Talk:Halo 3/Archive 9

More External Links question
Should I add the Encyclopedia Gamia, a gaming wiki link of Halo 3? The link is http://egamia.com/wiki/Halo_3 and also the Halopedia, a Halo based wiki (link which is http://halo.wikia.com/wiki/Halo_3 ). The development history on that page and the story line is more well documented. Links to the Encyclopedia gamia have been included on wikipedia pages such as Heavenly Sword and Bioshock. I am only asking because the Halo 3 has a well develop fan base and most of them don't allow the wikipedia page to have non first party links even if it is informational.

--Cs california 08:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

What happened to 1080p?
I remember Bungie having said that Halo 3 would only support 720p for the longest time. Then, in a weekly update, they mentioned that Halo 3 would supprt 1080p. I don't have a link right now, but i do remembre reading it. So who took it out? Newmansan 23:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The game runs in 720p and then (if the settings on your xbox 360 say 1080p) it converts the signal to 1080p. Also if you play it on 480p (standard definition) the xbox has to change the signal into a lower resolution. The game's "natural" resolution is 720p so that's the only one in the article, otherwise every Xbox 360 game would say 480p, 1080i, 720p, 1080p. James086 Talk &#124;  Email 00:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Does anyone else think this is very misleading? Not just for this page but all video game pages. It would be much better if it specifically stated "Native Resolution" since it does support all of the others.157.174.221.167 17:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Just an FYI: 480P (480 lines of resolution, progressive scanned) is not standard definition. Standard definition is 480I (interlaced). Additionally, the Xbox 360 is not capable of displaying 1080P. It is capable of 720P or 1080I, which are both forms of high-definition. 68.143.88.2 12:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * My Xbox 360 has no problem with 1080p. It does support 1080p although the games output in 720p, the signal is then modified by the Xbox 360 to to fit 1080p, it is also modified down to 480p for SDTV if your settings tell it to. SDTV does vary between regions however so in some places 480i is available while in others 480p is available but both are considered SDTV. See Xbox 360 hardware for more info about the 360. James086 Talk &#124;  Email 13:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * So, you're saying that a red-laser, standard definition DVD reader (like the one in an Xbox 360) can read/produce the same resolution as an HD-DVD player; roughly 4x the amount of data? How can a device that a) Cannot read that high of a resolution b) isn't compatible with media in that resolution, and c) can not produce images in such high resolution actually make 1080p?  I understand that it can "up convert" (which is really pointless as that is comparable to digital zoom on a camera), however it is NOT true 1080p.  Any yes, 480i is standard definition anywhere in North America. 68.143.88.2 17:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * So you're saying that the color of a laser magically makes a graphics chip unable to render at a given resolution? The laser reads the disc. The CPU takes the data from the disc and puts it into ram. It is then read out of ram. Say you have an entire book. You read the book with your eyes and punch it into a computer. Once the book is punched into the computer, the computer can access the entire book. But your eyes cannot read more than so much at once and your fingers can only type so much at once. Are you saying that your eyes make the computer unable to display the entire chapters of a book at once? A programmer can only type in code so fast. Are you saying that the speed of a programmer's ability to type in working code makes the computer (or XBox360, and yes it is a computer, all game consoles are technically computers) unable to execute code at the full speed of the processor? NO! THINK man, THINK! 24.254.141.144 01:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes because the image is being generated by the Xbox 360. With a HD-DVD for a movie, all of what you see on the screen is stored in the disc, the movie is just a video file. Because it's HD the file is larger than SD. With a video game however, the image is generated by the console, not just read off the disc. Xbox 360 games don't output in 1080p, they output in 720p which is then modified (yes comparable to digital zoom on a camera). To answer your questions: a) "Cannot read that high of a resolution"; I think you mean can't read HD-DVD's or Blu-ray discs because they use a shorter wavelength? That's correct but if you wrote a HD movie onto a standard DVD it would work, it's just that you would only get about 30 minutes of video in that amount of data storage. A DVD player could not read it because it's not programmed to read HD signals, but the file could (probably) be read by a HD-DVD compatible computer. b) With regard to "isn't compatible with media in that resolution", the Xbox 360 is, it can output 720p, 1080i or 1080p. There is a USB attachment with a HD-DVD reader (see Xbox 360 accessories). This sends a HD signal to the Xbox 360 which is connected to the tv. c) It does produce images in 1080p such as the dashboard but the games are upscaled as you said. I live in Australia where 480p is standard (we use PAL not NTSC). James086 Talk &#124;  Email 00:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Obvious note: 1080p is only possible with HDMI output. 360's without HDMI top out at 1080i. It's not to say 1080p is not possible over component but at far shorted cable lengths and there exists some gentleman agreement between HDTV producers and various content producers to not allow 1080p over component.142.179.200.76 17:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The 360 itself can output a 1080p resolution over Component, VGA and HDMI (with HDMI equiped boxes). Its ridiculous to say it can't. Its just that most televisions don't accept 1080p over component that you get this mis-impression. And most people don't use VGA because its a PC monitor connection. Jees, this has been gone over a million times! RC Master 08:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Didn't I mention that in my post. 142.179.200.76 17:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It's come to light that Halo 3 doesn't do "true" 720P either. Internally it's 1152x640 pixels which then is scaled out to what ever final output resolution is desired. Reference here: http://www.bungie.net/News/content.aspx?type=topnews&cid=12821. It's not a huge deal but graphics purists will note that even for 720p you'll get some amount of upscaling artifacts. They did it to prioritize frame rate over resolution. Most people won't really notice since most HDTV's cheat and give something less then 1920 x 1080. That is changing though. 142.179.200.76 17:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Table of versions
The table with the differences in versions of the game was removed, presumably while someone removed the prices of the game. Though I felt that the table of differences in versions was quite a good way to show the differences quickly, so I added it back, albeit without the prices of the game. -Jort227 14:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Seems appropriate. Unless that still goes under WP:NOT? But I figure it'd still be useful to know Stryik 01:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it should be in there, it provides a lot of information in a compact and very clear manner. I'd definitely support the table being included. James086 Talk &#124;  Email 08:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[TABLE] Wasn't there a table here comparing the different Halo versions?
I could swear that I saw it here, it is driving me crazy it was a very detailed table that compared the different versions, we should make one. - Sox 207  02:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * All the content is still there, in paragraph form. No need for a table, really. David Fuchs ( talk  ) 13:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I think the table form is much better to quickly show the differences between the 3 versions. Off course the paragraph form can still exist, but as a "summary" I think the table should be in the article as well (which I've mentioned in a few threads above) -Jort227 15:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes an encyclopedia should also be able to convey points quickly, that is why we have Infoboxes for different pages.

