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)

"I may not be perfect, but always been true."

Posted by: Cmdr DaeFaron
The problem with the Super-MAC thing is, the book frankly described them as just so, being all clustered in one location.


People tend to bring the Super MACS alot, but last night when I was playing Cairo Station in Halo 2, I didn't see 300 of them floating above Earth.

  • 05.24.2011 6:12 PM PDT

"Find where the liar hides, so that I may place my boot between his gums!" - Rtas 'Vadum

Posted by: Cmdr DaeFaron
The problem with the Super-MAC thing is, the book frankly described them as just so, being all clustered in one location.

What page?

All I remember is that in response to the Covenant Fleet, they were clustered in one location. That does not mean that they were always there before the Covenant arrived.

Given the enormity of space, the chances of the Covenant fleet coming out of slipspace at just the right trajectory to the SMACs position over Reach, and for the UNSC to expect them to, are just astronomical.

I had a flick through the book, and the following does seem to suggest that they were indeed spread out over the planet, as common sense would dictate for such a defense system:

Pg 296 (Not sure what page for the new editions)
They had one advantage: The MAC orbital guns around Reach -

Maybe I have missed the bit were it said that the stations were clustered over one location. I apologise for being a dick if I have, but could you tell me where at least?

  • 05.24.2011 6:21 PM PDT

I'll have to look, but for them to all get around the planet and into formation at one location would take a while with station-holding a maneuvering thrusters.

  • 05.24.2011 6:55 PM PDT

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

Posted by: Cmdr DaeFaron
I'll have to look, but for them to all get around the planet and into formation at one location would take a while with station-holding a maneuvering thrusters.

A "cluster" would only need to be arranged on one hemisphere to get optimal firing angles across the planet. So if they were spread out around the entire planet they would only have to move half of them a significant distance.

  • 05.24.2011 6:57 PM PDT

"Find where the liar hides, so that I may place my boot between his gums!" - Rtas 'Vadum

Posted by: UL7IM4 G33K
Posted by: Cmdr DaeFaron
I'll have to look, but for them to all get around the planet and into formation at one location would take a while with station-holding a maneuvering thrusters.

A "cluster" would only need to be arranged on one hemisphere to get optimal firing angles across the planet. So if they were spread out around the entire planet they would only have to move half of them a significant distance.

Precisely. People vastly underestimate the speed at which SMAC rounds travel. 12'000km/s. Basically in one second the round would travel almost the entirety of Reach's diameter (Which is roughly 15'000km). They do not have to be "clustered" at all!

In the reality that the SMAC's are spread out over Reach, at least every patch of the planet would have some sort of defence. It does not matter if it would take too long to manoeuvre the SMACs because at least every part of the planet would be protected by something (And by that it would be roughly 10 for a hemisphere...) for a while until the rest of the SMACs could be moved into position.

Whereas if they were clustered before the enemy arrived then massive areas (At least an entire hemisphere) would be left with nothing in terms of defence. And if the SMAC's really take too long to move, then that part of the planet that has nothing is royally screwed until they can be moved into position. So the argument of "They take too long to move" solves nothing, becuase it just shifts the problem elsewhere.

Given the enormity of space, what if the Covenant fleet came out over the part of the planet which had no SMAC's? For the UNSC not to take this into account would be demonstrating a severe, severe lack of foresight.

  • 05.24.2011 7:30 PM PDT

*Holds up hands* Never said it was intelligent, just saying that I don't think those stations had any real engines, and when the battle started on the 30th, the SuperMACs were arrayed in a manner which allowed them to be shielded by 3-5 Cradle style repair and refit stations.

[Edited on 05.24.2011 7:37 PM PDT]

  • 05.24.2011 7:36 PM PDT

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

Posted by: Cmdr DaeFaron
*Holds up hands* Never said it was intelligent, just saying that I don't think those stations had any real engines, and when the battle started on the 30th, the SuperMACs were arrayed in a manner which allowed them to be shielded by 3-5 Cradle style repair and refit stations.

In all honesty the ODP are always moving. Orbits require it less they fall from the sky and into the atmosphere. Thus in order for them to move anywhere all they have to do is orbit the planet once (which would take around 25-90 minutes at max) and use their maneuvering thrusters to alter their course.

