Editing Talk:List of inconsistencies in the Halo series
From Halopedia, the Halo wiki
The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
| Latest revision | Your text | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Archived | {{Archived}} | ||
==Halo Wars-Halo Escalation== | ==Halo Wars-Halo Escalation== | ||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
:::: Well then may I make an edit request? I request this <small>'''"However, Halo 4: The Essential Visual Guide establishes that John's suit's superficial upgrades are based on a variant of the Mark IV, retroactively indicating that the suits seen in the Prologue are in fact this particular variant"'''</small> be slightly changed to this <small>'''"However, Halo 4: The Essential Visual Guide establishes that John's suit's superficial upgrades are based on a variant of the Mark IV, possibly indicating that the suits seen in the Prologue are in fact this particular variant"'''</small> As while the EVU states that John's custom MKVI is based on an earlier line of MKIV '''it is never directly stated''' that what we see in Halo 4's prologue is that MKIV, so I request this minor change as since it is never directly stated it leaves it open for interpretation and later changes, as well as pleasing both sides and ending this edit war. - [[User:JJAB91]] | :::: Well then may I make an edit request? I request this <small>'''"However, Halo 4: The Essential Visual Guide establishes that John's suit's superficial upgrades are based on a variant of the Mark IV, retroactively indicating that the suits seen in the Prologue are in fact this particular variant"'''</small> be slightly changed to this <small>'''"However, Halo 4: The Essential Visual Guide establishes that John's suit's superficial upgrades are based on a variant of the Mark IV, possibly indicating that the suits seen in the Prologue are in fact this particular variant"'''</small> As while the EVU states that John's custom MKVI is based on an earlier line of MKIV '''it is never directly stated''' that what we see in Halo 4's prologue is that MKIV, so I request this minor change as since it is never directly stated it leaves it open for interpretation and later changes, as well as pleasing both sides and ending this edit war. - [[User:JJAB91]] | ||
::::I know the page is already locked, but I concur with Braidenvl, my problem wasn't the authority of Josh Holmes' statement, it was that the other explanation was removed. -- [[User:Morhek|<b><font color=indigo>Qura 'Morhek</font></b>]] [[halofanon:user:Specops306|<u><i><font color=blue><sup>The Autocrat</sup></font></i></u>]] [[User talk:Specops306|<u><i><font color=purple><sup>of Morheka</sup></font></i></u>]] 03:03, 8 June 2014 (EDT) | ::::I know the page is already locked, but I concur with Braidenvl, my problem wasn't the authority of Josh Holmes' statement, it was that the other explanation was removed. -- [[User:Morhek|<b><font color=indigo>Qura 'Morhek</font></b>]] [[w:c:halofanon:user:Specops306|<u><i><font color=blue><sup>The Autocrat</sup></font></i></u>]] [[User talk:Specops306|<u><i><font color=purple><sup>of Morheka</sup></font></i></u>]] 03:03, 8 June 2014 (EDT) | ||
:::I'm with Braidenvl and Morhek - the issue here was the removal of the EVG's explanation, not what Holmes tweeted. Like Killamin7, I'd also to question the logic of deferring to direct developer statements over likewise official media: over the years we've had plenty of more or less silly "explanations" to appease the fans - that the M7 SMG was still "in the factory" during ''Reach'' or that the Skirmishers were all wiped out during the same game (oh <s>yes</s> no, the ''Kilo-Five Trilogy'' cannot be canon now!). Or Frankie's aforementioned prowler comment. Personally, I would prefer if Holmes' statement superseded the EVG's explanation since I'm not a fan of the utter lack of a logical visual continuity in the MJOLNIR series' development, but it doesn't justify removing perfectly valid information. I would have no problem with changing the "retroactively" to "possibly", though I don't see the point - the intention of the EVG's statement was crystal clear. I mean, consider a scenario where the EVG ''isn't'' referring to the Prologue suits: that there is a canonical Mark IV variant identical to the one in Prologue, but the armor in Prologue isn't that variant but is instead wholly non-canonical. In that case, what was the point of the EVG's claim? To establish there is in fact a Mark IV variant identical to the Chief's ''Halo 4'' suit that we never see, because the only feasible appearance of that suit isn't canon? --[[User:Jugus|<font