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

Revielle- A small community with the goals of making a difference for our members. We hope to bring together people of far distances, and many differences, into our community for long lasting friendships and new gaming experiences.

So stop reading and join already or Get Simmonsized!

Well, it makes sense that there wasn't, I mean, look at were the Chief and Cortana is, there a long way from home, and the beacon probably never reached Earth yet.

  • 08.10.2011 11:35 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Member of Bungie.net for nearly three years, still continuing!

Enjoy what you have and live on.

My gamertag is Elder Bias


Posted by: BlueRuby2k10

Posted by: Neutrino
*sigh* Damn my pride. Damn it.

Posted by: raganok99
All right, buddy.

I am not your buddy so don't do that.

Posted by: raganok99
Do you realize that being childish over encyclopedia isn't getting you to anywhere? And in fact, it is canon, whether you like it or not. Also that errors was from first edition... *facepalm* and I own second edition, I can tell is that it is heavily edited and it even removed that quote from "ilovebees" thing. Also second edition is new as well, it has updated info from Halo wars, Halo 3 ODST, all of those novels except Cryptum. So I'm pretty it is reliable source and even it is canon.

You do not seem to understand anything that has been said concerning the issue about Believe. The fact that the Encyclopaedia contains Believe and touts it as canon means that the Encyclopaedia is in error, because Believe was non-canon, (Quite rightly so) and is in contradiction with established events in Halo 3.

Master Chief was never captured at the Battle of Voi like Believe depicted, and apparently it implied his death at that point, which is rubbish.

The fact that the date is not explicit, but rather hidden with only an astute fan being able to decipher it, when the Encyclopaedia previously contained other more blatant errors means that to trust this as 343 Industries intent in the face of such poor editing, and Believes controversial canonical validity, is unwise.

I cannot simplify it anymore. Think like a sheep if you want, but anyone with half a brain cell would realize the amount of problems that Believe has, and the suspicious circumstances of that date being included in the Encyclopaedia when such poor editing was apparent.

Posted by: raganok99
Obviously incapable to make proper debate? You jest. That's completely disrespectful to me and perhaps I wouldn't read your post anymore since you're still blind to that Covies and UNSC will "magically" appear at Halo 4 despite loads of evidence was shown that IT WON'T APPEAR AT HALO 4!

*sighs again*

I'm not going to explain why ad hominem is illogical and childish, you can look that up for yourself.

"and perhaps I wouldn't read your post anymore since you're still blind to that Covies and UNSC will "magically" appear"

In other words, you will be willfully ignorant and bias. And who said anything about magic? The solutions brought to you are far from that. Go and re-read my analogy with Cryptum's plot.

"despite loads of evidence"

This made me laugh a little. Your evidence thus far:

* Statements made by Frankie, one of which no one can even be sure exists, and both of which have no context to them at all.

* Halo 3 Marketing material, the problems with which I outlined in a footnote in a post above. ^

* The Encyclopaedia, which was previously slammed for rubbish editing for including false material, which draws on Believe material which was previously considered non-canon and...false material in itself.

Posted by: raganok99
Um, I have read Cryptum. I know what it happens, etc. So don't make any assumptions that I never read all novels. Sadly for you, I have.

Uhhhh...Where did I say that you had not read Cryptum? Where did I even imply that in my previous response to you?

Posted by: raganok99
As with your least experience with Halo, I would say that you don't understand much about Halo.

And how did you arrive at this conclusion? How do you know how long I have been following this franchise for?

What has that even got to do with anything?

Posted by: raganok99
It's funny that newcomers to Halo would want to see more covies and unsc in action in future games despite that there is six halo games for that: (Halo CE, Halo 2, Halo 3, Halo 3 ODST, Halo Wars and Halo Reach) in a span of ten years of fighting Covies.

Yeah, 10 years of fighting against Covenant. Maybe what fans want to see is the opposite? UNSC and Covenant on the same side? Perhaps they want to see the progress made in the post Halo 3 universe?

