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)

Signatures are for squares.

I'm finished trying to argue with people on this subject.

We'll have our final verdict soon enough, with the Fall of Reach comic series'. If 343 sticks only with the book, we know that "Halo Reach" was just ONI propaganda or some crap. If it follows the game, well, then I'll just rage on the internet.

  • 05.09.2011 7:54 PM PDT


Posted by: privet caboose
I'm finished trying to argue with people on this subject.

We'll have our final verdict soon enough, with the Fall of Reach comic series'. If 343 sticks only with the book, we know that "Halo Reach" was just ONI propaganda or some crap. If it follows the game, well, then I'll just rage on the internet.


And if they still say both are canon?

Also, we wouldn't go "Halo Reach must be some watered down version to boost morale even though it was released YEARs after the war ended."

[Edited on 05.09.2011 7:56 PM PDT]

  • 05.09.2011 7:55 PM PDT

Posted by: UL7IM4 G33K
Except the Saturn V never landed on solid ground. It landed in the ocean (and used parachutes, not thrusters). Unless you mean the Lunar Lander landing on the surface of the moon. The only reason that worked was because of the moon's gravity being so low and the craft being incredibly light.

The PoA is an entirely different beast. I can understand Frigates being able to fly around the surface, but the PoA was a much larger ship.


No, I don't mean the Lunar Lander. The forces used are different, but the principle is the same thing.

The Spirit of Fire was floating around in the Shield World's atmosphere just fine, and it was at least as big as Earth, also the Spirit was much bigger than the Autumn. I don't think these ships have any problem being in atmosphere, their weight may be a slight problem just entering atmosphere willy-nilly, but there would be certain procedures to properly enter atmo.

There is no Halo 4, first off. Second it is rare that the games lead into the books directly. In fact, they never have. I agree that it may have a purpose but we will have to see if that purpose is realized within the re-creation of Halo CE that 343 is overseeing.

343i has confirmed that there will be a Halo 4, I can't remember if they said that's what they're going to do first or not, but there will be a Halo 4 at some point down the road. There has been absolutely no confirmation from an official source if the rumors about a CE remake are true. First Strike and CE are directly linked with each other, so the games and books do lead into each other at least once. And Cryptum pretty spawned straight from the Terminals in Halo 3. The information from the SWORD Artifact will be more developed at some point because it was directly stated that it was important, whether it will be in another game, a book, a comic, an animated short, or something else entirely it will be expounded on at some point.

If I were the UNSC, if I saw a Covenant carrier at a key planet I would immediately call back all available ships in anticipation of more Covenant arriving. Better safe than sorry. They know the location of the planet, it is only a matter of time before it gets attacked.

And they did do that, as soon as they found out about the Super Carrier all ships were being recalled to Reach. Remember the cutscene right after Tip of the Spear? Dot talks about the first groups of ships arriving within 48 hours. They may have even called them in before the Long Night of Solace was discovered.

It just seems like a waste to throw out old canon. It is basically taking fan effort and flushing it down a toilet and telling them to re-learn what they already know. It just seems that those who write this canon haven't even tried to make things fit.

I can understand that sentiment, but Bungie has been pretty good about canon, in comparison to other universes anyway. Maybe they were content with how they had fit things together and over-estimated the community, idk, but I know that Reach and TFoR can still connect, we may not actually have an official sequence of events to go look at, but it's not hard to connect the threads.

I am referring to First Strike, and no Halsey's Journal didn't really fix much at all.


And how exactly does Reach conflict with First Strike? It explained everything that really needed, anything else can easily be fit together by the fans, such as the Autumn landing on Reach and the extending of the battle.

If there is actual conflict, the these claims aren't "baseless".

They conflict, but that doesn't mean the conflict breaks canon. I'm not saying something conflicts is a baseless claim, I'm talking about making claims that something breaks canon.

