Halo 4 'prologue' is set after the campaign

I always thought the prologue of Halo 4 was a little odd, in that it seemed a bit random for the interrogator to start asking about the Master Chief’s mental well-being when he was presumed dead. Why would he be so concerned about him being ‘broken,’ and displaying sociopathic tendencies?

Then Spartan Ops: Episode 7 revealed Halsey didn’t have any idea the Master Chief was alive until she was told then. I’m betting the prologue takes place after John has stopped the Didact and lost Cortana, and the UNSC was interrogating Halsey to find out what was wrong with him - why he was so impacted by the loss of an A.I, why he doesn’t talk much; maybe why he’s recessed from his duties as a Spartan, depending on how you interpret the scene in the epilogue where he has his armour removed.

Halsey’s being interrogated after the events of the campaign, because the Master Chief is mentally unfit for duty after what happened. The interrogator is his therapist, trying to better understand his patient by going to the person who started all his issues in the beginning.

Makes sense, now.

(SPOILERS) At the end of halo 3 the FUD split into to two sending one half with the arbiter to earth and the other with Master Chief into unkown space, every one thought Chiefs half never made it to the other side of the portle and assumed he died with the destruction of halo and the ark.

Every one in the UNSC and covenant thought the Master Chief died, after his return they kept it a secret from halsey for unknown reasons, But the UNSC has kept more then Chiefs status from her.

No it isn’t. A prologue is an event or action that leads to another event or situation, ie the Halo 4 campaign. The interrogator said Spartans in general showed sociopathic tendencies and that the Chief is dead, to which Halsey says his file reads missing in action…if it was after why not have her say that he is alive?

It just isn’t correct.

> No it isn’t. A prologue is an event or action that leads to another event or situation, ie the Halo 4 campaign. The interrogator said Spartans in general showed sociopathic tendencies and that the Chief is dead, to which Halsey says his file reads missing in action…if it was after why not have her say that he is alive?
>
> It just isn’t correct.

It may have taken place between the end of the Campaign and the beginning of Spartan Ops. He mentioned that all Spartans showed these tendencies but he singled out the Master Chief.

Do you believe the Master Chief succeeded because he was, at his core, broken?

We also know that Spartan-IVs had already been deployed at the time Halsey was rescued from the Dyson’s Sphere and she already knew of their existence because Parangosky had told her about them.

What does John have to do with this? …you want to replace him.

Why would they be discussing his replacement when by this point they already have Spartan-IIIs, IVs and the rescued IIs? If this is between the Campaign and Spartan Ops, then the Chief’s psychological status might account for that.

It would also account for the visual inconsistency. I don’t believe this is 100% true but when you think about it, it makes for an interesting theory.

Maybe he singled out Chief because A)it would be a sore spot for Halsey and B)the game is about Master Chief. Throughout the prologue Halsey even talks in the past tense when we see the images of the Covenant attacking, her giving Chief Cortana, etc.

It just doesn’t make all that much sense.

> No it isn’t. A prologue is an event or action that leads to another event or situation, ie the Halo 4 campaign. The interrogator said Spartans in general showed sociopathic tendencies and that the Chief is dead, to which Halsey says his file reads missing in action…if it was after why not have her say that he is alive?
>
> It just isn’t correct.

What. A prologue is anything that constitutes as a preface to a literary work. It doesn’t have to be chronologically prior to the main body. Shakespeare would do this all the time.

I was maintaining that this interrogation took place before Halsey arrived on Infinity, as you probably could have inferred from the OP. She didn’t know he was alive then.

Obviously the prologue serves a dual purpose of setting the scene for Halo 4, but nothing in it places it before the events of the campaign. Much in the same way the Didact’s speech at the end is most likely being spoken thousands of years before John is walking down the halls of Infinity, and yet his words have a parallel to what is happening in the scene.

You’re saying in canonical terms, the interrogator singled out Chief because the game is about him? That makes no sense. Yes, that’s why the writers included the scene. But in-universe, it’s very random for him to bring up John’s psychological well-being if he’s assumed dead at the time.

Makes more sense for the prologue to take place after the campaign than before it. Why not explain why you don’t think this is the case in terms that don’t include an in-game character introducing the video game he’s in for that sole reason? Halo 4 did many things, but it didn’t break the fourth wall.