  • 05.24.2011 8:08 PM PDT

"Find where the liar hides, so that I may place my boot between his gums!" - Rtas 'Vadum

Posted by: Cmdr DaeFaron
*Holds up hands* Never said it was intelligent, just saying that I don't think those stations had any real engines, and when the battle started on the 30th, the SuperMACs were arrayed in a manner which allowed them to be shielded by 3-5 Cradle style repair and refit stations.

So they were in fact clustered in response to the Covenant Fleet, not spread out over a hemisphere for the Covenant fleet. Okay, so positioning in response to the Covenant fleet is cleaned up. It still definitively tells us nothing about that positioning prior to the Covenant showing up. In order to do that we need to make one of two assumptions, because as far as I know we know nothing about the SMACs manoeuvring capabilities:

~ They have proper engines - Means that they can be moved around quickly allowing for them to exist as a Net, then be moved towards the Covenant fleet.

~ They do not have proper engines - They were clustered there already because it would take too long for them to get from Net formation to the Covenant fleet.

Given my reasoning in the above posts and the fact that it would allow them to be deployed quicker to meet a foe that could approach from any angle to the planet, I think that they must have proper engines and so can move freely about the planet. They would be able to do their job much better if they were designed like that so as to avoid the problems of having areas of the planet completely defenceless for long periods of time.

Why do you think that they do not posses any real engines?


Can you not see yet how this is one of Caboose's unexplainable, perhaps not errors, but lapses in canon? I cannot see how it is possible to both explain the lack of SMAC's whilst maintaining the idea of Reach which has been built up over 10 years of this franchise and the common sense in the whole purpose of the SMAC defences.

TFoR also supports the idea that they were arranged around the planet previous in the quote I typed.

  • 05.24.2011 8:12 PM PDT

@accordingto343

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

My issue with the SMAC situation is that I thought they were put in geosynchronous orbit, much like the ones on Earth. We know one is hovering near SWORD Base, I assume an SMAC is what shot down the corvette.

Now Earth has 300, Reach has 20. They may be able to fire pretty fast, but I think they have a range of effectiveness because in The Fall of Reach the Covenant ships did their best to stay out of their range. Now I'm sure 300 MACs orbiting a planet would be pretty visible, but I don't think having 20 scattered around Reach would be very visible.

That's just me though.

  • 05.24.2011 8:41 PM PDT


Posted by: anton1792
Posted by: Cmdr DaeFaron
*Holds up hands* Never said it was intelligent, just saying that I don't think those stations had any real engines, and when the battle started on the 30th, the SuperMACs were arrayed in a manner which allowed them to be shielded by 3-5 Cradle style repair and refit stations.

So they were in fact clustered in response to the Covenant Fleet, not spread out over a hemisphere for the Covenant fleet. Okay, so positioning in response to the Covenant fleet is cleaned up. It still definitively tells us nothing about that positioning prior to the Covenant showing up. In order to do that we need to make one of two assumptions, because as far as I know we know nothing about the SMACs manoeuvring capabilities:

~ They have proper engines - Means that they can be moved around quickly allowing for them to exist as a Net, then be moved towards the Covenant fleet.

~ They do not have proper engines - They were clustered there already because it would take too long for them to get from Net formation to the Covenant fleet.

Given my reasoning in the above posts and the fact that it would allow them to be deployed quicker to meet a foe that could approach from any angle to the planet, I think that they must have proper engines and so can move freely about the planet. They would be able to do their job much better if they were designed like that so as to avoid the problems of having areas of the planet completely defenceless for long periods of time.

Why do you think that they do not posses any real engines?


Can you not see yet how this is one of Caboose's unexplainable, perhaps not errors, but lapses in canon? I cannot see how it is possible to both explain the lack of SMAC's whilst maintaining the idea of Reach which has been built up over 10 years of this franchise and the common sense in the whole purpose of the SMAC defences.

TFoR also supports the idea that they were arranged around the planet previous in the quote I typed.


Something to keep in mind about the SMACS is that in the book the generators that powered them where on the ground. That being the reason MC sent most of the Spartan IIs to the ground to defend them. So if the generators for the guns where on the ground maybe they could not be moved because I find it very hard to believe that a generator could power a gun on the opposite side of Reach. Another thing that I would like to point out is that in a book there was at least one covie cruiser on the ground when the space battle was going on. Just two things that I think are worth mentioning.

