[quote][/quote][b]Continued from Page 1[/b][quote][/quote] [quote][/quote][quote][b]Argument 2)[/b] [i]But doesn't Halo Reach take place before the Halo Trilogy? Spikers only appeared in Halo 3, they were absent in Halo 2, and because Halo Reach takes place before Halo 2, Brutes won't be wielding their Halo 3 armor or their Halo 3 weapons, including the Spiker.[/i][/quote][quote][/quote] Although I am by no means as much of a canon buff as some of the other people in this forum, I believe I know enough to counter this, if I have certain minor details wrong, please find it in your hearts to forgive me. Although I haven't yet read the book, I know that Spikers appeared in [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contact_Harvest][i]"Halo: Contact Harvest"[/i][/url] by Joseph Staten, who was the Writing Director for both Halo CE and Halo 2, and was heavily involved with the stories for Halo 3 and ODST. Even if some of you think that Game canon overrides book canon, it's going to be hard to claim that this book is un-canon given who wrote it. The book detailed the skirmishes leading up to the beginning of the Human Covenant War. The leaders of the Covenant discovered that the human-controlled planet of Harvest contained thousands and thousands of Forerunner Artifacts. To investgate this unprecidented find, Brutes were sent to scout out the planet of Harvest instead of Elites because if Elites discovered that Harvest had a huge number of artifacts, they could use it to upset the balance of power between the Elites and the Prophets. The specific mention of Spikers that I'm aware of in the novel occurred during the death of Captain Ponders. Tartarus impaled him using the Spiker Bayonet. So given this, we know that the technology of Spikers was employed by Brutes twenty seven years before the Battle of Reach. [i]"So why weren't there Spikers in Halo 2?"[/i] the reader might ask. To my knowledge, there is no official canon-based explanation that does a good job of explaining why Spikers weren't in Halo 2. However, there is a very legitimate development-related reason which answers this query: Time. Specifically, the lack thereof. [url=http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/better-than-halo-the-making-of-halo-2-article]It's no secret that Bungie was rushed to complete Halo 2.[/url] They had such an ambitious vision for what they wanted Halo 2 to be, but they over extended themselves, and things started to go downhill. They had to cut out huge segments of the game just to get it out on time. A very telling quote from this interview just shows how bad things got: [quote][i]"There's a famous drawing that someone did on a whiteboard in the team's space that shows a plane on fire trying to land on a runway, and people are jettisoning cargo crates out the back of the plane in order to try and get it on the runway. Every crate has the name of a feature we had to cut... In the end, we ran out of room on the whiteboard for all the crates."[/i][/quote] Surely one of those crates contained the Spikers that were supposed to be in Halo 2. Bungie had always intended to give Brutes their own weapon set to clearly distinguish them from the Elites. However, time was running out, so Bungie was forced to make shortcuts. Instead of designing a Spiker-like weapon, Bungie thought [i]"Let's take a Elite Plasma Rifle, color it red, tweak it to increase the rate of fire, and we have ourselves a new weapon! Let's call it the Brute Plasma Rifle!"[/i] That's right, the Brute Plasma Rifle is a cheap excuse for the Spiker that was meant to be in Halo 2. To this day I wonder how they would have balanced the Spiker in that game, or if I would have liked it. On a side note, if you were wondering why the Brutes wielded human shotguns in Campaign, this is because they also ran out of time to create a mauler-like weapon. Thus, the Bruteshot became the only [i]"true"[/i] wieldable Brute weapon in the Halo 2 sandbox. When development for Halo 3 began and Bungie had more time to go back and redefine the Brutes to turn them from emotionless damage sponges into a living species, they finally had the time to create the Spiker and include it in the final game along with ideas from other crates Halo 2 that were jettisoned to allow that burning plane to land (Maulers, Mongooses...). So we know that Spikers existed prior to the Battle of Reach, and we know that there weren't any canon reasons for why the Spiker wasn't in Halo 2, so the fact that Halo Reach is a prequel isn't enough to prove that the Spikers won't be returning. Talking about the Brute Sandbox is a nice segue into the next argument on my list to slaughter. It's almost as if I have this planned out... [quote][/quote][b]Continued on Page 3[/b][quote][/quote] [Edited on 04.23.2010 5:28 PM PDT]

