Talk:Thirteen dead Spartans

Canon?

I can't help but feel that the Spartans seen in Lone Wolf were meant more as an easter egg than as actual representations of dead Spartans. The fact that their armor is randomly generated would suggest that they're not meant to be characters. My feeling is that it's just Bungie's way of showing off the different types of armor players can buy if they just keep playing and earning cR. -- Rusty - 112 23:20, 26 December 2010 (EST)

That is certainly possible, but there hasn't been any indication that they were intended as easter eggs (unlike the BOBs for example). I think it's more likely they were put in to show that Noble Team wasn't the only group of SPARTANS to fight and die during the battle, plus to kind of drive home the hopelessness of the situation. But anyway, unless we can get a confirmation either way, I think it's safer to assume they represent an actual KIA SPARTAN unit. SPARTAN-347 00:05, 27 December 2010 (EST)

But look how much their armor changes, as well as the fact that they and you reference seven by numbering fourteen. They seem far more likely to be symbolic and there's virtually no information that we can get on them. Tuckerscreator^(stalk) 13:17, 10 January 2011 (EST)

I agree; they seem much more representational of fallen Spartans in general rather than a specific unit of Spartans. I was always under the impression that the dead Spartans are symbolic of Noble Six dying among her/his comrades and should not be taken literally - hence the random armour. - File:Black Mesa.jpg Halo-343 (Talk) 15:04, 10 January 2011 (EST)

About the variety and complexity in armor configuration, is it possible that they are a Spartan 3 unit, kinda like a Noble team. Saying that the bodies are to be counted as canon at all and not just like mentioned above symbolism, for all the Spartans who died on reach. --RussellofSwinhart 02:09, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

Should we add a deletion template? Tuckerscreator^(stalk) 15:35, 10 January 2011 (EST)

No. Even if the level of canon cannot be concluded, this article and its information should remain. -TheLostJedi 12:48, 5 April 2011 (EDT)

I believe that the article should be kept. Canonical or symbolic, the bodies still exist. I feel, therefore, that we sould have an article on them. Rather than simply deleting this legitimate information, we ought to put up a section, marked with the congecture template if needed, that discusses the possible symbolism. Their notability, certainly, decreases if they are merely symbolic, but all the same it should be kept: they can be both symbolic and canonical. Their aspects may be symbolic, but the substance might be canonical. - DefeatingLine 21:24, 4 April 2012 (EDT)

The bodies exist, but the fact that their armor is always random highlights that they're not meant to be deceased individuals. You don't randomize the armor of what supposed to be canonical Spartans. The most the bodies do is provide a seven reference when Six himself is killed and becomes the 14th dead Spartan there, and that seven page more than proves that Bungie loves putting in gratuitous symbolism. They're just meant to represent the general Spartans that have fallen with the Fall of Reach, like Beta Red, since there's nowhere to include their bodies elsewhere.Tuckerscreator^(stalk) 21:36, 4 April 2012 (EDT)

Their appearances vary each gameplay. Sounds familiar with some canon characters? —S331 _{(COM • Mission Log • Profile)} 21:51, 4 April 2012 (EDT)

During Combat Evolved a lot of the NPCs weren't set as characters yet. It's the same reason why Sergeant Johnson accompanies you during missions when he's supposed to be on another part of the ring. Halo: The Flood cemented most of their names, but it wasn't until that book and the later games that they got set with specific identities. Tuckerscreator^(stalk) 21:59, 4 April 2012 (EDT)

At best, these guys are Easter Eggs, like BOBs. Tuckerscreator^(stalk) 22:04, 4 April 2012 (EDT)

...Travis...? *white flag* Fair enough. Maybe we should ask Bungie instead. XD —S331 _{(COM • Mission Log • Profile)} 22:16, 4 April 2012 (EDT)

I feel the characters represented are real characters within the Haloverse, but the armor randomization they have is not and is an easter egg.-- Col. Spartacus ^{Talk Page} _{Contributions} 22:34, 4 April 2012 (EDT)

Ah, didn't notice Travis. He's a standout. It might be because he's a killable NPC, like the Reach militia, whereas most NPCs with specific faces like Johnson or Duvall are invincible. A quirk of the programming.

It's debatable if Bungie will respond, though we can try, but it seems odd that they would give these fellow randomized armor if they're decided to be specific canon individuals. In that case, perhaps the page could revised instead to refer to them in more of an Easter Egg sense, as they certainly hold more a symbolic presence than a canon one. Tuckerscreator^(stalk) 22:51, 4 April 2012 (EDT)

I guess you're right. They symbolize the countless deaths on Reach and give off a more depressing mood for the level. But if they are easter eggs, they are very obvious ones. Bungie should know better that fans will always explore what they built in the game, I mean, who would fly their Banshee to the top of a structure and walk around on it (3 times!), or find a button in a jungle of skyscraper, or stop in a middle of a timed escape, or jump around in a jungle to find a family of monkeys? This is a bit low for Bungie's easter egg standard. —S331 _{(COM • Mission Log • Profile)} 23:27, 4 April 2012 (EDT)

Eh, some are easier to find than others. I'm using the term kinda loosely. But the classification seems to fit. Tuckerscreator^(stalk) 00:20, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

Randomized Armor

I noticed that even though the armor worn by the Spartans is randomly generated, there are some armor permutations that are not generated or atleast that I haven't seen generated, the Mark V armor (any of the parts), the Mark VI (obviously because of canon the armor doesn't exist yet), Recon, Scout, Security, and Mark V[B]. I at least expected the Mark V to be generated. Could anyone help shed some light on this? --RadicalEdward2 (talk) 12:51, 2 February 2013 (EST)