Talk:Halo 3: ODST/Archive 1

Wrong?
Its called HALO 3: Recon now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.67.38 (talk) 00:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Well if anything they might just have it where you can toggle it. 99.140.162.254 (talk) 10:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Just to clear this up, the project was originally called Halo 3:Recon but early on switched the name to Halo 3: ODST --Iner22 (talk) 21:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

New release date, wiki won't let me update it
Halo recon is expected now Fall 2009, please update this on the page just to maintain consistancy with other articles. DarkShroom (talk) 04:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

First header
I know that this was spotted on a list at walmart or whatever, but does this article really need to exist? We have unconfirmed rumors, and only have one source on it. Oh well, I guess we'll find out in the next upcoming days of E3. the cheat 15:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Everything here is speculation; none of the statements can be cited from reliable third-party sources. This article doesn't need to be here. Amalga (talk) 14:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

There: i added a reliable source.OsirisV (talk) 09:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Marathon
I've seen this on other websites. Theres no sources. Each site with "sources" links to its afflicants site. NO SOURCE links to an official article. By all means, this is just a rumour. Halo and Marathon are similar, but have many differences. Their only real similarity is that Bungie made both of them. Many games designers add references to their earlier games onto their newest. Halo had references to ONI, Myth and even Phoenix. All 3 of whom were made by BungieOsirisV (talk) 10:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Merge
Do we really need an article on this? It's one paragraph about an untitled video game. When it is shown to the public, I could go along with an article, but giving it an article is like giving "Untitled Pikmin Project" an article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This was already discussed and was decided to be pointless, as we would just have to re-merge it soon when more details about the game emerge. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 07:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * But isn't that true about, for instance, Untitled Pikmin Project? It's basically in the same state - Nintendo has a policy of not announcing games until they're near completion, and Miyamoto answered "Yes" to someone asking about a new Pikmin. But regardless, isn't that what all merged articles may eventually accomplish? At this stage in its development, it does not warrant its own article. It's just "Untitled Halo project", and all we know is that MS didn't let Bungie announce it. Don't we usually make articles when they need to be made? I mean, if it's okay to make a paragraph-long article about some unknown Halo game, that pretty much allows for any article about any untitled game in a series to be made as long as it's about this long with proper sourcing. Would you approve of an article called "New The Legend of Zelda Project", just because there's been talk of it ever since TP came out (a new project besides PH)? - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If you people want this article to be larger and more descriptive then I suggest a website known as Halopedia. Im a member of it and it has exclusive information about this project and has more information about the Halo series than I seen here so far.--75.50.183.105 (talk) 02:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

New Mombasa
I know I'll get flak for this, but in the trailer an electronic sign clearly says "EMERGENCY--City of New Mombasa;" confirming the city is in fact New Mombasa seconds prior to its destruction by the Prophet of Regret's ship in Halo 2. All I changed in the summary is the fact that the "unknown city" is New Mombasa and that the destruction was caused by the ship. I added no speculation. I also moved the page to a more appropriate title. ShadowUltra (talk) 18:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think too much emphasis is being placed on the fact that the game is somehow Halo 3-related. A better title would simply have been "Untitled Halo Project" or "Untitled Bungie Project" (although the simplest way to handle this would have been to just make an appropriate section on the Halo series article, rather than an article with a vague title and little substance). We don't know how closely linked this new game is to Halo 3, and from the title and the way it was moved in the series template (into the Main Series row, which I think we can safely say that this game is not a part of; it would have to be Halo 4, and assumptions that this game is Halo 4 or even a Halo 3.5 are wholly unfounded at this point), I believe that readers of the article could be mislead as to the nature of the game. I will readjust the series template, but I'll let the title be, at least for now. -- Comandante    { Talk }  22:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You know, it does say "Halo 3" right at the end of the trailer. And sorry, I was the one who moved it into the upper row. I put it in parenthesis to denote its role as an expansion to a main series game, which it is according to the Marketplace. ShadowUltra (talk) 20:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Renaming the article into Halo 3:Keep it Clean.
Would there be a problem if we renamed the article Halo 3:Keep it Clean since its the codename thats its being made under? Ripster40 (talk) 03:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * What is your source on this? Just because the trailer is called Keep it Clean doesn't mean the project is. Gor all we know, it's just called that because it's the video version of the Keep It Clean message.OsirisV (talk) 08:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Unless Bungie explictly says the project is "Keep It Clean," we can't go through with the move; all we have to go on currently are rumors and speculation. -- Comandante    { Talk }  19:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * So you say its rumors and speculation, isn't this what is going on with the article, most of it compromising of "rumors and speculation?" Ripster40 (talk) 00:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ahh, but you must see the distinction. The reliable sources can discuss rumors and speculation, and that is what you could call "confirmable speculation". YOU putting up unconfirmed information is "original research", and that isn't allowed. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Still falls under rumor and speculation, stop backing up and saying what it is and what it isn't. Last time I checked rumors and speculations are for the Wikia's. Ripster40 (talk) 01:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, there you go. Since rumor and speculation don't belong in Wikipedia, there's no reason to change the title of this article into something purely speculative. Since we don't know if the game/project will be called "Halo 3: Keep It Clean," but we do know that it's an untitled game/project somehow related to Halo 3, the placeholder title "Untitled Halo 3 project" fits pretty well. -- Comandante    { Talk }  01:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, seems someone decided to delete/merge the article. Idiots waisting time. Ripster40 (talk) 00:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC) A merge or delete shouldnt be done becuase now we know this is a real game, granted an epansion. If it is merged it needs merged into the Halo 3 page. But I think this shoudl be by itself as it is a game that can be played w/o Halo3. It isnt a sequel or a prequel, more of a second POV for the same story as in Halo 3. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.249.47.9 (talk) 16:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

