Talk:List of inconsistencies in the Halo series: Difference between revisions

==Halo Wars-Halo Escalation==

:::: 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'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 Personally, I would prefer if Holmes' statement superseded the EVG's explanation since I'm not a fan of the utter lack of a logical visual continuity in the MJOLNIR series' development, but it doesn't justify removing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)

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>]]^{([[User talk:Tuckerscreator|<font color="#008000">stalk</font>]])} 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)

*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.

*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)

: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?  ==

This is a bit of a fringe case, which is why I'm unsure about including it, but the notion introduced in ''New Blood'' that the Spartan-IVs have a specific locator implant (rather comically called a "translocator" in ''Lessons Learned'') in their throat region is a bit odd in light of the fact ''all'' UNSC personnel have an IFF transponder in their [[neural interface]] (which is located on the opposite side of the head), and there's seems to be little reason why the Spartan-IVs would be an exception. The one in the throat could always be for redundancy's sake, but in that case Schein should've also torn out the neural lace at the back of Wakahisa's skull, which isn't mentioned. --[[User:Jugus|Jugus]] ([[User talk:Jugus|talk]]) 01:46, 12 October 2016 (EDT)