Bungie Universe
This topic has moved here: Subject: The UNSC nor covenant will be in new trilogy
  • Subject: The UNSC nor covenant will be in new trilogy
Subject: The UNSC nor covenant will be in new trilogy
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Deva Path


Posted by: DecepticonCobra

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


Posted by: Ridin Dirtym99
Wow. Just wow. Grey101 is single handedly attempting, (and failing, to write the story arc for the new trilogy. Im not even going to argue his absurdly ridiculous points because a deaf, dumb, drunken 5 year old wouldnt take any of his points seriously. He seems to be projecting his deepest desires for the new trilogy into onto all of us and is intent on overriding whatever 343 has planned for the new story. If youre trolling, by all means ignore me and continue because I find it to be hilarious. But if not, you leave me no choice but to feel so sad for you, child.


In other words you are mad with the idea and have no counter explanation for it.

I don't see the correlation of "No UNSC or Covenant" to writing the story. As if there aren't other races that have an important role in the universe.

"deepest desires"? lol and no this isn't trolling, i am just going off the information we have now.

  • 08.08.2011 9:21 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Exalted Legendary Member

Do not panic, or you will fail.


Posted by: grey101

1. um no seeing how the UNSC presence doesn't affect anything. Majority of the time in halo 2 you were alone, or you had marines that got killed. them being there or not being there didn't change anything. It is completely subjective when you think that UNSC not being in the game will have a major impact.

the only person that was always with chief was cortan, and funny how halo 3 felt completely off when she was gone despite being surrounded by marines.

cortana presence> UNSC presence.

2. Honestly halo 2 was in a sense the start of the story in terms of story telling.

Halo CE you just wake up,grab cortana and fall to the ring world (which i bet halo 4 is going to be like) and fight on that for a week.


In halo 2 you actually got to be around the UNSC forces fighting the covenant and take the full war into context. So in a sense Halo 2 started the full story vibe. And you didn't have to play Halo CE to get halo 2 either since it was summarized.

do you know how many people play the halo games but don't read the books that explain everything? i can tell you it's over 9,000.

3. It really isn't which is another gross exaggeration. Reach is the first and only bump.

...

I don't even know how to make full sense out of this quote. You contradict yourself about 7 times and then you go so far out of your way to attempt to disagree with me that you end up agreeing with me.

1. How can you know how the UNSC has no effect when you haven't played a Halo without them? They may not play a major role, but them being written out of the story would be a major story telling flaw.

2. You proved my point for me. Halo 4 will be the start of a new story that will make the prior background not exactly necessary. You might not get the full grasp of the situation, but you can play through without my mental break.

3. Reach may have been the first and only bump, but it did it very haphazardly. What was thought to be concrete canon was changed without regard. If that was changed, I don't see how a minor detail couldn't be changed in the future.

  • 08.08.2011 9:21 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Deva Path


Posted by: DecepticonCobra

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


Posted by: gtfan92

Posted by: grey101

1. um no seeing how the UNSC presence doesn't affect anything. Majority of the time in halo 2 you were alone, or you had marines that got killed. them being there or not being there didn't change anything. It is completely subjective when you think that UNSC not being in the game will have a major impact.

the only person that was always with chief was cortan, and funny how halo 3 felt completely off when she was gone despite being surrounded by marines.

cortana presence> UNSC presence.

2. Honestly halo 2 was in a sense the start of the story in terms of story telling.

Halo CE you just wake up,grab cortana and fall to the ring world (which i bet halo 4 is going to be like) and fight on that for a week.


In halo 2 you actually got to be around the UNSC forces fighting the covenant and take the full war into context. So in a sense Halo 2 started the full story vibe. And you didn't have to play Halo CE to get halo 2 either since it was summarized.

do you know how many people play the halo games but don't read the books that explain everything? i can tell you it's over 9,000.

3. It really isn't which is another gross exaggeration. Reach is the first and only bump.

...

I don't even know how to make full sense out of this quote. You contradict yourself about 7 times and then you go so far out of your way to attempt to disagree with me that you end up agreeing with me.

1. How can you know how the UNSC has no effect when you haven't played a Halo without them? They may not play a major role, but them being written out of the story would be a major story telling flaw.

2. You proved my point for me. Halo 4 will be the start of a new story that will make the prior background not exactly necessary. You might not get the full grasp of the situation, but you can play through without my mental break.

3. Reach may have been the first and only bump, but it did it very haphazardly. What was thought to be concrete canon was changed without regard. If that was changed, I don't see how a minor detail couldn't be changed in the future.



1. everybody contradicts themselves so i don't see why it is such a big deal that i might have unintentionally done it. Though i doubt i did it "7" times.

2. Because i have played pretty much 3 games without cortana and that felt just as odd as playing reach that was filled with UNSC presence.


3.not really "your point" since i have addressed that several times in this thread.

4. because 343i tried to make it fit and then left it alone. I can honestly say that 343I isn't going to do that and everything that bungie has done shouldn't be slapped on to 343I.

