Talk:Halo 4

Archive

The media embargo has been lifted. --Halo face 09:31, 5 March 2012 (EST)

Note to all editors

Remember to follow the Citation tag at the top of the page when adding new information.--Spartacus ^{Talk • Contribs}

Also note that this article and anything related to it will be under strict supervision from the Patrollers and Administration team. Try to avoid edit-warring; failing that, protection will be implemented and users might get blocked.— subtank 11:47, 5 March 2012 (EST)

Mecha from the recent trailer

Is that really a Cyclops, as it's stated in the article now? It seems to be much bigger then the one from Halo Wars, and it could be a very different project. PatrickRus 11:03, 5 March 2012 (EST)

Were was it confirmed this was a Cyclopes any way? Jac0bBau3r1995 14:22, 5 March 2012 (EST)

A number of articles and videos, including this one. --Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 14:27, 5 March 2012 (EST)

Next gen. Xbox

The first sentence in Gamplay and design mentions that the last 2 installments in the reclaimer trilogy will be on the next generation console. I visited the source and it didn't mention that. Should that be deleted or was it confirmed somewhere else?

Thanks for pointing it out, I've removed it. If the information provided is unreferenced or the reference doesn't say anything of the kind, then it needs to be removed until someone can provide one. -- Specops306 ^{Autocrat Qur'a 'Morhek} 06:33, 6 March 2012 (EST)

MA5

There's now in game evidence for the MA5, not that I thought they'd remove the AR. First is the game mode seen in the trailer is "BR Slayer", meaning the BR is not the starting weapon. More importantly, the ammo counter on the HUD shows four bullets on the top row when the BR is full, meaning one full bar is 32 rounds. Perfect for the standard weapon. :) Also, the H4 BR's stock looks like the DMR, the pistol grip and bottom of the front end looks like the H3 BR, and the carry handle and rest of the top doesn't look very close to anything (other than being a large FAMAS style carry handle again) EDIT: Actually, in first person it reminds me a lot of Crysis's SCAR. Alex T Snow 02:10, 6 March 2012 (EST)

I thought it was already confirmed seeing as the figure had an MA5 rifleJac0bBau3r1995 08:44, 6 March 2012 (EST)

True, but I was just pointing out some in-game stuff. Alex T Snow 14:21, 6 March 2012 (EST)

Wouldn't BR Slayer mean Battle Rifle Slayer, and why would it not be the starting weapon if that is what the name of the game is?--Spartacus ^{Talk • Contribs}

I think he ment that if there's BR slayer then that would be a speciel type of slayer therefore normal slayer would have AR as starter. Jac0bBau3r1995 17:08, 6 March 2012 (EST)

More Screenshots

I have a quick question. I know we have several development screenshots posted under the article (others posted under "Making Halo 4: First Look" article) but should a seperate page be made for more screenshots (similar to the concept art)? This site has 84 screenshots available. Just a quick thought. Killamint 17:07, 7 March 2012 (EST)

Well on that sight it's like stop motion of the game play. There are 3 shots of the spartan 4 of at slightly different angles.—This unsigned comment was made by Jac0bBau3r1995 (talk • contribs). Please sign your posts with ~~~~

We have a page for the images.--Spartacus ^{Talk • Contribs}

Covie, and assassinations are back and the Cyclopes is only scenery

Waypoint! http://halo.xbox.com/blogs/Headlines/post/2012/03/08/The-Halo-Bulletin-30712.aspx Jac0bBau3r1995 02:20, 8 March 2012 (EST)

Edit Conflict

per above, seriously check these close-up images of Master Chief holding the BR. you started the edit-war and have no legitimate reason to undo my edits. HAcame 17:05, 8 March 2012 (EST)

"This article is about an upcoming game. Editors must cite sources for all contributions to this article. Edits that do not follow this standard will be reverted without notice. For more information, see the Citation Policy."

— Template at the top of the page.

Follow the rules and it will stay.--Spartacus ^{Talk • Contribs}

i've already provided the source. I don't know how to add it in since it appears weird in preview. since you started this stupid edit-war, you should add it in as you now know what the source is. learn to make proper edits. don't remove/undo legitimate edits.HAcame 17:09, 8 March 2012 (EST)

I was removing them because you weren't following the rules. And seriously? Don't ever talk down to anyone.--Spartacus ^{Talk • Contribs}

Since you are currently enforcing this policy on me, why not do the right thing and fix it for me? Being a "veteran" member, I thought that's what they should do... not simply undoing and just spout out "blah blah blah learn this policy". The citation policy page has nothing on how to add in a citation for images (don't know how to make it into a link.. it's showing a big image under the references section). And I will only talk down on people (not to the point of harassing them) if they do not have legitimate reason on undoing my edit.HAcame 17:16, 8 March 2012 (EST)

