Ask a Halo fanboy anything! Removing common misconceptions.

Recommended Videos

Di'kut

New member
Mar 28, 2011
48
0
0
Even if it was kinda covered in the OP I'm still going to ask it.

I've recently kinda been getting into the books, the most of them are available at a bookstore about 2 hours from where I live, but I don't really know in which order to read them. I've already got First Strike and Ghosts of Onyx, but could you tell me the most proper order of reading all the books?

I checked Halopedia but couldn't really find anywhere telling me in what order to read them, would really love to get more involved in the Halo universe, thanks ahead.
 

Jabberwock xeno

New member
Oct 30, 2009
2,459
0
0
Di said:
Even if it was kinda covered in the OP I'm still going to ask it.

I've recently kinda been getting into the books, the most of them are available at a bookstore about 2 hours from where I live, but I don't really know in which order to read them. I've already got First Strike and Ghosts of Onyx, but could you tell me the most proper order of reading all the books?

I checked Halopedia but couldn't really find anywhere telling me in what order to read them, would really love to get more involved in the Halo universe, thanks ahead.
Short answer:

Fall of reach, the flood, first strike, ghosts of onyx, contact harvest, cole protocol. evolutions and comics whenever, Cryptum very last,

or, read contact harvest before fall of reach, everything else the same.

Long answer:

read this:

http://halo.xbox.com/forums/f/10/t/1701.aspx

It lists the ENTIRE canonical timeline, from the books (down to the chapters), games, bonus sections in books, ARGS, comics, etc.

EDIT:

Ack, I just realized the OP wasn't updated in a while, fixed it.
 

AlternatePFG

New member
Jan 22, 2010
2,857
0
0
You know, the only thing I miss about my 360 was Halo. It was right before Reach came out, and I was honestly looking forward to a shooter that wasn't trying to be like Call of Duty. Not a huge fan or anything, but I rather like how the games play.

On topic at least, what is the general fan consensus on Halo 3. I've heard from some it sucked, others said it was good. Didn't play a whole lot of it myself, mutliplayer was fun but I didn't ever finish the campaign on that one. Did play and finish the campaign in ODST though, I thought that was quite good even if the price of the game was a bit ridiculous. Also, what do fans generally think of ODST as well?
 

Atmos Duality

New member
Mar 3, 2010
8,470
0
0
Master chief actually has a personality there, he has a name, he has friends.
Sorry, but that's the funniest thing I've read all day.

As far as the games go, Master Chief couldn't have any less personality unless he was Gordon Freeman (I haven't read any of the secondary material for Halo). Few characters have bored me as much as Master Chief, nor have been so abjectly and undeservedly praised as him since Gordon Freeman.

When you're making Marcus Fenix look deep and considerate in comparison...yikes.
But eh, the whims of the mainstream outweigh any real criticism one could provide.
 

Jabberwock xeno

New member
Oct 30, 2009
2,459
0
0
Also, the bonus stories are only in the recent reprints, and DO NOT READ CRYPTUM UNTILL YOU HAVE READ EVERYTHING ELSE, REGARDLESS OF THE TIMELINE.
 

KaiRai

New member
Jun 2, 2008
2,145
0
0
Does the whole pumping an entire mag into someone waiting for the shields to go down not annoy you?
 

Di'kut

New member
Mar 28, 2011
48
0
0
Lt Blasphemer said:
Di said:
Even if it was kinda covered in the OP I'm still going to ask it.

I've recently kinda been getting into the books, the most of them are available at a bookstore about 2 hours from where I live, but I don't really know in which order to read them. I've already got First Strike and Ghosts of Onyx, but could you tell me the most proper order of reading all the books?

I checked Halopedia but couldn't really find anywhere telling me in what order to read them, would really love to get more involved in the Halo universe, thanks ahead.
I recommend reading "The Fall of Reach" first. It provides a lot of backstory for the Spartans and Masterchief, and it pretty much ends at the beginning of Halo:CE. Then I'd read First Strike. It sorts out what happens between Halo:CE and Halo 2.
Sadly, I've already read both First Strike and Ghosts of Onyx, so I kinda fucked up the order of the books for myself, just trying to get things to kinda work at least. I got the books as gifts and when I get a book I just can't contain myself and keep myself from reading it. Thanks for the help anyways.

And even though I can't be assed to quote you OP, thanks to you too for your very good help!
 

