn't include a Windows port for this game. For people who like the Halo trilogy, they must buy an Xbox 360 system. Should this be considered a Criticism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Megamanfan3 (talk • contribs) 18:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, Halo 2 for Windows didn't come out until 2007 (the game was originally released in 2004). If you can find a reliable review that mentions it, fine, but I think most reviews are focusing on other aspects for criticism. — TKD::Talk 18:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Also as a note, Halo PC (halo 1) wasn't released until about 3 years after it's console release either. While it may leave some PC gamers feeling alienated, it is by no means a new concept for game publishers and is actually the rule more often than the exception.157.174.221.167 19:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

To the person who keeps removing my paragraph

umm, why are we skipping 2 level (22 % of the game btw)? I condensed two paragraphs to one and shortened them substantially. However we should still include something such as what i wrote. Please explain Superbowlbound 22:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, it's not important. Plot summaries should be just that; plot summaries. The master chief gets up, fights the baddies, and the Flood show up. But all in all not much happens in the first two levels which impact the rest of the plot. David Fuchs ^(talk) 00:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

(update) Ok, the paragraph is much better. But we should probably keep the plot at or under six paragraphs. Also, we need to clean up some redundancy- saying 'Truth' and 'Ark' a billion times in a paragraph makes for awkward reading. David Fuchs ^(talk) 01:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Remove Sales Records section

The idea that this game has actually in fact broken any records shouldn't be mentioned in the article, or atleast add a non-misleading statement.

By only quoting revenue, any recent high-anticipation game be called the "fastest selling game", largely due to inflation.

The List of best selling video games article only uses unit sales, so obviously a source of such for halo 3 is needed, alot of games on that list could well have done better than halo in initial sales, including the much older, best selling ever 1998 half life. Rodrigue 23:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Um... Half Life hasn't broken any sales records... Super Mario Bros still holds the top. And no one is saying that it's broken sales records, only gross. Which is just like any movie being #1 in wherever- they are counting ticket revenue and gross, not actual (net) profit. And inflation has nothing to do with how fast a game sells- price is what you are thinking of, maybe? David Fuchs ^(talk) 01:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Spoilers?

The plot summary section contains some major plot spoilers IMHO. Shouldn't there be at least a spoiler warning? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.110.235.109 (talk) 07:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:SPOILER. JACOPLANE • 2007-10-3 07:58

Someone added a spoiler warning.--60 Delta 00:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The "picture format" entry in the table up top

Someone feels the need to keep posting the 640p figure here. The vast majority of people who look here will simply be confused by this. There is absolutely no way to output anything at that resolution. This is the reason we removed the entry entirely since people kept going back and forth about whether we should put the native resolution, or the available output resolution. The 640p figure really seems to be nothing but fancruft since it won't actually effect the output of the box. Besides then you'd have to explain how the xbox hardware actually renders two different 640p frames (one for textures and one for effects like HDR lighting and such) and then merges then before ever getting to the hardware's upscaling utility that it uses for all its games. In other words, lets just remove it.157.174.221.167 20:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick thanks to whomever made the edit. The way it is now should cover all bases.157.174.221.168 17:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

first week sales

according to vgchartz.com while being an unreliable site it has numbers for how many copies halo3 sold in its first week in america. which is roughly 2.6million, although at a cost of 60 dollars if all those sold on day 1 and none of them sold after that for that week. then its gross money would be 158million instead of 170million? anyone else have a better source for numbers that might state first day sales —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.104.90.230 (talk) 22:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

You have to factor in the limited and lengendary editions which cost more than $60 Mad031683 22:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The limited costs $70, and the legendary costs $130, so this figure easily makes sense. HunterXI 00:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

still the game itself costs 60 dollars. the legendary edition is still 60 dollars for the game and 70 dollars for the extra. so the game itself didn't make 170million since there is alot of money from the merchandise (which is not actually part of the game itself) 74.104.90.230 00:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

