By the power of truth, I, while living, have conquered the universe.
Posted by: JDYeash937 MkII
Posted by: Astrogenesis 1
Posted by: DecepticonCobra
Posted by: wswartzendruber
It seems to me that we're getting some really mixed signals on what's going on here.
Game canon trumps book canon. Some of us really like The Fall of Reach, but fair enough. However, later canon trumps earlier canon. Technically, as this book is a new print for 2011, those parts of the game have been voided. But at the same time, that's just silly as Halo is a game first and a book second, making this release pointless.
I don't see how it trumps it though since it doesn't change anything.
What he is trying to say, is that the book released in 2011 contradicts the events of the game released in 2010, and as new canon trumps old canon, it should make the events of Reach irelivant.
However, game canon trumps all other canon!
The question is, can game canon trump a book that was released after the game?Game canon should not trump book canon on the basis that games' storylines have to be written completely differently to a book would, because of fitting it in with enjoyable gameplay.
If Halo had MGSlol levels of cutscene just to improve the viability of canon, I think many would simply stop playing it.
I actually quite like the explanation someone once gave, saying that Reach was a game released in the Haloverse after the war to make the Battle of Reach seem much more valiant than it actually was.
So the game could be like ONI propaganda after the war? I like this idea.