Zantos

New member
Jan 5, 2011
3,652
0
0
deserteagleeye said:
I have only played Halo 1 once on the PC for 10min. That is my experience with Halo. I think it's a good series and from what I've read, it has a good storyline too. It's just that it's a real turn-off for me to shoot fake sci-fi guns. I just feel more comfortable firing a gun that I know the workings of. Laser sounds just seem silly to me. :/
I can give a fairly good explanation on building laser weapons through the use of phase conjugate mirrors. Unfortunately the explanation will involve the use of the word magic.
 

Jabberwock xeno

New member
Oct 30, 2009
2,459
0
0
KaiRai said:
Does the whole pumping an entire mag into someone waiting for the shields to go down not annoy you?
No weapon in game takes an entire magazine to kill, assuming most of the shots hit.

I think you mean the AR. It often feels like it takes a whole mag, but in reality, it has more to do with the fact that it's very easy to go full auto with it, even if you mean to burst, and this causes more excess of shots and misses than it appears to.

To see what I mean, in reach, ONLY fire with the AR untill the expanding crosshairs leave the non-expanding circle of the recticule, then stop the burst, wait for it to go down, and contiue.

I've noticed that as long as you make sure the crosshairs never go beyond the circle, it makes it seem like it takes like half of the normal amount of bullets to kill, and I have crossmapped players this way, the AR is actually pretty good at a range if used this way.

Di said:
Lt Blasphemer said:
Di said:
Even if it was kinda covered in the OP I'm still going to ask it.

I've recently kinda been getting into the books, the most of them are available at a bookstore about 2 hours from where I live, but I don't really know in which order to read them. I've already got First Strike and Ghosts of Onyx, but could you tell me the most proper order of reading all the books?

I checked Halopedia but couldn't really find anywhere telling me in what order to read them, would really love to get more involved in the Halo universe, thanks ahead.
I recommend reading "The Fall of Reach" first. It provides a lot of backstory for the Spartans and Masterchief, and it pretty much ends at the beginning of Halo:CE. Then I'd read First Strike. It sorts out what happens between Halo:CE and Halo 2.
Sadly, I've already read both First Strike and Ghosts of Onyx, so I kinda fucked up the order of the books for myself, just trying to get things to kinda work at least. I got the books as gifts and when I get a book I just can't contain myself and keep myself from reading it. Thanks for the help anyways.

And even though I can't be assed to quote you OP, thanks to you too for your very good help!
Well, you didn't read cryptum, at least.

You HAVE TO READ THAT ONE LAST.

Luckly though, first strike and ghosts of onyx are some of the better ones to read first, excluding fall of reach and contact harvest.

For a timeframe, first strike takes place directly after Halo CE, and ghosts on onyx at the same time or or less as Halo 2, albiet at a different location.

Though I recomed you read fall of reach, then go back and read the two you already did.

You CAN skip the flood if you want, it's really just CE in novel form, and its easily the worst Halo novel. The only reason I would pick it up is for the bonus stories in the recent re-print, or if you really want to read it anyways.

Zantos said:
deserteagleeye said:
I have only played Halo 1 once on the PC for 10min. That is my experience with Halo. I think it's a good series and from what I've read, it has a good storyline too. It's just that it's a real turn-off for me to shoot fake sci-fi guns. I just feel more comfortable firing a gun that I know the workings of. Laser sounds just seem silly to me. :/
I can give a fairly good explanation on building laser weapons through the use of phase conjugate mirrors. Unfortunately the explanation will involve the use of the word magic.
As I said, Halo actually has pretty realistic weapon mechanics, it's all explained in detail in canon, I HIGHLY suggest checking out the link I gave to that b.net thread.
 
Oct 2, 2010
282
0
0
AlternatePFG said:
On topic at least, what is the general fan consensus on Halo 3. I've heard from some it sucked, others said it was good. Didn't play a whole lot of it myself, mutliplayer was fun but I didn't ever finish the campaign on that one. Did play and finish the campaign in ODST though, I thought that was quite good even if the price of the game was a bit ridiculous. Also, what do fans generally think of ODST as well?
Both questions are somewhat divisive, actually.

While Halo 3's campaign is usually respected for its gameplay, it does frequently get attacked for poor storytelling.
The biggest issue that gets brought up is its sketchy surface writing in places ("To War" would be a good title for that branch of Halo 3 criticism). Arguably the other big issue it has is contextual rather than being a problem in and of itself; that is to say, while the narrative could serve as a functional climactic sequence, there's an open gap between Halo 2 and Halo 3 that could use filling, and Halo 3 is currently just sort of hanging there.
It is not without its defenders, though. If you're trying to gather an appreciation for Halo 3's campaign, after you've already played it, an oft-recommended destination is the Ascendant Justice [http://blog.ascendantjustice.com/] blog, which was updated until 343 Industries hired the people who ran it in 2009.

