Bungie Universe
This topic has moved here: Subject: Guide to Canon in the Halo Universe
  • Subject: Guide to Canon in the Halo Universe
Subject: Guide to Canon in the Halo Universe
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

I do not appreciate B.Net Group solicitation. If you ignore this and send me an invitation anyway, I will block communications with you.

There is something you need to amend:

Joe Staten's comment that I Love Bees is not canon was in 2004. In 2006, Frank O'Connor, via the 1UP video show, commented that I Love Bees, as well as other pieces of content were being "embraced as canon".

This was also contradicted, however, by a second interview with Joe Staten by the Halo Story Page, in which he stated the following:

HSP: The dialogue from the Halo 3 trailer bears obvious similarity to the Cortana Letters from the early Halo days. Given that they have been discouraged as canon over the years, are they now to be afforded greater consideration? Additionally, the Letters themselves were strongly reminiscent of the messages from Durandal, the rampant AI from Marathon. What are your thoughts on "rampancy," AIs in the Halo universe, and Cortana specifically?

JS: Canon is tricky (see my controversial statement about "I Love Bees" - believe it or not, we're actually working to answer the "is it, or isn't it?" question right now!). The Halo story has as many loose threads as influences. And we do our best to sew the former into canon as we find them - are reminded of their potential. The Cortana Letters are an excellent example of this phenomenon. For all sorts of reasons, they lingered in canonical purgatory for years. But when we needed some compelling dialog to remind folks what's at stake in Halo3: Bam! Newfound utility! Alas, I'd have to say that, as of now, the only canonized parts of the letters are the fragments we pulled for use in the announcement trailer.


The ultimate decision on whether I Love Bees was considered canonical or not is currently inconclusive, so you should probably edit the "I Love Bees is not canon" statement to reflect this.

  • 06.23.2009 3:47 PM PDT

GT: Duffman9205

Win
Thanks for this! :D

  • 06.25.2009 11:21 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Here's a good question.

When it comes to weapon physics, what's more Canon, the game, or the book?

[Edited on 06.28.2009 9:08 PM PDT]

  • 06.28.2009 9:08 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

I do not appreciate B.Net Group solicitation. If you ignore this and send me an invitation anyway, I will block communications with you.

Posted by: Blake Packbornne
Here's a good question.

When it comes to weapon physics, what's more Canon, the game, or the book?

Assuming that the differences aren't incredibly substantial, I would say the book, or fail that, the arsenal descriptions that Bungie tend to create articles about prior to game releases.

  • 06.30.2009 9:12 AM PDT

Twitter | Nothing

Posted by: Dream053
There is something you need to amend:

Joe Staten's comment that I Love Bees is not canon was in 2004. In 2006, Frank O'Connor, via the 1UP video show, commented that I Love Bees, as well as other pieces of content were being "embraced as canon".

This was also contradicted, however, by a second interview with Joe Staten by the Halo Story Page, in which he stated the following:

HSP: The dialogue from the Halo 3 trailer bears obvious similarity to the Cortana Letters from the early Halo days. Given that they have been discouraged as canon over the years, are they now to be afforded greater consideration? Additionally, the Letters themselves were strongly reminiscent of the messages from Durandal, the rampant AI from Marathon. What are your thoughts on "rampancy," AIs in the Halo universe, and Cortana specifically?

JS: Canon is tricky (see my controversial statement about "I Love Bees" - believe it or not, we're actually working to answer the "is it, or isn't it?" question right now!). The Halo story has as many loose threads as influences. And we do our best to sew the former into canon as we find them - are reminded of their potential. The Cortana Letters are an excellent example of this phenomenon. For all sorts of reasons, they lingered in canonical purgatory for years. But when we needed some compelling dialog to remind folks what's at stake in Halo3: Bam! Newfound utility! Alas, I'd have to say that, as of now, the only canonized parts of the letters are the fragments we pulled for use in the announcement trailer.


The ultimate decision on whether I Love Bees was considered canonical or not is currently inconclusive, so you should probably edit the "I Love Bees is not canon" statement to reflect this.






