REACH IS A SPIN-OFF!

Is this thread going to stop the endless stream of anti-Reach posts? No. Is it going to make me feel better? Probably not. Does it need to be made anyway? Absolutely.

Here are the facts:

Halo: Combat Evolved, Halo 2, and Halo 3 together comprise the Halo trilogy. Halo Wars, Halo 3: ODST, and Halo: Reach are spin-offs of the main series. Thus, even though Reach is the most recent Halo game, it is not the predecessor of Halo 4, and therefore should not be the centrepiece of so many threads pertaining to what people do and do not want to see in Halo 4.

And while I’m at it, here are some more unassailable facts:

  1. We know that you (and a great majority of the online community) hate armour abilities and bloom right down to the very core of your being. We knew it last week, and we’ll know it next week; your constant attempts to remind us are entirely unnecessary.

  2. Some people do not hate armour abilities and bloom, and may in fact actually like those things. Their opinion, though different, is no more or less valid than your own. If you wish to challenge their opinion, then by all means do so in a constructive and respectful manner, but please do not imply that they are “noobs”, “idiots”, “unskilled”, or in any way cognitively impaired for holding an opinion that differs from your own. It says far more about the tenability of your own opinion when you attempt to undermine other people’s than it does about theirs.

  3. When people claim that they want Halo 4 to be “like Halo 2” or “like Halo 3”, informing them that Halo 4 should be “its own game” rather than a “carbon copy” is not an appropriate response. These people are examining the influences of previous games along with one or more elements that they would like to see return; their desire to see Halo 4 recapitulate certain aspects of other Halo games is in no way synonymous with a desire to play the same game over again. If you do happen to come across a forum member who desires a pixel-for-pixel recreation of a previous Halo title, then you are entirely within your rights to politely point out the folly of that desire. Learn to recognise the difference between these people.

This wasn’t supposed to be a rant, but as I mentioned before, it needed to be said. Flame away.

It’s pronounced “Prequel”

This post has been edited by a moderator. Please do not post spam.

This post has been edited by a moderator. Please do not post spam.

It’s nice to see somebody else who sees that posting the same threads over and over again is useless as well as realizing that different people think different things and that no one person can speak for the whole community.

Though for your third point, I must point out that there are some people who do want a carbon copy of old games without any innovation. However, you are correct by saying that most people just want Halo 4 to be influenced by the first trilogy rather than by a replica.

This is not a DO’s and DON’Ts thread! It’s a thread that’s supposed to point out some glaringly obvious facts of life.

> I must point out that there are some people who do want a carbon copy of old games without any innovation.

You know, I actually had a sentence in there originally to address this point. Perhaps I’ll add it in again.

Well said.

> It’s pronounced “Prequel”

This and op what are you doing? Spin off? Halo Reach or Halo 0 should not be similar to halo 4. Halo 4 can have some similarities but all of reach’s additions and names (meaning lets say if there is a weapon in halo 4 and it is like the dmr it can not be called the dmr.) where lost on reach according to bungie to explain why none of the new stuff was in halo 1-3. As such there may be similar stuff but none of the same unless jun is in halo 4. And when you say spin off do you know what it means? Halo ODST was to be and can be considered an expansion to halo 3 as it take place before and during. Halo wars is a prequel and just because it is a rts does not mean it is a spin off. As such a lot of people are odd when they think halo 4 should be like reach when it is a sequel to 3. Sure 343 can make new stuff and make it some what similar but if anything returns the cannon is a joke. Like I said the only explanation I can see is jun.

Btw here is to example of what is and is not a spin off.

Zelda 2 is not a spin off because it is a different genre.

Mario Party and Mario Kart can be considered spin offs though as the have there own series.

Thank you Syllipsis for contributing the first post in these forums that makes absolute sense. :slight_smile:

Noop. Reach is a prequel to the Halo trilogy that serves a very important roll. It sets up the story for the Halo trilogy, and deserves to be considered a main game because its still telling the story the other 4 Halo’s follow.

> This and op what are you doing? Spin off? Halo Reach or Halo 0 should not be similar to halo 4. Halo 4 can have some similarities but all of reach’s additions and names (meaning lets say if there is a weapon in halo 4 and it is like the dmr it can not be called the dmr.) where lost on reach according to bungie to explain why none of the new stuff was in halo 1-3. As such there may be similar stuff but none of the same unless jun is in halo 4. And when you say spin off do you know what it means? Halo ODST was to be and can be considered an expansion to halo 3 as it take place before and during. Halo wars is a prequel and just because it is a rts does not mean it is a spin off. As such a lot of people are odd when they think halo 4 should be like reach when it is a sequel to 3. Sure 343 can make new stuff and make it some what similar but if anything returns the cannon is a joke. Like I said the only explanation I can see is jun.

