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: A longer term fan's perspective
Posted By: dizzy	Date: 9/20/10 12:04 p.m.
In Response To: A longer term fan's perspective (reprobate) : I read Fall of Reach prior to playing Halo because I'd been a fan of Bungie : in the past and was thrilled when I heard an actual full book of back : story was being done for their next game. The level of detail that Bungie : put into the Marathon series was insane, so I was excited to see what the : story was behind the (then) next gen Bungie FPS. Marathon's story was so : in depth that there was even an explanation for saving the game... inside : the game. : Regardless of how anyone feels about the quality of the Halo books, Bungie : has always differentiated itself from its contemporary FPS developers by : claiming to care about their story. As Halo and Bungie have gotten bigger : and bigger though, that focus from the fan's perspective has to be that : they've lost it. Bungie cares about the Halo story insofar that it allows : them to do cool stuff within its frame, but clearly whatever "Halo : Bible" they have/had is inadequate to cover the details necessary to : properly fit something like a prequel into the canon as it exists now. That's the problem. It's not really that inadequate. You could just say that Brutes/drones/prophets weren't on any of the ships, or didn't leave any of the ships, that arrived at Alpha Halo. Bam that inconsistency between Halo and the rest just got worked around. It's more or less of (wether it's true or not) it almost feels like Bungie didn't take any consideration to stick with what's been established. I'm sorry - I don't make games and I'm definitely not creative enough to be on the Bungie team (or any creative story team for that matter) designing games, but it's bad when someone like me really feels like they could have told a better story. It just feels like Bungie kinda half assed it. Three or four more days of work/research into how to work around what they have already established as canon could have made it so much better. : Maybe Bungie wasn't completely on board with the idea that they'd have : additional story material outside of the games... maybe it was 100% a : Microsoft decision that Bungie just kinda went along with as terms of : being one of their dev studios, but whatever the reason, Bungie brought : that on when they joined Microsoft in the first place. Then why would they say it was canon? All they had to say was "Hey these books are really good, but don't consider everything canon." That's it. That's all they had to do, but they didn't which leads me to believe that they really did like what was written, they just wanted to make a game without constraints. Unfortunately in a universe with 6 books and 6 games it's not really possible without pissing a bunch of people off. : I appreciated all the nods to the outside fiction such as Halsey being in the : game, Spartan IIIs being in the game/playable, and even just the fact that : we got to witness the invasion of Reach. Dr. Halsey's Journal (and : bringing back Nylund to write it) was INCREDIBLE. I'm willing to let the : majority of the canonical mistakes slide since I really enjoyed the series : anyway and since Bungie obviously does care about making good games (which : they do), but as a final statement for Halo's fiction, Bungie basically : said, "we're going to do what we're going to do, regardless of : whatever story has come before (especially from outside of Bungie)." This is what also rubbed me the wrong way. I'm a DEDICATED Halo fan. I've bought/played every game and I've read every book multiple times. So now because I didn't want to spend $150 on the Legendary Edition of this game I'm apparently missing a ton of stuff that will "make sense" of it all. I just recently lost my job of 4 years due to my job cutting back to save money, I don't need to spend $150 on a video game. I've read all the books, I played all the games - I did my job as a fan of the series to know the whole story. But because I didn't spend $90 more on the same video game that I bought for $60 I'm now missing a bunch of stuff. Great. Thanks Bungie.

Quitters never lose

Message Index

I think we hold the books in too high a regard.	Riceatron	9/19/10 2:28 a.m.
Re: I think we hold the books in too high a regard	Hawaiian Pig	9/19/10 2:41 a.m.
Re: I think we hold the books in too high a regard	Riceatron	9/19/10 2:42 a.m.
Re: I think we hold the books in too high a regard	Stephen L. (SoundEffect)	9/19/10 10:56 a.m.
*SP in my post*	Avateur	9/19/10 11:06 a.m.
Re: *SP in my post*	The BS Police	9/19/10 2:50 p.m.
Re: *SP in my post*	DHalo	9/19/10 2:54 p.m.
Re: *SP in my post*	scarab	9/19/10 2:56 p.m.
That's stupid from a gaming standpoint *SP*	Avateur	9/19/10 4:23 p.m.
Re: That's stupid from a gaming standpoint *SP*	Louis Wu	9/19/10 5:31 p.m.
Re: That's stupid from a gaming standpoint *SP*	Hawaiian Pig	9/19/10 5:53 p.m.