It is also unknown if Microsoft have added in the money made from the "Halo 3 Wireless headset" "Halo 3 console" "Official Halo 3 Xbox 360 Controller" or the "Halo 3 Barbies Dream House", so the fact could very well be that the Halo franchise made that amount of money, not the game itself : ( JayKeaton 02:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

You know, if we're only going to include "the game itself" in the dollar figure, it's about $0.50 per sale. You're talking about the CD, right? The other $59 is for the plastic box. </sarcasm>

Obviously they're including the full cost of the expensive versions. They're sold together, in a single box. If Microsoft is including accessories sold separately, such as the headsets, then that would be a problem. Nothing suggests they are doing anything of the sort. I understand that Microsoft is unpopular and Halo is somewhat controversial, but it might help to try to keep this civil. The $170 million figure is widely reported; for Wikipedia's purposes, that's sufficient. If you want to dispute it, you need similar reports, not just your opinions. The observation that the units sold didn't break any records is perfectly valid, but that in no way changes the record-breaking sales in dollars. --Khaim 17:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, are these figures for just the USA or worldwide? If worldwide, the exchange rates make the foriegn versions more (much more in some countries) expensive in US dollars. Also its only fair to count the different versions. For movies, they count the different ticket prices, same for books, DVDs, etc. Thats the way it is always done. Please stop nitpicking trying to find every little fault in the wording when a significant record was still broken. (even if that record includes different versions)157.174.221.167 19:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

for movies they dont count the special tickets that are like 20 buckets for tickets and a popcorn. as 20 bucks do they? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.104.90.230 (talk) 23:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Well for movies, they also count the whole opening weekend, and not just the 24 hour period. Many theaters also raise their prices for evening movies and lower them for earlier showings, or for special groups like students or retirees. All of this is counted. DVD sales count the special editions as well that come with extra discs, special features, cool cases, etc. Games are nearly always done this way (I've yet to see any outlet report game sales and not count special editions and such). To do otherwise would only cause more confusion. It seems the only people pushing to state record otherwise are people who are just trying to downplay the achievement because of some bias against the game. Reporting it this way is the industry standard.157.174.221.168 17:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Halo 3 documentary

There's a video of the documentary shown on the sci-fi channel over at MLG which might have some useful out-of-universe info. It doesn't seem to work in my browser though so I can't be sure. I'll keep trying but could someone else take a look? James086^{Talk | Email} 09:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm watching it now... so far it just appears to be celebs fawning over it, but there's still 15 minutes to go! David Fuchs ^(talk) 19:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

"Well after the release date"

I removed an unsourced line saying stores recieved the game "well after" the release date, it was unsourced and I think well after implies more than a few days. Mad031683 18:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Certain vehicles unusable

"Certain vehicles usable in campaign are not available in multiplayer due to balance concerns." This is not true. Can someone please remove it? There was some confusion about the Hornet since it is not on any of the maps by default, but it can be added like any vehicle when setting up a multiplayer game or in the Forge. Also this is not referring to things like the Pelican or the Shadow since it states "usable" and it mentions those in the previous statement.157.174.221.167 19:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, the Transport Warthog isn't usable in multiplayer I don't think, so the statement is still accurate. ♦^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 19:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...oh yeah...disregard my stupid moment above.157.174.221.168 16:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Neither is the Anti-Vehicle Warthog or anti-air Wraith, is prowler avaliable? (66.215.77.69 04:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC))

