Bungie Universe
This topic has moved here: Subject: Unexplainable errors in the Halo canon. (Spoilers)
  • Subject: Unexplainable errors in the Halo canon. (Spoilers)
Subject: Unexplainable errors in the Halo canon. (Spoilers)


Posted by: DarkJkl2009
The books aren`t canon.
Umm Yeah they are there all canon

  • 10.08.2010 5:04 AM PDT

There are only two tragedies in life: one is not getting what one wants, and the other is getting it


Posted by: Alf stewert

Posted by: DarkJkl2009
The books aren`t canon.
Umm Yeah they are there all canon


Even the books contradict eachother... and themselves.

In Chapter 29 of tFoR, when Keys was making his flyby inspection of the PoA, it says that Keys notes that the Portside emergency thrusters were missing, when in the next few chapters they use those same "missing portside emergency thrusters" twice to save their lives.

This is just one example, another being the daste discrepancy of then the battle for Reach took place between the original tFoR and the re-released version.

There are a lot of these "mistakes" littered throughout the books and games. So I started thinking of canon as a present moment thing, that is subject to be rewritten over again. Although I hate to think that way, because in ten years, the story will be changed again, but there no other way to explain the complete disreguard of previously stated canon by Bungie.

  • 10.08.2010 6:50 AM PDT

Signatures are for squares.


Posted by: ExO_EPIC

Posted by: Alf stewert

Posted by: DarkJkl2009
The books aren`t canon.
Umm Yeah they are there all canon


Even the books contradict eachother... and themselves.

In Chapter 29 of tFoR, when Keys was making his flyby inspection of the PoA, it says that Keys notes that the Portside emergency thrusters were missing, when in the next few chapters they use those same "missing portside emergency thrusters" twice to save their lives.

This is just one example, another being the daste discrepancy of then the battle for Reach took place between the original tFoR and the re-released version.

There are a lot of these "mistakes" littered throughout the books and games. So I started thinking of canon as a present moment thing, that is subject to be rewritten over again. Although I hate to think that way, because in ten years, the story will be changed again, but there no other way to explain the complete disreguard of previously stated canon by Bungie.


Discrepancies are not the same as canon breaks.

  • 10.08.2010 7:42 AM PDT

Oly Oly Oxen Free

I was gutted we didn't see a larger space battle in Reach.

It was deserted in the game, apparently the UNSC Savannah was the only ship that gave a damn. The orbital guns were on vacation, and those 3 slow-ass repair and refit stations that couldn't have gotten far were no where to be seen. Oh yeah, as was the entire home fleet.

I thought that the Cruisers had been pulled back to defend the inner colonies? I was so excited to see a ship the scale of the Stalingrad or Leviathon, not just a somewhat undersized frigate (how is the sabre so large in comparison?!)

I liked the game but Bungie... where was the space battle i've been waiting for?

Oh and p.s. wtf were banshees doing in space and why were there NO LONGSWORDS?

  • 10.08.2010 8:22 AM PDT

OMG a Pwny!


Posted by: ExO_EPIC

Posted by: Alf stewert

Posted by: DarkJkl2009
The books aren`t canon.
Umm Yeah they are there all canon


Even the books contradict eachother... and themselves.

In Chapter 29 of tFoR, when Keys was making his flyby inspection of the PoA, it says that Keys notes that the Portside emergency thrusters were missing, when in the next few chapters they use those same "missing portside emergency thrusters" twice to save their lives.

This is just one example, another being the daste discrepancy of then the battle for Reach took place between the original tFoR and the re-released version.

There are a lot of these "mistakes" littered throughout the books and games. So I started thinking of canon as a present moment thing, that is subject to be rewritten over again. Although I hate to think that way, because in ten years, the story will be changed again, but there no other way to explain the complete disreguard of previously stated canon by Bungie.


The re-released Fall of Reach uses an original edit of the book with incorrect years, this has been stated already, many times, even by the publisher, author, etc.
Because of this, things that were fixed, or unfixed, in later issues are still mistakes. In the new version, which is actually the original print, it doesn't even mention the emergency portside thrusters.