Although it could be considered inconclusive I'm reasonably happy that I Love Bees can be said to not be canon. Firstly here's a quick quote from an article at Wired.com:

I Love Bees' lead designers said they were hired by Microsoft to make the game as part of the overall marketing push for Halo 2. But they, too, argue that I Love Bees stands entirely on its own.

"We're building a very different part of that world," said Puppetmaster 2. "In some cases, we're trying to recreate Casablanca with six main characters living their lives in the shadow of the events that are bearing down on them."

Regardless, as a serial, I Love Bees will eventually come to an end. And, not coincidentally, the final episode of the show is timed for the same day as the much-hyped release of Halo 2.

"Basically, the story is just going to lead into going and picking up your copy of Halo 2 and playing the game," said Thorne.


To me this demonstrates pretty effectively and clearly that I Love Bees was never intended to to be canon and that it was created totally to be a marketing device. To me that sends all tte signals that it shouldn't be taken to be anything more than a cool little game that helped fill the time until Halo 2 was released. Louis Wu of Halo.Bungie.org put it much better than me, here's what he had to say about this exact issue a while back (last year):

: It's not about who said it. It's about what evidence we have. Even though
: Frankie's statement came at a later date, he didn't provide any evidence
: to suggest that ILB is canon -- while Staten did (disregarding the time he
: said it). I have no doubt that things might have changed with the ILB
: issue, but from what evidence we have NOW, it's speculated that ILB isn't
: canon.

Okay, you've lost me.

The "evidence" we have from Joe, in 2004, is that he wasn't considering ILB 'canon' because aside from defining the boundaries of the world they had to work in, Bungie let 42 Entertainment 'do their own thing'.

Later on, though, Frankie does say "We're going to have this huge collection of canon, and things that we embrace as canon, like I Love Bees" - the way I read this is that he's clearly acknowledging that ILB wasn't written/overseen by Bungie, so it doesn't make the technical cut, but that there's nothing in it that BREAKS canon as Bungie sees it, so they're giving it the nod.

It's not as though one said "The sky is blue" and the other said "The sky is red" - it's more like Joe said "The sky is blue" and Frank said "sometimes, when the sun's going down, the sky is red"; he's not NEGATING what Joe said, he's expanding upon it.

I can certainly see the argument for 'ILB != canon' from purists, and I can see a solid argument for 'ILB ~ canon' from less rigid thinkers (maybe even 'ILB = canon') - you're welcome to your opinion, but you should realize that it's not as cut-and-dried as you're trying to make it. That's all I was saying.

(I only spoke up because I felt like your wording was "This is the way it is, period." and I don't think it is.)


and


: I think you're missing the fact that two separate Bungie employees, at two
: separate times, said two distinctly different things about that particular
: bit of Halo lore.

: The interview you're referring to was posted in October, 2004. Frankie's
: quote comes from July, 2006 - two years later. In August, 2006, Staten
: acknowledges that his original statement was "controversial",
: and that at that point they were actually working on the "is it, or
: isn't it?" question - it's not NEARLY as cut-and-dried as you're
: suggesting it is.

: I'm not sure there's a consensus amongst Halo's writers about whether or not
: I Love Bees is canon (or Canon) or not - I'm DAMN sure they've never
: resolved the situation in any definitive way publicly.

I'm sorry, I'll taken Staten's word over Frankie's on the Halo story any day of the week. Meaning no respect to Frankie, he came on after Halo 1 and left for MS to follow the Halo IP, whereas Staten is a Bungie guy through and through and was there since before Halo started. That Frankie contradicted him two years later and that Staten backpedaled ever so slightly after that isn't particularly significant to me.

It cut and dried unless you have already made up your mind that for some reason you want ILB to be considered canon unless there is evidence to the contrary.

I think canon should be more conservative than that. Things should not be considered canon unless there is evidence that it is. Primary sources (the games) are obviously canon. Secondary materials produced directly by Bungie are canon (Staten's novel). Secondary materials produced with Bungie's direct involvement and approval are canon unless they contradict primary materials (the authorized novels).