I put the table here so that we don't have to go through the history if we put it back, and people know what we are talking about. - Sox 207  15:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * So what are we going to do? Are we putting it back in the article, or not? I still think it should be in the article, as a quick overview of the differences -Jort227 15:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the table should be included. There seems to be no dispute that the information should be included, and I think the table is the quickest way of getting the information across. TheDucksNuts 21:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok I've put the table back into the article since I think most people here discussing the matter agree that it's an easy way to show the differences between the 3 versions, without having to filter through the text to find the differences. Also I don't see any reason why the table should not be included. It's not ugly, and it doesn't really affect the lay-out of the text in a bad way. - Jort227 21:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

1080p
The game is coming out in 1080p so the page should be edited to show this Xbox.com australia halo 3 info site —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.149.46.211 (talk) 08:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * the xbox360 hardware will scale any game up to 1080p, but the native resolution of the vast majority of them is 720p, like Halo 3. I agree that someone with access should reword the template to say "native resolution" or something along those lines to point out that it will in fact display up to and including 1080p. The way it reads now is wayyyy too easy too misinterpret. God knows Wikipedia doesn't need any more reasons to claim that it is inaccurate.157.174.221.168 18:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The native resolution on ANY Xbox 360 game will be 480P. Like I said towards the top of this article... The DVD reader in the Xbox 360 is STANDARD...not HD, not Blu-ray....standard. Which means... it can only read 480 lines of resolution, progressively scanned, at a time. No more. 1080I, 720P, 1080P, are all enhanced (up converted).

The 360 can play games at 480i, 480p, 720i, 720p, 1080i, 1080p. Not many games have a 1080p native resolution. Game resolution has nothing to do with BD or HD-DVD. Most games are natively 720p to preserve a good frame rate. 720p implies 480i/480p is also supported. The drive specifications are meaningless in relation to what resolution the game plays in. For instance Pc games come on CD-roms and for about 15 years now they commonly come in basically 720p (1024x768). In the last 5 resolutions of 2048x1536 have become semi-common. Non of it has anything to do with the game media. Native resolution is simply the resolution the developers wish it to output. PS. 1080p is only possible through HDMI due to several design choices made by the various interested parties.142.179.200.76 15:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

What the heck? I apologise for the harsh tone but this has to be said. Look people, the XBox360's games are not DVD movies. They're video games. A computer that lacks a DVD drive, only has a CD drive, it can produce 1080 images. Heck, it can do that if it doesn't even have a CD drive, just a floppy drive. Or just any way to get data into it at all. You know why? Because it's not a movie. It's a graphics chip. The laser has nothing to do with the graphics chip. The laser and type of disc or drive has nothing to do with the number of lines. The compression does. The laser is not writing to the screen. The television is. The laser is not putting the signal onto the line going to the TV, the graphics chip is. HD-DVDs use MPEG2 which is not the most efficient. You can fit DVD quality video onto a CD using MPEG4. But that's just movies, FMV, frame by frame videos. You can also fit HD-DVD onto DVD by using MPEG4. It's just that MPEG2 is cheaper to impliment because it doesn't require as much cpu power. The laser on the drive and the drive itself has NOTHING to do with DYNAMICALLY GENERATED GRAPHICS. I am SO frustrated at the EXTREMELY prevailant discussions on this talk page that are made by people confusing mpeg2 video compression. Are you people saying that I can't run BioShock on my PC at resolutions higher than 1080p because the game comes on DVD and I only have a DVD drive? Either all these people are incredibly good at joking or they're complete idiots. I don't care what resolution Halo3 runs at, I don't even own an XBox360. But at least I know that red lasers and blue lasers are not magic. All they affect is how much data the disc can store, not the resolution of the FREAKING GRAPHICS CHIP 24.254.141.144 01:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Jonathon Ross
Jonathon Ross (he's really famous in the UK, for any American readers) has done a voice in Halo 3. This definately deserves a mention as voice acting information has been really slim on this article. Sources are as follows [A website source] [a newspaper spread source] and [a newspaper article source]. No word yet on if he is going to be playing a Bwute or a Mawine. The sources state that he has provided his voice for fRee. Please do not delete this reference again and please DO feel free to create and expand the voice acting section. Thank you JayKeaton 18:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you give me the citation for the news clipping? The scan doesn't have anything about the publication, date, issue, etc. David Fuchs ( talk  ) 20:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

How is he the voice of?82.69.109.123 11:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I presume you mean who? I'm not sure but it's either a marine or an alien (see the scans linked above). James086 Talk &#124;  Email 11:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * If you are trying to say that I forged those paper clippings and hijacked the official gamesindustry.biz website to plant that article there, then you are very wrong. JayKeaton 20:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * (Were you referring to me?) No, it's just we need the source for a proper citation- linking to an image isn't proper. David Fuchs ( talk  ) 13:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I changed the sentence mentioning this guy from "Celebrities such as Jonathon Ross" to "Celebrity Jonathon Ross" unless anyone has information on other celebrities making cameo voice acting appearances. ZG 18:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Nathan Fillion and Adam Baldwin both did voices for this game, both have appeared in Hollywood movies, tv shows and Fillion has done game voices before too (he must be a gamer) JayKeaton 00:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Pre-order Count
Can anyone give me a recent update on the number of pre-orders it has? Шr.ĸĮicĸ 22:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 4.2M units are in retail stores now, according to GameSpot. JAF1970 22:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 1.5M customer preorders. Here JAF1970 22:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you! Шr.ĸĮicĸ  21:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Why do we need citation for plot?
How do you citate for a plot? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.50.204.151 (talk) 12:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * See the plot section of Halo 2, for example. IoW, use the cite video game template. David Fuchs ( talk  ) 13:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Ideally though you would use independant third party sources if at all possible, and use cite web rather than citing the game directly. John Hayestalk 13:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

the hulk??
It says that if you beat the game on legendary you see the hulk... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.56.229 (talk) 18:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

