[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Jose291 Reach should not be considered Halo, it's the black spot on the Halo franchise.[/quote] It technically wasn't according to Bungie until 343 tried to shoehorn it into canon.

Reach should not be considered Halo, it's the black spot on the Halo franchise.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Mr Owen L When the UNSC discovered the Spires why did they send in Spartans and then send in frigates to shot them with MAC cannons like snipping dead flower heads when they could literally have bombed it from orbit. Why did they commit only around 30 warthogs and a mongoose to counter the invading covenant forces with no heavy armour when they could easily have dropped in ODSTs and other assets from orbit or one of Reach's many military bases. why don't they scrap red flag and commit the 30 odd Spartan IIs into the battle. Why don't they use more orbital assets. Why is ONI being stupid in luring Covenant to reach (retconing FoR in the process as to how reach was found). Why is Cortana split up when she could have easily just remained whole and still analysed the forerunner symbols. Why does the PoA leave the space battle to pick up Cortana when it is unlikely it can enter atmosphere safely due to it's age and size. Why isn't it damaged in the end scene where it is travelling towards one of the Halo rings when in FoR it was suffering from major damage and was about to be boarded. All or these questions and more mean I personally can't see Reach as canon and in my opinion FoR is canon.[/quote] A: Was in a sensor blocking dome. So they could've nuked the entire area and destroyed some Covenant vehicles and a pretty garden but nothing else. They had to get up close recon. B: Um, you must've missed the entire BEGINNING of the cutscene. You know, with the scorpion tanks advancing, as well as Auntie Dot talking about UNSC ground forces engaged. (Those pretty arrows on the map? ALL UNSC ground units. Including ODST's, and their attack movements. So there was FAR, FAR more with just 30 warthogs, a mongoose, and a few falcons+ a pelican or two. Hell, if you bothered to even look out when you reached the AA gun, you'd see scorpions alongside the warthogs) C: ONI stupidty is why the S2's weren't informed of the battle. Or not very informed. D: Cause Parangosky is in charge. Her track record in Glasslands is stupid tactical plans. E: Remained whole and left the PoA without an AI. The shipboard AI(The one that was yet to be installed/started up) was... as just said, not activated yet. Cortana served in that role because the battle rushed it. She wasn't truly split half and half. More like, a sliver of her was looking over that Forerunner artifact, while the bulk was over there in PoA/with chief. F: Long discussed, PoA landed because Halsey flagged it down to give the part of Cortana back. Keyes decided it was worth the risk from Halsey's message. Age wouldn't matter as it was just refitted, so the ship isn't an ancient, rusting piece of junk. Size would probably more hinder how it lands then if it can land. Probably didn't land unaided like how it launched with aid. Regardless, that's one of the FEW actually good points I'll give to Anti-reach guys as being weird. G: Um... The scene during the credits is NOT the scene you are thinking of. You are thinking "PoA level in halo CE." Credits scene in Reach is more like, right before that. (or during the outside part of the Cutscene, before the Covenant even attack). And that's kinda a stupid reason to hate Reach IMO.

the storyline screwed up. Appereantly a note in Halsey journal states that the game is a depiction of what could have happenend on reach. But I don't feel staisfied with that kinda ducktape excuse.