[Edited on 05.25.2011 1:44 AM PDT]

  • 05.25.2011 1:43 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

I still think the retcons were unnecessary. Never-mind if they're big or small.

  • 05.25.2011 4:47 AM PDT


Posted by: SCmustang

Posted by: anton1792
Posted by: Cmdr DaeFaron
*Holds up hands* Never said it was intelligent, just saying that I don't think those stations had any real engines, and when the battle started on the 30th, the SuperMACs were arrayed in a manner which allowed them to be shielded by 3-5 Cradle style repair and refit stations.

So they were in fact clustered in response to the Covenant Fleet, not spread out over a hemisphere for the Covenant fleet. Okay, so positioning in response to the Covenant fleet is cleaned up. It still definitively tells us nothing about that positioning prior to the Covenant showing up. In order to do that we need to make one of two assumptions, because as far as I know we know nothing about the SMACs manoeuvring capabilities:

~ They have proper engines - Means that they can be moved around quickly allowing for them to exist as a Net, then be moved towards the Covenant fleet.

~ They do not have proper engines - They were clustered there already because it would take too long for them to get from Net formation to the Covenant fleet.

Given my reasoning in the above posts and the fact that it would allow them to be deployed quicker to meet a foe that could approach from any angle to the planet, I think that they must have proper engines and so can move freely about the planet. They would be able to do their job much better if they were designed like that so as to avoid the problems of having areas of the planet completely defenceless for long periods of time.

Why do you think that they do not posses any real engines?


Can you not see yet how this is one of Caboose's unexplainable, perhaps not errors, but lapses in canon? I cannot see how it is possible to both explain the lack of SMAC's whilst maintaining the idea of Reach which has been built up over 10 years of this franchise and the common sense in the whole purpose of the SMAC defences.

TFoR also supports the idea that they were arranged around the planet previous in the quote I typed.


Something to keep in mind about the SMACS is that in the book the generators that powered them where on the ground. That being the reason MC sent most of the Spartan IIs to the ground to defend them. So if the generators for the guns where on the ground maybe they could not be moved because I find it very hard to believe that a generator could power a gun on the opposite side of Reach. Another thing that I would like to point out is that in a book there was at least one covie cruiser on the ground when the space battle was going on. Just two things that I think are worth mentioning.


The most likely explanation is that the generators beam power to either a ground based, or satellite based relay and it is then beamed to the ODPs from there.

The reason the covenant attacked the generators directly is because there is too much redundancy in the relay network for an aggressor to disable it before the SMACs/ODPs open fire on them.

  • 05.25.2011 5:21 AM PDT

"A LIE is a LIE"


- Truly intelligent and deep Black ops trailer


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.



Also Grey101, I do believe Bungie fans will always come up with loop holes and explanations. We've been doing it for Halo 3, we've been doing it for ODST and Halo wars, and we are doing now for Reach. (except with reach, everyone finds it so criminally wrong)



[Edited on 05.25.2011 6:59 AM PDT]

  • 05.25.2011 6:56 AM PDT

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


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.



Also Grey101, I do believe Bungie fans will always come up with loop holes and explanations. We've been doing it for Halo 3, we've been doing it for ODST and Halo wars, and we are doing now for Reach. (except with reach, everyone finds it so criminally wrong)



Er... The difference is that Reach is based of TFOR and FS, events established in the canon for a decade. Halo 3 was an independant story, nothing was canonically "wrong" with it; ODST and Wars are also independent events which had little to no explanation.

Also, Wars has no canon errors.

  • 05.25.2011 7:40 AM PDT

"A LIE is a LIE"


- Truly intelligent and deep Black ops trailer


Posted by: ajw34307

Er... The difference is that Reach is based of TFOR and FS, events established in the canon for a decade. Halo 3 was an independant story, nothing was canonically "wrong" with it; ODST and Wars are also independent events which had little to no explanation.

Also, Wars has no canon errors.


Define what you mean by "Based of" because Halo:reach had completely different locations and characters to TFOR with the exception of Keyes.

heck, even caboose said he did a section on ODST canon errors.


I also agree wars did not have any canon errors, but many of fans disagreed with this.

