Bungie Universe
This topic has moved here: Subject: Your vote on Halo:Reach and the FOR Canon errors (3 options)
  • Subject: Your vote on Halo:Reach and the FOR Canon errors (3 options)
Subject: Your vote on Halo:Reach and the FOR Canon errors (3 options)

"A LIE is a LIE"


- Truly intelligent and deep Black ops trailer


Posted by: Toomuchmooin
3rd, I'm still confused on how the POA was on Reach when it was barely at the battle, the entire battle took a totally different shape and Spartan3s shouldn't be there killing the majority of the main characters. Now Eric Nylund has to rewrite entire sections of the books.


That's an example of a minor problem. The POA had thrusters that could allow it to land and lift of, so its perfectly logical to think that the POA landed,collected cortana after it did all the roles from FOR

  • 05.21.2011 6:34 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

3rd. The most obvious, is the poa being on reach, and most importantly, in atmosphere. A halcyon cruiser isn't rated for atmosphere, it'd be crushed by its own weight.

  • 05.21.2011 6:48 AM PDT

"A LIE is a LIE"


- Truly intelligent and deep Black ops trailer


Posted by: Sparty Boy 117
3rd. The most obvious, is the poa being on reach, and most importantly, in atmosphere. A halcyon cruiser isn't rated for atmosphere, it'd be crushed by its own weight.


I really don't understand this. The POA was clearly in atmosphere on installation 04, that wasn't crushed, the only thing wrong was it was battered by covenant plasma torpedoes.


It seems people have some kind of bias agaisnt Halo:reach, as if any minor mistake is taken as a huge mistake.


Also, the POA being on reach is clearly explainable - it did everything in FOR, it then landed on reach, collected cortana and left to 04.

[Edited on 05.21.2011 7:18 AM PDT]

  • 05.21.2011 7:15 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Do not waste your tears, I was not born to watch the world grow dim. Life is not measured in years, but by the deeds of men.

Posted by: goldhawk
We should know better, because we are better.


Posted by: RKOSNAKE
Posted by: DecepticonCobra
I'm having no trouble connecting the dots with certain "broken" aspects of Hal: Reach compared to The Fall of Reach, so I'll go with 2.

I also heard 343 is planning on counting Reach as non-canon, so that's that.

[Edited on 05.21.2011 7:24 AM PDT]

  • 05.21.2011 7:23 AM PDT

"A LIE is a LIE"


- Truly intelligent and deep Black ops trailer


Posted by: Xd00999

Posted by: RKOSNAKE
Posted by: DecepticonCobra
I'm having no trouble connecting the dots with certain "broken" aspects of Hal: Reach compared to The Fall of Reach, so I'll go with 2.

I also heard 343 is planning on counting Reach as non-canon, so that's that.



please link or source? otherwise that is BS

  • 05.21.2011 7:26 AM PDT

By the power of truth, I, while living, have conquered the universe.


Posted by: Pipboy 3050
Posted by: Sparty Boy 117
3rd. The most obvious, is the poa being on reach, and most importantly, in atmosphere. A halcyon cruiser isn't rated for atmosphere, it'd be crushed by its own weight.


I really don't understand this. The POA was clearly in atmosphere on installation 04, that wasn't crushed, the only thing wrong was it was battered by covenant plasma torpedoes.


It seems people have some kind of bias agaisnt Halo:reach, as if any minor mistake is taken as a huge mistake.


Also, the POA being on reach is clearly explainable - it did everything in FOR, it then landed on reach, collected cortana and left to 04.


The novel states that the Autumn dropped off Blue Team at the Circumference, battled a Covenant ship then picked up John, Linda and Johnson before it fled to Installation 04. There's no room in the timeline for it to have landed on Reach, completely powered down and wait over an hour to collect the Cortana fragment (which was the most inconvenient excuse for a "storyline" ever).

  • 05.21.2011 7:30 AM PDT

"A LIE is a LIE"


- Truly intelligent and deep Black ops trailer


Posted by: ajw34307

The novel states that the Autumn dropped off Blue Team at the Circumference, battled a Covenant ship then picked up John, Linda and Johnson before it fled to Installation 04. There's no room in the timeline for it to have landed on Reach, completely powered down and wait over an hour to collect the Cortana fragment (which was the most inconvenient excuse for a "storyline" ever).


"There's no room in the timeline..." I'm sure there's room for an extra hour of activity in the battle of reach. I see no logical fallacy in this. To wait an hour for what is the game-changer for humanity in the war is NOT inconvenient AT ALL.

[Edited on 05.21.2011 7:36 AM PDT]

  • 05.21.2011 7:35 AM PDT

I chose the 3rd.

One, TFoR explained that the Covenant found Reach after a tracking device attached itself to the UNSC Iroquois after the battle of Sigma Octanus IV.
In Halo: Reach, the Winter Contingency mission takes place before the battle of Sigma Octanus IV.

Two, In TFoR, the PoA jupped in to slipspace just after 06:47 August 30th 2552.
The Pillar of Autumn mission takes place at 16:52, ten hours after the PoA left the system.