Although I struggled greatly to make sense of your reply (you need to use more punctuation), I’ve attempted to craft a response below.

I was not trying to defend people who want aspects of Reach’s canon to return in Halo 4. I think you’ll find that most people are discussing elements of gameplay rather than lore. For those who want the DMR to return, I doubt whether they’ll be all that perturbed if it undergoes a name change.

And as for this whole concept of technology being forever lost during the fall of Reach: Reach was a colony; it is more than a little likely that the specifications for weapons, armour, armour abilities, and myriad other weapons and equipment used on the surface exist in some UNSC database housed on Earth. By analogy, your argument would suggest that any technology lost from one of Britain’s many prior colonies resulted in the loss of that technology from the British empire as a whole, which is absurd.

> Noop. Reach is a prequel to the Halo trilogy that serves a very important roll. It sets up the story for the Halo trilogy, and deserves to be considered a main game because its still telling the story the other 4 Halo’s follow.

I have no idea what you mean by a “main game”, but if your’e implying that Reach belongs to what would be known as the Halo quadrilogy, then I have to vehemently disagree. Being a spin-off does not preclude Reach from also being a prequel.

No, Reach is a prequel.

Wars was a spin-off.

> No, Reach is a prequel.
>
> Wars was a spin-off.

I wrote this not five centimetres above your post: “Being a spin-off does not preclude Reach from also being a prequel.” The definition of a prequel is a game (or movie, book, etc.) whose events precede those of an existing game; by that definition Halo Wars is also a prequel. But, as I said, being a spin-off and being a prequel are not mutually exclusive states.

> > This and op what are you doing? Spin off? Halo Reach or Halo 0 should not be similar to halo 4. Halo 4 can have some similarities but all of reach’s additions and names (meaning lets say if there is a weapon in halo 4 and it is like the dmr it can not be called the dmr.) where lost on reach according to bungie to explain why none of the new stuff was in halo 1-3. As such there may be similar stuff but none of the same unless jun is in halo 4. And when you say spin off do you know what it means? Halo ODST was to be and can be considered an expansion to halo 3 as it take place before and during. Halo wars is a prequel and just because it is a rts does not mean it is a spin off. As such a lot of people are odd when they think halo 4 should be like reach when it is a sequel to 3. Sure 343 can make new stuff and make it some what similar but if anything returns the cannon is a joke. Like I said the only explanation I can see is jun.
>
> Although I struggled greatly to make sense of your reply (you need to use more punctuation), I’ve attempted to craft a response below.
>
> I was not trying to defend people who want aspects of Reach’s canon to return in Halo 4. I think you’ll find that most people are discussing elements of gameplay rather than lore. For those who want the DMR to return, I doubt whether they’ll be all that perturbed if it undergoes a name change.
>
> And as for this whole concept of technology being forever lost during the fall of Reach: Reach was a colony; it is more than a little likely that the specifications for weapons, armour, armour abilities, and myriad other weapons and equipment used on the surface exist in some UNSC database housed on Earth. By analogy, your argument would suggest that any technology lost from one of Britain’s many prior colonies resulted in the loss of that technology from the British empire as a whole, which is absurd.
>
>
>
> > Noop. Reach is a prequel to the Halo trilogy that serves a very important roll. It sets up the story for the Halo trilogy, and deserves to be considered a main game because its still telling the story the other 4 Halo’s follow.
>
> I have no idea what you mean by a “main game”, but if your’e implying that Reach belongs to what would be known as the Halo quadrilogy, then I have to vehemently disagree. Being a spin-off does not preclude Reach from also being a prequel.

Sorry, I am not the best writer. :frowning: But for the most part what I say is true. Game play wise halo 4 can be new and expand of of halo 3 or halo reach. I know reach is the last game but it would make less sense if all of a sudden it plays like reach. And Multiplayer wise it always plays like the single player like most games. To bad bungie did not make halo 4 and include all the new stuff that ended up in reach in it. Because now we have a problem either Campaign and the number seriously and realize that it is after 3 so it should be more close to it game play wise. I am not saying you cant have the return of reach elements but the way bungie did it means that the have to be new entities of what they where in reach and be a little different with a different name. If not it will seem like a copy and paste and will make no sense for the people who play campaign. Also remember that the main characters where different to. There is a right way to get new stuff in halo 4 that will have a nod to reach but bungie made it difficult.