The Flood is a threat to both sides, as is sure to be this ancient evil. (Providing they are not the same of course)

Posted by: raganok99
Now, new Halo trilogy is announced by 343i and Frankie says no purple in Halo 4, it means that no covies, also no UNSC there as well.

How on Earth does no purple imply no UNSC?

Anyway, if you look a few pages back I have already tackled the OP along with that quote.

Posted by: raganok99
It's time for us to fight against Precursors/Flood or maybe some rogue Forerunners.

I don't see how that excludes the UNSC/Covenant from being a part of the fight against them. Naturally, one would assume such a large scale threat to include them.

Halo 4 is focused on Master Chief's destiny, not humanity's destiny
Does Greg Bear not say that one of Halo's themes is to ask the question of what it means to be Human? Halo is centered around Humanity and its place and role in the galaxy. About Reclaiming their lost empire and taking up the Mantle. It would not make a whole lot of sense for that arc to remain unresolved in the new trilogy, as it is one of the core themes.

or human covenant war
Who said that it was?


I think a Human-Covenant alliance, then a conflict in the alliance halfway through the game would make for some drama, and wild firefights.


Not going happen since info from Glasslands confirmed that Humans are keeping its alliance with Elites. And again, Covenant is collapsed. There is no Covenant anymore.

And, Neurtino

Listen to yourself. Encyclopedia is canon whether you don't like it or whatever. Also I'm using second edition WHERE IT REMOVED THAT PART AS YOU MENTIONED AND ALSO IT had heavily edited to fix the errors...

And I still believe that Halo 4 won't have non-existent Covenant or UNSC anyways. We'll be just fighting against Flood or Precursors, that's it. Maybe new alien species.

  • 08.10.2011 11:38 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Deva Path


Posted by: DecepticonCobra

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

Trino why is the information in the encyclopedia not good enough for you when 343 put it in there? not to mention i love bees was removed since they must not consider it canon

  • 08.10.2011 11:39 AM PDT


Posted by: raganok99

Posted by: BlueRuby2k10

Posted by: Neutrino
*sigh* Damn my pride. Damn it.

Posted by: raganok99
All right, buddy.

I am not your buddy so don't do that.

Posted by: raganok99
Do you realize that being childish over encyclopedia isn't getting you to anywhere? And in fact, it is canon, whether you like it or not. Also that errors was from first edition... *facepalm* and I own second edition, I can tell is that it is heavily edited and it even removed that quote from "ilovebees" thing. Also second edition is new as well, it has updated info from Halo wars, Halo 3 ODST, all of those novels except Cryptum. So I'm pretty it is reliable source and even it is canon.

You do not seem to understand anything that has been said concerning the issue about Believe. The fact that the Encyclopaedia contains Believe and touts it as canon means that the Encyclopaedia is in error, because Believe was non-canon, (Quite rightly so) and is in contradiction with established events in Halo 3.

Master Chief was never captured at the Battle of Voi like Believe depicted, and apparently it implied his death at that point, which is rubbish.

The fact that the date is not explicit, but rather hidden with only an astute fan being able to decipher it, when the Encyclopaedia previously contained other more blatant errors means that to trust this as 343 Industries intent in the face of such poor editing, and Believes controversial canonical validity, is unwise.

I cannot simplify it anymore. Think like a sheep if you want, but anyone with half a brain cell would realize the amount of problems that Believe has, and the suspicious circumstances of that date being included in the Encyclopaedia when such poor editing was apparent.

Posted by: raganok99
Obviously incapable to make proper debate? You jest. That's completely disrespectful to me and perhaps I wouldn't read your post anymore since you're still blind to that Covies and UNSC will "magically" appear at Halo 4 despite loads of evidence was shown that IT WON'T APPEAR AT HALO 4!

*sighs again*

I'm not going to explain why ad hominem is illogical and childish, you can look that up for yourself.

