Halo: Reach Forum
This topic has moved here: Subject: Why Bungie WOULD NOT do a prequel.
  • Subject: Why Bungie WOULD NOT do a prequel.
Subject: Why Bungie WOULD NOT do a prequel.
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

To the interwebs!

Everyone knows within the gaming unvierse that prequels do not work. Why? Because for there to be a prequel, you would have had to played the sequel to the prequel (no pun intended).

Halo Wars. Massive hype, terrible outcome. Bungie and no doubt Microsoft would have learnt from this that doing a prequel where you know the outcome (to a certain extent) wouldn't work.

Halo: Fall of Reach. An indepth book by Eric Nylund. Theres no way in hell that Bungie would base a game on a book that has 386 pages of indepth detail on Reach. What would be the point? What could there be that Bungie could add that wasn't written about in detai?

At the end of Halo 3 and The Halo Reach trailer, there are 2 planets. Can you see a difference?

http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/8692/proof1b.jpg

So now you say, well it's not the same planet.

But think about this ladies and gents, why would Bungie create 2 almost indentical planets? Surely they knew that would cause wild speculation and set themsel;ves up for an inevetible downfall?

I rest my case.

  • 06.23.2009 2:05 AM PDT

Sarcasm - The greatest form of wit.

I find myself agreeing with you there Tom.

  • 06.23.2009 2:14 AM PDT

Posted by: TItan Of Saturn
Everyone knows within the gaming unvierse that prequels do not work. Why? Because for there to be a prequel, you would have had to played the sequel to the prequel (no pun intended).

Halo Wars. Massive hype, terrible outcome. Bungie and no doubt Microsoft would have learnt from this that doing a prequel where you know the outcome (to a certain extent) wouldn't work.
This is the only part I don't like. In order to play a sequel, you would have had to play the prequel too.

Plus, you make it seem like Halo Reach was just started months ago - it's been in the works since mid 07, give or take.

[Edited on 06.23.2009 2:20 AM PDT]

  • 06.23.2009 2:17 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

To the interwebs!

Posted by: A SarcasticBrit
I find myself agreeing with you there Tom.


Aha cheers Andy :)

  • 06.23.2009 2:20 AM PDT

Halo 2 is the best game EVER made.

hmm i have to disagree. i'm not aware of any games that came out with a prequel after the first game came out. - maybe u can help me out.

also Halo wars doesn't really count because it was a completely different Genre of gaming.

  • 06.23.2009 2:22 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Exalted Heroic Member

Damn you!

Posted by: TItan Of Saturn
http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/8692/proof1b.jpg
.

I liked Halo wars, thought it was a fine addition to the Halo Universe

And am I the only one that can't see the similarity between those two pictures

and the tagg like

"From the Beginning, you know the end" kinda tells us that it's a prequal

  • 06.23.2009 2:25 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

To the interwebs!



"From the Beginning, you know the end" kinda tells us that it's a prequal

See i've thought about this.

I believe that it means this:

Halo CE you start at Reach. Go off on your adventures, and ultimately finish at the end of Halo 3 drifiting in space. From the beggining (Reach) you know the end (back to Reach).

I think Reach is the start and the end.

  • 06.23.2009 2:30 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: TItan Of Saturn
Everyone knows within the gaming unvierse that prequels do not work. Why? Because for there to be a prequel, you would have had to played the sequel to the prequel (no pun intended).
Really? So Metal Gear Solid 3, for example, was a failure? Interesting.

Halo Wars. Massive hype, terrible outcome. Bungie and no doubt Microsoft would have learnt from this that doing a prequel where you know the outcome (to a certain extent) wouldn't work.Only because the gameplay was so simple by RTS standards, plus there were only a few strategies that worked.

Halo: Fall of Reach. An indepth book by Eric Nylund. Theres no way in hell that Bungie would base a game on a book that has 386 pages of indepth detail on Reach. What would be the point? What could there be that Bungie could add that wasn't written about in detail? What's wrong with seeing how Reach fell? It's okay to read about something, but to actually witness it, takes more than words to describe.

At the end of Halo 3 and The Halo Reach trailer, there are 2 planets. Can you see a difference?

http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/8692/proof1b.jpg
Yes, I do see some differences. Planet in Halo 3 has Forerunner symbols, Reach does not. Planet in Halo 3 has a metallic surface, Reach does not. There are different colored suns. Need I go on?

So now you say, well it's not the same planet.Because it isn't the same planet.

But think about this ladies and gents, why would Bungie create 2 almost indentical planets? Surely they knew that would cause wild speculation and set themsel;ves up for an inevetible downfall?If that's you think, sure.

