Jump to content

Talk:Halo: Combat Evolved/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Congrats

Hey, I see this article will be the featured article of the day on the 15th. Congrats! BTW, you didn't by chance push for November 15 due to that being the day Halo 2 came out, did you? :) Anakinjmt 22:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Halo 2 came out on November 9, 2004. This Halo came out on November 15. James086Talk | Email 06:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Huh. I thought 2 came out on the 15th and 1 on the 9th. Eh, it happens. Anakinjmt (talk) 13:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I find this ironic, because I consider this to be an excellent example of precisely the sort of trash that the wiki can produce in the name of following guidelines. It's filled with ridiculous trivia like "The player can move around and look up, down, or to either side.", yet manages to completely fail to discuss why the game was considered good. After this poorly laid out introduction It proceeds to wander around a variety of topics, astonishingly promoting the soundtrack to it's own super-section before splitting the history into several sections that would be better off combined. So how is it that it passed FA? Well primarily due to "lots of sources cited.", "Excellent job, especially on the cites", " article is great, lots of references", etc. What are these? An collection of two pages of references that address concerns no one would ever have in the first place. A perfect example of rules over content. This article is typical of the sort of soulless writing that one would expect in a freshman term paper, not a FA. Maury 23:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
That is entirely your opinion. My opinion is that you are flat out wrong. It is NOT filled with "ridiculous trivia." The "example" you have was not trivia, but explaining how the game is like other FPS's: you can move around and look up, down, left, and right in an FPS. It is not Wikipedia's job to say why a game is good, but to inform the reader that people believe the game to be good, which it does in the critical reception area. The lead is an excellent lead, giving an overall synopsis of the article, which is what it is supposed to do. Soundtracks are CD's, which as a rule have their own article. It should not come as a shock to see that it has its own article. And, only a few sections have main articles, and those main articles are way too big to fit in here. And as for your comment on "freshman term papers," let me just say that, as a sophomore in college, I, and many others that I know, wrote excellent term papers in our freshman year. It appears that you don't care for the game, which is fine, but that doesn't mean this article doesn't deserve FA status, which it totally does, and I love the fact that it does. Anakinjmt 23:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I totally agree with you Maury. I was disgusted by the absurd number of citations in the article. Some were even repeated. This is empirical extremism at its worst. Tcaudilllg 23:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
There were a few places where adjacent references could be cleaned up, and I took care of as many instances as I could find. However, although overcitation is something that should be avoided, and adjacent repeated references unnecessary, I'm frankly a bit confused why people find an urge to describe it in such strong terms. There are a lot of distinct sources and such used in the article, and, although obvious things such as basic gameplay controls don't strictly need third-party sources, it is currently preferred to use them for citation where possible. — TKD::Talk 23:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
So Maury you are asking for us to add "why the game is good"? what kind of nonsense is that? we can't influence the reader's opinion of the game, there is already a section detailing the game's reception that is as far as we can go without pushing POV, as to your other points they are minimal and would hardly cost this article its FA possition, but I suppose you would like other "trash" to be featured on the main page. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm suggesting the article needs to be cleaned up, reorganized to collect similar sections, clipped of information that is better left in "making of" articles offboard the wiki, and have a major cleanup of the references, which is 2/3rds as long as the article itself and is attached to non-controversial comments that never needed a ref. Maury 13:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure there are professional commentaries and columns out there as to why games are considered good. Certainly there are for HALO. I do think a criticism section would be useful for games in general. (and these games are criticized routinely by professional journalists.) I for one would find such information very informative.

EDIT: Now that I think about it, I've never yet seen a magazine article that really discussed why games are good. So nevermind. Tcaudilllg 00:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Consensus has always been that "making-of" information is absolutely required to satisfy the comprehensiveness criterion of the featured article criteria. As for organization, this is actually the first time that I've seen a complaint about the Gameplay/Synopsis/[Soundtrack]/Development/Reception division that is pretty much the way that most featured video game articles are laid out (and, no, this isn't an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument: it's a statement about the consensus way that these types of articles are generally written; people tend to find this division more natural). If we exclude gameplay, many film articles are laid out that way, too. There is some wiggle room whether Development goes before Gameplay/Synopsis, but, in many cases, stating what the media is about tends to lend more context for the Development discussion. I suppose that you could argue for organizing things chronologically under one big "History" section with subsections (is that what you're essentially advocating?), but the majority of people will probably find that unnatural. I personally wouldn't mind it, but, given the current practice here on Wikipedia, there'd have to be demonstrable consensus for that change of style. — TKD::Talk 13:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
There are too many references? Maybe if there were 5 references for each statement, but there aren't. James086Talk | Email 06:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
WHAT THE HELL????? Only a quarter of the references in this article are required to affirm the material. Tcaudilllg 23:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Exactly my complaint. Do we really need a ref on "you can look up and down"? Do we even need that statement at all? In a broader sense, do we need separate references for statements that are covered in other references? It's just ref padding. And the FA req thread is all about refs. Talk about forest for the trees... Maury (talk) 04:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps the statement about being able to look up and down does not, strictly speaking, require an explicit citation to be verifiable, but the reason that it is common practice to include such citations to primary-source material is to prove beyond a doubt that they are not idiosyncratic observations of editors. Although this ability should be obvious, it's far too common for editors to extrapolate a little too far into the realm of interpretation, so the citation serves as a point of grounding. I don't see a point in removing the citation once it's there. And, yes, the statement about being able to look and down is, I think, necessary, if Wikipedia is to cater to a general audience. It is not a given that video games, even first-person shooters, allow that degree of freedom. Doom didn't have that ability.
To say that there is "ref padding" is a bit of an mischaracterization, esppecially given that the editors who worked on the FA push had to start from this revision of the article and work to find sources and clean it up. Content issues were discussed during the FAC nomination, so it's unfair to say that the article passed FA solely because it was well-referenced (since a single actionable objection can cause the FAC nomination to fail). — TKD::Talk 11:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Most videogame articles don't get featured article status. As more appear, I think you'll be seeing a lot more criticism of the current guidelines and the "consensus".
There has been criticism for a while; people just weren't aware of where to put it. But now that it's up front and in our face, it's like a slap right to our faces that the guidelines are being interpreted so rigidly.
Don't misunderstand: it's not the guidelines we oppose, but rather the extremes they are being taken to. Tcaudilllg 23:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

