Talk:Prologue

Anachronism section
Regarding the paragraph concerning the augmentation section, the sentence from Fall of Reach is quite ambiguous on its own. Even in our present time, most of the 2012 Olympic athletes look nothing like those in Scanned. Seems like you're thinking of the jocks depicted in our common entertainment media... oh, anyway, I suggest this entire paragraph rewritten or removed: I would prefer removing since it should always be the case of "game canon being superior".— subtank   04:05, 8 November 2012 (EST)


 * I doubt Nylund was being THAT exact when describing the S-IIs pre-augmentations, and I doubt he'd know much about the anatomy of athletes. He just intended for a basic impression of "young but really buff", and the Spartans seen in Scanned seem to reflect that better than in Prologue. But Scanned isn't the only source. I've also noted the S-IIs' appearance in the Halo: Fall of Reach comic book, and they look about the same as in Scanned. Tuckerscreator (stalk ) 13:00, 28 January 2013 (EST)

Isn't there a way to rewrite the "Spartan's armor" paragraph without stating things like "The most prominent inconsistency", "Halsey couldn't have known it", "The Visual Guide retcons the suits as Mark IV"...? I think it's pretty much established that these armors were simply a Mark IV variant from the get-go (In the same way Fred's helmet isn't a Mark V(B) but rather a Mark IV variant, and so on...). Same for the energy shields, which were field tested and thus aren't really an inconsistency (Field testing them throughout the war is still much more likely than having them coming from nowhere in 2551 for the Mark V). Of course I'm not implying that the explanations should be removed, I'm just suggesting that we rewrite some lines so they look more like "This can be explained by that" rather than "This is an inconsistency but it can still be explained by that". Casual fans may be confused by so-called "inconsistencies" while in fact those are inconsistencies only until you find out the explanation. The existence of boosters which are not part of subsequent armors is an interesting point though. Imrane-117 (talk) 09:36, 24 July 2013 (EDT)


 * Okay, so I did it, hoping that doesn't bother anyone. First, I've changed "Anachronisms" into "Discrepancies", because after elucidating most of the inconsistencies, those that remained were not really anachronisms anymore; it's mostly about representations. Second, I've removed most of the part that stated that Halsey didn't like "her" armor being modified. This armor is just a variant of the original Mark IV, as much as the EVA, EOD or Commando variants are, and at this point I can assure you that Halsey has probably seen tons of them. Eventually, the fact she didn't like "field modifications" has little to do with such armors which are much more than that; it's simply a line of Mark IV, as stated in the visual guide. As for the boosters, I changed that a little bit: it seems clear that they were a feature of this Mark IV variant, yet most of the MJOLNIR armors have their own features. We could say that wearing an EVA armor would have been more useful to some Spartans during a space mission, but ultimately it's not that significant to mention. The boosters' absence in subsequent armors is an acceptable fact, after all every armors have a specificity. Moreover, the Sangheili combat harness wasn't retconned, as the regular one is still present in Spartan Assault. It's just that some are standard while others are not. Imrane-117 (talk) 18:10, 26 July 2013 (EDT)

The difference is that John's armor was indeed canonically a field modification, as evidenced by 343's explanation of nanomachines. The modified Mark VI in the flashbacks was originally not meant to be Mark IV, but just reusing the Mark VI just like how The Package initially had Mark VI's that turned out to be Mark IV. As for the boosters, they were on mainline armors, not EVA, which is a variant. Hence why I feel it's best to cover the whole issue, including how 343 eventually explained that it's a Mark IV model. And I think it's better to keep the explanations together rather than in different sections, as otherwise it starts to seem more like a section for speculation. Tuckerscreator (stalk ) 20:00, 26 July 2013 (EDT)