I rest my case.Okay, what little of a case you had.

  • 06.23.2009 2:44 AM PDT

Aut viam inveniam aut faciam

Posted by: TItan Of Saturn
But think about this ladies and gents, why would Bungie create 2 almost indentical planets? Surely they knew that would cause wild speculation and set themsel;ves up for an inevetible downfall?

I rest my case.

This sounds EXACTLY like something bungie would do....

  • 06.23.2009 2:50 AM PDT

What if.........the planets from the reach trailer and the end of halo 3 ARE Planet Reach, but halo: reach is still a prequal, and MC just happens to be floating towards that planet at the end of halo 3, when the battle of reach has already happened.
I haven't read the books, though, so I don't know what happens to the planet, because it could have exploded or something, making my idea look fairly stupid.

  • 06.23.2009 2:58 AM PDT

We believe that the universe is unbounded: this is not the same as infinite: the 2-D surface of a sphere, wrapped around a 3rd dimension, has a finite size, but has no end. If you start off in a given direction on the surface of a sphere, you could return to your start point without having to turn around -- you simply go all the way around. But wouldn't that mean the universe has an escape velocity like the earth?

Posted by: JamieO
Posted by: TItan Of Saturn
http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/8692/proof1b.jpg
.

I liked Halo wars, thought it was a fine addition to the Halo Universe

And am I the only one that can't see the similarity between those two pictures

and the tagg like

"From the Beginning, you know the end" kinda tells us that it's a prequal


i agree, these bits of "proof you show actually contradict each other...as on halo: Reach, you clearly see landmass and water based solubles, including an oxygenated atmosphere, whilst Halo 3s legendary planet entirely consists of a metallic crust, no sign of any form of atmospheric layer, sure the image may show that reach could become halo 3s legendary planet to you, but consider, where did all the metal come from then?

  • 06.23.2009 3:05 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Honorable Member
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Huh? Me!?

The planet in hal0 3 is probably reach, but glassed . Considering that it looks like metal.

  • 06.23.2009 3:19 AM PDT

Isn't Marathon set after Halo? I don't really know, I just thought it was.

  • 06.23.2009 3:20 AM PDT

The First part of your argument is defunct (there is no reason why a prequel would or wouldn't work)

Everyone knows within the gaming unvierse that prequels do not work. Why? Because for there to be a prequel, you would have had to played the sequel to the prequel (no pun intended)

Well by that argument i could very well say this

Everyone knows within the gaming unvierse that sequels do not work. Why? Because for there to be a sequel, you would have had to played the prequel to the sequel

If anything sequels don't work, not prequels

With a prequel you at least start from the begining of the story, where everything is explained

With a sequel you are dropped into a world you no nothing about, that's some people who bought halo 3 hadn't a clue about the story, because they had not owned a xbox, and had not played Halo CE and Halo 2

Halo Wars. Massive hype, terrible outcome. Bungie and no doubt Microsoft would have learnt from this that doing a prequel where you know the outcome (to a certain extent) wouldn't work

Regarding Halo wars, i'm not sure why in your opinion was a "terrible outcome". Is it because it wasn't a FPS? the story wasn't up to scratch? Personally i think they did a good job.

"Knowing the outcome" what outcome was that??? The fact that everyone thought it would have taken place entirely on harvest, where in reality it took place on mulitple planets and locations, widening the story line and the halo universe!!!

Halo: Fall of Reach. An indepth book by Eric Nylund. Theres no way in hell that Bungie would base a game on a book that has 386 pages of indepth detail on Reach. What would be the point? What could there be that Bungie could add that wasn't written about in detai?

Personally I enjoyed Halo: Fall of Reach by Eric Nyland, however that doesn't really matter, we all know that the books are only based losely on the game and aren't 100% accurate, there is no need to think that what happens in Halo: Fall of Reach will be the end all of Halo Reach.

While we all assume the five spartans in the trailer are Fred, Kelly, Vinh, Isaac, and Will, however

It is entirely possible that Bungie will introduce previously unknown Spartans as the main characters. Based on the E3 trailer, that seems likely. Master Chief was a member of the first wave of Spartans, but the books repeatedly mention a second group in training. During the trailer, Sierra 320 announces she is ready for insertion and Sierra 259 says there are Spartans on the ground. If these are the call-signs for Spartans, they would be numbered higher than any of the first wave that Master Chief was a member of. And since we don't know how many Spartans took part in the second wave of the training program, it could be that we'll see many more Spartans in one battle than most of us previously thought possible.