Your argument is invalid, sorry.

  • 10.08.2010 8:47 AM PDT

directive classified hmhmhmhmhmhmhmhmm singed kunai agent of E.V.A. saa itte miyo oka yume no kuni

the worst indescepencies is in halo wars the spartan mark 4s have sheilds yet in the books and every where els the mark 4 dont have sheilds.

  • 10.08.2010 8:55 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: kunai9190
the worst indescepencies is in halo wars the spartan mark 4s have sheilds yet in the books and every where els the mark 4 dont have sheilds.
That's like that for gameplay purposes.

  • 10.08.2010 8:57 AM PDT

There are only two tragedies in life: one is not getting what one wants, and the other is getting it


Posted by: SirPwn4g3

Posted by: ExO_EPIC

Posted by: Alf stewert

Posted by: DarkJkl2009
The books aren`t canon.
Umm Yeah they are there all canon


Even the books contradict eachother... and themselves.

In Chapter 29 of tFoR, when Keys was making his flyby inspection of the PoA, it says that Keys notes that the Portside emergency thrusters were missing, when in the next few chapters they use those same "missing portside emergency thrusters" twice to save their lives.

This is just one example, another being the daste discrepancy of then the battle for Reach took place between the original tFoR and the re-released version.

There are a lot of these "mistakes" littered throughout the books and games. So I started thinking of canon as a present moment thing, that is subject to be rewritten over again. Although I hate to think that way, because in ten years, the story will be changed again, but there no other way to explain the complete disreguard of previously stated canon by Bungie.


The re-released Fall of Reach uses an original edit of the book with incorrect years, this has been stated already, many times, even by the publisher, author, etc.
Because of this, things that were fixed, or unfixed, in later issues are still mistakes. In the new version, which is actually the original print, it doesn't even mention the emergency portside thrusters.

Your argument is invalid, sorry.


How is it invalid, it exists in black and white. Seems chatty that there are that many mistakes, and they all couldn't be fixed a second time through. Sad really.

  • 10.08.2010 9:03 AM PDT

Viva La Revolution!
Social Infection ftw

I consider The Fall of Reach WAAY MORE canon than H: Reach.

I was expecting them to make the story fit in with the book. I was also expecting a Space battle between 300 Covenant ships and 150 UNSC ships.

I mean, really? I don't think a game where the protagonist's gender is indefinite should be considered canon.

  • 10.08.2010 9:16 AM PDT

OMG a Pwny!

The emergency thruster issue is invalid because we know that the pods actually are there, the year issue is a typo. You've basically mentioned things that didn't make it through editing. And you can't blame Microsoft, 343, or Bungie for it because that's what happens with books, that's why other books that sell more get re-released because things have to be fixed.

[Edited on 10.08.2010 9:36 AM PDT]

  • 10.08.2010 9:35 AM PDT

There are only two tragedies in life: one is not getting what one wants, and the other is getting it


Posted by: SirPwn4g3
The emergency thruster issue is invalid because we know that the pods actually are there, the year issue is a typo. You've basically mentioned things that didn't make it through editing. And you can't blame Microsoft, 343, or Bungie for it because that's what happens with books, that's why other books that sell more get re-released because things have to be fixed.


I haven't read the re-release, only the original. I understand the reasoning behind the re-release of tFoR

  • 10.08.2010 10:05 AM PDT

OMG a Pwny!

The re-release only adds about 30 pages of new stuff. Everything else is an older printing. There are currently two versions of the book, one with some corrections and slight additions (these ones have correct year -2552-) and there is the original which has the wrong years, 2542. The re-release has 2542.

  • 10.08.2010 11:32 AM PDT

No signature found. Click here to change this.

im surprised the inconsistency with cortana being forerunner wasnt on that list, or did we determine that she was in two pieces

  • 10.08.2010 1:56 PM PDT

Signatures are for squares.


Posted by: AvengerTam1010
im surprised the inconsistency with cortana being forerunner wasnt on that list, or did we determine that she was in two pieces


Cortana was split into two fragments. One was with Blue, one was with Halsey. The oen with Halsey was studying Forerunner artifacts. Six took the fragment to Keyes.