It's not surprising at all that ODST is divisive, since most people don't even have a clue what it's about, even if they have played through it. At some level, it's both hilarious and sad that Bungie managed to drop lots of circles, the word "hell" on tons of occasions, and a character named Virgil into the game without people realizing that it's rather strongly based on Dante's Inferno, a problem which the people at Forward Unto Dawn have tried to correct [http://forwarduntodawn.com/nine-levels-underground/]. Perhaps the problem with ODST's campaign is that the surface plot by itself doesn't mean much, and the audio logs are a pain to find, and it's not until you've collected all that stuff, put everything side-by-side, and taken at least a summary glance at the source material that it works in all its glory.
(Also, many fans would argue that, in and of itself, the gameplay isn't as wonderfully replayable or exciting as with the other Halo campaigns.)
 

Jabberwock xeno

New member
Oct 30, 2009
2,459
0
0
Tupolev said:
AlternatePFG said:
On topic at least, what is the general fan consensus on Halo 3. I've heard from some it sucked, others said it was good. Didn't play a whole lot of it myself, mutliplayer was fun but I didn't ever finish the campaign on that one. Did play and finish the campaign in ODST though, I thought that was quite good even if the price of the game was a bit ridiculous. Also, what do fans generally think of ODST as well?
Both questions are somewhat divisive, actually.

While Halo 3's campaign is usually respected for its gameplay, it does frequently get attacked for poor storytelling.
The biggest issue that gets brought up is its sketchy surface writing in places ("To War" would be a good title for that branch of Halo 3 criticism). Arguably the other big issue it has is contextual rather than being a problem in and of itself; that is to say, while the narrative could serve as a functional climactic sequence, there's an open gap between Halo 2 and Halo 3 that could use filling, and Halo 3 is currently just sort of hanging there.
It is not without its defenders, though. If you're trying to gather an appreciation for Halo 3's campaign, after you've already played it, an oft-recommended destination is the Ascendant Justice [http://blog.ascendantjustice.com/] blog, which was updated until 343 Industries hired the people who ran it in 2009.

It's not surprising at all that ODST is divisive, since most people don't even have a clue what it's about, even if they have played through it. At some level, it's both hilarious and sad that Bungie managed to drop lots of circles, the word "hell" on tons of occasions, and a character named Virgil into the game without people realizing that it's rather strongly based on Dante's Inferno, a problem which the people at Forward Unto Dawn have tried to correct [http://forwarduntodawn.com/nine-levels-underground/]. Perhaps the problem with ODST's campaign is that the surface plot by itself doesn't mean much, and the audio logs are a pain to find, and it's not until you've collected all that stuff, put everything side-by-side, and taken at least a summary glance at the source material that it works in all its glory.
(Also, many fans would argue that, in and of itself, the gameplay isn't as wonderfully replayable or exciting as with the other Halo campaigns.)
Personally, I really liked Halo 3's campagin.

I don't know if I liked better overall than the others, they all are really good in some areas.
 

Awexsome

Were it so easy
Mar 25, 2009
1,549
0
0
Di said:
Lt Blasphemer said:
Di said:
Even if it was kinda covered in the OP I'm still going to ask it.

I've recently kinda been getting into the books, the most of them are available at a bookstore about 2 hours from where I live, but I don't really know in which order to read them. I've already got First Strike and Ghosts of Onyx, but could you tell me the most proper order of reading all the books?

I checked Halopedia but couldn't really find anywhere telling me in what order to read them, would really love to get more involved in the Halo universe, thanks ahead.
I recommend reading "The Fall of Reach" first. It provides a lot of backstory for the Spartans and Masterchief, and it pretty much ends at the beginning of Halo:CE. Then I'd read First Strike. It sorts out what happens between Halo:CE and Halo 2.
Sadly, I've already read both First Strike and Ghosts of Onyx, so I kinda fucked up the order of the books for myself, just trying to get things to kinda work at least. I got the books as gifts and when I get a book I just can't contain myself and keep myself from reading it. Thanks for the help anyways.

And even though I can't be assed to quote you OP, thanks to you too for your very good help!
Another thing to remember about the Fall of Reach, Bungie retconned a bit from that book to make the game more like the older Halo games... but I much prefered the book's version. It didn't have any "sneak attack" by the Covenant on Reach... full on massive fleet to fleet combat. While most of the book is on the origins of the Spartan program the battle of Reach was much better in the book IMO.


