Frequently Asked Forum Questions
Search the HBO News Archives Any All Exact		Search the Halo Updates DBs Halo Halo2		Bungie Webcam HBO XBL Gamertags *Ar's Simple HTML Guide Shishka's Guide for Newcomers The Lowdown on Download Accelerators Red Loser's Anti-Spamming Guide Egg FAQ | More Egg Stuff c0ld's Movie Starter Guide Shishka's HaloPC Pre-Release FAQ 3.1 AutoMagic 117 StripzMaker
Search Older Posts on This Forum: Posts on Current Forum | Archived Posts

Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymore
Posted By: Narcogen <narcogen@rampancy.net>	Date: 5/16/11 1:13 a.m.
: My biggest problem with Reach is how unnecessary the changes felt. Bungie : could've told a great story and still worked in the confines of an : intellectual property that they created themselves! Which intellectual property that Bungie created themselves does Reach retcon? Nowhere in the Halo : universe did they come close to painting themselves into a corner. I think : it's the sign of a good storyteller to work within the limitations to : achieve what they want. Erasing parts of the past makes it feel like a : storyteller isn't creative enough to come up with something that works. It : feels very lazy to me. The answer is that the unnecessary bit was the novel, not the game. Given the opportunity, this was the story Bungie chose to tell, in the form of a game-- the primary mode of expression for the Haloverse-- of the fall of Reach. The bit that has proven to be unnecessary was the novel. : Are you saying the only way to make a Halo game that felt the way Reach did : (too quickly oversimplify it, more "personal") was to retcon the : way that they did? Like Bungie had no choice? Bullshit. Furthermore, what : value is there in playing a game or reading a book/comic/etc. that takes : place in the same universe if they can't coexist in that universe? That's a good question! Maybe none? Maybe it's necessary to come to grips with the idea that when materials are farmed out to third parties, even with approvals in place, that this material is probably fair game for being retconned if it ever comes up against something the developers want to do themselves? I : can't take each game as it's own individual story and forsake the rest for : the sake of continuity. If you want to do that, create a new intellectual : property. The challenge in expanding a universe is working withing the : confines of that universe. Expand the universe, don't rebuild the : universe. So because Microsoft, when it owned Bungie and Halo, chose to expand the franchise with some paperback novels, Bungie, once independent and working as a hired gun on Microsoft's own franchise-- but one that Bungie created-- they should be forced to operate within the confines of that expanded continuity? If I were Bungie, I'd have refused. The fact that this didn't happen tells me that Bungie didn't want to be confined by that continuity, and Microsoft chose to let them ignore it rather than not have Bungie make Reach. : And for the most part I feel as though the small gameplay mechanic : discrepancies within the game can be easily overlooked. The change in : weapons (fuel rod guns/swords/etc) and in vehicles (Spirits/Wraiths/etc) : are easily brushed off as necessary for the sake of an enjoyable and : balanced game. What we're talking about here are story elements. There : isn't the same necessity to change story elements as gameplay mechanics. : It's far less forgiving in my book. Is there actually any single significant story element of the original trilogy that is retconned by Reach in an area where the story itself already didn't have plot holes or internal contradictions? I can't think of one at the moment.

Death by intelligence

Message Index