They aren't baseless. But I understand your point. Just keep in mind that without questions there are no answers and my purpose here is to try and ask the questions you guys can't answer. But instead many of you just glaze over the really hard questions and give half-hearted replies or avoid the questions all together. We know the canon, and we understand that this canon will (hopefully) get mended and smoothed back into a fluid stream of events. What I am wondering is why the current canon has been rewritten. I have checked several times and it could have easily been kept unchanged. Yet here we are with an entirely new book needing to be written and a total of three books disagreeing with the most recent game.

Again, my intent is also not to "crucify" anyone. But you would think that when dealing with more than likely the most closely held Halo book in the saga they would at least read the book recently enough to recall events correctly.


TFoR is the only book that disagrees with Reach, there are no conflicts between it and the others because any conflicts that might have been were fixed in either the marketing materials for Reach or in Halsey's Journal.

I haven't glazed anything over or given any half-hearted replies to people's problems with the campaign. You (and others) may not be satisfied with my answers, but the same answer won't satisfy everybody. My answers satisfy my own questions, and that's enough for me. I've got nothing against asking questions or searching for answers, 'cause that helps improve your own knowledge of the story. But in our asking of questions we shouldn't automatically assume the worst when something doesn't seem to fit, instead find the option where everything fits best in your eyes without ignoring or tampering too much with the information available.

  • 05.10.2011 9:20 AM PDT


Posted by: Cmdr DaeFaron

Posted by: privet caboose
I'm finished trying to argue with people on this subject.

We'll have our final verdict soon enough, with the Fall of Reach comic series'. If 343 sticks only with the book, we know that "Halo Reach" was just ONI propaganda or some crap. If it follows the game, well, then I'll just rage on the internet.


And if they still say both are canon?

Also, we wouldn't go "Halo Reach must be some watered down version to boost morale even though it was released YEARs after the war ended."


I'd be inclined to believe they are, since quite a few of the videos on Waypoint have talked about both Reach and TFoR together in such a way that they regard them as on equal footing. 343i views Reach and TFoR the same way Bungie does. o even if they leave the comic version of TFoR alone, that doesn't mean that Reach is non-canon or must be changed to fit TFoR.

And your second section is just gold DaeFaron. Why would ONI still be pouring out useless propaganda about the war years after it was over and there was no need to keep morale up? There would be no need to, and it especially wouldn't make sense to refer to it as fact between two ONI officials. They would both know the full facts of the timeline of events for Reach, now not knowing all the details of everything that happened, that's plausible as some intel would be classified, but lying to each other about the timeline with a completely straight face? That's just sheer lunacy to even think that.

  • 05.10.2011 9:29 AM PDT

The way I see it is that since the games came first, and is what created the canon, then anything that doesn't fit in with the games isn't canon.

I know it's a controversial view, especially since Reach came after the books, but since the games are the original medium, then they should supply the canon.

  • 05.10.2011 10:12 AM PDT
  • gamertag: tsassi
  • user homepage:

Posted by: OrderedComa
Posted by: UL7IM4 G33K
Except the Saturn V never landed on solid ground. It landed in the ocean (and used parachutes, not thrusters). Unless you mean the Lunar Lander landing on the surface of the moon. The only reason that worked was because of the moon's gravity being so low and the craft being incredibly light.

The PoA is an entirely different beast. I can understand Frigates being able to fly around the surface, but the PoA was a much larger ship.


No, I don't mean the Lunar Lander. The forces used are different, but the principle is the same thing.

The Spirit of Fire was floating around in the Shield World's atmosphere just fine, and it was at least as big as Earth, also the Spirit was much bigger than the Autumn. I don't think these ships have any problem being in atmosphere, their weight may be a slight problem just entering atmosphere willy-nilly, but there would be certain procedures to properly enter atmo.

I doupt this is going to end your debate but Sprit of Fire probably floated on lagrangian point. On lagrangian point gravitational pulls of both objects are almost the same. In this case pulls of the star and Micro Dyson sphere. It would be same as floating in zero gravity. It can't fall towards any of the objects.

Both ships can't float in a place with gravitational pull higher than 0.2 G's as they have nothing to create enough upwards force. I believe you if you can show at least one picture that clearly shows UNSC ship with thrusters that could create enough downwards thrust to stop the ship when coming into atmosphere. You can also show me part of text from any of the books that describes the thrusters.