Okay, gents, let's put an end to this. The citation that is needed can be seen within the black box in the photo on the right.--The All-knowing Sith'ari 17:24, 8 March 2012 (EST)

@Hacame: <rant>I did have a good reason to revert your edit. It's called following the rules stated at the top of the page. Furthermore, I did not have time fix it as I had prior obligations in my own life that I had attend to. Did you see my first comment? I gave you a link to a page that would help you put a citation in the article. The tag says that edits that don't follow the policy will be reverted without notice.</rant> Edit: You started the edit war, just look at the page history. Also do you really expect me to help you when you send me a message saying "effing help me"?--Spartacus ^{Talk • Contribs}

• Not to be jumping in the middle of this "war" but I find it inappropriate to be using anyone's username in a title for discussion especially for this reason. It's almost as if Spartacus is being put on blast. I recommend the title be changed to "Edit Conflict", or something of that nature. Just my suggestion. I may change the title later today if no one else does. If you find that to be problematic or unnecessary let me know. I feel it should be changed.--Killamint 12:54, 9 March 2012 (EST)

Yeah I agree. I changed it. This edit war is over now, by the way.--Spartacus ^{Talk • Contribs}

Kool. The situation goes back to what subtank said at the top. Whatever the case lets move on. --Killamint 14:54, 9 March 2012 (EST)

Year

Since it was stated that the games takes place 5 years after the end of Halo 3 it would be approximately 2558 (2553 + 5 = 2558). So with that being said should the actual year of the game be added to the article somewhere and also added to the Timeline? Or would it be best to wait till 343 states it's 2558? --Killamint 10:07, 10 March 2012 (EST)

Wait until 343i says so.--Spartacus ^{Talk • Contribs}

Actually 343i stated that Cortana is 7 years old in Halo 4. She was "born" in 2549. This places the game in Fall 2556-2557, shortly or sometime after Origins. Now according to Kiki Wolfkill, the game takes place 5 years after Halo 3. This places the game in 2557. http://www.gametrailers.com/video/interview-story-halo-4/727566 ADinosupremacist

Okay, it can can be 2557 if we consider December 11, 2552, the date of the last battle in Halo 3 and supposibly when MC entered the cryo tube. You add 5 years to that and you get December 11, 2557 (Which can still be 2558 since January is right around the coner). However, to me the true ending of Halo 3 was March 3, 2553, when the memorial service was held. Add 5 years to that and you get March 3, 2558. So I belive Halo 3 ended in 2553, not 2552 as your implying. --Killamint 16:50, 18 March 2012 (EDT)

Just because it's 5 years after the Chief went into cryo doesn't mean that it will take place 2556-2557. For all we know there could be some slipspace time travel stuff where the Chief was sent back into the past and Halo 4 takes place in 2553. ADinoSupremacist

Release Date

I went to GameStop today, and when I asked about preordering Halo 4, I was told that the release date was November 15, the 11th anniversary. I want to update the page, but wondered if anyone can confirm this first?--Sierra 109 21:53, 21 March 2012 (EDT)

*Points*.--Spartacus ^{Talk • Contribs} 22:22 21 March 2012 (EST)

That would just be Gamestop pulling a date out of their asses, just like they do with every game.ArchedThunder 15:30, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

Unnecessary Edits/ Edits Without Citations

Like what was said before please refrain from making unnecessary edits and edits without citations/references (proof as I call it) to this article. Also remember to use the preview function before saving the page. Yes I agree the, UNSC Infinity & Pelicans will probably/most likely be in the game based off the concept art but concept art does not constitute an appearance, just wait for 343 to state its in the game. We are anxious for more info on the game but seriously, have patience. Also understand the difference between "speculation" and "facts"- "As well when looking closely at the images of the Master Chief in halo 4 it is noteable that both of the master chief's index fingers have no armor from the second knuckle to the tip of the finger. This would fit 343's attempt at a more functional suit of a may hint at the return of the duel wielding ability into Halo 4's gameplay" is pure speculation, has no references, doesn't use proper grammer, and shouldn't be posted. Also if it doesn't need to be fixed, leave it alone. If you are not sure if something you want to post is okay to post, then ask here. Don't just post it, or else you might start an Edit War! Killamint 10:03, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

I'd like to say, even though the dual wielding comment is pure speculation (Spartans are obviously ambidextrous), the point about the finger armour being more functional is a good one, just some real life military gloves keep the trigger finger uncovered, it helps a lot. That said, I don't think it belongs on the Halo 4 page, but could be added to this armours page once we learn it's name. Alex T Snow 10:14, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

Any edits that are not cited will be reverted without notice. So please, cite your sources. If you do not know how to add references, please see the Citation Policy.--Spartacus ^{Talk • Contribs} 13:10 29 March 2012 (EST)

