Bungie Universe
This topic has moved here: Subject: The "Definitive" Fall of Reach Still Conflicts
  • Subject: The "Definitive" Fall of Reach Still Conflicts
Subject: The "Definitive" Fall of Reach Still Conflicts

So most of us know about the 2010 edition of The Fall of Reach. Most of us also know that this reprint completely failed to bring things in line with the Reach game. Recent searches on Barnes and Noble along with Amazon.com revealed a "Definitive Edition" print in mass market paperback due out next month. My inclination was that this 2011 reprint would address issues regarding the game. My premise was that since the First Strike reprint had been subtitled "Definitive Edition" and changed things to match the game, that the same would be true for The Fall of Reach.

Status: FALSE!!!

I discovered that the 2010 reprint in stores has now been replaced with the 2011 "Definitive Edition" reprint (in full-sized paperback) and checked it out.

In the book, everyone is still shocked and amazed to see the Covenant appear on Reach on August 30. The Pillar of Autumn still leaves Reach at 06:47 on the same day.

EDIT: I went out and bought it (picture).

[Edited on 05.27.2011 10:43 AM PDT]

  • 05.26.2011 9:08 PM PDT

Yep, I went to my Barnes and Noble and found it, I skimmed through and hardly saw a difference.

  • 05.26.2011 9:10 PM PDT

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

Why re-release it if you're not going to change anything?

  • 05.26.2011 9:11 PM PDT

@accordingto343

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

343 Industries, I am disappoint.

  • 05.26.2011 9:15 PM PDT

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.

  • 05.26.2011 9:31 PM PDT

@accordingto343

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

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.

  • 05.26.2011 9:33 PM PDT

Misprints have been corrected from the 2010 edition and those two creatures are now properly referred to as Hunters. Still, saying that a book could trump the game is a silly technicality. Because of this, my simple assumption was that the book would be adjusted.

  • 05.26.2011 9:35 PM PDT

I didn't get a chance to check but did they fix the 2542 date typo?

  • 05.26.2011 9:58 PM PDT

I like Call of Duty and Gears of War, AND Halo. Why must everyone else like only one or the other?


Posted by: wswartzendruber
Misprints have been corrected from the 2010 edition and those two creatures are now properly referred to as Hunters.


So the definitive edition of FoR doesn't change the book to fit with Reach's canon change, but it does correct misprints and similar errors? If that's all that's changed, why wasn't that already done for the 2010 release? (From what I understand they had already done that for the 2010 version of First Strike, so why not with Fall of Reach?)

[Edited on 05.26.2011 10:02 PM PDT]

  • 05.26.2011 10:01 PM PDT


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?

  • 05.27.2011 1:02 AM PDT
  • gamertag: tsassi
  • user homepage:

So, no point to buy it then?

[Edited on 05.27.2011 1:19 AM PDT]

  • 05.27.2011 1:18 AM PDT

"We knew the world would not be the same.
A few people laughed, a few people cried, most people were silent.
I remembered the line from the Hindu scripture, the Bhagavad-Gita.
Vishnu is trying to persuade the Prince that he should do his duty and to impress him takes on his multi-armed form and says,
'Now, I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds...'
I suppose we all thought that one way or another."
- J. Robert Oppenheimer

Posted by: tsassi2
So, no point to buy it then?
Pretty much.

  • 05.27.2011 1:25 AM 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: RKOSNAKE
Why re-release it if you're not going to change anything?
So that people buy it, expecting epic change.

  • 05.27.2011 1:49 AM 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: 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.

[Edited on 05.27.2011 1:52 AM PDT]

  • 05.27.2011 1:51 AM PDT

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.

  • 05.27.2011 2:40 AM PDT

AFK: Away from Kontroller. Don't do it or you'll get the living crap smacked out of you by the Banhammer. If you disagree with any of this, you are just bad at Mortal Kombat.

These reprints are pointless if they don't consider how Reach affects the canon. Sounds like another cash in to me, beat a dead horse even further if you will. I am happy with my originals and if need be, one could always look up a wiki :P

[Edited on 05.27.2011 3:06 AM PDT]

  • 05.27.2011 3:05 AM PDT

GOD

DAMMIT

FRANKIE!

  • 05.27.2011 3:19 AM PDT

Maybe the store listed it wrong. Maybe there really will be a real definitive version coming soon.

  • 05.27.2011 3:27 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: RKOSNAKE
Why re-release it if you're not going to change anything?

To confirm that 343 thinks Bungie screwed up the storyline with Reach.
Posted by: DecepticonCobra
I don't see how it trumps it though since it doesn't change anything.

343 isn't going to outright confirm their stance, because the remaining shreds of Bungie's dwindling credibility is all they have while they're establishing a reputation of their own. The message is pretty clear though: you don't mess with the original story just to add B-list characters to a plot that didn't need them.

In other words, what this guy said:
Posted by: JDYeash937 MkII
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.

Plus that explanation goes worlds to explaining the Lone Wolf mission, and why Noble 6 simply gave up instead of doing something, as well as the vastly exaggerated enemy troops (wave after wave of General and BOB trooper just to take down one enemy that would've been glassed anyways.) It really fits the propoganda bill, especially considering certain aspects of the story weren't really thought out (90 million roentgens, for example); all could be explained as oversights by the UNSC's propoganda machine.

I really, really like that theory.

[Edited on 05.27.2011 6:23 AM PDT]

  • 05.27.2011 6:20 AM PDT

Oh yeah. There's still that hour-long gap between when this says the generators went down and when First Strike does. That it is, 06:16 vs after 07:00.

  • 05.27.2011 8:15 AM PDT

Signatures are for squares.

Welp.

New canon trumps old Canon.

Reach, welcome to the "old and busted" section.

  • 05.27.2011 9:09 AM PDT

Signatures are for squares.

Edit: Double posted, first time I've done that in years...

[Edited on 05.27.2011 9:42 AM PDT]

  • 05.27.2011 9:41 AM PDT

I like Call of Duty and Gears of War, AND Halo. Why must everyone else like only one or the other?

So, if there's no difference between the new regular sized paperbacks, and the small paperback coming out next month, then at least that means I can replace the original three books with the new size to fit with the rest of the Halo books instead of waiting for this new small sized paperback.

  • 05.27.2011 9:45 AM PDT


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?


I'd think if it's actually a NEW book and not an old one reissued with almost no changes then it probably would take priority.

  • 05.27.2011 10:28 AM PDT

I can see where you're coming from, but by reissuing this 2001 book in 2011, are they not giving it their blessing?

  • 05.27.2011 10:41 AM PDT