Atmosphere isn't the problem. It's the gravitational pull. You are making assumptions but have nothing to support them. You talk about ships that you have seen floating in atmosphere but don't even speculate why. The main problem with your argument is that there are no sufficient downwards thrusters in any of UNSC ships we have seen and none of the books never talk about them either.

  • 05.10.2011 10:41 AM PDT


Posted by: tsassi2
Posted by: OrderedComa
Posted by: UL7IM4 G33K
Except the Saturn V never landed on solid ground. It landed in the ocean (and used parachutes, not thrusters). Unless you mean the Lunar Lander landing on the surface of the moon. The only reason that worked was because of the moon's gravity being so low and the craft being incredibly light.

The PoA is an entirely different beast. I can understand Frigates being able to fly around the surface, but the PoA was a much larger ship.


No, I don't mean the Lunar Lander. The forces used are different, but the principle is the same thing.

The Spirit of Fire was floating around in the Shield World's atmosphere just fine, and it was at least as big as Earth, also the Spirit was much bigger than the Autumn. I don't think these ships have any problem being in atmosphere, their weight may be a slight problem just entering atmosphere willy-nilly, but there would be certain procedures to properly enter atmo.

I doupt this is going to end your debate but Sprit of Fire probably floated on lagrangian point. On lagrangian point gravitational pulls of both objects are almost the same. In this case pulls of the star and Micro Dyson sphere. It would be same as floating in zero gravity. It can't fall towards any of the objects.

Both ships can't float in a place with gravitational pull higher than 0.2 G's as they have nothing to create enough upwards force. I believe you if you can show at least one picture that clearly shows UNSC ship with thrusters that could create enough downwards thrust to stop the ship when coming into atmosphere. You can also show me part of text from any of the books that describes the thrusters.

Atmosphere isn't the problem. It's the gravitational pull. You are making assumptions but have nothing to support them. You talk about ships that you have seen floating in atmosphere but don't even speculate why. The main problem with your argument is that there are no sufficient downwards thrusters in any of UNSC ships we have seen and none of the books never talk about them either.


Okay then, why don't you start yelling about the frigates. We see them 'floating' in atmosphere. We see the Forward Unto Dawn fly down, and land in halo 3.

I believe in the books it's mentioned they have chemical thrusters designed to 'shove' the ship to the side in a sudden boost. Also, if the ships did not have maneuvering thrusters, they would be able to ONLY go in a single direction, foreward.

  • 05.10.2011 11:10 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Deva Path


Posted by: DecepticonCobra

We are all going to get banned aren't we?

I remember this being talked about during halo 2. We had came to the conclusion that the UNSC must have been able to reverse engineer some of the covenant anti-gravity plating and used it on their ships.

  • 05.10.2011 11:16 AM PDT

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstien

Posted by: AndyDaRoo
The way I see it is that since the games came first, and is what created the canon, then anything that doesn't fit in with the games isn't canon.

I know it's a controversial view, especially since Reach came after the books, but since the games are the original medium, then they should supply the canon.

Technically, the Fall of Reach was published about a month before Halo CE was released.

Posted by: Cmdr DaeFaron
Okay then, why don't you start yelling about the frigates. We see them 'floating' in atmosphere. We see the Forward Unto Dawn fly down, and land in halo 3.

The Ark is not a planet, its gravity could be entirely different than what a Planet has (it could be artificial just like the Installations). This would explain why the ship may be able to float in the atmosphere (depending on the size of the object the gravity of the Ark may not effect it, that or it may be easier to oppose). Still, the only UNSC ships to have been seen in the atmosphere of a planet are Frigates, and most if not all of them are constantly moving.


I believe in the books it's mentioned they have chemical thrusters designed to 'shove' the ship to the side in a sudden boost. Also, if the ships did not have maneuvering thrusters, they would be able to ONLY go in a single direction, foreward.

Those are emergency thrusters for sudden course corrections (say to avoid an object) and maneuvering thrusters are nowhere near powerful enough to lift a ship. Many times those kinds of thrusters use oxygen or other gases to lightly push the ship.

