Forum:The retcons made by 343i: Difference between revisions
From Halopedia, the Halo wiki
Imrane-117 (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Imrane-117 (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
[[Talk:Charon-class light frigate#Shouldn't we change the images a bit?|Continued from talk page]]. I honestly didn't have an issue with 343i redesigning the Charon-class for the post-war era, except for the fact that they decided to change the FUD along with it. It just morphs into something else with NO explanation - so it doesn't make any sense. It would've made sense if only the Charon-class was redesigned w/ upgrades after the war. So IMO, just because 343i decides to redesign something for no good reason doesn't mean we have to accept it nor like it. Most story driven fans (and hardcore ones) won't. If they wanted the FUD to have a bigger playspace, they should've done something like the Maw - same ship, imaginary playspace. Almost like what Hacame said before, obviously the art director and practically everyone else at 343i didn't give a hoot about previously established canon & designs. Like the said in those numerous videos, they wanted Halo 4 to be their Halo game. That's fine and dandy but that doesn't mean you go and throwout existing designs because you feel like it. In fact Halo 4 feels almost completely disconnected from Halo 3 in every single way thanks to these retcons (and story elimates). It felt as though I wasn't playing in the same universe.--'''''[[User:Killamint|<span style="color:Black; font-family: Arial;">Killamint</span>]]''''' <small>['''''[[User talk:Killamint|<font color="Red">Comm</font>]]'''''|'''''[[Special:Contributions/Killamint|<font color="Black">Files</font>]]''''']</small> 10:35, 24 July 2013 (EDT) | [[Talk:Charon-class light frigate#Shouldn't we change the images a bit?|Continued from talk page]]. I honestly didn't have an issue with 343i redesigning the Charon-class for the post-war era, except for the fact that they decided to change the FUD along with it. It just morphs into something else with NO explanation - so it doesn't make any sense. It would've made sense if only the Charon-class was redesigned w/ upgrades after the war. So IMO, just because 343i decides to redesign something for no good reason doesn't mean we have to accept it nor like it. Most story driven fans (and hardcore ones) won't. If they wanted the FUD to have a bigger playspace, they should've done something like the Maw - same ship, imaginary playspace. Almost like what Hacame said before, obviously the art director and practically everyone else at 343i didn't give a hoot about previously established canon & designs. Like the said in those numerous videos, they wanted Halo 4 to be their Halo game. That's fine and dandy but that doesn't mean you go and throwout existing designs because you feel like it. In fact Halo 4 feels almost completely disconnected from Halo 3 in every single way thanks to these retcons (and story elimates). It felt as though I wasn't playing in the same universe.--'''''[[User:Killamint|<span style="color:Black; font-family: Arial;">Killamint</span>]]''''' <small>['''''[[User talk:Killamint|<font color="Red">Comm</font>]]'''''|'''''[[Special:Contributions/Killamint|<font color="Black">Files</font>]]''''']</small> 10:35, 24 July 2013 (EDT) | ||
:I don't really have a lot of issues with the new design, it's just that I think it was designed specifically for the ''Dawn'' wreckage as featured in the first level of ''Halo 4'', not for the intact ship, let alone the whole class. Such a concept art hardly | :I don't really have a lot of issues with the new design, it's just that I think it was designed specifically for the ''Dawn'' wreckage as featured in the first level of ''Halo 4'', not for the intact ship, let alone the whole class. Such a concept art hardly matches with the ''Charon''-class frigate's description, which is dubbed for example "a heavy cargo" in ''Halo: The Essential Visual Guide'' (and it's generally an accepted fact). Maybe I should have mentioned it earlier, but in ''Awakening: The Art of Halo 4'', Sparth also mentions that he needed to draw the full ship only for the sake of breaking it later, this is why my interpretation is that the ''Dawn'' is an exception. As I said it multiple times, I think it was essentially for the sake of creating a new design for the ''Dawn'' wreckage, no more no less. Still... In the end, I guess you guys decide it. [[User:Imrane-117|Imrane-117]] ([[User talk:Imrane-117|talk]]) 10:54, 24 July 2013 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 10:56, July 24, 2013
| Forums: Index → General Discussion → The retcons made by 343i |  |
Continued from talk page. I honestly didn't have an issue with 343i redesigning the Charon-class for the post-war era, except for the fact that they decided to change the FUD along with it. It just morphs into something else with NO explanation - so it doesn't make any sense. It would've made sense if only the Charon-class was redesigned w/ upgrades after the war. So IMO, just because 343i decides to redesign something for no good reason doesn't mean we have to accept it nor like it. Most story driven fans (and hardcore ones) won't. If they wanted the FUD to have a bigger playspace, they should've done something like the Maw - same ship, imaginary playspace. Almost like what Hacame said before, obviously the art director and practically everyone else at 343i didn't give a hoot about previously established canon & designs. Like the said in those numerous videos, they wanted Halo 4 to be their Halo game. That's fine and dandy but that doesn't mean you go and throwout existing designs because you feel like it. In fact Halo 4 feels almost completely disconnected from Halo 3 in every single way thanks to these retcons (and story elimates). It felt as though I wasn't playing in the same universe.--Killamint [Comm|Files] 10:35, 24 July 2013 (EDT)
- I don't really have a lot of issues with the new design, it's just that I think it was designed specifically for the Dawn wreckage as featured in the first level of Halo 4, not for the intact ship, let alone the whole class. Such a concept art hardly matches with the Charon-class frigate's description, which is dubbed for example "a heavy cargo" in Halo: The Essential Visual Guide (and it's generally an accepted fact). Maybe I should have mentioned it earlier, but in Awakening: The Art of Halo 4, Sparth also mentions that he needed to draw the full ship only for the sake of breaking it later, this is why my interpretation is that the Dawn is an exception. As I said it multiple times, I think it was essentially for the sake of creating a new design for the Dawn wreckage, no more no less. Still... In the end, I guess you guys decide it. Imrane-117 (talk) 10:54, 24 July 2013 (EDT)