"and perhaps I wouldn't read your post anymore since you're still blind to that Covies and UNSC will "magically" appear"

In other words, you will be willfully ignorant and bias. And who said anything about magic? The solutions brought to you are far from that. Go and re-read my analogy with Cryptum's plot.

"despite loads of evidence"

This made me laugh a little. Your evidence thus far:

* Statements made by Frankie, one of which no one can even be sure exists, and both of which have no context to them at all.

* Halo 3 Marketing material, the problems with which I outlined in a footnote in a post above. ^

* The Encyclopaedia, which was previously slammed for rubbish editing for including false material, which draws on Believe material which was previously considered non-canon and...false material in itself.

Posted by: raganok99
Um, I have read Cryptum. I know what it happens, etc. So don't make any assumptions that I never read all novels. Sadly for you, I have.

Uhhhh...Where did I say that you had not read Cryptum? Where did I even imply that in my previous response to you?

Posted by: raganok99
As with your least experience with Halo, I would say that you don't understand much about Halo.

And how did you arrive at this conclusion? How do you know how long I have been following this franchise for?

What has that even got to do with anything?

Posted by: raganok99
It's funny that newcomers to Halo would want to see more covies and unsc in action in future games despite that there is six halo games for that: (Halo CE, Halo 2, Halo 3, Halo 3 ODST, Halo Wars and Halo Reach) in a span of ten years of fighting Covies.

Yeah, 10 years of fighting against Covenant. Maybe what fans want to see is the opposite? UNSC and Covenant on the same side? Perhaps they want to see the progress made in the post Halo 3 universe?

The Flood is a threat to both sides, as is sure to be this ancient evil. (Providing they are not the same of course)

Posted by: raganok99
Now, new Halo trilogy is announced by 343i and Frankie says no purple in Halo 4, it means that no covies, also no UNSC there as well.

How on Earth does no purple imply no UNSC?

Anyway, if you look a few pages back I have already tackled the OP along with that quote.

Posted by: raganok99
It's time for us to fight against Precursors/Flood or maybe some rogue Forerunners.

I don't see how that excludes the UNSC/Covenant from being a part of the fight against them. Naturally, one would assume such a large scale threat to include them.

Halo 4 is focused on Master Chief's destiny, not humanity's destiny
Does Greg Bear not say that one of Halo's themes is to ask the question of what it means to be Human? Halo is centered around Humanity and its place and role in the galaxy. About Reclaiming their lost empire and taking up the Mantle. It would not make a whole lot of sense for that arc to remain unresolved in the new trilogy, as it is one of the core themes.

or human covenant war
Who said that it was?


I think a Human-Covenant alliance, then a conflict in the alliance halfway through the game would make for some drama, and wild firefights.


Not going happen since info from Glasslands confirmed that Humans are keeping its alliance with Elites. And again, Covenant is collapsed. There is no Covenant anymore.

And, Neurtino

Listen to yourself. Encyclopedia is canon whether you don't like it or whatever. Also I'm using second edition WHERE IT REMOVED THAT PART AS YOU MENTIONED AND ALSO IT had heavily edited to fix the errors...

And I still believe that Halo 4 won't have non-existent Covenant or UNSC anyways. We'll be just fighting against Flood or Precursors, that's it. Maybe new alien species.


What an exciting game.
Just saying, in a page of an article talking about Halo: Anniversary, and Halo 4, it says that "Obviously, Chief will take the center stage in fighting Covenant and Flood again."
This may not be very valid, but we don't know how much to writer of that article knows about the game.
I'll fetch the link...

[Edited on 08.10.2011 11:43 AM PDT]

  • 08.10.2011 11:40 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Deva Path


Posted by: DecepticonCobra

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

he was obviously talking about HCEA ruby

  • 08.10.2011 11:44 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Member of Bungie.net for nearly three years, still continuing!

Enjoy what you have and live on.