Korten12 said:
Judgement101 said:
I have to ask this, trying not to sound trollish, but many people consider "Halo Fanboys" to be the scum of XBL. Why is that?
I think I can answer this, despite not actually owning a 360.

See the thing is that, those are little kids and douches who just also so happen to like the game. Sure they're Fan's, but they also are sort of generalized, meaning they consider all who play Halo: Halo Fanboy's therefore they consider them all scum. Many of the douches, are just those who play are not really fanboy's.
The good news is that most of the douches aren't really fanboys of a game, they're just moving from popular game to popular game, which now is the CoD series.

Reach has a smaller population than Halo 3 had, but it's a nicer one. With the drop in its popularity the online community has improved. That and the social preferences in Reach really do work. If you don't want to play with the noisy, douche-like people you can set the preferences and not run into them. I haven't run into any people that fit the old stereotype in hundreds of games.
 

Jabberwock xeno

New member
Oct 30, 2009
2,459
0
0
Awexsome said:
Korten12 said:
Judgement101 said:
I have to ask this, trying not to sound trollish, but many people consider "Halo Fanboys" to be the scum of XBL. Why is that?
I think I can answer this, despite not actually owning a 360.

See the thing is that, those are little kids and douches who just also so happen to like the game. Sure they're Fan's, but they also are sort of generalized, meaning they consider all who play Halo: Halo Fanboy's therefore they consider them all scum. Many of the douches, are just those who play are not really fanboy's.
The good news is that most of the douches aren't really fanboys of a game, they're just moving from popular game to popular game, which now is the CoD series.

Reach has a smaller population than Halo 3 had, but it's a nicer one. With the drop in its popularity the online community has improved. That and the social preferences in Reach really do work. If you don't want to play with the noisy, douche-like people you can set the preferences and not run into them. I haven't run into any people that fit the old stereotype in hundreds of games.
Exactly!

More or less the same thing I said, actually. XD
 

koops128

New member
Oct 27, 2010
18
0
0
I have a question about Halo 3's plot. Near the end, why does everyone follow Guilty Sparks idea of "Using a tactical pulse to wipe out the local infestation", using the new halo ring to wipe out the flood on the ark, when so far we've been told that halo rings kill everything but the flood? I know eventually the Ark is destroyed which kills the flood but the original idea just didn't seem to make sense.
 

Rad Party God

Party like it's 2010!
Feb 23, 2010
3,560
0
0
Well, I've played the Halos from 1 to 3 and I haven't played Reach and ODST yet. I played Halo 1 on the PC with real online multiplayer and I finished the campaign twice, same with Halo 2, PC version, finished single player twice and played a good portion of multiplayer (it's still alive btw) and I played a lot of Halo 3 when I got my hands on a 360, same with the previous ones, finished the game twice and played a good chunk of mp.

That said, I like the series and even there was a time when I wanted an Xbox back in 2005 when Halo 2 was synonimous of online multiplayer (for consoles).

I tried to be part of the community, but I just couldn't get myuself to play for long periods of time as I was a lot more used to PC games.

Right now, I don't have any questions to ask and really the Halo community doesn't bother me, I respect them, even if they're pictured like something else entirely. But the ones that really bother me are the COD fanboys.
 

Vrex360

Badass Alien
Mar 2, 2009
8,377
0
0
koops128 said:
I have a question about Halo 3's plot. Near the end, why does everyone follow Guilty Sparks idea of "Using a tactical pulse to wipe out the local infestation", using the new halo ring to wipe out the flood on the ark, when so far we've been told that halo rings kill everything but the flood? I know eventually the Ark is destroyed which kills the flood but the original idea just didn't seem to make sense.
Actually the way it works is that the Halo ring firing destroys the base infestation and it's food supply. Because the flood in its raw form is just an infection, the flood seen on the Ark was a full blown hive.
It had itself developed a sentient intelligence (Gravemind) so now it too was a sentient life form). But the basic infection forms of the flood can't really be killed unless they starve to death.
Hence by firing the Halo ring in an area beyond the rim of the galaxy it would effectively destroy the bulk of the hive infection and leave the remnants of the flood stranded in a place where there was effectively no food supply whatsoever.

So in essence firing the last Halo 'killed' the Gravemind and all flood forms in that area and left nothing for the infection to rebuild from.
The Ark blowing up was also an effective bonus.
 

