Talk:343 Guilty Spark/Archive

seperation from arbiter, johnson, and miranda

how come 343 does not apear in halo 3 until the the 5th level even though he was with johnson, miranda, and the arbiter at the end of halo 2?

• I think he was on the Elite's ship. Notice how he appears after the Phantom shows up. I think he was on that.--WarGrowlmon18 17:23, October 12, 2009 (UTC)
• If you have live watch on halo waypoint "the long road home." That explains it.Gubreez 02:07, April 16, 2010 (UTC)

escape from instalation 05

question? how do the Arbiter, Johnson, and miranda get back to earth from delta halo and how come in halo three you dont find 343 guilty spark until the 5th level because at the end of the second game he was with the arbiter, johnson and miranda

Appearence

Did anyone remember seeing news about spark on Halo 3Master Chief Petty Officer 05:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it was in an update i'm not sure.

No where does it say about energy shields...Halo3 21:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)--Halo3

Apparently it does not say he has an impervious energy shield so please do not put it up.Halo3 03:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)--Halo3

Seven ref

3,4,3 and 04 combine to make 14 a product of 7

An unlikely reference what with 343 being 7³ and all. --Dragonclaws^(talk) 09:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

meh seriously tho 343's digit values and his installations designation equals 14--CHr0n0sPh3r3 11:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)cHR0n0sPh3r3

I am serious. 343 on its own is a product of multiple sevens, and so is 2401. 2, 4, 0, 1, and 05 making 12 has no seven reference to it, while 7⁴ clearly does. --Dragonclaws^(talk) 05:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I hate saying this but who cares if Spark is a reference of 7? ΜΆŜΤΈŖČΗέÏΣΡΈΤΤΥОΓΓïČëŗ 12:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Because it's trivia. Something worth noting on Halopedia. --Dragonclaws^(talk) 05:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah well, I wouldn't say it isn't worth anything ΜΆŜΤΈŖČΗέÏΣΡΈΤΤΥОΓΓïČëŗ 07:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Origin Theories

While the article emphasizes that a variety of elaborate theories exist about 343 Guilty Spark and the origins of his name, it seems to strongly suggest that the name is the result of some prior misdeed performed by it. If he set off the Halos and killed the Forerunners, why would he then rename himself? If he earned his name by prematurely firing the Halos the last time around, he's the only one who could apply that stigma to himself - and he certainly doesn't seem the least bit concerned with wiping out everyone in the galaxy a second time.

Given his task of ensuring the Halos' firing in the event of a Flood outbreak, wouldn't it make much more Occam's Razor-friendly sense that the Forerunners gave him that designation while they were alive, knowing what his future task may be? The simplest and therefore most likely explanation is that we're all just looking into it too much - that the Forerunners gave him that name, and that it wasn't meant to imply that he was responsible for their extinction.

Of course, simple and most likely isn't Bungie's style. Maybe they even rewrite canon when more complicated fan theories turn out to be really good ideas, like in this case. But I'm willing to bet that 343 Guilty Spark was named by the Forerunners, and not after their extinction.

• Meh, I honestly like the theory most people had before: That 343 may have had something to do with activating the halos. Even with the whole Mendicant Bias thing, 343 may have urged the forrunner to perform such an action before Bias became rampant. The question 343 mentions in two betrayals might also suggest this. When he says he's had much time to ponder the question, he might imply that at some point he questioned whether he really WOULD have done it had it been his choice, but that guilt might have been short lived. Theres a slight other thing I noticed: theres no mention in the protocal section that in Halo 2, spark does still breifly go according to protocal. He says that he can't interfere with Halo's activation, and tries to stall before telling Miranda how to stop it.