My gamertag is Elder Bias



Posted by: raganok99

Posted by: BlueRuby2k10

Posted by: Neutrino
*sigh* Damn my pride. Damn it.

Posted by: raganok99
All right, buddy.[/quote]
I am not your buddy so don't do that.

Posted by: raganok99
Do you realize that being childish over encyclopedia isn't getting you to anywhere? And in fact, it is canon, whether you like it or not. Also that errors was from first edition... *facepalm* and I own second edition, I can tell is that it is heavily edited and it even removed that quote from "ilovebees" thing. Also second edition is new as well, it has updated info from Halo wars, Halo 3 ODST, all of those novels except Cryptum. So I'm pretty it is reliable source and even it is canon.

You do not seem to understand anything that has been said concerning the issue about Believe. The fact that the Encyclopaedia contains Believe and touts it as canon means that the Encyclopaedia is in error, because Believe was non-canon, (Quite rightly so) and is in contradiction with established events in Halo 3.

Master Chief was never captured at the Battle of Voi like Believe depicted, and apparently it implied his death at that point, which is rubbish.

The fact that the date is not explicit, but rather hidden with only an astute fan being able to decipher it, when the Encyclopaedia previously contained other more blatant errors means that to trust this as 343 Industries intent in the face of such poor editing, and Believes controversial canonical validity, is unwise.

I cannot simplify it anymore. Think like a sheep if you want, but anyone with half a brain cell would realize the amount of problems that Believe has, and the suspicious circumstances of that date being included in the Encyclopaedia when such poor editing was apparent.

Posted by: raganok99
Obviously incapable to make proper debate? You jest. That's completely disrespectful to me and perhaps I wouldn't read your post anymore since you're still blind to that Covies and UNSC will "magically" appear at Halo 4 despite loads of evidence was shown that IT WON'T APPEAR AT HALO 4!

*sighs again*

I'm not going to explain why ad hominem is illogical and childish, you can look that up for yourself.

"and perhaps I wouldn't read your post anymore since you're still blind to that Covies and UNSC will "magically" appear"

In other words, you will be willfully ignorant and bias. And who said anything about magic? The solutions brought to you are far from that. Go and re-read my analogy with Cryptum's plot.

"despite loads of evidence"

This made me laugh a little. Your evidence thus far:

* Statements made by Frankie, one of which no one can even be sure exists, and both of which have no context to them at all.

* Halo 3 Marketing material, the problems with which I outlined in a footnote in a post above. ^

* The Encyclopaedia, which was previously slammed for rubbish editing for including false material, which draws on Believe material which was previously considered non-canon and...false material in itself.

Posted by: raganok99
Um, I have read Cryptum. I know what it happens, etc. So don't make any assumptions that I never read all novels. Sadly for you, I have.

Uhhhh...Where did I say that you had not read Cryptum? Where did I even imply that in my previous response to you?

Posted by: raganok99
As with your least experience with Halo, I would say that you don't understand much about Halo.

And how did you arrive at this conclusion? How do you know how long I have been following this franchise for?

What has that even got to do with anything?

Posted by: raganok99
It's funny that newcomers to Halo would want to see more covies and unsc in action in future games despite that there is six halo games for that: (Halo CE, Halo 2, Halo 3, Halo 3 ODST, Halo Wars and Halo Reach) in a span of ten years of fighting Covies.

Yeah, 10 years of fighting against Covenant. Maybe what fans want to see is the opposite? UNSC and Covenant on the same side? Perhaps they want to see the progress made in the post Halo 3 universe?

The Flood is a threat to both sides, as is sure to be this ancient evil. (Providing they are not the same of course)

Posted by: raganok99
Now, new Halo trilogy is announced by 343i and Frankie says no purple in Halo 4, it means that no covies, also no UNSC there as well.

How on Earth does no purple imply no UNSC?

Anyway, if you look a few pages back I have already tackled the OP along with that quote.

Posted by: raganok99
It's time for us to fight against Precursors/Flood or maybe some rogue Forerunners.