Posted by: grey101
I remember this being talked about during halo 2. We had came to the conclusion that the UNSC must have been able to reverse engineer some of the covenant anti-gravity plating and used it on their ships.

If this is the case, it still brings to question why Frigates remain to be the only ships in-atmosphere. If they have reverse engineered the plating I wouldn't be surprised if that plating was only usable on ships of a certain size/weight. And seeing as UNSC ships are far larger/heavier at times then it would be understandable that only small UNSC ships could utilize it. This excluding anything larger than a Frigate.

[Edited on 05.10.2011 11:27 AM PDT]

  • 05.10.2011 11:26 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Deva Path


Posted by: DecepticonCobra

We are all going to get banned aren't we?


Posted by: UL7IM4 G33K

Posted by: grey101
I remember this being talked about during halo 2. We had came to the conclusion that the UNSC must have been able to reverse engineer some of the covenant anti-gravity plating and used it on their ships.

If this is the case, it still brings to question why Frigates remain to be the only ships in-atmosphere. If they have reverse engineered the plating I wouldn't be surprised if that plating was only usable on ships of a certain size/weight. And seeing as UNSC ships are far larger/heavier at times then it would be understandable that only small UNSC ships could utilize it. This excluding anything larger than a Frigate.


To be honest the conclusion was good enough for us at the time so we left it alone. Plus larger ships are nearly never seen in atmosphere human wise.

  • 05.10.2011 11:29 AM PDT


Posted by: grey101

Posted by: UL7IM4 G33K

Posted by: grey101
I remember this being talked about during halo 2. We had came to the conclusion that the UNSC must have been able to reverse engineer some of the covenant anti-gravity plating and used it on their ships.

If this is the case, it still brings to question why Frigates remain to be the only ships in-atmosphere. If they have reverse engineered the plating I wouldn't be surprised if that plating was only usable on ships of a certain size/weight. And seeing as UNSC ships are far larger/heavier at times then it would be understandable that only small UNSC ships could utilize it. This excluding anything larger than a Frigate.


To be honest the conclusion was good enough for us at the time so we left it alone. Plus larger ships are nearly never seen in atmosphere human wise.


Maybe they reverse engineered it enough so that the ships could land and take off, but not much else (for larger ones).

The 'booster' engines we see in Reach could simply be there to get it up off the ground, and give it time to activate the main engines and the anti-grav stuff. We know the PoA had artificial gravity without a spinning section from the book.

Also, We have several cases of a frigate 'hovering' without movement. Halo 2, Earth levels. Halo 2, delta halo library area. Halo 3, final mission. Halo Reach, Tip of the Spear.

If we bring MP, then you also have halo 3 sandtrap one.

  • 05.10.2011 11:55 AM PDT

Posted by: UL7IM4 G33k
The Ark is not a planet, its gravity could be entirely different than what a Planet has (it could be artificial just like the Installations). This would explain why the ship may be able to float in the atmosphere (depending on the size of the object the gravity of the Ark may not effect it, that or it may be easier to oppose). Still, the only UNSC ships to have been seen in the atmosphere of a planet are Frigates, and most if not all of them are constantly moving.


The Ark and the Halos are all designed to have a gravity similar to Earth, if I recall. And you see at least one Frigate hovering in Reach and they were floating in Halo 3 as well, been a while since I played it though.

  • 05.10.2011 2:04 PM PDT

Brains beats brawn get used to it

Fear the Red Comet

Variety is the spice of life.
Long live games.
Death to all fanboys.


Posted by: Cmdr DaeFaron

Posted by: privet caboose
I'm finished trying to argue with people on this subject.

We'll have our final verdict soon enough, with the Fall of Reach comic series'. If 343 sticks only with the book, we know that "Halo Reach" was just ONI propaganda or some crap. If it follows the game, well, then I'll just rage on the internet.


And if they still say both are canon?

Also, we wouldn't go "Halo Reach must be some watered down version to boost morale even though it was released YEARs after the war ended."