  • 10.08.2010 6:43 PM PDT

No signature found. Click here to change this.


Posted by: privet caboose

Posted by: AvengerTam1010
im surprised the inconsistency with cortana being forerunner wasnt on that list, or did we determine that she was in two pieces


Cortana was split into two fragments. One was with Blue, one was with Halsey. The oen with Halsey was studying Forerunner artifacts. Six took the fragment to Keyes.

is this in the diary? i havnt started reading it yet

  • 10.08.2010 6:54 PM PDT

Signatures are for squares.


Posted by: AvengerTam1010

Posted by: privet caboose

Posted by: AvengerTam1010
im surprised the inconsistency with cortana being forerunner wasnt on that list, or did we determine that she was in two pieces


Cortana was split into two fragments. One was with Blue, one was with Halsey. The oen with Halsey was studying Forerunner artifacts. Six took the fragment to Keyes.

is this in the diary? i havnt started reading it yet



Yeah.

  • 10.08.2010 6:57 PM PDT

ShawtyHullstineFilms CEO-Team MLG EXTREME

Nice thread. I'm pretty disappointed about how Bungie screwed up the canon. But at least we got a kick-ass game!

  • 10.08.2010 7:01 PM PDT

Banned and proud of it.

Do you have Halseys Journal?

  • 10.10.2010 3:12 PM PDT

On hiding dead bodies:
Posted by: Psuedo
Posted by: teh Chaz
Inside another dead body. It's the last place they'll look
A corpse within a corpse.
CORPSEPTION.
Win.

Posted by: privet caboose

Posted by: JDYeash937 MkII

Posted by: AngasBoy
Clever,

Still, 5 years in Cyro is a long time for a small boy...
I fail to really see why it should matter about his age and being cryo'd for 5 years.

Apart from merely the stress of survivng Biko and then being 'iced'.


Well, it was a requirement to be a younger candidate for the III's, because they need to be able to train for 5 years, and still not of hit puberty. Otherwise the augmentations wouldn't have worked properly and caused mutations/fail.

And I don't remember reading about a single case of someone being in cryo for FIVE YEARS, in a row...(Except maybe the SoF, but they didn't have any other choice.)
What I meant was, the fact he was a young child shouldn't have mattered how long he spent in cryo - he would have experienced the exact same effects as the most hardened marine, regardless of time spent in cryo, though just be less used to it.

  • 10.11.2010 1:27 AM PDT

Banned and proud of it.

*Keeps Thread alive*

  • 10.12.2010 10:06 AM PDT

Banned and proud of it.

*Keeps Thread alive*

  • 10.12.2010 2:51 PM PDT

Internet Entrepreneur, Halo Addict, and possibly a Forerunner.

When you make a 10 page article about Halo: Reach before story details it's quite frustrating to see Bungie ignoring important stuff.

  • 10.12.2010 3:06 PM PDT

maybe is disapointing but its more the fact that its not gonna be a halo 4 game :(

  • 10.12.2010 3:17 PM PDT

Anti-Teabag self-destruct mechanisms ftw

Um, OP person, I made a post about this a few days ago and the simple(if not totaly accurate) solutions to the contradictions.


The address is here but I have no idea how to hyperlink...

http://www.bungie.net/Forums/posts.aspx?postID=50361689&v iewreplies=true

  • 10.12.2010 6:43 PM PDT

Kind of off topic, but does anyone remember how in Ghosts of Onyx, some of Alpha Company's Spartan-IIIs were supposedly kids who had had their parents killed on colonies such as Harvest. Kurt even mentions that some of them had lost loved ones on planets such as Jericho VII even though Jericho VII doesn't fall until 2535.

In particular, Shane is mentioned as remembering when Harvest was attacked. If the years match up, Shane is an infant when first contact is made.

The reason I mention this is because a lot of things don't add up considering Spartan-III candidates, their ages, dates, and that sort of thing. If you ask me, Carter, Jun, and Emile's ages are just another error in a long list.

  • 10.12.2010 8:30 PM PDT