I don't see how that excludes the UNSC/Covenant from being a part of the fight against them. Naturally, one would assume such a large scale threat to include them.

Halo 4 is focused on Master Chief's destiny, not humanity's destiny
Does Greg Bear not say that one of Halo's themes is to ask the question of what it means to be Human? Halo is centered around Humanity and its place and role in the galaxy. About Reclaiming their lost empire and taking up the Mantle. It would not make a whole lot of sense for that arc to remain unresolved in the new trilogy, as it is one of the core themes.

or human covenant war
Who said that it was?


I think a Human-Covenant alliance, then a conflict in the alliance halfway through the game would make for some drama, and wild firefights.


Not going happen since info from Glasslands confirmed that Humans are keeping its alliance with Elites. And again, Covenant is collapsed. There is no Covenant anymore.

And, Neurtino

Listen to yourself. Encyclopedia is canon whether you don't like it or whatever. Also I'm using second edition WHERE IT REMOVED THAT PART AS YOU MENTIONED AND ALSO IT had heavily edited to fix the errors...

And I still believe that Halo 4 won't have non-existent Covenant or UNSC anyways. We'll be just fighting against Flood or Precursors, that's it. Maybe new alien species.


What an exciting game.
Just saying, in a page of an article talking about Halo: Anniversary, and Halo 4, it says that "Obviously, Chief will take the center stage in fighting Covenant and Flood again."
This may not be very valid, but we don't know how much to writer of that article knows about the game.
I'll fetch the link...


Anybody with half brain knows that article is about Halo CEA, not Halo 4...

Try again.

  • 08.10.2011 11:49 AM PDT


Posted by: grey101
he was obviously talking about HCEA ruby


Nope!

Here's the link to all of the pages:
http://s1189.photobucket.com/albums/z435/DrPudseyBear622/?sta rt=all

  • 08.10.2011 11:53 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Deva Path


Posted by: DecepticonCobra

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


Posted by: BlueRuby2k10

Posted by: grey101
he was obviously talking about HCEA ruby


Nope!

Here's the link to all of the pages:
http://s1189.photobucket.com/albums/z435/DrPudseyBear622/?sta rt=all


I closed the page soon as i saw OXM, they have gotten halo information wrong so many times it is funny. according to them we were suppose to fly a pelican in halo 3 along with other garbage.


And from the way that statement is written it is a clear assumption, especially since the covenant doesn't exist anymore

[Edited on 08.10.2011 12:02 PM PDT]

  • 08.10.2011 12:02 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: raganok99
And, Neurtino

Listen to yourself. Encyclopedia is canon whether you don't like it or whatever. Also I'm using second edition WHERE IT REMOVED THAT PART AS YOU MENTIONED AND ALSO IT had heavily edited to fix the errors...

This is like trying to argue with Westboro Baptist Church on the validity of the Bible. It is completely pointless.

You will not see why the dates given in the Believe advert, and that awful book, cannot be trusted, so I am not going to bother anymore. Until it explicitly states, in black and white, "Master Chief is still missing as of 2590" then I am not going to trust it. Basing such an important part of the new canon on a single hidden date in a book that so many fans do not have does not seem like a wise way to reveal such information.

  • 08.10.2011 12:20 PM PDT


Posted by: Neutrino
Posted by: raganok99
And, Neurtino

Listen to yourself. Encyclopedia is canon whether you don't like it or whatever. Also I'm using second edition WHERE IT REMOVED THAT PART AS YOU MENTIONED AND ALSO IT had heavily edited to fix the errors...

This is like trying to argue with Westboro Baptist Church on the validity of the Bible. It is completely pointless.


Hey, I made that analogy once to these guys as well!