i just want to say you all do a good job on this web site. the information here is just a tresure chest of information! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.199.196.226 (talk) 19:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

If all else fails during Main Page mayhem...

Just as a note to other editors, this is a known stable, good version of the page that can be used for reference if the frequency of edits causes trouble after midnight UTC. — TKD::Talk 13:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Post-TFA diff, for the interested. — TKD::Talk 00:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Image on Main Page

Why is the image on the main page that of Bill Gates posing with Master Chief? Shouldn't it be the box cover? Wikipediarules2221 01:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

No the box cover is a Fair Use image, I did suggest cropping the image to exclude Gates though. - Caribbean~H.Q. 01:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Could have found a better image though. Ednel 02:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ednel (talk • contribs)

For modern copyrighted works, the choices are limited because most things that portray the work sufficiently clearly would be considered derivative works. — TKD::Talk 02:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Why Now?

This article is the featured article just short time after the release of Halo 3?? At best, one would think this was motivated by fans of the game wanting to help it succeed and gain recognition. At worst, one would think it was motivated by someone with money to gain from Halo 3 sales. Radishes 18:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

No, it was featured because it was the sixth anniversary of the game's release (thus a relevant date) and the article had been waiting for over a year. - Caribbean~H.Q. 18:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests for more information on how the daily featured articles are scheduled and what considerations are taken. — TKD::Talk 18:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Certainly both valid points, but neither rebuts in any way what I've said. Although, I suppose nothing will rebut the fact that the time of this featured article and the time of Halo 3's prime marketing coincide. It's just something for folks to think about. I could really go conspiracy theory here and suggest that someone Anonymously Contributed an amount to the pledge drive to get this on the front page. Although I don't believe that myself, it's still interesting how things happen the way they do. Radishes 19:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Considering that Halo 3 was released weeks ago, and the big marketing push was in the weeks leading up to it, I'd say that it's just a silly conspiracy theory. --PresN 20:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, you do know that Master Chief was the one on the grassy knoll, right? --Jaysweet 20:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


Control

Halo is credited with presenting one of the first successful sets of controls for a first-person shooter on a video game console.[18]

This is makes it sound as though the two stick configuration of all console fps was pioneered by Halo.

Going to the article it cites, which is just a review, you get this

"Goldeneye and Perfect Dark aside, first person shooters haven’t exactly been received with open arms by console players over the years. The first reason is clearly control. Hardcore FPS fans point out (quite correctly) that there is no substitute for the classic mouse and keyboard control scheme that PC first person shooters utilize. Additionally, consoles have traditionally been behind the power curve when compared to PC’s of the same generation. Hence, console ports of FPS classics like Quake 2 and Unreal Tournament were seen as clearly inferior to the original PC games. Given that history, it is surprising that the most heavily hyped and most sought after launch title of Microsoft’s new Xbox is indeed a first person shooter. Halo, luckily, is more than able to overcome the limitations that plagued earlier releases and provide an experience unequaled to this point by a console first person shooter."

This says nothing of it being the first to do this, or anything like that, just that it's "an experience unequaled to this point by a console first person shooter" this is a comment by a reviewer on a site i've never heard of before.

The control scheme using two sticks had been around for at least a year before Halo was released. The first experience i had with 2 control sticks was on Timesplitters for PS2 which came out a full year earlier, and had basically the same control layout.

--Pollard666 21:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I wondered about that sentence as well. I think I remember using the two-stick configuration as far back as Turok, if I'm not mistaken... I assumed the link said something about the sensitivity being well-balanced or something, but it appears it does not. I agree with removing that sentence. --Jaysweet 21:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I removed it for now. I wouldn't be surprised if a more well-known publication did praise the control scheme, though; if so, that should be added, but with more controlled wording. — TKD::Talk 23:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't have time to add it now but take a look at [1]. James086Talk | Email 04:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Did I miss it?