 * Why should we consider that as an inconsistency? The Package 's and Prologue 's armors were not "Mark VI" that turned out to be "Mark IV" as it was all before 2552; anyone can deduce that. These armors are merely variants of the Mark IV. I think my edit was much clearer about everything, including other things such as Cortana's hologram, the boosters, the Sangheili combat harness, etc. Calling these things inconsistencies from the get-go will only confuse people. Plus separating the so-called "inconsistencies" between those that are allegorical representations and those that aren't inconsistencies because they can be explained can be more helpful for people who think everything is simply wrong from the beginning. Finally about the speculation, there was simply no speculation in what I wrote, actually I even removed things like "Sangheili armor could have been retconned", etc, there was a bunch of speculations before my edit (and now that it has been reverted). I really think the section should be clearer, about what's wrong and what's not wrong in the Prologue, since launch I've met several people on forums who were confused especially because they saw things being called inconsistencies on the wiki. Imrane-117 (talk) 20:35, 26 July 2013 (EDT)

I meant that it might open it up to speculation from later editors, since it seemingly offers the chance to add one's own explanation. In The Package, we didn't know they were Mark IV variants yet, since we even saw its HUD showed shields and the time period was never given in the short. And the section is clear about what's been answered, but it should still be noted what the problems are because those answers are not given in the cutscene itself. Tuckerscreator (stalk ) 20:45, 26 July 2013 (EDT)


 * I don't think the "allegorical" subsection would really lead to speculation, as it's kept in a direct way, and there's also some additional things such as Halsey showing the hologram to John in the comic book. As for The Package, indeed we didn't have any date, but we knew it was before the games and thus the Spartans had to wear Mark IV variants, even the shields could have been a possibility because of Halo Wars (even before The Essential Visual Guide), for "style" purposes like originally for Red Team. As for the problems/answers, I think it should be the opposite. You want to point out the problems a bit too much I think, everyone can potentially see the "problems", but the article should be focused on answering them. Instead of stating "this is a problem and here's the answer", there should mainly be an explanation, because most of the time it's not really a problem, it's just that some fans didn't realize some things (That if it's during the war, the armors have to be Mark IV, that energy shields existed during this time frame, etc). Imrane-117 (talk) 20:55, 26 July 2013 (EDT)

If the answers are readily apparent then there's no need to point out the problems. That's why the Halo Legends shorts don't get personal sections going on about their inconsistencies, because usually it's only one or two, though major, problems in them, like the time period for The Duel or Halsey's age and the Mark VI's in The Package. This one does because the inconsistencies are throughout all the flashbacks, and have too much detail for Inconsistencies page. In a sense, this section is merely an extension of the List of Inconsistencies page, just relegated here so as to not fill that page up and to go more into detail. If the section were to spend its time trying to give answers for all the problems, there would be no need to have it because it'd be contradicting itself, by saying there are inconsistencies and then that there are not. And it's not as if the section is giving any answers. It already was, and discusses the major issues. Tuckerscreator (stalk ) 23:12, 26 July 2013 (EDT)


 * The problem is that the current article rises inconsistencies that are inconsistencies only from the point of view of a fan who didn't quite understand some things. Here are the issues. The Mark IV being continuously referred to as a Mark VI which was retconned as a Mark IV. The visual guide did not retcon anything, nor did 343i. From the get-go, this armor was Mark IV because the scene is set during the Human-Covenant War, this is pure logic. Frankie had already stated that John's armor was upgraded via nanomachines. Thus, it was already shown that the newly upgraded Mark VI was based on this previous iteration of the Mark IV. The visual guide merely confirmed what we already deduced. It was there to help casual fans sort out why there would be "upgraded Mark VI" armors in the past. But actually we didn't even need 343i to explain that, in a similar way we wouldn't need them to tell us that Fred's armor isn't Mark V(B) in FUD, of course it's just Mark IV despite its design. The current "Spartans' armor" subsection is wrong on a bunch stuff (Namely "The most prominent inconsistency", "Dr. Halsey could not have known this variant existed", and the part which states Halsey didn't like on-the-field-modifications while these armors have little to do with ad-hoc mods).