[Edited on 08.10.2011 12:26 PM PDT]

  • 08.10.2011 12:25 PM PDT

Pegalesharro Adarsh 9.18.2530 id 397. SIII
V[(0.0)]D
Id...UsEr 397> DeNieD EnTRy
67%warning...,sPace mAy BrEaK
_Th-ey foUnd_
-RuN...-

I think the idea that the UNSC will somehow randomly show up to the planet and chill with chief is just as wrong as saying the Covies would do the same. You guys are looking at it as black or white when there are many ways these groups can come into contact with the chief. Personally I think that the Chief is going to run into some sort of ex-unsc/stranded group of survivors in the planet (if there's "covies" then it'd be the same) this would give direction and background to the new events. These troops probably haven't even seen the end of the war or any fresh allies in a long time. Their weapons and vehicles would probably also be different and pieced together, all and all they would have a different feel to them (maybe a return to the feelings of the POA troops in H:CE?)

With the great amounts of angles presented in the verse 343 could pull anything really...just my two cents.

Sidenote- I think it would be kinda tragic honestly, the chief drops of the radar and meets these ragtag troops while fighting something different from before. I could see him becoming the leader of these troops and also becoming more human/open as well. Somewhere these new and broken troops would find faith in him and renew their drive to escape, a path laid across many dangers... and after god knows how long (and games lol) they find themselves escaping into a world more alien then the hell they came from. This may even be decades after they probably had disappeared. I could even imagine that the time that passes for these men would be different then for those back home and the universe would surely had changed alot by the time they get back, tying this story with grasslands (or it's sequel)

[Edited on 08.10.2011 12:44 PM PDT]

  • 08.10.2011 12:31 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: raganok99
And, Neurtino

Listen to yourself. Encyclopedia is canon whether you don't like it or whatever. Also I'm using second edition WHERE IT REMOVED THAT PART AS YOU MENTIONED AND ALSO IT had heavily edited to fix the errors...

This is like trying to argue with Westboro Baptist Church on the validity of the Bible. It is completely pointless.

You will not see why the dates given in the Believe advert, and that awful book, cannot be trusted, so I am not going to bother anymore.


So a book 343 has several versions of and the most recent one removed things akin to ILOVEBEES that aren't canon yet didn't remove the believe related stuff doesn't mean anything?

clearly 343 has no issue with it being canon hence it staying and ILOVEBEES being gone, accept it. you just don't like the fact that it is canon and you do not decide what is and isn't canon.

  • 08.10.2011 12:50 PM PDT

"Find where the liar hides, so that I may place my boot between his gums!" - Rtas 'Vadum

Posted by: Wolverfrog
I am here.

*reads through thread*

So I'm pretty sure the 'Believe' stuff is non-canon; a PR ploy done way back in 2007 when ideas for Halo 4's story hadn't even been dreamt of.

I think it's very probably the UNSC and Covenant will be in the new trilogy. It's likely John will make his way back home at some point; in Halo 4's beginning I imagine it likely he discovers some ancient threat and then later on in the game he makes it back to our galaxy as this ancient threat is attacking.

Humans and the Covenant are focal points of Halo. Everyone who has played the games knows the space marines and the aliens. Halo 4 needs to include them to provide anchoring points to the universe; to branch off too far would equate to a disconnect between what we know as Halo and Halo 4 -- it's all well and good to introduce new enemies, new locations, new technology, but it needs to be juxtaposed alongside things we're familiar with so it all runs smoothly.

Sorry grey, but I think you're wrong on this one. The UNSC and Covenant will most definitely appear in the new Halo trilogy.

I personally wouldn't want it any other way either.

^^^^

If the next trilogy completely forgets these elements from the previous one then I won't be getting any of it. I've made my mind up now. Master Chief is such an abysmal character to act as an anchor to the old story anyway.

  • 08.10.2011 12:55 PM PDT


Posted by: grey101
and you do not decide what is and isn't canon.


That's kind of what everybody in this thread is trying to put into that thick skull of yours. Why is this thread still around anyway? All that's happening is an argument going around in circles.