  • 08.08.2011 9:27 AM PDT

Show Faith/Defy Fate


Posted by: grey101

Posted by: Ridin Dirtym99
Wow. Just wow. Grey101 is single handedly attempting, (and failing, to write the story arc for the new trilogy. Im not even going to argue his absurdly ridiculous points because a deaf, dumb, drunken 5 year old wouldnt take any of his points seriously. He seems to be projecting his deepest desires for the new trilogy into onto all of us and is intent on overriding whatever 343 has planned for the new story. If youre trolling, by all means ignore me and continue because I find it to be hilarious. But if not, you leave me no choice but to feel so sad for you, child.


In other words you are mad with the idea and have no counter explanation for it.

I don't see the correlation of "No UNSC or Covenant" to writing the story. As if there aren't other races that have an important role in the universe.

"deepest desires"? lol and no this isn't trolling, i am just going off the information we have now.


Lol, mad? No. I personally am fine with it if thats what 343 decides to do. However, I do find that you are jumping to huge conclusions based of off a couple of VAGUE phrases. I also refuse to play this game with you because it pointless to guess when so little is actually known. And no one said other races didnt have important roles. The UNSC and the Covenant are just the tip of the iceberg. But like I said, im going to sit this one out and let the noobs argue it out with you. But you cant argue with a wall, so whatever.

  • 08.08.2011 9:30 AM PDT

Actually the UNSC will be in halo 4 technically. Master Chief is UNSC sooooo. ya.

  • 08.08.2011 9:32 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Deva Path


Posted by: DecepticonCobra

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


Posted by: Ridin Dirtym99

Posted by: grey101

Posted by: Ridin Dirtym99
Wow. Just wow. Grey101 is single handedly attempting, (and failing, to write the story arc for the new trilogy. Im not even going to argue his absurdly ridiculous points because a deaf, dumb, drunken 5 year old wouldnt take any of his points seriously. He seems to be projecting his deepest desires for the new trilogy into onto all of us and is intent on overriding whatever 343 has planned for the new story. If youre trolling, by all means ignore me and continue because I find it to be hilarious. But if not, you leave me no choice but to feel so sad for you, child.


In other words you are mad with the idea and have no counter explanation for it.

I don't see the correlation of "No UNSC or Covenant" to writing the story. As if there aren't other races that have an important role in the universe.

"deepest desires"? lol and no this isn't trolling, i am just going off the information we have now.


Lol, mad? No. I personally am fine with it if thats what 343 decides to do. However, I do find that you are jumping to huge conclusions based of off a couple of VAGUE phrases. I also refuse to play this game with you because it pointless to guess when so little is actually known. And no one said other races didnt have important roles. The UNSC and the Covenant are just the tip of the iceberg. But like I said, im going to sit this one out and let the noobs argue it out with you. But you cant argue with a wall, so whatever.


Explain to me how they are "vague" when they were stated directly after people asked about halo 4? No to mention i have a timeline in the OP.

I am not "playing a game" and if you stopped posting it wouldn't bother me in the slightest.

  • 08.08.2011 9:33 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Exalted Legendary Member

Do not panic, or you will fail.

Grey, you are taking the quote "You can pick up this game without playing the first trilogy," to the furthest extremes of context. From what I have read, you seem to believe that it means "Nothing from the previous Halo games will be associated with this one in almost any form except for the Chief and Cortana." I doubt that will be the true.

You claim that the game was odd without Cortana. Well, that's like, your opinion. I never "odd" with Cortana in or out of the game.

  • 08.08.2011 9:34 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: grey101
1. The amount of time humanity has spent on earth totaled would be only a few seconds. That is the same for the covenant in regards to the halo universe. While it was a big deal you guys are making it seem like halo would be trash without the covenant, which is a gross exaggeration.

What is this in response to? I don't know what this is trying to rebut, you points are all over the board. Can't you do what everyone else does when quoting so that the context is preserved?

Posted by: grey101
2. Um did you even look at the first post? or are you one of those people that just jump into a topic without reading the OP and a few pages?

Yes I did, and all I saw were some statements made about a timeline with reference to the Encyclopaedia. Where in the Encyclopaedia is what I am asking. What page is this 2589 coming from? If you cannot tell me this then that part of your post is moot without evidence.

Posted by: grey101
3. Read the OP. he still isn't found by 2589 ("official date") or by 2610 with the marketing date. So unless 343 is just going to completely re-write everything he still isn't found by 2589. Unless the games are going to be taking place decades apart which i don't see happening.

Again, where exactly is this date coming from?

As far as I understand the marketing materials, it does not in any way explicitly say that the Master Chief is still missing by any date. Even if it does and I have missed it, I will take this marketing material with a grain of salt, as it is marketing material. Third tier canon. It was also created four years ago during a time period where the post Halo 3 story did not exist, which means that it is very likely to be out of date now.

Finally, you are exaggerating when you say that 343 will have to "re-write everything". That Halo 3 marketing stuff was hardly integral to the story in the first place. Nothing will have to be re-written at all.

Posted by: grey101
4.um it would be watered down if the covenant were in the game since they are just a pointless addition to comfort the casual fans that no nothing of the lore.

Explain why they are pointless please.

