Ok we all know about the possible connections between Primordium and Halo 4, but I think there was something overlooked.
Near the end of the book when Spark-II hijacks the ship, there is some talk between the ONI guys. They talk about how they’re veering away from the action.
Away from the action? What action?!
Now we see that the UNSC is in the Shield World in Halo 4. For all we know the action that is mentioned could be about the events of Halo 4.
When you say Spark-II you mean Chakas. Because that’s who that is.
> When you say Spark-II you mean Chakas. Because that’s who that is.
Last time I checked (today) both the Monitor and the science team called it 343 Guilty Spark. And it’s a duplicate of 343 Guilty Spark. It’s 343 Guilty Spark. I prefer to call it Spark-II
> > When you say Spark-II you mean Chakas. Because that’s who that is.
>
> Last time I checked (today) both the Monitor and the science team called it 343 Guilty Spark. And it’s a duplicate of 343 Guilty Spark. It’s 343 Guilty Spark. I prefer to call it Spark-II
It is still Chakas.
> > > When you say Spark-II you mean Chakas. Because that’s who that is.
> >
> > Last time I checked (today) both the Monitor and the science team called it 343 Guilty Spark. And it’s a duplicate of 343 Guilty Spark. It’s 343 Guilty Spark. I prefer to call it Spark-II
>
> It is still Chakas.
And it’s also called guilty spark. Two names for the same thing.
No need correct something that isn’t wrong and ignore the actual purpose of the thread.
> > When you say Spark-II you mean Chakas. Because that’s who that is.
>
> Last time I checked (today) both the Monitor and the science team called it 343 Guilty Spark. And it’s a duplicate of 343 Guilty Spark. It’s 343 Guilty Spark. I prefer to call it Spark-II
You did remember that they never confirmed it was ACTUALLY Guilty Spark right? You also remember they only called Chakas Guilty Spark as a way to boost morale right? And no, the Monitor, who is Chakas and admits it, never called himself Spark. He even mentioned Spark as a separate individual.
Whether it is or isn’t actually guilty spark doesn’t change the fact that it’s referred to as guilty spark, and the OP was perfectly right to call it that in his OP.
> Whether it is or isn’t actually guilty spark doesn’t change the fact that it’s referred to as guilty spark, and the OP was perfectly right to call it that in his OP.
But it’s NOT Guilty Spark. It’s still Chakas. That is who it is.
> > Whether it is or isn’t actually guilty spark doesn’t change the fact that it’s referred to as guilty spark, and the OP was perfectly right to call it that in his OP.
>
> But it’s NOT Guilty Spark. It’s still Chakas. That is who it is.
I didn’t say it was, I said it is referred to as Guilty Spark, so by all means, there’s nothing wrong with referring to it as that.
> > > Whether it is or isn’t actually guilty spark doesn’t change the fact that it’s referred to as guilty spark, and the OP was perfectly right to call it that in his OP.
> >
> > But it’s NOT Guilty Spark. It’s still Chakas. That is who it is.
>
> I didn’t say it was, I said it is referred to as Guilty Spark.
That doesn’t make it correct though. Since it is Chakas, he should be referred to as such. Not someone who’s dead.
> > > > Whether it is or isn’t actually guilty spark doesn’t change the fact that it’s referred to as guilty spark, and the OP was perfectly right to call it that in his OP.
> > >
> > > But it’s NOT Guilty Spark. It’s still Chakas. That is who it is.
> >
> > I didn’t say it was, I said it is referred to as Guilty Spark.
>
> That doesn’t make it correct though. Since it is Chakas, he should be referred to as such. Not someone who’s dead.
A name is a title attached to something. By the end of the book he was referred to as guilty spark, it’s a plenty correct title. You came in the OPs thread to nitpick something that while perhaps not entirely true, was certainly not false.
“Once, on my birth-world, a world I knew as Erde-Tyrene, and which now is called Earth, my name was Chakas…”
WAS Chakas, WAS. 343 Guilty Spark IS Chakas, but is no longer called that.