ILB was made by a third party not as a standalone product but as promotional materials, from source given to the authors by Bungie but without further direct involvement and/or supervision from Bungie.

The ILB story does not rise to the same level of quality as the rest of the Haloverse. It was created primarily to advertise, was created primarily outside of Bungie, adds elements that are not followed up within primary sources and are not necessary for comprehending the primary plot arcs.


The first post and the second post by Louis Wu outline very clearly why although not completely decisive it it fairly appropriate and suitable to say that I Love Bees is not canon. I'm not going to change the original thread but I will link to your post and my reply. Thanks for posting your criticism nevertheless as no doubt other people will have had the same criticism and its been addressed. Thanks, if you want to discuss it further feel free to do so in the thread or give me a PM.

A quick note however. If I Love Bees was considered canon then it would be the lowest possible type as demonstrated by Joe Staten and shown in my original thread:

"Everything that Bungie has ever approved is canonical. But even then, certain things trump others. In order of canonical influence:

- The games rank first
- Published materials (books, comics, soundtrack liner notes etc.) rank second
- Marketing and PR materials third"

So anything in I Love Bees would be retconned immediately if anything from the Halo universe such as novels, graphic novels, books and films contradicted it or put forward different information. So regardless, it is fairly unimportant. Also, sorry for the delay in the response.





Posted by: Dream053
Posted by: Blake Packbornne
Here's a good question.

When it comes to weapon physics, what's more Canon, the game, or the book?

Assuming that the differences aren't incredibly substantial, I would say the book, or fail that, the arsenal descriptions that Bungie tend to create articles about prior to game releases.


Actually it would be exactly the other way around. As shown above the Halo universe operates in a similar manner to the Star Wars universe, with various "levels" of canon. In the case of Halo, the games rank first, books and other published works second, and marketing and PR third [NOTE: see above for the quote or the original thread right at the top]. So in this case, if one of the novels says something about a weapon and then one of the games contradict it, take the game as the "correct" version.

Also be aware that new work usually ranks above older material. So if Halo 3 says something that contradicts Halo 2, take Halo 3 as the canonical source for that piece of information.

Unless a Bungie employee has stated specifically that a piece of information in the game is incorrect or should be considered canon, always take games as canon and always take newer games over older games.

  • 06.30.2009 12:47 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

In the case of Halo, the games rank first, books and other published works second, and marketing and PR third [NOTE: see above for the quote or the original thread right at the top]. So in this case, if one of the novels says something about a weapon and then one of the games contradict it, take the game as the "correct" version.

Also be aware that new work usually ranks above older material. So if Halo 3 says something that contradicts Halo 2, take Halo 3 as the canonical source for that piece of information.

Unless a Bungie employee has stated specifically that a piece of information in the game is incorrect or should be considered canon, always take games as canon and always take newer games over older games.


Which brings up the question: Which difficulty setting is most Canon?

  • 06.30.2009 1:14 PM PDT

Twitter | Nothing

Posted by: Blake Packbornne
In the case of Halo, the games rank first, books and other published works second, and marketing and PR third [NOTE: see above for the quote or the original thread right at the top]. So in this case, if one of the novels says something about a weapon and then one of the games contradict it, take the game as the "correct" version.

Also be aware that new work usually ranks above older material. So if Halo 3 says something that contradicts Halo 2, take Halo 3 as the canonical source for that piece of information.

Unless a Bungie employee has stated specifically that a piece of information in the game is incorrect or should be considered canon, always take games as canon and always take newer games over older games.


Which brings up the question: Which difficulty setting is most Canon?


In terms of canon I assume that details such as weapon physics is less important, to both Bungie and the fans, than say the plot and story elements. These details don't change with the changing of the difficulty setting. However, how much damage a weapon does and how much punishment a brute can take do change with the various difficulty settings.

Therefore I wouldn't worry about it too much. If anyone is interested in such specific detail then I would suggest comparing reports from different sources of canon, particularly the different games and the novels, and come up with your own conclusion.