[quote][/quote][b]Continued from Page 2[/b][quote][/quote] [quote][/quote][quote][b]Argument 3)[/b] [i]Okay, so Brutes are in Reach, and there is a valid excuse for why there were no Spikers in Halo 2, but why Spikers? Why can't Brutes just wield Gravity Hammers? Or Brute Shots? Or Brute Plasma Rifles? Maulers? Needlers? Plasma Rifles? They have a lot of weapons to choose from as a member of the Covenant, so why must they wield Spikers?[/i][/quote][quote][/quote] First off, I think we can all agree that Brutes need to wield some weapons other than the Gravity Hammer. A single Brute Chieftain with a Gravity Hammer in a crowd of Elites would be silly. A group of Brutes all wielding Gravity Hammers would be ridiculous. Brutes fight in packs, the Alpha Male gets to wield a Hammer, but the rest of the pups need something less powerful to wield. So why is it they can't wield any needle-based or plasma-based weaponry, you ask? I'll try not to get into too much depth as this will begin to delve into the separate topic of [i]"What will Brutes look like in Reach?"[/i], but I'll start with Halo 2. As we established earlier, Halo 2 was a rushed game, and Brutes simply didn't get the attention that they should have gotten. Not just from a weapon-set side, but from a species side. Brutes in Halo 2 were emotionless boring meatshields that weren't fun to fight. They showed no pain. You couldn't really even tell when they were close to death. All you could do was pour ammo into them until they died. Bungie had more time to flesh out the Brutes in Halo 3 though, and they did a lot of great things with them. They came up with the concept of Brutes fighting in packs, gave them interesting armor, and their own weapon set. It really seemed like Brutes in Halo 3 had their own culture as compared to the Brutes in Halo 2. However, Bungie ran into a problem which ultimately ended up crippling Brutes for Halo 3. In the story, Elites had left the Covenant, and so from a gameplay perspective, Bungie needed an enemy to fill the void in the Covenant Lineup. They chose to use Brutes to accomplish this. This is all well and good, except that Brutes were never supposed to be anything like Elites. The two races are totally different, both from a cultural aspect, but a game play aspect as well. When Brutes were adapted to fill the Elite Void, their Identity was compromised through several conflicting design decisions. On one hand, Brutes got that sweet looking armor, right? But on the other hand, that armor was brightly colored blue, green, and gold, almost like Elites. This really doesn't match the "brutal" vibe that Brutes are supposed to have as a race. They should have looked like [url=http://xbox360.ign.com/dor/objects/734817/halo-3/images/halo-3-20061220042103940.html]they did in their concept art[/url], where their armor was grey, rusty, colors expected by the weakest rank of fighter. The shiny ornate colors should belong exclusively to the higher ranks, but nothing as silly as a mono-colored gold armor, just perhaps a little highlight here or there. Again about their armor, Brutes were given shielding for the first time in Halo 3, but they retained the "Armor Breakdown" feature from Halo 2. This really made Brutes look stupid. I mean, eventually you would shoot all the brute's armor off, and they would all look the same underneath, and their shields wouldn't recharge. I mean, I could understand if you could shoot their helmets off for the killing blow when their shields went down, but a complete armor failure like that? Either they should have shields, or you should shoot off their armor, but not both! It made them very easy to kill, because unlike elites, Brutes couldn't take a plasma pistol hit, run behind the rocks, and recover to full strength. Finally, and more relevant to this discussion, Brutes were given their own sandbox of weapons that all functioned well at close range or melee range combat. You would expect Brutes to get up close and personal with these weapons, always taking every opportunity they had to advance towards the player. But no. They stood back at medium range where their weapons were ineffective, and waited for the player to come to them. They didn't even really take cover like Elites did, they just stood out in the open, waiting to die. Only when you shot off their armor were they interested in charging you down and killing you, but by that time, they are easy to kill, and they throw away the very weapons that could help them to win at close range combat! But despite all this, Brutes can shine in Reach now that Elites are in the game again. Bungie can find a happy medium between the mindless meatshields of Halo 2 and the Brulites of Halo 3, and build Brutes up in a new direction. In my mind at least, Brutes would borrow combat aspects of the flood (since they are unlikely to return in this game) and constantly advance towards the player. Charging from crate to crate, the pack closes the distance, engaging you up close. Regardless of how they are implemented though, an important step is to clearly separate Brutes from all Elite influences. Giving Brutes their own weapon set specifically designed for their role in combat makes much more sense than forcing them to wield needlers, needle pistols, and plasma rifles which are designed for other species' fighting styles. Otherwise you are just repeating the mistakes of Halo 3. [quote][/quote][b]Continued on Page 4[/b][quote][/quote] [Edited on 04.23.2010 5:28 PM PDT]