It refers to the big piece of the ship that Master Chief and Cortana are in, 'The Hulk.' Moenbro 18:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Chief and Cortana are IN The Hulk? Did he eat them or something!?! JayKeaton 07:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Possibly misread. That looks to me like a comment made by someone else, not something in the article. It seems to me that "the hulk" is just what they called the chunk of the Forward Unto Dawn that John-117 and Cortana were in after the game's events. Amalga 19:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Negative reviews
I understand pretty much every negative review out there. The game does not even really look any better than Halo 1 or 2. Most of the weapons are the same. Many of the multilayer levels are the same. The single player is very similar to those in the past 2 games. Most of the new features include just a few new weapons, modifications to old weapons and the 3rd class of weapons (the power drain, etc.). However, any experienced online player could tell you that these seemingly minor changes completely change the dynamics of the games played online. I find myself paying more attention to the situation I am in based on the weapons I am holding. With so many different combinations of weapons one can have, the different strategies one can incorporate while fighting other gamers are seemingly limitless. Also, the new ranking and veto systems are keeping people from quitting (and ruining) games. This was a huge problem in Halo 2. The games in Halo 3 tend to be much more competitive and enjoyable as a result of these two new features. This game is absolutely perfect for online play... despite being a rather unimpressive game when looking merely at the graphic quality. If the game looked any better it would probably take away from the lighting, which is a very important new aspect to the dynamics of play online. There also would be less room on the disk for the already limited number of maps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.251.50.178 (talk) 17:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I dare not add it, because zealots would remove it instantly, but there is a lot of genuine negative press out there for Halo. Cam Shea of IGN says in the Australian review calls Halo 3 "a game that is worth playing" and that it "is a long way from game of the year" and coreviewer Bennett Ring says "...left me wanting more – the backtracking, the overly cheesy storyline, the underwhelming visuals. And multiplayer feels too much like a HD-version of Halo 2 with a few gadgets you can toss around." The review said about the graphics "A long way from the prettiest 360 game, but it does have its own style and charms", gameplay "Very very solid, but in raw gameplay terms doesn't really break much new ground" and it also heavily criticised the "cheesy dialogue". The overall consensus was that it was a good game that is worth buying if you really like Halos multiplayer. The negative reception needs to be covered, otherwise the page will just be a big Microsoft/Halo fanboy wank-fest [] (review, awarded 8.9 out of 10.0) JayKeaton 21:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the link. Those criticisms should (and probably will) be added eventually, but, you're right, it's probably best to wait for the initial wave of post-release editing to subside a bit. — TKD::Talk 21:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No no, I will agree. The point of wiki articles is to be neutral. First off I advise people NOT to mention Game Rankings and Metacritics until most publication have had their say. Secondly, seperate negative comments from positive in a following review. Stabby Joe 21:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay? THat guy was completeyl retarded. Halo 3 universally fixed, and expanded on everything that was done in Halo 1 and halo 2. While adding a **** load of new things. it's far from a "HALO HD" like that moron said. HOnestly, every game/album gets a horrible critic. there is no need to mention it int here just becuase a tremoundously un-informed critic added it in. I mean hell, The Beatle's Sgt. Peppers album. Widely accepted as the greateset album of all time, has it's fair share of critics who give horrible reasons to bash a game; should we include those in there? Of course not. Testersiki 01:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Cam Shea is a well respected journalist, with over a decade of experience he has worked for Hyper, does the occasional essay in PC Powerplay and is in a high enough position within IGN to review a game like Halo 3. Of course not, why would we want to add some negative press in and interrupt the Microsoft sponsored circle jerk? IGNs criticisms of Halo 3 are all common sense to anyone that has played the game, the review rings very true and despite the reviewers disbelief at how average Halo 3 was, I do not detect any malice in this IGN publication JayKeaton 05:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't care how many ****** reviews this guy has done, the point still stands that this guy's logic is prodigiously flawed. Seriously, why do you think IGN themselves gave it a 9.5? And generally every other critic on the planet gave it amazing reviews? It's considered as one of the greatest games on next-gen consols atm. Really though, the 8.9 is one of the worst reviews for videogame I've seen in years, Halo 3 is leaps and bounds ahead of their processors it's not even funny, that's why generally other critics gave it amazingly great greviews. So unless you grab some other bull**** review and put with albums and movies that are generally accepted as amazing then the review is out; it's one of the most unprofessional reviews I've seen in years. Testersiki 14:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The negative reviews should be mentioned if they come from respected sources even if many of us fanboys don't agree. I think the 96 metacritic score and the shattering of all previous sales records speak for the quality of the game quite enough. All entertainment gets some bad reviews, their specific notability is questionable in a lot of cases. But its also questionable to list all the positive scores also; if you look at the article for say Casablanca (film) you'll see a section for "Reception" that cites modest sales and generally positive reviews, and a few quotes from notable sources, including a review from the NYT that says the film was "pretty tolerable." We're talking about what's now considered one of the best movies of all time, #2 on AFI's greatest movies list. ZG 16:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Cons are needed, its what featured game articles have, just check out Shadow of the Colossus for example. And since Halo 3 DOESN'T have nothing but 100% perfect scores, that means it has cons and thus should be added to make the article more neutral... and Testersiki, your rants only prove that you are not here to make neutral articles and only for YOUR opinion. Stabby Joe 16:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

People I'm not saying we should not include it because he personally dislikes the game...I'm saying that his reasons for not liking the game are absurd. He says that the game is basically "Halo 2 in HD" and "You'll enjoy this game if you only like Halo's multiplayer". That's one of the most ridiculous I've heard in a long while. I mean Halo 3 is un-doubtfully leaps and bounds ahead of their predeccessors. I mean it's the fact that he hated Halo for all the wrong reasons is what it's detracts it's notablity from the reveiw. I mean obviously he hated Halo 3 for all the wrong reasons, every other critic on the planet disagrees with him. I mean if somebody lambastad Star Wars because he thought it was a midget porno...Then do we need to include that in the Star Wars Reception article? Do you see where I'm going here? That review was absolutely horrible and it's not worth being mentioned at all. Testersiki 17:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Reviews disagree? Well actually alot seem to hold the multiplayer higher than the single player so they are correct and I don't understand where you're getting hate from since the score CLEARLY shows that they liked it, its not a common score and the fact it is from a well known source then regardless of what was said I can't see why it shouldn't be mentioned. If Roger Ebert said your Star Wars claim I don't think he shouldn't be mentioned still. They have an opinion like everyone else. Stabby Joe 17:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the majority of the other reviews disagree. As in, they they disagree with this lie. He lied and said Halo 3 is nothing more than Halo 2 HD. Which is completely absurd. Hell, in the multiplayer alone the new features and upgrades are immense. I mean what's an example that shows maturity? If you take an easy brain-dead poppy Beatles song from the early 1960s and compared to the drastically matured sound of their later masterpieces....Wouldn't it be nonsense to say that the later work is just the exact same as their early work...But now you have a more upgradeded surrounsound? What he said was nonsensical. Infact, if you check message board accross the net you'll find that he was universally lambasted. But hey, why not just do what egm does? Take the average score (9.5) and say that's what IGN said? I mean that's what people do for the rest of the games, why should Halo 3 be any different? Actually, looking bakc on it...I'm pretty sure that's what you guys have decided on anyway. Testersiki 20:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter if the reviewer got "lambasted" all over the net. He's established and published in an established media outlet. Trust me I don't think IGN Australia is going to be discredited by this review.  Like I said every piece of entertainment throughout history has been negatively criticized by someone.  The fact that there is so little negative criticism of this game makes what negative criticism that does exist even more notable.  10 years from now people may remember the runaway success of Halo 3 and go look at the Wikipedia article and wonder, "Did anyone say anything bad about it?" And wikipedia will have this info.  Anyway this should be a closed issue, if anything we should expand the negative criticism so people can see dissenting opinions (96 on metacritic practically says enough about how positively received the game has been).  Some life advice, don't refer to everything you don't agree with as "absurd," Jack Thompson asking Bill Gates to censor Halo 3 is absurd, saying that you don't particularly care for Halo 3 (and giving it an 89/100) is not absurd.  ZG 21:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Look. Like I said earlier, It does not matter if he criticizes the game, it's the fact that he didin't do it with justifiable reasons. Even if he is a notable critic it still does not matter. I gave an example of a critic hating star wars for the wrong reasons, right? Well somebody above me agreed that even if someobdy like Ebert criticized Star Wars for completely wrong reasons it should not be mentioned. So why should this guy be mentioned? Because Halo 3 is a hot product right now and people thrive over negative reviews. Testersiki 22:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * How can you say that he is wrong have having an opinion and impressions on the game? It's like saying that because most people like the colour red, anyone that likes the colour green is wrong. With that kind of logic left handed people should not be mentioned on Wikipedia