When the UNSC discovered the Spires why did they send in Spartans and then send in frigates to shot them with MAC cannons like snipping dead flower heads when they could literally have bombed it from orbit. Why did they commit only around 30 warthogs and a mongoose to counter the invading covenant forces with no heavy armour when they could easily have dropped in ODSTs and other assets from orbit or one of Reach's many military bases. why don't they scrap red flag and commit the 30 odd Spartan IIs into the battle. Why don't they use more orbital assets. Why is ONI being stupid in luring Covenant to reach (retconing FoR in the process as to how reach was found). Why is Cortana split up when she could have easily just remained whole and still analysed the forerunner symbols. Why does the PoA leave the space battle to pick up Cortana when it is unlikely it can enter atmosphere safely due to it's age and size. Why isn't it damaged in the end scene where it is travelling towards one of the Halo rings when in FoR it was suffering from major damage and was about to be boarded. All or these questions and more mean I personally can't see Reach as canon and in my opinion FoR is canon.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Madmaxepic I disagree with the idea that the game designer does not define cannon fully. I have my own universe that I've created, and I am the sole definer and source of what is cannon in [i]my[/i] universe. Nobody can tell me what is cannon in [i]my[/i] universe but me, and if anybody else tried to, I would be absolutely furious. I can't even think of allowing someone else to tell me what is cannon in [i]my[/i] universe. So IMO, the creators of any given universe should have complete control of what is cannon in their universe.[/quote]Your method works absolutely fine. As long as you keep it to yourself. If you want a fan following however, you have to think about expectations; if you suddenly become completely wayward, even though you gave the impression of the opposite, you might alienate people. Remember, if you expect someone to devote their time to your creations, you'll have to give them a certain amount of respect. That respect [u]is[/u] pretty much what we're talking about. If one all of a sudden, change, add, or remove, etc, ones fans might get frustrated and confused. Some even angry by having followed a universe a certain amount of time, only to see it become something far too unfamiliar. If Microsoft decided to release a AAA [i]Super Halo Karting in Adventure Land[/i], and call it canon, would I then be expected to treat whatever series of events that went on in the game as meaningfull conributions to the universe? It's a grotesquely over-exaggerated example, but you get what I mean. [b]Fictional work, music, movies, etc, help define our personalities[/b]. It is with a fair amount of trust that one decides to be a proud fan of something. And even if it is at own risk, being let down still might feel like a loss. A skillful creator of fiction, etc, knows this. I know what you mean though, since I too am creating my own universe. I most definitely wouldn't want anyone to have any claim on what is mine either, but if I expect people to take their time with my universe, I'll do my best to not betray their trust. Primarily by having a disclaimer for each piece of work. Also, if one finally succeeds, one has done so because there were enough who liked what one did; they would have brought one were one is. I'd certainly feel that I owed them something for trusing me. /whatever this was... [Edited on 06.27.2012 2:43 PM PDT]

I disagree with the idea that the game designer does not define cannon fully. I have my own universe that I've created, and I am the sole definer and source of what is cannon in [i]my[/i] universe. Nobody can tell me what is cannon in [i]my[/i] universe but me, and if anybody else tried to, I would be absolutely furious. I can't even think of allowing someone else to tell me what is cannon in [i]my[/i] universe. So IMO, the creators of any given universe should have complete control of what is cannon in their universe.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Cmdr DaeFaron [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] the real Janaka [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] paulmarv I vehemently disagree with people who say that the true canon is whatever the business authorities say it is.[/quote] Thank you, I thought I was the only one.[/quote] Agree, partly. I believe they do have a say in what is completely non canon (like the halo legends Spartan 1337 one).[/quote] You bring up a good point that I should have clarified: although I certainly stand by the statement that publishers of video games, even those who do a good job like Bungie, should not be taken as the definers of canon but rather the revealers of the Halo story, their statements of the kind of the example you gave are important because they specify what the intent of the published artifact is in the first place, regardless of its accuracy. Let me state that more clearly with an example: no matter what Bungie says, that humorous and absurd picture of Mister Chief carrying a lightsaber is in no way canonical; however, if they come out and say it is acanonical, such as in the example you gave, then there is absolutely no question or debate to be had in the first place. (Assuming that the debate is between two factions - one that is apt to reject it automatically and by its own nature (like me) and one that says "What ever Bungie says is canon, is canon" and argues for its canonicity) That is why I've suggested that 343i should declare any "Halo 4" story fan-fiction only, but that's a whole different can of worms. [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] TedToaster22 [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] paulmarv The possessor of the canonical artifact is told that he is in "possession of the most complete and accurate account that anyone has been able to assemble of SPECWAR/GroupTHREE/NOBLE's actions". The whole canonical artifact is that of a data artifact. Therefore, any discrepancy between the events manifested in the "Halo Reach" artifact and the narrative "Halo: The Fall of Reach" is an illustration of what ONI either erroneously believes, or intently propagandizes. Think of Halo Reach as a parable and Halo: The Fall of Reach as the real deal. [/quote] What I want to know is that, if that's true, the reasoning behind doing it. Was it really worth trying to tell a story in a new way, confusing the entire lore-loving section of the community without any explanation of any kind, rather than simply telling a story without any cop-out gimmicks to justify doing absolutely anything in campaign with no regards to canon? If Bungie didn't want to tell the story of Reach, they shouldn't of made a game about it. Also since I'm sure I'll be accused of this; No, I didn't want the book in game form. I was fine with the idea of the Fall of Reach from a different perspective/viewpoint, I just expected a clear-cut story such as the ones in the original Halo trilogy.[/quote] From a canonical perspective (which is most important), it doesn't matter at all. However from a Bungie-fan perspective, I agree it is an interesting question. Perhaps it was more work to relate the events in their full truth, from a third-person narrator-observer point of view, than it was to relate an ONI data artifact. Perhaps they decided that the story told in the ONI data artifact was more interesting that what actually happens, and decided to represent that portion of canon instead. We can speculate, but it doesn't really matter in the end. [Edited on 06.27.2012 9:01 AM PDT]