Hope I helped.

  • 06.30.2009 2:15 PM PDT
  • gamertag: sum0ne
  • user homepage:

Thanks for Team Snipers Bungie.
Mythic Member, Legendary Member and back and forth. i just can't make up my mind!
Campaign - Halo C.E.>Halo 2>Halo 3
Multiplayer - Halo 2>Halo 3>Halo C.E.
Just about every thing I post is my opinion and nothing more. Be subjective. Respect other's opinions. Try to understand other's point of view.

Awesome job TS! Thanks.

[Edited on 06.30.2009 3:38 PM PDT]

  • 06.30.2009 3:38 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

I do not appreciate B.Net Group solicitation. If you ignore this and send me an invitation anyway, I will block communications with you.

EDIT: No worries on the belated response. I know how it goes. I appreciate you taking the time, regardless.

EDIT 2: Also, it should be recognized that Frank O'Connor's statement of "embracing I Love Bees as canon" was made in the July 28, 2006 episode of the 1UP Show. Joe Staten's interview with HSP was in August of 2006, which means that Frankie didn't add on to Staten's comments at all. Staten's statement is the most recent.

Note: I've removed the quotes from HBO so I could fit everything into one response. It shouldn't be hard for anyone to glance back up at Maimum's quotes if need be.

Posted by: Maimum FEAR
Although it could be considered inconclusive I'm reasonably happy that I Love Bees can be said to not be canon.

It can't be said to not be canon because it is entirely inconclusive. There are more than a few issues with what you're saying here:

Firstly here's a quick quote from an article at Wired.com:

I Love Bees' lead designers said they were hired by Microsoft to make the game as part of the overall marketing push for Halo 2. But they, too, argue that I Love Bees stands entirely on its own.

"We're building a very different part of that world," said Puppetmaster 2. "In some cases, we're trying to recreate Casablanca with six main characters living their lives in the shadow of the events that are bearing down on them."

Regardless, as a serial, I Love Bees will eventually come to an end. And, not coincidentally, the final episode of the show is timed for the same day as the much-hyped release of Halo 2.

"Basically, the story is just going to lead into going and picking up your copy of Halo 2 and playing the game," said Thorne.


To me this demonstrates pretty effectively and clearly that I Love Bees was never intended to to be canon and that it was created totally to be a marketing device. To me that sends all tte signals that it shouldn't be taken to be anything more than a cool little game that helped fill the time until Halo 2 was released.

Not only is this Wired article from 2004, and thus outdated to Staten's and O'Connor's 2006 comments, but also whether 42 Entertainment designed I Love Bees to be a part of the Halo canon or not is inconsequential to the canon question altogether. It isn't up to 42 Entertainment, it's up to Bungie, which makes their intentions moot. We have reason to believe that ILB may be considered canon whether in part or entirely because the most recent statement about I Love Bees was that it was currently in the process of being figured out.

Why you quote Louis Wu to support the idea that ILB is not canon baffles me, as he shares the exact same view that I have provided.

Louis Wu is expressing his contempt of UNSC_Trooper who was trying to disprove ILB being canon. He even says that he himself can see the arguments for every standpoint on the matter: ILB =/= Canon, ILB ~ Canon, and even ILB = Canon. The whole point of his post was to point out that we do not have a cut-and-dry definitive answer because Bungie has never given us one, which is precisely why it is incorrect to state so.

The first post and the second post by Louis Wu outline very clearly why although not completely decisive it it fairly appropriate and suitable to say that I Love Bees is not canon.
This is completely untrue. Not once does Louis ever state his own opinion on whether ILB is canonical or not in either of those posts, and the second post you linked isn't even by Louis Wu, it's by Narcinogen in response to Wu. And anyway, it doesn't matter what Louis's opinion or anyone else's opinion on the canon is, because all that matters is what Bungie themselves tell us. It doesn't matter how likely you think it is that ILB isn't canon or whether you think it even makes sense for it to be, and as you can see by that discussion, there are many people on opposite sides of that argument, so there is nothing even close to a common belief on the matter anyway. As Wu said, it isn't cut and dry at all. Because Bungie has never given us an official statement on the matter, it is unquestionably inconclusive, and for you to make the jump to "not canon" is completely incorrect and hugely misleading for people looking to utilize different portions of the Halo universe for discussion. I can't tell you what to do with your thread, but it would make a lot more sense to go by our facts rather than our speculation, no matter how widely accepted it may be (and again, it is a highly debated topic even now).