JayKeaton 00:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No... I said people WOULD still mention Ebert if he said that... Stabby Joe 00:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

omg no people like I said earlier. His personal opinion is fine. It's the fact that he hates it for the wrong reasons. Now his logic is highly flawed for alot of reasons, but I'll use the "it's only halo 2 in HD" for example. Do I seriously need to list off the hundreds of reasons why he's wrong? I mean the fact that he can't see why he is like only person who gave it an 8.9 is pathetic. Testersiki 00:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * And that is your POV. This article is not your POV, it must be NPOV. Just because you don't like him or his review, he is still a notable source, of which you are not. Spigot  Map  01:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Why is this issue even being discussed? What's absurd is a contributor complaining about criticism being put into the article because Testersiki doesn't like the opinion. Cam Shea was not stating a fact saying "it's Halo 2 in HD" - I believe that was a metaphor. SpigotMap couldn't have said it better, this article needs to stay NPOV, despite Testersiki's opinion on the game. Legendotphoenix 01:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

No it's the fact that he gave horrid, non-sensical reasons why he does not think Halo 3 is an amazing game. I mean obviously his reasons are wrong, every other critic on the planet highly praised this game and giving it amazing reviews. It's the fact that he gave horrid reasons that dis not even make sense--That's the reason why it should not be included. A personally know a 12 year old that could have complained better than he did. Testersiki 07:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I still don't really understand what you are trying to say. "Obviously he is wrong" and "every other review gave it perfect scores, it's a perfect game" doesn't really change what he said. Even if his logic was all screwed up, that would not have an effect on it's inclusion on the article. But it just so happens to be that everything that was said in that review rings true to me JayKeaton 07:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Testersiki has generally said nothing except "He said the game sucks and that can't be true because I like it and all the other critics said it was the best, so we can't include his review." That's stupid, most of the reviewers probably didn't even review the whole game, they had a prefab review already made up for it and just added little details in. Spigot  Map  11:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * What I find odd is the cited review here DID like the game and MOST reviewers HAVEN'T given Halo 3 a perfect score. Just check out Game Rankings. Stabby Joe 14:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Spigot. Again, it's not that I'm saying his opinion is worthless because he does not find the game fun, I'm saying the reason why he reviewed the game such an abnormally low score was for horrible reasons. As in, the reasons why he gave it a low score were all false. Obviously, every other crtiic on the planet gave it amazing reviews. Hell, you go to google news and there are hundreds of article talking about how Halo 3 got overwhelmenly great scores. Testersiki 22:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * He gave the game a high score. Criticisms are all based on opinion and this happens to be a notable critic. Spigot  Map  22:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I fail to realize how 8.9 is an abnormally low score. Tabor 01:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Look you guys are missing the point. He rated the game a prodigiously low score for the wrong reasons. Alot of what he said was absolute false. He was dead wrong on alot of his points, ask, any other critic out there that gave the game amazing reviews and they will tell you the same thing. THere was a reaon why he was lambasted accross the net. Testersiki 01:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You're the one who's missing the point. Because the "wrong reasons" you state are simply your opinions of wrong reasons. If he rated the game low simply because he hates anything having to do with Halo or Bungie, then those would be wrong reasons. Just because you don't agree with his points doesn't mean he's wrong. So quit bitching and assuming that everyone should share your viewpoint. Amalga 20:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No, YOU are missing the point. Just because you don't agree with his review, doesn't mean he was "dead wrong", and that the score is "prodigiously low".  Tabor 01:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

ok um. alot of reviews gave halo3 10/10 and some of those reviews were false. the fact that 10/10 means perfect is why. if in a review a reviewer states "the story is a convulted mess" the game should not get 10/10 because thats a noticeable flaw. also if a game gets 29/30 in a review. then the reviewer should not round the review up to 10/10(30/30) when giving it a score out of 10. these are 2 10/10 reviews (gamesradar and pro-g) that did these things. so while you think the score given by other is to low. others may think some reviews are to high ign UK gave it 9.5 but it was reviewed by a fanboy(in the review the reviewer says "i am a halo fanboy"). also is it not possible that alot of the high scores for halo3 had something to do with the reviewers being given $800 worth of merchandise right before they review it?


 * You have to see, just because you see his reasons as wrong and unreasonable, that doesn't mean that they aren't viable to be included. They are his opinion, his criticism. That what he does, because he's a critic. Regardless of why you think his thoughts are worthless, they're still what he thinks about the game. Thats the point. 72.38.5.230 03:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Red vs. Blue cast
While playing the game, I encountered none other than Doc and Tucker-or at least their voice actors-at the second level. Replaying the level on higher difficulties features conversations between Grif and Simmons or Church and Caboose. The credits for the game list their voice actors as special voice actors, so they're definitely in the game. Should this be added once a source is found? ShadowUltra 01:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Only once a reliable source is found. Spigot Map  01:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Gus (the voice of Simmons) posted that their names are in the credits at the end of the game and in the instruction manual. I presume the game's instruction manual is a reliable source? Panzer V Panther 04:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * As someone who has never played this game (The general audience of wikipedia) I have no idea who Doc and Tucker are. This seems more like trivial information then anything. What does it add to the article? Spigot  Map  04:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Check out the Red vs. Blue article. There's a bit about a guy named Jonathan Ross in the article in the section about "Audio."  I have no idea who Jonathan Ross is, but I don't have a problem with that bit remaining in the article.  If there's a bit about a "celebrity presenter" with an article shorter than the RvB article, surely the guys who voice the premiere Halo machinima doing some voice-acting for Halo 3 is notable enough. As a sidenote, they donated an undisclosed (as far as I know) amount of money to Child's Play (charity) to voice those parts.  Thoughts? =) Panzer V Panther 04:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Just checked with a friend who owns the game and he has verified for me that pp. 29-31 of the instruction manual have the names of Burnie Burns, Gus Sorola, Geoff Ramsey, Jason Saldana, Matt Hullum, and Joel Heyman (Church, Simmons, Grif, Tucker, Sarge/Doc, and Caboose, respectively) and they are all credited as voice-actors. =) Panzer V Panther 04:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Bungie held an auction for a walk-on role in Halo 3. Rooster Teeth won that auction, and since every body at them company pitched in, and they sent the main people to be in the game.69.129.67.253 18:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Xbox live crashed because of Halo 3(Speculation)
Or Xbox Live is fixing their servers, either way it has do something with Halo 3. Add this in please. Testersiki 01:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I have edited to no caps, please do not press that dreaded Caps lock key. Thank you

Okay, we have to decide on what ratings we're going to keep in for that quick look box thing.
Okay, we have to decide on what ratings we're going to keep in for that quick look box thing.