The prowler is available in multiplayer. You can't pilot the anti-air wraith in campaign though. James086^{Talk | Email} 09:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. My friend and I found out a way to drive an Anti-air wraith. It takes a few tries to get it right. Call me a liar if you want, but that thing kicks. Moenbro 19:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

new aumors

i dont know if it would be considerd to be a spoiler or a walkthrough or something but shouldnt the new aurmors be at leats mentioned. i may not own the game but i know many who do and i have played it. i figure that they should be under fetures. it may have been introduced in halo 2 but halo 3 clearly expands on this feture. any other ideas?--Had24get2ice 16:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessary.--60 Delta 19:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

ok i was just wondering but what do the others say? i think that it is a good idea and some of them sound really cool. im not going to do it because i havnt even seen them yet but ive gotten really good descriptions. since it is in the game its a way to put yourself apart from every one else and it would be cool to mention. other pov's?--Had24get2ice 15:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't introduced in halo 2, its a completely new feature. Maybe a sentence under features would be ok Mad031683 15:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Technically, it was introduced in halo 2, because what is the elite, but a different set of armour? his gameplay is exactly the same for multiplayer(except for the fact that his head is bigger and his HUD is different). —Preceding unsigned comment added by AR3tarded tiger (talk • contribs) 18:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The hit-boxes (area which the game recognises a hit when shot at) are identical for elites and spartans, so the only difference is the appearance & HUD. James086^{Talk | Email} 09:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Somebody fix this "If at the beginning of the first level you commit suicide 150 times using frag grenades then you jump 30 times you will recieve all unlockable armor."

Thanks. 71.0.172.205 19:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC) 10/12/07

well what im talking about is your ability to change colors and symbols to make a sort of unique character so isnt that kind of an introduction? again im just curious. --Had24get2ice 15:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Editing

Someone needs to rework the Setting/Story paragraph. Parts of it don't even make sense. Darthben 17:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Examples? Peptuck 18:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The armor you unlock for the silver skulls is the HYABUSA Armor not Hybasa, its a typo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.76.71.254 (talk) 13:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

There's a billion articles on how it made 300 million in it's first week. Add this in or what?

There's a billion articles on how it made 300 million in it's first week. Add this in or what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beatlesaregreaterthangod (talk • contribs) 00:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Need a link for citation first. Stabby Joe 01:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

U seriously need a link? - http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=halo+3+300+million add this in withen the next 24 hours or I'll do it myself. Beatlesaregreaterthangod 06:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I already did. James086^{Talk | Email} 06:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't know why I had to get a cocky response, it was a simple request. Stabby Joe 23:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Ten levels?

"Halo 3's campaign encompases ten levels, which complete the storyline of the Halo trilogy."

Aren't there only nine? Oren0 18:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Good catch! There are nine. I corrected that sentence. — TKD::Talk 18:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

There are 10 if you count the opening cutscene (where Master Chief lands in the jungle). It's listed on the "Select Level" page which is probably why the article said 10. I agree that it should say 9 however because the cutscene doesn't really count. James086^{Talk | Email} 00:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. I'd count that basically as a prologue (not as a full level). Given that the achievement for completing the last level is an IX (Roman numeral 9), it seems that this is probably the most accurate assessment. — TKD::Talk 05:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Hallowed be they Holy Rings

[here] is an interesting link about American churces hosting Halo nights to woo in the young people. Not sure if it is relevenet, or it it has even sparked any kinf of serious religious debate, but it was big enough for the New York Times to report on it. Oh wait, someone above said the The Times was not a good source. JayKeaton 00:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

That's interesting and kind of scary. I think it's worth mentioning, though I'm not sure which section. James086^{Talk | Email} 00:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

could be put in a pupblisity section (sorry about the spelling)(211.31.220.113 08:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC))

In my humble opinion, I do not think it is worth mentioning, it's really no more than a glorified LAN party. Amen. Hunter076 17:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Balancing the POV