I'm not going to change the original thread but I will link to your post and my reply. Thanks for posting your criticism nevertheless as no doubt other people will have had the same criticism and its been addressed. Thanks, if you want to discuss it further feel free to do so in the thread or give me a PM.

A quick note however. If I Love Bees was considered canon then it would be the lowest possible type as demonstrated by Joe Staten and shown in my original thread:

"Everything that Bungie has ever approved is canonical. But even then, certain things trump others. In order of canonical influence:

- The games rank first
- Published materials (books, comics, soundtrack liner notes etc.) rank second
- Marketing and PR materials third"

So anything in I Love Bees would be retconned immediately if anything from the Halo universe such as novels, graphic novels, books and films contradicted it or put forward different information. So regardless, it is fairly unimportant. Also, sorry for the delay in the response.

Until the details of I Love Bees are trumped, it is nowhere near "fairly unimportant". ILB details the circumstances in which Earth is discovered by the Covenant, which is a huge story detail. Another huge detail is the existence of a subsequent wave of Spartan-IIs. If I Love Bees is considered canon, these two are trumped by nothing and would greatly impact the Halo universe as a whole. Just because it isn't higher up in the canonical "food chain" doesn't mean it's not important.






Posted by: Dream053
Posted by: Blake Packbornne
Here's a good question.

When it comes to weapon physics, what's more Canon, the game, or the book?

Assuming that the differences aren't incredibly substantial, I would say the book, or fail that, the arsenal descriptions that Bungie tend to create articles about prior to game releases.


Actually it would be exactly the other way around. As shown above the Halo universe operates in a similar manner to the Star Wars universe, with various "levels" of canon. In the case of Halo, the games rank first, books and other published works second, and marketing and PR third [NOTE: see above for the quote or the original thread right at the top]. So in this case, if one of the novels says something about a weapon and then one of the games contradict it, take the game as the "correct" version.

The reason I say the novels would trump the game in weapon physics is because weapon physics are not a story detail but rather a mechanic that, unfortunately, sometimes can not be completely replicated in gameplay for balance reasons. If Bungie takes the time to create weapon profiles and posts them on their website, chances are that they are either the true canon behind the arsenal, or that it is later modified to fit alongside the game. I would never take tiny discrepancies of a weapon in-game over these Bungie-created entries.

Also be aware that new work usually ranks above older material. So if Halo 3 says something that contradicts Halo 2, take Halo 3 as the canonical source for that piece of information.

Unless a Bungie employee has stated specifically that a piece of information in the game is incorrect or should be considered canon, always take games as canon and always take newer games over older games.

Aside from what I've stated above, I completely agree.

[Edited on 07.01.2009 10:04 PM PDT]

  • 07.01.2009 9:33 PM PDT

Twitter | Nothing

Posted by: Dream053
EDIT: No worries on the belated response. I know how it goes. I appreciate you taking the time, regardless.

EDIT 2: Also, it should be recognized that Frank O'Connor's statement of "embracing I Love Bees as canon" was made in the July 28, 2006 episode of the 1UP Show. Joe Staten's interview with HSP was in August of 2006, which means that Frankie didn't add on to Staten's comments at all. Staten's statement is the most recent.


Right now I can't reply fully but I just wanted to address that Frankie did add to Staten's comments because he was actually adding to Joe's comments from his 2004 interview with the Halo Story Page.

I'm going to try and get a definitive answer on this exact issue as soon as possible. Don't hold your breath though, and thanks a lot for replying and discussing the issue, that is exactly what we need so that we make sure nothing is added to the guide or neglected to be properly accounted for.