HOnestly, it gets changed every single day. halo haters are keeping only the horrid reviews in, halo fanboys are only keeping the perfect scores in, and people are getting rid of websites that they think is not notable (which clearly are) are keeping their fav websites. I mean this is absolutely ridiculous, please discuss this. Testersiki 02:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the box is superfluous. I know I've seen it for other games, but do we really need a compendium of review scores? Metacritic or GameRankings make sense from the perspective that they give a mean response that helps us gauge how the game was received critically. It may make sense to quote from, or give the score from, IGN (biggest video game website) or EGM (biggest video game print magazine) or some non-US publications to show what the worldwide response is (it might be notable, for instance, that perhaps the game was more poorly reviewed in Australia than the rest of the world, or that Japanese critics gave the game unusually high scores). A list of random review scores is not necessary; wikipedia is not metacritic. ZG 16:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

It's confirmed that it XBL is having problems due to " high traffic related to the launch of Halo 3" Add this in please.
http://live.xbox.com/en-US/default.aspx

http://www.bungie.net/Forums/posts.aspx?postID=13190857&postRepeater1-p=1#13190910


 * D Testersiki 02:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This isn't a news site. Would anyone really care in 10 years if the xbox live site was running slow due to the launch of the game? Spigot  Map  02:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No, might it might be a notable point as a feature of its opening success. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 02:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see what you're getting at. The fact that xbox live lagged a bit is a notable feature of the game? Spigot  Map  04:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Nah, it's not just a bit of lag. It's the fact that for multiple hours on launch day, exceedingly few (less than 300 worldwide at one point) were able to connect to Xbox Live.  This is relevant without a doubt to the success/failure of the launch. 05:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.176.114.176 (talk)


 * IP caught my point quite well. The release of a game causing the disruption of an entire service would be a notable point of the game's reception upon release. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 06:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, it lagged! We are all gonna die! >>Heavy sarcasm<< This isnt a news site, and who gives a crap about a little lag —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atrocity1313 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Remove Unneeded Sections
This Discussion page is a but overflowing. I suggest we remove any unneeded or resolved articles, as well as this one when finished. Example? []Stormfin 02:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

End of Halo beginning of Marathon?
According to YouTube and many other comments on the web a Halo 3 Legendary Ending... ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFOICtYykxA and http://www.xboxic.com/news/1806 and ) The marathon trilogy starts off with a guy called john crashing onto a planet in a broken space ship (John 117 Spartan). they could be connected. though marathon series start at 2794. 200+ years earlier thn halo 3 which would make if linear, MC inmortal, which is not so either marathon is part of another universe or MC just arrived at the beggining of a new Story arc. So should this (or something like this) be added in the main article? Any one have more information on this?- misterdan 03:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Blatantly incorrect. Look up the actual information on Marathon here on Wikipedia, and you'll see that they are unrelated beyond being made by Bungie. Peptuck 03:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

First off, it's not incorrect, secondly you might want to actually read the article before using it as a reference. no where in the article does it give proof that they are unrelated. Thirdly Bungie has all but said that both stories are related to what degree remains to be seen.Martinj63 03:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Some of the tools and stuff were the same, like how they made it, but the stories and universes are separate JayKeaton 05:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it is worth a mention. It is widely debated in the bungie fanbase,and at one point the president of bungie said the security officer (marathon) and master chief where the same poeple (i cant find the link right now). However, we should wait until the buzz dies down to even attempt adding this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.94.187.12 (talk) 18:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Halo 3 IS the prequel to Marathon. The terminals in Halo 3 give hints to it. Not to mention once you've discovered all terminals you get the Marathon Man achievement. Not to mention the beginning of Marathon is pretty much a complete continuation from the Legendary ending of Halo 3. What more proof do you want? --Keyes 13:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we should at least reference the relationship between the two. The Marathon Trilogy Page does this, and because enough Halo fans think that they are connected, it probably merits its own section. You could just copy the section on the aforementioned page and add it to this article and it would be enough. -- Self-Cannibal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.166.160.197 (talk) 20:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

It would make sense, I seem to remeber there being 7 Spartan II's left, and there were seven such cyborgs(?)in Marathon. 75.69.30.236 20:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

But, in the marathon page, it does say that they are two iterations of th same character. 75.69.30.236 20:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

If any of you guys actually bothered to notice what the chamber was that Cheif was getting into, there wouldn't be a discussion. Cheif enters a freezing chamber, like the one he came out of in Halo 1. This allows Chief to span multiple time periods, so he doesn't necessarily have to be immortal. Master Cheif's name is John, and the armor the cyborg in Marathon wears is Mjornil (Spelling? I'm not going to check), and Marathon starts exactly how it was previously stated. So, therefore, the two series are connected. The terminals are also a big hint, considering text font and symbols are exactly the same as Marathon. 68.162.138.175 17:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * We would need a reliable source for this connection in order to avoid original research. — TKD::Talk 19:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, considering that Bungie themselves has said there is no correlation between the two, I tyhink it is safe to say they are unconnected. Hunter076 17:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Protection
I understand why the page is protected, as there are a whole heck of a lot of people with far too much time on their hands, but it really bugs me when I can't correct grammar! (Okay, maybe I have too much time on my hands...) Anyway - "If a player kill themselves" in the Campaign Scoring section. Nice one! (144.87.143.3 13:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC))
 * You could create an account and wait four days. I know, I know, not the quickest way to the fix the grammar.  Useight 14:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately semi-protection is the only way to keep this article up and running at the moment; even during the weeks leading upto the release the page was vandalized several dozon times a day. However feel free to point anything else out we might have missed, and somebody'll get round to clearing it up. In the meantime Useight has a very good point regarding registration. Neobros 19:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Edit war on September 25
I would like to ask some of you to voice your opinion on weather or not the Halo 3 release should be included on the Calender. Any anon IP's or registered users input would be greatly appreciated. I left this same message on the 2007 talk page, hopeing to get a good mix of different opinions. Thank you! 68.143.88.2 18:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * At the end of the day, it's a computer game; although granted a popular computer game, we don't update release dates of highly anticipated films in the calendar, and nor should we highly anticipated Games. It just isn't worthy of note in the grand scale of things. Neobros 18:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with you 100%. However, the notability factor is not in the "game", but, if you lump together all media related events (games, movies, books, music, etc) the Halo 3 release did more revenue in it's first 24 hours then ANY other media event.  This sole fact is what makes it notable. (and to a lesser extent, the internet worldwide was 0.8% slower due to Halo 3 on xbox live in one night). 68.143.88.2 19:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with your source of sales information; remember the foundation for any well written encyclopedia is the basis of Fact, and untill the sales information is fully released and agreed upon within the next few days the sales figues are either incomplete or/and speculation. Although if the factual sales figues do qualify as 'Record Breaking', you do have a valid case. Neobros 19:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sources have already been claimed, and 1.4 million people bought that game that day alone and has set new records, and it is well known so i think there shouldn't be a problem with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.165.125.29 (talk) 23:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It made over 170 million in its opening day. Tabor 00:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sources, people! Sources! Legend of the Phoenix 00:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Legendotphoenix (talk • contribs)
 * Look at the next section on this talk page. Tabor 01:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Er... I noticed that right after I posted my comment... I'm embarrassed. *blush* Anonymous~Source 01:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Halo 3 early results: $170 million in a day sets an entertainment record
You can thank me later

http://blogs.mercurynews.com/aei/2007/09/halo_3_early_results_170_million_in_a_day_sets_an_entertainment_record.html