Cobra, I doubt you’ve read Primordium. Spark-II calls himself 343 Guilty Spark. The ONI science team call him 343 Guilty Spark (duplicate.)
Spark-II even acknowledges the existence of Spark-I and how he caused John so much trouble.
Re-read the ending of the book.
The best way to describe this situation is with Mewtwo. Mewtwo is essentially Mew, but Mew is not Mewtwo. Mewtwo is a modified clone of Mew.
> A name is a title attached to something. By the end of the book he was referred to as guilty spark, it’s a plenty correct title. You came in the OPs thread to nitpick something that while perhaps not entirely true, was certainly not false.
It’s just a rather obvious flaw. Yes, a computer system refered to Chakas as 343 Guilty Spark, not surprising since that is what they marked him as when they knew it wasn’t the case.
> > A name is a title attached to something. By the end of the book he was referred to as guilty spark, it’s a plenty correct title. You came in the OPs thread to nitpick something that while perhaps not entirely true, was certainly not false.
>
> It’s just a rather obvious flaw. Yes, a computer system refered to Chakas as 343 Guilty Spark, not surprising since that is what they marked him as when they knew it wasn’t the case.
“Chakas” doesn’t even refer to himself as Chakas anymore.
Also Cobra, it seems that you might as well and call the Spark from the trilogy Chakas as well. The only difference between the two is that one is a duplicate. Why are you specifically calling the duplicate Chakas?
> <mark>Cobra, I doubt you’ve read Primordium.</mark> Spark-II calls himself 343 Guilty Spark. The ONI science team call him 343 Guilty Spark (duplicate.)
> Spark-II even acknowledges the existence of Spark-I and how he caused John so much trouble.
Your assumption is false. Please refrain from making any further. A schizophrenic might call himself “Albert”, but his real name is Paul and he is still Paul. And really, can I have a direct quote where Chakas says that he is 343 Guilty Spark, because I never saw it. And I wouldn’t put too much weight on what the ONI Science Team says because they even admit it isn’t confirmation, merely a hypothesis. And yes, Chakas did mention Spark, but as a separate individual. If anything, Spark may be a fragment built off of Chakas, but that doesn’t mean they are the same person.
I’m not even going to try with you Cobra. It seems no matter what you’re told with proof, you’re denying it. I’m calling out Troll on this.
BTW one could argue that Chakas the human form. Do you still call Mewtwo Mew? Do you still call WarGreymon Agumon? Do you still call Mark VI Mark IV? Do you still call Butterfree Metapod? Same being, just new form and new name. Chakas-Human 343 Guilty Spark-AI
When every single character by the end of a book is referring to someone by one particular name, then by all means, you cannot say that referring to that someone by that name is wrong.
Whether is completely true or not matters not; THAT is what its called, and the OP calling it that is perfectly fine.
> I’m not even going to try with you Cobra. It seems no matter what you’re told with proof, you’re denying it. I’m calling out Troll on this.
>
> BTW one could argue that Chakas the human form. Do you still call Mewtwo Mew?
So you make claims and yet don’t back them up. When did Chakas say he is 343 Guilty Spark? Never. Did the ONI team say he really is Spark? No, they gave him that name as a “tentative designator”.
And no, I don’t call Mewtwo the same as Mew. Mewtwo was actually Mew’s child according to the games by the way, so they are different Pokemon.
So please put your troll stamp away.
> > I’m not even going to try with you Cobra. It seems no matter what you’re told with proof, you’re denying it. I’m calling out Troll on this.
> >
> > BTW one could argue that Chakas the human form. Do you still call Mewtwo Mew?
>
> So you make claims and yet don’t back them up. When did Chakas say he is 343 Guilty Spark? Never. Did the ONI team say he really is Spark? No, they gave him that name as a “tentative designator”.
>
> And no, I don’t call Mewtwo the same as Mew. Mewtwo was actually Mew’s child according to the games by the way, so they are different Pokemon.
>
> So please put your troll stamp away.
Can’t tell if poor understanding, or troll.
Either way, Butterfree rules.