For now I'll change the status of I Love Bees until I know definitively =)

[Edited on 07.02.2009 2:54 AM PDT]

  • 07.02.2009 2:39 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

I do not appreciate B.Net Group solicitation. If you ignore this and send me an invitation anyway, I will block communications with you.

Posted by: Maimum FEAR
Posted by: Dream053
EDIT: No worries on the belated response. I know how it goes. I appreciate you taking the time, regardless.

EDIT 2: Also, it should be recognized that Frank O'Connor's statement of "embracing I Love Bees as canon" was made in the July 28, 2006 episode of the 1UP Show. Joe Staten's interview with HSP was in August of 2006, which means that Frankie didn't add on to Staten's comments at all. Staten's statement is the most recent.


Right now I can't reply fully but I just wanted to address that Frankie did add to Staten's comments because he was actually adding to Joe's comments from his 2004 interview with the Halo Story Page.

Ah, okay, that makes a bit more sense. I was under the impression that there was some kind of assumption that Frankie's '06 statements on the 1UP show were in response to Staten's 2006 HSP interview. The sky analogy makes a bit more sense now, thanks for clearing that up.

  • 07.02.2009 4:41 AM PDT

Do you know the way to San Jose?

So what about the bonus materials in the special editions of Halo 2 and 3. That Conversations from the Universe thing. What level of canon should that be at? Would it be with the games because it came with them, or with the books since it technically isn't the game. Or even the level under the books since it's technically promotional material (I think).

  • 07.05.2009 7:42 PM PDT

Posted by: Duardo
I'd love to be a 10 year old and tell my mom I'm going on an adventure out into the world catching Pokemon, with her full support. Never mind the fact that there are rapists, criminals, and murders out there, or the fact that I may get killed by a Pokemon.

Luckily I have Pikachu.

Posted by: Primo84
I really wish that Bungie would eventually come out with a long, detailed book that would tie all the loose ends and even act as retcon for some of the inconsistencies; then again, I could only see die-hard Halo fans buying it.
The Halo encylopedia?

  • 07.06.2009 1:29 PM PDT

Twitter | Nothing

Posted by: Def Guru 7777
So what about the bonus materials in the special editions of Halo 2 and 3. That Conversations from the Universe thing. What level of canon should that be at? Would it be with the games because it came with them, or with the books since it technically isn't the game. Or even the level under the books since it's technically promotional material (I think).


I'd put them at least on level with the novels but if they have come with the Halo games and have been written by Bungie employees as opposed to Microsoft PR guys then take it as canon, and probably on par with the games or at least with the novels.

Posted by: The BS Police
Posted by: Primo84
I really wish that Bungie would eventually come out with a long, detailed book that would tie all the loose ends and even act as retcon for some of the inconsistencies; then again, I could only see die-hard Halo fans buying it.
The Halo encylopedia?


Thanks for reminding me about this, I knew about it and yet totally forgot. Should definitely be useful, however looks like it has limited input from Bungie as far as I can tell.

  • 07.08.2009 12:20 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

I found a good link to use as a source for the order of the Halo Cannon

http://halo.wikia.com/wiki/The_Universe

[Edited on 08.30.2009 11:59 AM PDT]

  • 08.09.2009 7:48 PM PDT

Twitter | Nothing

Posted by: Goalie Master 8
I found a good link to use as a source for the order of the Halo Cannon

http://halo.wikia.com/wiki/The_Universe


I'll get round to adding this to the main thread at some point in the very near future. Any other suggestions?

  • 08.10.2009 11:07 AM PDT

Posted by: Blake Packbornne
Which brings up the question: Which difficulty setting is most Canon?

I would say Heroic: The way Halo was meant to be played. Don't quote me on that, because it is just an idea. Question: I read somewhere about Spartan 1s having children. Is that canon, or not? Second, I think that Johnson could be immune and still have survived in Breaking Quarantine. Maybe he inhaled a minor amount of Flood Spores, with no ill effects aside from having them inside his system.

