Bungie Universe
This topic has moved here: Subject: What is Canon in this Situation?
  • Subject: What is Canon in this Situation?
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • of 2
Subject: What is Canon in this Situation?

Does Halo CE out canon Halo CEA? I kmow most of it is the same, but what if there is a difference? This is just a hypothetical question.

[Edited on 08.20.2011 4:11 PM PDT]

  • 08.20.2011 4:11 PM PDT

you dont really have cannons in halo well maybe on the tank but otherwise no.

  • 08.20.2011 4:13 PM PDT

@accordingto343

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

They're the same game.

  • 08.20.2011 4:14 PM PDT


Posted by: DecepticonCobra
They're the same game.

Did you read all of my post? It is a hypothetical question

  • 08.20.2011 4:15 PM PDT

@accordingto343

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

Your hypothetical question isn't needed because the game's stories are the same.

  • 08.20.2011 4:17 PM PDT

3 years and only 1 ban, try harder next time noobs.

CE:A would override CE, just like Reach did, as painful as it is to admit.

  • 08.20.2011 4:19 PM PDT

Whisper Game Studios - shhhh, it's a public secret.
Webcam MVP
Sarsion.net
Bnet PM Policy

[*Please note that anything in my posts is likely to be filled with sarcasm, and should be taken with a pinch of salt. I tend to help people, usually*]

In my opinion, you should completely ignore artistic license. Anything visual, ignore it. Concentrate on the story. If someone specifically points out something visual, then that's canon, and shouldn't be changed.

For example, the ruins on Delta Halo in Halo 2, Cortana makes remarks about them, meaning that they are canon as they were.

So for things like Terminals in CEA, just pretend you never found them in Halo 1, and it should be fine. They're pretty detached from the whole experience.

Any differences are retcons and should be treated as such. Retcons are generally disliked, but since Games>Books, etc, if 343i decides to put something different in the game, then it has to be deemed canon.

I still believe that there are two canons; Bungie Halo and Microsoft Halo. Bungie Halo spans only Bungie's games (Reach, H1, H2, ODST, H3) and Microsoft Halo spans those along with everything else Halo.

  • 08.20.2011 4:19 PM PDT


@decepticoncobra
Im saying, what if they did change parts of it? You havent played it yet, so it is a possibility, as they are puting in terminals, and they did say they might put stuff in to connect it to Halo 4.

[Edited on 08.20.2011 4:21 PM PDT]

  • 08.20.2011 4:19 PM PDT

@accordingto343

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

Yeah, the Terminals connect to Halo 4, but it doesn't suddenly make CEA's canon more important than what was established in CE because the Terminals still don't change the story. Besides, what would they change? They haven't messed with the code. They just slapped a fancy graphics filter over it.

[Edited on 08.20.2011 4:21 PM PDT]

  • 08.20.2011 4:21 PM PDT

"Once Bungie takes over the world, The Marty Army will take over Bungie and then we'll really have some fun."
-Marty O'Donnell

"Condemnant quod non intellegunt."

Make Bungie.net More Enjoyable: Read & Follow

I could argue why these stupid Halo 4 terminals are entirely apocryphal and not canon, as I would for any "Halo 4" story, but this thread is not the place. What I will posit in this thread is that, on a much easier level than Halo 4, Halo CEA is claimed by the makers that it is a "re-skinning" of the old: even they will tell you that it doesn't change anything. Now, if they said CEA overwrites CE, they'd be wrong, and still nothing would be changed, but we don't even have to go there. Ignore the terminals and accept the true canon you will see, which is no more than the true canon you saw in the original Halo: Combat Evolved.

So, more directly, if there is a difference, CE takes place. This does not go for visuals, as SonicJohn said. The means of manifestation are more technologically advanced in this more modern incarnation, and therefore, it is possible that in some circumstances the new graphics engine will more accurately reproduce the visible light of the theoretical light waves that consist of the perfect Halo canon. (We'll never be able to perfectly realize that version, though. I think.) Where CE will trump CEA is in higher and more conceptual story differences, namely, these insidious terminals.

[Edited on 08.20.2011 8:55 PM PDT]

  • 08.20.2011 8:53 PM PDT

It's not camping, it's holding the designated location.

