- paulmarv
- |
- Exalted Legendary Member
"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]