As mentioned above, this thread is to discuss countering the issue of POV on the Halo 3 article. Please avoid discussion that stems only from your own POV on Halo 3 and also avoid discussion that is designed to discredit any notable publication, because reading that kind of thing makes my nose bleed and actually distracts from the issue that is Point Of View which is what we are trying to clean up JayKeaton 14:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. What is your specific suggestion on how to improve the article? -- Satori Son 14:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with starting afresh. Just to note: I explicitly "closed" the long thread above in order to point people here. — TKD::Talk 14:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how any notable publication is being discredited in the current version. What does need to happen, however, is the parroting back long quotes needs to be removed. We aren't supposed to just quote stuff; in the same vein, we should remove most of the "XX gave the game a XX/XX", especially since most of those scores from the big publications are already on the table to the right. For the positive side, less quotes, more specific commentary; right now it says nothing about multiplayer, even though that was considered the best part by far. I guess the layout should be general - positive (1-2 paragraphs), negative (1-2; the single player is commented on enough I think that it should keep the paragraph, but we should bone up the misc comments.) I'll get on this as soon as I can, but I've got three articles at FAC, so my time will be limited for a bit. David Fuchs ^(talk) 15:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Positives given are overwhelmingly positive, like ""Halo 3 transcends video games. It is a global entertainment experience" is the biggest offender and "The best game yet". But negative opinions given for the game are smaller, as if to say that only the "human faces and some textures" were a problem and that "the single-player campaign is somewhat short" were the worst points critics could come up with. It feels like Wikipedia is buzzing the game up as much as possible with big buzz words and such, but when we try the opposite spectrum and give critical negatives that we are trying to sound as lame as possible.

If you are going to put the very best buzzwords about a game, things like "transcends video games", you NEED to balance it out the negative points. And there is no shortage of negatives from critics out there, the biggest problem seems to be getting them past all the hardcore Halo fans as any source that gives real negatives is for that very reason a source not good enough for Wikipedia. JayKeaton 04:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you not read what I write? Because I say stuff and you continue on your little tirades, yet don't actually try and improve anything. David Fuchs ^(talk) 11:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Please try and keep it civil. SpigotMap 11:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

"Little tirades" eh? I only want whats best for this article mate JayKeaton 14:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, David may have been a little brusque, but you do seem to spend more time criticizing than making actual concrete, actionable suggestions for "whats best for the article". David said above that he's willing to make changes to the article, but you just repeated your same complaints. Do you agree with any of his suggestions? For example, David mentioned previously in the archived section that "Instead, we should address specific criticism- so in other words, you can put in 'Herold said 'the game never achieves the visual heights of top Xbox 360 games like BioShock and Gears of War' because that addresses a specific complaint". David also suggested "You can summarize those in a sentence or two: 'Total Video Games (or reviewers for, whatever syntax) and New York Times found fault in the "throwaway" plot and ultimately disapointing campaign' .(refs here)."

None of the detractors here has responded to David's suggestions (not in a meaningful way, anyway). If you disagree with those suggested passages, please suggest your own. Shooting down other editors' ideas without coming up with your own is not that helpful.

I, for one, think David's language is a good start to balancing out the "Critical reception" section. I would also support removing the Pro-G "transcends video games" quotes as Jay (I think) wishes. That quote simply does not address a specific aspect of the game and seems too vague and gushy for the article. -- Satori Son 15:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Finally, some constructive steps towards cleaning up the article. According to traffic reports, the Halo 3 article has long passed it's peak traffic point just over a week ago, so it will make it easier to edit now too. As for Davids suggestions, looking back, none of them really make a whole lot of sense, he seems to be on a whole different war path. The point of this thread is to gather new suggestions and ideas of how to improve the POV of the article and to address some of the more established faults. But I would also like the opinions of other editors about the article itself, rather than opinions on Davids or my own opinions. Preferably someone that isn't personally or emotionally involved in the Halo franchise, but someone that does have an understanding of reception and reviews in any medium, books videogames or otherwise. I'm not sure of the importance anymore though, Halo 3 wont have the kind of attention that Passion of the Christ or Da vinci code received. Halo 3 just came and went, traffic for this article will never be as high again as it was three weeks ago JayKeaton 17:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I should point out that 99% of all editors on all wikipedia pages are editing an aricle because they like the subject. Even if I didn't like Halo (which, evidently, I'm guessing you don't), that still means they have a POV. You have continually accused me of being in the pocket of Microsoft, and yet the only time you have responded to my suggestions is now, saying that they "[don't] really make a whole lot of sense." Wow, thanks for the specific help there. Accussing others of POV-pushing only reflects poorly on you. I'm sorry if I'm not the most civil, but after your repeated personal attacks against me and others without responding to my actual comments, you can see how I'm a bit peeved. David Fuchs ^(talk) 19:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Reception should be balanced in amount at the same time, check the featured article Shadow of the Colossus as I find it to have a rather neutral recpetion. And the reception in this article has now shifted for the worse, instead of there being a pros and cons, its now pros and mixed... lets not let this page fall victim to over praise like Gears of War. I'm not a real Halo fan but reception sections are my main focus alot of the time. Stabby Joe 23:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Stabby Joe here, when the DMC Task Force was in the process of getting the DMC game articles to FA, we were always suggested to add a significant ammount of negative receptions, not necesary half of the section but about 1/3 of it would be proper even if the game has received a incredibly possitive reception. - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