[Edited on 08.10.2011 12:59 PM PDT]

  • 08.10.2011 12:55 PM PDT


Posted by: anton1792
Posted by: Wolverfrog
I am here.

*reads through thread*

So I'm pretty sure the 'Believe' stuff is non-canon; a PR ploy done way back in 2007 when ideas for Halo 4's story hadn't even been dreamt of.

I think it's very probably the UNSC and Covenant will be in the new trilogy. It's likely John will make his way back home at some point; in Halo 4's beginning I imagine it likely he discovers some ancient threat and then later on in the game he makes it back to our galaxy as this ancient threat is attacking.

Humans and the Covenant are focal points of Halo. Everyone who has played the games knows the space marines and the aliens. Halo 4 needs to include them to provide anchoring points to the universe; to branch off too far would equate to a disconnect between what we know as Halo and Halo 4 -- it's all well and good to introduce new enemies, new locations, new technology, but it needs to be juxtaposed alongside things we're familiar with so it all runs smoothly.

Sorry grey, but I think you're wrong on this one. The UNSC and Covenant will most definitely appear in the new Halo trilogy.

I personally wouldn't want it any other way either.

^^^^

If the next trilogy completely forgets these elements from the previous one then I won't be getting any of it. I've made my mind up now. Master Chief is such an abysmal character to act as an anchor to the old story anyway.


To be fair, 343 said that they'll be flushing Chief's character out more in the new trilogy.

  • 08.10.2011 12:57 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Member of Bungie.net for nearly three years, still continuing!

Enjoy what you have and live on.

My gamertag is Elder Bias


Posted by: grey101

Posted by: Neutrino
Posted by: raganok99
And, Neurtino

Listen to yourself. Encyclopedia is canon whether you don't like it or whatever. Also I'm using second edition WHERE IT REMOVED THAT PART AS YOU MENTIONED AND ALSO IT had heavily edited to fix the errors...

This is like trying to argue with Westboro Baptist Church on the validity of the Bible. It is completely pointless.

You will not see why the dates given in the Believe advert, and that awful book, cannot be trusted, so I am not going to bother anymore.


So a book 343 has several versions of and the most recent one removed things akin to ILOVEBEES that aren't canon yet didn't remove the believe related stuff doesn't mean anything?

clearly 343 has no issue with it being canon hence it staying and ILOVEBEES being gone, accept it. you just don't like the fact that it is canon and you do not decide what is and isn't canon.


And add one more thing, in second edition (I have rechecked it twice and it also removed that part of believe stuff.)

IT is canon. If it says MC is still missing by 2610s then he is missing by 2610s. Nothing more than that.

  • 08.10.2011 1:00 PM PDT


Posted by: raganok99

Posted by: grey101

Posted by: Neutrino
Posted by: raganok99
And, Neurtino

Listen to yourself. Encyclopedia is canon whether you don't like it or whatever. Also I'm using second edition WHERE IT REMOVED THAT PART AS YOU MENTIONED AND ALSO IT had heavily edited to fix the errors...

This is like trying to argue with Westboro Baptist Church on the validity of the Bible. It is completely pointless.

You will not see why the dates given in the Believe advert, and that awful book, cannot be trusted, so I am not going to bother anymore.


So a book 343 has several versions of and the most recent one removed things akin to ILOVEBEES that aren't canon yet didn't remove the believe related stuff doesn't mean anything?

clearly 343 has no issue with it being canon hence it staying and ILOVEBEES being gone, accept it. you just don't like the fact that it is canon and you do not decide what is and isn't canon.


And add one more thing, in second edition (I have rechecked it twice and it also removed that part of believe stuff.)

IT is canon. If it says MC is still missing by 2610s then he is missing by 2610s. Nothing more than that.


Which can EASILY be overridden. Why isn't anybody complaining about the Elites never being encountered until the battle of Reach, but then, the retcon that they were?

  • 08.10.2011 1:03 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Member of Bungie.net for nearly three years, still continuing!

