This is bugging me. The Charon-class apparently is retconned. From what I’ve seen in campaign screenshots, the front little ‘indent’ in the full external shot of Foward Unto Dawn is a playable area (the one with the screenshot of cruisers around) said playable area is huge for a supposedly same size as before tiny ship.
However, not only is the charon-class retconned to look differently, the Paris class is consistently being shown by 343 to look EXACTLY the same.
UNSC trend is “The frigate classes look alike generally. The cruisers generally look similar.” Now the Charon-class and Paris-class look completely different. The Charon looks closer to a destroyer then the Stalwart or Paris class frigates.
A major thing about this retcon is, if we are to look at past events, HOW is the new design supposed to have landed in the area the Forward Unto Dawn landed in halo 3? the reason that worked was because the vehicle bay was lower then the rest of the ship, which barely fit (I think it was actually longer and wider). The new design lacks that lowered vehicle bay, making it much weirder in my mind.
I understand the original design might have been cramped and tiny for a level, but why such a drastic redesign of the charon while other ships remain EXACTLY the same?
Well the tank deploying scene could still work, there still might be some sort of lowering bay on the bottom, from what I’ve put together there is still a small “bump” underneath. As for the ending, instead of it landing “front to back” it is now side to side and the Chief jumps into the blue hangar on either port or starboard, no real problem there, the Dawn is just a little lower and a different direction.
As for the redesign, I really don’t know. They can always play the “nano-machines” card lol (but I sure as hell hope they don’t)
This change in design bugs me just as much as everyone else, even though the redesigned Charon look quite nice. In any other case, I would have saved the design for a future light destroyer class.
Pure and simple, however, the revitalization of her design is due entirely to gameplay. Frigates are amazingly small and I’m quite sure that the interiors are just large enough to accomodate moving ordnance and supplies through her passageways. Fighting spaces, such as the bridge, mess, etc. would be very cramped and not lend well to Halo’s gameplay. Ideally, if you were to use the old design, the only major playing spaces would be the aft hangar/deployment bay and the port and starboard hangars, the latter of the two areas being located in the fore half that crash landed in the Indian Ocean.
> This change in design bugs me just as much as everyone else, even though the redesigned Charon look quite nice. In any other case, I would have saved the design for a future light destroyer class.
>
> Pure and simple, however, the revitalization of her design is due entirely to gameplay. Frigates are amazingly small and I’m quite sure that the interiors are just large enough to accomodate moving ordnance and supplies through her passageways. Fighting spaces, such as the bridge, mess, etc. would be very cramped and not lend well to Halo’s gameplay. Ideally, if you were to use the old design, the only major playing spaces would be the aft hangar/deployment bay and the port and starboard hangars, the latter of the two areas being located in the fore half that crash landed in the Indian Ocean.
Part of the fore hangers was still on the aft portion.
My problem ATM is they are going “Oh, the FuD is still the exact same length” Puts in area that appears WAY to massive to take up just a tiny bit of the ship.
I’m terrible for distances, but is that not a very, very larger area to take up such a tiny spot of the overall ship and still supposedly have it being the same halo 3 length?
> I’m terrible for distances, but is that not a very, very larger area to take up such a tiny spot of the overall ship and still supposedly have it being the same halo 3 length?
I wouldn’t try to apply serious logic to the decision. Think of the Pillar of Autumn and how batsh*t insane the layout of the Warthog Run is compared to the light cruiser.
> > I’m terrible for distances, but is that not a very, very larger area to take up such a tiny spot of the overall ship and still supposedly have it being the same halo 3 length?
>
> I wouldn’t try to apply serious logic to the decision. Think of the Pillar of Autumn and how batsh*t insane the layout of the Warthog Run is compared to the light cruiser.
^This. Sometimes they exaggerate things for the sake of game play. As for the initial design change perhaps they just wanted to differentiate the classes a bit. I mean the Paris, Charon and Stalwart Classes look so much a like I didn’t even know they were different classes originally. Sure there were subtle differences in their designs but not really enough. Now the Charon class looks like a completely different class of Frigate and not just a variant of the others.