Re: That's stupid from a gaming standpoint *SP*	Bry	9/19/10 5:56 p.m.
Re: That's stupid from a gaming standpoint *SP*	The BS Police	9/19/10 6:11 p.m.
Re: That's stupid from a gaming standpoint *SP*	thebruce0	9/20/10 10:10 a.m.
Re: That's stupid from a gaming standpoint *SP*	Avateur	9/19/10 8:16 p.m.
Re: That's stupid from a gaming standpoint *SP*	thebruce0	9/20/10 10:07 a.m.
Re: That's stupid from a gaming standpoint *SP*	Avateur	9/20/10 11:03 a.m.
Re: That's stupid from a gaming standpoint *SP*	thebruce0	9/20/10 12:40 p.m.
Re: That's stupid from a gaming standpoint *SP*	Avateur	9/20/10 12:58 p.m.
Re: That's stupid from a gaming standpoint *SP*	thebruce0	9/20/10 1:08 p.m.
Re: That's stupid from a gaming standpoint *SP*	kapowaz	9/20/10 5:53 a.m.
Re: That's stupid from a gaming standpoint *SP*	thebruce0	9/20/10 10:14 a.m.
Re: That's stupid from a gaming standpoint *SP*	Bry	9/19/10 5:42 p.m.
I agree *SP	Injunfett	9/19/10 6:35 p.m.
Re: That's stupid from a gaming standpoint *SP*	LionoftheMorning	9/20/10 5:12 a.m.
Re: That's stupid from a gaming standpoint *SP*	Bry	9/20/10 7:16 a.m.
Re: That's stupid from a gaming standpoint *SP*	LionoftheMorning	9/20/10 8:31 a.m.
Re: That's stupid from a gaming standpoint *SP*	Bry	9/20/10 8:46 a.m.
Re: That's stupid from a gaming standpoint *SP*	thebruce0	9/20/10 10:19 a.m.
Re: That's stupid from a gaming standpoint *SP*	Avateur	9/20/10 1:08 p.m.
Re: That's stupid from a gaming standpoint *SP*	Stephen L. (SoundEffect)	9/20/10 5:51 p.m.
Re: That's stupid from a gaming standpoint *SP*	Avateur	9/20/10 6:14 p.m.
Re: That's stupid from a gaming standpoint *SP*	thebruce0	9/21/10 9:12 a.m.
Re: That's stupid from a gaming standpoint *SP*	Avateur	9/21/10 3:15 p.m.
Re: That's stupid from a gaming standpoint *SP*	thebruce0	9/21/10 4:47 p.m.
Re: That's stupid from a gaming standpoint *SP*	Avateur	9/21/10 5:52 p.m.
Re: That's stupid from a gaming standpoint *SP*	kapowaz	9/20/10 5:43 a.m.
Re: *SP in my post*	Hawaiian Pig	9/19/10 3:26 p.m.
Re: *SP in my post*	uberfoop	9/19/10 4:03 p.m.
Re: *SP in my post*	scarab	9/19/10 5:17 p.m.
Re: *SP in my post*	SonofMacPhisto	9/19/10 4:29 p.m.
Re: *SP in my post*	Bry	9/19/10 4:52 p.m.
Re: *SP in my post*	Stephen L. (SoundEffect)	9/19/10 6:44 p.m.
Re: *SP in my post*	Avateur	9/19/10 4:33 p.m.
Re: *SP in my post*	LionoftheMorning	9/20/10 5:20 a.m.
Re: *SP in my post*	thebruce0	9/20/10 10:57 a.m.
Re: *SP in my post*	Avateur	9/20/10 11:05 a.m.
Re: *SP in my post*	Stephen L. (SoundEffect)	9/20/10 5:56 p.m.
Re: *SP in my post*	thebruce0	9/21/10 9:15 a.m.
I agree wholeheartedly.	NobleSixActual	9/19/10 4:07 a.m.
Games > Novels	Riceatron	9/19/10 5:24 a.m.
Re: Games > Novels	YNation913	9/19/10 10:04 a.m.
Re: Games > Novels	Crab	9/19/10 4:13 p.m.
Re: Games > Novels	Stephen L. (SoundEffect)	9/19/10 6:39 p.m.
Re: I think we hold the books in too high a regard	mattroe	9/19/10 5:37 a.m.
