Forum:Halo 4: The Essential Visual Guide

Forums: Index → General Discussion → Halo 4: The Essential Visual Guide

Figured with the release, I'd start the discussion. I have to say I'm not even half way done and I find this Guide much more informative then the previous guide, particularly the section on Fireteam majestic. Col. Snipes450 14:29, 16 September 2013 (EDT)

I still need to get my hands on one. Anything particularly interesting?Sith-venator Wavingstrider (Commlink) 14:31, 16 September 2013 (EDT)

There's a few significant revelations (I won't spoil). Col. Snipes450 15:20, 16 September 2013 (EDT)

But spoilers are gooooooooooooooooooooood.Sith-venator Wavingstrider (Commlink) 16:01, 16 September 2013 (EDT)

Think I'll wait to buy it until I see some reviews of it. Hopefully the mistakes, if any, are few and far between (*cough* Halo Encyclopedia *cough*).--Spartacus ^{Talk • Contribs} 15:27, 16 September 2013 (EDT)

I have certainly tried to minimize that. It had 5 full review passes and it changed quite a bit from the version I first saw in February.It will not be the Encyclopedia all over again. :)-ScaleMaster117 (talk) 15:39, 16 September 2013 (EDT)

I can vouch for that. Aside from the fact that it uses the word "ad hoc" a little too often, the mistakes are very minimal. It is a must-have item for every hardcore Halo fan. --Xamikaze330 [Transmission|Commencing] 15:41, 16 September 2013 (EDT)Xamikaze330

Grrr you guys are teasing me :| Sith-venator Wavingstrider (Commlink) 16:00, 16 September 2013 (EDT)

Onager

Just wondering is the Onager in Halo 4 specifically identified as the same type in Halo: Reach? Because the Guide is saying there is another type in Halo 4. Col. Snipes450 18:23, 16 September 2013 (EDT)

Yeah, you're right. We'll have to use the same article, but create a subsection to cover both variants. I'm working on it. --Xamikaze330 [Transmission|Commencing] 18:28, 16 September 2013 (EDT)Xamikaze330

Infinity sub-vessels

The EVG says the sub-vessels of the Infinity are a different class frigate then what's currently listed here. Just wondering if the sub-vessel's class has already been confirmed or we just assumed what it was.Col. Snipes450 21:55, 17 September 2013 (EDT)

Hmmm...it's actually pretty explicit on the Strident-class page that they are the frigates docked in the Infinity. Not sure where your reference comes from. In which entry does it come into question? -ScaleMaster117 (talk) 22:02, 17 September 2013 (EDT)

Ok that's what the EVG says and what i meant, I read the SO episode with the sub vessel being labelled as a different class, I'll just change that article.Col. Snipes450 22:14, 17 September 2013 (EDT)

Spartan ranks

As established in the Guide, the Spartan branch has only two ranks, Spartan and Spartan commander. I was wondering how these could be added in terms of the rank category. I was thinking one page titled "Spartan (rank)" detailing the normal Spartan's role and the Spartan commander's role. Another option is just adding it as a section in the branch's page. I'm open for suggestions. Col. Snipes450 16:26, 19 September 2013 (EDT)

Holy frack, two ranks?Sith-venator Wavingstrider (Commlink) 17:01, 19 September 2013 (EDT)

You seem to want them to have ranks but the Guide doesn't really say that. It explicitly says that all Spartans are equal and that detachments operate under a commander (note the use in the guide of the lowercase "c") and other Spartans are just assembled into fireteams and a fireteam has a leader (also not a rank, just a position). 'Spartan' is not a rank, but simply what they are. Don't over-complicate. :) -ScaleMaster117 (talk) 17:18, 19 September 2013 (EDT)

So we're back down to one rank?Sith-venator Wavingstrider (Commlink) 17:25, 19 September 2013 (EDT)

Pretty much. There really is no need to over-complicate things. --Xamikaze330 [Transmission|Commencing] 17:26, 19 September 2013 (EDT)Xamikaze330

No ranks among the Spartan-IVs! Palmer as a "commmader" (again, lowercase "c") is a term to indicate she's in charge; a position, it's not a "rank". DeMarco is the leader of a fireteam but is the equal to Palmer and Hoya for instance within the Spartan Branch. They are all Spartans. Their job positions give some more authority in a few cases, but there are no rank distinctions. -ScaleMaster117 (talk) 17:36, 19 September 2013 (EDT)

So an entire branch of the military has no ranks. Hmm. This kind of seems like a bad move considering that militaries that have done this in the past always go back to using ranks due to difficulties with command and control.Sith-venator Wavingstrider (Commlink) 17:44, 19 September 2013 (EDT)

