Forum:Halo Encyclopedia 2011 edition impressions

I just got the revised edition of the Halo Encyclopedia and having examined it a little, I thought felt like sharing some of my initial thoughts.

I never bought the original Encyclopedia, as I decided to wait until I saw how people reacted and if it was worth buying at all. Due to the universal criticism, I decided not to waste any money on it and instead opted to wait until 343i would release an updated edition. The announcement of the new edition was good news, as it's nice to have it for the sake of completion, and besides, now I'll be able to cite the book in any articles that might need sources that only exist in the Encyclopedia.

Moving on to my first impressions, disregarding appearances (it looks rather impressive), I have to admit my expectations were higher. I wasn't expecting a complete rewrite, but even at the first glance, one can see most of the errors the original book has been criticized for are still in. The infamous content borrowed from Halopedia - which constitutes a surprisingly large part of the book - sticks out as particularly bothersome to someone who knows where it's really from. It's often thinly veiled with slightly different wordings, but given away by errors like MAC velocity being up to 40% c, and references to fan-made names like the "first" and "second" battle of Earth, "United Rebel Front", as well as Covenant "Loyalists" and "Separatists". It seems it never occurred for the writers to check if any of these actually appear in the fiction proper. Speaking of writers, I'm curious as to who exactly was behind most of the content - there are several names in the acknowledgements section, but apparently no one credited as a "writer", unlike in most books, including the Essential Visual Guide. I also wonder why would they even need to copy stuff from Halopedia - shouldn't they have a Halo story bible of their own?

The philosophy behind the content itself is also different from the far superior Essential Visual Guide in that it does surprisingly little to actually expand on existing canon (ship classes and the like), instead playing it safe and for the most part sticking to things we already know. There is, notably, some original content here and there; however, as demonstrated by the Visual Guide, there would've been potential for a lot more. The Guide is way smaller and as such the amount of information in it is much more limited, yet I'm almost certain there's way more original (and meaningful) content than in the Encyclopedia. It's a shame, really, because the concept of a comprehensive Halo encyclopedia has potential to be a lot more. It does seem, however, that the new content which includes information from Halo: Reach, is of better quality than the old stuff carried over from the 2009 edition.

Seeing as the errors and content that obviously originates from Halopedia are still very abundant, it's clear we can't entirely rely on this edition for sources either, except with subjects that aren't contradicted by any superior official material (e.g. novels or games). I think we're doing canon (or more precisely, people looking for reliable information) a favor by ignoring anything that's clearly taken from Halopedia. Obviously, we're doing our best to ensure the accuracy of our content, but it remains a fact there's always going to be errors or half-truths that have crept in, in part because people have always assumed they were true and didn't bother to check, but it seems some things are also ignored simply for the sake of convenience or the lack of incentive to do anything about them.

I don't know the story behind the development process of the Encyclopedia, or how much of their resources 343i devoted to the original or the revised edition, but I would expect better from the stewards of the franchise than a shinier version of Halopedia from two years ago. The Visual Guide was a step in the right direction, and the fans have been pretty vocal about the errors, so I'm pretty confident they won't resort to fan-created material when creating official content again, at least not as blatantly.

Regarding the future, I'm hoping that some day, 343 Industries would produce a completely rewritten, comprehensive universe encyclopedia, in the vein of the Essential Visual Guide (and hopefully written/fact-checked by the same people). I think just scrapping everything in the original edition and starting from scratch would produce the best result, rather than trying to correct singular errors in something whose foundations are too shaky to build anything on to begin with. --Jugus (Talk  | Contribs ) 13:12, 21 September 2011 (EDT)


 * From what I've heard about the Encyclopedia, though I haven't read it, the general opinion seems to be pretty similar, that though it looks nice it doesn't say anymore than we already know, and sometimes a lot less. The Visual Guide, however, sounds great. Good review, Jugus. It'd be nice to see reviews return to the website soon. Tuckerscreator (stalk ) 13:47, 21 September 2011 (EDT)


 * It's a pity that so little has changed. That's a major flaw of 343 Industries; their written content just isn't up to standard. As with the novel reissues, they really need to start proofreading their stuff and checking the facts. Let's hope future content like Glasslands is less flippant about the canon. - Black Mesa.jpg Halo-343   (Talk)  14:14, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

The fact that this book still is a shoddy piece of work should come as no surprise at all. When it comes to this and similar "reprints", such results should not only be unsuprising, but they should be the expected outcome. For all of 343's supposed "efforts" regarding Halo: Combat Evolved Anniversary and the Reclaimer Trilogy, plus future books etc., it is nevertheless that in this area, they are adorably incompetent, even more so than Bungie.

