| Latest revision |
Your text |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{Archived}}
| | = Eric Nylund's Halo: First Strike novel' Pistol = |
| == I STILL think it's a bad idea to consider the Halo 3 and Reach versions different sub-variants == | | Did any one ever think that the pistols in the novel could be the M6G considering they are described as being quite powerful and having a larger and longer barrel. |
|
| |
|
| For one thing, there is no canon evidence to suggest the differences in appearance represent different sub-variants. Wouldn't it make more sense to simply consider the Reach M6G the EXACT same weapon as the Halo 3 M6G, but with some artistic license and an underslung scope slapped on to it? Why is this so crazy to believe?--File:PENGUIN4.gif|15px]]''[[User:FluffyEmoPenguin|<span style="color:black; font-family:Verdana">Fluffy</span><span style="color:gray; font-family:Verdana">Emo</span><span style="color:black; font-family:Verdana">Penguin</span>]]<sup><small>([[User talk:FluffyEmoPenguin|<span style="color:gray">ice quack!</span>]])''</small></sup> 19:32, 27 September 2014 (EDT)
| | [[User:BlueTwo|B2]] 00:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| :Considering that even when the smallest detail is enough to warrant a sub-variant for a real-world weapon, I guess it makes sense for the M6G. It is still essentially the same weapon, just for a different particular role/purpose.
| | == Pistol or Magnum? == |
| :I intend to revert [http://www.halopedia.org/index.php?title=M6G_magnum&curid=14096&diff=1096943&oldid=1096918 this edit] soon. The reason for this is essentially because the "unusable scope" is referring to gameplay, not canon (hence the "Gameplay" section). Also, since all M6 series with smart-link [[KFA-2 x2]] scope has 'em on the same place, thus by simple deduction, the top attachment on the M6G is also a KFA-2 x2. Any other reason why I should not revert that edit? — <span style="font-size:14px; font-family:Arial;">[[User:Subtank|<span style="color:#FF4F00;">subtank</span>]]</span> 13:28, 28 September 2014 (EDT)
| |
|
| |
|
| ::[https://www.halowaypoint.com/en-us/universe/detail/f4c403d6-269e-499a-ac14-9a696e0a5b27/magnum This Halo Waypoint page] lists all the footnotes of each variant, and despite stating that other M6 variants are issued with the KFA-2 scope, it does not state that the M6G is issued with a KFA-2 scope. In each variant's description, it clearly indicates that "standard-issue" is in contrast with "Officer's model—issued with smart-linked scope [KFA-2]" ("standard-issue", "Officer's model", and "Accurized" are never on the same weapon, and "standard-issue" DOES appear on weapons that say "Up-sized". So, basic logic tells us that "standard-issue" means it is not an officer's model with the KFA-2 scope, it's not an accurized model with the 4x scope, and it's not something funky like the variants at the bottom of the list). The M6G is listed as "standard-issue". This means one of two things: 1) That the scope for Reach's 2546 M6G is an extra attachment that was not issued with the weapon; or 2) That the M6G as of 2546 was indeed issued with a scope, and as of 2552 (when this list was made) the M6G did away with the scope. '''In either instance, the Halo 3 2552 M6G can not be issued with a scope.'''