[quote][/quote][b]Continued from Page 3[/b][quote][/quote] So now that we've established why Brutes are likely to wield their own weapons instead of using other Covenant Weapons, we arrive the second part of this question: [i]"Why, out of the many brute weapons, does the Spiker need to return?"[/i] To begin with, I want to touch briefly on the approach that Bungie is taking towards focusing the Sandbox in Halo Reach. They want each weapon to hold a unique niche, defined primarily by range, but if not, then by how it is used. The goal is to create a deep and diverse weapon set, not a redundant one. For example, the Sniper Rifle and the Beam Rifle from Halo 3 were considered redundant with each other because the Beam Rifle fought at the exact same ranges that the Sniper Rifle did, and it was used in the exact same way as the Sniper Rifle. So the Beam Rifle got axed, they stuck a Scope on the Sentinel Beam, redesigned the body, and now the Covenant have the Focus Rifle as their primary long range weapon. So let's evaluate the chances of each Brute Weapon returning in Reach based on this Sandbox Philosophy (besides the Gravity Hammer, Flame, and Spike Grenade). The Brute Plasma Rifle is the least likely to return in Reach. As we established earlier, it is a last minute Spiker replacement that should have never existed in the first place. If it were to be put into Reach, it would be redundant with both the Plasma Rifle and the Plasma Repeater. Not to mention that it falls under the same category of "Weapons Brutes won't wield because they need to have a unique niche" that we established earlier in this section with other covenant weaponry. Worse off, you can't really tweak the weapon into a unique niche because it is crippled by its identity as a Plasma Weapon which is the major thing that makes it redundant in the first place. There just really isn't any way for this weapon to return and be unique. Although in a slightly better boat, I fear that we won't see the return of the Mauler in Reach either. Without dual wielding, it's redundant, and essentially just a weaker shotgun. It is crippled by its identity as a shotgun like weapon, how do you suggest balancing it so that it is more unique? Tighten the blast, increase the Range? They are already doing that with the Human Shotgun, so that wouldn't be as clear of a distinction. So the Mauler is pretty much screwed as well. The Bruteshot is really on the fence at the moment. On one hand, you could say that it is redundant with the Human Grenade Launcher (aka Pro Pipe), as they are both anti-vehicle weapons that specialize not in directly killing, but disabling and preserving the vehicle once the operators are killed. On the other, you could say that the two weapons are fundamentally different in their approaches at killing the enemy. The Pro Pipe fires a single grenade which disables vehicles with an EMP blast, allowing the operators to be killed with a secondary weapon. The Bruteshot fires multiple grenades which disable vehicles by flipping them, forcing the operators out of the vehicle where they can be more-easily killed. If the Brute Shot has any chance of surviving, this distinction needs to be clear. Perhaps turn the Bruteshot into a [i]"Gravity Shot"[/i]? I mean, isn't it a bit odd that Brutes seem to have mastery over gravity yet they only apply it to a single weapon? It would help make the differences between the two weapons apparent for sure. I personally think that the Bruteshot will likely return as the Covenant need some weapons that is capable of freaking the player out in campaign without instantly killing them. Can you imagine driving along in a warthog, only to have a pack of brutes with Gravity Shots jump out from behind a rock and flip your vehicle? The stress of falling out of your vehicle, trying to flip it, and get everyone back in the right seats, while trying to avoid weapon fire, adds to the excitement of the game. I may have gone off on a tangent, but regardless, even if the Brute Shot returns in some form, it really doesn't seem like the sort of standard brute weapon that you would expect the peons to wield, right? It makes the most sense to have the Chieftains wield Gravity Hammers, the high ranks wielding bruteshots, and the basic infantry wielding Spikers. I mean, even Halo 2 brutes, rushed though they were, had to have a cheap, recolored, excuse for a weapon besides the Bruteshot, right? This makes the spiker the most likely brute weapon to return in Halo Reach. A bold claim, given that I haven't even explained why the Spiker wouldn't be redundant with other weapons in Reach. Patience, I am saving that part for the next section. [quote][/quote][b]Continued on Page 5[/b][quote][/quote] [Edited on 04.23.2010 5:29 PM PDT]

