{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
8/3/2010 4:33:36 AM
393
New Halo the Fall of Reach has Canon problems
In the new version there it states that reach comes under attack at 2542 and not 2552.
the battles for Sigama Octanus and Reach are now 2542
Cole is now a Fleet Admiral in 2530
Admiral Stanforth is now a Vice Admiral
700+ ships attacked reach
[Edited on 08.03.2010 1:53 PM PDT]
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] MeLtingBrAinZ guys relax! their just making 10years of space for the new halo games..,cause you know prior to reach it wouldn't be so cool cause without shields and stuff they would have to change the game style :P[/quote] Now that would be shameless milking if they did that. Warping the storyline so much in order to make more games. That would mean either: ~It takes 10 years for PoA to get from Reach to Halo Alpha. ~The Battle of Reach lasted for 10 years. ~The whole war finished 10 years earlier, in 2542. This then makes the war last only 17 years. All those scenarios are...mad, all with multiple issues attached.
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Hillofheroes1 [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] MeLtingBrAinZ guys relax! their just making 10years of space for the new halo games..,cause you know prior to reach it wouldn't be so cool cause without shields and stuff they would have to change the game style :P[/quote] i like my old halo better thank you [/quote] Agree, i like the Halo Bungie created, not the one 343 is doing.
-
It's just a shame really.... Just more continuity and logic errors for an expanded universe that really isn't big enough to justify the flaws and inconsistencies. Here comes my cynical side; it's going to get worse. The carelessness is alarming.
-
just kiddin' of course guys, yeah i hope too they have some good explaining to do cause it would totally suck to mess arround with halo, i mean, people would totally lost faith to 343 and probably won't bother playing their new halo games [Edited on 08.03.2010 1:46 PM PDT]
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] MeLtingBrAinZ guys relax! their just making 10years of space for the new halo games..,[/quote] You don't understand, this means it took 10 years for the PoA to get to installation 4. along with other stuff, it just doesn't add up.
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] MeLtingBrAinZ guys relax! their just making 10years of space for the new halo games..,cause you know prior to reach it wouldn't be so cool cause without shields and stuff they would have to change the game style :P[/quote] i like my old halo better thank you
-
guys relax! their just making 10years of space for the new halo games..,cause you know prior to reach it wouldn't be so cool cause without shields and stuff they would have to change the game style :P don't worry to much about it, even bible has a lot of serious cannon errors, haha [Edited on 08.03.2010 1:44 PM PDT]
-
A good idea might be to make an thread listing all the changes in the OP so it can be clearly seen exactly how many inconsistencies have been addressed. Maybe add newer additions and the possible conflicts they cause, although that would be spoilers. I would do it myself but ain't got the new book. Pg 95/96 has info on Harvests population in mines, what has it become now in 2.0? Also, is Halsey still speculating about the Sangheili before the Battle of Reach?
-
This was such a great franchise....................
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] A Puzzled Mind *bangs head on desk* Repeatedly Guys, I feel as if there's a knife in my back. I mean come on now, I think we should email Nylund.[/quote] what would that do?
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Hillofheroes1 [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] grey101 I think it is safe to say we are following the old books not the new ones..[/quote] but sadly i think the new one is canon now [/quote] It -blam!- better not be. If it is, i doubt anyone here on Universe will accept it. I mean Halo Wars was one thing, but this is just going waaaaay to far.
-
*bangs head on desk* Repeatedly Guys, I feel as if there's a knife in my back. I mean come on now, I think we should email Nylund.
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] grey101 I think it is safe to say we are following the old books not the new ones..[/quote] but sadly i think the new one is canon now
-
I think it is safe to say we are following the old books not the new ones..
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] HipiO7 Can someone answer this for me? Have they changed the dates when Hunters and Elites are first encountered? So the Hunters werent first fought on Sigma Octanus and the Elites on Reach.[/quote] Same here. And my 'old' version is the first redone version! Okay, how about we have the version 1.2 be canon, 2.0 not be, and 1.2 overrides all other canon not in the games.
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] opogjijijp [quote]The first page of chapter five states that there are seventy-five children in the squad.[/quote] A page or two later it should have John checking to make sure all 67 kids are with him or something like that. Or it does in my old version. [/quote] Yes, it mentions the seventy-five figure again on page 70.
-
Can someone answer this for me? Have they changed the dates when Hunters and Elites are first encountered? So the Hunters werent first fought on Sigma Octanus and the Elites on Reach.
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] opogjijijp [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] paulmarv [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] opogjijijp Are the SMACs still "point four tenths" (chapter 31)?[/quote] Yep, it says on page 320 that the Super MAC guns could accelerate a three-thousand-ton projectile to "point four-tenths" the speed of light. Give me a quick refresher here, I don't have the real book in front of me: does the real version have the dash? Perhaps that is attempting to clarify this.[/quote] It does have the dash in my version. So I see they've ignored the encyclopedia(The Definitive guide to the Halo Universe). Just curious. [quote]The first page of chapter five states that there are seventy-five children in the squad.[/quote] A page or two later it should have John checking to make sure all 67 kids are with him or something like that. Or it does in my old version. [/quote] my old book says 70..... but that is before the augmentation right? so majority of them are wash outs.