Where do we describe why this game is considered to be so fantastic? --Doradus 23:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

uh... try reception and impact? David Fuchs (talk) 23:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't see it. That section is just a parade of opinions on Halo, but never explains why everyone loved it. ---- Doradus (talk) 16:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
The "why" is probably something intangible, or difficult to describe in a short quotation. Personally speaking, there is no one feature of Halo that is as singularly impressive as, say, the gravity gun in Half-Life 2, but Halo succeeds through the combination of many well-polished elements (setting, storyline, weapon balance, NPC AI, etc.). This "success-on-many-levels" may be why the article does not contain the statement you seek within the lavish praise cited. Cheers, ---- Plumbago (talk) 16:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Doradus has a point in that it might be worthwhile to try to incorporate some of these specific reasons if multiple cited articles have similar reasons. I might have time to look at it this weekend. — TKD::Talk 21:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I've added a sentence with some specifics. It's possibly worth expanding a bit more, but, since the all of the reviews are quite long and cite most of these aspects, too much expansion would make the relevant material repetitive and possibly too detailed. — TKD::Talk 01:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, that's definitely a good start. --Doradus (talk) 00:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

←I just picked up a book called Halo Effect, a collection of essays about various aspects of the Halo series. I'll be incorporating material into here gradually. — TKD::Talk 09:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

On that note, what is innovative about it? All of the Halo articles talk about all the innovations Halo made that were adopted by other games, but don't mention any of them; does anyone have any examples of what new concepts it introduced? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ban Bridges (talk • contribs) 08:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

See this diff for examples that I added. Also see this. Note that the relevant information in the second diff explicitly states that Halo was not the first FPS game to distance itself from a dungeon crawl, but it continued and emphasized the trend. — TKD::Talk 20:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Halo Demo ~ November 20th

Halo Demo (A Page I created) was suggested to be merged here but then deleted. Why was it deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stealth500 (talk • contribs) 11:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

It's possible that the information was moved here and then the article deleted, instead of an actual merge. Anakinjmt (talk) 13:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
It was redirected here because it was unsourced, and separate articles for demo versions of a game are not the norm, unless they are for some reason covered in multiple reliable secondary sources. — TKD::Talk 18:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
He's not asking why it was merged, but why was it deleted. Anakinjmt (talk) 00:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
The article itself was redirected, neither merged nor outright deleted. As for why none of the content was not merged, it was entirely unsourced and contained a lot of game-guide material. The only thing that'd really be worth possibly noting is that a demo version exists and is limited in scope, but I'm not aware of any other video game featured or good article that notes the existence of a demo version. I'm willing to be proven wrong on this point, however. — TKD::Talk 04:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok, So my article was skipped over because it didn't have external and internal links and it had a "Game Guide"..... Is there a way to bring it back and make it better? I think ti would really be good for Wikipedia to have. I know of a few forums, and can dig up some websites for the external links, and internal links I can get from where it is now redirected to..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stealth500 (talk • contribs) 11:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
The odds of having an article for a demo of a game and having it last are pretty low. Finding good sources for info on the demo might be worth including in the article. However, I'd be very careful when using forums. In fact, I would say to just avoid them. Very, very, very rarely can forums be used as reliable sources, and any other websites that you use should be reliable. Fansites would most likely not work. Finding something on IGN or Gamepro would work (well, IGN at least, I'm personally not so sure of Gamepro anymore). Anakinjmt (talk) 13:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Last that I was aware, GamePro was still a reliable source. GameSpot also works. Avoid forums and wikis. — TKD::Talk 17:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I know a couple of forums that are pretty good but that doesn't matter to much. Is there a way to remake that article but take the gaming stuff out just make it an overview? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stealth500 (talk • contribs) 02:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
First, determine how much reliably sourced material you have. Bear in mind the level of detail that game articles on Wikipedia go into; this article, for example, doesn't even list all of the weapons available, because the current consensus is that's considered straying too far into the realm of game-guide detail, and unnecessary for describing the game in general terms. The amount and nature of material out there determines whether a subject merits a separate article, a mention in a broader-scope article, or none at all.
If you want to work on a draft article relatively unimpeded, you can set up a subpage of your user space, like User:Stealth500/Halo Demo. Just make sure that you don't actually place this draft into any categories, and don't use any fair-use images. Personally, I'm still skeptical that this is worth mentioning, but I'm willing to be proven wrong here. — TKD::Talk 03:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I could try making the page that way, but I think it would be usefull to have. If I was to make it how do I set that up? Also what type of thin gs would I put on it? just take the stuff about guns and stuff out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stealth500 (talk • contribs) 11:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I kinda see Gamepro in the same light as the NY Times in terms of quality reporting. But, that's just me, and for general use, it is reliable. On a side not Stealth, can you make sure to sign your comments by adding ~~~~? Thanks. Anakinjmt (talk) 13:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Anakinjinjmt I was already asked that by someone else and I have started doing it :). --Stealth500 (talk) 13:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
So where do I start this? and Can I? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stealth500 (talk • contribs) 21:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
←Do you see the red link that I created for you above (User:Stealth500/Halo Demo)? If you create that page, it's a subpage of your user space. One of the purposes of user subpages is to allow users to work on drafts of articles that they don't consider ready for the main article space at the first cut. If you want to try to gather material, you can do it there if you prefer to do it on-wiki. — TKD::Talk 23:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Let me add that due to Gamespot's totally unfair firing of Jeff Gerstmann, I trust Gamespot even less. Anakinjmt 14:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Discussion archive missing