It's like they went back to the Stone Age in terms of military organization. Or a hippie commune. I could see this kind of arrangement working in a small, tight-knit elite unit (like the original S-IIs who did have ranks) but an entire military branch with hundreds, if not thousands of members? I'm wondering where the Spartans fit in the chain of command between different branches; for instance, what is the pay grade of a "Spartan"? Are they subordinate to conventional military commanders in the field? Could the multiplayer "SR" ranks be canon in any capacity or are they just a leaderboard type ranking system? --Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 00:10, 20 September 2013 (EDT)

If you say it out loud it sounds even stranger.Sith-venator Wavingstrider (Commlink) 00:32, 20 September 2013 (EDT)

I don't know the entire reason for it, but I'm under the impression that although these are volunteers for the Branch, the Spartans are still rather used as battlefield weapons. Their SR if you will is based on the skills they have and hone in the War Games simulations. They fall into line with the mission at hand. With hundreds to choose from, you get a mission where you need a good sniper, a demolitions expert, and a couple of fastest sprinters and you gather who you need for your Fireteam. It's a skill-based organization rather than a top-down rank hierarchy. I don't know how they interact with other branches and who's subordinate to whom in that case. -ScaleMaster117 (talk) 06:42, 20 September 2013 (EDT)

Ok so my second option seems to be the popular choice, just a section on the Spartan branch page detailing them. Also, ScaleMaster raises a good point how would their branch's "ranking system" interact with the other branches. Palmer in Episode 2 referred to Captain Lasky as "Tom", while it was an extreme circumstance it was informal meaning a Spartan commander must hold some standing in their detachment's theatre. Col. Snipes450 13:51, 20 September 2013 (EDT)

...or it indicates that there may be a certain friendship level they share. There are a few exchanges and jibes between them that suggest a close friendship. on the other matter, I would also like to know the inter-Branch hierarchy.-ScaleMaster117 (talk) 14:03, 20 September 2013 (EDT)

Well there is Del Rio referring to Palmer as "lieutenant", so maybe they refer to their former rank, personally I think this one rank for hundreds, maybe thousands could end up being a little messy. Col. Snipes450 14:19, 20 September 2013 (EDT)

What's not clear there is that there is a seated Infinity crew member in the background behind Palmer, so it's unknown if Del Rio was addressing Palmer (outside his Navy Branch) or his officer on the bridge... -ScaleMaster117 (talk) 15:15, 20 September 2013 (EDT)

I'm pretty sure this is going to end up getting retconned, or rather, "expanded upon". ;P --DC Ambrose (talk) 16:13, 27 September 2013 (EDT)

Mantle's Approach Exaggerated

I'm sorry but I'm just not buying the Mantle's Approach's dimensions. In my opinion it seems A LOT smaller than what is specified. I thought a Broadsword run length of almost 30 miles was enough but now they say the ship is almost 90 miles long w/ a height of 230 miles?? To me that just doesn't seem right. In fact, when playing the level Midnight and flying around the area around the composer, it seems more like the ship would have a height similar or larger than the length of a covie supercarrier - maybe around 30 miles with the length being maybe 10-15 miles. It's almost as if those dimensions are over exaggerated. You can tell that it's not that big by the hole that is created when the Infinity fires at the ship and the general area around the composer in relation to the size of the broadsword (and even the cut-scene where the Didact's crytum enters the ship). I attached the ship w/ a pic of the Infinity w/ what I believe is it's actual size. Also how can a small nuke destroy a ship that is 230 mi's high? Wouldn't it only be able to destroy maybe 30 miles of it?--Killamint [Comm|Files] 09:50, 22 September 2013 (EDT)

I'm sorry you're not buying that the ship's dimensions "feel" wrong. Hard data trumps feelings, fortunately. Like most gigantic objects in the Halo games, the big objects are made smaller for various reasons, mostly to conserve game memory and to limit depth of field issues. I personally verified 343i's 6 page doc of stats and calculations just about the Mantle's Approach itself! In fact it was the first verification I did working on the Guide, before a copy of the book was even sent. I ran the numbers and verified values of the full ship mesh, various portions of in-between scaled meshes, plus the actual sized mesh of the playable area that has the defense turrets. Despite your "feeling", it does make sense and I wish I could prove it beyond these few words. Hint: The area you see damaged by Infinity is a smaller circle-within-a-circle than what is the obvious red-outlined area of the firing area on the full Mantle's Approach mesh. In the material I reviewed they even showed an area that had the damage in it from Infinity and the Broadsword playable area is tiny! Once the dimensions of Mantle's Approach was confirmed, I used that to calculate the size of Requiem as that was still unknown at the time. Coincidentally (based on the ship's height) Requiem ended up about slightly larger than a Halo ring in diameter. -ScaleMaster117 (talk) 10:19, 22 September 2013 (EDT)