If for some reason 343i decides to go with the "Halo Reach was a publicized version of how the battle went from Noble's point of view based off some actual recordings" (since the limited and legendary edition leaflets refer to the game as such) route it probably wouldn't be a morale booster, but just mere entertainment from an in-universe point of view. Look at "historical" movies today. Hollywood loves to play up and dramatize war movies more than necessary, even battles the U.S. lost like Pearl Harbor gets hammed up and filled with new fictional side plots in place of what actually happened.

I would be a fascinating route for them to take, and would be an interesting way to present a game story.

  • 05.10.2011 3:30 PM PDT
  • gamertag: tsassi
  • user homepage:

Posted by: OrderedComa
Posted by: UL7IM4 G33k
The Ark is not a planet, its gravity could be entirely different than what a Planet has (it could be artificial just like the Installations). This would explain why the ship may be able to float in the atmosphere (depending on the size of the object the gravity of the Ark may not effect it, that or it may be easier to oppose). Still, the only UNSC ships to have been seen in the atmosphere of a planet are Frigates, and most if not all of them are constantly moving.


The Ark and the Halos are all designed to have a gravity similar to Earth, if I recall. And you see at least one Frigate hovering in Reach and they were floating in Halo 3 as well, been a while since I played it though.

When I was writing my post I knew that Frigates would be used against my argument. In fact, they have always bugged me. They are the only ships we have seen floating on areas with big gravitational pull. But if my memory serves, we have only seen them floating in the games. There has been no mention about it in the books. I know that games have higher priority but still. Reverse engineered anti-gravity plates are the only explanation but it would change canon way too much.

  • 05.10.2011 9:32 PM PDT


Posted by: tsassi2
Posted by: OrderedComa
Posted by: UL7IM4 G33k
The Ark is not a planet, its gravity could be entirely different than what a Planet has (it could be artificial just like the Installations). This would explain why the ship may be able to float in the atmosphere (depending on the size of the object the gravity of the Ark may not effect it, that or it may be easier to oppose). Still, the only UNSC ships to have been seen in the atmosphere of a planet are Frigates, and most if not all of them are constantly moving.


The Ark and the Halos are all designed to have a gravity similar to Earth, if I recall. And you see at least one Frigate hovering in Reach and they were floating in Halo 3 as well, been a while since I played it though.

When I was writing my post I knew that Frigates would be used against my argument. In fact, they have always bugged me. They are the only ships we have seen floating on areas with big gravitational pull. But if my memory serves, we have only seen them floating in the games. There has been no mention about it in the books. I know that games have higher priority but still. Reverse engineered anti-gravity plates are the only explanation but it would change canon way too much.


Not really, we know the UNSC was doing that, and had some ships which had gravity without a spinning section.

I mean, and we could, as my last post said, assume such anti gravity tech was used in the landing and take off of the PoA.

[Edited on 05.10.2011 9:47 PM PDT]

  • 05.10.2011 9:47 PM PDT

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstien

Posted by: Cmdr DaeFaron
Not really, we know the UNSC was doing that, and had some ships which had gravity without a spinning section.

I mean, and we could, as my last post said, assume such anti gravity tech was used in the landing and take off of the PoA.

Actually, we cannot. We can only assume that Frigates are able to use the technology effectively since in every game there has only been Frigates in any atmosphere.

  • 05.10.2011 10:13 PM PDT


Posted by: UL7IM4 G33K
Posted by: Cmdr DaeFaron
Not really, we know the UNSC was doing that, and had some ships which had gravity without a spinning section.

I mean, and we could, as my last post said, assume such anti gravity tech was used in the landing and take off of the PoA.

Actually, we cannot. We can only assume that Frigates are able to use the technology effectively since in every game there has only been Frigates in any atmosphere.


In truth, we can. Frigates may be the only ones that use it 'effectively' aka, they can act as combat support in atmosphere. However, other ships map use it for landing and take off. We see the civilian transports in Exodus take off with vertical thrusters as well.