Archive #4 is missing from the archive box. Could someone add it there (I don't know how)? --Mika1h (talk) 19:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I would but I can't seem to find it. --Talk to Stealth500 (talk) 21:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Halo_%28video_game%29/Archive_4 --Mika1h (talk) 19:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I did it. The archive box works by looking for "Talk:Halo: Combat Evolved/Archive 4" but since the archive was at "Talk:Halo (video game)/Archive 4" (from before it was moved) it wasn't recognising it. I just made a redirect from Talk:Halo: Combat Evolved/Archive 4 to Talk:Halo (video game)/Archive 4. James086Talk | Email 04:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Some idiot completely trashed the page.

I recently reversed the vandalism, but it should be fine now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan Woodhouse (talk • contribs) 08:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Requested Semi Protection

Yes, due to Vandalism and Game Guide information being added I have requested a semi Protect. Stealth (talk) 01:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Quit the blocking for a moment

Please could you remove the blocking for a moment, I noticed a few mistakes such as "The Master Chief and Cortana flee in a UNSC Autumn" when it should be "The Master Chief and Cortana flee in a Longsword Fighter". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.12.156.120 (talk) 21:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Cancelled Dreamcast version

since it xbox had a deal with sega do u think it was originally a dreamcast game —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.166.131.20 (talk) 20:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It also was suppose to be PS2 also67.180.225.161 (talk) 22:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Halo was initially to be a Mac/Windows PC game. Console versions were rumored but never confirmed, and Microsoft's acquisition of bungie effectively axed any other console versions from ever coming out. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 23:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
In addition, speculation about "what ifs?" and "do you think?" are not allowed. Anakinjmt (talk) 00:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Halo PC Multiplayer

Could/Should there be a section in the "Multiplayer" section that refers to the PC version, because that section seems to focus on the xbox version.Tortinshaar (talk) 17:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The second paragraph of the multiplayer section (except the first sentence) covers it. — TKD::Talk 17:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

German Version is wrong!

Please change the German Version de:Halo (Spieleserie) to de:Halo: Kampf um die Zukunft. Thank you. --84.164.121.208 (talk) 17:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Improving the Plot section

I believe one of the most captivating aspect of the Halo series is its story and plot. The current plot section could be improved by providing more details, but I'm wondering if it's necessary. After all, I don't want to go through the trouble of rewriting a section only for it to be reverted. Zijian (talk) 01:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

We aren't the place for discussing how captivating the plot is. Fact is that a plot summary is no substitute for actually playing the game. We're aiming for comprehensiveness and comprehension, not detail. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 02:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Agree. Zijian, keep in mind that we're writing for a general audience. Adding extra details can impair understanding by bogging down the reader. Good writing is concise. — TKD::{talk} 04:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Okay, point taken. Zijian (talk) 21:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

1.0.8.616 Update

We need a paragraph on the 1.0.8.616 update, as it no makes the game no longer require the original disk to play. Plenty of people i know did not know about this update, because it has to be downloaded from the Bungie website, and cannont be downloaded from the Microsoft support site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spacemarine288 (talk • contribs) 00:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

EGM/Edge review quotation

The Reception section gives a couple of quotes from EGM, including this one:

  • "GoldenEye was the multiplayer standard for console first-person shooters... It has been surpassed"

Edge's review (a promotional reprint of which is available from the Press Scans section of halo.bungie.org) contains a very similar quotation:

  • "GoldenEye was the standard for multiplayer console combat. It has been surpassed."

This brings up the possibility that at some point during the course of this article's editing, someone had mixed up the Edge and EGM quotes. So could someone with that issue of EGM confirm that the article does contain the correct review quotation? If it does, it's curious that both magazines' phrases should be so similar... --Nick RTalk 15:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

other name?

