Talk:Halo: Reach: Difference between revisions

Intro statement

Saying "Players control Noble 6, a member of an elite supersoldier squad, during a battle for the human world of Reach." can be a bit misleading, I thought it meant they were actually Elites when I first read it. I don't know if it warrants rephrasing though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BelalHaniffa (talk • contribs) 09:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

"The download will require a 7,000+ GB hard drive." Can someone please remove this?

Names

Uh, where are people getting these names from for the Noble Group Spartans? From the news all over the web. The only one I remember hearing is Jorge, and the "Lone Wolf". 24.138.12.222 (talk) 20:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I think they're from a press release that must have accompanied the announcement but no-one's found a citation yet. Check Halopedia (link's at the bottom of the article page). They might have a source. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 21:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I can't provide a source, but I think one is referred to as Jorge and the others have their names on their armour.Mikerooney (talk) 22:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The names I edited this page with are from the 202 issue of Game Informer Magazine. Feel free to go to their website to for more updatesKilgannon2113 (talk) 22:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The official and most accurate (100% Positive) is from the developers website, Bungie. The names on Gameinformer are accurate because they were relased to them by Bungie. xXSc3n1cXx 17:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by XXSc3n1cXx (talk • contribs)

Where's the details?

I don't see any specific details about Halo: Reach anywhere in this article. You'd think Wikipedia (no offense, Wikipedia) would have a bit more insight into what Halo: Reach is about, what the plot is, the exact date it's coming out, etc. All I see are the following:

Vague descriptions of the characters

Passive plot discussion

No specific date of release

I mean, come on! You guys should at least have a bit more insight into what Halo: Reach is going to include! Spikeclaw (talk) 17:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Err... maybe it's because nobody has said anything? We can't comment on something until a reliable source has actually said a date or the plot or anything. They haven't. They probably won't for at least a few more weeks. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 17:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

And some information is too specific, it states that it is based on a squad of six Spartan-II's when it has not been confirmed that they are II's, in fact some of the references in the video sounds like they are potentially Spartan-IIIs (Pegasi) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Littlefatmonkey (talk • contribs) 19:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Spartan III's were only on Onyx. There were the UNSC's dirty little secret. They won't be on Reach. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 20:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Yea but before the end of Ghosts of Onyx, most of the third group have left and been deployed, i think that would line up with reach. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Littlefatmonkey (talk • contribs) 03:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, they left around October. Reach fell in August. Note that they did not say "Pegasi Delta", but "Pegasi" meaning it could be any place in the Pegasus constellation. Lieutenant is much too high for a SPARTAN-III, as there is apparently a reason why IIs are only allowed to be Non-rate crewmen of the Petty Officer ranks. Other than the two Beta Comapny IIIs that survived Pegasi Delta, everyone else was around 12 years old by 2552. Furthermore, they would not be moved into another team, as they were a secret project. Knowlege of the IIIs was restricted to a handful of people. Would you let them be a liability? Someone could reveal that they were taken as 6 year olds, given drugs and sent on suicidal missions because the IIs were dying, which was also a secret. --OsirisV (talk) 10:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, IIs were the only ones to use MJOLNIR (and those looked like variants of it). IIIs used the godawful-ugly Semi-Powered Infiltration armour. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 04:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, wikipedia isn't a place to make guesses. It's a place to record facts. Kingbirdy23 (talk) 02:40, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

The suit make look aweful but the reason they were made was becuase they were cheaper and quicker to make then the Spartan II's armor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kilgannon2113 (talk • contribs) 22:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

It was confirmed on the Bungie website that All of Noble Team except for one were Spartan-III, and that does make sense, because Colonel Ackerson created the Spartan-III program but it didn't say in the book that all of them except the ones that went with Dr. Halsey died. I don't think we should include that though until Bungie puts how they got to Reach up because most of it is just sepculation clouded with the halopedia article.

