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

Line 18:

::::I know the page is already locked, but I concur with Braidenvl, my problem wasn't the authority of Josh Holmes' statement, it was that the other explanation was removed. -- [[User:Morhek|Qura 'Morhek]] [[w:c:halofanon:user:Specops306|The Autocrat]] [[User talk:Specops306|of Morheka]] 03:03, 8 June 2014 (EDT)

:::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 Personally, I would prefer if Holmes' statement superseded the EVG's explanation since I'm not a fan of the utter lack of a logical visual continuity in the MJOLNIR series' development, but it doesn't justify removing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 place where showing said armor would've made sense isn't canon? --[[User:Jugus|Jugus]] ([[User talk:Jugus|Talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Jugus|Contribs]]) 08:40, 8 June 2014 (EDT)

Revision as of 03:03, June 8, 2014 (edit) Morhek (talk \| contribs) (→‎Mark IV in Prologue) ← Older edit		Revision as of 08:40, June 8, 2014 (edit) (undo) Tacitus (talk \| contribs) (→‎Mark IV in Prologue) Newer edit →
Line 18:		Line 18:

	::::I know the page is already locked, but I concur with Braidenvl, my problem wasn't the authority of Josh Holmes' statement, it was that the other explanation was removed. -- [[User:Morhek\|<b><font color=indigo>Qura 'Morhek</font></b>]] [[w:c:halofanon:user:Specops306\|<u><i><font color=blue><sup>The Autocrat</sup></font></i></u>]] [[User talk:Specops306\|<u><i><font color=purple><sup>of Morheka</sup></font></i></u>]] 03:03, 8 June 2014 (EDT)		::::I know the page is already locked, but I concur with Braidenvl, my problem wasn't the authority of Josh Holmes' statement, it was that the other explanation was removed. -- [[User:Morhek\|<b><font color=indigo>Qura 'Morhek</font></b>]] [[w:c:halofanon:user:Specops306\|<u><i><font color=blue><sup>The Autocrat</sup></font></i></u>]] [[User talk:Specops306\|<u><i><font color=purple><sup>of Morheka</sup></font></i></u>]] 03:03, 8 June 2014 (EDT)

			:::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 place where showing said armor would've made sense 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)