It says this on the article

Halo Combat evolved (Frequently called just Halo)

shouldn't it be changed to

Halo Combat evolved (Frequently called just Halo 1)?

because the term "Halo" is usually used to refer to the series in general, not nessesarily the first game, which is more often called "Halo 1" or "Halo One" 66.59.49.88 (talk) 13:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Dates in Infobox

Before I go and iron this issue out myself, I thought I should point it out to you all. The format for the release dates in the infobox looks terrible as YYYY-MM-DD. I'm going to change it to DD-MMMM-YYYY. Any problems with that? CR4ZE (talk) 09:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Sources

While working on the online print archive, I located a few PC previews for this game. They date back to when it was a third-person PC exclusive, and probably include information that will be useful for filling out the Development section, should this article ever be put up for FAR. The two previews are here, and here. The archive also contains numerous reviews for the game, most of which do not appear in the article. Those may be found here. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. I'll see about adding them. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 11:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I posted these on David Fuchs' talk page, but I thought I'd put them here, as well:

In addition, I found yet another preview from this time period, courtesy of Next Generation Magazine: Link. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Wrong Rating

{{edit semi-protected}} The BBFC rating is 15 not 18! 86.9.199.244 (talk) 16:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 23:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Rating

What's with that BBFC shit? It was never rated by them.

Removed, now stop talking shit and get something better to do. Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 07:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The readaption of Halo CE

As of last week it was confirmed that a company owning small shares of Bungie(tm)has decided to remake Halo CE for the XBOX 360 and possibly the Microsoft Windows 7 for those asking for more info go to youtube and type in "Halo CE remake" you should get a nice smorgess of answers and it will inform you more on what i was tooo lazy to do seya on the Beta peoplezzzzz byeeeee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.8.176 (talk) 21:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Halo: Combat Evolved Remake CONFIRMED

A section for the remake should be added to the article. The Halo: CE remake for Xbox 360 was confirmed, and has a release date for November 15, 2011 (however, the date is subject to change). Here is my source (and it's a fairly reliable one): http://www.joystiq.com/2011/02/04/halo-combat-evolved-hd/ 174.62.226.243 (talk) 04:55, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you read the articles you quote. A blog reports that an anonymous source has said there's going to be a remake. There's no official word on this. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 21:08, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
It was on E3 that Halo:CE is being published with new graphic--bean 17:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
forgot to sign lol--bean 17:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Told ya. :P 174.62.226.243 (talk) 18:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Remake photos and info gathering

just for development of the halo remake section i reckon this photo of comparison of the silent cartographer should be used. http://www.bigshinyrobot.com/reviews/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/silentcartographercomparison.jpg http://www.bigshinyrobot.com/reviews/archives/28392 this source indicates also that you can swap the graphics between 2001 and 2011 engine styles on a in-game menu among other things. Jonjonjohny (talk) 18:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Removed unreferenced statement

Specifically, this one:

"In addition multiple ways have been found to change the appearance of Halo:Combat Evolved for your computer only without mods. Common applications of this include sightjacker, flycam and HMT 3.5. Some of these have been shunned by Halo communities due to the perception that these programs are cheating due to the advantage these programs can potentially give."

It seems a little non-notable to me, but I don't profess to being a Halo expert. If it is notable enough for inclusion, it still needs cleanup and sourcing. Comments?
ClayClayClay 10:40, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems like a valid removal to me. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 11:52, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

splitting Anniversary from this article

I think it is time for it to have its own page... well maybe a little bit later if someone finds even more info, but with the info used in http://www.halopedian.com/Halo:_Combat_Evolved_Anniversary should be just enough....--SGP (talk) 02:34, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

It's our general policy not to split ports or remakes unless they garner enough notable coverage and reception. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
I would agree with an entirely new page for Anniversary. While the plot may stay the same, the gameplay, reception, and development will be entirely different than the first game. It won't be like the 'ports' from Xbox to Xbox 360, because it will use an entirely different engine (reportedly). I also feel that there has been notable coverage and reception across the internet and general media to warrant a separation. Tcardone05 (talk) 07:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
The gameplay is entirely the same, only with a new coat of paint. It's the same engine with new stuff built over it. Let's wait for the amount of reception to dictate the worthiness of a separate article. Right now there's maybe three paragraphs top of content that wouldn't be going into unnecessary detail for a Wikipedia page. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 14:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
The gameplay may be entirely the same, but it's using the Reach engine, so the game will have to be built from the ground up. This is why there is a probably pretty hefty development cycle, which to me means its an entirely different game. The press coverage will (and to this point has been) be equivalent to a new game. Tcardone05 (talk) 08:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, the Campaign will not be using the Reach engine at all, it is the Combat Evolved engine with a new graphical engine developed by Saber Interactive running on top (http://www.joystiq.com/2011/06/07/halo-combat-evolved-anniversary-preview-combat-revolved/). Secondly, Anniversary is not purely a CE remake given that it has Reach's multiplayer, it contains aspects from two titles. Details of this multiplayer were revealed at PAX. Either we ignore half the game, talk about Reach's multiplayer in-depth on the CE page, split the Anniversary coverage between the Reach page and the CE page, or give the game its own page. To me, the final option seems like the only sensible one, with links from this page and Reach's page to the Anniversary article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.82.144 (talk) 10:29, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


I agree Halo Combat Evolved may have the same HaloCE campaign(excluding the addition of in-game terminals and skulls) it has a entirely diffrent multiplayer similar to Reach not CE I belive we should make a seperate page for this article. GZ411 (talk) 19:12, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