IBlackKiteI

New member
Mar 12, 2010
1,612
0
0
Jabberwock xeno said:
Actually, as I mentioned, Halo's UNSC weapon designer is a bit of a guns guy, so all of the UNSC weapons are not only described with the type of round fired, weight, length, and various other features, all are practical.

So much so that I was able to compare them to modern day firearms fairly well:

http://www.bungie.net/forums/posts.aspx?postID=55135389

Here's the same thread, but in spoiler form if you don't want to go off site:

Except that the MA5 has a pretty useless electronic compass and ammunition meter where the sights should be.
That doesn't exactly scream practicality, that would add a lot of unnecessary weight, could break easy, would cost a fair bit for the amount of MA5's produced, and how could anyone even aim the thing?

Then theres the M6D with a magic invisble scope, a shotgun which uses 8 gauge rounds and apparently somehow has very little recoil, a futuristic jeep/humvee with practically no protection for its occupants, a grenade launcher which fires bouncy exploding EMP balls and ATV's which are known to be used to charge armoured columns.

But the thing is, all this stuff works, not at all in a realistic sense but in a gameplay sense.

Jabberwock xeno said:
As I mention there, The covies weapons are actually realistic as well.

They work by guiding plasma through an electromagnetic field. In fact, we can actually do this today, the only thing keeping us from using this in weapons is that the equipment to produce plasma, and a elctromagentic field, and guiding it into a projectile is:

- It's really, really, really expensive.

- It takes up a lot of space.
This sort of thing in the real world is only in the prototype stage and is quite unlikely to be able to be adapted for handheld infantry weapons, like the Plasma Pistol or Rifle, so while it seems somewhat plausible I wouldn't go as far to say its realistic. Then again these guys are aliens.
I don't get why the Covenant are repeatedly stated as having far superior technology. Really, the only major technological advantages they have over the UNSC are their ships and the energy shielding used by their Elites. Their main infantry weapons rarely hit targets outside of close range and their vehicles generally have poor weapon systems which are inferior to their counterparts (Wraiths vs Scorpions, Revenants vs Warthogs) and/or offer very little protection for their crew (pretty much every Covie vehicle, Ghosts in particular.)
Seriously makes me wonder why humanity were the ones getting hammered, maybe it was to do with the fact that a freaking ammo counter is where the iron sights should be?

Anyways basically what I'm getting at is that very little of the tech in Halo is anywhere near practical, but then again it doesn't need it be.
What I mean is that its bizarre, and somewhat jarring, when death rays and the like are often made to seem practical in what is essentially a fantasy world.

Question

Also, I keep hearing that the Covenant reverse engineered all their tech from the Forerunners. So it is safe to assume that they too would have used weaponry similar to what the Covies have?
 

Jabberwock xeno

New member
Oct 30, 2009
2,459
0
0
koops128 said:
I have a question about Halo 3's plot. Near the end, why does everyone follow Guilty Sparks idea of "Using a tactical pulse to wipe out the local infestation", using the new halo ring to wipe out the flood on the ark, when so far we've been told that halo rings kill everything but the flood? I know eventually the Ark is destroyed which kills the flood but the original idea just didn't seem to make sense.
I sort of answered this, but...

There is some inconsistency about how the halo's kill the flood, is it directly, or by starvation?

As of now, the general thought among the Universe fourm is that the Halo's probably directly kill the gravemind, protograveminds, and combat forms, as they make use of asorbed neurological tissue.

Likely, pure forms and infection forms would be starved off, as they are purely flood.

Vrex360 said:
Ninja'd. XD

However, that brings up a point: we don't know if in Halo canon, sentient means the real definition, as in ANYTHING that has any sort of concinouiness, IE can think. In this way, humans, dogs, cats, insects, etc, are all sentient, but a plant is not.

However, Halo could be using the term like in star wars, where it is mixed up with sapient, in which case, humans are the only known sapient creatures in real life (we think, dolphins and elephants may be).

IBlackKiteI said:
Jabberwock xeno said:
Actually, as I mentioned, Halo's UNSC weapon designer is a bit of a guns guy, so all of the UNSC weapons are not only described with the type of round fired, weight, length, and various other features, all are practical.

So much so that I was able to compare them to modern day firearms fairly well:

http://www.bungie.net/forums/posts.aspx?postID=55135389

Here's the same thread, but in spoiler form if you don't want to go off site:

Except that the MA5 has a pretty useless electronic compass and ammunition meter where the sights should be.
That doesn't exactly scream practicality, that would add a lot of unnecessary weight, could break easy, would cost a fair bit for the amount of MA5's produced, and how could anyone even aim the thing?