 * Furthermore, the previous paragraphs also present "inconsistencies" or "retcons" which aren't real. It rises the question of whether the Covenant armors were retconned or not, while we all know they weren't retconned at all. As I had mentioned it in my edit, Cortana indicates that the Covenant aboard the Dawn were wearing non standard military outfits. This simply means that the Sangheili depicted in the Prologue were wearing this non standard armor; moreover the Elites are still wearing standard armors in Spartan Assault, which proves that the combat harnesses weren't retconned at all. As for the Jiralhanae armor, I'd better not call it a retcon because of a slightly different shape of helmet and a different arm; this merely indicates that different combinations of armor were in use. Yet, the article still speculates that it may be a retcon. As for Cortana's introduction to John, I had also added some bits which were reverted; Braidenvl re-added one of those, but there's still the scene from the comic book Halo: Fall of Reach which is worth mentioning.


 * About the thrusters, I also think it's slightly off-topic. To say that it would have been useful to Red Team, Master Chief, etc. Of course it would have been useful to them, yet mentioning this particular feature of the armor in such a prominent way doesn't seem right. A LOT could have happened differently if some characters wore different armors in the Halo universe, if they had had the armor corresponding to their need, etc. Ultimately, the current paragraph is merely speculating on the usefulness of a Mark IV iteration's feature, if it could have been used on other armors in other stories. Merely pointing out that it was a feature of this armor and that it wasn't part of subsequent standard Mark V and Mark VI armors would have been a more direct way to explain the existence of these thrusters.


 * Eventually, as I said it multiple times, a bunch of issues pointed out in this article are self-made. Don't forget that it was probably written in the first place by someone who had little idea of how to explain the cutscene. If "explications only" isn't a solution and we need to stick with "Problems-->Answers", then the article should simply get rid of so-called "inconsistencies" that were debunked as such; namely the "Mark VI-looking" Mark IV which is not an inconsistency, the Covenant armors which are not an inconsistency, the absence of thrusters on subsequent armors which is not an inconsistency, the presence of energy shielding which is not an inconsistency... Most of what could be real discrepancies would be the Spartans' augmentations and the scene in which Cortana is introduced to John. Yet, most of the section would be gone. So, either we get rid of things which aren't inconsistencies (because the section is only about inconsistencies, after all), or we keep them and we explain them to the casual fan without continuously calling them "inconsistencies, retcons, etc" because, well, in the end they're proven as not being that. Imrane-117 (talk) 04:46, 27 July 2013 (EDT)


 * This argument is getting huger and huger, and I doubt we're making any headway or convincing each other. Like I said, the section already gives the possible answers, but still include the inconsistencies because the answers are either not immediately obvious (no, we couldn't have just assumed those were Mark IVs when they displayed multiple features of the Mark VI) or are included for the sake of thoroughness (aka the Covenant armors and Halsey's opinion of on-field modifications). At best the most we can do is agree to disagree, and try to keep the section thorough. I have little objection to new information being added, but feel the section is organized fine as is. Tuckerscreator (stalk ) 12:46, 27 July 2013 (EDT)


 * Can't we even agree that the Sangheili armors weren't retconned? For the wiki's sake, such a simple thing that is even stated in the beginning of the game itself. As for the Mark IV, I have little understanding of how someone could mistake it for a Mark VI when the scene is clearly shown as a part of the Human-Covenant War. The similar appearance is not enough, as multiple cross-gen armors often share the same appearance; the energy shields existed and the thrusters were simply a feature of said armor. I really don't see at all how someone could get confused to the point of thinking that these were Mark VI armors from the get-go (This makes me remember people who thought Deliver Hope was wrong because Six was already in the team when Kat had her two arms; but they didn't even think that it could have happened before the game). You don't realize how many people got confused by Halopedia itself since the game's release. I can see that we disagree on many points, and if you have an opinion on a number of things such the armors and so on I'm not intending to change that; but I can't feel but bothered when such an article constantly speculates about whether something is a retcon or not, when it's actually not a retcon. You say that if something isn't immediately obvious in the cutscene, then it's worth to be noted a retcon; but of course the whole cutscene isn't going to break down each scene one by one to explain it by itself, this is our job to say "This is what happened" instead of speculating "This may be what happened or simply a retcon". I know you're probably not going to consider that, so I won't change anything because it's probably not going to pass. Keep the article this way if you want, I can agree to merely let it as it is; I also think the discussion is a dead end as no one else feels concerned. +++ Imrane-117 (talk) 17:52, 27 July 2013 (EDT)