[quote][/quote][b]Continued from Page 4[/b][quote][/quote] [quote][/quote][quote][b]Argument 4)[/b] [i]How is the Spiker not a redundant weapon? It was pretty much the Covenant version of the SMG, right? Well I've heard a couple of times that Bungie said the SMG isn't going to return in Reach. So isn't the Spiker going to be removed as well? In fact, I remember hearing Bungie say that there weren't going to be Spikers in Reach at all. What do you have to say about that?[/i][/quote][quote][/quote] Indeed, it is true that Bungie confirmed that the SMG will not be returning in Reach: [url=http://gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2010/03/31/exclusive-interview-on-the-halo-reach-sandbox.aspx][quote][b]Can you tell us something about the returning weapons? Which old favorites will we be seeing again? Any notable absences?[/b] [b]MERRILL:[/b][i] In general we've tried to refine the sandbox, focusing on specific roles and range filled by the weapons that are left so each has a purpose. As a result, the SMG is also gone. There are already superior weapons in that range and the SMG is just a s------- version of the assault rifle. And without dual wielding, the SMG has even less of a purpose.[/i][/quote][/url] However, the Spiker will not die in the same fashion that the SMG did. Not by a long shot. The two weapons work fundamentally different from each other, and to accuse the Spiker of being redundant with the AR is a laughable prospect. Let's look at the SMG first, okay? Compared to the AR, the SMG has a higher rate of fire, but does less damage per bullet to balance it out. In addition, the bullets spread outwards faster than the AR, and the cone of spread was altogether larger than the AR. As a dual wieldable weapon, it could be paired up with other weapons to increase the damage output at the sacrifice of Grenades. However, dual wielding is not returning to Reach. Sure, it looked cool, and it was fun, but it really wasn't a deep game-changing mechanic, so it was taken out to simplify the game. I mean, sure, you had a choice between using grenades or increasing your damage output, but everybody dual wielded anyways, knowing they could drop the second gun to regain their grenade capabilities whenever they needed to. And although there was many combinations of weapons you could dual wield, it was pretty simple: grab a plasma weapon, grab a not plasma weapon, fire at the enemy. Without dual wielding, the SMG is essentially a tweaked version of the AR, it fights at the same range as the AR, and it is used in a similar way to the AR (burst firing to keep it accurate, ect.), and as a result, it is redundant. You can't tweak the SMG into a unique role either, it is paralyzed by the fact that it is modeled after a real world Human Weapon. If you mess with the rate of fire, the damage per bullet, or give it other mechanics, gun fanatics start saying things like [i]"What? This isn't a sub machine gun anymore, it's now some other class of gun."[/i] It would in effect become a wolf in sheep's clothing. It no longer serves a purpose alongside the AR, so it was taken out of the game as it added no depth. So this arguement is saying that the Spiker should also share the same fate as the SMG because it is [i]"The Covenant SMG"[/i]? Sure, the Spiker is dual wieldable like the SMG, and sure, it doesn't fire plasma, and sure, it is a close range weapon, but beyond that, it is pretty much the polar opposite of the SMG. >While the SMG has a higher rate of fire than the AR, the Spiker has a lower rate of fire. >While the SMG does less damage per bullet than the AR, the Spiker does more damage per bullet. >While the SMG has a larger spread cone than the AR, the Spiker has a smaller spread cone. >While the SMG's bullets travel quicker than the AR's, the Spikers spikes are much slower. >While you need to burst fire the SMG to keep it accurate at longer ranges, you need to lead your shots with the Spiker to keep it accurate at those same ranges. Because the Spiker works differently than both the SMG and the AR, it is a unique weapon, and will not suffer the same fate as the SMG. To address the final part of the leading question where people might have thought that Bungie said that the Spiker will not be returning in Reach, their misconceptions come from the [url=http://downloads.bungie.net/podcasts/Bungie_Podcast_32910.mp3]3/29/10 Bungie Podcast.[/url] This episode featured Sage Merrill, the Sandbox Design Lead for Halo Reach, as a guest. He was placed in the hot seat and was asked 20 detailed questions about minor nuances of how Reach's multiplayer worked. Our transcript beigns with the final question: [quote][b]1:08:47 Brian Jarrard:[/b] So the last question of our formal twenty is a loaded one perhaps, but what do you feel is the most significant sandbox change overall from Halo 3 to Halo Reach? [b]Sage Merrill:[/b] So it's obviously equipment, or "Armor Abilities", changes. Outside of that... we actually talked a little bit about this to figure out "What is the Correct Answer Here?". I think it's mostly that it's the focusing of the sandbox, of the weapons, and that everything falls into a particular role. So there isn't one "Uber-Weapon" for all encounters, you're using all the tools more, you don't just have one super tool, there is no particular load out that crushes everything else, it depends on the environment you're in and the scenario, and what your play style is, etcetera. So we're really trying to push that and equipment comes into that but there's- again, we talked about how we removed some weapons because they just didn't have a place, and then we're trying to fill in those gaps. [b]Brian Jarrard:[/b] I know, like I don't know how the B.U.N.G.L.E. Pro League will sustain itself with the [b][u]omission of being able to have dual spikers...[/u][/b] [b]Eric Osborne?:[/b] No SMG... [b]Brian Jarrard:[/b] -and it's a huge part of our league, and we might have to adapt. [/quote] For those of you who don't know what B.U.N.G.L.E is, I suggest reading [url=http://www.bungie.net/News/content.aspx?cid=18569]this article[/url] about the league. Indeed, dual-wieldable spiker are the core of our organization, they are even featured in our [url=http://www.bungie.net/images/News/slooflirpa/bungle_inline.jpg]logo[/url]. But notice the way Brian phrased his comment. Although he was joking around, note that he never said that the Spikers were gone from Reach in the same way Eric (aka Urk) said there were no SMGs. In fact, he took the time to specifically clarify that it was a shame that you wouldn't be able to have [u]dual-wieldable[/u] Spikers in Reach. Big surprise, dual wielding is gone in Reach, so if Spikers return, they would have to be single wieldable. But if you believe that the lack of dual wieldable Spikers in Reach means that there won't be any Spikers in reach, then how do you explain the existence of the Magnum? By the same logic, one could say that there are no dual wieldable magnums in Reach, and therefore there shouldn't be any sort of magnum in Reach. So why is there a magnum in Reach? This quote from Brian Jarrard is not enough to kill the Spiker, not by a long shot. [quote][/quote][b]Continued on Page 6[/b][quote][/quote] [Edited on 04.23.2010 5:29 PM PDT]