Release date

Which month is Halo: Reach going to be released? I know the article says Fall but which Fall? The September-November one or the March-May one? --NuparuMahnika (talk) 09:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

This is why I always change it to "Autumn"... it's the real name and most english-speaking countries use it.-- OsirisV (talk) 12:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Wait, there are two falls? I've only ever heard it referring to autumn. Is this an American thing or have I just not come across it before? --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 16:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

So which one is it then? --NuparuMahnika (talk) 05:19, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I have been told by an employee of the date May. 23. I cannot give the source as it would be a violation of my promise. 99.182.222.37 (talk) 09:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Then why bother saying it? Hmm? Wikipedia needs reliable sources. Even if you had said the source, it would still be a case of hearsay. All you've done is sow the seeds of potential confusion down the line. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 16:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Im confused just looking at the article, any specific dates should not refer to seasons, even if the name for a season is specific to only one country, I understand Fall means Autumn, yet I am not in the USA, and since my Autumn is different to their Autumn, a specific time period should be put in place, either month(s), or quarters.125.238.25.16 (talk) 09:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Put simply. "Fall" in this case refers to the American season, which is somewhere in september-november. Remember "fall" is "autumn" in many other northern hemisphere countries. 59.101.126.53 (talk) 09:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The official release date has not been announced by Bungie; but a date of September 14, 2010 has been set by Gameinformer. Or It might have been IGN or Gamepro, but I'm almost positive it was Gameinformer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by XXSc3n1cXx (talk • contribs) 17:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

A release date has been set although not orally said by Bungie, a link to pre-order the game from the Bungie.net homepage connects to an Amazon.com link which states the release to be on September 1, 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KingDerekx (talk • contribs) 01:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

September 1 is a generic date used for the Fall of any given year. --Teancum (talk) 02:16, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually when the September equinox occurs the first day of Fall begins. It occurs around September 22nd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KingDerekx (talk • contribs) 13:50, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Spartan III

Not sure if it's a good source so I'll put it here. It seems that Microsoft confirmed that you are a Spartan III. Should we put this in? [1] Mikerooney (talk) 19:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Nah, I've seen a lot of "official" sites change it back to II... looks to me like a typo. If you read Ghosts of Onyx, you'd see the impossibility.-- OsirisV (talk) 13:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Going by the official press release, yes there are Spartan-IIIs. It doesn't matter if we think it's impossible, it's a reliable source that we have no reason to doubt. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok... but I've been hearing a lot that the "Official press release" made a typo. I could look into it, if you want.-- OsirisV (talk) 15:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

And as the TeamXbox link above pointed out, Microsoft verified there were no typos. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The most recent live action trailer for the game, which is entitled Birth of a Spartan shows the conversion of one man into a Spartan III and it is proven that he becomes a Spartan III because his uniform says Spartan III. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KingDerekx (talk • contribs) 14:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

It's been confirmed. The Spartans in Reach are Spartan IIIs with the exception of Jorge. He is still in Spartan II armor. The idea was that they didn't want people to expect the story of Master Chief so they made the characters Spartan IIIs so that they couldn't possibly be the same story as Master Chief was a Spartan II. The story of the game Halo: Reach happens during the same time as the book but is not the same story line or the same people.Kilgannon2113 (talk) 22:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

We've known that since January >.< Still, another confirmation was ok. "S-III" wasn't on his uniform, it was α259, an S-III company tag. The computer panel read "SPARTAN-III", though. -- OsirisV (talk) 15:10, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of playable characters, what is this whole play as humans in multiplayer thing? In the multiplayer beta trailer you clearly play multiplayer as Spartan IIIs. This isn't ODST. I am going to edit that out. Neckername (talk) 11:25, 9 April 2010 (EST)

Spartans are humans, I think that's actually the EVA armour, whose helmet resembles the S-III helmet. The S-III helmet is more "bubble"-like on the visor, while the EVA helmet is more angular.-- OsirisV (talk) 15:10, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Natal

Should we include this in the development section? http://ie.xbox360.ign.com/articles/105/1059115p1.html Mikerooney (talk) 23:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Read it carefully. It's not saying that it will have Natal. It's saying that players who would prefer playing with a controller would still like Natal. It's not saying that Reach will actually have Natal. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 00:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, my bad. Just mis-read it. Mikerooney (talk) 12:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks like Reach is not going to Natal support. http://www.gamespot.com/news/6249160.html IronStorm42 (talk) 06:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Game Informer article

There is a substansial bit of new info. on Halo Reach in the Feb issue of Game Informer. Why hasn't this been included yet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avenged521 (talk • contribs) 14:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps no one has it yet? Do you? Why don't you add the information! =) –xeno^talk 14:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

All the info I've seen so far is on blocked websites here at work. If no one has added by the time I get home then I will. Avenged 521 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avenged521 (talk • contribs) 14:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Here is the screenshots of the GI. If someone can check these out and post the info it would be great, I would but I can't access imageshack here. [redacted per linkvio] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avenged521 (talk • contribs) 16:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for these links but I'm afraid we cannot keep them per WP:LINKVIO. –xeno^talk 16:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