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] paulmarv [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] opogjijijp Are the SMACs still "point four tenths" (chapter 31)?[/quote] Yep, it says on page 320 that the Super MAC guns could accelerate a three-thousand-ton projectile to "point four-tenths" the speed of light. Give me a quick refresher here, I don't have the real book in front of me: does the real version have the dash? Perhaps that is attempting to clarify this.[/quote] It does have the dash in my version. So I see they've ignored the encyclopedia(The Definitive guide to the Halo Universe). Just curious. [quote]The first page of chapter five states that there are seventy-five children in the squad.[/quote] A page or two later it should have John checking to make sure all 67 kids are with him or something like that. Or it does in my old version.
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] opogjijijp Are the SMACs still "point four tenths" (chapter 31)?[/quote] Yep, it says on page 320 that the Super MAC guns could accelerate a three-thousand-ton projectile to point four-tenths the speed of light. Give me a quick refresher here, I don't have the real book in front of me: does the real version have the dash? Perhaps that is attempting to clarify this. [Edited on 08.03.2010 5:12 PM PDT]
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] flamedude [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] opogjijijp [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] flamedude The Battle of Reach did not last 10 years. [/quote] Of course it didn't. Every other source of Halo canon has it taking place at the end of August 2552. This website has information that has reach falling in 2552. Look at all the information under the Reach section. There's no way the game takes place in 2542. What the -blam!- are they paying Eric Raab for? Isn't there someone at 343 that makes sure this stuff is up to quality(You'd think after the reaction to the encyclopedia, they'd be more careful)? [/quote] It really does smack of shoddy workmanship. I can almost imagine it; "Hey I'm just redoing the chapter subheadings. When does the Covenant attack Reach? 2542?" "Sure, why not." I'd love to hear an official explanation for this 2542 date. It's very......... concerning.[/quote] I know the answer coming from 343 studios: Because we can do it to make more money, we don't care for our public as Bungie did! [Edited on 08.03.2010 1:23 PM PDT]
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] paulmarv [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] opogjijijp Spartan numbers. Is the 75/67 error still present in Chapter 5? Eric Nylund admitted this was on error years ago. Has it been fixed? [/quote] The first page of chapter five states that there are seventy-five children in the squad. Edit: "Two-dozen spartans" is still there as well. [i]"Clustered around him were two dozen Spartans:"[/i][/quote] So pretty much they just added 40 pages about info we were going to find about in the game. they then added more mistakes and didn't fix what was false the first time. I can honestly say i am the ONLY person to still have a shard of faith in 343..... i wonder how the game with john will be......
-
An error that big is unnaceptable, especially this close to the release of Reach. Hopefully it's just an error. If not, does the whole book not count as canon time-wise? I think it would be better if we just consider the first released to be the real one. BTW, does it say anything new about when the Hunters and the Elites were first encounterd?
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] opogjijijp Spartan numbers. Is the 75/67 error still present in Chapter 5? Eric Nylund admitted this was on error years ago. Has it been fixed? [/quote] The first page of chapter five states that there are seventy-five children in the squad. Edit: Two-dozen spartans is still there as well. [Edited on 08.03.2010 5:12 PM PDT]
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] flamedude [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] opogjijijp [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] flamedude The Battle of Reach did not last 10 years. [/quote] Of course it didn't. Every other source of Halo canon has it taking place at the end of August 2552. This website has information that has reach falling in 2552. Look at all the information under the Reach section. There's no way the game takes place in 2542. What the -blam!- are they paying Eric Raab for? Isn't there someone at 343 that makes sure this stuff is up to quality(You'd think after the reaction to the encyclopedia, they'd be more careful)? [/quote] It really does smack of shoddy workmanship. I can almost imagine it; "Hey I'm just redoing the chapter subheadings. When does the Covenant attack Reach? 2542?" "Sure, why not." I'd love to hear an official explanation for this 2542 date. It's very......... concerning.[/quote] Given that in contradicts every single other piece of canon about the fall of Reach, including material [b]on this website, by the developer of Halo: Reach[/b] it is concerning. Either they're making a crazy big retcon for no good reason or they just don't have any quality control. Not sure which one is worse...
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] opogjijijp Is Dr. Halsey's speech in Chapter twenty six the same: [quote]"Assembled here tonight," she said, "are all surviving Spartans save three, who are engaged on fields of combat too distant to be easily recalled. In the last decade of combat there have only been three KIAs and one Spartan too wounded to continue active duty. You are to be commended for having the best operational record of any unit in the fleet." [/quote] [/quote] That is one of the first things I checked. Yes, it is the same. I notice the difference of one comma and "otherwise engaged" in lieu of just "engaged", but that is it. Getting to the other ones...