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] paulmarv The possessor of the canonical artifact is told that he is in "possession of the most complete and accurate account that anyone has been able to assemble of SPECWAR/GroupTHREE/NOBLE's actions". The whole canonical artifact is that of a data artifact. Therefore, any discrepancy between the events manifested in the "Halo Reach" artifact and the narrative "Halo: The Fall of Reach" is an illustration of what ONI either erroneously believes, or intently propagandizes. Think of Halo Reach as a parable and Halo: The Fall of Reach as the real deal. [/quote] What I want to know is that, if that's true, the reasoning behind doing it. Was it really worth trying to tell a story in a new way, confusing the entire lore-loving section of the community without any explanation of any kind, rather than simply telling a story without any cop-out gimmicks to justify doing absolutely anything in campaign with no regards to canon? If Bungie didn't want to tell the story of Reach, they shouldn't of made a game about it. Also since I'm sure I'll be accused of this; No, I didn't want the book in game form. I was fine with the idea of the Fall of Reach from a different perspective/viewpoint, I just expected a clear-cut story such as the ones in the original Halo trilogy.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Cmdr DaeFaron [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] the real Janaka [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] paulmarv I vehemently disagree with people who say that the true canon is whatever the business authorities say it is.[/quote] Thank you, I thought I was the only one.[/quote] Agree, partly. I believe they do have a say in what is completely non canon (like the halo legends Spartan 1337 one).[/quote]Well, I too only partially agree. I believe developeds should start having disclaimers for every piece they release, simple disclaimers, but still. That way, one would know what one [i]signed in on[/i]. Example: this game as the first part of a trilogy, there won't be any additional games. All games will be developed by the same team/personnel. ...etc... I like what Bungie are doing now, mapping out and planning their next ip thouroughly and in advance. Hopefully, this will mean that nothing will be rushed and potentially collide with future instalments.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] the real Janaka [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] paulmarv I vehemently disagree with people who say that the true canon is whatever the business authorities say it is.[/quote] Thank you, I thought I was the only one.[/quote] Agree, partly. I believe they do have a say in what is completely non canon (like the halo legends Spartan 1337 one).

It's canon.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] paulmarv I vehemently disagree with people who say that the true canon is whatever the business authorities say it is.[/quote] Thank you, I thought I was the only one.

What in Halo Reach violates the book's cannon? I've read the book, but I cannot remember anything in the book that is violated by the game.

I would begin this post, "For the LAST time already..." ...however I must not assume that everyone is fully informed and therefore ought to be patient and understanding. As much as I love to discuss topics of this nature, I really don't think there is much to discuss about this particular question: The possessor of the canonical artifact is told that he is in "possession of the most complete and accurate account that anyone has been able to assemble of SPECWAR/GroupTHREE/NOBLE's actions". The whole canonical artifact is that of a data artifact. Therefore, any discrepancy between the events manifested in the "Halo Reach" artifact and the narrative "Halo: The Fall of Reach" is an illustration of what ONI either erroneously believes, or intently propagandizes. Think of Halo Reach as a parable and Halo: The Fall of Reach as the real deal. Please read my post [url=http://www.bungie.net/Forums/posts.aspx?postID=62095676]here[/url] (the entire thread is actually of great pertinence to this discussion). Just because it happens to be that simple this time doesn't mean that is always is. I vehemently disagree with people who say that the true canon is whatever the business authorities say it is. The true Halo canon is an immutable identity that is higher than any of us, or any business entity - Bungie or 343. Nobody dictates what it is, rather, the people in position (such as Bungie) have revealed parts of it to their best ability in the form of a video game. If you disagree, I can point to places where I have written long and extensive proofs of the statement I have just made, but I will only point you to them because discussion of them here would border of off-topicness because, as I said before, the answer to this whole thread is really as simple as that one quote from the Halo Reach box above. [Edited on 06.26.2012 9:38 PM PDT]

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Charlie Kelly [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] YakZSmelk I dunno about the Majority of Halo players but my experience with Halo started with this concept; "You are the last of your kind." [b]Any narrative that featured Spartans after Halo 1 was not canon (in my personal opinion), so Reach is fine. First Strike <--- Complete nonsense that continues to fail at truly meshing with the narratives of the games.[/b][/quote] =/ Just because you didn't like it doesn't mean it's not canon. I don't like Reach, but it's canon.[/quote] And as stated many times over the years... That statement was one from Chief's perspective, and he truly believed he was the last Spartan until they went back to Reach.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] YakZSmelk I dunno about the Majority of Halo players but my experience with Halo started with this concept; "You are the last of your kind." [b]Any narrative that featured Spartans after Halo 1 was not canon (in my personal opinion), so Reach is fine. First Strike <--- Complete nonsense that continues to fail at truly meshing with the narratives of the games.[/b][/quote] =/ Just because you didn't like it doesn't mean it's not canon. I don't like Reach, but it's canon.