Three, Bungie's Personnel section for Reach, states the spartans of Noble team's ages. In Ghosts of Onyx, it states that children where taken at the ages of 4 to 6.
Cat and Jun would have been 7, Emile would have been 8 and Carter would have been 11

Personaly, im a more disapointed by Bungie's complete disregard for the canon that has been establishing itself for nearly 10 years.

It seems to me, that Bungie got bored of Halo, decided to make a game that punched the canon in the face, and then did a runner, leaving 343I and the rest of the Halo comunity to pick up the pieces.

  • 05.21.2011 7:41 AM PDT

I have to vote 2.

I used to be all for 3, but I since came to my senses and realised that most can be explained logically.
I'm not all too impressed with the way it was depicted I was expecting more "epic". But as far as canon goes, meh. It is all explained.

  • 05.21.2011 7:46 AM PDT


Posted by: RotaryCookie
meh. It is all explained.

Take a look at my post above you ^

meh. No it isn't.

  • 05.21.2011 7:50 AM PDT


Posted by: Astrogenesis 1

Posted by: RotaryCookie
meh. It is all explained.

Take a look at my post above you ^

meh. No it isn't.


Minor date changes and cryo as children. Yay, look! I fixed canon! Clever me.

  • 05.21.2011 7:59 AM PDT


Posted by: RotaryCookie

Posted by: Astrogenesis 1

Posted by: RotaryCookie
meh. It is all explained.

Take a look at my post above you ^

meh. No it isn't.


Minor date changes and cryo as children. Yay, look! I fixed canon! Clever me.

Yeah, but bungie arn't willing to make the changes or explain the errors!

Bungie could have changed some of the dates and times when TFoR was Re-released last year, BUT THEY DIDN't!

It just goes to show that Bungie doesn't give a toss anymore.

:(

  • 05.21.2011 8:10 AM PDT

RED BRICK STUDIOS!

TFOR is my least favorite Halo book. I just simply didn't like it.
The book was already retconned in areas, even before Reach was released.

  • 05.21.2011 8:21 AM PDT


Posted by: Xd00999

Posted by: RKOSNAKE
Posted by: DecepticonCobra
I'm having no trouble connecting the dots with certain "broken" aspects of Hal: Reach compared to The Fall of Reach, so I'll go with 2.

I also heard 343 is planning on counting Reach as non-canon, so that's that.


False, seeing as they have waypoint videos describing the book and game events side by side.

  • 05.21.2011 8:57 AM PDT

@accordingto343

Your one stop shop for all of 343's fabulous errors and ridiculous notions in the Halo lore.

Posted by: Astrogenesis 1

Bungie could have changed some of the dates and times when TFoR was Re-released last year, BUT THEY DIDN't!

It just goes to show that Bungie doesn't give a toss anymore.

:(

Changing anythign in The Fall of Reach is something 343 Industries should've done. They didn't so that is on them.

  • 05.21.2011 10:23 AM PDT

By the power of truth, I, while living, have conquered the universe.

Posted by: DecepticonCobra
Posted by: Astrogenesis 1

Bungie could have changed some of the dates and times when TFoR was Re-released last year, BUT THEY DIDN't!

It just goes to show that Bungie doesn't give a toss anymore.

:(

Changing anythign in The Fall of Reach is something 343 Industries should've done. They didn't so that is on them.


Bungie should have stuck to the dates of the novel (obviously excluding the typo of 2542), there was absolutely no justification for making the battle a month long.

  • 05.21.2011 10:28 AM PDT

@accordingto343

Your one stop shop for all of 343's fabulous errors and ridiculous notions in the Halo lore.

Posted by: ajw34307
Posted by: DecepticonCobra
Posted by: Astrogenesis 1

Bungie could have changed some of the dates and times when TFoR was Re-released last year, BUT THEY DIDN't!

It just goes to show that Bungie doesn't give a toss anymore.

:(

Changing anythign in The Fall of Reach is something 343 Industries should've done. They didn't so that is on them.


Bungie should have stuck to the dates of the novel (obviously excluding the typo of 2542), there was absolutely no justification for making the battle a month long.

I don't see why they should. The Fall of Reach is old and is getting retconned with each new book that gets released. Until any confirmation of the rumored re-re-releases of The Fall of Reach is given, I put top priority of canon on Halo: Reach and First Strike, not The Fall of Reach.

  • 05.21.2011 10:35 AM PDT

Adepto In Meus Campester
Posted by: ParagonRenegade
You were totally and absolutely correct in every way, I don't know why we were arguing, you're so amazing I should never have doubted you.

Posted by: Pipboy 3050
Posted by: grey101
I say the 3rd one because we shouldn't be the ones coming up with explanations and loopholes for the errors. Bungie should have specifically stated why this and this happened instead of leaving it up to us.

Not to mention the point of Reach falling was to show how weak the UNSC really was to the covenant; The game did that Last stand BS, which wasn't the case whatsoever


I agree bungie should at least give us some explanations. I think they just dumped the Franchise on 343 and ran off to their new project.