Shocked

[SPOILERS]

When GS first fired his "Sentinal" beam, I was both shocked and "OMFGWTFJUSTHAPPENEDAWSOME". Throughout the game, I started the feel he was finally helping us and was a cool guy. But when he went bananas and killed Sarge....not cool at all! So, it really comes full circle: First game he starts helpful eventually becomes a sh@@head, final game he starts out nice and becomes a sh@@head once more! Arent trilogies great? Kap2310 20:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Are we sure he's Male? well sure he has a male Voice but is he male? he could be female for all we know. oh well.. --þ†öW讥 ^{^ (UNSC Fleetcom)(UNSC Mision Log)} 21:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a monitor as far as I'm concern. ΜΆŜΤΈŖČΗέÏΣΡΈΤΤΥОΓΓïČëŗ 11:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Ptowery, I just always assumed it was a he but I guess we sould refer to GS as IT from now on. Kap2310 20:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

And yet, its gender is still marked as male. The other thing that strikes me is that the article states that he is a murderer, which doesn't make much sense to me, since murder is he intentional and unlawful killing of a human by a human 124.177.65.170 08:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

In the beggining of the article the one statement about 343 being the "murderer of Captain King" has me confused since theres no source and Ive never heard of any "Captain King" in the games or books, if there is an actual "Captain King" then my bad. Oh and yes I know I should have made this in a new catagory or whatever you call it but I dont know how and I figure someone will get this eventully.....I hope

Please note that I will be erasing the "Male" part on his fact sheet since it hasn't been mention he's a male. ΜΆŜΤΈŖČΗέÏΣΡΈΤΤΥОΓΓïČëŗ 11:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

In TF, Spark is referred to as "it" until pg255, where MC says "Hold on now. He's a friend." Then Cortana and the narrator refer to Spark by male pronouns. --Dragonclaws^(talk) 20:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

he survives the destrution of Halo 04 but gets killed by a spartan laser seriously thats alittle offDerekproxy

• He probably teleported to the Gas Mine or to space before the explosion.--WarGrowlmon18 17:25, October 12, 2009 (UTC)

dead but still giving orders?

In halo if the monitor control the sentinals then why are the sentinals still functioning after you kill 343 in halo 3.also why do the turrets you set up kill you after and during the fight,that was kinda bull crappy to me(they are realy strong,I died in 2 seconds without knowing what hit me till I respawned).God bless Halo 15:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

It occurs to me that they're actually acting on their own accord, only having 343 as a company I think. ΜΆŜΤΈŖČΗέÏΣΡΈΤΤΥОΓΓïČëŗ 13:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

It could be they're acting on the last orders given to them. While in the Control Room, 343 could have added MC/Arbiter to their target list thing. --Dragonclaws^(talk) 20:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems most likely that Bungie simply used the same AI for the Sentinels and the Auto-Turrets. When one becomes hostile, both do. It also balances the final level - friendly auto-turrets would quickly destroy all nearby enemies. I have only seen an auto-turret destroyed when playing on legendary difficulty. -- Nutarama 02:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Quote

When did MC call him a "Pain in the ass"? Rancor Jerky

In Halo: The Flood, the novel depicting the events in the game. Since there was hardly any dialog, the author had to improvise by using the Chief as the voice of all who slogged through The Library on Legendary.--Metaridley 21:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Dead?

Is it possible that the Ark will create a new 343 guilty spark just like it created a new Alpha Halo? It would probobly have a copy of his AI. Zuranamee 7:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

That's not possible, and even thought they create a new monitor it wouldn't be called "343 Guilty Spark" anyway. MasterChiefPettyOfficer_{Spartan Contribution} 10:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Do not be so quite to judge as it is likely that just as they named it the replace ment the same it is probable that they to would desginate the smae name to 343 guilty spark.Not to mention when MC annihilated 343 guilty spark he destroyed him while he was red signyfying mendicant biase signifying he destroyed only mendicant biases side.You stole the idea from by the wayHalo3 03:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)--Halo3