| | Should this article be named M6G Pistol or M6G Magnum? This article mentions BOTH. Confusing.... |
| ::The fact that the M6D has its KFA-2 scope mounted in the top plate is not evidence enough that the top attachment in Halo 3's M6G is a KFA-2 scope. There is overwhelming evidence against that, as I have provided above. There's also the fact that it even resembles a laser sight (the tiny red dot).--File:PENGUIN4.gif|15px]]''[[User:FluffyEmoPenguin|<span style="color:black; font-family:Verdana">Fluffy</span><span style="color:gray; font-family:Verdana">Emo</span><span style="color:black; font-family:Verdana">Penguin</span>]]<sup><small>([[User talk:FluffyEmoPenguin|<span style="color:gray">ice quack!</span>]])''</small></sup> 14:49, 28 September 2014 (EDT)
| |
|
| |
|
| ::Another thing, there are many differences in appearance and even gameplay among other weapons in Halo that change from game to game, yet they are still the same variant and we don't actually put that in the articles unless there is substantial evidence. Otherwise, we would have to say that each M41 rocket launcher in each Halo game is a subvariant of the M41 simply because they look different and have slightly tweaked stats.--File:PENGUIN4.gif|15px]]''[[User:FluffyEmoPenguin|<span style="color:black; font-family:Verdana">Fluffy</span><span style="color:gray; font-family:Verdana">Emo</span><span style="color:black; font-family:Verdana">Penguin</span>]]<sup><small>([[User talk:FluffyEmoPenguin|<span style="color:gray">ice quack!</span>]])''</small></sup> 14:54, 28 September 2014 (EDT)
| | == Renaming == |
|
| |
|
| :::I'm definitely on the side that the top attachment is the scope, and it's usually red making it look like a laser, even not in H3. Halo 3's is the only inconsistency, and it's simply not usable for gameplay reasons. Remember that the M6D was updated to look identical to the H3 M6G (since the only difference is supposed to be a higher zoom scope, more precise barrel, and different magazine, similar to the MA5B and C being visually identical), and it the M6D has a scope and only the top attachment. Worth noting is that nearly everything in Reach got a flashlight, and it definitely seems like they intended to bring that back on weapons a la H:CE, but cut it for whatever reason and threw in the half-assed night vision (which makes no sense for Spartans); the bottom attachment in Reach is almost certainly a light. There's also the point that the top attachment, I dunno, ''makes the iron sights completely unusable'', so a scope is the only logical thing to have there. Halo 3's scope simply being unusable in gameplay is the simplest and most logical explanation, and the only one that isn't rather convoluted and inconsistent. [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] ([[User talk:Alex T Snow|talk]]) 15:43, 28 September 2014 (EDT)
| | Hey, why don't you guys rename this article "M6G HE Magnum"? |
| | |
| ::::You're missing the point. It canonically CAN'T be a scope in Halo 3. This isn't based on gameplay, it's based on what 343 has posted about the weapon's lore. There's also the fact that it features a small pinprick red point, which is different from the other glowing red dots on these weapons. That's indicative of a laser sight. As for in CE Anniversary, the skins used for the M6D and MA5B are literally just taken from Halo 3's variants and aren't meant to represent what those weapons actually look like. It also makes complete sense to me that the only real difference between the Halo 3 and Reach M6G is the bottom attachment. What was added in the Reach version? Zoom! What is new about the Reach version's appearance? A bottom attachment! It's simple stuff, guys. Also, about iron sights being unusable, UNSC personnel all use smart-linked aiming and only rely on manual sights when something malfunctions with it. While it would make it all nice and tidy if every M6 pistol's top attachment was a scope, this is not justification enough for it to be canon. It's entirely assumptive. You can put more than just a scope on attachment slots, you know.--File:PENGUIN4.gif|15px]]''[[User:FluffyEmoPenguin|<span style="color:black; font-family:Verdana">Fluffy</span><span style="color:gray; font-family:Verdana">Emo</span><span style="color:black; font-family:Verdana">Penguin</span>]]<sup><small>([[User talk:FluffyEmoPenguin|<span style="color:gray">ice quack!</span>]])''</small></sup> 16:26, 28 September 2014 (EDT)
| |
| | |
| :::::I could see H3's being a laser sight, as that's also a form of sight, but Reach's would definitely be scope top/light bottom. You're being a little too picky with attachments relating to variants; the attachments are modular, you could easily remove both the top and bottom attachment from Reach's in-universe, and/or replace them with something else. The bottom attachment being a scope is completely inconsistent with everything else, and Reach getting zoom and that attachment is an example of correlation does not equal causation. [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] ([[User talk:Alex T Snow|talk]]) 22:41, 28 September 2014 (EDT)
| |
| | |
| ::::::You're telling me about correlation does not equal causation when you're saying the Halo 3 M6G has a scope up top because that's where it is on all the others (and actually, the only one where we DO know for certain is the M6D, as its top attachment is its only one). Also, the M6C/SOCOM's scope is mounted underneath it, so it's not inconsistent at all. And again, you don't even NEED a physical sight in Halo's weaponry. Everything is smart-linked to either the user's HUD or neural interface.