New image
While we all want a more updated cover art, we need an actual URL for the source, not just the domain, if possible; I haven't been able to find the image at all. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 04:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I told you its on xbox.com [] --Deathtrap3000 (talk) 15:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There, I added it. Was that so hard? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 15:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I restored the first image of the cover art to the article because there appears to be a resolution issue. The new image is too small to be increased to 256px, and the quality suffers. The first image works better, and also has the benefit of not having the Xbox 360 tag across the top, which brings it in line with the cover images of the other Halo game articles. -- Commdor    { Talk }  18:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You could edit the tag out.OsirisV (talk) 19:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Why do that when there's an image that already has it edited out and is large enough for the article? Both images are of the same exact game cover, but the one I readded is of higher quality. There was no need to add the second image when this one works just fine. -- Commdor    { Talk }  19:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll just note here that I never noticed that one image was update with the ODST title. My apologies for any inconvenience, but in my defense, at first glance the change isn't easily noticeable, and the image did appear to be of lower quality since it was being stretched. -- Commdor    { Talk }  02:37, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * A perhaps easier and more sensible solution is to just replace the box art with the logotype as it was previously until a higher resolution image pops up. With the release date about a year away, it's entirely possible it will change in the duration anyhow. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 02:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Added some info...
I added some info from the Game Informer issue it was included in, since I saw none myself, although it is pitifully organised imo, so if you want to feel free to tidy it up a bit... -12.77.178.70 (talk) 02:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Gender assumption
You know, we don't know that this ODST trooper is male, she could just as well be a female soldier. (As a matter of fact, I think it's likely that the player character will be female.) Why does the article automatically use male pronouns when the gender is unknown? Sippan (talk) 12:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I second that. There's no reason to go either way at this stage... knowing Bungie this would be a stunt they can pull, and there are precedence in the industry to do it, just look at Samus Aran. I think this article should be re-written in a more gender netral tone, as is suggested by the Wikipedia Manual of Style. -- Henriok (talk) 12:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's hardly "likely" that the player character will be female, but you are correct that it would be best to keep it neutral until an announcement (or at least a voice cast?) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 16:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

It's male, in an article in one of the gaming mag. it states that its male and you do not see the face. --Whtcheddar12 (talk) 06:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you provide a reference? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 18:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Yea I'll throw up the reference when I get back to school, I left it in my locker... Whtcheddar12 (talk) 13:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks a bunch. If you can just throw up the bibliographic details in raw form or format in cite journal, either would be great! Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 16:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