So until a "Official" site puts it up we can't use the info. from the mag? I'm sorry but I'm new at the editing/ contributing thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avenged521 (talk • contribs) 16:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

We can't put up the information until it appears in reliable sources—think IGN, GameSpot and the like rather than RandomXbox360Blog.com or whatnot. Scans of the content is a copyright violation, thus the link was removed. Also, please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) so we know whose comments is what. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

We can use the info from the mag, but we just can't allow the links to scans of the mag to remain visible. –xeno^talk 19:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The Game Informer IS a reputable source. Xeno can you throw it up? Avenged521 (talk) 19:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I never said it wasn't, just that info from Game Informer on other sites should be scrutinized carefully. As it is I recently got a hold of a copy, so I will be adding information if no one else is. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I added almost every bit of information in that article about a week ago and it was never added. It had information about each character, their role in the team, height, weight, their Service Numbers (e.g. S-239) and other information about the visuals of the game, new weapons and enemies and other things. It was all either deleted or not accepted or whatever. I was rather upset about it. Can anybody shed light on this? And yes Game Informer is a reputable source. It should be scrutinized that roughly. The magazine has been around for a while and the article was based on an interview with the Bungie Team creative director Marcus Lehto. It should be a reputable source if it's directly from someone from Bungie for heaven's sake. Kilgannon2113 (talk) 19:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you should learn to read; no one is disputing that Game Informer is not a reputable source. However irrelevant details like the height and weight of a fictional character is not needed and if it was in the article, was rightly removed. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

@David Fuchs, why do you claim weight and height is irrelevant? I came here for that specific information. Who is to decide what information is relevant to others? Wikipedia isn't about picking and choosing which bits of information is important or not--it's about sharing the information that pertains to the topic at hand. I happen to think every detail of the GI article is relevant to the topic. I mean, we are editing the Halo: Reach article right? And, that was the name of the article that GI just published, right? Who is to say what detail is too small? I mean, I guess we can go create individual pages for each of the characters but something tells me you wouldn't like that either. CrazedSpartanHadouken (talk) 17:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

And you're completely wrong; we aren't a fan guide, game guide, or publisher of excessive detail. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Look, CrazedSpartan, Wikipedia can't satisfy everybody. If you want better details and such, than by no means, head over to Halopedia. Wikipedia doesn't go very deep into video games.--Rollersox (talk) 18:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 69.131.223.138, 6 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

you forgot the "O" in HALO

69.131.223.138 (talk) 20:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks kindly! –xeno^talk 20:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Armor Ability Info

I edited the gameplay section to include more information on the new armor abilities since they are a big change and should be more than a small sub-section of a single paragraph. However, this information has been taken down entirely. Granted I didn't offer a citation since I am not aware of how to do so, but anyone watching this article would know where to get the citation (bungie.net), and it could have just been given a "citation needed" label, instead of being torn down completely..

If possible, could the information I added be restored? SkyJW15 (talk) 20:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SkyJW15 (talk • contribs) 20:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. I'm not the user that removed your edits, but they seemed to be just a bit too detailed for Wikipedia. Thanks for editing though!

Well, if someone feels they're too detailed, they're free to edit them to simplify them rather than remove the information and keep a major game change restrained to 1-2 sentences. The whole point of Wikipedia is to have information, perhaps not too detailed of information, but information none the less.SkyJW15 (talk) 01:57, 8 April 2010

We are not a specialized gaming encyclopedia, and we are not a game guide. We are not writing for Halo fans, but for the average bloke who may or not have played the game, let alone a video game in their lives. So we keep it succint, and simple. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm guessing you disregarded all I said previously. I admit I may have gone too detailed, but something like Armor Abilities which Bungie themselves have said in podcasts have greatly changed their map design and gameplay as a whole should be attended to with more than a line of mention. Something I noticed in the current article is that it says the Elites have a unique roll ability, but it doesn't mention it's an Armor Ability unique to the Elites, so it sounds like it's just something the Elites can do by themselves without Armor Abilities. But by your standards if I went and identified it as such, it would be too much like a, how did you describe it, "game guide". And don't speak to me in an imputent tone sir. I know very well what the Wikipedia community strives for, but the "normal bloke" who visits the Halo Reach page is probably looking for some details, not a one to two line mention. SkyJW15 (talk) 00:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