It has the Reach multiplayer, it's not just similar. We aren't a fansite, so we don't have to go into depth about the same kind of things. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 21:07, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Updating Halo Anniversary section

This section should be updated since most of the info hasnt changed since June 2011 and most of the eligible info was realeased at the Penny Arcade Expo please update. GZ411 (talk) 19:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Reception section: Edge/EGM quote confusion

Both on this talk page and again much later in more detail here, I mentioned the concern that a phrase comparing Halo's multiplayer to that of GoldenEye 007 was cited to EGM but definitely appeared in Edge. It seemed likely that at some point during the course of the Halo article's editing, someone mixed up the Edge and EGM quotes. Since no-one's yet confirmed the EGM source, I've cited that quote to Edge alone.

Another reason the EGM reference needs to be checked: the EGM issue date is given as Jan 2001, but surely Halo was reviewed in the Jan 2002 issue? If that date's wrong, maybe the "[It] engages your intellect on a whole different level" quotation's wrong as well? And the other EGM quotation used in the article is "This game has me' totally mesmerized..." - if we quote a reviewer saying "me", shouldn't we give that reviewer's name? --Nick RTalk 14:33, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't really have any way to confirm so I think just cutting the comments might be in order. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:52, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Marathon_Trilogy

The three games in the series—Marathon (1994), Marathon 2: Durandal (1995), and Marathon Infinity (1996)—are widely regarded as spiritual predecessors of Bungie's Halo series. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.115.40.177 (talk) 12:05, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Halo:CE is Halo Custom Edition; Halo Combat Evolved is sometimes incorrectly referred to as such.

I have revised your edit, The1337gamer. Halo CE is incorrect; Halo CE is Halo Custom Edition, NOT, Halo Combat Evolved. A common and annoying error. Please don't revert the page again until it has been discussed here. WikiTyson (talk) 23:06, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Who refers to Custom Edition as Halo CE? Akdrummer75 (talk) 06:39, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Please provide reliable sources that agree with what you say before making this edit. The1337gamer (talk) 12:00, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
There are no sources at all saying that Halo Combat Evolved is referred to as Halo CE, so Halo:CE should not be used on the article. Halo:CE is Halo Custom Edition. I assume the developers themselves are a reliable enough source for that.WikiTyson (talk) 14:33, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
But CE is the obvious abbreviation of Combat Evolved. And publications have shortened Halo Combat Evolved to Halo CE. Examples: link, link2. I have no idea why you have changed it to Halo PC, it has been reverted, stop making unconstructive edits and discuss them if non-trivial. The1337gamer (talk) 15:18, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
In my opinion, the developers and publishers link [ are a more reliable source of information than some random news sites. Here, you can see that HaloCE, on the gearbox website (who developed Halo Custom Edition), refer to Halo Custom Edition as HaloCE. Various other sites also correctly refer to Halo Custom Edition as HaloCE, such as halomaps, halo.xbox.com and place77.

The developers of the game saying so should be enough to end this dispute, and that Halo:CE is halo Custom Edition, NOT Combat Evolved. WikiTyson (talk) 19:25, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

You keep making claims but you have yet to provide a reliable source saying that abbreviating Halo: Combat Evolved to Halo: CE is incorrect. Halo: CE can be abbreviated to either Halo: Combat Evolved or Halo: Custom Edition. There is nothing incorrect about abbreviating Halo: Combat Evolved to Halo: CE, and I have already provided reliable sources showing that Halo: Combat Evolved has been abbreviated to Halo: CE in articles. The1337gamer (talk) 19:44, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


You have not provided reliable sources, actually. About.com is generally not a reliable source, and the IGN article supports my claims, because it explictly says bringing Halo:CE into a new decade, by this it means the engine, NOT the game. The remake uses Custom Edition's engine for gameplay, and that is what you where referring to. Being employed at 343 Industries, I know that I am correct in this aspect.
You have not provided any reliable sources to support your own claims, whereas I have. Please find reliable sources to support your claims.

WikiTyson (talk) 20:27, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

About.com is a reliable source. Gamesradar is also a reliable source, they also abbreviate combat evolved to CE. I don't understand how you incorrectly abbreviate two words, as you seem to think. The1337gamer (talk) 20:35, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