CEA=CE. Two identical story lines are the same and either can be considered canon because they are the same.

  • 08.20.2011 8:55 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Well, here we are. I guess that it was destined to come to this.

It's likely that CEA will add to canon and may even clarify/replace some of the more "sticky" points.

Once I heard them mention terminals? Oh yeah, there is a possibility for canon shift.

  • 08.20.2011 8:57 PM PDT

"Once Bungie takes over the world, The Marty Army will take over Bungie and then we'll really have some fun."
-Marty O'Donnell

"Condemnant quod non intellegunt."

Make Bungie.net More Enjoyable: Read & Follow

Posted by: BenignPick7
CEA=CE. Two identical story lines are the same and either can be considered canon because they are the same.

The OP's point is valid because the inclusion of these fraudulent and counterfeit "terminals" is planned. They both attempt to manifest the same ideal canon, but the means of representation (the Xbox computer) is different and so is the design, which will permit small differences. I call this "Reasonable Manifestation" - we don't have the technical capability to reproduce the true photorealistic image of an observer of the true Halo canon.

The terminals alter fundamentally an element of the manifestation and are false: ignore them. Aside from this, we have the small visual error I previously talked about. This error, caused by reasonable manifestation, is conceptually identical to a quantization error, if you will allow me to make such an abstract comparison. There is a continuous and perfect signal, which is the true Halo canon. It is an unfortunate fact of nature that we must "quantify" that perfect signal into a discrete and imperfect representation (digital instead of analog, in my example) in order to make a form that is able to be understood by people. Such displays of Halo canon are books, songs, and in this case, a video game. If it weren't for the terminals, I'd be very open to the idea of 343 creating and canonical representation even more accurate than the original Halo 1 because of the enhanced technological resources of the 360 and because of their otherwise verbatim redisplay of the Halo 1 geometry. But these hoax terminals remove any bit of leeway I am willing to grant them.

[Edited on 08.20.2011 9:06 PM PDT]

  • 08.20.2011 9:05 PM PDT

Battlefield 3 MASTER RACE
Mass Effect 3 MASTER RACE
Skyrim MASTER RACE
Coup MASTER RACE
Chrome MASTER RACE
I program games, that's all you need to know.

No, it's the other reason around. Why may you asks? Because theirs terminals.

  • 08.20.2011 9:07 PM PDT

"Once Bungie takes over the world, The Marty Army will take over Bungie and then we'll really have some fun."
-Marty O'Donnell

"Condemnant quod non intellegunt."

Make Bungie.net More Enjoyable: Read & Follow

Posted by: Recon Number 54
It's likely that CEA will add to canon and may even clarify/replace some of the more "sticky" points.

Once I heard them mention terminals? Oh yeah, there is a possibility for canon shift.

Recon, help me understand your point. How can they rewrite what is already written? The terminals aren't "canon shifts", but unwanted symbols of a contravened and violated version of what was perfect. It is written: Halo is a Trilogy, and Halo 1 cannot point to anything after Halo 3 in terms of canon.

Please help me understand how that is wrong.

  • 08.20.2011 9:11 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Well, here we are. I guess that it was destined to come to this.


Posted by: paulmarv
Posted by: Recon Number 54
It's likely that CEA will add to canon and may even clarify/replace some of the more "sticky" points.

Once I heard them mention terminals? Oh yeah, there is a possibility for canon shift.

Recon, help me understand your point. How can they rewrite what is already written? The terminals aren't "canon shifts", but unwanted symbols of a contravened and violated version of what was perfect. It is written: Halo is a Trilogy, and Halo 1 cannot point to anything after Halo 3 in terms of canon.

Please help me understand how that is wrong.

Because anything that is written can be overwritten or modified, or explained away. Especially if it is convenient or necessary to do so.

While it is nice to imagine that canon is carved in stone, even stone erodes. But this is fiction. It is science fiction. And when they have FTL ships, teleportation, ancient aliens capable of manipulating space/time/matter/energy and transgalactic telepathic messages by organisms that transcend and also embody death.... the writers can (if they chose to) change any detail they want. Especially ones that are causing friction.