Well, the point is the possibility of making a new monitor, or even to encounter one is a hundred to one. MasterChiefPettyOfficer_{Spartan Contribution} 10:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Yet agin you remain ignorant of the surrounding advice regarding the forerunners methods. In case you hav'nt noticed the forerunners seem to have sophisticated there plans specifically purposed to be executed if ever needed.These particular sophistication seem to have included a backup or alternative should any variation of plan go array, notice how there were multiple Halo's, how the ark attempted to replace it, notice the sentinal factories, notice how they were specifically made to replace any sentinal in which is detroyed,notice how 343 guilty spark was a self-repairing monitor, notice how the forerunner have added a backup plan,replacement, or repairing ability to virtually anything in which is detroyed to replace it.Most of all notice how cortana SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED that they had destroyed a number of things to the ARK. When she had verbally spoke the term, A NUMBER, A NUMBER meaning the majority, this could mean only part of the ark is intact, considering the fact that as we've seen in the past that the forerunner eaither have a backup to virtually everything in which is destroyed ranging from THE ABILITY SELF REPAIRATION to replacements it could ultimatly suffice to say that the ARk may be repairing itself.Now think about it, if it is finally fully replaced or repaired it could mean that it may indeed, sensing the Halo installations absense construct another Halo.Now, to every halo there is a monitor, it could also indeed create a replacement 343 guilty spark or even more possibly if the orginals A.I is still intact wich I'm beginning to think may use the same A.I as the one Master chief fought with or so I think, and could simply create another chassis for the 343 guilty spark.Halo3--Halo3

And contributing to the subject at hand 343 guilty spark literally remarked in "Halo: the flood that he posessed self-repairing ability. At first hand notice one would think "No way in Hell could 343 guilty spark have survived all that" But after considerable recooperaton of how advanced the forerunner were and how advanced the repairing ability of there technology in which indeed was very advanced, it could be safe to say that it is indeed possibly that 343 Guilty Spark can indeed still be alive and self-repairing/recovering. Not to mention we are forgetting about mendicat biase and how he too could have sensed not only his home destroyed but also the absense of the monitor and halo.Again it is his presence that is not only ominous in ways but also make the chances of the repairing of the ark even more formidible along with yet another halo and monitor. Keep in mind, forerruner A.Is tend to me very smart and very adavanced so it would make sense that mendicant could run the whole setup and repairing process in the first place.Halo3 21:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)--Halo3

"...really did a number on the Ark." She was just mentioning that it did significant damage to the Installation. Considering the damage, I think that whatever's left is going to have its "hands" full just getting the Ark back up and operational, nevermind another Halo or 343 GS. Besides, I don't think that its possible to "copy" an AI. You'd just get an AI that's similar. Even Cortana's copies in H:FS was subtly different. Just as 2401 Penitent Tangent was like Guilty Spark, but different. Specops306, Kora 'Morhek 07:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

You can copy an AI just as Cortana did in Halo: First Strike. Although the Covenant copying program was flawed, the Forerunner variant would likely be much better and produce an exact replica of 343 GS. Zuranamee

The Ark has some form of FTL communication with the halo rings. It is thus likely that a status signal is sent to the ark's control room. When a status signal goes down, like in the destruction of Installation 04, the Ark simply produces a new one. If 343's signal was still active, another monitor would be unnecessary - the monitor, unless rampant, would go to its new installation. It seems that the Forerunners could not predict rampancy in their AIs, however, most likely because rampancy only occurred on an immense time scale (343 had ~100,000 years to go insane) -- Nutarama 02:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Personally I think his Death was stupid. It made no sense in terms of plot. Same goes for Johnson and Miranda.

Terminals

The article currently says Guilty Spark isn't mentioned in any of the terminals, when he's pretty clearly speaking at the beginning of Terminal 3 (before the red flashing). Someone named 04-343 says he's "the Monitor of-". 04 clearly refers to Installation 04, 343 is in his actual name, plus he's a Monitor.Fcannon 06:51, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Rampant?

I don't think spark went rampant at the end of Halo 3. He was just following protocol, protecting what was once already taken from him. Smothmoth 23:45, 7 January 2008

But he should have set the destruction of the flood by any means necessary, even the destruction of the ring, before his or anyone or thing's survival. --Kre 'Nunumee 17:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Who knows what Offensive Bias set the priorities of its lesser fellows to be before it shut down. Most likely, 343 calculated that the local Flood could not remove themselves from the range of the new Installation 04 before the time at which damage would be minimal to both installation 04 and the Ark. Thus, it would be justified - destroying the Flood slightly later in order to save the work of the Forerunners. For that matter, why was the UNSC so intent on using the installation immediately and not waiting "a few more days"? -- Nutarama 02:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Name

Maybe 343 released the flood or set of the halos or did something to cause major casualties, (either way he pisses the hell out of me) lovemuffin 07:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

What does "name" have to do about this? The forerunners activated the halos, not 343 Guilty Spark, he was the monitor of installation 04, one of the halos. The forerunners created 343 Guilty Spark. Why he is called 343, is most likely because Bungie loves the number 7 (7*7*7=343). Sgt Petter 15:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

It's possible that the forerunners named the moniters in such ways as 'Guilty' because they felt guilty about the halos or the flood. --Kre 'Nunumee 17:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

His head?