And there is a lot of genuine criticism out there for Halo 3. So, now that we know what must be done, all that is left to do is to do it. And make sure it stays done ^_^ JayKeaton 07:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Exaclly, I can't really understand people who need to make a game look perfect when in fact its has a 94% score... what about that other 6%? BioShock and Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion which are higher rated 360 games than Halo 3 have critisism and I'm currently in the phase of improving those and I love those games so no bias here. Stabby Joe 13:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is trying to make Halo 3 look perfect. All I have read on this talk page is people who didn't like the way the criticism was worded, because it just seems like just a stream of quotes. This is why the article reads like "pros and mixed" instead of pros and cons, when you just give quotes you have to qualify every negative a reviewer gave with the fact that they still gave it a high score. Why can't we just summarize the pros and cons reviewers gave without all these direct quotes? Mad031683 18:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Well first off we ARE trying to get Halo 3 to Featured Aritcle status (Wikipedias version of "perfect" I guess) just like Halo 1 and 2 were. Also please read the section above where this discussion started. Myself and David have been trying to tell Jay that we HAVE NO PROBLEM with negative reviews, although he keeps accusing everyone of refusing to hear anything negative at all even though we have even provided examples of negative reviews to add. The problem we have had was that they were either added in a poor fashion (like a string of quotes), or were quotes that did not explain their respective pro or con very well. There are "reviews" that strictly say "Halo Sucks!" or "Halo is your new god!" but we don't post those because they do not elaborate why Halo sucks or why Halo is so great you should worship it. The article SHOULD be balanced and nobody is saying otherwise. We just want both positive and negative receptions to be clearly explained and presented in a manner fitting an encylopedia article.157.174.221.168 20:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you completely, I may not have been as clear above but that's what I was trying to say. I have read the section above and I was trying to back you and David up. When I was talking about looking perfect I was responding to Stabby Joe's comment. Mad031683 23:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

People aren't trying to make the game look perfect? Well to begin with, just now right after the GR and Metacritic scores there was a mention that is got some perfect reviews from so and so... just like plenty of other games and the same info is in the table to the right. There are people here who want that, just as much as there are people who want it to look bad but they aren't the ones on these discussions however because they don't care properly... I'M WITH YOU GUYS! Don't signal me out, I've done reception sections plenty. Stabby Joe 00:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