Explain why someone who primarily follows the Covenant/UNSC story (Not necessarily the Human-Covenant war I will add) rather than taking principle interest in the Forerunner arcs is automatically a casual fan, who knows nothing of the lore.

Explain in what way the Forerunner arc is superior to the UNSC/Covenant arcs in either pre- or post-Halo 3, which you obviously seem to think.

Do not sit there and make bold claims and offer no reasoning behind them.

Posted by: grey101
How about we make a new story that can tell the story from the forerunner aspect in which majority of the people know nothing about.

Um not at all, seeing how i am pretty sure the flood are going to be in and that we are going to find out their origins. Not to mention the current games offer nothing on the forerunners other than

"they made the rings and died" which most people still don't know along with the fact they aren't dead.

Unfortunately though, they will need to understand the previous trilogy in order to understand why the Forerunners and Flood are of any relevance, and why Cortana is acting weird etc. (If she is indeed going through Rampancy, or will they ignore that because "You won't have to understand the last trilogy in order to play this one"?)

So because an understanding of the last trilogy is actually required, and everyone in this forum is quote mining Frankie's statements, the position that the Covenant should not be in it is nothing but a double standard.

And as for your final statement, the previous trilogy stated that the Forerunners died, and the Encyclopaedia stated that they survived in some manner. Unless you had read the Encyclopaedia, you would obviously take up the belief that they had all died. So in a sense, you actually have to have been exposed to more than the previous trilogy in order to understand this one, the bloody encyclopaedia to be specific!

Posted by: grey101
5. Well i can tell you that Halo isn't about the covenant, though they are involved they aren't the meaning or pillars of the franchise.


More like flood,forerunners,precursors, humanity. That is what halo is about.

Yes, it isn't solely about the Covenant, but they are nevertheless a part of it. A very big part of it. Much bigger and more relevant the the shady Precursors, with whom you could not even fill a single side of A4 with information on. (Or even half)

Just because the franchise is not centered around the Covenant/UNSC (Which is debatable actually, but I will grant you it) does not mean that they are not important.

It certainly does not make fans of those parts ignorant of the lore in any way either. Do not be so pretentious to say that your view of Halo is automatically superior to theirs.

  • 08.08.2011 9:43 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Deva Path


Posted by: DecepticonCobra

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


Posted by: gtfan92
Grey, you are taking the quote "You can pick up this game without playing the first trilogy," to the furthest extremes of context. From what I have read, you seem to believe that it means "Nothing from the previous Halo games will be associated with this one in almost any form except for the Chief and Cortana." I doubt that will be the true.

You claim that the game was odd without Cortana. Well, that's like, your opinion. I never "odd" with Cortana in or out of the game.


Then you clearly haven't read much.

  • 08.08.2011 9:47 AM PDT

_

[Edited on 08.08.2011 10:15 AM PDT]

  • 08.08.2011 9:49 AM PDT

We are Orbital Drop Kamikazi Troopers, dropping feet first into hell with a grenade in each hand and a charge of C4 strapped to our back, ready to blow the devil to heaven with no thought of comeing back, except for cookies.


Posted by: grey101
First off most of you are clearly not getting the point.


We have an entire timeline of "MC was never found" chief hasn't been found because the UNSC clealry couldn't find him.
Most of you don't understand how vast space is, those MAC rounds that never hit targets are going to keep flying a fractions of light speed for eons until they hit something.
That being said the Chances of the UNSC randomly finding that planet and coming to save the day is so low we will just say "0".


There is also the fact that, iunno the UNSC is trying to repair itself after a 27-28 year war that only has roughly 2 billion humans left. So they are going to need every ship available to help with reconstruction and for defense.
So sending ships out looking for a single spartan is a gross misapplication.


Now the covenant are not going to be in because they have no place in this along with the fact that every race is busy trying to deal with 3,000 years+ of wasting their time. Not to mention that if even one race appeared then the new players wouldn't get the backstory and would be forced to play the old trilogy.


So yes the post is "the UNSC will no be in Halo 4,5,6 neither will the covenant".


As for the people saying "OmGz u dn't no dat" There is a timeline for the UNSC not finding chief along with the clear issues that the covenant races are having. So until somebody makes a viable point/reason for why and how they should be in you are just promoting bad storytelling.



2 billion? you realise at the moment we are allready pushing 7 billion people on earth, and if you pay attention to the story not all human colony planets were destroyed so your making rubbish up there :p, furthermore this entire thread seems like noncence, and even the idea that there will be neither covenant or unsc or even the races included in those not being in a HALO game is absurd, because it then wouldnt be halo.

also halo reach was a good game, just not for the story as it makes no scence bungie changed the storyline to make the game work the way they wanted.

also people, never use halo wars or halo legends to help get a point acros, neither of these tied in with the story either realy, especialy halo legends.

to add to that in it the spartan is eaten by a dinosaur or something... i rest my case.

if the game does turn out the way you are saying it will, it will be awfull sorry, but thats the way it is.

  • 08.08.2011 9:49 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Exalted Legendary Member

Do not panic, or you will fail.