The developers of said game have said themselves that Halo:CE is Custom Edition, not combat evolved. Naming combat evolved as such is incorrect. This is basic English, I don't see how you struggle to understand it. It may be because you are rather new to the wiki, I don't know. Also, that report also supports my claims, in the same way as before. Read carefully, they are referring to CE as the games engine, not the game itself. Two very different things. If you still struggle to understand the concept of incorrect abbreviations, think of it like this. Unpossible or Impossible? Same type of thing. WikiTyson (talk) 20:45, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Your argument is that because Custom Edition is abbreviated to CE, that Combat Evolved cannot be abbreviated to CE. Abbreviation can stand for multiple things, as it does in this case. It is not incorrect to abbreviate to Halo: Combat Evolved as Halo: CE because people actually abbreviate it like that. The1337gamer (talk) 21:13, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with 1337gamer on this point. In a recent vidoc Halo's own developers referred to Combat Evolved as CE. It's a common abbreviation, and more common than the usage for "Custom Edition" simply because the custom edition is not as widely known. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 14:11, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
On pc at least, the custom edition is much more widely known and more popular then the stock, for the reason that it allows custom maps. A simple internet search will prove this. I highly doubt that neither 343I nor bungie would refer to Evolved as such, so could you provide a link to that?WikiTyson (talk) 22:59, 3 September 2012 (UTC
At 3:53 in this video, Kiki Wolfkill, executive producer at 343 Industries refers back to the CE days, she is abbreviating this from Combat Evolved days, she is not referring to Custom Edition. The custom edition is merely an add on, it is not more widely known seeing as it requires the original game to play. The1337gamer (talk) 07:16, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Going to see that video. Custom Edition is not merely an add on, it is a separate game entirely. It does not require the original game, either. Don't know where on earth you got that idea from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiTyson (talk • contribs) 07:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Both Gamespot and IGN articles state that it requires an original retail key, hence an original copy of the game. It is not an adaption of the game, it is an add on or updated version for the PC that allows multiplayer mods and custom content. The1337gamer (talk) 07:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Still incorrect. It is a completely separate game. It requires a key, but not of an original retail game. Keys solely for custom edition can be bought, so your proposal that it requires the original game is incorrect. This is a separate game from Evolved, with no backward compatibility, and is heavily different from the original game, thus an adaption of the original. Being one of the developers of the game, I am 100% sure of this. Also, please cite the developers as source instead of articles. The Editing Kit was developed solely by Gearbox, not Bungie. Bungie used their own tools to develop the original halo. Gearbox developed their own, and thus the HEK. WikiTyson (talk) 07:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
You're writing all this stuff but you haven't provided any reliable sources. I am going by the IGN reference, which states that: "Halo Custom Edition should be considered a multiplayer expansion pack, as it requires an original Halo PC disc (and CD key) to install." and also it states that the HEK is from Bungie. The1337gamer (talk) 08:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
The Nintendo GameCube can be referred to as the "NGC" for short. It might not be the standard or most common way of shortening it, compared to "GCN" (at least, not in English speaking countries, as that article's first sentence explains). But the words do contain those three capitalised letters in that order, so it's not an incorrect way of referring to it.
Likewise, "Halo CE" is a correct way of referring to either "Combat Evolved" or "Custom Edition". The question is: is one of those two meanings at all non-standard? I'd say both are acceptable, even though in my experience "CE" usually refers to "Combat Evolved". (But then I only really have experience of the console version; someone more involved in modding communities might have encountered the latter more often.)
However, regardless of which is the most common meaning of "CE", in my opinion the text "sometimes incorrectly referred to as..." should not be included - commentary like that only serves to convolute the opening sentence. --Nick RTalk 18:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Move to 'Halo (video game)'?

Bungie.net says that the games name is 'Halo'.[2] I thought 'Combat Evolved' is a slogan in the same way as 'Finish the Fight' is used in the phrase 'Halo 3: Finish the Fight'.[3] Shouldn't this be moved to 'Halo (video game)'? Regards, Rob (talk) 21:01, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

In fact, you may be in the correct. Per references, they refer to it as "Halo". Even if its current name is the official, WP:COMMONAME applies. Maybe you should use WP:RM. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 23:18, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
There are other official sources ([4], for instance) that refer to the game as Halo: Combat Evolved. Finish the Fight was a tagline for Halo 3, but Combat Evolved is a subtitle that may or may not be included in different contexts. WP:SUBTITLES makes allowance for subtitles in the case of "short titles, for disambiguation purposes". An analog to the situation here would be Orlando: A Biography, rather than Orlando (book). (Note that this issue was also discussed several years back, in Talk:Halo: Combat Evolved/Archive 4#Is "Combat Evolved" a subtitle or tagline?.) —TKD [talk][c] 02:24, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Inaccuracies in Setting

I can´t remember what expanded universe material revealed this (I think a novel), but Cortana actually used coordinates to get to Halo. So this is wrong ´The ship initiated a random jump to slipspace´. The fifth paragraph of this source explains how http://www.quotev.com/story/2773360/The-story-of-cortana/2/ I don´t know if it´s a ´reliable source´ though. What follows is also wrong: ´hoping to lead the enemy away from Earth´. There´s no way they lead them away from Earth and the source used doesn´t exactly say that as the quote used can be interpreted in other ways. Edgth (talk) 01:57, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