  • 08.20.2011 9:55 PM PDT

"Once Bungie takes over the world, The Marty Army will take over Bungie and then we'll really have some fun."
-Marty O'Donnell

"Condemnant quod non intellegunt."

Make Bungie.net More Enjoyable: Read & Follow

Posted by: Recon Number 54
Posted by: paulmarv
Posted by: Recon Number 54
It's likely that CEA will add to canon and may even clarify/replace some of the more "sticky" points.

Once I heard them mention terminals? Oh yeah, there is a possibility for canon shift.

Recon, help me understand your point. How can they rewrite what is already written? The terminals aren't "canon shifts", but unwanted symbols of a contravened and violated version of what was perfect. It is written: Halo is a Trilogy, and Halo 1 cannot point to anything after Halo 3 in terms of canon.

Please help me understand how that is wrong.

Because anything that is written can be overwritten or modified, or explained away. Especially if it is convenient or necessary to do so.

While it is nice to imagine that canon is carved in stone, even stone erodes. But this is fiction. It is science fiction. And when they have FTL ships, teleportation, ancient aliens capable of manipulating space/time/matter/energy and transgalactic telepathic messages by organisms that transcend and also embody death.... the writers can (if they chose to) change any detail they want. Especially ones that are causing friction.

To that I say: when they do change what I have know to be called "Halo", then it is no longer Halo but something else. Stories are not concrete and visible things; therefore, you can imagine an infinite amount of them. We distinguish imagined stories with their names- such is the object of names and language itself, to provide a symbol that is common to speakers of that language and stands for a previously learned concept. If the canon of "Halo" has changed, that's just providing a new definition of the word. After all, if Halo is fictional, you could say that fan-fiction is just as much canon to its authors as Bungie's Halo is to them.

That's why I argue for an absolute and objective constant that is the canon of the Halo trilogy, and I was only commenting that 343's "additions" reflect an entirely different story. We can both choose which to follow, but I do not believe they are entitled to force to me accept a new definition of a long established word and canon. I don't see any logical flaw in that. I suppose I'm a purist when it comes to these things.

  • 08.20.2011 10:51 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Well, here we are. I guess that it was destined to come to this.

When a painter starts, they have an idea. They sketch, they doodle, they make strokes on canvas and paper with pencil, pen, brush, charcoal, whatever.

Until the painting is finished, any previous stroke of the brush can be covered by a later one, altering the position of a tree, the color of the sky, a reflection in the water, the placement of a person, the existence of anything.... until the artist says "fin", it is not up to others to determine what is "so" and what is an "alteration".

Stories such as this universe are tricky, so many more artists, all with their own perspectives and points of view. But that is the thing, isn't it? We all know that (for example) WWII happened. But every person there saw it from a different perspective. There is no "true history" that is canon for even real events. How can there be a "true/false" criteria applied to fiction? It seems unmanageable and unrealistic.

Even a purist has to acknowledge the flaws of human understanding and the inability to know all of anything.

  • 08.21.2011 8:56 AM PDT

"Once Bungie takes over the world, The Marty Army will take over Bungie and then we'll really have some fun."
-Marty O'Donnell

"Condemnant quod non intellegunt."

Make Bungie.net More Enjoyable: Read & Follow

In the example of WWII that you describe, the true "canon" of events is exactly what happened at all times and at all places. Surely, we cannot ever know exactly what that is. I've already said that I'm sure we'll never be able to see the perfect, unadulterated Halo canon in its truest form:

We'll never be able to perfectly realize that version, though.

But there is something to which Bungie said "fin" when they finished Halo 3, and all canonical literature, games, etc. are lenses into THAT canon. If 343 wants to take Bungie's piece of art, alter the position of a tree, and then say "fin" themselves, then they have created a different picture. And although that picture bears similarity with the original, it is still different.

My point is that, although we won't ever be able to see the real canon perfectly (because we can't actually be there), there still is an ideal notion of what that true canon is, and it is something that cannot be added to or subtracted from while still retaining its identity. The Halo canon as seen through the Halo trilogy simply is what it is, and it seems what 343 is doing is much different. I don't call their story "Halo", but I suppose we have the freedom to use whichever names for stories we like.