Posted by: grey101

Posted by: gtfan92
Grey, you are taking the quote "You can pick up this game without playing the first trilogy," to the furthest extremes of context. From what I have read, you seem to believe that it means "Nothing from the previous Halo games will be associated with this one in almost any form except for the Chief and Cortana." I doubt that will be the true.

You claim that the game was odd without Cortana. Well, that's like, your opinion. I never "odd" with Cortana in or out of the game.


Then you clearly haven't read much.


Of what? This thread? Halo media? Shakespeare? The Dead Sea Scrolls?

  • 08.08.2011 9:49 AM PDT

@accordingto343

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

Chief just pulled an Odysseus on us folks, he is alone, albeit with Cortana, and he must confront HIS destiny. What would the addition of any Covenant species or USNC force add to the plot? Nothing.

  • 08.08.2011 10:03 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Deva Path


Posted by: DecepticonCobra

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


Posted by: Neutrino
Posted by: grey101
1. The amount of time humanity has spent on earth totaled would be only a few seconds. That is the same for the covenant in regards to the halo universe. While it was a big deal you guys are making it seem like halo would be trash without the covenant, which is a gross exaggeration.

What is this in response to? I don't know what this is trying to rebut, you points are all over the board. Can't you do what everyone else does when quoting so that the context is preserved?

Posted by: grey101
2. Um did you even look at the first post? or are you one of those people that just jump into a topic without reading the OP and a few pages?

Yes I did, and all I saw were some statements made about a timeline with reference to the Encyclopaedia. Where in the Encyclopaedia is what I am asking. What page is this 2589 coming from? If you cannot tell me this then that part of your post is moot without evidence.

Posted by: grey101
3. Read the OP. he still isn't found by 2589 ("official date") or by 2610 with the marketing date. So unless 343 is just going to completely re-write everything he still isn't found by 2589. Unless the games are going to be taking place decades apart which i don't see happening.

Again, where exactly is this date coming from?

As far as I understand the marketing materials, it does not in any way explicitly say that the Master Chief is still missing by any date. Even if it does and I have missed it, I will take this marketing material with a grain of salt, as it is marketing material. Third tier canon. It was also created four years ago during a time period where the post Halo 3 story did not exist, which means that it is very likely to be out of date now.

Finally, you are exaggerating when you say that 343 will have to "re-write everything". That Halo 3 marketing stuff was hardly integral to the story in the first place. Nothing will have to be re-written at all.

Posted by: grey101
4.um it would be watered down if the covenant were in the game since they are just a pointless addition to comfort the casual fans that no nothing of the lore.

Explain why they are pointless please.

Explain why someone who primarily follows the Covenant/UNSC story (Not necessarily the Human-Covenant war I will add) rather than taking principle interest in the Forerunner arcs is automatically a casual fan, who knows nothing of the lore.

Explain in what way the Forerunner arc is superior to the UNSC/Covenant arcs in either pre- or post-Halo 3, which you obviously seem to think.

Do not sit there and make bold claims and offer no reasoning behind them.

Posted by: grey101
How about we make a new story that can tell the story from the forerunner aspect in which majority of the people know nothing about.

Um not at all, seeing how i am pretty sure the flood are going to be in and that we are going to find out their origins. Not to mention the current games offer nothing on the forerunners other than

"they made the rings and died" which most people still don't know along with the fact they aren't dead.

Unfortunately though, they will need to understand the previous trilogy in order to understand why the Forerunners and Flood are of any relevance, and why Cortana is acting weird etc. (If she is indeed going through Rampancy, or will they ignore that because "You won't have to understand the last trilogy in order to play this one"?)

So because an understanding of the last trilogy is actually required, and everyone in this forum is quote mining Frankie's statements, the position that the Covenant should not be in it is nothing but a double standard.

And as for your final statement, the previous trilogy stated that the Forerunners died, and the Encyclopaedia stated that they survived in some manner. Unless you had read the Encyclopaedia, you would obviously take up the belief that they had all died. So in a sense, you actually have to have been exposed to more than the previous trilogy in order to understand this one, the bloody encyclopaedia to be specific!

Posted by: grey101
5. Well i can tell you that Halo isn't about the covenant, though they are involved they aren't the meaning or pillars of the franchise.


More like flood,forerunners,precursors, humanity. That is what halo is about.

Yes, it isn't solely about the Covenant, but they are nevertheless a part of it. A very big part of it. Much bigger and more relevant the the shady Precursors, with whom you could not even fill a single side of A4 with information on. (Or even half)

Just because the franchise is not centered around the Covenant/UNSC (Which is debatable actually, but I will grant you it) does not mean that they are not important.

It certainly does not make fans of those parts ignorant of the lore in any way either. Do not be so pretentious to say that your view of Halo is automatically superior to theirs.



1.no it isn't you just don't understand the analogy. the covenant war is nothing in the eons timespan that the haloverse takes place in.


2. So if i can't tell you the page number then the context of that page does not exist? nice logic.


3.If you honestly can't type in the dates on halopedia or google and find out where they are from then you must have an extremely hard time finding out were quotes come from.

