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: My Comprehensive-ish Argument With Narcogen
Posted By: Narcogen <narcogen@rampancy.net>	Date: 6/1/11 1:21 a.m.
: I just finished reinstalling Halo PC last night (new computer). I'll look to : the face textures of the characters. I thought Johnson was named. He's not in the transcripts. I neglected to re-check my cutscene commentary, but will do so. : Looking at an issue JUST within the games, the Autumn arrives at Alpha Halo : in September, 2552 according to Reach but Jenkins' helmet cam indicates : the Flood discovery occurs back in May 2552, and then when back on Earth, : ODST takes place in October 2552. : If Bungie was to keep consistent within themselves, why didn't Reach's : timestamps lead to correcting the timeline back to May 2552? They chose to : retcon their own work. Because the reason to retcon was to change the events themselves and how they play out-- not to correct dates which, as I've suggested above, exist only to give the appearance of reality, and are not there to establish an actual history. Besides, again, it's not necessary. Reach, being the last installment, has now performed that retcon. Jenkins' camera is an error, and while we can't be sure of the date the Flood were discovered, it was certainly not in May. You break all ties in favor of the earlier material, instead of the later, which is how Staten says Bungie do it themselves. So it's not particularly surprising that you disagree with Bungie about what the canonical timeline is; you'd prefer to have the novel and the first game be correct and hold everything to that. But that's OK because it's been 10 years and the : fashionable way to deal with that is to change things. Why keep it : consistent? No one pays attention to that sort of thing. They don't. They really, really don't. If they did, there wouldn't be just one of you cataloguing this stuff, or even two or three or four, there'd be hundreds, thousands, millions. There just aren't. I'm not saying that makes it right or wrong, but I'd say that if a commercial decision was made to the effect that triple-checking this stuff probably wasn't as important as making believable facial animation, or interesting dialogue, then they made the right call. Reach has plenty of flaws and its datelines are so far down the list that it's missing the forest for the trees to even mention it-- IMHO :) : (This was just an example for those who say that the games are internally : consistent within themselves and that all inconsistencies have been : introduced cross-media.) I wouldn't say that; I'd just say that when those cross-media conflicts occur, the games should always win. When inter-game conflicts occur, I concur with Staten: the later-released games win. With regards to the cross-media releases, I'd say that the plethora of details you get, especially in the novels, increases the chances of having minor (and largely immaterial) conflicts, and that this (for me as an individual consumer) largely overrides a lot of the value they represent; not always, but sometimes-- and particularly in the case of TFOR, the release of Reach has done this.

Death by intelligence

Message Index