[quote][/quote][b]Continued from Page 5[/b][quote][/quote] [quote][/quote][quote][b]Argument 5)[/b] [i]I think that the Spiker isn't coming back because I believe it was a useless weapon. I never found myself picking it up in Campaign, and I certainty never touched it in Multiplayer. Why does it deserve to return in Reach?[/i][/quote][quote][/quote] Whether or not you believe the Spiker was a good weapon in Halo 3, one thing is for certain, if it comes back in Reach, it will see a significant power boost. Simply put, the Spiker in Halo 3 was what many people would call a "half weapon". Hell, the Spiker is my favorite weapon, and even I can agree that it isn't as awesome single wielded compared to dual wielded. It simply can't generate the density of spikes you need to properly combat opponents at range without its twin. But hey! No dual wielding in Reach, eh? Guess that's more than an excuse to increase the power of the weapon. So we don't have to worry about it being "worthless" anymore, right? Now, a good question is [i]"exactly how should the spiker change?"[/i] Personally I think that it only needs a few tweaks. First, I would increase the firing rate slightly to emulate the spike output of the dual wieldable spikers. Definitely not double the Halo 3 Spiker's firing rate, maybe 150% of the speed. To prevent the Spiker from running dry so quickly with the new firing rate, I think that the magazine should be increased slightly as well. But to be honest, the only real way to find the winning combination is through trial and error, so I shall ultimately leave the balancing up to Sage and his beardlings. [b]Update:[/b] I forgot the first time I was writing this, but I'd like the ricochet from the Spikes to be more pronounced this time around. Something more towards the needles from the Halo CE Needler, but not that extreme. And if even a power boost isn't enough to get you to wield the Spiker, that's quite alright, nobody is forcing you to use the weapon. That's the great thing about Halo, there's something for everyone. And hey, it means more Spikers for me. On the aesthetic side of things, I also expect to see the Spiker undergo a drastic change. In the hands of a Brute, the Spiker looked more like a pistol than a rifle. Not going to lie, Spikers look pretty lame when single wielded. As a result, I'd expect it to be a bit bigger, perhaps a little longer, something that looks like it really needs two hands to wield. I'm no art major, so I'll leave the aesthetic direction up to the imagination of the reader. In addition, I'm excited to see what the Spiker would sound like if it were to have more "punch" to it like the other weapons in the sandbox. The sound the Spiker made in Halo 3 soothed me as I tore through other players, but it really doesn't sound like something that Brutes would manufacture. Ideally it would sound like it did in Halo 3, but it would have a bit more of an explosive kick behind it. Again, I'm no Sound Major, lrn2imagine. You see, unlike the SMG, the Spiker has a flexible identity. It's an alien weapon. Made by space apes. It's really only appeared in one game. Bungie could do quite a bit with it and people would still say [i]"Oh hey! Check out the new Spiker!"[/i] So long as it still fires spikes, has giant blades, and works in close range combat, people honestly aren't going to care too much. Heck, they could even rename the weapon to the Shredder or something, and people would still identify it as "A bigger Spiker". The fact that a weapon is weak should not be the basis by which we choose what weapons to retire and which weapons we bring back. Look at the Beam Rifle. It was a power weapon, and yet, that didn't save it from its fate. Some weapons can change drastically and retain their identities, some really can't, fortunately for me, the Spiker is very malleable. This is why I have high hopes of seeing it again in Reach. [quote][/quote][quote][b]Argument 6)[/b] [i]But wait a minute, if there is a Spiker in the game, why isn't it in the multiplayer beta? It was a weapon in the Halo 3 beta after all, maybe it really isn't in the game despite everything you said.[/i][/quote][quote][/quote] Oh yes, it is quite certain that the Spiker will not appear in the Halo Reach Multiplayer Beta. If it was in the game, they would have revealed it along with the rest of the beta sandbox back a couple of weeks ago (when I first started writing this thread). Why am I calmly stating this? Because I know that many weapons that appeared in Halo 3 never showed up in the Beta. Maulers, Flame Grenades, Flamethrower, Spike Grenades, Sentinel Beam, Plasma Turret, Choppers, Prowlers, Hornets... by the logic of [i]"If it isn't in the beta, it isn't in the final game,"[/i] then these weapons should have never appeared in Halo 3. Clearly Bungie decided that the Spiker wasn't a crucial part of the Sandbox to test, and saved it to be revealed later. So when is it likely for us to see the Spiker? At [url=http://www.timeanddate.com/counters/fullscreen.html?mode=a&year=2010&month=6&day=15&hour=0&min=0&sec=0&p0=234]E3 2010[/url] of course. Bungie said in the [url=http://downloads.bungie.net/podcasts/Bungie_Podcast_30910.mp3]03/09/10 Bungie Podcast[/url] at 8:34 that they wouldn't be revealing any Campaign information until much later, around E3. Bungie is clearly trying to keep it low key that Brutes are enemies in the game, so E3 will likely be our first look at them, and by extension, the Spikers they clutch in their dirty ape hands. It's a long wait, but I can be patient, the Beta will help things go by faster as well. [quote][/quote][b]Continued on Page 7[/b][quote][/quote] [Edited on 04.24.2010 2:26 PM PDT]

