Posts on Current Forum | Archived Posts
|
|
|
||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
| Frequently Asked Forum Questions | |
|||
|
||||
|
|
|||
| ||||
| ||||
| ||||
| Search Older Posts on This Forum: Posts on Current Forum | Archived Posts | ||||
| ||||
| ||||
| ||||
| Re: Interesting Frankie Quote | |
| Posted By: Narcogen <narcogen@rampancy.net> | Date: 6/9/11 5:04 a.m. |
In Response To: Re: Interesting Frankie Quote (Lurono) : Like Leisandir said, it's been less than a week. Why is it such a big deal : that we haven't come up with a "good" answer yet? Because many tasks are simply not a function of how much time has elapsed, that's why. He went into the cryotube without jets. He came out of it with jets. There didn't appear to be any jets in the cryotube. They can take as much time as they like to explain how the Chief really had jets but just had never used them in a game before, or to show us some intermediate action where the jets get added, somehow, in the intervening time between the last Halo 3 cutscene and this one, despite being in statis on a derelict ship with no atmosphere or power, lost and adrift. One can spend as much time as one wants, but no "good" answer is possible. The "good" answer was to resist putting that in that scene, and if it was something you really wanted to show off for this game-- I'm not sure why, since Reach already had this as a gameplay feature-- do it some other way. We have no
YMMV. "It wasn't that bad" doesn't really seem to me like an adequate response. They made up an entire disease to fill a plothole, then retconned that disease so that it no longer has a single victim. "It's not that bad" really doesn't seem to address that properly. : Which is why I mentioned it. I mention it within the context of a general belief that it is better for trailers to be done in-engine than not, but that even given that, Starry Night did a good job at a number of things without abusing existing canon, while this trailer does not achieve as much and does abuse existing canon-- abuses the final scene of a fairly good game that gave a good ending to a trilogy that followed two characters I came to like very much. If they're going to drag the MC out of the closet, he'd better not be coughing on mothballs in his first scene. : I'm not saying that explanations aren't important. I just don't see why
Because between the last scene of Halo 3 and this scene there is no opportunity for an explanation that is not contrived. : Everyone is assuming that he will have this armor on the FUD. For all we
Because he is shown here, on the FUD, in this armor. If he gets the armor later, they could have shown a later scene. There was no reason to pickup on that last scene without admitting to its limitations. No other Halo game trailer ever did that anyway. We simply don't
Because the other trailers didn't do anything like this-- expect us to behave as if the continuity between the last scene and this one was immediate, and then change things. They always allowed for extra time and opportunity. Here, there's plenty of time, but no opportunity. Halo 2 covers that with the Armory scene. Halo 3 has intervening events it doesn't address directly, but the functional changes to the Chief that are shown in Halo 3's gameplay occur through pickups, not the suit. If they'd been built in to the suit people would have wondered how the heck he found a Mjolnir suit update kit in a Forerunner dreadnought. : Like I've already said: we don't know. The game is still over a year away and
You can't add things to what doesn't make sense and have it make sense. The idea of any intervening action between the last scene of Halo 3 and this one undermines the desired effect of making it seem like one is picking up right after the other. The only question it raises, is that if there was something that happened between those two scenes, why not show that instead of this? Bungie at times retconned trailers (Halo 2, for instance) but didn't intend to do so-- it was necessitated by cutting an entire level. Here, they've gone and made a trailer that needs to be retconned by the game in order to make any sense whatsoever. That's pointless effort, if you ask me. : I wasn't really talking about graphics, I was talking about what happens in
That's not true. Elements changed between the Halo 1 announcement trailer (MWNY '99) but nothing was retconned-- nothing was shown that did not appear. The E3 2000 video was not retconned in any way that affected the main plot-- only the presence of certain ambient life not depicted in the shipping game, and one Covenant vehicle removed (and later restored). The Halo 2 announcement trailer was not retconned. The Halo 2 full trailer had one item added to its in-game version-- the bomb, because an entire level was cut. If they hadn't cut that level, the cutscene would have appeared *exactly* as in the trailer. The Halo 3 trailer occurs in-game almost exactly as it did in the trailer; only the location is slightly different, and some additional elements are added. There was no content in the trailer that needed to be removed from the game because it no longer made sense. They've put here, into the Halo 4 announcement trailer, the use of at least one item that it makes no sense for it to be present in the scenario as depicted. That's a first. : So, like I said, we know next to nothing. Yes we do-- we know the trailer, as is, does not make sense. : Because you can't explain very much in a minute and a half? Every other Halo trailer has done a better job in that minute and a half. : Again, it's a trailer. Trailers aren't always 100% accurate. Just because the
I consider some apprehension as Halo changes custodians to be natural. I may be overreacting and jumping to conclusions, but I did not find this trailer very assuring. In fact, the more I look at it to support the thoughts I'm having about it, the more I find it wanting. : I'll agree that Cortana looked terrible. : But we haven't really seen anything at all. How can you be so absolute about
I haven't said one word about the game. I'm only talking about the trailer, because that's all we have. : Like I said, you can't really say that this is the best we can hope for based
If I did I certainly would not be posting about it. However, no special knowledge is necessary in this case. It is not necessary to imagine every possible explanation (no matter how ludicrous) to understand that, looking at that trailer, there's no explanation for that jetpack I can accept. The best they can do is nod, admit they did it because it was cool, and forget about it. : I agree and disagree. I'm willing to allow changes if they are fun enough.
You think changes to weapon balance are unnecessary? : -------------------------------------------------------------------------- : My overall point that I was trying to make, which I feel has gone over some
Then they probably shouldn't have done it this way. As I wrote above-- that's the first time such an explicit connection has been made between the end of one Halo game and the next. If they weren't willing to cleave to existing continuity within that context, they shouldn't have done it. It wasn't necessary. Heck, they could have just re-done the Halo 3 ending trailer, with no additional content, just updated graphics-- perhaps showing the portal open, and the Chief stepping out-- and that would have been better. The nonsense with the fire and the jetpack was just overcompensation. You know how many fires, explosions, and weapons discharges there were in the Halo 2 and 3 trailers? I do. Zero. Sometimes all you have to do is set the scene. Maybe they felt that without Marty's music, they needed some action to punch this up a bit, but if you ask me, that's not a good sign, either. and we have no reason to think that whatever
I'm not here to perform PR. I'm not here to do anyone any good. That trailer asks me questions it can't answer-- and not in a good way that makes me curious or impatient for the game to come out. It makes me want to forget it ever happened, and I don't think that's what they were shooting for (or, for that matter, at). I'll tell you what's not doing any good, is the defense of this trailer, because while watching it a few things bothered me, now, in order to double-check my initial impressions, I'm looking it over again and again, and my opinion is not really improving. My opinion of the trailer-- not the game. I don't have one of the game, I only have one of the trailer. Although, since the sole purpose of this trailer is to affect my opinion of the game, why should I allow it to have a positive effect if I liked it, but disallow a negative one if I don't? That doesn't make any sense, either.
| |
|
| Replies: |
The HBO Forum Archive is maintained with WebBBS 4.33. |