Then theres the M6D with a magic invisble scope, a shotgun which uses 8 gauge rounds and apparently somehow has very little recoil, a futuristic jeep/humvee with practically no protection for its occupants, a grenade launcher which fires bouncy exploding EMP balls and ATV's which are known to be used to charge armoured columns.

But the thing is, all this stuff works, not at all in a realistic sense but in a gameplay sense.

Jabberwock xeno said:
As I mention there, The covies weapons are actually realistic as well.

They work by guiding plasma through an electromagnetic field. In fact, we can actually do this today, the only thing keeping us from using this in weapons is that the equipment to produce plasma, and a elctromagentic field, and guiding it into a projectile is:

- It's really, really, really expensive.

- It takes up a lot of space.
This sort of thing in the real world is only in the prototype stage and is quite unlikely to be able to be adapted for handheld infantry weapons, like the Plasma Pistol or Rifle, so while it seems somewhat plausible I wouldn't go as far to say its realistic. Then again these guys are aliens.
I don't get why the Covenant are repeatedly stated as having far superior technology. Really, the only major technological advantages they have over the UNSC are their ships and the energy shielding used by their Elites. Their main infantry weapons rarely hit targets outside of close range and their vehicles generally have poor weapon systems which are inferior to their counterparts (Wraiths vs Scorpions, Revenants vs Warthogs) and/or offer very little protection for their crew (pretty much every Covie vehicle, Ghosts in particular.)
Seriously makes me wonder why humanity were the ones getting hammered, maybe it was to do with the fact that a freaking ammo counter is where the iron sights should be?

Anyways basically what I'm getting at is that very little of the tech in Halo is anywhere near practical, but then again it doesn't need it be.
What I mean is that its bizarre, and somewhat jarring, when death rays and the like are often made to seem practical in what is essentially a fantasy world.

Question

Also, I keep hearing that the Covenant reverse engineered all their tech from the Forerunners. So it is safe to assume that they too would have used weaponry similar to what the Covies have?
Well...

It seems to me that you didn't read my link.

I explained there, firstly, that the Ma5 series DOES have iron sights, it's under the electronics's suite which is removable, as seen in this image:



And the elctronics suite is more than just a compass and ammo meter: It provides other functions too (admittedly, what these are isn't really said in detail)

As I explained in that thread too, it's mentioned in canon by many individuals that the MA5's are deceptively sturdy, and that we almost never hear about Ma5's breaking or jamming in canon unless they get outright destroyed (and it's not like guns never break or jam in the Halo novels).

You have to remember that this is 500 years in the future: What we can now fit in a flash drive would have almost the same amount of memory as a full sized computer of 10 years ago.

In 500 years, there would almost certainly be lighter but stronger materials to make guns with, electronics will take up minuscule space with greater memory, And guns have only really been around for 500 years (unless you count a tube with a bunch of powder stuck in it a gun), what will 500 more bring? There are so many improvments that may be in the Ma5 that wouldn't be apparent if every weapon has them.

As for the other things you said (nearly all of which is addressed in that link, BTW):

The M6d's scope is right above the barrel, it's the thing that looks like a laser sight emitter:



The way it works is that it is uplinked to the users HUD, be they a spartan in Mjonlr armor, a ODST with their helmet, or a Marine with the eyepieces. The reticule ins't just in game: it's a canonical thing, too, that's why the MA5's have their iron sights covered by default, most soldiers have a HUD.

As for the shotty, this is outright stated in canon to be due to advancements over the 500 year course, in fact, the recoil is stated to be "relatively low" by a marine.

The guy who designed most of the UNSC gear, rob mclee's, actually considers a lot of this stuff when he designed them, and calculated the muzzle velcoity these would have, how they would behave, how fast the vehicles would go, etc.

About the warthog, the model you see in game is just one vairent out of many. Yes, it is rather open, with no door and such, but I don't think you realize how large the vehicle is.

For normal, non spartan passengers, the walls are so big that doors simply aren't needed.

The covenant's weapondry may not seem all that practical or powerful in game, but that is merely for gameplay purposes.

In canon, a single shot from any plasma weapon is often deadly. (you ARE getting shot at by what is essentially a small orb of lightining)

To answer your question, the covenant are shown to actually be pretty bad at reverse engineering forerunner stuff. What they use is only a fraction of the weapons what the forerunners had, and many times weaker.