[quote][/quote][b]Continued from Page 6[/b][quote][/quote] [quote][/quote][b]Conclusion[/b][quote][/quote] A question that people commonly ask me is [i]"Hylebos, what will you do if there isn't a Spiker in Reach?"[/i] Hopefully the reader can now understand why I find this question very odd to answer, it's almost as if they had asked me [i]"Hylebos, what will you do if you wake up one day and find that your left foot has been replaced by a kitten with a cactus for a nose?"[/i] The preconditions to the question seem so absurd and impossible that it becomes difficult to predict what it would actually feel like. Instead of finding myself pondering [i]"What would I do?"[/i] I first think about [i]"Why the hell would that ever happen?"[/i] I mean, the Spiker has a unique role to fill in both the Campaign and the Multiplayer. Sure, perhaps it's inclusion in multiplayer isn't necessary to make Reach a legendary and classic game for future generations, but really, why would it be Campaign and Customs only? The only weapons excluded from matchmaking in the past were all overpowered or detrimental to the game's networking, and Spikers clearly do not fall under either category. Having a few on several maps certainty won't break the game, and I doubt that Bungie will force players to use them; it's just another option for game play, one that isn't redundant with any of the other choices. And so my thread comes to a close. I'd like to thank OldPapaRich for helping me to reserve the number of posts I needed to have an uninterrupted Original Post. I'd also like to thank everybody who managed to stay with me thus far, you guys are troopers. For those who skipped over my wall and started posting without attempting to acquire the most basic grasp of my argument, I have a special counter waiting for you at the end. I invite those who read my entire argument to critique it. I want to make sure that I didn't make any leaps in my logic, and that I accounted for all reasonable possibilities for why the Spiker might not return. For those who think my argument is cogent, you are welcome to discuss possible implementations for the Halo Reach Spiker, or discuss other possible reasons for why the Spiker may or may not be in the game. I also encourage the reader to skim over the replies before posting to make sure that they aren't just parroting a concern that someone else might have had. If I see any evidence which points towards or away from the Spiker returning in Reach, I'll post it in an Epilogue. Remember, any posts trolling or flaming will likely be ignored by me, and I suggest that the reader ignore those posts as well. I look forward to the day that the Spiker is revealed by Bungie, and even more so to the first chance I get to turn someone into a living pincushion. ~Hylebos [quote][b]Silly people who didn't read the OP fully Count:[/b] 041[/quote] Update: I've replied to 16 / 20 pages. [quote][/quote][b]HUGE NEW EVIDENCE CONFIRMS THE SPIKER IN REACH[/b][quote][/quote] When the Halo Reach Stats Pages went live last night, some people started doing some digging around the Bungie.net Database to see what they could find. You know how the tool of destruction page has a picture of each weapon next to the number of kills and deaths you've gotten with that weapon? As the story goes, supposedly some people took the url that lead to one of these images (Example:[url]http://www.bungie.net/images/reachstats/weapons/ar.png[/url]) and played around with the wording near the end with the hopes of finding images for weapons that might be in the final game but not in the beta. Needless to say, somebody tried [url]http://www.bungie.net/images/reachstats/weapons/spiker.png[/url] and got a result. Isn't it a beauty? It's a wireframe of what is supposedly the Halo Reach Spiker. Upon close comparison with an [url=http://download.microsoft.com/download/1/3/b/13ba0977-9968-4232-a19c-7fd285e8a97f/spikefinal.mov]early Halo 3 Spiker Wireframe[/url] the two guns seem identical, save for a few differences. For example, the Reach Spiker seems to have a sort of hook near the top of the grip that reminds me of a Revolver's (Hammer? That thing that sticks out, I'm no gun expert). The area on the side of the Spiker just above the drum also seems to have undergone some changes, and some details have been added here and there. But otherwise, it's the exact same shape, and presumably, size. Unfortunately from this small picture we don't know what changes the Spiker has undergone from Halo 3, or if it is even in mulitplayer (it might be in the same boat as the Plasma Rifle and have a stronger version of the weapon in Multiplayer). I'm suprised that we were able to find something like this so early, but I am relatively content. If you have any reasons for why this wouldn't be a confirmation of the Spiker in Reach, feel free to post them, I haven't been around enough to see the major counters for this discovery. [quote][/quote][b]Spiker Undeniably Confirmed in Reach![/b][quote][/quote] [url=http://halo.bungie.org/images/controllermontage/cm2.jpg]This image[/url] was taken at E3. The focus of the picture was on the Brute Chieftan which takes up most the shot, but if you look in the background on the left, you'll see a second brute, and you'll see the barrel of the Spiker just poking out from behind his body. Given the way that his body is oriented, he seems to be gripping the Spiker with both hands. It doesn't really get more confirmed than this, it's only a matter of time before we get a clearer picture of a Brute holding a Spiker or until Bungie confirms verbally that the Spiker has returned. Sure enough, [url=http://www.bungie.net/projects/reach/images.aspx?c=53&i=26973]a Render of a Brute Minor holding a Spiker[/url] appeared on the Reach Multimedia Page. As you can clearly see, the Aesthetics of the Spiker have been upgraded, instead of producing a blue glow, the Spiker now burns brightly Orange, giving it a more violent look. The rest of the Spiker seems to also be taking full advantage of Reach's increased polygon count. We've seen the Spiker used by Brutes in the new Firefight Footage, but until we get first person footage of the Spiker in use, we can't accurately determine what changes have been made to it since Halo 3. Hopefully somebody will pick it up eventually and we'll be able to analyse it. [quote][/quote][b]Spiker Gameplay Footage Finally![/b][quote][/quote] After months of waiting, [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hHV0hoI4i8#t=30s]someone finally picked up and used the Spiker during Gamescom 2010 and was kind enough to upload some gameplay footage onto youtube for us.[/url] This video reveals a ton of information about changes to the Spiker. First and foremost is a very sweet Aesthetic Change to the gun. As you fire the Spiker rapidly, the end of the barrel begins to overheat and glows cherry red by the time you need to reload. It appears that this effect has no impact on gameplay, but looks REALLY cool, making a badass gun even more badass. The Spiker appears to have the same Magazine Size and Ammo Levels that it saw in Halo 3: 40 Spikes to a Magazine. I find it interesting that your ammo counter in the upper right depletes in columns and not rows like most weapons, it kinda mimics the way that Spikes are fired out of the Spiker. The reload times for the Spiker are also comparable to the Halo 3 Spiker. The Spiker's Rate of Fire and it's Spike Velocity has also increased since Halo 3. Leading your shots, while important as the weapon isn't hitscan, is no longer nearly as dramatic in Reach as it was in Halo 3. The Spiker does not have Reticle Bloom and it doesn't appear to have a Ghost Reticle either (to assist with leading your shots). The angle at which Spikes will ricochet has also been exagerated in Reach, almost like the CE Needler. This means that you still have a chance at hitting enemies even if you fire your Spiker from a steep angle. As for the Damage per Spike, we can't really tell in the video as it was Firefight and we don't know what sort of damage resistance enemies have, but I feel that it is safe to say that it has also seen an increase since Halo 3. We also can't determine if the Blades will give you a Melee Bonus like they did in Halo 3 or not. So far it's looking good. I'm hopeful that the Spiker will appear somewhere in Reach's Default Multiplayer and Matchmaking, but if not, I'll still be happy using it in Campaign, Firefight, and Custom Games. [url=http://www.bungie.net/projects/reach/article.aspx?ucc=ordnance&cid=28445]Urk also finally got around to updating the Ordinance Section to feature the Spiker.[/url] I'll update this one more time after having had some time to play the game and experience the Spiker myself and then I think I'll let the thread drift into the archives to rest in peace. It's been a ton of fun. [Edited on 09.09.2010 6:12 PM PDT]