[Edited on 05.25.2011 8:32 AM PDT]

  • 05.25.2011 8:27 AM PDT

"Find where the liar hides, so that I may place my boot between his gums!" - Rtas 'Vadum

Posted by: DecepticonCobra
My issue with the SMAC situation is that I thought they were put in geosynchronous orbit, much like the ones on Earth. We know one is hovering near SWORD Base, I assume an SMAC is what shot down the corvette.

Yeah. People say that the SMAC would have levelled the entire area (Given its energy, it is reasonable to assume) and it was not travelling nearly fast enough. MACs do have different modes of firing though. Voc on Waypoint mentioned that.

Posted by: DecepticonCobra
Now Earth has 300, Reach has 20. They may be able to fire pretty fast, but I think they have a range of effectiveness because in The Fall of Reach the Covenant ships did their best to stay out of their range. Now I'm sure 300 MACs orbiting a planet would be pretty visible, but I don't think having 20 scattered around Reach would be very visible.

It was only the Energy Projector carrying ship that did that, successfully at 100'000km. Covenant ships have been described to move fast. Their reaction less drives being better at manoeuvring than the UNSC ones. (Whatever they are...) So perhaps they are fast enough to detect and dodge in 8 seconds? Even at that range, they have to have some pretty good impulse engines and compensation for inertia.

I can't see why the SMAC round would have a range other than the fact that the Covenant ships could move out the way. There is nothing in space to stop a MAC round. It will go on forever until it hits something. The Hypercarrier (Yes Hypercarrier, to separate it from the actual Supercarriers that the Covenant have. There is no way they have hundreds of those things) was not 100'000km away from Reach, it was in low orbit at only a few thousand kilometres.

Posted by: RotaryCookie
The most likely explanation is that the generators beam power to either a ground based, or satellite based relay and it is then beamed to the ODPs from there.

The reason the covenant attacked the generators directly is because there is too much redundancy in the relay network for an aggressor to disable it before the SMACs/ODPs open fire on them.

^ What he said.

  • 05.25.2011 8:40 AM PDT

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


Posted by: Pipboy 3050

Posted by: ajw34307

Er... The difference is that Reach is based of TFOR and FS, events established in the canon for a decade. Halo 3 was an independant story, nothing was canonically "wrong" with it; ODST and Wars are also independent events which had little to no explanation.

Also, Wars has no canon errors.


Define what you mean by "Based of" because Halo:reach had completely different locations and characters to TFOR with the exception of Keyes.

heck, even caboose said he did a section on ODST canon errors.


I also agree wars did not have any canon errors, but many of fans disagreed with this.


The problem with Reach is that Bungie is dragging the story out over a month when we have several novels dedicated to telling us what happened. It was a simple story that reflected Titanic's ironic reputation of being unsinkable and followed the story of Red/Blue Team defending the planet to it's downfall. We needed this crap about Noble Team about as much as we needed the SW prequels, there's just no point to a story which doesn't need to be told.

Bungie would have been better off making Halo 4, but they couldn't be bothered with making a decent story because of the "baggage". Well I'm sorry, Bungie, why did you include the Legendary Ending in Halo 3 if you say you don't like leaving doors open?

[Edited on 05.25.2011 9:09 AM PDT]

  • 05.25.2011 9:07 AM PDT

"Find where the liar hides, so that I may place my boot between his gums!" - Rtas 'Vadum

Posted by: ajw34307
Bungie would have been better off making Halo 4, but they couldn't be bothered with making a decent story because of the "baggage". Well I'm sorry, Bungie, why did you include the Legendary Ending in Halo 3 if you say you don't like leaving doors open?

Combined with MB's final statement in the terminals, the open doors are practically screaming at us.

Even without all of that, Halo 3 was still not exactly a solid ending to the trilogy.

  • 05.25.2011 9:28 AM PDT

"A LIE is a LIE"


- Truly intelligent and deep Black ops trailer

@ajw34307


Wait, you are saying Bungie had a responsibility to make halo 4 because of the legendary ending? If they created Halo 4, they would have to open more doors and more mysteries that would continue to convolute the Halo story.

Halo 4 is a horrible idea, I think Bungie made the right decision to leave it at the legendary ending and to let the fanbase come up with their own theories and idea's instead of answering the question right away.

The legendary ending is not to open the door for yet another sequel (although MS and 343 might see it that way) it is there for the legacy and legend of MC and Cortana. This is the final mystery of the Halo universe and it should be left totally unanswered.