I was in a Barnes&Noble and saw the book, and was somewhat impressed, enough so that I might have considered buying it at some point in the future. But coming across this thread, it reminded me of why I had given away my copy of the book in first place; money wasted on a worthless product. If it were up to me, which it is not, any and all citations from the Halo Encyclopedia on this site should be completely and entirely expunged, with an addition to Halopedia's canon policy stating that any kind of citation from this worthless book be deemed invalid and therefore prohibited.

While I am mildly excited about 343's current and future work, I am also deeply skeptical about it as well, for evidence of sloppy and lazy work like this, not to mention a number of the comics, most notably Halo: Bloodline, is enough to hold a steady level of contempt for them. On the other hand, I also have to say the same about Bungie and the way that they have "handled" Halo; hyopcrites who can't keep key canonical facts straight without changing them for the sake of changing them, and forcing revisional convulsions throughout the whole franchise because of it.

What really disappoint me about Bungie in these regards is that for all of their claims for disliking forced revisions, i.e. they hate to do retcons, they did the exact opposite every time they made a game, and whenever they had the chance too. While I won't recount every instance, since we all know them, it still shows a glaring weakness in how they operated when running the franchise. What is the point of publicly claiming that they have a "consistent" canonical framework when it is in fact obvious that they didn't, going as far as clearly demonstrating that they didn't even know what they were doing until it was too late?

Rather than continue an impassioned rant, the point I am trying to make is this; having a large amount of "creativity" and "dynamic communication" is not only a so-called strength, but also a crippling weakness. Even when making up things as one goes along, it should still be possible to create and maintain a sturdy, consistent, draconian framework for canonical consistency which the fan community not only expects but demands. Clearly, Bungie and their successor, 343 Industries, has failed spectacularly in this regard.

Hopefully, with Glasslands, the rest of the Forerunner Trilogy, and the Reclaimer Trilogy, 343 will have understood this glaring problem and have fixed it; don't change things for the sake of it, and maintain a solid, draconian canonical framework upon which they abide by. Isn't that the standard that they must operate at? --Exalted Obliteration 19:00, 21 September 2011 (EDT)


 * I can't help but think that 343 won't stop "revising" for long, but the revisions in the past have been fine as long as they've made sure to be improving the canon with it. Elites, Brutes, and Hunters present at the Battle of Harvest? The Fall of Reach is now a month long? Sure, because losing your 2nd-largest planetary stronghold in a day, on top of losing against nothing but Jackals and Grunts for the past 26 years is embarrassing. New look for John's Mark VI armor? Not so much, 343. Not so much. Tuckerscreator (stalk ) 20:00, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

Hmmm...that depends upon what they may or may not deem as being justifiable to the requirements and demands of the fanbase, particularly those who have memorized all past and present facts. While I understand that, to a degree, mistakes will be made, including the incompentent ones, there does come a point where one has to wonder whether or not they have the skill, fortitude, and simply discipline to make the right decisions, to find the right balance. In some ways Bungie did, but in many more ways they did not, and 343 has predictably followed the same pattern.

As both companies have spent vast sums of time, money, and energy engaging in passioned, extensive self-promotion, it is also encumbent upon them to provide the evidence that verifies the value of their so-called passion, skill, talent, and devotion to whatever products that they are trying to sell. Since we are the consumers, it is completely up to the providers of the goods, such as 343 and Microsoft, to provide the quality that is required and demanded by the stakes that they are beholden too. If they cannot do so, then there is very little incentive on the part of the consumer to purchase items that do not match the level of quality and value that they require.

As the saying goes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Halo is very much the case, for the ones making the extraordinary claim are Microsoft, 343, and for a time, Bungie, and we, the consumers, don't have to prove anything, such is the comfort and privilege of our position. If the evidence validating the extravagant claims of the producers is lacking and/or absent, then there is no incentive for the consumer to pay for the products in question at all.

Given how much hype surrounds Halo: Combat Evolved Anniversary and what is beginning to appear for Halo 4 and the rest of the Reclaimer Trilogy, it is valuable as a consumer to remove the lure of the hype and engage in earnest investigation relative to one's own biases, opinions, and specific purposes, before making a judgement upon whether or not these products have any value or not. Giving into hype is a sure-fire way to waste money on products that don't deserve it, and incompetent producers should not be rewarded for incompetent production. That is a principle reason why so many otherwise high-profile games, movies, books, etc. are revealed to be misshapen, substandard products when subjected to proper scrutiny and criticism.

Hopefully 343 or any other entertainment producer, for that matter, know this to be true. --Exalted Obliteration 22:02, 21 September 2011 (EDT)


 * tl;dr
 * If Microsoft wants a Halo 'cyclopedia, they're better off linking to this site. We're enough obsessive-compulsive sticklers for canon paradigms to be put to bed in a matter of days. k 4   karnage   23:45, 21 September 2011 (EDT)