Dude, you didn't learn from last time your thread was locked?

huh? oh, sorry but the spiker wasn't worth -blam! Sorry, but since dual weilding is out, the spiker will be an even worse weapon now that you can't dual weild it, unless it gets redone and powered up. In any other case, I see no use for it in multiplayer. However I would like it to be in campaign. It seems to fit nicely in there along with plasma rifle and brute shot, but no to multiplayer. [Edited on 04.23.2010 5:46 PM PDT]

what?

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] somerandomperson Dude, you didn't learn from last time your thread was locked?[/quote]WOW fail hes making a mega post with a moderator helping him Edit: Post On Second Page [Edited on 04.23.2010 6:01 PM PDT]

Alright buddy I just finished reading. I've got to say, I'm really impressed with what I read. I was entertained, it was well written, and it made sense the whole way. I've never seen so much intelligence in one place. It was almost as if I was reading an excerpt from a college textbook. I didn't find any fallacies in your reasoning or any errors in your logic. Everything was coherent and on point. As shown by the evidence in here, the Spiker is most likely being produced. However, if it isn't, Sage would probably add it in because of this thread. You bring up mighty fine points here, and it all makes sense. If I were to redesign it, I would make the Spikes push you back when you were shot with it. I'd also make it roughly the same size as the Plasma Repeater. I'd put 3 blades on it instead of 2, and have the user impale for the melee animation. The spikes would also pin you against a wall if you managed to die by one. Perhaps the most fundamental change I'd encorporate is burst fire. Not like the BR, but unique to itself. It would start out firing single shots like it normally does, but after prolonged firing, I'd have it shoot 2 spikes parallel to each other, similar to the linked Ghost shots from Halo CE. This way, if you're holding on the trigger longer, your shots become more powerful, akin to what the Plasma Repeater is offering. I'd give it about 36 spikes in its clip. Thank you for your contribution! I hope the Spiker makes it in the game. [i]p.s. on an unrelated note, do you think I should make a similar thread on the Spectre? The Spectre is [b]my[/b] Spiker, and although there's no indirect confirmations like yours, there is evidence to support its return.[/i] Also, LOL at people who didn't read the OP. You're missing out. [Edited on 04.23.2010 6:05 PM PDT]

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] somerandomperson Dude, you didn't learn from last time your thread was locked?[/quote] This is the thread that was locked. He's working with a mod who he asked to lock and unlock his thread so no-one will comment while hes writing his story.

tl;dr

china called, they want their wall back

I feel the Spiker simply would get ignored and looked over. Plus most weapons on the map seem to be a sort of power weapon and the Spiker does not seem to fit that profile. I just don't think the Spiker could be shoe-horned in. Especially since it's Brute specific so it wouldn't make sense to be in multiplayer for either Spartans or Elites. The only place it seems fitting is in Campaign (which it may be in). The Plasma Rifle is in Campaign but not multiplayer so maybe the Spiker (and possibly Brute Shot?) may have the same treatment.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Yo Grandaddy08 huh? oh, sorry but the spiker wasn't worth -blam![/quote] That's the problem in Halo 3... The Spiker is useless there. 2 points of bonus damage for melee is not enough, and as a gun it doesn't work any better than AR... I do hope it appears in Reach campaign at least, as Brute weapon. Reading the whole... uhh, article?, essay?, on the morning.