Just to make note to reverters (those who revert edits without citation); if you know of a citation or know how to fix the edit, please do it in instead of reverting. Just because it's not cited doesn't mean the edit should be reverted; show some discretion.— subtank 13:54, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

Yeah I take responsibility for that last revert (Like I got a choice). Didn't realize what the user was trying to do until Spartan331 showed me. So I'll definitely take that into account next time. --Killamint 14:38, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

Concept art only

So far several things have already been associated with Halo 4 that are not listed on this page. For example, the UNSC Infinity and the Pelican are seen associated with Halo 4. The Infinity is from the Halo 4 panel and the Pelican has been seen several times throughout concept art. While this does not officially mean that they will be in the game (though I'm sure the Pelican will be) they should at the moment be listed on the appearances like this:

• UNSC Infinity (Concept art only)
• Pelican (Concept art only)

They're already on the Halo 4 page in the gallery section, so why not in the appearances? ADinoSupremacist

The same reason as to why we don't include Rosenda-344 in Halo: Reach even though she's in several concept arts during the development Halo Reach. Appearances section should only be reserved for subject/objects/characters that appear in the finalised build and it should not cater for cut-content; doing so will clutter the list for things that did not appear in the finalised build. — subtank 14:49, 2 April 2012 (EDT)

Troop transport screenshot

Should this be an acceptable source? If concept art isn't considered as concrete proof (rightly so) then how dose a blurry image of a vehicle that could be a troop transport work for a source. Jac0bBau3r1995 01:00, 3 April 2012 (EDT)

Actully on closer inspection of the video, when you see the side profile, it seems to have a turrent, so is it cool with everyone if I remove that? Jac0bBau3r1995 01:11, 3 April 2012 (EDT)

You can see the words "Troop Transport" next to the hog. All other images in that particular seen are already confirmed Halo 4 material from that same video. ADinoSupremacist

At what time dose that image show up? The one I see has an obvious turrent on it. Jac0bBau3r1995 01:37, 3 April 2012 (EDT)

It's right before the "Halo 4 First Look" appears. You can see various Halo 4 images such as the BR, new armor, Spartan-IV, etc. ADinoSupremacist

Mark VI, Unnamed MJOLNIR variant and new unnamed weapons

I have a couple of suggestions for new articles. 343i has stated that the Chief gets new armor. So at the moment there should be a page about the new armor system. While I firmly believe it's the Mark VII, it should be named "Unnamed MJOLNIR system" or something like that. Also I have discovered two new weapons that are in the First Look trailer. Since they don't have names right now they should at least have articles on them. The "explosive pistol" already has an article. ADinoSupremacist

Frankie has stated that the fictional explanation for the "new" armor won't be as major as a switch of generation. That, along with information from the Halo 4 art director in a bulletin from a while ago suggests it's merely a redesign of the Mark VI, even if there's some kind of a canon explanation thrown in. Regardless, it's pointless to make a new article about it yet. We've done fine without one so far, so a few months' wait won't really matter. Besides, I don't see the point in more articles about "unnamed thing x", saying nothing more than "Not much is known about this other that it may or may not appear in Halo 4." --Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 01:44, 3 April 2012 (EDT)

I feel it would be a douchebag move on 343i's part to just say that the new armor is the Mark VI just redesigned. They've been very good with the canon and design so far, so why change it now? Of course it's possible Engineers mess around with his armor, I believe it's Mark VII. ADinoSupremacist

Okay, I hate to harp on about it, but it's like saying the Mark IV on the cover of The Cole Protocol and the Mark IV in Halo Wars cannot possibly be the same armour. VARIANTS. Who says we saw all the Mark VI variants in Halo 3 multiplayer? And then, as I've said, there's the fact that Cortana's there with a lot of free time suddenly on her hands and half a ship to cannibalise for spare parts. -- Specops306 ^{Autocrat Qur'a 'Morhek} 07:31, 3 April 2012 (EDT)

I'd go with the Engineer theory. But then again, let's wait for more official explanations. —S331 _{(COM • Mission Log • Profile)} 07:37, 3 April 2012 (EDT)

We don't know enough about it now. Wait until we get definitive information before changing anything. (or so it says in the sacred caves) Vegerot! 10:22, 3 April 2012 (EDT)!