Why does Guilty Spark state, "save his head, dispose of the rest" when he tells his Sentinels to kill you? --Lord of SPARTANs_{LOMI HQ}^{I here your cries}_{May your works be honorable}
19:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Because Cortana had the index and Cortana is inside Master Chief's helmet, so preserve the head so 343 can obtain the index. Lovemuffin 22:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Local Years

In the expanded-Universe, it says alot of numbers... and says it is how long since Installation 04 was built... It says "local time". That means, it was how many years since its building by Thresholds' years. That means it isn't that accurate as u lot seem to be mistaking it for Earth years (which i can assure you, Earth and Threshold are too different).Forerunner 16:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Auto from WALL-E looks like GS

Anyone else notice that the Auto-pilot from the Disney-Pixar movie WALL-E looks a LOT like Guilty Spark? (or to be more correct Penitent Tangent because of the red eye) -AgOutlaw

it kinda does yur right. halonerd147

No. I just watched the movie in-flight on my way back from vacation. Auto's voice sounds deep and mechanical, and Auto himself does not seem to have a personality. Spark has a somewhat squeaky voice and a personality. Rather, compare Gravemind to this guy: http://biosector01.com/wiki/index.php/Teridax. Karzhani 07:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

looks not acts. Spherical body, big central eye, seems good, then turns(granted a character trait not a physical one), controls the largest piece of the enviroment.--Kre 'Nunumee 20:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

References

Someone please fix.

Gunnery Sergeant Matoro3311 | 15:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Move

I propose moving this page to simply 343 Guilty Spark. Do all our pages that have 343 in the title have to end in brackets?--The All-knowing Sith'ari 19:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Second -- Nutarama 02:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

You're Forerunner?

What could have mean Spark to the Chief when he told "You are Forerunner".

Check the page Reclaimer concerning such speculation. I even have a few comments in that page. Vadamee 20:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Article

Is it really necessary to have a chart of Installation and their relevant Monitors if there are only two that are even known or listed? Vadamee 20:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Rampant or Protocol?

'Spark's protocol bound him only to contain a Flood outbreak from Installation 04, so when Installation 04 was terminated his programmed priority was nullified, because his prescribed means was now void. It may have been at the destruction of his Installation that Spark became truly Rampant, since he was obviously abnormally protective of it and when it was destroyed his functions were meaningless and he began to act on his own thoughts, one of the symptoms of rampancy.'

In the game, he stated that it was his secondary function (should his first function be nullified) to protect/help the Reclaimer, yet it states that he has gone Rampant after the destruction of Installation 04, can anyone explain? --BlackSuitHalo 07:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems that he may have already been slightly rampant as a result of his extreme isolation from other sentient beings following the annihilation of the Forerunners. After Installation 04 was destroyed by John-117, he became fully rampant. When Installation 04 was being rebuilt, he appeared to return to his normal state, but it seems that this reversal was only partial -- when Johnson threatened the installation, he killed him -- citing "protocol" as his reason, despite the fact that protocol actually dictated (if I have this right) that firing the Halo was more important than protecting the Halo. His rampancy may have caused him to confuse his protocols and objectives, prompting him to kill Johnson, or he may have simply wished to avoid the rampancy that accompanied the destruction of the first Installation 04, OR he may have known that without Installation 04, he was useless and effectively obsolete, OR... The list goes on. DavidJCobb  01:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Who knows what Offensive Bias set the priorities of its lesser fellows to be before it shut down. Most likely, 343 calculated that the local Flood could not remove themselves from the range of the new Installation 04 before the time at which damage would be minimal to both installation 04 and the Ark. Thus, it would be justified - destroying the Flood slightly later in order to save the work of the Forerunners. For that matter, why was the UNSC so intent on using the installation immediately and not waiting "a few more days"? Rampancy is most likely due to a lack of strong purpose - the Forerunner probably added its secondary purposes as an afterthought and thus they were not well coded (they were in the middle of a war when they started, and after-war scenarios take a backseat to what's needed in the middle of a war). Helping the Reclaimer thus probably was very general - "help" in any possible way, with no set procedure or objective. -- 67.234.240.8 02:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