| |
| ::::::Basically, what I'd like to get out of this discussion is this: neither explanation can confirm what the attachments are, so why jump the gun and put it in the article like you magically know for certain?--File:PENGUIN4.gif|15px]]''[[User:FluffyEmoPenguin|<span style="color:black; font-family:Verdana">Fluffy</span><span style="color:gray; font-family:Verdana">Emo</span><span style="color:black; font-family:Verdana">Penguin</span>]]<sup><small>([[User talk:FluffyEmoPenguin|<span style="color:gray">ice quack!</span>]])''</small></sup> 00:14, 29 September 2014 (EDT)
| |
| | |
| :::::::The SOCOM does indeed have a scope and light, and the scope is again red like a laser, while the light is a light. I don't mind them being listed as unknown in the article, though this is really something we need cleared up with 343. [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] ([[User talk:Alex T Snow|talk]]) 02:07, 29 September 2014 (EDT)
| |
| | |
| ''(reset indent)'' I don't see why it's not possible to simply state something along the lines of "the M6G can also be equipped with a smart-link scope" with a footnote clarifying that "per source A and source B, the smart-link scope is not part of the standard-issue M6G suite contrary to popular belief." It's all a matter of phrasing. In fact, the article has already done so: ''"In addition, the weapon <u>can</u> be issued with a KFA-2 x2 optical, smart-linked scope."'' Note the underlined, which carries the meaning that it ''can'' be equipped with such attachment, and contrast it with it ''is'' equipped with such attachment which essentially means it's standard-issue. The M6D ''is'' issued with the KFA-2, hence <code>"M6D – ”Up-sized,” ”Officer's model”—issued with smart-linked scope [KFA-2]/hard chrome finish"</code> makes sense. Similarly, the M6G ''can'' be issued with the KFA-2, hence <code>"M6G – “Up-sized,” standard issue/electroless nickel finish"</code> would still make sense. As such, I don't agree with your assessment that the M6G ''cannot'' be equipped/issued with a smart-link scope: it can be issued with such scope, only that by doing so it wouldn't be considered a standard-issue.
| |
| | |
| Also, you need a physical input device (i.e. scope) in order to relay the information to an output (i.e. the HUD). Plus, there's nothing wrong with having a physical sight on a weapon. Per Kurt, ''"Don't rely on technology. Machines are easy to break."'' — <span style="font-size:14px; font-family:Arial;">[[User:Subtank|<span style="color:#FF4F00;">subtank</span>]]</span> 07:20, 29 September 2014 (EDT)
| |
| | |
| :This STILL isn't confirmation for anything, though. The wiki doesn't run on pure speculation, and we can't just assume the M6G found in Halo 3 is equipped with a scope. If there's anything I would like to get out of this conversation, it's that. Also, the M6C found in Halo 2 has absolutely no visible devices, just iron sights, yet its aiming is linked to the HUD.--File:PENGUIN4.gif|15px]]''[[User:FluffyEmoPenguin|<span style="color:black; font-family:Verdana">Fluffy</span><span style="color:gray; font-family:Verdana">Emo</span><span style="color:black; font-family:Verdana">Penguin</span>]]<sup><small>([[User talk:FluffyEmoPenguin|<span style="color:gray">ice quack!</span>]])''</small></sup> 10:02, 29 September 2014 (EDT)
| |
| | |
| ::There's consistent information to suggest exactly what I've stated (per previous comments) and that's the view I'm taking for the purpose of this discussion (a constructive approach). You're taking the view that it has to be expressly stated as such that the M6G is equipped with a scope (a literal approach) which is unlikely to happen unless 343i staff were to comment on this in their forum site (by all means, please do!). Regarding your comment about M6C in ''H2'', you're forgetting that that's purely gameplay. Otherwise, you're also suggesting that the UNSC/Covenant's HUD is compatible with Forerunner's Sentinel Beam since it can display the weapon's reticule, or that the HUD has to aim for the user when wielding the energy sword/hammer.— <span style="font-size:14px; font-family:Arial;">[[User:Subtank|<span style="color:#FF4F00;">subtank</span>]]</span> 11:17, 29 September 2014 (EDT)