he is making some very good points here and they are very well thought out. i personally do not really like the spiker, but his arguments show that there is a possibility that the spiker will be in reach. whether that is a good chance or a small chance is up to interpretation, but there is still a chance. could the brutes in the vidoc been placed there to mess with us like bungie does? definately could bungie done that knowing that we would think that they were messing with us but it really is legit? definately there is not a 100% chance that the spiker will be in reach but it isn't 0% either. i believe it is more like 50/50. but in the end we won't know until either bungie makes a definate confirmation or we play the retail game if spikers are not in the beta

I agree that the spiker fills a unique roll for the Brute character, but in its current Halo 3 form, it does not distinguish itself in the Sandbox. As Bungie has stated, their new mission is to give each weapon its own unique roll, and the spiker didn't really have that. But like you said, the Spiker is very compatible with change, and the Brutes still need a foot-soldier type weapon (which cannot be the Brute Plasma Rifle because this clashes with Bungie's new Sandbox philosophy). Knowning this, the chances of the Spiker being in campaign is pretty high. But it will probably be altered to a large degree to set it apart from other weapons. And who knows if it will be in multi or not. But as far as needing to fill the role of a Brute service rifle, your reasoning is sound. But seriously, so much text x_x *facewall* [Edited on 04.23.2010 6:06 PM PDT]

its need to fire faster and do more damege.

Wow! I am impressed. That is a super long, super thorough argument. You must really, really love the Spiker. Sadly, I just cannot bring myself to read the entire thing. Maybe tomorrow I'll give it a shot and provide better discussion. I just don't see it coming back to Reach, however, because it would be redundant. I get the feeling Bungie is going for a minimalistic approach to weapons this time around. They have a Human and Covenant version for each weapon category. Each weapon category serves a specific role in multiplayer. The spiker would just be another variant of the AR or Plasma Repeater, with different traits such as the way you described the bullet speed and such. I don't think it is necessary to include it. I will also say that I don't think it belongs because there are no Brute weapons besides the Hammer, and we can make that one an exception because... it's the Hammer. Finally, I will say that I'm probably making these arguments because I did not think too highly of the Spiker in Halo 3. I abandoned dual wielding almost entirely and haven't actually used the Spiker in Halo 3 for quite some time. I just don't see it getting implemented as a non-dual wieldable weapon because of my previous point about the AR and Plasma Repeater. I respect the effort though. Good job! PS: sorry if my points were already refuted in your mega post (they probably were)

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Rooster Boost PS: sorry if my points were already refuted in your mega post (they probably were)[/quote] It's kay, you have to be very very silly to make it onto the counter. Let me know what you think of it when you have a chance at stomaching it all.

Read the entire thing, I thought your argument was great. personally, I've always loved the spiker. the SMG, and plasma rifle in Halo 3 were nice, but didn't have the same appeal as the spiker did. I hope it will be in Reach also. you had some great points, and obviously a lot of time on your hands, so to keep it short, you get [url=http://czechmatediary.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/chocolate_chip_cookie.jpg]a Cookie![/url]

Dude, Hylebos, dude. We understand that you are intelligent and I'm sure your argument for including the Spiker into Reach is a feasible and well, thought out...but this is a Bungie forum. 95% of the people here won't take what you have to say to heart. I can already see it now with the "China wants their wall back" posts. I respect your determination but there is a slim chance that Bungie will see this and actually consider it but writing something so long discourages most people from reading it all. It's a sad fact. Personally, I'm indifferent about the situation but I respect your passion for the Spiker. Your argument about the Spartan Laser was fine, but this is just way too long.

Someone better get a suicide counselor ready for this guy in case the Spiker isn't in Reach.

I want it back as a battle rifle. They dont want to add in pointless weapons like the spiker was. (I am not saying it was ineffective because I loved it but it was highly unused) So if they give Brutes a new weapon one that is terrifying I think it would be a Spiker Rifle. A 3 shot burst of the same ammo (meaning it shoots spikes) it would give players a BR I guess and would be awesome to kill players with. Hylebos has my support.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Dreezy12 Dude, Hylebos, dude. We understand that you are intelligent and I'm sure your argument for including the Spiker into Reach is a feasible and well, thought out...but this is a Bungie forum. 95% of the people here won't take what you have to say to heart. I can already see it now with the "China wants their wall back" posts. I respect your determination but there is a slim chance that Bungie will see this and actually consider it but writing something so long discourages most people from reading it all. It's a sad fact. Personally, I'm indifferent about the situation but I respect your passion for the Spiker. Your argument about the Spartan Laser was fine, but this is just way too long.[/quote] i agree with you that people won't read but that is their loss. this is a very good post(s) like i said in my earlier post, there is a chance that the spiker will return and it is up to interpretation how good that chance is i don't really like the spiker but this post has improved my belief that it will be in reach slightly good job hylebos