What the "normal bloke" would look for would be a summarisation of the overall plot and genre ("A Sci-fi game set on a Human-occupied world in the future, under an attack from an alien force known as the Covenant"), its release date, the console it is on, and *if available* some ratings. If you want to go in-depth, I suggest you try the Halo Encyclopedia. --OsirisV (talk) 01:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

If someone wanted to learn all the things you say they want to learn in an article about a game, then they'd just go to IGN or Gamestop where they could get the same information by searching it on their website. Hell, I could get everything you're talking about out of the booklets they have at Hollywood video for free that give everything you've stated people want to know in a 3 inch space (if that), along with the same information for plenty of other games. Also, take into consideration that the "normal bloke" who comes through here is most likely a "normal gamer", because no random person is going to be searching "Halo: Reach" as if they've never heard of Halo before, considering that in gaming culture Halo is one of the biggest games of this generation. The way I see it, people who look up a videogame on any site are probably looking for information other than the basic storyline, which they probably already know. What they're most likely looking for are details that either persuade them or enlighten them, and this "article" does neither. At the rate this "article" is going you might aswell erase all of it and just place a link to the Halo: Reach page on Bungie.net for the time being. So fine, if Wikipedia is meant to be no better than a booklet that took a dollar and an hour to make, then I'll leave you to do so. SkyJW15 (talk) 14:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Come back when you learn to spell your five-dollar words correctly. I think you'll find the guidelines and policies won't have changed. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Very good response, bravo sir, bravo. Your wisdom and intelligence is beyond compare. And your ability to give me such a great counter argument in a civil debate. C'est belle monsieur, c'est belle! 99.53.98.17 (talk) 22:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

um i see the need to have info on a game so many play, but wouldnt it be just as fun to play the game on the same lvl as everyone else and have the excitement of the halo universe unfold at the release date and not be bord of the game after a week of its release? =) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.255.149 (talk) 18:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Forge Mode?

Does anyone know if this game will have the Forge Mode of Halo 3? If so please put that info and a citation into the article. Venom__Claw 16:44, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

They have not explicitly mentioned Forge. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that there will be since in the recent April Fools Multiplayer Strategy Trailer we see a player control the Forge Monitor. There were also several other clues such as territory markings and unique tags above players heads such as "King" and "Pawn" to resemble the titles of the characters in the fictional Chess game mode. SkyJW15 (talk) 00:43, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

No offense, but that was an April Fools Trailer. No, I don't think Reach will have Forge support. As a matter of fact, Bungie hasn't even said anything about it. I sure would like to see it in though. I'm not biased. I'm neutral on this. xXSc3n1cXx 18:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by XXSc3n1cXx (talk • contribs)

They only accidentally mentioned Juggernaut was returning. They're staying close to the chest with lots of info; we just have to wait for sources. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Your logic makes no sense XXSc3n1cXx. No game developer would ever release all of the information for the game when it's so far from release. Most likely they've added features to Forge and are keeping them hidden for later when they're not talking about the multiplayer as much. And considering this is the time in the development that they're focusing on the Beta, they're not going to just give off a bunch of info on other modes because that's not the current priority. And also, the joke of the April Fools trailer was the chess mode, so anything not relating to it still hold ground. And why would they go backwards? Pretty much everyone who plays Halo 3 also uses Forge, so for them to go and say "Hey, you guys all loved it so now we're taking it away" would just tick off all the fans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SkyJW15 (talk • contribs) 20:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

UPDATE: GameInformer just announced Forge through their article with their preview of the Halo: Reach beta. Here's the link http://gameinformer.com/games/halo_reach/b/xbox360/archive/2010/04/21/halo-reach-multiplayer-beta-hands-on-preview.aspx SkyJW15 (talk) 16:36, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

um lol didnt they take out the forge in odst? :O —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.255.149 (talk) 18:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

yes and no. there was no forge for firefight, but given the nature of that game type it wasn't needed. The multiplayer disc (2nd disc with all multiplayer modes) did have forge, however, this is more of a Halo 3 disc then a ODST disc.Solarguy17 (talk) 03:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the April's fools joke wasn't made for nothing, they wouldn't have spent that much time on it and not include some part of it in the game. Also, the bipd tag for the Monitor was found in the reach beta level, and since i don't really see how 343 Guilty Spark could get all the way from Installation 04 to Reach, neither do i see why he would want to, i think it is safe to say that forge is going to be included in the game. ⊕Assasin Joe ^talk 14:28, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from ChefSwags, 30 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

Halo: Reach has an official confirmed release date of September 2nd., Please Change

GameStop confirms!