  • 08.10.2009 11:47 AM PDT

Twitter | Nothing

Posted by: Justice One Duo
Posted by: Blake Packbornne
Which brings up the question: Which difficulty setting is most Canon?

I would say Heroic: The way Halo was meant to be played. Don't quote me on that, because it is just an idea. Question: I read somewhere about Spartan 1s having children. Is that canon, or not? Second, I think that Johnson could be immune and still have survived in Breaking Quarantine. Maybe he inhaled a minor amount of Flood Spores, with no ill effects aside from having them inside his system.


I'm rather unsure as to which difficulty is most canonical. I would hazard a guess at either Legendary or Heroic because the are the most realistic when compared to other sources. If Normal was the canonical difficulty Master Chief could have took on the entire Covenant armada alone.

I can't remember reading anything official involving Spartan I's having children but I can vaguely recall that they do exist. I'll try to get specific information on this later, but if anyone else knows anything then please do let us know.

In regards to Johnson I would take Breaking Quarantine as the canonical explanation of his escape from the flood and from infection as it is most recent. That's one of the rules of canon. I'm still unsure as to the exact status of the Halo Graphic Novel and other Halo comics/graphic novels but I'm assuming at the moment but I'm assuming they are on the same level as the novels for the time being.

  • 08.10.2009 12:31 PM PDT

I would say that Breaking Quarantine is more canon, because it is newer. However, does anything in Breaking Quarantine directly contradict the previous fact that Johnson was immune to the Flood? All I am trying to do is see if it fits in with the novels without a retcon.

  • 08.10.2009 3:56 PM PDT

Chunky_Lover's Average Joe Interview

Bungie All Star Contest Winner Weeks 6,8 and 12

Wait, What about IRIS?

I personally consider it canon.....

  • 08.10.2009 4:00 PM PDT

Twitter | Nothing

Posted by: Chunky_Lover
Wait, What about IRIS?

I personally consider it canon.....


To be honest I haven't done any research regarding IRIS and I'm not confident to say either yes or no. I'd love it if someone could post some insight into this.

  • 08.11.2009 2:31 PM PDT

Twitter | Nothing

Okay, here's an update.

I have been looking for clarification regarding Iris and I haven't found much in the way of Bungie or Microsoft employees directly acknowledging Iris as canon but I've updated the original thread to include some information I could find.

- Also fixed some broken links
- Added more links to useful places
- Removed some bad editing errors
- Some more information added
- Stuff on IRIS and other Halo PR and marketing.

[Edited on 09.01.2009 10:41 AM PDT]

  • 08.31.2009 12:56 PM PDT

Where would the Official game guides fit because the H2 guide says Carrier forms are old combat forms where Halo The Flood says their infected grunts and jackals.

  • 09.19.2009 3:36 PM PDT

How are Cortona letters not canon? The halo franchise has followed them correctly so far. There's just a tad more. Coincidently, there's more to halo as seen in the end of halo 3.

I'll be damned to believe that they do not and that they're not the gateway to tie halo to marathon.

[Edited on 09.20.2009 12:06 PM PDT]

  • 09.20.2009 12:05 PM PDT

Twitter | Nothing

Posted by: Flame Ninga
Where would the Official game guides fit because the H2 guide says Carrier forms are old combat forms where Halo The Flood says their infected grunts and jackals.


I'd go with the latest publication, whichever is most new. That tends to be the general rule. To be sure though see if you can find any verification in other work.

Posted by: Smug Dark Loser
How are Cortona letters not canon? The halo franchise has followed them correctly so far. There's just a tad more. Coincidently, there's more to halo as seen in the end of halo 3.

I'll be damned to believe that they do not and that they're not the gateway to tie halo to marathon.


They haven't been followed at all. Some stuff from the letters have been used in the series but certainly not comprehensively. Read the original post, it explains everything. Refuse to believe what you want, I'm going to go with the proof.

  • 10.03.2009 11:03 AM PDT