Testersiki 22:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I have a bone to pick with this statement. "Halo 3 also holds the record for the biggest opening day in entertainment history, making $170 million dollars in its first 24 hours." in terms of dollars alone it has the highest single earner in entertainment history, in terms of units sold it is far from reaching that number. More Spiderman 3 tickets were sold in that same amount of time and more Harry Potter books were sold in that same amount of time. Halo 3 just made more money. I know it does go on to say that it "making $170 million dollars" after the first statement, but the reader could be fooled into thinking that Halo 3 had the biggest unit sales in history as well as making 170mil, which is absolutely incorrect. "biggest in history" is trying to say it made the most money, but it also looks a lot like "made the most amount of sales" JayKeaton 09:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well you could say exactly the opposite for the other records. Sure they sold more units, but they didn't make as much money, etc. Either way, it was a significant record, and they did break it. Search the wiki pages for athletes, and you'll see so many insignificant records, this will seem very appropriate.157.174.221.167 18:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

also harry potter as a book world wide made over 200 million dollars to what i know, halo3 only set a record in the US not worldwide apparently. also should money made be. equal to money spent? or to the amount sold multiplied by the wholesale price (the price at which it is sold to the stores) because the rest of the money is then store profit. yet for movies the popcorn/drinks/candies bought when people view a movie is not calculated into its total money because that money is profit from those showing the movie and not actually the movies profits? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.104.90.230 (talk) 19:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Halo 3 and Harry Potter
Can someone add facts of this news briefing which came from Microsoft today, these sales numbers indicate that Halo 3 not only beat the newest Harry potter book in U.S. sales but also worldwide first week sales, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows first week profit was $200 million while Halo 3 summed up $300 million, these are the sources:

''http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/prnewswire/AQTH07704102007-1.htm http://blogs.mercurynews.com/aei/2007/10/bill_gates_has_a_good_week_halo_3_sales_top_300_million.html http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/824/824965p1.html''

Interactive entertainment will never be the same, with the launch of one title that has changed the way the world thinks about video games. “Halo® 3” has captured the attention of consumers worldwide and has made history as one of the biggest entertainment launches of all time.

Microsoft Corp. today announced that “Halo 3” has officially become a global phenomenon, garnering more than $300 million in sales in the first week alone. The critically acclaimed Xbox 360® exclusive, which was released worldwide on Tuesday, Sept. 25, is the fastest-selling video game ever and already one of the most successful entertainment properties in history.Bold text —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luisvmejia (talk • contribs) 16:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes! Do it! - Sox 207  18:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

AI
The marine AI in-game sucks, nor is the enemy AI anything to write home about. I mean, the driving skill of the AI marines is laughable. I'm not sure if it's too NPOV to edit that, but it seems that the article is making false claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NLUT (talk • contribs) 14:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

If you play on different difficulties, the AI improves depending on difficulty. Bungie stated that if you do not play on Heroic or Legendary, you would not be able to see the advances in their AI tech. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.67.42.253 (talk) 18:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Comepletely true. And anyway, if you are playing it on those levels, do you really need help? I can tell that, especially on legendary, AI is amazingly good. 68.162.138.175 17:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Forerunner subplot
Does anyone else think we should include information on the small Forerunner subplot in the various terminals scattered throughout the game? Some parts, particularly the Librarian's construction of the Forerunner artifact under Mombasa, tie directly into the game. Peptuck 16:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If you can summarize this in one or two sentences and include it under "Plot," I would say it is more than appropriate. Be bold. ZG 16:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Skulls
Should a section about easter eggs (including skulls) be added? Someone tried (poor job of it) and it got reverted. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Halo_3&oldid=160715214 Wolvereness 17:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Those constitute too much of a game guide, one of the things that Wikipedia is not. See Halo: Combat Evolved and Halo 2, both featured articles, for the breadth and depth of coverage expected. — TKD::Talk 19:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that there should be a list of confirmed eggs, but not guide on them —Preceding unsigned comment added by AR3tarded tiger (talk • contribs) 19:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Could we gets pics of Halo 3's launch on Wikipedia? The launch was huge, they even shut down a street in NY city for Halo 3
Could we gets pics of Halo 3's launch on Wikipedia? The launch was huge, they even shut down a street in NY city for Halo 3.

Seriously, it was ******* huge. Adam Sessler of G4's X-Play said it "beat out 360's launch party by a mile" Testersiki 05:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah those pictures wouldn't be bad to have. - Sox 207  18:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Launch Problems
One of Halo 3's major online competitiors, Warhawk, has had an extensive section covering launch problems (both currently and fixed, citing official sources rarely and mainly relying on forum discussion) as well as other launch difficulties. To maintain balance across these competing multiplayer games I suggest that Halo 3 should have a similar section listing things such as -Xbox Live problems with connectivity and multiplayer -Disc read errors being reported and discussed on various xbox forums -Special edition scratched discs -High volume of general errors and RROD (this one seems a little nebulous and probably should be chalked up to a few loud complainers)Capnmonkey 13:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC) ---I smell a PS3faggot. Scratched discs were covered. Get a 360 and stop sucking cock.
 * Thanks for joining the wiki community, why not register so we can ban you officially? If the disc scratches have been covered, that's fine, I hadn't seen it anywhere.  What about other issues?Capnmonkey 16:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Honestly, you'll probably want to wait a little bit for the excitment to die down, and all of the official news to come in. For instance, the scratched disc issue was confirmed by MS already and there are systems in place to fix it. The Xbox live connectivity issues however are still up in the air. Some sources are blaming it on the 3 day free xbox live gold membership thing that caused wayyyy too many players to be on at once. But since it has not been confirmed yet, it shoud be left out for now.157.174.221.167 19:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I also think some mention of launch problems, especially the disk read error problem, is warranted. Enough users are being plagued by this problem, documenting it on YouTube (http://youtube.com/watch?v=VYMvFPgNNiI) and filling forums with hypotheses and possible workarounds (http://www.bungie.net/Forums/posts.aspx?postID=13193500&postRepeater1-p=41) that it more than a problem of a few marginal game consoles or a few bad disc pressings. As it stands, it seems the problem may be a result of the approach adopted to improve game performance... using the hard disk as virtual swap space for the cut scenes and a software glitch that corrupts the MTF. I'm sure a fix will be found and users affected will be able to play the game after implementing it, but as it stands, this has the potential to be a major "glitch". Simply stated, a significant number of users simply cannot play the game with Xbox 360 systems that play all other games just fine and that is a real issue. When the solution is found, that should be added to the discussion, demonstrating how evertything turned out okay due to the hard work of both Bungie and Microsoft. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhmacconnell (talk • contribs) 05:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

640p native resolution
This is probably rumour as of yet, though I have not researched the forum discussions that brought it to light. The basic idea is that Halo 3 natively runs at 640p resolution and is upscaled from there resulting in what some people are referring to as "Halo 2 in HD"Capnmonkey 13:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)this is the worste game evur created