My browser crashed, which kicked me out. I am Nutarama, not an anomymous IP address. -- Nutarama 02:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I do believe that helping the Reclaimer (specifically, to activate Installation 04) was his primary objective, and that rampancy or deliberate disobedience caused him to swap its priority with that of preserving the Halos. DavidJCobb  00:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I never thought of that. I was thinking that his primary objective was to maintain the readiness of Installation 04 against the flood. -- Nutarama 17:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Monitors like 343 Guilty Spark can't actually fire "their" Halos -- they need a Reclaimer -- so indeed, helping the Reclaimer use the Installation would be more important than protecting the Installation. Now that I think of it, the specific rampant behaviors that caused Spark's betrayal likely included a sentimental attachment to Installation 04, Installation 04 II, and the data contained in both -- like how he develope an attachment to the Pillar of Autumn and its contained records of human history, near the end of Halo: Combat Evolved. DavidJCobb  01:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

You know those 100,000-year-old AIs and how they get attatched to stuff :P (I've only played Halo 3 and Halo Wars, so I don't know what you're talking about) -- Nutarama 15:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

What he's trying to say is that 343 Guilty Spark told the Master Chief that they, the Monitors, are prohibited from firing the Halos using the Index themselves. It is against their protocol to do so. They can, however, transport the Index for safety purposes to avoid from falling into the grasp of the Flood. This is all from Halo: Combat Evolved. Play it and you will understand (Only $10-15 from Gamestop!).--4scen 15:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

In Halo: Combat Evolved, 343 Guilty Spark tried to prevent the Master Chief from activating the Pillar of Autumn's fusion reactors, destroying it and Installation 04. One of Spark's statements implied a clear attachment to the Autumn, wondering why anyone would want to destroy the records of human history contained within its systems. DavidJCobb  03:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, guys. I'm planning on learning more of the canon over the summer when I have some more free time. -- Nutarama 04:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Something I just thought of, what if the Forerunners programed the protection of the Halo, the only thing capable of stopping the flood, above firing it as soon as an outbreak was detected. Think about it, if they fired it and wrecked the Halo, it would take a few months for it to be rebuilt, allowing the flood to spread during that, while waiting a few more days, in which the flood could spread much less, and firing it at full power and ability. Plus, when it fired, it didn't kill John, meaning that protocal might have dictated that Spark at least wait until the Halo was able to actually do its job.--Kre 'Nunumee 06:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

My take on it all. --Dragonclaws^(talk) 01:50, September 14, 2009 (UTC)

Afflitianton

I know I spelled it wrong, but wasn't he also with the UNSC? Just Some Guy ^{[Now I Will Talk, And You Will Listen]}

Forcefield thing

I honestly didn't notice that. The Monitor never used it on me after Johnson shot him and I assumed it had been destroyed.--WarGrowlmon18 01:03, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

How about some memorable quotes?

Why don't we put some memorable quotes in the article?

His height...

I was looking on Stephen Loftus' height scale and on it he was about 2' if not then about 1'10", should that be on there?--Kluutak 23:14, December 3, 2009 (UTC)

Terminals

As can be seen in the transcripts of the Terminals in their article (and mentioned above), Spark IS mentioned in the Terminals. Terminal 3 to be precise. http://halopedian.com/Terminals An entity in the messages on that Terminal that goes by the handle "04-343" and is cut off in the middle of an "I am the Monitor of-" speech? IMHO, that's pretty obviously Guilty Spark. Also note how that entity's handle links to this page- I really don't see why that info isn't in Spark's article. Dewback rancher 01:24, April 16, 2010 (UTC)

We already knew that. The discussion between Guilty Spark and Mendicant Bias is quite enigmatic and it spurred several speculations which you could read at the Speculation Section of the article. So, it is in the article. You just haven't read it properly.{insert name here} 02:30, April 16, 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. Hadn't seen it when I read the article. I see it NOW, though. Dewback rancher 03:07, April 16, 2010 (UTC)