 * I didn't realised my comment received a reply... months after. :P
 * There are several issues with the cutscene and the writings of section. Firstly, nowhere has it been stated that the flashbacks are from Halsey's memory. It is presumed by the author of the section. The flashbacks are just flashbacks without an origin. If anything, assume that the flashbacks are from disembodied soul (I'll expand more on this later). Secondly, whenever a discrepancy has been adequately explained by a material and resolved, the information on that discrepancy should be removed since it is no longer an issue. There is no point in using external references (i.e. "Red Team would have survived") since it is written that way in 2001. To put it bluntly, if it is written that they don't have access to it, they don't have access to it. That being said, I don't see much issue with the Elite and Brute armours as they are more likely to be variants of their combat harness than they are to be considered as retcons. We've seen this treatment done to the armour changes from Halo 1 to Halo: Reach. The same goes with the MJOLNIR Mk. IV. Thirdly, the physique of the candidate in the augmentation scene matches the description of "18-year-old Olympic athlete". As I provided earlier, most of the 2012 Olympic athletes are nowhere considered as "buff"; however, they are considered as "physically fit", a word I would use to describe this image of 14yo John with the physique of an 18yo Olympic athelete. Since this is an issue of depiction, it is largely dependent on the opinion of the user (in this case, the author of the section). Quite honestly, in my opinion, I don't see a discrepancy with the physique portrayed in the cutscene. If anything, they are within the description of "18yo Olympic athlete".
 * I would consider that the flashbacks in the cutscenes are a retelling of events to players unfamiliar with the expanded universe of Halo, by a disembodied soul. Not to say that everything in the flashback is not canon, only that they are intentionally misplaced. As the section puts it, "Rather, it could be considered a summation of the entire [Halo universe]." That being said, I suggest a the entire section to be replaced with a few sentences placed in the "Trivia" section. — subtank   14:43, 29 July 2013 (EDT)

Brute fight
The short clip of John fighting the Chieftain looks a lot like a continuation of the Starry Night trailer for Halo 3. There are even piles of dead Brutes around. Alex T Snow 06:22, 11 November 2012 (EST)

Name
Should we rename this, along with Epilogue, to "Halo 4 Prologue/Epilogue"? We don't have "Credits (Halo 3)" nor "Credits (Halo 2)", and it's a good way to stay away from disambiguation pages. —  SPARTAN 331  22:00, 16 November 2012 (EST)
 * I agree with you. Go for it.-- 22:35, 16 November 2012 (EST)

Well, currently none of the other games have levels titled Prologue. I'm unsure. Tuckerscreator (stalk ) 22:40, 16 November 2012 (EST)
 * Well each game has dialogue before and after gameplay, but no cinematic is specifically referred to as "Prologue" or "Epilogue" that I'm aware of, I'm not sure either.Colonel Grade One.png Col.  Snipes  4  50 Colonel Grade One.png 22:59, 16 November 2012 (EST)
 * Since there are no other pages with that exact title, I don't think there's any reason to disambiguate this one. Wherever we have the chance, it's best to keep article titles as concise as possible. --Jugus (Talk  | Contribs ) 12:09, 19 November 2012 (EST)