  • 06.23.2009 3:22 AM PDT

We believe that the universe is unbounded: this is not the same as infinite: the 2-D surface of a sphere, wrapped around a 3rd dimension, has a finite size, but has no end. If you start off in a given direction on the surface of a sphere, you could return to your start point without having to turn around -- you simply go all the way around. But wouldn't that mean the universe has an escape velocity like the earth?

Posted by: Lambinator
Isn't Marathon set after Halo? I don't really know, I just thought it was.


dont worry about it, bungie though has announced that theyre in parallel universes to each other, so the answer sadly is no.

Love,
FHMaster

  • 06.23.2009 3:24 AM PDT

Oh, OK. Thanks FHmaster, its always good to have someone shoot down your theories. Lol, just kiddin' =P

Anyway, Halo Wars didn't fail 'cause it was a prequel; it failed 'cause it wasn't designed well for the console, with limited tactics and units.

  • 06.23.2009 3:27 AM PDT

The original BADFINGER! (the second)

Posted by: TItan Of Saturn


"From the Beginning, you know the end" kinda tells us that it's a prequal

See i've thought about this.

I believe that it means this:

Halo CE you start at Reach. Go off on your adventures, and ultimately finish at the end of Halo 3 drifiting in space. From the beggining (Reach) you know the end (back to Reach).

I think Reach is the start and the end.
It didnt start at Reach. Technically it started on a Freighter (Cargo Ship) in the Epsilon Indie System when Henry "Hank" Gibsons Freighter was attacked by a small Covenant Explorer (Minor Transgression) which was in search of 'Holy Relics'. Gibson was the first casualty to die at the hands of the Covenant (well a rock to the head anyway). Even though the wars wasnt declared then... unofficially that was the beginning.

  • 06.23.2009 3:46 AM PDT

Anyway, Halo Wars didn't fail 'cause it was a prequel; it failed 'cause it wasn't designed well for the console, with limited tactics and units

That statement would have made sense if you had said "it wasn't designed well for the PC"
considering all the control restraints posed by a console it was actually designed extermely well, in my opinion. However I would agree about limited units and tactics, but if you want a hardcore RTS, why would you ever want to play one on a console, the idea behind Halo wars is that it is easily accessible to ALL while being fun and having relatively short battles

  • 06.23.2009 3:54 AM PDT

...

Devil May Cry 3 was a prequel to the series. and it was Damn freaking awesome. A prequel can work as long as the story ans gameplay stay true to their roots.

  • 06.23.2009 3:56 AM PDT
  • gamertag: oskado
  • user homepage:

Thanks for checking out my bungie.net profile =)
Feel free to check out my screen shots and file share

I don´t think it´s reach in halo 3. and if you think about it, sciense has discovred a lot of planets simular to earth but they arn´t earth. But there might be a chanse that you are right =)

  • 06.23.2009 3:56 AM PDT

Posted by: A SarcasticBrit
I find myself agreeing with you there Tom.

Are you being Sarcastic there Tom lol?

=)

  • 06.23.2009 4:05 AM PDT

Posted by: Anon
i woke a bit ago and my son was playing halo 3 he was on forge i saw at the bottom of the screen was a charge for 35 dollars is that real or not did he charge 35 bucks or is that justfor the in game

-NO RECUITMENT MESSAGES PLEASE

Why Bungie WOULD NOT do a prequel
Your entire argument is defunct because Bungie HAVE done a prequel. Aside from that, great argument...

  • 06.23.2009 4:14 AM PDT

I really enjoy Doritos and Bungie prequels. That is to say I will not have an opinion on something that I have yet to play. But Doritos are freakin good.

  • 06.23.2009 4:23 AM PDT

Posted by: TItan Of Saturn

At the end of Halo 3 and The Halo Reach trailer, there are 2 planets. Can you see a difference?

http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/8692/proof1b.jpg


The planet at the end of Halo 3 cannot be reach, MC didnt go through the portal at the end of the game, hence why the ship was torn in two...also the ark is in the space between galaxies, hence why you can see the milky way when you look up, therefore the planet at the end of halo 3 must be a planet in this region of space between the galaxies and relatively close to the ark ....perhaps a forerunner planet...which would explain the metallic appearence and the glyphs on the surface.

  • 06.23.2009 4:46 AM PDT

It's a prequel obviously.. why? If you looked at the Halo 3 Reach banner on top you would realize they are SPARTANS. Considering John is in fact the last, there's no way they magically came back alive. So why wouldn't they do a prequel? The evidence is right in front of you..

And the planets, for all you know the pictures could have been at a different angle. different side. You haven't taken in account that the light could have taken out more of the evident details.

  • 06.23.2009 7:37 AM PDT