I dunno about the Majority of Halo players but my experience with Halo started with this concept; "You are the last of your kind." Any narrative that featured Spartans after Halo 1 was not canon (in my personal opinion), so Reach is fine. First Strike <--- Complete nonsense that continues to fail at truly meshing with the narratives of the games. More developers need to work with the mindset Bethesda has with the Elder Scrolls. Elder Scrolls is a game(s), any explorations into that world will be made within the games not in external sources. [Edited on 06.26.2012 8:09 PM PDT]

They move around as much as they do in Reach because they're a special forces team. I enjoyed seeing the many regions of Reach. I do sort of wish they delved into the characters more, though. I suppose that wouldn't have fit in too well with the massive scale of the scenario, however. Over all, I was satisfied with the story of Reach. It helped bring everything in the story of Halo together. [Edited on 06.26.2012 5:24 PM PDT]

Personally, I feel like the reach cannon can fit with the fall of reach canon. I have noticed slight differences in the books and in reach, but I place a small piece of imaginary Sand where there is a small gap. But I love the books stories. I try to make it all fit.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] RKOSNAKE [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] TedToaster22 [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Cmdr DaeFaron Cat's shields were down cause *drumroll* THE GLASSING BEAM. Radiation overload. Not how NONE of Noble Team's shields went up after putting helms on. So if you accuse Kat of not activating her shields, then you must do so for Jun and Carter (though I'm sure many would jump at the chance to call them all stupid and derptastic.) [/quote] Then why did the elevator work?[/quote] EMP resistant equipment, shields are weak against EMP.[/quote] And, radiation might not screw with the elevators, but it may screw with the shields. [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] raganok99 AS may it be canon, but doesn't mean that I should like it. It has too much flaws like: I'm looking at you, PoA issue inside the atmosphere, SC somehow bypassed the UNSC's sensor despite that thermal signature would be -blam!- huge, even advanced cloaks wont work, also large size would tamper with gravitational strength (which, UNSC has sensors for that.) or what about FTL sensors? They would have easily detected SC exiting from FTL for god's sakes. And I'm also looking at you, S-IIIs being in Reach [i]despite[/i] it is not supposed to be in Reach after all.) Otherwise, Datapods did not save Reach from being abysmal. In fact, it worsened the stance of Reach's canonical events/info/data. However, there is small good change: Faster MAC recharge, MAC being more powerful, few gimmicks, that's it. [/quote] Well, 343 was the ones who said the cloaking bit IIRC :P. Though, seeing as 343 did the releases which point to it being ONI setup for red flag. Could be the ONI HAD detected it, but purposefully silenced the warnings. Would match Parangosky's retarded nature. [Edited on 06.26.2012 2:05 PM PDT]

It has never been said. People keep on saying it because other people keep on saying it. The games and books are all one canon, one universe. As far as Reach goes, it is canon. The Fall of Reach was written within 7 weeks and has been retconned several times BEFORE Reach ever came out. I actually think that Reach fixed some of the canon problems the book had.

AS may it be canon, but doesn't mean that I should like it. It has too much flaws like: I'm looking at you, PoA issue inside the atmosphere, SC somehow bypassed the UNSC's sensor despite that thermal signature would be -blam!- huge, even advanced cloaks wont work, also large size would tamper with gravitational strength (which, UNSC has sensors for that.) or what about FTL sensors? They would have easily detected SC exiting from FTL for god's sakes. And I'm also looking at you, S-IIIs being in Reach [i]despite[/i] it is not supposed to be in Reach after all.) Otherwise, Datapods did not save Reach from being abysmal. In fact, it worsened the stance of Reach's canonical events/info/data. However, there is small good change: Faster MAC recharge, MAC being more powerful, few gimmicks, that's it.

What? I think you are in the wrong forum. O.o

My gt is: ExCluSiiONzZ

Any1 willing to gift me blue flame? !!! :( plz