  • 08.21.2011 11:26 AM PDT

We will know soon enough, but it will require thought. Deep thought. Mendicant Bias must be found. The Mantle will soon follow.

01010100 01101000 01100101 00100000 01001001 01110010 01101001 01110011 00100000 01101001 01110011 00100000 01101011 01100101 01111001 00101110


Posted by: Vallad
Does Halo CE out canon Halo CEA? I kmow most of it is the same, but what if there is a difference? This is just a hypothetical question.


The only real difference between the games will be the terminals, and those are pure storyline beauty. If I had to say which I'd choose for storyline reference, it'd be Halo: Combat Evolved Anniversary. It's the definite CE experience, which references things to come later in the story, hence, for storyline, I'd choose it over the original. Since the original is (mostly) represented within the game, that's even more of a reason to go with CEA.

  • 08.21.2011 11:31 AM PDT


Posted by: paulmarv
It is written: Halo is a Trilogy, and Halo 1 cannot point to anything after Halo 3 in terms of canon.

Not True.

When Halo CE was created, Bungie had no plans to make any more.
It was only after it became very succesful that Microsoft asked them to make more, thus Halo 2, 3, ODST and Reach.

Anyway, other than what 343 has shown us, nobody outside of 343 has seen all of the Terminals, meaning nobody knows exactly what will be shown, and how it will be presented.

What it boils down to, is whether the Terminals are suposed to be watched by the Master Chief or the Halo Fans?

If the Master Chief is suposed to be watching the Terminals, then it would have altered his (and Cortana's) perception of 343 Guilty Spark and of the Forerunners. This would alter canon and would probably upset a lot of folks.

However, if 343i it showing the Halo Fans the Terminals, rather than the Chief, this would not alter canon. The Terminals would work more as a side story for the Audience, or even a sneek peek at the future of the Halo universe. This is the road I think 343i have taken with the Terminals.

  • 08.21.2011 12:24 PM PDT

@accordingto343

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

Posted by: paulmarv
How can they rewrite what is already written? The terminals aren't "canon shifts", but unwanted symbols of a contravened and violated version of what was perfect. It is written: Halo is a Trilogy, and Halo 1 cannot point to anything after Halo 3 in terms of canon.

Please help me understand how that is wrong.


You seem to be looking way too much into it. These Terminals appear to be nothing more than Easter Eggs that give us a sneak peek into Halo 4.

  • 08.21.2011 12:47 PM PDT

Posted by:ScubaToaster
Posted by: HipiO7
This man, this man right here put it so eloquently that I actually cancelled my own 2000+ word long post.
/slow clap for respect


:)
The person who said participating is important, not winning, obviously never won anything.

They are both the same game. Any additions like the terminals become canon.

  • 08.21.2011 12:54 PM PDT

"Once Bungie takes over the world, The Marty Army will take over Bungie and then we'll really have some fun."
-Marty O'Donnell

"Condemnant quod non intellegunt."

Make Bungie.net More Enjoyable: Read & Follow

Posted by: Astrogenesis 1
Posted by: paulmarv
It is written: Halo is a Trilogy, and Halo 1 cannot point to anything after Halo 3 in terms of canon.

Not True.

When Halo CE was created, Bungie had no plans to make any more.
It was only after it became very succesful that Microsoft asked them to make more, thus Halo 2, 3, ODST and Reach.

Actually, this itself is not true.

They always "intended for it to be a trilogy", even when Halo 1 was published. That's a fact. If you like, I can hunt down the quote somewhere. I distinctly remember Marty saying it once. But even if they did not intend for it to be a Trilogy, my point is unchanged. The intentions of Bungie are quite irrelevant to the fact of the existence of the Halo Trilogy - the existence of the Halo Trilogy itself proves my point and therefore your entire argument is wrong. But instead of writing it off at that basic level, I will continue to explain how my statement was in fact true.

Posted by: Astrogenesis 1
Anyway, other than what 343 has shown us, nobody outside of 343 has seen all of the Terminals, meaning nobody knows exactly what will be shown, and how it will be presented.

What it boils down to, is whether the Terminals are suposed to be watched by the Master Chief or the Halo Fans?