Majority of the dates are coming from halo 3 marketing material and 1 date from the encyclopedia. Whatever bungies take on canon was has been obsolete for nearly a year now, 343I is still reinforcing it therefore it is still valid.

and the post halo 3 story did exist, bungie didn't have a post story after halo 1 but quickly made it afterwards.


4.It is the fact that majority of the people have that mindset because they do not know anything beyond the games. Everybody here has aspects of the UNSC/Covenant that they would love to be elaborated, but not in the sense "if the next game doesn't have this or this than it isn't halo".


Not the it is superior but it has more weight on story telling than the war stage. do not make implications without proper context.


5. All of that can be easily explained in the game. Most people only knew of cortana's situation from legends which she gave a one-liner on it.

Yes you will have to be exposed to other material to fully understand everything that is not new to any game or life in its self. And we knew from IRIS and the terminals that the forerunners we still alive.

6. the covenant's 28 year war with humanity is not a big part of the story. you have the "ancient era" which i won't even summarize, then you have what the UNSC/covenant we going through prior to the war.

Yes that 28 year timespan is good, but i don't think anybody wants another 3-6 games based on it. there is alot of material that can be used and it would be unimaginative and artistic to keep the games in the same frame.

There isn't anything to debate. yes the games are based on the war but that doesn't mean any game not based on that era will "not make it a halo game". The games are pretty much the window for the franchise, once you look past it you will see a whole story of characters,storys,etc.


i will say that anybody that says "halo is nothing without the UNSC/covenant" does have a bacteria's view of the universe.



  • 08.08.2011 10:05 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Exalted Legendary Member

Do not panic, or you will fail.


Posted by: DecepticonCobra
Chief just pulled an Odysseus on us folks, he is alone, albeit with Cortana, and he must confront HIS destiny. What would the addition of any Covenant species or USNC force add to the plot? Nothing.

That doesn't really work in this scenario. IIRC, there were still many supporting characters in the Odyssey.

  • 08.08.2011 10:07 AM PDT

@accordingto343

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

Posted by: gtfan92

Posted by: DecepticonCobra
Chief just pulled an Odysseus on us folks, he is alone, albeit with Cortana, and he must confront HIS destiny. What would the addition of any Covenant species or USNC force add to the plot? Nothing.

That doesn't really work in this scenario. IIRC, there were still many supporting characters in the Odyssey.

The first Halo trilogy would be like the Odyssey right before Odysseus lost his men, this new trilogy is Chief by himself.

But that's neither here nor there. Point is, Chief doesn't need the UNSC or Covies to be supporting roles.

  • 08.08.2011 10:11 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Deva Path


Posted by: DecepticonCobra

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


Posted by: ODKT Haplo

Posted by: grey101
First off most of you are clearly not getting the point.


We have an entire timeline of "MC was never found" chief hasn't been found because the UNSC clealry couldn't find him.
Most of you don't understand how vast space is, those MAC rounds that never hit targets are going to keep flying a fractions of light speed for eons until they hit something.
That being said the Chances of the UNSC randomly finding that planet and coming to save the day is so low we will just say "0".


There is also the fact that, iunno the UNSC is trying to repair itself after a 27-28 year war that only has roughly 2 billion humans left. So they are going to need every ship available to help with reconstruction and for defense.
So sending ships out looking for a single spartan is a gross misapplication.


Now the covenant are not going to be in because they have no place in this along with the fact that every race is busy trying to deal with 3,000 years+ of wasting their time. Not to mention that if even one race appeared then the new players wouldn't get the backstory and would be forced to play the old trilogy.


So yes the post is "the UNSC will no be in Halo 4,5,6 neither will the covenant".


As for the people saying "OmGz u dn't no dat" There is a timeline for the UNSC not finding chief along with the clear issues that the covenant races are having. So until somebody makes a viable point/reason for why and how they should be in you are just promoting bad storytelling.



2 billion? you realise at the moment we are allready pushing 7 billion people on earth, and if you pay attention to the story not all human colony planets were destroyed so your making rubbish up there :p, furthermore this entire thread seems like noncence, and even the idea that there will be neither covenant or unsc or even the races included in those not being in a HALO game is absurd, because it then wouldnt be halo.

also halo reach was a good game, just not for the story as it makes no scence bungie changed the storyline to make the game work the way they wanted.

also people, never use halo wars or halo legends to help get a point acros, neither of these tied in with the story either realy, especialy halo legends.

to add to that in it the spartan is eaten by a dinosaur or something... i rest my case.

if the game does turn out the way you are saying it will, it will be awfull sorry, but thats the way it is.


you obvously didn't read the post to understand what i was reffering to.


there are around 2 billion plus humans left after the war and no i didn't know that "not every planet was attacked" despite that being stated in FoR.


"even the idea that there will be neither covenant or unsc or even the races included in those not being in a HALO game is absurd, because it then wouldnt be halo. "


which is supporting my point flawlessly, people clearly don't know what halo is about.


Um halo wars is going to be tied in the next forerunner novel due to Didact making his shield worlds and legends offered alot to the universe.


Again, people making up stuff they know nothing about.