  • 05.10.2011 10:25 PM PDT

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstien

Posted by: Cmdr DaeFaron
In truth, we can. Frigates may be the only ones that use it 'effectively' aka, they can act as combat support in atmosphere. However, other ships map use it for landing and take off. We see the civilian transports in Exodus take off with vertical thrusters as well.
These ships are not nearly the same size as the Autumn. The Autumn is nearly 10 times the size of a Frigate, if not more: Ship Size Chart

  • 05.10.2011 11:19 PM PDT

http://www.halo-forum.com

Posted by: UL7IM4 G33K
Posted by: Cmdr DaeFaron
In truth, we can. Frigates may be the only ones that use it 'effectively' aka, they can act as combat support in atmosphere. However, other ships map use it for landing and take off. We see the civilian transports in Exodus take off with vertical thrusters as well.
These ships are not nearly the same size as the Autumn. The Autumn is nearly 10 times the size of a Frigate, if not more: Ship Size Chart

Origins II clearly shows Phoenix class colony ships floating stationary in atmosphere as well as vertically landing, both of which the Spirit of Fire was capable of too. These ships were huge, much bigger than frigates, and they were built long before Covenant contact. The UNSC obviously had some understanding of anti-grav or gravity manipulating technology much earlier than 2552.

  • 05.10.2011 11:44 PM PDT

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstien

Posted by: switch 104 sv
Origins II clearly shows Phoenix class colony ships floating stationary in atmosphere as well as vertically landing, both of which the Spirit of Fire was capable of too. These ships were huge, much bigger than frigates, and they were built long before Covenant contact. The UNSC obviously had some understanding of anti-grav or gravity manipulating technology much earlier than 2552.


"Their next task was to take the Autumn down into the atmosphere. No small order considering the fact that, like all vessels of her tonnage, the cruiser had been constructed in zero-gee conditions and wasn't equipped to operate in a planetary atmosphere.
Page 40 in Del Ray paperback (first edition)."

This brings the conflicts up to 4 books. FoR, The Flood, First Strike and Ghosts of Onyx.

[Edited on 05.11.2011 12:07 AM PDT]

  • 05.11.2011 12:00 AM PDT


Posted by: UL7IM4 G33K
Posted by: switch 104 sv
Origins II clearly shows Phoenix class colony ships floating stationary in atmosphere as well as vertically landing, both of which the Spirit of Fire was capable of too. These ships were huge, much bigger than frigates, and they were built long before Covenant contact. The UNSC obviously had some understanding of anti-grav or gravity manipulating technology much earlier than 2552.


"Their next task was to take the Autumn down into the atmosphere. No small order considering the fact that, like all vessels of her tonnage, the cruiser had been constructed in zero-gee conditions and wasn't equipped to operate in a planetary atmosphere.
Page 40 in Del Ray paperback (first edition)."

This brings the conflicts up to 4 books. FoR, The Flood, First Strike and Ghosts of Onyx.


Operate. Very vague word. You see, to mean me it means move around/behave like the frigates.

To you, it seems like that means the PoA couldn't go into atmosphere at all.

Edit: And that's getting really annoying. You spout out "Now it conflicts with 4 books!" as if that makes your side of the situation more secure, and that Halo Reach CANNOT fit with the book.

[Edited on 05.11.2011 7:26 AM PDT]

  • 05.11.2011 6:52 AM PDT

sup if you don't like what I post you can go suck one this is the internet not Grammer class so GTFO Grammer N@ZI's

im going to make this simple for you
Game canon > Book canon

  • 05.11.2011 7:22 AM PDT


Posted by: UL7IM4 G33K
Posted by: switch 104 sv
Origins II clearly shows Phoenix class colony ships floating stationary in atmosphere as well as vertically landing, both of which the Spirit of Fire was capable of too. These ships were huge, much bigger than frigates, and they were built long before Covenant contact. The UNSC obviously had some understanding of anti-grav or gravity manipulating technology much earlier than 2552.


"Their next task was to take the Autumn down into the atmosphere. No small order considering the fact that, like all vessels of her tonnage, the cruiser had been constructed in zero-gee conditions and wasn't equipped to operate in a planetary atmosphere.
Page 40 in Del Ray paperback (first edition)."

