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: Thoughts and conspiracies...
Posted By: Narcogen <narcogen@rampancy.net>	Date: 5/16/11 3:52 a.m.
: Something that I find strange and interesting.... why did Bungie create : Kurt's letter that resolves Noble's use of Spartan III's and the possible : conflicts that that fact creates with Ghost of Onyx? Especially when 30 : minutes into the game it had begun to overwrite elements of the Fall of : Reach? At the risk of making things needlessly complex (a risk I never shy away from) I'd suggest two legal concepts: entire agreement and survival. In this context they sort of do opposite things, which in a contract would be bad, but I think here they're okay. The concept of entire agreement is relevant to putting Kurt's letter into the extra materials and explains why Noble Team includes Spartan IIIs. Here, Bungie is trying to provide a complete explanation for what it is presenting on-screen in Reach, superseding what came before. To preserve the Master Chief's status, and for balance issues, most of Noble Team are makeshift Spartan IIIs, not Spartan IIs. This also explains the change from Equipment to Loadouts between Halo 3 to Halo Reach. Since the games have never admitted to the existence of Spartan IIIs at all until this point, the letter provides a link to the supplementary materials in the novels that explain what a Spartan III is for those who don't find Reach's internal references complete enough. Most players, I suspect, won't particularly notice or care, but some may be led to the novels by this, and others who know the novels without necessarily requiring ironclad continuity, may appreciate the fanservice. The other idea is that of a survival clause. In a contract, it says that while significant portions of a contract may be invalidated or terminated, certain parts should survive. Yes, Reach does retcon a good portion of TFOR. I honestly haven't tracked further any potential conflicts with Ghosts of Onyx; but the reference here could be interpreted as a statement that where Reach doesn't directly retcon the novels, the novels are still valid. : Were changes made to the story late in the 'game'? Was the game initially : following the general consensus of the Fall of Reach, but as the final : bricks of the 'cathedral' were being laid, changes had to be made? Was the : Spike Video Game Awards trailer the original beginning of Reach - : referencing Pegasi Delta and throwing the player into an immediate, : drastic invasion of Reach? I sort of doubt it. As I wrote above, I doubt Bungie ever would have intended to be held to making a game based on a novel that was based on their game. If TFOR, exactly as written by Nylund, had been a game they wanted to make, they'd have made that game. There were bound to be things they wanted to do differently once it was decided to make a prequel. : Another example, though a bit different in its nature: why reference (and in : some fans' eyes - validate) Fall of Reach in Halo 3 multiple times (with : Cortana's dialogue), and then go against the same book in Reach? Survival clause. Because a single contradiction doesn't invalidate an entire book, any more than the breach of a single clause terminates an entire contract (unless that's the way you write it, on purpose). Where Reach and TFOR conflict, prefer Reach. Where they don't, and Reach is silent, fill in the gaps with TFOR. Full disclosure: IANAL, I'm just as annoying as one on the Internet.

Death by intelligence

Message Index