We are side tracking the issue again. To get it out of the way though, are we all agreed that the general reception of the Halo 3 was NOT "perfect"? JayKeaton 09:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I do agree that the game was not perfect. To say any game, movie, book, etc. is perfect is just ignorance. To Stabby and Mad above, I was mixing up talking about the game being perfect and the article being perfect.(one of these days I should really look into creating an actual login)157.174.221.169 12:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, seriously find me a perfect game, book, film RIGHT NOW... can't be done. Stabby Joe 14:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Well it is not held in the same regard by critics like Schindlers List is, which realistically is as "perfect" as anything can hope to be. Assuming we all liked Schindlers List of course JayKeaton 16:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Thats a good exmaple of something being stated as perfect even though I doubt it is. If it was a truly perfect film, everyone would be able to agree on it. Perfection means it would appeal to all people at the highest possible levels. I personally see this sort of reception as impossible to create by any human. But I'm off topic now so I'll let it go. I think the reception section is pretty well balanced now, but it could still use a little more sterring towards an accurate description backed up by quotes as opposed to a list of quotes with bits of text to tie them together. Remember, even if every single reviewer is wrong about something, we still have the duty to accurately report that what they say is the general reception.157.174.221.167 19:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the advent of the internet has made it so that nothing will ever be as uniformly well reviewed as things were in the "old days." That goes for games, music, movies, politicians, whatever. ZG 21:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

HA! Off-topic but I just thought the idea of a perfect politician is hilarious. I'd settle for a mediocre one at this point.157.174.221.169 15:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Schindlers List? Well even then its not everyone's cup of tea but I think the reception section now is fine. Plus locking it as it is now will cause the fanboys and trolls to loose interest. 86.20.132.248 18:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Since when did Wikipedia bend its policies for the fanboys and trolls? JayKeaton 08:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Locking as a way to circumvent issues with POV does not work. David Fuchs ^(talk) 16:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

PS3?!?

Who's the smart guy that put Halo 3 platform's Xbox 360 and Playstation 3, i highly doubt any Halo game is going to come out for a playstation console. Halo 1 and 2 were for xbox because of microsoft's involvement and Microsoft has been in quite a feud with Sony for the past years. I checked the Halo 3 website as well, the case is marked "Only On XBOX 360" So please people keep it for Xbox 360 because thats how it is. Dont Change unless the platform is PC. cuz there is discussion for plans on that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.96.84.18 (talk) 08:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The only platform on the article at this moment is Xbox 360, it was probably vandalism that was quickly removed, this article is one of those topics that are currently hot and it attracts a lot of vandalism. - Caribbean~H.Q. 08:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Bungie Split?

Should Someone put something about this being the last Bungie game being made while under the Microsoft Games Label? http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071009/ap_en_ot/games_news_bytes;_ylt=AugRRLo1dImnFjSFlfmppegK77EF Mallow's Basement 12:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, (1) they will still be using Microsoft Games as a publisher (just that MS Games won't be a first-party publisher to them), and (2) that information is probably better suited for Bungie Studios, and, to the extent that it affects the development of future Halo-branded games, in Halo (series). — TKD::Talk 14:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Problems

Someone should add the problems that many people are having with Halo 3 Such as the scratched legendary editions and the "failed to load content" problem —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.33.77.65 (talk) 20:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Well the scratched disks are already mentioned under Versions (it was the limited edition that had the problem, not legendary). As for the failed to load content problem I assume you're talking about the "Failed to download data from the Halo 3 server" message, that's been a fairly minor problem in my experience but do you have a good source for it? Mad031683 21:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Campaign

The Campaign section is kind of a disaster, I worked on it a little but it probably needs a complete rewrite. I'll get around to it if somebody doesn't beat me to it. Mad031683 23:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it kinda is. I'm swamped in real-life college apps and FACs, so I guess you're on first. I think the Halo 2#Campaign section is pretty good, of course you'll have to take into account the meta-game and stuff added. I wouldn't worry as much about sources, since those are easy to find; really first and foremost it needs prose editing. David Fuchs ^(talk) 00:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, made some changes, I'd do more but these people actually expect me to do some workMad031683 16:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Multiplayer Section Vandalism

The end of the multplayer section as a small piece of vandalism: "If at the beginning of the first level you commit suicide 150 times using frag grenades then you jump 30 times you will recieve all unlockable armor." As im too lazy to create a wikipedia account i guess ill just post it on here. Thanks to anyone who changes it :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.44.218 (talk) 20:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Xanzzibar reverted it about half an hour ago. Make sure to bypass your web browser's cache to see the updated page. — TKD::Talk 20:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Easter Eggs

