Bungie Universe
This topic has moved here: Subject: TFoR: Discrepancies
  • Subject: TFoR: Discrepancies
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • of 2
Subject: TFoR: Discrepancies

* Classifies Docterweegee as a troll. *

  • 05.29.2011 11:43 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

"Awesomeness will ensue..."

BEN SPARTAN120

Allow me to redefine the topic and desired post topic:

Please cite specificissues found in the novel, The Fall of Reach, with particular relation to the game, Halo Reach [not to be confused with Privet Caboose's thread]

If you can't keep your personal feelings/immaturity out of the discussion, without imparting useful information or furthering the discussion, move on, for your own good, and the good of the community.

So far, the issues presented with novels are somewhat minor, pointless and indeed, capable of being overlooked, however the issues I have outlined cannot be the only reasons why people seem to dislike Nylund's rendition of the Fall of Reach [which was by the books at the time, with the information taken directly from Bungie's 'Halo Story Bible']

  • 05.29.2011 11:43 PM PDT

@accordingto343

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

Posted by: wswartzendruber
* Classifies Docterweegee as a troll. *

Hey, the OP said no flaming.

*shakes figure sternly with no intention of doing anything.*

I know I posted my reasoning in caboose's thread but I;m too lazy to get them.

  • 05.29.2011 11:44 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

"Awesomeness will ensue..."

BEN SPARTAN120


Posted by: DecepticonCobra
Posted by: wswartzendruber
* Classifies Docterweegee as a troll. *

Hey, the OP said no flaming.

*shakes figure sternly with no intention of doing anything.*

I know I posted my reasoning in caboose's thread but I;m too lazy to get them.


I'm afraid Cobra is correct, I did ask for people who are posting to remain on topic and not to troll or flame. If you're not capable of keeping your issues with individuals out of this thread, don't post at all.

Thank you,

~Ben.

  • 05.29.2011 11:53 PM PDT

Fine. We'll start off simple: Why on earth is everyone surprised to see the Covenant show up on August 30 if they've visibly been there since the 14th?

And excluding the reprint kind of doesn't make any sense to me.

[Edited on 05.29.2011 11:56 PM PDT]

  • 05.29.2011 11:56 PM PDT

@accordingto343

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

Posted by: wswartzendruber
Fine. We'll start off simple: Why on earth is everyone surprised to see the Covenant show up on August 30 if they've visibly been there since the 14th?

And excluding the reprint kind of doesn't make any sense to me.

Maybe it's not so much the Covenant being there, but the sheer amount of them that suddenly appeared? 314 ships, or 700 if you buy that crap, would be surprising no matter how you slice it.

  • 05.29.2011 11:58 PM PDT

Then why does Keyes say, "I don't know how they found it. They must've passed a dozen inner colonies to get here."

  • 05.30.2011 12:02 AM PDT

@accordingto343

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

Posted by: wswartzendruber
Then why does Keyes say, "I don't know how they found it. They must've passed a dozen inner colonies to get here."

Then we come back to what parts of The Fall of Reach still apply. Heck, he could still use that line when the Covenant strike force reveals it's presence. Not saying you have to buy it, but that's the way I see it.

[Edited on 05.30.2011 12:03 AM PDT]

  • 05.30.2011 12:03 AM PDT

Okay, fine, we'll say that some parts of The Fall of Reach are no longer canonical. Why then, would you turn around and release a revision to the 2010 edition of the book...after the game's already come out?

  • 05.30.2011 12:09 AM PDT

@accordingto343

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

Posted by: wswartzendruber
Okay, fine, we'll say that some parts of The Fall of Reach are no longer canonical. Why then, would you turn around and release a revision to the 2010 edition of the book...after the game's already come out?

Because 343 is stupid? Not everything they've done has been bright, they ant to make ilovebees canon after all, time traveling included.

  • 05.30.2011 12:11 AM PDT

Posted by: wswartzendruber
* Classifies Docterweegee as a troll. *

You don't agree with me, so that makes me a troll? Explain yourself.
Also, welcome to universe. Another person like you is JUST what we need.

  • 05.30.2011 12:21 AM PDT

Make a new thread. This one is junk now.

  • 05.30.2011 12:23 AM PDT

Posted by: DecepticonCobra
Posted by: wswartzendruber
Okay, fine, we'll say that some parts of The Fall of Reach are no longer canonical. Why then, would you turn around and release a revision to the 2010 edition of the book...after the game's already come out?

Because 343 is stupid? Not everything they've done has been bright, they ant to make ilovebees canon after all, time traveling included.

I think it's far more likely that Bungie Studios just quit caring for the final game. What are the figured anyway? Do even 10% of the players bother to read the books?

