Posts on Current Forum | Archived Posts
|
|
|
||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
| Frequently Asked Forum Questions | |
|||
|
||||
|
|
|||
| ||||
| ||||
| ||||
| Search Older Posts on This Forum: Posts on Current Forum | Archived Posts | ||||
| ||||
| ||||
| ||||
| Same Concepts, Different Characters *SP* | |
| Posted By: Narcogen <narcogen@rampancy.net> | Date: 11/2/07 2:58 a.m. |
In Response To: Re: Game Informer: Marathon and Halo Speculation * (topleybird at home) : I really don't think that's what they meant, though; I think that at some : point in the development of Halo's story, they really WERE the same : person, literally. In the final product it's clear they are not the same; : the timelines don't work out in the slightest. I don't think Staten and Jones are nearly boring enough to resort to that. If they were going to remake Marathon, they'd remake it. What they did was to reimagine another space opera that covers similar themes in a different way. In fact, there are a lot of characters in the Marathon universe that are associated with or representations of concepts. The Security Officer is destiny, the immortal hero. Durandal is Rampancy, uncontrolled expansion. Thoth is balance. The w'rkncacnter is chaos. The Pfhor are slavers. Halo has some of the same elements, but the characters are switched around. Gravemind is sort of a fusion of Durandal's rampancy and the w'rkncacnter's chaos. The Covenant are zealots, not just an engine for practical military conquest (in contrast, Durandal called the Pfhor religion "pathetic" and "boring".) You could argue that by switching sides the Arbiter suggests balance, but you could also argue that Gravemind does by playing both sides against the middle (for a time). You could also argue for Mendicant Bias for that role, even though he only exists in the terminals-- for how he compounds one betrayal with another. (Hmmmm....) : My own idea about the constant recurrences of the Marathon symbol, parallels
: I don't think that's what Bungie is getting at either, though. I just like to
I see what you're saying, but to me that carries all the detriments of a literal connection without any of the benefits. At the end of the day, what does that interpretation reveal about either work that the explanation that they are intentional inside references does not? It's basically just an in-game explanation for something that doesn't need one. It's the only way to make a literal connection without any consequences. You'd also have to wonder-- what is it about the character of the Security Officer, and the trials he went through, that led to the creation of a universe in which the primary struggle is not against the Pfhor, or against the w'rkncacnter, but against the Flood? It seems more believable that these are manifestations of concepts Bungie wanted to explore, rather than the dim memories of the Security Officer made real in a new universe.
| |
|
| Replies: |
The HBO Forum Archive is maintained with WebBBS 4.33. |