These are my reasons for voting #3. If you have to make excuses to make your canon work, there's a problem there.

  • 05.21.2011 10:48 AM PDT


Posted by: DecepticonCobra
I put top priority of canon on Halo: Reach and First Strike, not The Fall of Reach.

Concidering that Reach is suposed to be based off of the book, they should have at least tryed to stick to the books.

Plus, The Fall of Reach was the book that most of the future canon was based off.

  • 05.21.2011 10:50 AM PDT

@accordingto343

Your one stop shop for all of 343's fabulous errors and ridiculous notions in the Halo lore.

Posted by: Astrogenesis 1

Posted by: DecepticonCobra
I put top priority of canon on Halo: Reach and First Strike, not The Fall of Reach.

Concidering that Reach is suposed to be based off of the book, they should have at least tryed to stick to the books.

Plus, The Fall of Reach was the book that most of the future canon was based off.

Reach still gets royally owned on August 30th, the Pillar of Autumn escapes to Halo, and 343 Industries doesn't seem to have much trouble connecting the events. And yes, future canon is based on it, but said canon also contradicts it.

  • 05.21.2011 10:56 AM PDT


Posted by: DecepticonCobra
Posted by: Astrogenesis 1

Posted by: DecepticonCobra
I put top priority of canon on Halo: Reach and First Strike, not The Fall of Reach.

Concidering that Reach is suposed to be based off of the book, they should have at least tryed to stick to the books.

Plus, The Fall of Reach was the book that most of the future canon was based off.

Reach still gets royally owned on August 30th, the Pillar of Autumn escapes to Halo, and 343 Industries doesn't seem to have much trouble connecting the events. And yes, future canon is based on it, but said canon also contradicts it.

i'm not trying to deniy Reach of being canon, i am just anoyed at how bungie and 343 seem to think if they ignore it we will just forget about it.

I will certainly never forget how bungie scroowed themself with Reach.

  • 05.21.2011 11:02 AM PDT

@accordingto343

Your one stop shop for all of 343's fabulous errors and ridiculous notions in the Halo lore.

Posted by: Astrogenesis 1

Posted by: DecepticonCobra
Posted by: Astrogenesis 1

Posted by: DecepticonCobra
I put top priority of canon on Halo: Reach and First Strike, not The Fall of Reach.

Concidering that Reach is suposed to be based off of the book, they should have at least tryed to stick to the books.

Plus, The Fall of Reach was the book that most of the future canon was based off.

Reach still gets royally owned on August 30th, the Pillar of Autumn escapes to Halo, and 343 Industries doesn't seem to have much trouble connecting the events. And yes, future canon is based on it, but said canon also contradicts it.

i'm not trying to deniy Reach of being canon, i am just anoyed at how bungie and 343 seem to think if they ignore it we will just forget about it.

I will certainly never forget how bungie scroowed themself with Reach.

Get used to it, sci-fi universes change fairly consistently and if you can't accept that, quit them altogether. Bungie isn't going to have much trouble making an selling games after Reach, only spiteful fanboys who have an unhealthy attachment to Halo believe that. They're far from screwed.

  • 05.21.2011 11:05 AM PDT

Hey, they could have pulled a battlestar galactica and majorly change... pretty much everything including several main character genders...

  • 05.21.2011 11:18 AM PDT

By the power of truth, I, while living, have conquered the universe.


Posted by: DecepticonCobra
Posted by: ajw34307
Posted by: DecepticonCobra
Posted by: Astrogenesis 1

Bungie could have changed some of the dates and times when TFoR was Re-released last year, BUT THEY DIDN't!

It just goes to show that Bungie doesn't give a toss anymore.

:(

Changing anythign in The Fall of Reach is something 343 Industries should've done. They didn't so that is on them.


Bungie should have stuck to the dates of the novel (obviously excluding the typo of 2542), there was absolutely no justification for making the battle a month long.

I don't see why they should. The Fall of Reach is old and is getting retconned with each new book that gets released. Until any confirmation of the rumored re-re-releases of The Fall of Reach is given, I put top priority of canon on Halo: Reach and First Strike, not The Fall of Reach.


And you're only saying that because of your own bias towards TFOR. Nothing should have to be rewritten pointlessly, the retcons were years ago and were done to fix the story - not tell a completely new one.

  • 05.21.2011 11:51 AM PDT

@accordingto343

Your one stop shop for all of 343's fabulous errors and ridiculous notions in the Halo lore.

Posted by: ajw34307
And you're only saying that because of your own bias towards TFOR. Nothing should have to be rewritten pointlessly, the retcons were years ago and were done to fix the story - not tell a completely new one.

The Spartan numbers are constantly changing and Elites, Brutes, Prophets, and Drones have been introduced much earlier in Halo canon than at Reach or post-Reach, things are changing. Cry about my biases if you want, but Reach is getting outdated with each new book or piece of media.

  • 05.21.2011 11:54 AM PDT