  • 05.30.2011 12:29 AM PDT

@accordingto343

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

Posted by: wswartzendruber
Posted by: DecepticonCobra
Posted by: wswartzendruber
Okay, fine, we'll say that some parts of The Fall of Reach are no longer canonical. Why then, would you turn around and release a revision to the 2010 edition of the book...after the game's already come out?

Because 343 is stupid? Not everything they've done has been bright, they ant to make ilovebees canon after all, time traveling included.

I think it's far more likely that Bungie Studios just quit caring for the final game. What are the figured anyway? Do even 10% of the players bother to read the books?

What reasoning do you have behind that? I doubt they expected the Halo Universe to get as big as it did and just did the game the best way they saw fit. A game not being appealing to you doesn't mean the developer didn't care.

  • 05.30.2011 12:32 AM PDT

Oh I'm not saying Bungie Studios quit caring. I'm saying that Bungie Studios quit caring about extended canon. Seriously...what fiscal sense would it make in this case?

  • 05.30.2011 12:32 AM PDT

@accordingto343

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

Posted by: wswartzendruber
Oh I'm not saying Bungie Studios quit caring. I'm saying that Bungie Studios quit caring about extended canon. Seriously...what fiscal sense would it make in this case?

Are you saying they stopped caring because of money? Not following.

  • 05.30.2011 12:34 AM PDT

I think they realized that designing the game to fit with the existing canon was going to cost more in research time than it was worth (to them).

  • 05.30.2011 12:36 AM PDT

*Ehem*
Halo reach is closest the games have gotten to the books. With including Halsey and whatnot.

  • 05.30.2011 12:36 AM PDT

@accordingto343

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

Posted by: wswartzendruber
I think they realized that designing the game to fit with the existing canon was going to cost more in research time than it was worth (to them).

How so? The events are pretty clear, but I believe for the longest time Bungie has speculated on how go with a Reach game. A straight rip on the book wouldn't be very good. Even taking events from The Fall of Reach probably wouldn't be enough for a full game. Things are different, I can admit that, but changing things isn;t a sign of laziness.

  • 05.30.2011 12:38 AM PDT

It could've been done in a much less intrusive manner.

EDIT: And the closest the games got to the books was when First Strike forshadowed the Covenant civil war that later took place in Halo 2.

[Edited on 05.30.2011 12:57 AM PDT]

  • 05.30.2011 12:46 AM PDT

Posted by: wswartzendruber
It could've been done in a much less intrusive manner.

EDIT: And the closest the games got to the books was when First Strike forshadowed the Covenant civil war that later took place in Halo 2.

I mean the game as a whole. But yeah. That is a good one.

  • 05.30.2011 12:59 AM PDT

"What do you hear?"
"Nothing but the rain."
"Then grab your gun and bring in the cat."
"Boom, boom, boom!"

Posted by: wswartzendruber
Okay, fine, we'll say that some parts of The Fall of Reach are no longer canonical. Why then, would you turn around and release a revision to the 2010 edition of the book...after the game's already come out?


I really wish I could remember what thread it was over on the Waypoint forums but didn't one of the guys working for 343 post that the "new edition" coming out wasn't going to change anything except minor errors found in the first re-print? And that it only had the "Definitive Edition" to fit in with the rest of the books? That's what I seemed to gather from the post at least. I could be wrong.

Also, just wanna point out that the date change has been around since ODST.

IN HONOR OF THOSE MEN AND WOMEN OF NAVAL INTELLIGENCE WHO GAVE THEIR LIVES IN SERVICE OF THE UNSC AT REACH
[25/07/2552 - 30/08/2552]


[Edited on 05.30.2011 1:13 AM PDT]

  • 05.30.2011 12:59 AM PDT

Yeah I noticed that date change in ODST.

  • 05.30.2011 1:09 AM PDT

Posted by: kit_103
Posted by: wswartzendruber
Okay, fine, we'll say that some parts of The Fall of Reach are no longer canonical. Why then, would you turn around and release a revision to the 2010 edition of the book...after the game's already come out?


I really wish I could remember what thread it was over on the Waypoint forums but didn't one of the guys working for 343 post that the "new edition" coming out wasn't going to change anything except minor errors found in the first re-print? And that it only had the "Definitive Edition" to fit in with the rest of the books? That's what I seemed to gather from the post at least. I could be wrong.

Oh no, you're right. In fact, that statement was in response to a question I made over there (I think).

Here's the deal. Bungie Studios has been the one around here changing dates up (ODST memorial and Reach). I'm really beginning to think that 343 Industries doesn't give a damn about what Bungie Studios does to the dates because the canon belongs to 343 anyway.

  • 05.30.2011 8:26 AM PDT

  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • of 2