That still doesn't answer the question of how a small nuke can destroy a ship the size of Maryland. And even then, if they had to make the ship smaller to fit in the game, why not just make the dimensions concide with the in-game size? To me, it just falls under the category of inconsistency and not like the POA where "the maw" was longer than the actual size. Halo 4 does the opposite and that's what's bugging me. I'm not looking at this from a perpective of "feelings". Its more along the lines of what does and doesn't make sense to me. Its too over the top for me to believe even if you ran the numbers. Not to say you're wrong. It is what it is. If you can, put together a new scale comparison of the new ships from Halo 4 (like w/ what you've done w/ all the other ships). With those new dimensions I want to see how big it scales in comparison to the rest of the ships in the game since my lil comparion is way off.--Killamint [Comm|Files] 12:58, 7 October 2013 (EDT)

We know Forerunner ships are often full of hard light components, up to a third or more of their mass. Perhaps the nuke only destroyed a quarter of the ship that the rest of disintegration came from the hard light part dematerializing. We also saw a relatively small part of the debris field in following cutscene. There may have been bigger chunks floating away from Chief. Tuckerscreator^(stalk) 15:08, 7 October 2013 (EDT)

That, and maybe the nuke violently collapsing the Composer's slipspace field and/or other vital systems in the immediate area caused much more widespread damage than the explosion alone. At least that's the only reasonable way I could see this happening. Possibly combined with healthy doses of hard light structure, though I would assume that the hull and foundational structure of a warship would be made of actual matter despite the Forerunners' love for hard light; I reckon hard light hulls won't be much good if the power goes out. --Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 23:46, 7 October 2013 (EDT)

The caption on the Mantle's Approach page indicates the "hull is held together by hard light bonds" so your supposition is accurate, Jugus. To Killamint, the reason the ship was made smaller was so it could entirely appear on screen at once. If it's too large, it's furthest dimensions will vanish due to the Xbox not being able to draw polygons out that far. Like seeing trees disappearing in the far distance. The engine can't render everything that should be in sight...only out to a defined distance. They intended the ship to be that size. The central section we fly around in with the Broadsword shows that. When it's possible for me to update my scale charts with Halo 4 info, I will do so. I have a bunch more Reach items I can add and will try to do so soon. -ScaleMaster117 (talk) 20:13, 8 October 2013 (EDT)

I understand why they made the ship smaller. Again, what I don't understand is why they didn't just make the visual guide dimensions the same as in-game? In other words make the two correspond with one another, if its 30 miles in-game make it 30 miles in the visual guide, instead of just saying its 200 whatever miles long while its only 30 miles long in-game. In other other words, they did this but the opposite which the opposite doesn't make too much sense to me given the whacky dimensions. To me it was okay to make the FUD (not the retcon) and POA larger in-game to correspond w/ gameplay but to take something and shrink it down 7 times its actual size and say its 7 times larger doesn't make sense to me. At least the FUD & POA were made only 2-3 times larger and thats it. As for the hardlight logic, that makes sense but its still baffling to me that the WHOLE ship was reduced to glittery bits but not a whole part of it staying intact though Tucker said chunks of it may have been off screen. Like Jugus said the entire ship may not have been composed of mostly hardlight. I also find the whole "hardlight everywhere" and "disintegration" to be a lil gimmicky but that's another issue...--Killamint [Comm|Files] 12:37, 17 October 2013 (EDT)

Halopedia Dating Service

Does the Visual Guide have anything on the dates of Halo 4's events, i.e. what day the Didact's attack on Earth happened, when Cortana died, etc.? Tuckerscreator^(stalk) 14:54, 29 September 2013 (EDT)

Unfortunately, no. It's maddening. We used to get time and date stamps for every chapter of a book when it started out and now they're very tight-lipped about giving us dates at all. Not sure why, but it's a slide in the wrong direction. -ScaleMaster117 (talk) 16:23, 29 September 2013 (EDT)

It's probably to avoid painting themselves in a corner if they decide to set later fiction in an earlier period of time; I recall them mentioning something to that effect by the time of Reach's release. I also suppose it's easier for them to keep track of just a few general dates than the Nylundian level of precision. But yeah, their current approach does make organizing things a chore. --Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 23:49, 29 September 2013 (EDT)