Re: I think we hold the books in too high a regard	NobleSixActual	9/19/10 5:47 a.m.
Re: I think we hold the books in too high a regard	scarab	9/19/10 5:57 a.m.
Re: I think we hold the books in too high a regard	mattroe	9/19/10 6:03 a.m.
Re: I think we hold the books in too high a regard	Stephen L. (SoundEffect)	9/19/10 11:00 a.m.
Re: I think we hold the books in too high a regard	Bry	9/19/10 11:13 a.m.
Re: I think we hold the books in too high a regard	Stephen L. (SoundEffect)	9/19/10 11:19 a.m.
Re: I think we hold the books in too high a regard	dizzy	9/19/10 8:23 a.m.
Re: I think we hold the books in too high a regard	Azo 'Galvat	9/19/10 8:28 a.m.
It's not just The Fall of Reach	The BS Police	9/19/10 2:46 p.m.
Re: It's not just The Fall of Reach	Eddy 071	9/19/10 4:05 p.m.
Re: It's not just The Fall of Reach	The BS Police	9/19/10 5:58 p.m.
Re: I think we hold the books in too high a regard	Bry	9/19/10 9:28 a.m.
Re: I think we hold the books in too high a regard	Stephen L. (SoundEffect)	9/19/10 11:05 a.m.
Re: I think we hold the books in too high a regard	Jinno	9/19/10 11:35 a.m.
Re: I think we hold the books in too high a regard	Quirel	9/19/10 11:37 a.m.
Re: I think we hold the books in too high a regard	Stephen L. (SoundEffect)	9/19/10 1:14 p.m.
Re: I think we hold the books in too high a regard	Xmoosev3	9/19/10 8:27 a.m.
Re: I think we hold the books in too high a regard	General Battuta	9/19/10 8:34 a.m.
It's all about consistency. *SP*	SPARTAN-034	9/19/10 8:37 a.m.
Re: It's all about consistency. *SP*	Bry	9/19/10 9:35 a.m.
Re: It's all about consistency. *SP*	Stephen L. (SoundEffect)	9/19/10 10:53 a.m.
Re: It's all about consistency. *SP*	Bry	9/19/10 11:02 a.m.
Re: It's all about consistency. *SP*	Stephen L. (SoundEffect)	9/19/10 11:14 a.m.
Well, duh.	Riceatron	9/19/10 12:51 p.m.
Re: Well, duh.	Bry	9/19/10 2:51 p.m.
Re: Well, duh.	Stephen L. (SoundEffect)	9/19/10 3:02 p.m.
Re: Well, duh.	Bry	9/19/10 3:37 p.m.
Re: Well, duh.	Stephen L. (SoundEffect)	9/19/10 6:28 p.m.
Re: It's all about consistency. *SP*	Azo 'Galvat	9/19/10 12:53 p.m.
Re: It's all about consistency. *SP*	Stephen L. (SoundEffect)	9/19/10 1:21 p.m.
Re: It's all about consistency. *SP*	Bry	9/19/10 2:04 p.m.
'We'? Didn't know we had a hive mind.	Leviathan	9/19/10 10:21 a.m.
Re: 'We'? Didn't know we had a hive mind.	Stephen L. (SoundEffect)	9/19/10 11:08 a.m.
Re: I think we hold the books in too high a regard	Kermit	9/19/10 11:12 a.m.
Re: I think we hold the books in too high a regard	Bry	9/19/10 11:24 a.m.
Re: I think we hold the books in too high a regard	Stephen L. (SoundEffect)	9/19/10 1:10 p.m.
Re: I think we hold the books in too high a regard	Kermit	9/20/10 10:00 a.m.
Re: I think we hold the books in too high a regard	Stephen L. (SoundEffect)	9/20/10 5:55 p.m.
Re: I think we hold the books in too high a regard	Quirel	9/19/10 11:56 a.m.
Halo's just gotten too big for its britches	free	9/19/10 2:12 p.m.
It's outright carelessness.	Hawaiian Pig	9/19/10 3:46 p.m.
Re: It's outright carelessness.	Bry	9/19/10 4:22 p.m.
Re: It's outright carelessness.	Stephen L. (SoundEffect)	9/19/10 6:34 p.m.
Re: It's outright carelessness.	Bry	9/19/10 6:44 p.m.
Re: It's outright carelessness.	free	9/19/10 4:30 p.m.
Re: It's outright carelessness.	Stephen L. (SoundEffect)	9/19/10 6:47 p.m.