color="MidnightBlue"><b>Jugus</b></font>]] <small>([[User talk:Jugus|<font color="Gray">Talk</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Jugus|<font color="Gray">Contribs</font>]])</small> 08:40, 8 June 2014 (EDT) | :::I'm with Braidenvl and Morhek - the issue here was the removal of the EVG's explanation, not what Holmes tweeted. Like Killamin7, I'd also to question the logic of deferring to direct developer statements over likewise official media: over the years we've had plenty of more or less silly "explanations" to appease the fans - that the M7 SMG was still "in the factory" during ''Reach'' or that the Skirmishers were all wiped out during the same game (oh <s>yes</s> no, the ''Kilo-Five Trilogy'' cannot be canon now!). Or Frankie's aforementioned prowler comment. Personally, I would prefer if Holmes' statement superseded the EVG's explanation since I'm not a fan of the utter lack of a logical visual continuity in the MJOLNIR series' development, but it doesn't justify removing perfectly valid information. I would have no problem with changing the "retroactively" to "possibly", though I don't see the point - the intention of the EVG's statement was crystal clear. I mean, consider a scenario where the EVG ''isn't'' referring to the Prologue suits: that there is a canonical Mark IV variant identical to the one in Prologue, but the armor in Prologue isn't that variant but is instead wholly non-canonical. In that case, what was the point of the EVG's claim? To establish there is in fact a Mark IV variant identical to the Chief's ''Halo 4'' suit that we never see, because the only feasible appearance of that suit isn't canon? --[[User:Jugus|<font color="MidnightBlue"><b>Jugus</b></font>]] <small>([[User talk:Jugus|<font color="Gray">Talk</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Jugus|<font color="Gray">Contribs</font>]])</small> 08:40, 8 June 2014 (EDT) | ||
| Line 53: | Line 53: | ||
It felt to me like they still fit, mostly. It was during their flight that Arbiter found out about Locke being a "hunter" and hunting the Master Chief, both of which he's already familiar with by the time Locke meets him again at the camp. As for why they're on a Lich and not a Phantom, we see in "Swords of Sanghelios" opening cutscene that Liches can carry Phantoms and that the crew can move from one to the other. So for the most part, I think it still fits. [[User:Tuckerscreator|<span style="color:#6600cc;">'''''Tuckerscreator'''''</span>]]<sup>([[User talk:Tuckerscreator|<font color="#008000">stalk</font>]])</sup> 00:46, 9 November 2015 (EST) | It felt to me like they still fit, mostly. It was during their flight that Arbiter found out about Locke being a "hunter" and hunting the Master Chief, both of which he's already familiar with by the time Locke meets him again at the camp. As for why they're on a Lich and not a Phantom, we see in "Swords of Sanghelios" opening cutscene that Liches can carry Phantoms and that the crew can move from one to the other. So for the most part, I think it still fits. [[User:Tuckerscreator|<span style="color:#6600cc;">'''''Tuckerscreator'''''</span>]]<sup>([[User talk:Tuckerscreator|<font color="#008000">stalk</font>]])</sup> 00:46, 9 November 2015 (EST) | ||
:Besides the sudden attitude change from Thel, there's the issue of the Lich landing and dropping everyone into battle at the end of the second scene.[[User:Sith Venator|<span style="color:green">Sith Venator</span>]] [[File:Mega Blastoise.gif|20px]] ([[User talk:Sith Venator|<span style="color:blue">Dank Memes</span>]]) 00:58, 9 November 2015 (EST) | :Besides the sudden attitude change from Thel, there's the issue of the Lich landing and dropping everyone into battle at the end of the second scene.[[User:Sith Venator|<span style="color:green">Sith Venator</span>]] [[File:Mega Blastoise.gif|20px]] ([[User talk:Sith Venator|<span style="color:blue">Dank Memes</span>]]) 00:58, 9 November 2015 (EST) | ||
| Line 97: | Line 95: | ||
*Dr Halsey already mentions the Covenant infiltration of Reach as of July 2552 in her diary. | *Dr Halsey already mentions the Covenant infiltration of Reach as of July 2552 in her diary. | ||
*In the Adjunct of ''The Fall of Reach'', Keyes sends a message to Kopano mentioning that he disagrees with the sacrifice of Reach. The message is not properly dated but it's definitely during the preparations for RED FLAG. He already knew the planet was attacked. | *In the Adjunct of ''The Fall of Reach'', Keyes sends a message to Kopano mentioning that he disagrees with the sacrifice of Reach. The message is not properly dated but it's definitely during the preparations for RED FLAG. He already knew the planet was attacked. | ||
