- jack0fhearts
- |
- Honorable Member
"Where ere thou hast been, here or in yon world manifest? Canst thou tell what is, or what was, or what is to come? No thing shall last. Yet there are some things that will never change. History is written in blood, yet are battles really lost on the battlefield? Canst thou tell me where thou comest, and where thou goest, and what is, or what was, or what will be? For everything remains, AS IT NEVER WAS."
Posted by: raganok99
Whoever said that game canon overrides the book canon is purely idiotic.
...
True Halo Fans truly know what difference of canon is. For example, game mechanics, glitches, etc is not canon. Only canon is storyline.
1. Way to contradict yourself,
2. Glad to see this established. So, can you point out in the STORYLINE, not the little details, how Halo Reach contradicts previously known canon?
Posted by: grey101
1.in which they answer directly to ackerson who is army, do i need to go get Goo and start pulling page numbers and quotes?
Yes, yes you should. It would help greatly, as I've heard/read nothing on Spartan III's being directly Army as opposed to simply operating under the Army.
Posted by: grey101
2.the flaw is the other spartan IIIs didn't know how to fly the sabres and if they were all trained to use all UNSC equipment then 6 wouldn't have been the only one.
Which was never explained ether.
Why was John the only Spartan II initially given Mark VI armor? Were any others given it? Plus, there's really nothing that says that Noble team couldn't fly them, only that Six could. Maybe the rest of Noble team had more important things to do; like helping to evacuate New Alexandria?
Posted by: grey101
again it is relevant. the game was done but not in stores yet therefore the only canon was the canon established by the book. the book was also made to where it wouldn't contradict other the games, in which reach the game contradicts the book.
I don't know how much clearer I can be about it. When it says on the book "Based on the game," it becomes irrelevant when it was released. As for not contradicting? Yes, yes it did contradict quite a bit. I've seen battles rage across this forum for years over issues with one or two lines in the damn thing.
Posted by: grey101
you are the one that keeps saying the books are based off the games. There is nothing in the games that GoO touches on in regards to the spartan IIIs or onyx. we didn't know about until the book.
Well, yeah. It says so on the books themselves, leading one to believe strongly that they're based off the games. Ghosts of Onyx? Based off the events in Halo 2 and 3 (?) whichever it happens in-between. It doesn't have to connect directly to be based off the games. As for Cryptum? The Terminals, plain and simple. That and almost everything that has happened relating to the Forerunners.
Posted by: grey101
this is where i asked what games specifically were those books based on so i can brush up on my SIII and forerunner canon since the games are the main source.
Main source? No. Come on, let's keep this civil. (it read a little snippy) I'm simply saying that when we get these little clashes of "wait, what?" the games take precedence over the books. The books are a lesser source of canon, but still a considerable one.
[Edited on 06.23.2011 4:41 PM PDT]