 * Hmm...not sure who added that poorly spelled little addition to the end there but oh well. They said a while back that Halo 3, (like almost every single other next-gen game, save a couple) is 720p native, and upscaled from there by the hardware. Of course since the video feeds are created by the hardware in the first place, this isn't as negative as it sounds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.174.221.167 (talk) 19:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Bungies official site has confirmed that it does actually run in 640p. They said it needed to run in 640p to conserve the HDR, that they thought HRD was more important than the other 80 P's JayKeaton 00:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

bungie is being like microsoft and lieing about facts. its not 80p being left out its 7680 pixels they left out of each screen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.104.90.230 (talk) 16:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 142 by 80, so that would be 11360. Natch. VTNC 18:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

if the native resolution is 640p its resolution should be set to 640p as opposes to 720p and 1080p since it can be upscaled to play on 720p 1080i 1080p and it can be downscaled to play on 480i so the native resolution its its resolution since when upscaled to 1080p it is still playing at 640p but being shown in 1080p —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.104.90.230 (talk) 23:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

-copy of my own comment-

It's come to light that Halo 3 doesn't do "true" 720P either. Internally it's 1152x640 pixels which then is scaled out to what ever final output resolution is desired. Reference here: http://www.bungie.net/News/content.aspx?type=topnews&cid=12821. It's not a huge deal but graphics purists will note that even for 720p you'll get some amount of upscaling artifacts. They did it to prioritize frame rate over resolution. Most people won't really notice since most HDTV's cheat and give something less then 1920 x 1080. That is changing though. 142.179.200.76 17:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

-copy of my own comment-

PS. 640p is not a resolution. it's 1152x640 then rescaled to what ever resolution selected. 142.179.200.76 17:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Sales records
Just like films, using total revenue is a very misleading and inaccurate way to determine popularity, because of inflation.

All sources seem to just be using the $170m sales figure, but did it actually sell more units in 24hrs, or was it in fact not really a record.? Rodrigue 20:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

is the actual number of halo3 games sold known? cause all i see is the 170mil. also shouldn't the amount of money from it be from the game itself. and not include accessories sold. the game is $60 while the legendary edition is $120. the legendary edition being $60 for the game and $60 for the accesories correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.104.90.230 (talk) 20:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Copies of Halo 3 can cost up 50 times more then for example the ticket price for Gone With The Wind. Even without inflation by looking at modern day movies, Halo 3 can cost 25 times as much as a concession ticket (using Australian prices, 250 dollars for Legendary Edition compared to student ticket price of $9.80 to see Spiderman 3). Halo 3 didn't even come close to total sales numbers of big movie releases this year. Halo 3 made more money because even the cheapest (standard) edition of Halo3 cost more than one thousand percent than the cheapest movie ticket price. The Limited Edition cost 12,000 percent more than a movie and the Legendary Edition cost over 25,000 percent more than a movie ticket. So no, Halo 3 might have been the biggest grossing release of all time, but it certainly will not top Gone With The Wind in total dollars earned (after inflation is taken into account) and it has already failed the total single unit opening day/weekend/week sales when compared to movies JayKeaton 20:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

yes it has not actually broken a record. microsoft just states it has beaten movies without realizing that movies and games do not cost the same in any way. and they have a different kind of process being delivered. along with the fact that the legendary edition as you stated costs alot more then the actual game. so if the legendary editions full price is to be added to halo3s full price. why not have the total amount of money spent when seeing a movie added to that movies total fee? $10 for tickets. then add the money to get popcorn and a drink. that would in theory double spiderman 3s opening day sales. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.104.90.230 (talk) 20:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It has broken sales records, in terms of gross. Yes, this doesn't change the fact that games have a 5 to 6-fold price advantage over movies, but it's still the largest entertainment release in history. David Fuchs ( talk  ) 20:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

yes but its broken records in gross based on how the money it "earned" was calculated. if you were to just calculate money spent on the game itself and not include any accessories (all the addons in the legendary edition and collectors edition) how much money would it be then? since movies to not include what comes with the tickets. only the ticket cost. and i think that includes the packages you can buy that are tickets with some food. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.104.90.230 (talk) 20:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * When microsoft announce that Halo 3 has broken anything, it should always be taken with a grain of salt. Microsoft have an obvious bias to make Halo and Xbox look better JayKeaton 21:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

yes all i have seen is microsoft sate X money but not state Y halo 3s sold. X money for all we know could be increased by all the halo 360s that sold on that day —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.104.90.230 (talk) 21:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * When theater goers buy snacks at a movie, the makers of that movie do not get a percentage, so that can't be considered in the movie's gross. The fact of the matter is, people spent more money (albeit, not adjusted for inflation) buying halo 3 in a 24 hour period, than any other entertainment product in any other 24 hr period. If you want to add the caveat that it included accessories packaged with the games I'd accept that, but until you can show me an entertainment product that surpassed the $170 million mark in 24 hrs, including accesories packaged with it by the manufacturer, I say the record stands. Mad031683 23:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Remember, Microsoft is a publicly traded company. Shareholders will eventually have access to these records. Microsoft can't get away with an outright lie here, nor would they really try to. They've had enough trouble with the SEC.157.174.221.168 17:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Halo Plot
I noticed in the plot portion of the article it states that "Halo 3 does not pick up right where Halo 2 left off." This is not true. The end of Halo 2 has the Master Chief falling into the Earth's atmosphere on a Forunner craft. He crashes into the jungle of Africa and Halo 3 starts out with Sgt. Johnson finding the Master Chief after he crashes into the surface. So how long does it take to fall from the atmosphere to the ground, 15 minutes? I think that is pretty much right where the last one left off. There was a book that was release between Halo 2 and Halo 3, (Ghost of Onyx). I believe the timeline is somewhere around the end of 2 and beginning of 3. This book ties directly into the Halo 3 storyline when the player beats the game on Legendary mode (the most difficult) and watches all the cut scenes after the credits roll. ***Spoiler Alert*** A lot of buzz preceded the release Halo 3 due to a leak of the games ending. This ending only reflected what happens when the player beats the game on Normal mode. In tha case it appears that the Master Chief doesn't make it out of the last Halo alive. However, in reality his ship just broke apart and goes into cryostasis. After that scene there is a shot of the lame ship drifting in front of what appears to be the planet Onyx. This is most likely forshadowing as to the next series in the Master Chief saga. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drewvoegele (talk • contribs) 22:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The Master Chief was on a Forerunner ship, specifically, the Forerunner ship that the Covies had been using to power High Charity, when Halo 2 ended. This ship was never seen again, and it certainly wasn't the ship that was falling to earth, this is pretty clear giving the size of the ship compared to the size of the Cheif as he plummets to Earth. Between the beggining of Halo 3 and the end of Halo 2, the Chief must have done something to remove the Forerunner ship as a threat, got onto another, much smaller ship, which he then jumped out of while it was falling to earth, where he went all meteorite and cratered somewhere in South Africa. 70.73.61.95 04:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget, at the beginning of Halo 3, Johnson is the one that finds the Master Chief, and the Arbiter is with him. At the end of Halo 2, both of them were still on Delta Halo. So it would take time for them to get to Earth, so time has passed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tithonfury (talk • contribs) 21:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Far as I recall, Truth was onboard the Forerunner ship and you do see it in several other cutscenes. What is odd is that the Commander and the Sergeant Major are up to speed with things on Earth before the Master Chief - my assumption is that MC was lying in the jungle before they pick him up during this time - based on when Keyes mentions that: the Covenant had been digging at the epicentre for some time, where Truth parked his Forerunner ship. J-Kama-Ka-C 21:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Why "117" (After that the player can see that someone carved "117", on the memorial.)? Also, the link to Master Chief just links to a page that says "ARBITER IS BETTER" (another link, but the page appears to have been deleted). I was hoping the 117 answer was there.