*"Blunt Instruments" revealed that the Covenant had already attacked Tribute in the Epsilon Eridani system. The sequel, ''Halo: Blood Line'', was set in August before the Fall of Reach (as said by both [[News | *"Blunt Instruments" revealed that the Covenant had already attacked Tribute in the Epsilon Eridani system. The sequel, ''Halo: Blood Line'', was set in August before the Fall of Reach (as said by both [[Halopedia:News/21 May 2009/Fred Van Lente and Spartan Black|Fred Van Lente]] and Kevin Grace from 343i in his interview included after ''Blood Line''). The history of Black Team (2009-2010) is actually the first time when it was ever mentioned that the Epsilon Eridani system was attacked during July/August—with the dates being given properly with ''Reach'', Dr Halsey's journal, etc. | ||
*The Data Drops were only released in September and October, 2011, more than a year later. So the universe had already established the events properly, and expanding on ''The Fall of Reach''<nowiki>'</nowiki>s story does not mean inconsistencies. So don't revert my edit, though you can add another example other than Reach. [[User:Imrane-117|Imrane-117]] ([[User talk:Imrane-117|talk]]) 18:24, 27 March 2016 (EDT) | *The Data Drops were only released in September and October, 2011, more than a year later. So the universe had already established the events properly, and expanding on ''The Fall of Reach''<nowiki>'</nowiki>s story does not mean inconsistencies. So don't revert my edit, though you can add another example other than Reach. [[User:Imrane-117|Imrane-117]] ([[User talk:Imrane-117|talk]]) 18:24, 27 March 2016 (EDT) | ||
| Line 107: | Line 105: | ||
:In fact, I don't really like considering as an inconsistency—or a potential inconsistency—something that is created in order to expand on an original scenario (e.g.: Bungie complexifying the events of Reach). For me, a real inconsistency that was "fixed" afterwards was the Scarab's designation, for example. The [https://www.halowaypoint.com/en-us/universe/vehicles/scarab Waypoint article] clearly established that both the ''Halo 2'' and the ''Halo 3/Reach'' models had the same designation (Type-47) due to a UNSC administration quirk, and proceeded to give more detailed designations (Type-47A Protos and Type-47B Deutoros). That's the example I wanted to add, something clear and simple, without the whole expanded universe of ''Reach'' including 5 or 6 sources dealing with the events. Though I felt maybe the Scarab example was too minor. [[User:Imrane-117|Imrane-117]] ([[User talk:Imrane-117|talk]]) 19:59, 27 March 2016 (EDT) | :In fact, I don't really like considering as an inconsistency—or a potential inconsistency—something that is created in order to expand on an original scenario (e.g.: Bungie complexifying the events of Reach). For me, a real inconsistency that was "fixed" afterwards was the Scarab's designation, for example. The [https://www.halowaypoint.com/en-us/universe/vehicles/scarab Waypoint article] clearly established that both the ''Halo 2'' and the ''Halo 3/Reach'' models had the same designation (Type-47) due to a UNSC administration quirk, and proceeded to give more detailed designations (Type-47A Protos and Type-47B Deutoros). That's the example I wanted to add, something clear and simple, without the whole expanded universe of ''Reach'' including 5 or 6 sources dealing with the events. Though I felt maybe the Scarab example was too minor. [[User:Imrane-117|Imrane-117]] ([[User talk:Imrane-117|talk]]) 19:59, 27 March 2016 (EDT) | ||
== The babble juice dosage that Olivia received from A Necessary Truth? == | == The babble juice dosage that Olivia received from A Necessary Truth? == | ||
| Line 137: | Line 131: | ||
:Yeah, probably. I was always kind of wondering why these civilians were just hanging out in an abandoned city that looked to be in terrible condition. --[[User:NightHammer|<span style="color: #2B1AAA;">'''NightHammer'''</span>]]''<sup>[[User talk:NightHammer|<span style="color: #2B1AAA;">(talk)</span>]]</sup><sup>[[Special:Contributions/NightHammer|<span style="color: #2B1AAA;">(contribs)</span>]]</sup>'' 10:58, 10 October 2016 (EDT) | :Yeah, probably. I was always kind of wondering why these civilians were just hanging out in an abandoned city that looked to be in terrible condition. --[[User:NightHammer|<span style="color: #2B1AAA;">'''NightHammer'''</span>]]''<sup>[[User talk:NightHammer|<span style="color: #2B1AAA;">(talk)</span>]]</sup><sup>[[Special:Contributions/NightHammer|<span style="color: #2B1AAA;">(contribs)</span>]]</sup>'' 10:58, 10 October 2016 (EDT) | ||