Enjoy what you have and live on.

My gamertag is Elder Bias


Posted by: BlueRuby2k10

Posted by: raganok99

Posted by: grey101

Posted by: Neutrino
Posted by: raganok99
And, Neurtino

Listen to yourself. Encyclopedia is canon whether you don't like it or whatever. Also I'm using second edition WHERE IT REMOVED THAT PART AS YOU MENTIONED AND ALSO IT had heavily edited to fix the errors...

This is like trying to argue with Westboro Baptist Church on the validity of the Bible. It is completely pointless.

You will not see why the dates given in the Believe advert, and that awful book, cannot be trusted, so I am not going to bother anymore.


So a book 343 has several versions of and the most recent one removed things akin to ILOVEBEES that aren't canon yet didn't remove the believe related stuff doesn't mean anything?

clearly 343 has no issue with it being canon hence it staying and ILOVEBEES being gone, accept it. you just don't like the fact that it is canon and you do not decide what is and isn't canon.


And add one more thing, in second edition (I have rechecked it twice and it also removed that part of believe stuff.)

IT is canon. If it says MC is still missing by 2610s then he is missing by 2610s. Nothing more than that.


Which can EASILY be overridden. Why isn't anybody complaining about the Elites never being encountered until the battle of Reach, but then, the retcon that they were?


Yes and?

facepalm Do I need to explain about that again? It was retconned by Contact Harvest.

  • 08.10.2011 1:12 PM PDT

if the unsc isn't in the next trilogy, does that mean that my BEEYARRR wont be in it too? that we'll have a bunch of new weapons?

  • 08.10.2011 1:15 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Member of Bungie.net for nearly three years, still continuing!

Enjoy what you have and live on.

My gamertag is Elder Bias


Posted by: linhbach88
if the unsc isn't in the next trilogy, does that mean that my BEEYARRR wont be in it too? that we'll have a bunch of new weapons?


Lol, I think you might keep your BR as seeing that he will get weapons from half of FuD. Also possibility of new weapons too. Hopefully, Forerunner weapons.

  • 08.10.2011 1:19 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

signaturez r dumb i uze coup

I think we're either going to see forerunners or the Precursors. It would be cool if a survival human colony from the human-forerunner war (link) was in the game but i doubt it because it says that many of them were executed and the rest were stripped of their empire and technology.

  • 08.10.2011 2:45 PM PDT

@accordingto343

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

The problem I have with the "It's a possibility!" argument is that it seems like a cop out because you can't provide evidence of either the UNSC or ex-Covenant factions being present in Halo 4.

The "No Covenant/UNSC in Halo 4" side has canon evidence to back their claims up, and no amount of "Oh I don't consider that canon" or "It can be retconned!" dispute it's validity.

Also consider the timeframe, if it picks up after Origins, then hardly any faction be it UNSC or ex-Covenant would be a viable force. Interstellar exploration would probably take a backseat to fixing the infrastructure of the respective races.

  • 08.10.2011 3:36 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Deva Path


Posted by: DecepticonCobra

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


Posted by: BlueRuby2k10

Posted by: grey101
and you do not decide what is and isn't canon.


That's kind of what everybody in this thread is trying to put into that thick skull of yours. Why is this thread still around anyway? All that's happening is an argument going around in circles.


and there is nothing wrong with me making this theory especially since i haven't seen you or anybody else trying to put it down do anything of the sort or come up with a plausible story for the factions to be in.

  • 08.10.2011 5:38 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Exalted Legendary Member

Do not panic, or you will fail.

So, here is what I have learned from this thread: you can take one very vague statement, combine it with material whose validity is largely disputed, and claim it as fact that cannot be contradicted no matter what.

I'm sure that I will win lots of research money with that philosophy.

  • 08.10.2011 5:52 PM PDT

"Even in death, your Sergeant guides us home."

unsc will definetly be included and covenant as allies.

  • 08.10.2011 5:53 PM PDT