It makes much more sense for the prologue to take place before the campaign. If you were trying to get information about why the Spartan-IIs were so successful, so that you could improve upon the IVs, would you not single out the most successful Spartan? Besides, not everything has to have an in-universe explanation; there are and will be things that are there simply because it helps the audience understand the story.

Nobody would be trying to replace John if he was alive. Usually when a character in any story suggests something to be true, it is indeed true. The interviewer wanted to make the next Chief, somebody for them to fall back on if things got bad again.

Also, the Didact’s speech most likely takes place in the present. I won’t explain it here, but it has been explained in depth in the various threads on the subject in this forum.

> What. A prologue is anything that constitutes as a preface to a literary work. It doesn’t have to be chronologically prior to the main body. Shakespeare would do this all the time.
>
> I was maintaining that this interrogation took place before Halsey arrived on Infinity, as you probably could have inferred from the OP. She didn’t know he was alive then.
>
> Obviously the prologue serves a dual purpose of setting the scene for Halo 4, but nothing in it places it before the events of the campaign. <mark>Much in the same way the Didact’s speech at the end is most likely being spoken thousands of years before John is walking down the halls of Infinity, and yet his words have a parallel to what is happening in the scene.</mark>

I don’t see why the Didact’s speech would be thousands of years ago because at that time the humans were not acting in the manner he is speaking. Were they taking Forerunner achievements as their own? No. Were they actively “reclaiming”? No. Ajw34307 sums it up pretty well on a another thread.

> You’re saying in canonical terms, the interrogator singled out Chief because the game is about him? That makes no sense. Yes, that’s why the writers included the scene. But in-universe, it’s very random for him to bring up John’s psychological well-being if he’s assumed dead at the time.

Well if you would’ve read what I wrote you would’ve noticed two options, A and B. A is the canonical perspective about Chief being a touchy subject for Halsey, not B.

> Makes more sense for the prologue to take place after the campaign than before it. <mark>Why not explain why you don’t think this is the case in terms that don’t include an in-game character introducing the video game he’s in for that sole reason?</mark> Halo 4 did many things, but it didn’t break the fourth wall.

See, that is why you should’ve read A and B and got my argument straight before trying to imply my argument for me. It makes more sense for it to be before because everything else is in past tense and it is obviously before she gets on the Infinity. What tangible evidence do you have that it takes place between the Campaign and Spartan Ops that is 100%?

Probably none.

> Maybe he singled out Chief because A)it would be a sore spot for Halsey and B)the game is about Master Chief. Throughout the prologue Halsey even talks in the past tense when we see the images of the Covenant attacking, her giving Chief Cortana, etc.
>
> It just doesn’t make all that much sense.

But those scenes don’t make any sense either because they didn’t happen that way. Chief was not wearing Cortana Special Mark VI armor before he received Cortana nor did Halsey present her to him in a Hanger deck. We could argue that this video was made before they came up with a canon excuse for the change and it was originally 343i’s stylistic interpretation of the Mark VI, but then that still wouldn’t make sense because he wore Mark V armor at the time. So the scene is still messed up.

Regardless of what those scenes were supposed to represent, the actual conversation may have been post Campaign and pre-Spartan Ops. She knows he is no ordinary ONI Intelligence operative and he is seeking information specifically about the Master Chief. It could have been a variation of Futureshadowing where we are hearing about the psychological state of the Master Chief after the events of the game and then we go back and play the game to see how he got that way. Of course we know when we finish the game that the loss of Cortana was very traumatic for him.

> But those scenes don’t make any sense either because they didn’t happen that way. Chief was not wearing Cortana Special Mark VI armor before he received Cortana nor did Halsey present her to him in a Hanger deck. We could argue that this video was made before they came up with a canon excuse for the change and it was originally 343i’s stylistic interpretation of the Mark VI, but then that still wouldn’t make sense because he wore Mark V armor at the time. So the scene is still messed up.

I’m quite comfortable with believing 343i just -Yoinked!- up. They haven’t been consistent with things like MJOLNIR in the past and seem quite content on changing the designs of things through retcons.