| |
| | |
| :::The only M6 variant where we know the KFA-2 is mounted on top is the M6D. It's hardly a "consistency" when our only thing to go off of is 1 single variant. Another thing I'd like to point out, the top-mounted attachment for the M6D is called "#laser" in the game's files, suggesting that it was originally intended to be a laser sight (found on trivia section for M6D). That makes it not so far-fetched to believe that the Halo 3 M6G's top attachment could be intended to be a laser sight. About HUD compatibilities, in Halo 4 when the Master Chief is supposedly the very first human in millennia to pick up a Promethean weapon, it has the ability to link information to his HUD (though this could be through Cortana's assistance). We also don't know exactly what calculates weapon aiming data and transmits it to the user. It could be a very minuscule device built into the weapon itself (like a simple gyroscope) or it could even be the user's own HUD software taking in visual data about the weapon's angle and calculating the aiming coordinates from there.--File:PENGUIN4.gif|15px]]''[[User:FluffyEmoPenguin|<span style="color:black; font-family:Verdana">Fluffy</span><span style="color:gray; font-family:Verdana">Emo</span><span style="color:black; font-family:Verdana">Penguin</span>]]<sup><small>([[User talk:FluffyEmoPenguin|<span style="color:gray">ice quack!</span>]])''</small></sup> 11:41, 29 September 2014 (EDT)
| |
| | |
| ::::There's the M6H, which pretty much cements the placement of the KFA-2. Also, game files are hardly conclusive proof (unless they are the only point of reference/source for a creation of an article ), especially when they are from HCE (i.e. John's biped is titled <code>"cyborg"</code>). They are simply for developer's ease of reference and was not intended for players.
| |
| ::::I'll simply say the same thing about the HUD and H4: gameplay with a mix of canon. The developer's intention when designing the game must be taken into consideration. For H2, Bungie cared little about the HUD and canon and preferred focusing on gameplay experience. Only 343i took a stricter approach with the HUD design (even though it makes even more less sense with its over-representation of... everything). Even then, it does not address the issue with melee weapons and their reticules being present when wielding them. — <span style="font-size:14px; font-family:Arial;">[[User:Subtank|<span style="color:#FF4F00;">subtank</span>]]</span> 12:10, 29 September 2014 (EDT)
| |
| | |
| :::::Yes, it's very true that game files aren't concrete explanations, but I was just using that as a proof of concept. And for the M6H, what exactly tells us where its KFA-2 is located?--File:PENGUIN4.gif|15px]]''[[User:FluffyEmoPenguin|<span style="color:black; font-family:Verdana">Fluffy</span><span style="color:gray; font-family:Verdana">Emo</span><span style="color:black; font-family:Verdana">Penguin</span>]]<sup><small>([[User talk:FluffyEmoPenguin|<span style="color:gray">ice quack!</span>]])''</small></sup> 12:23, 29 September 2014 (EDT)
| |
| | |
| ::::::Well, observe the following:
| |
| ::::::#A standard-issue M6D has a KFA-2 scope. Similarly, a standard-issue M6H has the same scope.
| |
| ::::::#On the M6D, the only visible scope-like attachment is the top attachment. Since it looks like a scope, it must be the said KFA-2 scope.
| |
| ::::::#On the M6H, there are two attachments; top and bottom. Top one looks like the M6D's scope while the bottom one is not present on the M6D (i.e. HCEA is simply a reskin).