GameStop is not a reliable source. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 03:58, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Gamestop was wrong. May 3 is the beta.Cosmos0001 (talk) 04:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Error about the Limited Edition price

In the article it says $90 for the Limited Edition but the actual price is $80.

http://www.gamestop.com/Catalog/ProductDetails.aspx?Product_ID=77712

• I've removed the pricing - since it's gonna be released in multiple countries (and even in the same country pricing may differ per store) it's impossible to track the "correct" pricing. --Teancum (talk) 13:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Terrible wording

"Halo: Reach is a shooter game; players experience gameplay from a first-person perspective."

Uhh, are you serious? It's a first-person shooter, not a shooter from a first-person perspective. 67.186.179.229 (talk) 21:04, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

It has the same goddamn meaning! Besides, they're called shooter (or "shoot-'em-up") games. They're just abbreviated FPS because it's quicker to say First-Person shooter.-- OsirisV (talk) 21:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

It does have the same meaning; it's just about 7 words shorter. The current sentence sounds idiotic. Please go read a style manual.67.186.179.229 (talk) 00:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Not everyone is a video game player and would know what FPS means. It's an accessibility issue. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Why not just say that it is a First Person Shooter? First Person means from the point of view of the person being controlled and shooter is selp explanetory - you shoot stuff. If someone does not understand the meaning of the term "First Person" then that means that they're just stupid to be honest;I remember learning about the term first person in Language Arts during third grade.

I'm not saying change it to FPS. I'm saying change it to "first person shooter". 98.110.194.25 (talk) 22:37, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

While this could have been addressed more diplomatically, the point stands. The verbiage is inconcise and squirelly, and "Halo: Reach is a first-person shooter," with a link to the FPS article, says in 5 words what the other sentence mumbles out in 11.214.3.138.234 (talk) 18:10, 9 June 2010 (UTC)Steve

Why is it still a shooter game with experience in first person perspective? I mean changing it to First-Person shooter is not that much of a change but it does save many words, that just like someone said before, are being mumbled. HELLSRIDER (talk) 01:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Sl4y3r999, 8 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} I would like to change the release date for the product on this page.

My source http://www.bungiestore.com/Halo-Reach/A/B002BSA20M.htm has a release date for this product.

I believe this source is accurate as the store it is on is by the same developer as the product shown on this page.

Sl4y3r999 (talk) 15:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The September 1 release date is not echoed or reported at any other reliable/official source that I can see; it remains undetermined on xbox.com and IGN, for example. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually there seem to be a fair bit of sources that claim the same thing ([2], [3]), although no official statement from Microsoft. Most sources seem to agree on a release date for of September 1 for US ([4], [5]) and September 24 for EU ([6]). Even Amazon has put 1 September as the release date. Anyone against me adding this to the article or have some sources that disagree with this? - EdoDodo ^talk 13:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

September 1 is a generic date used for the Fall of any given year. Vendors will often tell you that if you ask. It's a date that they can put down to grab pre-orders. Until Bungie or Microsoft release the street date don't believe any other dates. --Teancum (talk) 02:16, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Information regarding Arena

New information regarding the Arena mode has been released by Bungie. There should be a new section in the article that involves the Arena mode and the formula used to rate a player on his/her gameplay. Str8Rippiniz2Legit (talk) 02:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

That would fall afoul of WP:GAMEGUIDE. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 02:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Jesseunger, 16 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} In the Release section of the Halo: Reach article, the convert function (convert|10|lb|kg) reads out as "a 10 pounds (4.5 kg) statue". I suggest removing the convert and replacing it with just "a 10 pound (4.5 kg) statue". -Thanks

Jesseunger (talk) 19:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Fixed with an additional parem. to the template. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Additional material

The Sydney Morning Herald Digital Life section wrote an article here on the game if anyone is looking for additional material. Salavat (talk) 07:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. If someone else doesn't add it, I will. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Single-player customization info

Link -- is an video interview (around 5:30) where the dev states that any armor customization attained in single-player would be visible when the player is viewed in cutscenes. A small thing, but I thought it particularly of note. It's from an IGN Insider video, so there's no actual link to the parent video, just the YouTube copy - that's why I didn't cite it in the article. If someone can find a public version it might be useful to add. --Teancum (talk) 14:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I've heard that too, it's just a matter of finding a decent source. I'll take a look. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