If the Master Chief is suposed to be watching the Terminals, then it would have altered his (and Cortana's) perception of 343 Guilty Spark and of the Forerunners. This would alter canon and would probably upset a lot of folks.

However, if 343i it showing the Halo Fans the Terminals, rather than the Chief, this would not alter canon. The Terminals would work more as a side story for the Audience, or even a sneek peek at the future of the Halo universe. This is the road I think 343i have taken with the Terminals.

This is a situation where the word of the "manifesting agent" (basically, the people who publish the medium of canonical representation) does come into play. If someone writes a publication of Halo canon, and declares how it functions to transmit that information, then this clarifies which view is their statement of canon, regardless of the accuracy of such statement. 343 has said that this is a direct reskinning and upgrade of the old, which insinuates that they assert these terminals to be tangible to Master Chief and actually a part of the Halo 1 story. Master Chief does not need to see them in order for them to be said to exist in the true canon. In this case, they are making false statements about canon, not changing it. The Halo canon is written, and if they "change" it, they are just making false statements about it.

The second possibility you mention is that of their inclusion of these terminals into the game, but in a form that is, as you said, meant for the fans and not a part of the Halo 1 canon. This is better than the previous option, but not by much because it directly supports and advances Halo 4, which in and of itself is a tangled mess of canonical blasphemy and untruth. Additionally, it would completely change of the object of a Halo canon as a canonical outlet. With the exception of some messages made necessary by means of the video game format, such as training messages, HUD strings, etc. (and these are made clearly not part of the canonical environment), what you see on screen is a direct "quantization" (to revert to my previous example) of true canon. Absurd easter eggs are the only other example that I can think of where what you see isn't a version of the true sight of canon, and those are, of course, for the fans and usually hidden away from sight. There are other visual imperfections associated with the unfortunate imperfection of video game technology as well. But introducing terminals as easter eggs fundamentally changes the object of a screen render of a Halo game from "this is a version of what the real canon looks like" to "this is a joke for you guys and it really isn't here in the true Halo 1". I admit that this admission is still better than saying "yes, they are truly there in the real canon". That would be a false statement, because they are not there in the true canon. Therefore, since "Halo 1" is a representation of the true canon in that specific chain of events which distinguishes Halo 1 from another canonical game or book, it does not point to "Halo 4" or any other made up apocrypha, and my statement was indeed correct.

Posted by: DecepticonCobra
Posted by: paulmarv
How can they rewrite what is already written? The terminals aren't "canon shifts", but unwanted symbols of a contravened and violated version of what was perfect. It is written: Halo is a Trilogy, and Halo 1 cannot point to anything after Halo 3 in terms of canon.

Please help me understand how that is wrong.


You seem to be looking way too much into it. These Terminals appear to be nothing more than Easter Eggs that give us a sneak peek into Halo 4.

While addressing the previous poster, I considered this as one of the possibilities. As I said, their status as "easter eggs" is much better than the false status of "true canon", but in both cases they are not canon. Canon is the word that describes the full and actual reality of the event if it will happen in September 2552. Easter eggs aren't a part of canon, and therefore, not a part of "Halo 1", the canonical manifestation. Sure, literally speaking, if I make a video game that says "Halo 1", and it reads "Buy Halo 4", then it "points" to Halo 4. But that is just a word game; by "Halo 1" I mean the real and true Halo 1, which is a direct representation of that canon. Therefore, it does not and cannot point to Halo 4. That's all I was trying to say.

Posted by: HipiO7
They are both the same game. Any additions like the terminals become canon.

The canon is written, and no additions of these ridiculous terminals will change the true canon that is meant by the words "Halo story". Please help me understand how you think 343 can go back in time and change something that was already written. The evidence of its being written was published in November 2001. There are no terminals in the true reality visualized by Halo 1.

[Edited on 08.22.2011 12:25 PM PDT]

  • 08.22.2011 12:21 PM PDT

Also known as Entropy91
Black Water Ops representative.
See you on the battlefield.

The only difference between CE and CEA is the existence of the Terminals. That, and the visuals. Everything else is exactly as it was ten years ago. Therefore, there are no canon conflicts, and the information in the Terminals is added to the existing canon.

  • 08.22.2011 12:29 PM PDT

  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • of 2