Do you think we should make an easter eggs section? people may want to know about the cavemen hugging a teddy bear on the first level or the guy trying to get into the amunition room? and many more yet to be discovered--Crypto 138 22:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

No. Precedent is that Easter eggs are considered game-guide material, and that is one of the things that Wikipedia is not. See video game featured articles for the breadth and depth expected of an encyclopedic video game article. — TKD::Talk 22:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Map Packs

Is there any news of map packs in the making or on the verge of release. If so, should that be put into a section of the article like an "updates" section?  Stewy⁵⁷¹⁴ 15:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Jeez, man, the game just came out! Seeing as the map packs for Halo 2 didn't come out until a year later, there's going to be a lag. David Fuchs ^(talk) 16:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Ranking System

Unless I missed it, there is nothing that says anything about the new ranking system in Halo 3. Someone should probaly add that in somewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brandon boudreaux (talk • contribs) 22:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Ending

First time requesting something like this. At the end of the Halo 3 plot summary, "severed section of the Dawn is seen drifting towards what resembles the night side of a planet.", if you notice carefully, the night side of the planet has what appears to be several massive cities. I believe them to be the Forerunners, the ones who pushed the button. I cannot edit this myself, so maybe someone else can. Thanks. --BigBrango 17:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for that analysis? Non-obvious observations of visual media need to be sourced in order to avoid original research. — TKD::Talk 17:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The New Armors and the Armor 'fiasco'

I believe that we should include at least a small section regarding the armors under the feature section of this article, and include a picture of one of the sets or an in-game picture of someone playing with just such an armor.

Included in this, I believe we should possibly write something about the Hyabusa armor and the skulls found in the hex of the game, and what bungie has done with the recon armor and the flaming hyabusa armor.

All in all, i believe this is important to the gameplay (the armor) and that the fiasco is important to this fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newmombasa (talk • contribs) 13:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Unless all of this has covered by a reliable third-party source (forums, self-published sites, and most blogs don't count), such a section on a "fiasco" as proposed would violate policies on verifiability, no original research, neutral point of view, and Wikipedia is not a soapbox. — TKD::Talk 14:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

And, even if it has, Wikipedia is not a game guide and avoiding undue weight apply. — TKD::Talk 14:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Adding an external link

I'd like to add an external link to that section for the Halo 3 page.

It's the #1 spot on Google for "Halo 3 Cheats" and has tons of user maintained content

The site is http://www.officialhalo3cheats.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Claytonsteve (talk • contribs) 14:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Doubtful that this passes Wikipedia:External links#What_should_be_linked

Also seems to mislead users by having the title, "official" in the name. That alone seems to be enough to get the site disallowed. Strongsauce 14:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Halo 3 Triggers Worst Box Office October in Eight Years

http://news.google.com/news?ndsp=20&svnum=10&um=1&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&tab=wn&q=halo+3+box+office

Look at all of those articles. We're adding this in. Littlenickle 17:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay seriously if we don’t add this in within the next 2 days I WILL do it myself. Is this understood? This is relevant info and should be added in. Littlenickle 16:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Why are you treating it like a threat... This is Wikipedia, go ahead and add it in! David Fuchs ^(talk) 16:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

What's to say that the reason for the decline is because of Halo 3? It could just as easily be attributable to terrible movies that came out. There is a lot of inferring from a lot of those articles since there's really no way to prove Halo 3 was the reason for poor sales other than speculation. Strongsauce 16:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Still, it's been widely reported; it's not our place to judge whether or not it's true. David Fuchs ^(talk) 18:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

It's been widely reported buddy. Unless you want to prove them wrong this is going to be added in. But where should we add it in? 71.182.92.47 23:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Add it in sales/records etc... I wonder if there is an actual source on WHO said this, and if they really refered to Halo3. Wolvereness 03:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)