| |
| ::::::#From here, we can safely assume that the top attachment on the M6H must be the KFA-2 since (3) is identical to/the same as (2). The bottom attachment must be something else since it is not identical to/the same as (2). — <span style="font-size:14px; font-family:Arial;">[[User:Subtank|<span style="color:#FF4F00;">subtank</span>]]</span> 12:30, 29 September 2014 (EDT)
| |
| | |
| :::::::The M6H's top and bottom attachments are too similar for it to be conclusive. Both the top and bottom modules house a cylindrical object of the same dimensions. In Reach, they are only differentiated by the color that glows on their tips. In Halo 4, neither has a glowing color. It seems you could easily swap each cylindrical object out and place it in the other's module.--File:PENGUIN4.gif|15px]]''[[User:FluffyEmoPenguin|<span style="color:black; font-family:Verdana">Fluffy</span><span style="color:gray; font-family:Verdana">Emo</span><span style="color:black; font-family:Verdana">Penguin</span>]]<sup><small>([[User talk:FluffyEmoPenguin|<span style="color:gray">ice quack!</span>]])''</small></sup> 13:12, 29 September 2014 (EDT)
| |
| | |
| ::::::::I'm not seeing the similarity. Regardless, we should be concerned with the consistency in the design (i.e. consistent placement of the scope in the M6 series). M6D has already set the precedent, so it's way easier to simply follow precedence unless expressly told otherwise. — <span style="font-size:14px; font-family:Arial;">[[User:Subtank|<span style="color:#FF4F00;">subtank</span>]]</span> 07:51, 30 September 2014 (EDT)
| |
| :::::::::That's okay to assume, but I don't think that's something to put in the article. At the very least, we can't jump to the wild assumption that the H3 M6G has a scope on it that we simply can't use. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.--File:PENGUIN4.gif|15px]]''[[User:FluffyEmoPenguin|<span style="color:black; font-family:Verdana">Fluffy</span><span style="color:gray; font-family:Verdana">Emo</span><span style="color:black; font-family:Verdana">Penguin</span>]]<sup><small>([[User talk:FluffyEmoPenguin|<span style="color:gray">ice quack!</span>]])''</small></sup> 12:47, 30 September 2014 (EDT)
| |
| ::::::::::It makes perfect sense that it's a scope we can't use, there are plenty of weapon attachments we can't use in-game, there's definitely a precedent for that. It's not speculation, not in the sense you're meaning it, it's simple A + B = C. It's using logic and other known facts, like how we can know that (especially in H2/3/ODST) reload animations are not done in ways that make sense (ie always as if they're empty or never empty). It's obvious that the H2/3/ODST Magnums simply don't have a correct empty reload animation, as opposed to saying "what if they have some fancy future tech that lets them reload like that?". It's not ''exactly'' the same situation, but it's the same line of reasoning; we have to fill in the gaps where the gaps are obvious. [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] ([[User talk:Alex T Snow|talk]]) 13:57, 30 September 2014 (EDT)
| |
| ::::::::::Adding to what Alex said, there's a strong correlation based on multiple observations that it is more than likely that the top attachment is a KFA-2 scope. It's not really a wild conclusion. Anyway, I've made the appropriate changes (maintaining a few while reverting others). — <span style="font-size:14px; font-family:Arial;">[[User:Subtank|<span style="color:#FF4F00;">subtank</span>]]</span> 02:14, 4 October 2014 (EDT)
| |
| | |
| :::::::::::Just caught this discussion now. The Magnum entry in the first Essential Visual Guide (p116) shows the callout pointing at the top scope as being the KFA-2. When we made the guide, the images being selected for inclusion would preferentially be from Reach, in cases where an object spanned several games, as at that time it had he highest-quality models/images to render. Now, the lower attachment is referred to a a LAM (Laser-Aiming Module) for the M6H model in Halo 4 from that game's Visual Guide (p64). It's essentially the same piece found on the Reach variant, so it's not the scope. -[[User:ScaleMaster117|ScaleMaster117]] ([[User talk:ScaleMaster117|talk]]) 08:31, 4 October 2014 (EDT)
| |
| | |
| ::::::::::::Damn, I ''have'' the Halo 4 Essential Visual Guide and I didn't think to check it. I'll do that next time. :/ [[User:Alex T Snow|Alex T Snow]] ([[User talk:Alex T Snow|talk]]) 20:05, 4 October 2014 (EDT)
| |
| | |
| ::::::::::::I have the EVG with me, but I kinda figured someone would argue that the callout could potentially be an [[Halo:_The_Essential_Visual_Guide#Errors|error/oversight]]. Glad we have somewhat of a definitive answer. — <span style="font-size:14px; font-family:Arial;">[[User:Subtank|<span style="color:#FF4F00;">subtank</span>]]</span> 09:11, 8 October 2014 (EDT)
| |