The point of Cole Protocol is to lead the Covenant away from Earth by never directly jumping to a human world. As to your other point, while The Fall of Reach explains Cortana used coordinates derived from a Forerunner artifact, this is not actually presented in the game. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 02:39, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Well to avoid leading them to Earth, but it doesn´t lead them away from Earth. I would´ve thought that despite being outside the game, as canon it still belongs. For example, in the same section it give the reason for colonising other planets, but that´s not said in the game. Edgth (talk) 02:48, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
I've removed "random" as part of a copyedit (the entire setting was in past tense unnecessarily per WP:WAF. I'm not sure I understand your point though; the goal of randomly jumping was to avoid leading the Covenant to Earth. They didn't lead them to Earth (they discovered Earth's coordinates another way) but that doesn't dispel the intent. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:23, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, avoid leading them to Earth, but that doesn´t lead them away from Earth. I was going to just change that, but I´m unsure of the wording. Because just saying that they made a jump to avoid leading them to Earth doesn´t make sense without the random bit. More detail may be needed of the coordinates that Cortana put in. But in a FA article it needs those complicated sources apparently. Btw, Halo Anniversary needs to be changed too.
On a related note, I feel like the sales figures need to be updated to 2013. I bet people reading that will be wondering what they are today, as the one given is nearly 8 years old. Although going for 5 million sales to 6.43 million in the last 8 years isn´t impressive, it seems strange to have it so out-of-date. Here´s the source that I used but it got reverted because it was a bare url - http://www.vgchartz.com/game/939/halo-combat-evolved/ I´m not sure how to make it proper, as for example, I don´t know who the author is. Edgth (talk) 20:24, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
VGChartz isn't a reliable source for sales information. The1337gamer (talk) 20:36, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Ah, okay. I see that the sales are just for the Xbox platform anyway and total sales among all platforms would be better. Edgth (talk) 20:39, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

TalkXbox

Not sure that the "TalkXbox" source (used once in the "Combatants" section) is reliable. Should be easy enough to replace, though. I am no longer watching this page—whisperback if you'd like a response czar ♔ 07:30, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Pistol

Is the pistol really not mentioned even once in the article? It's covered by plenty of sources as one of the most enduring legacies (or at least memories) of the game czar ♔ 17:16, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

GameSpy phaseout

Since the online service is being phased out, the article should be updated with something like http://www.polygon.com/2014/5/12/5709044/halo-multiplayer-gamespy-pc-online czar ♔ 01:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Halo Custom Edition redirects to this page.

Why in the hell? --Adriano G. V. Esposito (talk) 16:24, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

It was merged into this article in 2008: Halo Custom Edition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Looks like it's been edited out since. The topic would need to meet the notability criteria to have its own article. czar ♔ 22:54, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Halo: Combat Evolved. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:14, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Halo: Combat Evolved. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on Halo: Combat Evolved. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:36, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 10 external links on Halo: Combat Evolved. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:34, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

First trailer

The article incorrectly states that the first trailer was shown at E3 2000, when it was actually shown at the MacWorld Expo mentioned in the paragraph immediately preceding that one. --Pfhorrest (talk) 07:03, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

MacWorld reference

I found this: [5]. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 10:19, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

And this: [6]. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 08:10, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Halo: Combat Evolved. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:07, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

FA concerns

I think this article is going to need a featured article review soon. My primary concern is over sourcing: mass amounts of text are unsourced, and several sources (such as "The Adrenaline Vault" and "Xbox Kombo") appear to be unreliable (per WP:VG/S). Also, the development section barely talks about how they made the game, and I also see numerous prose problems. (The reception section, for example, seems to follow an "A said B" formula; more info at WP:RECEPTION.) JOEBRO64 19:15, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

  • It was promoted nearly 12 years ago. Most old FAs don't hold up now since the quality of the encyclopedia has drastically increased. It's an uncontroversial demotion. I do plan on rewriting this article, along with other old Halo articles, at some point when I have some free time. --The1337gamer (talk) 19:26, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Interview scans

Sorry for the delay. A little over a month ago, Electroguv asked me to scan an old interview from EGM regarding Halo, as part of the effort to salvage this article. Here it is: [7], [8]. It isn't much, but hopefully it helps. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 01:51, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

LEVEL Halo feature

Howdy yall, just dropping by to mention that I got my hands on a large retrospective feature about the Halo series from issue # 54 of the LEVEL magazine, including an interview with the franchise' former art director Marcus Lehto. The piece seemingly covers the history of the series and that of Combat Evolved in particular, but the article is written in Swedish so I can't readily assess the scope and value of its contents at the moment. I just wondered whether any interested party would be willing to take a look and maybe include some of the tidbits into the article, hence this message. Thanks in advance for your feedback. Electroguv (talk) 14:12, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Better Crediting of Dev Team

In the initial title thingy, I saw only one programmer listed. It's quite disingenuous to not list all programmers who worked on this game besides all people who worked in the art department, etc. Like don't just list "one" person because it's also misrepresentative of how much of an undertaking making a game is.

You can see a full list of credits on Moby Games to get accurate info on who worked on this game. https://www.mobygames.com/game/5368/halo-combat-evolved/ AndrewNReinke (talk) 07:05, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Infoboxes are not credits fields, and Wikipedia doesn't contain full credits for any creative works. The fields are not intended to be exhaustive or comprehensive. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 13:27, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Halo:_Combat_Evolved/Archive_5&oldid=1217578881"