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: Should Gameplay be considered Canon?
Posted By: Narcogen <narcogen@rampancy.net>	Date: 10/20/09 11:24 p.m.
In Response To: Should Gameplay be considered Canon? (Riceatron) : Lets look at Halo 1. : Due to not having a focus on Multiplayer, everything was perfect. : Nothing was adjusted. : But when Halo 2 and 3 came out, the multiplayer was more a focus, and thus : weapons were introduced and adjusted to fit with a 16 player match. : In Halo 3, we have detachable turrets, and it makes a SPARTAN move slow, but : that is really ONLY because of the balancing of gameplay. : In 1, the Shotgun worked like a real shotgun, you could fire it off from a : good 10 yards away and still kill something. : But in 2 and 3, due to Multiplayer, it was shortened and made useless except : when you're in melee range. : What in gameplay can we take as Canon outside of Halo 1. : In my opinion, the only thing we can consider canon is Halo 1 Gameplay, : Books, Media like Legends, Cutscenes, and Scripted Dialogue Actually I'd suggest the opposite. Gameplay should define canon in all the games, and where the games conflict, the most recently released game takes precedence. This would, for instance, have the effect of retconning Halo 3 so that the Chief should have been able to run fast with a turret, since the ODSTs can-- unless there is an overriding explanation. If you take only the original then there are too many areas that "gameplay canon" is simply silent on. Halo 1 can tell you nothing about the possibility of boarding vehicles, about driving/piloting vehicles that did not appear in that game. It puts the tuning-fork Covenant dropships back in the game but removes any other vehicles not referred to in the fiction. I think the attitude one has to take, if one wishes to discuss the Haloverse in this way, is to imagine that it actually exists somewhere, and the games are imperfect lenses through which we view it. From this perspective, differences between the games are not contradictions, they are increasingly accurate approximations.

rampancy.net

Message Index

Should Gameplay be considered Canon?	Riceatron	10/20/09 10:29 p.m.
Re: Should Gameplay be considered Canon?	General Vagueness	10/20/09 11:11 p.m.
Re: Should Gameplay be considered Canon?	General Vagueness	10/20/09 11:21 p.m.
Re: Should Gameplay be considered Canon?	Narcogen	10/20/09 11:24 p.m.
Re: Should Gameplay be considered Canon?	Leviathan	10/21/09 12:26 a.m.
Re: Should Gameplay be considered Canon?	Narcogen	10/21/09 4:15 a.m.
Re: Turrets	JonnyOThan	10/21/09 12:41 p.m.
Re: Turrets	Gilver	10/21/09 1:08 p.m.
Re: Turrets	Anton P. Nym (aka Steve)	10/21/09 1:19 p.m.
Re: Turrets	Gilver	10/21/09 1:42 p.m.
Re: Turrets	SonofMacPhisto	10/21/09 2:13 p.m.
Re: Turrets	Anton P. Nym (aka Steve)	10/21/09 2:23 p.m.
Re: Turrets	SonofMacPhisto	10/21/09 3:28 p.m.
Re: Turrets	Gilver	10/21/09 4:56 p.m.
Re: Turrets	Stephen L. (SoundEffect)	10/21/09 4:11 p.m.
Re: Turrets	FyreWulff	10/21/09 5:52 p.m.
Re: Turrets	SonofMacPhisto	10/21/09 6:09 p.m.
Re: Turrets	Narcogen	10/22/09 2:40 a.m.
Re: Turrets	Avateur	10/22/09 2:59 a.m.
Re: Turrets	Narcogen	10/22/09 8:30 a.m.
Sure.	serpx	10/20/09 11:52 p.m.
Nothing should be considered canon	Avateur	10/21/09 12:46 a.m.
Re: Nothing should be considered canon	Narcogen	10/21/09 4:16 a.m.
Re: Nothing should be considered canon	Avateur	10/21/09 4:29 a.m.
Agreed	yakaman	10/21/09 7:58 a.m.
Amen. *NM*	SonofMacPhisto	10/21/09 8:15 a.m.
Re: Agreed	Stephen L. (SoundEffect)	10/21/09 8:29 a.m.
Re: Agreed	Jillybean	10/21/09 8:50 a.m.
Re: Agreed	Avateur	10/21/09 12:01 p.m.
Without reading the thread fully...	sharpsniper99	10/21/09 6:03 p.m.
Re: Nothing should be considered canon	Anton P. Nym (aka Steve)	10/21/09 11:49 a.m.
Re: Nothing should be considered canon	The BS Police	10/21/09 11:16 a.m.
Re: Nothing should be considered canon	General Vagueness	10/21/09 11:45 a.m.
Re: Nothing should be considered canon	The BS Police	10/21/09 11:58 a.m.
Re: Nothing should be considered canon	Avateur	10/21/09 12:04 p.m.
Re: Nothing should be considered canon	Riceatron	10/21/09 1:44 p.m.
Re: Nothing should be considered canon	Hikaru-119	10/21/09 2:42 p.m.
Re: Nothing should be considered canon	Avateur	10/21/09 7:08 p.m.
Re: Nothing should be considered canon	Riceatron	10/21/09 10:10 p.m.
Re: Nothing should be considered canon	Gravemind	10/21/09 4:24 p.m.
Re: Nothing should be considered canon	General Vagueness	10/21/09 6:53 p.m.
Re: Nothing should be considered canon	Avateur	10/21/09 7:11 p.m.
Re: Nothing should be considered canon	Gravemind	10/21/09 8:24 p.m.
Re: Nothing should be considered canon	Avateur	10/21/09 8:28 p.m.
Re: Nothing should be considered canon	Gravemind	10/21/09 8:22 p.m.
Re: Should Gameplay be considered Canon?	Cody Miller	10/21/09 1:56 a.m.
Re: Should Gameplay be considered Canon?	Avateur	10/21/09 2:30 a.m.
Re: Should Gameplay be considered Canon?	Narcogen	10/21/09 4:17 a.m.
Gameplay is never canon *SP*	Metalingus627	10/21/09 3:45 a.m.
Re: Should Gameplay be considered Canon?	Archilen	10/21/09 4:24 a.m.
Question...	stan	10/21/09 9:07 a.m.
Follow up...	stan	10/21/09 9:09 a.m.
Fully agree *NM* *NM*	Avateur	10/21/09 12:06 p.m.