[Edited on 05.25.2011 9:33 AM PDT]

  • 05.25.2011 9:30 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Deva Path


Posted by: DecepticonCobra

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


Posted by: Pipboy 3050
Wait, you are saying Bungie had a responsibility to make halo 4 because of the legendary ending? If they created Halo 4, they would have to open more doors and more mysteries that would continue to convolute the Halo story.

Halo 4 is a horrible idea, I think Bungie made the right decision to leave it at the legendary ending and to let the fanbase come up with their own theories and idea's instead of answering the question right away.

The legendary ending is not to open the door for yet another sequel (although MS and 343 might see it that way) it is there for the legacy and legend of MC and Cortana. This is the final mystery of the Halo universe and it should be left totally unanswered.


Heresy, cryptum has already built up a chain of events that connect the entire universe. Cryptum will also be the answer to halo 3, and ghost of onyx.

It should be continued but not unless they have an exact idea of how they are going to do it and it shouldn't be influenced by fans whatsoever.

  • 05.25.2011 9:35 AM PDT

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


Posted by: Pipboy 3050
Wait, you are saying Bungie had a responsibility to make halo 4 because of the legendary ending? If they created Halo 4, they would have to open more doors and more mysteries that would continue to convoluted the Halo story.


I'm saying Halo 4 would have been a better choice. In what way would Halo 4 convolute the story? I question you definition of the word, you have happily defended Reach when that is the most convoluted dichotomy the Haloverse has seen.

Right away, are you stupid? Reach came out over 3 years after H3, I also question your concept of time.

Halo 4 is a horrible idea, I think Bungie made the right decision to leave it at the legendary ending and to let the fanbase come up with their own theories and idea's instead of answering the question right away.

The legendary ending is not to open the door for yet another sequel (although MS and 343 might see it that way) it is there for the legacy and legend of MC and Cortana. This is the final mystery of the Halo universe and it should be left totally unanswered.


Despite the fact the final Terminal had MB pretty much tell you he was sending John to the Forerunners as an example of his atonement? Sure, lots of room for fan interpretation there. I'd like to point out that the fans do not make the storyline.

[Edited on 05.25.2011 9:41 AM PDT]

  • 05.25.2011 9:38 AM PDT


Posted by: ajw34307

Posted by: Pipboy 3050

Posted by: ajw34307

Er... The difference is that Reach is based of TFOR and FS, events established in the canon for a decade. Halo 3 was an independant story, nothing was canonically "wrong" with it; ODST and Wars are also independent events which had little to no explanation.

Also, Wars has no canon errors.


Define what you mean by "Based of" because Halo:reach had completely different locations and characters to TFOR with the exception of Keyes.

heck, even caboose said he did a section on ODST canon errors.


I also agree wars did not have any canon errors, but many of fans disagreed with this.


The problem with Reach is that Bungie is dragging the story out over a month when we have several novels dedicated to telling us what happened. It was a simple story that reflected Titanic's ironic reputation of being unsinkable and followed the story of Red/Blue Team defending the planet to it's downfall. We needed this crap about Noble Team about as much as we needed the SW prequels, there's just no point to a story which doesn't need to be told.

Bungie would have been better off making Halo 4, but they couldn't be bothered with making a decent story because of the "baggage". Well I'm sorry, Bungie, why did you include the Legendary Ending in Halo 3 if you say you don't like leaving doors open?


Then you should include quite a bit of the Halo lore in your "useless crap that doesn't need to be told", like the Cole Protocol or Halo 3: ODST, or Halo Evolutions. Every story told in the Halo Universe has some purpose behind it, none of it is meaningless or useless or "doesn't need to be told", at least to me.

I think Bungie said part of the reason they weren't going to do a Halo 4 was because they felt it would have to start up a new trilogy or something of the sort and they didn't feel right starting a long project they couldn't and wouldn't be able to finish.

  • 05.25.2011 9:43 AM PDT

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


Posted by: OrderedComa

Posted by: ajw34307

Posted by: Pipboy 3050

Posted by: ajw34307

Er... The difference is that Reach is based of TFOR and FS, events established in the canon for a decade. Halo 3 was an independant story, nothing was canonically "wrong" with it; ODST and Wars are also independent events which had little to no explanation.

Also, Wars has no canon errors.