Now as for the lost tech think of it this way all the new stuff in reach where in betas. Thats why when you played halo games on earth no person was seen with a jet pack. In a way its unclear how many there where and who could use them. Reach was advanced but when it fell so did the tech. I mean you could see a hologram 2.0 but is chief heading to earth no.

> > No, Reach is a prequel.
> >
> > Wars was a spin-off.
>
> I wrote this not five centimetres above your post: “Being a spin-off does not preclude Reach from also being a prequel.” The definition of a prequel is a game (or movie, book, etc.) whose events precede those of an existing game; by that definition Halo Wars is also a prequel. But, as I said, being a spin-off and being a prequel are not mutually exclusive states.

I understand what you’re saying. And if Reach ended differently, I would have agreed with you.
But Reach ended directly leading into the trilogy (the stuff with Cortana and even directly showing the POA and the Ring). Because of its direct ties, I consider it to be just a prequel.

Wars, I consider to be just a spin off because of the different gameplay style and because the story isn’t directly related to the main story (the trilogy).

ODST can go either way. I consider it more of an expansion myself. It does tie in to Halo 2 pretty directly, but it also didn’t add much to the overarching Halo story, so I would consider it more of a spinoff (which isn’t an insult. ODST is my favorite game).

> > > No, Reach is a prequel.
> > >
> > > Wars was a spin-off.
> >
> > I wrote this not five centimetres above your post: “Being a spin-off does not preclude Reach from also being a prequel.” The definition of a prequel is a game (or movie, book, etc.) whose events precede those of an existing game; by that definition Halo Wars is also a prequel. But, as I said, being a spin-off and being a prequel are not mutually exclusive states.
>
> I understand what you’re saying. And if Reach ended differently, I would have agreed with you.
> But Reach ended directly leading into the trilogy (the stuff with Cortana and even directly showing the POA and the Ring). Because of its direct ties, I consider it to be just a prequel.
>
> Wars, I consider to be just a spin off because of the different gameplay style and because the story isn’t directly related to the main story (the trilogy).
>
> ODST can go either way. I consider it more of an expansion myself. It does tie in to Halo 2 pretty directly, but it also didn’t add much to the overarching Halo story, so I would consider it more of a spinoff (which isn’t an insult. ODST is my favorite game).

Reach’s canon-mutilating story does almost push it out of the spin-off zone, but not quite.

Reach had a great ending. It perfectly set up the story before Halo CE. It is not a spin-off! :confused:

Clearly, people have different definitions of “spin-off” and “prequel”, and as such, this has largely become a semantic argument.

> > > > No, Reach is a prequel.
> > > >
> > > > Wars was a spin-off.
> > >
> > > I wrote this not five centimetres above your post: “Being a spin-off does not preclude Reach from also being a prequel.” The definition of a prequel is a game (or movie, book, etc.) whose events precede those of an existing game; by that definition Halo Wars is also a prequel. But, as I said, being a spin-off and being a prequel are not mutually exclusive states.
> >
> > I understand what you’re saying. And if Reach ended differently, I would have agreed with you.
> > But Reach ended directly leading into the trilogy (the stuff with Cortana and even directly showing the POA and the Ring). Because of its direct ties, I consider it to be just a prequel.
> >
> > Wars, I consider to be just a spin off because of the different gameplay style and because the story isn’t directly related to the main story (the trilogy).
> >
> > ODST can go either way. I consider it more of an expansion myself. It does tie in to Halo 2 pretty directly, but it also didn’t add much to the overarching Halo story, so I would consider it more of a spinoff (which isn’t an insult. ODST is my favorite game).
>
> Reach’s canon-mutilating story does almost push it out of the spin-off zone, but not quite.

Canon-mutilating? There were a few slight retcons, but they were cleared up in Halsey’s journal. I think that “canon-mutilating” is a bit of an over exaggeration :slight_smile:

And, by the way, spin off doesn’t mean non-canon. Just that its not connected to the main story. Wars, for example, is a spin off and is still canon.

I consider the games to be the gold standard when it comes to the Halo canon, and if they alter it in a way that conflicts with the books, then I can accept (even welcome) that. The only material in the Halo universe that I think warrants the description “canon-mutilating” is the Forerunner Saga, in which case I would even go so far as to say that mutilation is a gross understatement.