  • 08.08.2011 10:13 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: grey101
1.no it isn't you just don't understand the analogy. the covenant war is nothing in the eons timespan that the haloverse takes place in.

Covenant War? I don't believe I said anything about the Covenant war. Anyway, this makes them unimportant how? Master Chief in comparison to the timeline is nothing, yet he is still important.

Posted by: grey101
2. So if i can't tell you the page number then the context of that page does not exist? nice logic.

The Invisible Pink Unicorn on the moon exists. I have seen it with a special telescope that I built which can see in ultra-high gamma frequencies. Unfortunately though, I accidentally drove my car over it when I reversed my car into the garage, so you will just have to take my word for it? Okay? But the Invisible Pink Unicorn does exist.

In all seriousness though, it is up to you to have your evidence ready. Christ! Imagine if Einstein, when asked to give evidence or reasoning/proofs for Relativity, told the scientific oversight to "Do it themselves" or to just "Take my word on it".

From your lack of disclosure of this evidence I will take it that you either made this up, or are going on hearsay. (Which is probably also made up)

Posted by: grey101
3.If you honestly can't type in the dates on halopedia or google and find out where they are from then you must have an extremely hard time finding out were quotes come from.

Yes, I have already searched for the date "2589".

Nothing on Halopedian about a connection between Master Chief and this date.

Google - Not very enlightening. Did you actually expect that to work?

Posted by: grey101
Majority of the dates are coming from halo 3 marketing material and 1 date from the encyclopedia. Whatever bungies take on canon was has been obsolete for nearly a year now, 343I is still reinforcing it therefore it is still valid.

and the post halo 3 story did exist, bungie didn't have a post story after halo 1 but quickly made it afterwards.

You are beginning to aggravate me. You will either source this 2589 date or I will hold you as a lair. And people are reading this, so I think you should do it.

Bungie came up with the Halo 3 marketing stuff 4 years ago. When the time came to make Reach or a post Halo 3 story, they went with Reach because there was too much baggage that they would have to take care of with creating a post Halo 3 story. The post Halo 3 story was still very much in flux and was not in any way set in stone. We do not know how much has changed from that original model, and if this marketing material is still viable or not. (And unlike you I have a source)

Posted by: grey101
4.It is the fact that majority of the people have that mindset because they do not know anything beyond the games. Everybody here has aspects of the UNSC/Covenant that they would love to be elaborated, but not in the sense "if the next game doesn't have this or this than it isn't halo".

Once again asserting your opinion on Halo over everyone else's. Since when do you have the monopoly on this franchise's relevance to an individual?

And no, I don't believe that without the UNSC/Covenant the franchise won't be "Halo", so I'm sorry to break your false dichotomy here. I do however believe that it would be empty and utterly lacking in Humanity. (In the sense that all the emotional weightlifting was done by supporting influences as Master Chief is such a crap character)

Posted by: grey101
Not the it is superior but it has more weight on story telling than the war stage. do not make implications without proper context.

The war stage? Excuse me? I am not talking about the war stage in particular, I am speaking about the only factions that have any emotional and personal relevance to the player, in a franchise that is already borderline flat in that department. The individual factions appearing after Halo 3, not the Human-Covenant war - Understand? Do not misconstrue my stance.

"Not the it is superior but it has more weight on story telling"

What does this even mean? It is not superior, but has more weight on story telling? Contradiction much? If it has more weight on the story, then it is more important in the story. Unfortunately this is entirely subjective and varies from person to person on what they view as more important to them. So once again I will say, stop being arrogant.

"do not make implications without proper context."

I have all the context I need. It is self evident from your posts that you believe that in order for someone to prefer the Covenant/UNSC they have to be a moron who does not know anything about the rest of the franchise, an utterly arrogant position to take.

And what implications did I make by asking those 3 questions? (Which you have not answered nor successfully rebutted)

Posted by: grey101
5. All of that can be easily explained in the game. Most people only knew of cortana's situation from legends which she gave a one-liner on it.

Easily explained in the game, thus making it patronizing and a bit cheesy to those who already know this and do not need to be told again.

Posted by: grey101
Yes you will have to be exposed to other material to fully understand everything that is not new to any game or life in its self. And we knew from IRIS and the terminals that the forerunners we still alive.

So what is your point then? You just undermined your entire thread by stating this. Then this means that the UNSC/Covenant could be in it, and you have nothing to say otherwise because you just said:

"Yes you will have to be exposed to other material to fully understand everything"

Posted by: grey101
6. the covenant's 28 year war with humanity is not a big part of the story. you have the "ancient era" which i won't even summarize, then you have what the UNSC/covenant we going through prior to the war.

Yes that 28 year timespan is good, but i don't think anybody wants another 3-6 games based on it. there is alot of material that can be used and it would be unimaginative and artistic to keep the games in the same frame.

There isn't anything to debate. yes the games are based on the war but that doesn't mean any game not based on that era will "not make it a halo game". The games are pretty much the window for the franchise, once you look past it you will see a whole story of characters,storys,etc.

Once again misconstruing my position. I am not talking about the war, I am talking about seeing the factions after the war. Big difference. I could not care less about seeing more of the Human-Covenant war personally.

