Forum:The retcons made by 343i

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 they 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)

What do you mean by "doesn't mean we have to accept" it? Do you mean personally, if so, then yeah, kind of goes without saying. But if you mean as a wiki then I'd have to disagree with you. As a wiki, we have to accept it and present things as they are, without bias, though I'm sure you're aware of that. As for your feelings of the redesigns creating a disconnect with previous games, well, those are your feelings and I'm sure as hell not going to try and take them away from you, but for me, personally, I felt it was one of the stronger continuations. When Halo 2 game out I remember feeling like it didn't connect properly, mostly due to visual changes (now it's my favourite game), likewise I always felt weird about Halo Wars, and Reach still feels like a different universe to the original trilogy. But they're all different takes on a universe and that's something you have to expect with any art form. Personally I felt that Halo 4 was an appropriate continuation and a good start to a new era. As for the ship specifically. Each time there's a class of ships they all look the same, so while we may have only seen the redesign applied to the Dawn within the game, past examples would suggest that the change exists for the entire class of ships.--Soul reaper (talk) 11:30, 24 July 2013 (EDT)

I concur with Soul reaper. If it is changed, regardless of how we feel about it, we must accept that the changes are canon. --Xamikaze330 [Transmission|Commencing] 11:41, 24 July 2013 (EDT)Xamikaze330

Well yes of course it was meant to be a personal statement that can apply to anyone really. And yes, I'm aware that as a "wiki" we have no other choice but to accept this - which is why I said we should change the image on the talk page whether I disagree w/ it or not. Compared to H2, H3, HW, & Reach, Halo 4 is a completely different story with things that changed radically. So the point is (and what I mean by disconnect), is that it creates inconsistencies (i.e. the FUD's hanger disappearing means the arby & chief never jumped into it since it no longer exist). Regardless if its a "different take on the universe", you should still keep things consistent as much as possible and that's the point your missing. These changes eliminate suspension of disbelief and makes it seem as though this isn't the same Halo - I guess it's 343's Halo. To me its cool to see things looking the same. It makes the story that much better visually. When things are changed it makes it look like the developer was never satisfied with what has come before, and it shows no respect for what Bungie had established.--Killamint [Comm|Files] 12:21, 24 July 2013 (EDT)

On that last part, we do (partially) agree. Don't ask why. But there is some changes that make it difficult for it (the redesign) to work in Halo 3. I'm sure you can guess what those are. --Xamikaze330 [Transmission|Commencing] 12:28, 24 July 2013 (EDT)Xamikaze330

On a side note, despite everything I said, I do actually like the new frigate design more than the previous design (and the fact that they have shields now), and I LOVE how the Infinity can hold 10 of them and deploy them out it's hull like a minature fleet. So retcons aren't entirely bad, its just when they clash with what was previously established canon that drive me nuts. I would've preferred the FUD remaining the same and the new frigates as-is. Whatever the case, I can't continue complaining about it. I just hope that 343i makes improvements for the next game.--Killamint [Comm|Files] 17:36, 24 July 2013 (EDT)