Define what you mean by "Based of" because Halo:reach had completely different locations and characters to TFOR with the exception of Keyes.

heck, even caboose said he did a section on ODST canon errors.


I also agree wars did not have any canon errors, but many of fans disagreed with this.


The problem with Reach is that Bungie is dragging the story out over a month when we have several novels dedicated to telling us what happened. It was a simple story that reflected Titanic's ironic reputation of being unsinkable and followed the story of Red/Blue Team defending the planet to it's downfall. We needed this crap about Noble Team about as much as we needed the SW prequels, there's just no point to a story which doesn't need to be told.

Bungie would have been better off making Halo 4, but they couldn't be bothered with making a decent story because of the "baggage". Well I'm sorry, Bungie, why did you include the Legendary Ending in Halo 3 if you say you don't like leaving doors open?


Then you should include quite a bit of the Halo lore in your "useless crap that doesn't need to be told", like the Cole Protocol or Halo 3: ODST, or Halo Evolutions. Every story told in the Halo Universe has some purpose behind it, none of it is meaningless or useless or "doesn't need to be told", at least to me.

I think Bungie said part of the reason they weren't going to do a Halo 4 was because they felt it would have to start up a new trilogy or something of the sort and they didn't feel right starting a long project they couldn't and wouldn't be able to finish.


What? We knew almost nothing about what happened on Earth after In Amber Clad followed Regret until ODST, Reach had already had 2 novels dedicated to the story of how it fell. How did you drag Evolutions into this too?

  • 05.25.2011 9:46 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Deva Path


Posted by: DecepticonCobra

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


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.



Also Grey101, I do believe Bungie fans will always come up with loop holes and explanations. We've been doing it for Halo 3, we've been doing it for ODST and Halo wars, and we are doing now for Reach. (except with reach, everyone finds it so criminally wrong)



what i am saying is we shouldn't be the ones trying to smash a piece of the puzzle together and make it fit as we are doing now.

If bungie were to say the forerunners are all unicorns and they never lived in the orion arm. yet say they are the same forerunners we know; we shouldn't have to break our backs over it and try to make it fit while others blindly accept it because bungie said so.


Reach is like this.

  • 05.25.2011 9:48 AM PDT

"A LIE is a LIE"


- Truly intelligent and deep Black ops trailer


Posted by: ajw34307

Posted by: Pipboy 3050
Wait, you are saying Bungie had a responsibility to make halo 4 because of the legendary ending? If they created Halo 4, they would have to open more doors and more mysteries that would continue to convoluted the Halo story.


I'm saying Halo 4 would have been a better choice. In what way would Halo 4 convolute the story? I question you definition of the word, you have happily defended Reach when that is the most convoluted dichotomy the Haloverse has seen.

Right away, are you stupid? Reach came out over 3 years after H3, I also question your concept of time.

Halo 4 is a horrible idea, I think Bungie made the right decision to leave it at the legendary ending and to let the fanbase come up with their own theories and idea's instead of answering the question right away.

The legendary ending is not to open the door for yet another sequel (although MS and 343 might see it that way) it is there for the legacy and legend of MC and Cortana. This is the final mystery of the Halo universe and it should be left totally unanswered.


Despite the fact the final Terminal had MB pretty much tell you he was sending John to the Forerunners as an example of his atonement? Sure, lots of room for fan interpretation there. I'd like to point out that the fans do not make the storyline.




Sorry, Halo 4 is NOT a better choice then a game based on the battle of Reach. Although Bungie's execution of a Reach game was off, it does not change the fact that it is a far better idea then Halo 4. The problem was NOT the initial concept of the game, it was the actual way the story and the characters were presented.

How would that make me stupid? 3 years is BAD TASTE. Bungie completed the trilogy, They have finished the story of MC and cortana and they have left us with one last mystery. For Bungie to make the next big game on cortana and MC AGAIN is bad taste and in mine and Bungie's mind, boring.


The legendary ending of Halo 3 is a good ending, it does not require an answer or a game. I and many others are perfectly fine with leaving the end of the Halo trilogy unanswered, at least of a long time, because there's better idea's for Halo games.

I'd rather 343 divert their time and money on a game about Blue/Red team on reach.

[Edited on 05.25.2011 10:09 AM PDT]

  • 05.25.2011 10:06 AM PDT