> <mark>Regardless of what those scenes were supposed to represent, the actual conversation may have been post Campaign and pre-Spartan Ops.</mark> She knows he is no ordinary ONI Intelligence operative and he is seeking information specifically about the Master Chief. It could have been a variation of Futureshadowing where we are hearing about the psychological state of the Master Chief after the events of the game and then we go back and play the game to see how he got that way. Of course we know when we finish the game that the loss of Cortana was very traumatic for him.

I just see NO evidence for this. This convo could’ve happened at any point in the 4 years from 2553 to 2557. As for futureshadowing, I don’t buy it since that very same explanation applies just as well if the prologue is set before the game.

> > But those scenes don’t make any sense either because they didn’t happen that way. Chief was not wearing Cortana Special Mark VI armor before he received Cortana nor did Halsey present her to him in a Hanger deck. We could argue that this video was made before they came up with a canon excuse for the change and it was originally 343i’s stylistic interpretation of the Mark VI, but then that still wouldn’t make sense because he wore Mark V armor at the time. So the scene is still messed up.
>
> I’m quite comfortable with believing 343i just -Yoinked!- up. They haven’t been consistent with things like MJOLNIR in the past and seem quite content on changing the designs of things through retcons.

Pessimism. Understood. Why would they screw up here but get the Scanned trailer right?

> Pessimism. Understood. Why would they screw up here but get the Scanned trailer right?

Because consistency is too hard I guess.

This is just ridiculous you people think the prologue is now after the fact in addition to the epilogue being 10,000 years prior?

WTF?

No. No. No. No. No.

All reasons have been stated on why your theory is wrong. No more can be said.

> No. No. No. No. No.
>
> All reasons have been stated on why your theory is wrong. No more can be said.

I wouldn’t go that far; I’ve seen prologues that take place after a story a million times before. An extremely easy example we all should know is the beginning of the Fall of Reach, where they fight off a batallion of grunts and banshees, or something along those numbers. Then it gets into their childhood and so forth.

Is it plausible? Of course. Do I definitely think that it’s post-Halo 4? Not really, but it’s an interesting thought.

> Because consistency is too hard I guess.

I like your faith in 343 ; ) Although I don’t really see how John would be much more of a sore spot, if any difference, than say Kelly, Fred, or any of the other S-II’s that she raised. As I recall, she wanted to save, and thought of as her own, all of them.

> This is just ridiculous you people think the prologue is now after the fact in addition to the epilogue being 10,000 years prior?
>
> WTF?

If you don’t even see how it’s plausible for the prologue to be after H4 campaign, you’re awfully narrow minded.

> > This is just ridiculous you people think the prologue is now after the fact in addition to the epilogue being 10,000 years prior?
> >
> > WTF?
>
> If you don’t even see how it’s plausible for the prologue to be after H4 campaign, you’re awfully narrow minded.

I love how I of all people am being called narrow minded simply because i don’t not agree with a random idea by wolverfrog. Not agreeing with this doesn’t make me “narrow minded”.

> > > This is just ridiculous you people think the prologue is now after the fact in addition to the epilogue being 10,000 years prior?
> > >
> > > WTF?
> >
> > If you don’t even see how it’s plausible for the prologue to be after H4 campaign, you’re awfully narrow minded.
>
> I love how I of all people am being called narrow minded simply because i don’t not agree with a random idea by wolverfrog. Not agreeing with this doesn’t make me “narrow minded”.

Whats a WolverFrog… O.o…

It is not a bad idea, and it is possible, the Prologue definitely has a twist, mystery, to it in some ways, just like the ending scene does.

I always considered the Prologue non canon, and just a tool to show new players a bit of back story involving halseys importance.

The prologue is made to set the story of Spartan Humanity, which is a major plot point throughout Halo 4.

The interrogater argues that Spartans don’t show Humanity (proven wrong during Halo 4).

Then he switches subjects to Chief specifically, and Halsey comes to the conclusion that he is trying to replace John, and find out why he was so good, so successful.

They want to know if his lack of Humanity caused him to succeed, and what they need to do to make another “Chief”.

Its plausible that its after the campaign, but if they wanted to know how Chief succeeded, knowing thwt he now does have Humanity would make all those questions pointless. Not to mention it would make the name “Prologue” pointless if it happens during or after the epilogue.