Master Cheifs real "name" is John-117, Master Chief is only his rank (actual Master Chief Petty Officer). In the story continuation in the books, it is revealed that the last names of the children kidnapped for the SPARTAN program wes replaced by a numerical value, in this case, 117. Hence, John-117. Because of the secretive nature of the SPARTAN program, the Chief wasn't one of the pictures on the memorial. That said, being largely the basis of the UNSC's success and moral, someone scribed his number on the memeorial, in, well, memory of the Chief. Remember, everyone else thinks he is dead.

There is a comic book series that tells the story between halo 2 and halo 3, I think only the first issue has been published so far Mad031683 22:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Referencing
Coming along well. Think we should fact-tag some stuff that needs verification? Cliff smith 01:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Sales section needed
I think we need a seprate sales section. Halo 3 has lots of sales news out there and also coming. It has broken not only US first day record but also in Australia and New Zealand. It is likely, it will also break EU record. Moreover there will be other news such as when halo 3 reaches 5 million, 10 million copies. So, a seperate sales section should be opened. --R.iqbal 04:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Guilty Spark 343
Master Chief did not kill Guilty Spark; instead it was indeed the Arbiter who killed 343 with the aid of a Spartan Laser after Master Chief had fallen several stories into a pit. I have video footage if it is needed. 24.17.170.160 04:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Not to be picky but it is 343 Guilty Spark. And when played through the player does kill spark you may have seen a concept video made pre release or even a diffrent verison 4:30 29/september/07
 * Nope, you're wrong, the video is from one day ago. Arbiter kills guilty spark with a spartan laser. AKGSWASL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.170.160 (talk) 18:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you've played on a low difficulty and the game cutscenes this encounter (maybe?), however having played this today I can confirm that you (the player/Chief) take the Spartan LASER from the the Sgt. Mjr. and use it to defeat the Monitor. J-Kama-Ka-C 21:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing the video you saw was of a coop game in which the first player(MC) fell into a pit while player 2(arbiter)killed 343 guilty spark.--65.30.143.89 15:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Tidbit: It must play-out differently in some cases... Maybe AI taking over? I (first post in this section) just finished the game on Normal, I can assure that I did indeed kill Spark myself (with the Spartan Laser). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.94.13.94 (talk) 14:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

You saw a co-op game. In a single player game, MC kills guilty spark.157.174.221.169 20:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Precisely. With the video replay feature, people have been able to manipulate the camera angle into more cinimatic angles than previously, and with the same capture cards they have otherwise been using for years, have begun creating video's that can appear to be in-game cutscenes to the uninitiated. In this case, what you saw was a co-op game where the host player fell down. In single player, this would cause a respawn at the last checkpoint.142.110.227.164 20:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Can an admin edit out this POV?
From the last paragraph of the Multiplayer section Understandably this has made forum goers angry as judged by the overall tone of the replies to his answer. The whole paragraph is a little POV and based on shaky sources but this "Understandably" part is total not NPOV. THX 205.157.110.11 14:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Sales Figures
Even just measuring it in total units sold compared to other games, did sell more copies in 24hrs than other games, perticularly Halo 2, or was the revenue figure misleading in that sense as well?. Rodrigue 18:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

technically yes. since microsoft for all we know is including halo3 accesories in its 170mil dollars sold. since we do not have an actual number of halo 3s sold on day one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.104.90.230 (talk) 18:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I don't think the game has so far set any records, it is just the latest over-hyped game, but it might eventually be an all time best seller, if actuall sales figures can be found. Rodrigue 19:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

In the UK it is not and cannot any more be the fastest selling game of all time, GTA San Andreas still is JayKeaton 00:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The claim isn't that its the fastest selling game of all time, it's that it grossed more money in a 24 hour period than any other game. If you can find me a source that shows another game (or other entertaainment product for that matter) that grossed more money from sales in 24 hours including the extra profits from limited or collectors editions, then I'll agree with you that it didn't set a record. Mad031683 18:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

controversy
should a controversy section be made to discuss the controversy around halo3. such as the 640p graphics when said to be 720p. the 800 dollars merchandise sent to reviewers before they reviewed the game. along with anything else that will pop up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.104.90.230 (talk) 19:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

No dozens of games upscale from 640p and reviewers get gifts ranging from cash to hookers all the time I going to remove the upscaling mention from Picture Format as its unnessecary MattParker 119 —Preceding unsigned comment added by MattParker 119 (talk • contribs) 22:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Halo 3 is not "dozens of games" though, Halo 3 is different because of all the special hype it received JayKeaton 23:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

dozens of games dont give the gifts to reviewers at the same time of the review to increase its score. dozens of games dont state its in 720p native resolution then when people point out its actually 640p these dozens of games dont call the people who point it out a bunch of crybabies. dozens of games dont cut off the sides of screens for multiplayer dropping it down to less then ED resolution total. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.104.90.230 (talk) 23:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * yeah! what he said! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brandon boudreaux (talk • contribs) 23:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * And dozens of people aren't bothered about dozens of games being short of 720p. But a lot of people ARE bothered about Halo 3 not being 720p, which makes it notable. Dozens of people haven't complained about the dozens of games that only contain dozens of P's, which makes them not notable because people weren't in an uproar. Dozens. JayKeaton 01:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I like my doughnuts to come in dozens. Tabor 01:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I feel cheated when I buy my donuts in dozens, because a dozen donut holes makes up like three missing donuts. I prefer berliners, but a dozen of them is way too much to eat JayKeaton 03:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * thats why i buy dozens of timbits then they got no holes. also i dont think dozens of games were hyped to have 720p graphics74.104.90.230 15:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I like to buy a dozen doughnuts and then a single doughnut, so that I can say that i have a baker's dozen of doughnuts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brandon boudreaux (talk • contribs) 15:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

In any case, you can see the official Bungie report where they admit that the game is 640p [here] JayKeaton 16:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * There exists no such standard as 640p. it's 1152x640 which a bit less then the 720p as defined 720p is defined.142.179.200.76 15:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

and in bungies response they say "given tinfoil hats some new gristle to chew on as they catalogued their toenail clippings." which in itself is gonna cause controversy also 74.104.90.230 16:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Update This Page
I'm sick of seeing no new info and it all being in the future tense. The game's been out for almost a week and played for millions of hours. I'll be willing to do an extensive overhaul when I'm out of class later today, but if anyone is willing, help would be appreciated. --NLUT