Talk:HRUNTING Mark III (B) Cyclops

Naming

Cyclops is a mythological creature - Mjolnir is a mythological weapon. Perhaps all exoskeletons are named after mythological items. Maybe body armor level = weapons, large-scale vehicle level = creatures. Also strengthens idea that this is related to Mjolnir armor development --RSIxidor 16:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

That screenshot shows two Marines carrying a machine gun. A bipedal mech wouldn't have four legs.

I think this could by The Mark III Prototype since it doesn't have any visible attachments to the Fusion engine thats suppose to be powering it. The Terminator

If it is a variant of one of the MJOLNIR Marks I-III, it obviously wasn't repurposed for combat like the prototypes the SPARTANS trained against on Reach. I believe there are three plausible explanations: all UNSC exosuits were derived from the early MJOLNIRs; the Cyclops, specifically, was derived from the MJOLNIR; or the UNSC had non-combat Aliens-esque powerloaders outside of Project MJOLNIR. Lister uses a more Aliens-like power loader in The Flood when retrieving supplies from the Autumn; however, it doesn't seem to be as self-contained as the old MJOLNIRs, as if it is a distinct design.--Braidenvl 14:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Please remove from trivia the statement that MAJORITY of Halo Wars fans etc because forums users cannot be thought as majority, or change it to "some" as well that "some" think it's too early to make judgements

anybody know how they overcame the power restrictions that kept the older exoskeletons only being used in tasks such as equipment handling? Darkfire27983 01:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone noticed that the helmet the Marines are wearing in the pic looks just like the EVA helmet from Halo 3? Sorry if this is really obvious...Aussiebushmatt 15:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

hunter

its a freaking unsc hunter. its got spikes coming out of its back and everything. its even got the same number of fingers. and in some screen shots it has a freakin shield

its possible the Hunter was used as the origin of the in game model, as something to build from. But the creators of the game stated this was a separate unit.

Use of Graeme Devine Blog Posts

I've noticed an increase use of the information presented in the Graeme Devine Spirit of Fire blog posts even though Devine himself said that these should be considered fan fiction. This is specifically stated on the home page. Here is the exact quote from the header of the main blog section:

Bits and pieces not in the game, but made to support the story and help the team get the vibe of what it was like to be on “Spirit of Fire”. (essentially this is fan fiction)

As such, I inclined to delete the references. --Avatar of Chaos 16:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I think Graeme Devine has a flawed definition of fanfiction. For one thing, he isn't a fan - he actively helped create the game. Secondly, these were written during development as background pieces. They may not be pages from the Halo Story Bible, but they're more canon than fanfiction. -- Administrator Specops306 - Qur'a 'Morhek ^{Honour Light Your Way!} 07:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't see how it can be viewed as canonical even if you want to play with the semantics of whether or not it is fanfiction or question his interpretation of fanfiction. As a one-time developer and lead writer on the game, his word regarding what is and isn't canon is binding until contradicted by a higher canonical source or retracted. That he admits that these were used by the developers is offset by the preface that this information is essentially fanfiction. That means non-canonical. Unless he retracts his statement or made some type of further clarification that the information that he presented in these blogs contained canonical information and cited specifically what is and isn't good, the blanket statement covering these blog posts should render the discussion moot as it leaves you with no ability to seperate the canon from non-canon. --Avatar of Chaos 16:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, we have pages like Tigard. That was only mentioned in Devine's blog posts. Also, the Cyclops page in the blog is titled "Cyclops Canon". I don't see why we couldn't use it, especially when it's coming from an official developer, it fleshes out something we have little background information of, and most importantly, it doesn't contradict with anything established. --Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 19:55, January 10, 2010 (UTC)

Non-canon information can be included in articles as long as it's not presented as canon. Otherwise we wouldn't have a page for the Cortana Letters; they aren't even potentially canon anymore. --Andrew Nagy 20:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Modifications

Since the marines use it as a weapons instead of a power loader, could they have modify by add weapons like a machine gun or a grenade launcher. Sgt Forge did it with his "Grizzly" tank, which is a modified Scorpion.