Posted by: grey101
i will say that anybody that says "halo is nothing without the UNSC/covenant" does have a bacteria's view of the universe.

Good for them.

Posted by: DeceptionCobra
Chief just pulled an Odysseus on us folks, he is alone, albeit with Cortana, and he must confront HIS destiny. What would the addition of any Covenant species or USNC force add to the plot? Nothing.

So really Halo does not ask the question "What does it mean to be Human?", just "What does it mean to be Master Chief?"

What a lot of crap.

On top of that you do not know what his destiny is. For all you know it could be to act as figurehead to unite all the races against the Flood or Primordial for example. Pick apart the specific example all you want, but the point is you don't know what that search will entail.

(And the fact that it is a phrase on a promotional picture... Hurr durr taking marketing materials as your only stance in this debate. This forum has no set standards.)

[Edited on 08.08.2011 12:14 PM PDT]

  • 08.08.2011 12:10 PM PDT

@accordingto343

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

Posted by: Neutrino
So really Halo does not ask the question "What does it mean to be Human?", just "What does it mean to be Master Chief?"

What a lot of crap.

Halo does ask that and as you mention later on in your post, we don't know the extent of the continuing story.

On top of that you do not know what his destiny is. For all you know it could be to act as figurehead to unite all the races against the Flood or Primordial for example. Pick apart the specific example all you want, but the point is you don't know what that search will entail.

The end result of his destiny is clear, he is to act as Mendicant Bias atonement for the crap he pulled durign the Forerunner-Flood War, ie joining the Flood and fighting against his makers the Forerunners.

(And the fact that it is a phrase on a promotional picture... Hurr durr taking marketing materials as your only stance in this debate. This forum has no set standards.)


The destiny line is from promo material, however the implication Chief has a destiny comes much earlier from Halo 3's terminals. And it's funny you say we have no standards considering you are a relative newbie to this forum and have no seen our past discussions.

  • 08.08.2011 12:16 PM PDT
  • gamertag: lolmew
  • user homepage:

So, Yeah, Its 50 years after hes gone MIA, and probably dead (50 years is a lot of time to grow old and die)... but, do you age in cryogenic freezing? That seems like a way to stick to the non-game canon, and the more important stuff, without skrewing up the storyline and saying he comes back after like 5 years.

  • 08.08.2011 12:21 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Deva Path


Posted by: DecepticonCobra

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


Posted by: Neutrino
Posted by: grey101
1.no it isn't you just don't understand the analogy. the covenant war is nothing in the eons timespan that the haloverse takes place in.

Covenant War? I don't believe I said anything about the Covenant war. Anyway, this makes them unimportant how? Master Chief in comparison to the timeline is nothing, yet he is still important.

Posted by: grey101
2. So if i can't tell you the page number then the context of that page does not exist? nice logic.

The Invisible Pink Unicorn on the moon exists. I have seen it with a special telescope that I built which can see in ultra-high gamma frequencies. Unfortunately though, I accidentally drove my car over it when I reversed my car into the garage, so you will just have to take my word for it? Okay? But the Invisible Pink Unicorn does exist.

In all seriousness though, it is up to you to have your evidence ready. Christ! Imagine if Einstein, when asked to prove Relativity, told the scientific oversight to "Do it themselves" or to just "Take my word on it".

From your lack of disclosure of this evidence I will take it that you either made this up, or are going on hearsay. (Which is probably also made up)

Posted by: grey101
3.If you honestly can't type in the dates on halopedia or google and find out where they are from then you must have an extremely hard time finding out were quotes come from.

Yes, I have already searched for the date "2589".

Nothing on Halopedian about a connection between Master Chief and this date.

Google - Not very enlightening. Did you actually expect that to work?

Posted by: grey101
Majority of the dates are coming from halo 3 marketing material and 1 date from the encyclopedia. Whatever bungies take on canon was has been obsolete for nearly a year now, 343I is still reinforcing it therefore it is still valid.

and the post halo 3 story did exist, bungie didn't have a post story after halo 1 but quickly made it afterwards.

You are beginning to aggravate me. You will either source this 2589 date or I will hold you as a lair. And people are reading this, so I think you should do it.

Bungie came up with the Halo 3 marketing stuff 4 years ago. When the time came to make Reach or a post Halo 3 story, they went with Reach because there was too much baggage that they would have to take care of with creating a post Halo 3 story. The post Halo 3 story was still very much in flux and was not in any way set in stone. We do not know how much has changed from that original model, and if this marketing material is still viable or not. (And unlike you I have a source)

Posted by: grey101
4.It is the fact that majority of the people have that mindset because they do not know anything beyond the games. Everybody here has aspects of the UNSC/Covenant that they would love to be elaborated, but not in the sense "if the next game doesn't have this or this than it isn't halo".

Once again asserting your opinion on Halo over everyone else's. Since when do you have the monopoly on this franchise's relevance to an individual?

And no, I don't believe that without the UNSC/Covenant the franchise won't be "Halo", so I'm sorry to break your false dichotomy here. I do however believe that it would be empty and utterly lacking in Humanity. (In the sense that all the emotional weightlifting was done by supporting influences as Master Chief is such a crap character)

Posted by: grey101
Not the it is superior but it has more weight on story telling than the war stage. do not make implications without proper context.