But the Cole Protocol and Halo Wars Mark IV are variants of the Mark IV. Now I do have a theory on why they look different and it's based on information that's already been given out by 343i. ADinoSupremacist

You see? I'm already regretting this analogy. It was just meant to illustrate the fact that we don't know as much as we like to think about MJOLNIR, its development and variants, and that conclusively saying its Mark VI or VII is irrelevant until we get hard confirmation.-- Specops306 ^{Autocrat Qur'a 'Morhek} 05:56, 4 April 2012 (EDT)

They look different because they are drawn differently by different artists of different studios without any close supervision or close support from one another. You can conjure any theory you want but until all of these different stylised armours from different media appear in one media, any theory is simply redundant. Of course, don't let my comment stop you... it's simply to point out that it's wholly pointless... but fan theories are fun.— subtank 06:06, 4 April 2012 (EDT)

Indeed, what Subtank says is true. However, that is only one of the real-world reason for all of these differing depictions. Another reason is that when those iterations were made and implemented, the time, context, etc. were different from how things are now. The Cole Protocol image was made by Bungie during the time frame of both Halo 3: ODST's and Reach's development cycles, and could very well have come out of some of the concept art for Reach, though that is course only speculation at best. The Halo Wars iteration, of course, was done by Blur Studios and Ensemble, drawing on the Mark VI image and some aspects of the Mark V for inspiration.

Given these kinds of facts, and that there was no effort on serious oversight and communication between these 3 parties at those time frames, it was unavoidable that there would be conflicting visuals to appear. But on the other hand, if there really had been such cooperation and oversight, would that really have worked out as one might have hoped? Would there really be any guarantee that we would be shown logical, reasonable additions to the canon? Would things really be as harmonious as some might hope, or might things have actually been worse?

Cross-company and artist cooperation never truly guarantees quality content; it only offers the possibility. All of those companies, even Bungie, can and are prone to poorly-chosen and implemented, even incompetent, decisions. Given that things have turned out the way they are now, there is no way of knowing if things would have been different had they been done with such a collaborative process. We can only wonder, conjecture, speculate, and debate.

In any event, back on to this topic, all of the facts have given me the impression of one possibility; John-117's "new" armor is a kind of upgraded, "hybrid" Mark VI armor, composed of components, software, and armor segments from multiple sources. Or in other words, his armor internally remains the same or similar to what it was before, but new pieces and components, maybe even related to the Mark VII, have been added to his armor to improve its performance in some areas. All previous generations of SPARTAN-used MJOLNIR have had upgrades, customizations, etc. of one sort or another, including ones similar to this.

In that 'Game Reactor' interview with Mr. O'Connor, he does emphasize the fact that there is an in-universe, genuine change in John's armor, meaning that its external appearance from its issuing in October 2552 to its current appearance is not mere artistic license at all. This also reinforces the fact that the Mark VI as we have known it for the past several years, particularly Halo 3, is how it is meant to look. That is its genuine structure and appearance when it is first issued, without any customizations, modifications, or upgrades.

Now that years have passed since then, and the situation and context have changed, there is a true, in-universe need for the armor to be upgraded, particularly to the form it has now. For how the suit is improved, we can only wonder and/or wait for the facts to become known. But whatever the case, it now seems very unlikely, in my opinion, that John is wearing true Mark VII armor. On the other hand, from the aesthetic and gameplay point of view, these differences will be prominently displayed in how he moves in the play spaces, from impressions of weight, sound, etc. to better convey the simulation-based experience.--Exalted Obliteration 17:36, 4 April 2012 (EDT)

Just my two cents: If the game opens up with the chief immediately after getting out of cryo, like we were led to believe in the reveal trailer, then the change to the armor will happen in-game. There was no way for cortana to modify it while he was in cryo. Speaking plot-wise, it would seem more convenient for him to get a completely new suit of armor later in the game, but that is pure speculation. 68.104.165.221 18:23, 4 April 2012 (EDT)

Arright, this has bothered me since the people started freaking out over the armor those many months ago: what I can gather he meant by "less canonical explanation" is this: when the Cheif wakes up, he's wearing the Mk. VI, as could be expected. Aftermthe crash, Cortana shows him the Mk. VII, located on the Forward Unto Dawn, and basically says "happy birthday, John, here ya go!" That way, we know where he got it in general, but we don't have any "just came in from Songsam this morning" like in Halo 2. Soooo, yeah. That's what I think will happen. Infernal-Blaze 09:49, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

Problem is, why would there be a Mark VII on the Dawn? the Mark VII was given out in January 2553. If there is a Mark VII during the events of Halo 3, why didn't anyone offer it to the Chief? The Spartan-IVs seen in First Look are probably wearing the Mark VII, which is completely different from the one the Chief was wearing. The one Chief is wearing resembles the one in Halo 3. It's not Mark VII. —S331 _{(COM • Mission Log • Profile)} 10:29, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

If you look < here (someone please fix the formatting, I have no idea), You'll see that the armors share a chestplate, undersuit details and the strange pseudo-codpeice that Cheif's new armor has. All I'm saying is that it's not so cut-and-dry that Cheif's wearing some kind of Mk VI.5. Infernal-Blaze 11:09, 5 April 2012 (EDT)