It's referred to as male in the GameInformer article about the game, i belive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.73.147 (talk) 22:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

look up genaric pronouns. he is always used when gender is unidentifible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.191.29.70 (talk) 21:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes that is true, but I have seen many wikipedia articles using he/she during these types of situations, also Bungie may pull another fast one on us, like when they made the Arbiter playable during Halo 2, nobody expected that. And since there has been no proof that would put either side in a better position I think we should just change it to he/she. WizardMeatball (talk) 18:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The Rookie is explicitly listed as male in the Bungie Field Guide (look under personnel). The Rookie and all the players save Dare are male. -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 18:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Execpt for the Superintendent, that is ⊕ Assasin Joe talk 18:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd assume the Rookie's gender is male because his initials are "J.D.", which could be Jack or John or Joe or some other male name like that. But then, also, the ODST could be female because it could be Julie or Jule or something similar to that first name.--Rollersox (talk) 23:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Rookie vs. Russell
At the top of the page it says that the player plays as an ODST named Russell Norman, but then later it says that as of now the ODST is unnamed and known only as "the Rookie." the source for the Russell Norman doesn't actually say anything about his name. Does anyone know if there is a source that actually does say his name or should he be changed back to the unnamed Rookie? Tithonfury (talk) 05:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I checked all three sources from that paragraph, and none of them mentioned the names of the other four squad mates, just that there are four. The Rookie is mentioned as such, but no other names, much less Russell Norman.Spartan S58 (talk) 06:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Release Date source?
I just wonder if the date at the bottom really means that this will be released on that date. No where does it say that this is the release date, it's just a few numbers at the bottom. Please check WP:V before replying.--Iner22 (talk) 21:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

- The Bungie weekly update teases about a release date announcement at the top, and mentions only the Fall 2009 area we already know. Then, at the bottom where it wouldn't make sense to put '4th September 2009' for any other reason, it ends 'PS 04/09/09', typical of Bungie 'humour'. I changed this back once already but if anyone really has a problem, I won't change it again. Haigh21 Rob (talk) 20:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Aside from the fact Bungie is American, and so most likely the date is actually April 9, 2009.... -- Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ( talk ) 20:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

But April is not in Fall (September is). Rob (talk) 20:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You're missing the point entirely. We are not a place for speculation, but fact. The URL is not a permissible source. 'Nuff said. -- Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ( talk ) 21:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

- Fair enough, I won't change it back. But you'll feel silly when they announce the release date fully! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haigh21 (talk • contribs) 21:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Tada: It's the Mythic Map Pack. -- Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 13:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

- I stand corrected, sir. You are right, this time... Rob (talk) 15:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC) Remember, the Halo 3 Mythic map pack is released around April 9, but there is another Halo 3 map pack to come as well between now and the Release Date. Also search up "halo 3 recon release date september" on google and you get... September 30! P.S. I accidentally undone David Fuchs' edit twice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HawkFromHell (talk • contribs) 10:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC) I'd rather wait until this week's update on Bungie.net before putting the exact date on there. Remember, there can be any speculation on the date, but until Bungie formally reveals the release date, I would say that these sources are too unreliable.--Iner22 (talk) 19:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

You're right. Maybe we could add this in the trivia; "The release date is speculated to be somewhere in September" or something like that.--HawkFromHell (talk) 10:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC) Just leaving a lonely "2009" won't help though. I added in "Fall 2009" instead - Fall 2009 gives more information than just 2009, maybe we could put in a September 2009 if it is reliable enough. Time will tell though, time will tell... --HawkFromHell (talk) 10:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC) I just noticed that someone has posted a date: September 20. According to the specified source, it is September 30. What should we do?--HawkFromHell (talk) 07:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Now, we don't have to do anything. Someone edited it to be the same as the source, and the source is definitely reliable.  Remember, if you have the source be bold!--Iner22 (talk) 17:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S. I was the one who edited it. I knew that it was September 30. Now that's over and done with, maybe Release Date Source can be closed. The date on the bottom of Bungie Weekly whatever was the release date of Halo 3 mythic map pack.--HawkFromHell (talk) 09:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

This topic has been closed under authority of: '''Nobody. Absolutely nobody.'''--HawkFromHell (talk) 09:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

New Info
There's just been tons of new info released by Bungie at their site (ex- scheduled release date is Sept 22, 2009, a new gamemode called "Firefight" which is sort of like a Halo 3 version of Nazi Zombies, etc, etc) Go to the Halo 3: ODST project page at Bungie.net. I suggest updating the page so it agrees with all the new info released.

70.119.157.33 (talk) 21:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)