This brings the conflicts up to 4 books. FoR, The Flood, First Strike and Ghosts of Onyx.


I'm with Faron, operate is a very vague word, and doesn't imply that it can't go into a planet's atmosphere, it means that's it's not meant to operate (IE not perform a support role in atmosphere like a frigate). And that quote never said it can't go in atmosphere, it just said that it would be a challenge to accomplish.

I assume you are quoting the Flood? Now you're just grasping at straws to make your opinion that Reach breaks all of canon more valid. You're only making yourself look ludicrous. Any conflicts with Ghosts of Onyx or First Strike have been patched up in Halsey's Journal, so thus there are no conflicts with those books unless you choose to completely ignore the Journal, in which case your points of contention would no longer be credible. TFoR is the only book that Reach conflicts with, and even then it is only the most minuscule section of the book. I think the section dealing with the Battle of Reach is what, like 50 pages maximum?

  • 05.11.2011 9:25 AM PDT

MODERATOR: I reported the above post on accident.

  • 05.11.2011 11:26 AM PDT

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstien

Posted by: Cmdr DaeFaron
Operate. Very vague word. You see, to mean me it means move around/behave like the frigates.

It isn't that vague of a word:
- direct or control; projects, businesses, etc.;
- function: perform as expected when applied;
- handle and cause to function;
- manoeuver: perform a movement in military or naval tactics in order to secure an advantage in attack or defense
- happen;

And there is no contextual information that would hint at it being related/compared to frigates in any way.

Posted by: Cmdr DaeFaron
Edit: And that's getting really annoying. You spout out "Now it conflicts with 4 books!" as if that makes your side of the situation more secure, and that Halo Reach CANNOT fit with the book.

Well, it does conflict with 4 of the books, all of which came before the game. These are anywhere from minor to major conflicts, but most mid-major. I'm not saying it cannot fit. 343 will eventually make it fit (assuming they care enough to catch all the problems). At the moment, however, it doesn't fit. And pointing out the issues will not only help anyone from 343 reading this topic in finding and fixing their mistakes but allow for us to understand exactly how much of the canon is out of place now that they have effectively rewritten Halo history.

Posted by: OrderedComa
I'm with Faron, operate is a very vague word, and doesn't imply that it can't go into a planet's atmosphere, it means that's it's not meant to operate (IE not perform a support role in atmosphere like a frigate). And that quote never said it can't go in atmosphere, it just said that it would be a challenge to accomplish.

If anything it is saying that, yes, it wasn't meant for atmospheric operation AKA - not rated for atmosphere. Not rated means not meant for. Just like certain ships aren't rated for beach landing in the Navy. This may not dispute the PoA's ability to land but with common sense if something is built in space and is made for space why would it ever have a need to land?

Posted by: OrderedComa
I assume you are quoting the Flood? Now you're just grasping at straws to make your opinion that Reach breaks all of canon more valid. You're only making yourself look ludicrous. Any conflicts with Ghosts of Onyx or First Strike have been patched up in Halsey's Journal, so thus there are no conflicts with those books unless you choose to completely ignore the Journal, in which case your points of contention would no longer be credible. TFoR is the only book that Reach conflicts with, and even then it is only the most minuscule section of the book. I think the section dealing with the Battle of Reach is what, like 50 pages maximum?

it isn't an opinion. These are the conflicts and you can't write off facts as opinion. Reach doesn't agree with much of the pre-established canon regardless of if that canon isn't game material. It is still hard canon. And if you think the errors with GoO and First Strike were fixed in the journal you either didn't read it carefully or didn't read it at all.

And the "size" of the part it disagrees with has no meaning. The book is title Fall of Reach, and the game conflicts with that books main subject matter aside from the Spartan II program (instead it just conflicts with the Spartan III program). You cannot equate the number of pages to the value of the content within. I could give you a letter of recommendation that was 500 pages long for a job but it wouldn't be nearly has important as that 3 page doctor's report that reveals you have cancer.

  • 05.11.2011 12:22 PM PDT