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: this
Posted By: General Vagueness <General.Vagueness@gmail.com>	Date: 1/13/12 10:23 a.m.
In Response To: Re: this (Stephen L. (SoundEffect)) : It's only a generalization as far as the omniscient point of view author : reveals a fact rather than an individual speaks dialogue. Right, but it's a fact about one Sangheili-- unless you left something out, it doesn't say this view is universal or even common among the Sangheili, which would've at least lent some support, it's just one guy. Taking an individual as a good representative for an entire species in a case like this is not a good idea. : Let's say for argument's sake, the Elites don't considers humans a worthy : adversary. They think we're worms or ants. Where's the honor to be gained : in stomping an ant. Even if there's no honor...could there be a lack of : honor in even making the attempt? I think they could have made the : Covenant species truly alien, but instead, adopted what most sci-fi does : and made their alien characters relatable in terms humans are familiar with. Here I think we might be hitting a conflict between what's interesting and what makes for good fiction (and possibly future plans). : : It makes them sound like generic bad-guy aliens so more cliché than alien. : Not to me. Instead of a usual sounding good guy versus bad guy, you have : noble warriors and what they consider insects. From the alien point of view. : I was using The Flood excerpt more to point out the way they fundamentally : altered the Elite's core personality from what had been established. I got : the impression the Elites were still honorable and as such they wouldn't : deign to fight name-unworthy scum like humans. It reinforced what we saw : in The Fall of Reach, which was Elites not entering human combat until : very late. That concept and/or type of honor is not very alien though (or pretty much at all) and neither is one side in a war thinking the other is beneath contempt, and you haven't said what's so alien about their viewpoint. : I don't subscribe to the 'levels of canon' idea. If it's official, it's : canon. You want your levels? Deem the non-game material unofficial. I : don't give a crap for the internal politics of game studio versus author : versus secondary manufacturer. Present a cohesive whole to the folks : buying your stuff, or don't label it as official. The crime here is that : they didn't predict Halo would be as successful as it turned out so they : didn't invest enough forethought into the design phase....that which : meshes all the various outlets of storytelling, not just the games. This is well said. Bungie and Microsoft and 343i and the various book authors and comic authors and animation directors did not have a cohesive vision, and maybe straight up disagreed, and thus something is lost. Halo is a monument to all their sins. Unfortunately it's very difficult to tear down that monument. I see you keep having this response when people tell you how and why these incongruencies happened and, with all due respect, I don't think you get it: most (or at least half, or at the very least myself) of the people presenting this stuff haven't been trying to convince anyone that canon doesn't matter or anything like that, they're explaining how it was messed up from the very beginning, so there's only so much that can be done. : I agree it could have been handled better. It has never been denounced by : Bungie or 343i as non-official and in fact a partial rewrite was done by : 343i. It's still canonical information whether people choose to want it to be or not. This is another side to the problem, or the problem framed a different way. Do you really think Bungie could've denounced it? Do you really think the person (or small group of people, because I don't think they'd speak for everyone) that said that would get to keep their job, or not be punished in some way, quite possibly along with the whole company? Do you think MS wouldn't have just turned around and said "Well he's wrong/they're wrong, it's all official, it's all canon"? Since you read TFoR and The Flood first and hold them in high regard, would this have even affected your view of canon?

You cannot fall off the floor.

Message Index

343I and the future of Halo.	ElzarTheBam	1/10/12 6:16 a.m.
Re: 343I and the future of Halo.	DEEP NNN	1/10/12 8:04 a.m.
Re: 343I and the future of Halo.	FoolsRun	1/10/12 8:44 a.m.
Re: 343I and the future of Halo.	General Vagueness	1/10/12 4:21 p.m.
Re: 343I and the future of Halo.	Stephen L. (SoundEffect)	1/10/12 5:29 p.m.
this	davidfuchs	1/10/12 5:32 p.m.
Re: this	Stephen L. (SoundEffect)	1/10/12 6:53 p.m.
Re: this	Quirel	1/10/12 11:16 p.m.
Re: this	Stephen L. (SoundEffect)	1/11/12 6:25 a.m.
Re: this	General Vagueness	1/11/12 11:27 a.m.
Re: this	Stephen L. (SoundEffect)	1/11/12 12:03 p.m.
Re: this	General Vagueness	1/11/12 12:11 p.m.
Re: this	Stephen L. (SoundEffect)	1/11/12 1:08 p.m.
Re: this	Anton1792	1/11/12 3:12 p.m.
Re: this	Stephen L. (SoundEffect)	1/11/12 5:13 p.m.
Re: this	Bry	1/11/12 6:29 p.m.
Re: this	Stephen L. (SoundEffect)	1/11/12 6:52 p.m.
Re: this	Bry	1/11/12 7:28 p.m.
Re: this	Stephen L. (SoundEffect)	1/11/12 8:08 p.m.
Re: this	Bry	1/12/12 6:15 a.m.
Re: this	Stephen L. (SoundEffect)	1/12/12 6:44 a.m.
Re: this	scarab	1/12/12 2:49 p.m.
Re: this	Stephen L. (SoundEffect)	1/12/12 3:48 p.m.
Re: this	Bry	1/12/12 4:05 p.m.
Re: this	scarab	1/12/12 5:23 p.m.
Re: this	General Vagueness	1/13/12 10:23 a.m.
Re: this	Stephen L. (SoundEffect)	1/13/12 11:14 a.m.
Re: this	General Vagueness	1/13/12 12:05 p.m.
Re: this	General Vagueness	1/12/12 5:16 p.m.
Re: this	Anton1792	1/11/12 9:31 p.m.
Re: this	Stephen L. (SoundEffect)	1/11/12 10:23 p.m.
Re: this	Anton1792	1/12/12 5:27 p.m.
Re: this	General Vagueness	1/12/12 5:00 p.m.
Re: this	Stephen L. (SoundEffect)	1/15/12 4:47 p.m.
Re: this	General Vagueness	1/15/12 5:29 p.m.
Re: this	Stephen L. (SoundEffect)	1/15/12 7:13 p.m.
Re: this	General Vagueness	1/16/12 12:35 a.m.
Re: this	Bry	1/16/12 5:38 a.m.
Re: this	Stephen L. (SoundEffect)	1/16/12 8:17 a.m.
Re: this	Leisandir	1/16/12 8:45 a.m.
Re: this	Stephen L. (SoundEffect)	1/16/12 9:07 a.m.
Re: this	Stephen L. (SoundEffect)	1/16/12 4:33 p.m.
Re: this	Bry	1/16/12 10:31 a.m.
Re: this	Stephen L. (SoundEffect)	1/16/12 11:27 a.m.
Re: 343I and the future of Halo.	General Vagueness	1/11/12 11:10 a.m.
Re: 343I and the future of Halo.	FoolsRun	1/11/12 7:25 a.m.
halomultiplayer.isnotcanon.net	scarab	1/11/12 7:31 a.m.
Re: halomultiplayer.isnotcanon.net	FoolsRun	1/11/12 7:53 a.m.
Re: 343I and the future of Halo.	General Vagueness	1/11/12 11:43 a.m.
Re: 343I and the future of Halo.	Flynn J Taggart	1/11/12 1:20 p.m.
the comments they're responding to	kidtsunami	1/10/12 4:12 p.m.
The one thing 343i needs to do:	Azo 'Galvat	1/11/12 12:03 a.m.