The war stage? Excuse me? I am not talking about the war stage in particular, I am speaking about the only factions that have any emotional and personal relevance to the player, in a franchise that is already borderline flat in that department. The individual factions appearing after Halo 3, not the Human-Covenant war - Understand? Do not misconstrue my stance.

"Not the it is superior but it has more weight on story telling"

What does this even mean? It is not superior, but has more weight on story telling? Contradiction much? If it has more weight on the story, then it is more important in the story. Unfortunately this is entirely subjective and varies from person to person on what they view as more important to them. So once again I will say, stop being arrogant.

"do not make implications without proper context."

I have all the context I need. It is self evident from your posts that you believe that in order for someone to prefer the Covenant/UNSC they have to be a moron who does not know anything about the rest of the franchise, an utterly arrogant position to take.

And what implications did I make by asking those 3 questions? (Which you have not answered nor successfully rebutted)

Posted by: grey101
5. All of that can be easily explained in the game. Most people only knew of cortana's situation from legends which she gave a one-liner on it.

Easily explained in the game, thus making it patronizing and a bit cheesy to those who already know this and do not need to be told again.

Posted by: grey101
Yes you will have to be exposed to other material to fully understand everything that is not new to any game or life in its self. And we knew from IRIS and the terminals that the forerunners we still alive.

So what is your point then? You just undermined your entire thread by stating this. Then this means that the UNSC/Covenant could be in it, and you have nothing to say otherwise because you just said:

"Yes you will have to be exposed to other material to fully understand everything"

Posted by: grey101
6. the covenant's 28 year war with humanity is not a big part of the story. you have the "ancient era" which i won't even summarize, then you have what the UNSC/covenant we going through prior to the war.

Yes that 28 year timespan is good, but i don't think anybody wants another 3-6 games based on it. there is alot of material that can be used and it would be unimaginative and artistic to keep the games in the same frame.

There isn't anything to debate. yes the games are based on the war but that doesn't mean any game not based on that era will "not make it a halo game". The games are pretty much the window for the franchise, once you look past it you will see a whole story of characters,storys,etc.

Once again misconstruing my position. I am not talking about the war, I am talking about seeing the factions after the war. Big difference. I could not care less about seeing more of the Human-Covenant war personally.

Posted by: grey101
i will say that anybody that says "halo is nothing without the UNSC/covenant" does have a bacteria's view of the universe.

Good for them.



1. which is due to him being related to Ancient humans and the librarian.

2.I do have evidence but majority of the people on in this thread went to type in the dates on halopedia or looked it up on the encyclopedia (which i did source). so if you don't feel like looking up the info yourself like i have to do EVERYDAY then to bad but my points still stand.

Again just because you can't find it doesn't mean it doesn't exist, you are clearly lacking object permanence.

3.I don't care if i am aggravating you, if you aren't trying hard to find the information then you must not care about it.

and that source doesn't say anything you posted, and i always have sources. Halo 4 wasn't done becuase bungie didn't want to start something they couldn't finish.


4.which is why a good game without the UNSC/Covenant would be good since it would require better story telling. not to mention it would be a leap.


5.I did answer but if you didn't get the response you wanted then too bad.


A) Meaning that it will be chief focused and how he ties into everything while providing somewhat of a prequel on the forerunners and ancient humans. (comicon and primordium)

B)Which is again re-arranging words and adding your mindset into it. I said normally people with that opinion only know the games and say "if they aren't in game then it isn't halo".

6.Which doesn't matter for the people that haven't played the game or didn't know that.


7. To understand the lore 100 percent you are going to have to read other material. i didn't "undermined" anything since i wasn't the one that said that statement. wikipedia isn't going to tell you more about fishing than a fisherman.


8.I am talking about the war.

10. um i am sure that was said by frankie or greg at comicon or somewhere else.


  • 08.08.2011 12:35 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Deva Path


Posted by: DecepticonCobra

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

though i lost the sticky for 2589 (which i will find on my own time) the bio on page 106 states chief is still missing which must take place somewhere from 2548-2581

  • 08.08.2011 12:37 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

This is my new favorite thread. Nothing better than watching a bunch of arrogent canon nerds viciously defending their points against 13 year olds and obvious trolls (but apparently not obvious enough) who still think grunts have a single piece of -blam!- of chance of being in the next Halo game.

Entertainment at it's finest.

[Edited on 08.08.2011 1:13 PM PDT]

  • 08.08.2011 1:12 PM PDT

@accordingto343

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

If this is the best entertainment you can find at about 1 PM on a Monday, you're life must suck.

  • 08.08.2011 1:17 PM PDT

Roland Deschain FTW!

Vice President of BagoGames

Come and check us out!

Covenant = Unlikely to be in the new game.

UNSC = Maybe. They could easily be a cameo appearance. Or some kind of reference to them.

[Edited on 08.08.2011 1:32 PM PDT]

  • 08.08.2011 1:32 PM PDT