References to Aliens

It is pissing me off how people think it necessary to reference to one of the greatest films of all times. People, stop putting references to Aliens in the articles, it is unnecessary, and is defiling my childhood, quiet frankly, it is downright infuriating, stop it, please. I will be removing it from this and all articles I see it in from now on. --Davian Ambrosius Compton^(Counsel) 07:31, October 10, 2009 (UTC)

I'd have to say get over it, as there are hundreds of Alien and Predator references in the Halo Universe. Stiff upper lip buddy, move on. You also have no authority to delete valid and accurate information.

ProphetofTruth 21:36, December 22, 2009 (UTC)

Pictures?

Sorry to be picky, but the pictures on this article are a little disappointing. Theres like five pictures of three different incarnations of the monster. And I find it odd that the only pictures of the final version are in the gallery and everything else is in the article. I mean hell, even the title picture is of a pre-release concept! Is there anyway we can delegate the older demo screenshots and concept art pieces to the gallery and use only the finished representation for pics? --Nerfherder1428 20:13, December 22, 2009 (UTC)

Why didn't you make changes? >.>- 5əb'7aŋk^(7alk) 20:32, December 22, 2009 (UTC)

Still lacking the confidence in my editing skills. I like to be the one picking out the problems as I've found I'm no good at being the one who fixes him. Haha.--Nerfherder1428 21:22, January 11, 2010 (UTC)

More Trivia?

It occurred to me that there are several other similarities (as well as the Prototype powered exoskeleton), with other mecha units, namely, the Wolverine unit from Command & Conquer: Tiberian Sun, and the Marauder power-armor exoskeleton from the Starship Troopers 3: Marauder film. I just thought this might make some good trivia for the Trivia section of the article, but I'd like to know what everyone else thinks about this. ---Xamikaze330 16:40, 10 December 2011 (EST)Xamikaze330

Are Mega Blocks versions canon?

The Arctic and Attack ones? I know 343I is working with them closely with this stuff(like the ONI REAP-X) so would they be canon? 10of13 (talk) 00:25, 24 November 2013 (EST)

The canonicity of these items is ambiguous at the moment. This talk page provides a better explanation as to why.--Spartacus ^{Talk • Contribs} 01:41, 24 November 2013 (EST)

Article title

It has recently been established that the Mark III [B] is just one of several production models. I think it would be a good idea to rename the page HRUNTING Mark III Cyclops, Mark III Cyclops, or even just Cyclops. What does everyone think about this? --Our vengeance is at hand. (Talk to me.) 08:49, 10 March 2015 (EDT)

Agreed. Should the megablock images of the variants be used for each article main image (at least for now)?--Killamin7i /// 10:01, 10 March 2015 (EDT)

My vote is for Mark III Cyclops, pretty much the same set up as Mark IX Mantis ADS. Also I'm not sure if each variant really warrants a new article.Sith-venator Wavingstrider (Commlink) 15:18, 10 March 2015 (EDT)

I agree with Mark III Cyclops. And I don't think each variant should get its own article, similar to what we did with the Warthog article and its variants. - NightHammer (talk) 15:29, 10 March 2015 (EDT)

I also felt it needed to be renamed. Mark III Cyclops sounds good. Imrane-117 (talk) 18:17, 10 March 2015 (EDT)

I'll make it so.Sith-venator Wavingstrider (Commlink) 18:54, 10 March 2015 (EDT)

"Mark III Cyclops" is a little misleading, however, as it suggests the vehicle in question is the third model of the "Cyclops" line when that's just the name for the HRUNTING Mark III exoskeleton (the preceding suits weren't supposedly called Cyclops). Same with the "Mark IX Mantis" title. I'd rather have gone with HRUNTING Mark III Cyclops (indicating it's "Mark III" of the HRUNTING, not Cyclops, series) or just Cyclops; if we're going for brevity the "Mark III" feels extraneous. --Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 00:36, 11 March 2015 (EDT)

If we renamed it HRUNTING Mark III Cyclops would you also want to rename the Mark IX Mantis ADS page?Sith-venator Wavingstrider (Commlink) 00:41, 11 March 2015 (EDT)

Yeah, based on the same reasoning (vehicles in the HRUNTING/YGGDRASIL series other than the "IX" model weren't called Mantis). I'd be fine with just "Cyclops" and "Mantis" as titles, but I suppose it's best to include the HRUNTING/YGGDRASIL stuff for the sake of consistency. Hence we'd get HRUNTING Mark III Cyclops and HRUNTING/YGGDRASIL Mark IX Mantis. --Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 02:11, 11 March 2015 (EDT)