Re: It's outright carelessness.	Bry	9/19/10 6:54 p.m.
Re: It's outright carelessness.	Stephen L. (SoundEffect)	9/19/10 6:59 p.m.
Re: It's outright carelessness.	free	9/19/10 7:35 p.m.
Re: It's outright carelessness.	Stephen L. (SoundEffect)	9/19/10 9:52 p.m.
Re: It's outright carelessness.	YNation913	9/19/10 8:34 p.m.
Re: It's outright carelessness.	Stephen L. (SoundEffect)	9/19/10 10:03 p.m.
Re: It's outright carelessness.	Bry	9/19/10 10:20 p.m.
Re: It's outright carelessness.	uberfoop	9/19/10 10:39 p.m.
Re: It's outright carelessness.	Stephen L. (SoundEffect)	9/20/10 5:21 a.m.
Re: It's outright carelessness.	Bry	9/20/10 9:13 a.m.
Re: It's outright carelessness.	Stephen L. (SoundEffect)	9/20/10 5:39 p.m.
Re: It's outright carelessness.	Bry	9/20/10 7:06 p.m.
Re: It's outright carelessness.	Stephen L. (SoundEffect)	9/20/10 9:24 p.m.
Re: It's outright carelessness.	Bry	9/20/10 11:33 p.m.
Re: It's outright carelessness.	Quirel	9/20/10 11:50 p.m.
Re: It's outright carelessness.	uberfoop	9/21/10 12:09 a.m.
Re: It's outright carelessness.	Bry	9/21/10 12:15 a.m.
Re: It's outright carelessness.	Stephen L. (SoundEffect)	9/21/10 6:36 a.m.
This. *NM*	thebruce0	9/20/10 10:24 a.m.
Re: I think we hold the books in too high a regard	BanditORR	9/19/10 3:03 p.m.
A longer term fan's perspective	reprobate	9/19/10 8:54 p.m.
Re: A longer term fan's perspective	dizzy	9/20/10 12:04 p.m.
Re: A longer term fan's perspective	Louis Wu	9/20/10 12:40 p.m.
Re: A longer term fan's perspective	Anton P. Nym (aka Steve)	9/20/10 1:20 p.m.
Re: A longer term fan's perspective	Louis Wu	9/20/10 1:52 p.m.
A fair point. *NM*	Anton P. Nym (aka Steve)	9/20/10 2:06 p.m.
Re: A fair point.	The Loot	9/20/10 3:05 p.m.
Re: A longer term fan's perspective	Kermit	9/20/10 2:13 p.m.
Re: A longer term fan's perspective	uberfoop	9/20/10 3:28 p.m.
Re: A longer term fan's perspective	LionoftheMorning	9/20/10 2:33 p.m.
Re: A longer term fan's perspective	dizzy	9/20/10 2:48 p.m.
Re: A longer term fan's perspective	Anton P. Nym (aka Steve)	9/20/10 2:58 p.m.
Wait... what?	Louis Wu	9/20/10 3:53 p.m.
Re: Wait... what?	Leviathan	9/20/10 4:47 p.m.
Re: Wait... what?	dizzy	9/20/10 6:27 p.m.
Re: Wait... what?	Leviathan	9/20/10 6:44 p.m.
Re: Wait... what?	Stephen L. (SoundEffect)	9/20/10 6:44 p.m.
Re: Wait... what?	Stephen L. (SoundEffect)	9/20/10 6:50 p.m.
Re: Wait... what?	Anton P. Nym (aka Steve)	9/20/10 6:57 p.m.
Re: A longer term fan's perspective	Kermit	9/20/10 5:21 p.m.
Re: A longer term fan's perspective	Quirel	9/20/10 6:20 p.m.
I was talking to Stephen in-game.	Riceatron	9/19/10 10:04 p.m.
What I've learned from all this...	Gravemind	9/20/10 7:21 a.m.
I feel the same way. *NM* *NM*	LionoftheMorning	9/20/10 8:33 a.m.
Yep. This.	Hawaiian Pig	9/20/10 3:07 p.m.
Re: Yep. This.	LionoftheMorning	9/20/10 4:06 p.m.
No, you didn't.	Kermit	9/20/10 4:53 p.m.
Re: No, you didn't.	Gravemind	9/20/10 5:51 p.m.
Re: No, you didn't.	Quirel	9/20/10 6:00 p.m.