IT says its set in the year 2552? ,this can't be posable as that's the year odst is set in! an as odst is set during the halo 2 time-line, and reach is set be four halo 1 it just cant be right! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.7.68.185 (talk) 04:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Possible vandalism

Third shooter game? First person (linking to third person (videogames))? Cancerites (linking to cancer (Halo 3))? Just, what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalek9 (talk • contribs) 08:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Nice catch, that is one of the reasons this page was protected from IP's ⊕Assasin Joe ^talk 14:40, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Gareth Lorn, 5 July 2010

The character section of this page is really lacking. There are dossiers on the Bungie website with detailed descriptions of each member of Noble Team, but this page only lists their names. For half of the squad, it doesn't even bother with an adjective. It also supposedly lists Carter as "no-nonsense". Is there a source for that? I don't remember him ever being referred to as "no-nonsense". Lastly, it says the marksman's name is "halo-266". Said marksman is not, in fact, named "halo". His name is Jun.

The gameplay part of the page is also needs an overhaul. There's no mention of the various info dumps Bungie released at E3 a couple weeks ago, such as Firefight 2.0 and the inclusion of space battles in campaign. Why? Both of those are pretty important.

If someone wants to give me access to the Reach page, I'd be happy fixing it. If not, someone should probably get on it. Just saying.

Gareth Lorn (talk) 15:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Technology?

Halo Wars takes place approximately 20 years before Halo Reach, but yet I've seen Cutscenes of Marines wielding the Battle Riffle.But during the time of this game that technology wasn't out and they were using the Designated Marksman Rifle? Please Explain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rickman1945 (talk • contribs) 02:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The BR55 was in production in 2524, being used by Johnson and his militia on Harvest. It was an experimental prototype weapon for the majority of the war and so did not enter mass-production until near the end. The M392 Designated Marksman Rifle is an Army-issue Battle Rifle that is either the former service-issue Battle Rifle or simply a BR55 modified for the Army instead of the Marine Corps (they like to name them differently, like how the MA37 is an MA5-series Assault Rifle to the Marines) - depending on whether or not the BR55 was service-issue by the Fall of Reach.-- OsirisV (talk) 08:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

...And aside from that, it's not a real universe, and thus retcons happen. It's not really germane to the focus of this article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Further forge info, from ?reliable? source?

Comic-con panel, YouTube footage --Teancum (talk) 14:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I've commented in an IGN ref, which is supremely better than using Youtube or other such video documentation for our purposes. I suggest those looking to expand the coverage use that. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Forge World

Section Gameplay, paragraph 3. Forge World is referred to as "ForgeWorld" while the citation says its called Forge World and even on recent Bungie Weekly Update (and ViDoc) it's been called Forge World Bungie.net: Bungie Weekly Update: 07.23.10.

Also I think this is the "citation needed" for the first paragraph of Multiplayer (spending credits on customization) Bungie.net: Bungie Weekly Update 03.26.10. --Exrain (talk) 17:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. I'll take a look at the citation needed later. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Trivial info

Development > Multiplayer beta. "Since the beta ended on May 20, this means that the duration between the end of the beta and the full game coming out will be 117 days, a reference to John-117." that looks like trivial and useless info for me. --Exrain (talk) 03:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, on announcements there's a link to the achievements revealed in a Bungie Weekly Update. There's already a link for the Wikia page before the navbox templates and that sentence is also useless. --Exrain (talk) 03:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Photos

The photos on the page are really boring. Can someone spice it up and show off the engine? http://www.bungie.net/projects/reach/images.aspx?c=59 These are great HD pictures —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tunavi (talk • contribs) 16:22, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Leak

Halo: Reach was leaked to some extent earlier this week. I would be happy if members of Wikipedia tried to stop heavy spoilers from being added before the release date.

While this "no spoilers" idea didn't go well with the last Harry Potter novel (the entire plot being on Wikipedia before 12:00 GMT on the day of release), I would like to point out that people randomly adding in spoilers may not be telling the truth (for example: lying to see readers' reactions) and are unlikely to have sources.-- OsirisV (talk) 18:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

oh yeah ? who is lying now ? http://img294.imageshack.us/img294/7427/img0059qu.jpg . full list of halo reach campaign. so... :) Moppf (talk) 17:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)