The Infinity Misconception

So, I’ve been noticing a pretty big misconception on these forums concerning the whole “Halo 4 matchmaking is actually a training simulation” business, and think it’s about time it was debunked via public thread. Here we go-

THE IDEA OF HALO 4 MULTIPLAYER BEING CANON DOES NOT LIMIT ANYTHING

…gameplay or otherwise.

No, the Infinity Simulation is not the reason there are no playable Elites. No, the Infinity Simulation is not the reason X gametype was not included. No, the Infinity Simulation is not a reason why Y idea cannot be included in the future. No, the idea of the Infinity Simulation does not need to be removed.

Firstly, correlation =/= causation. The real reason for the removed features of Halo 4 was time constraints. Removing content because it didn’t fit some non-existent “canon standard” would be insane.

Second, I can offer a wealth of counterexamples from the present game- Flood, killtimes, gametypes, population size, etc., etc. It is obvious 343 do not mean Halo 4’s multiplayer to be hard canon.

Now, here is my interpretation of the whole thing- Only the general ideas of the Infinity Simulation are canon. There’s an advanced virtual reality system on board Infinity. Spartans train in it. Sometimes they take part in competitive Wargames. -and that’s it. Anything can fit into that and be glossed over with either some half-baked excuse or the old “Gameplay =/= Canon”. If you’re a hardcore canon hound the added ability to pretend you’re a part of the Halo Universe will make you feel warm and fuzzy inside. If you for some reason dislike the explanation you can just ignore it. No need to get out pitchforks over something that doesn’t even affect you.

Yep! Plus they can have sangheili in war games Canonically.

As a disclaimer, let me state that I already know and agree with the OP: Halo 4 was restricted by development time, not canon.

Now, for the sake of consistency, it is best that multiplayer be separate from canon. Because if War Games is canon, that means everything in War Games must be canon too. And some things in War Games may not have logical or reasonable explanations.

> Now, for the sake of consistency, it is best that multiplayer be separate from canon. Because if War Games is canon, that means everything in War Games must be canon too. And some things in War Games may not have logical or reasonable explanations.

Not necessarily. Many things in Champaign and Spartan Ops aren’t canon, but we still consider the whole to be so.

> > Now, for the sake of consistency, it is best that multiplayer be separate from canon. Because if War Games is canon, that means everything in War Games must be canon too. And some things in War Games may not have logical or reasonable explanations.
>
> Not necessarily. Many things in Champaign and Spartan Ops aren’t canon, but we still consider the whole to be so.

aside from gameplay elements or easter eggs what in campaign isnt canon?

> > > Now, for the sake of consistency, it is best that multiplayer be separate from canon. Because if War Games is canon, that means everything in War Games must be canon too. And some things in War Games may not have logical or reasonable explanations.
> >
> > Not necessarily. Many things in Champaign and Spartan Ops aren’t canon, but we still consider the whole to be so.
>
> aside from gameplay elements or easter eggs what in campaign isnt canon?

Well, every playthrough is at least slightly different, and there can be only one “canon path”. By principle everything outside of fixed and constant scenes/dialogue is questionable.

> > > > Now, for the sake of consistency, it is best that multiplayer be separate from canon. Because if War Games is canon, that means everything in War Games must be canon too. And some things in War Games may not have logical or reasonable explanations.
> > >
> > > Not necessarily. Many things in Champaign and Spartan Ops aren’t canon, but we still consider the whole to be so.
> >
> > aside from gameplay elements or easter eggs what in campaign isnt canon?
>
> Well, every playthrough is at least slightly different, and there can be only one “canon path”. By principle everything outside of fixed and constant scenes/dialogue is questionable.

but even with multiple paths wouldnt that be considered a gameplay element as well to make it more fun and have reply value? seems like you are really hardcore on this lol. not that thats a bad thing.

> but even with multiple paths wouldnt that be considered a gameplay element as well to make it more fun and have reply value? seems like you are really hardcore on this lol. not that thats a bad thing.

But aren’t non-canon gametypes there for the sake of gameplay, fun, and replay value? Meaning that they are exempt from “the general ideas are canon” thing I have going here.

Yeah, I’ve constructed a pretty layered hierarchy of canon inside my head. Halo being set in varied videogames, novels, comics, videos, etc. means that a lot of personal though needs to go into it if I want to fit everything into a semi-logical system. Maybe it’s a little obsessive, but oh well.

i guess i just never thought of the going left or right path canon issue.

new alexandria must have wreaked havoc on your brain lol.

i just think the MM = canon to be a poor idea. instead of one or two instances it would be easier to just say this is all canon or none is canon. now this stuff is starting to get to me too now that you mentioned it…

> i guess i just never thought of the going left or right path canon issue.
>
> new alexandria must have wreaked havoc on your brain lol.
>
> i just think the MM = canon to be a poor idea. instead of one or two instances it would be easier to <mark>just say this is all canon or none is canon.</mark> now this stuff is starting to get to me too now that you mentioned it…

If they did it like that then the Campaign would either be none cannon or they would have to make it so that PPs can two shot you so that it would be all canon. It wouldn’t work. So if we can allow for the cannon to work the way it does in Campaign then there’s no reason why they can’t give any other form of game play the same treatment and have it abide to the same rules. Rule number one being that game play always takes priority over cannon.

Anyways I’m in complete support of this thread’s message. It’s about time someone made this clear.

But as I’m sure we can all agree is that the minute that it has negative affects on game play it should be ditched. But that hasn’t happened so it should stay along with my precious little Spartan.

> > i guess i just never thought of the going left or right path canon issue.
> >
> > new alexandria must have wreaked havoc on your brain lol.
> >
> > i just think the MM = canon to be a poor idea. instead of one or two instances it would be easier to <mark>just say this is all canon or none is canon.</mark> now this stuff is starting to get to me too now that you mentioned it…
>
> If they did it like that then the Campaign would either be none cannon or they would have to make it so that PPs can two shot you so that it would be all canon. It wouldn’t work. So if we can allow for the cannon to work the way it does in Campaign then there’s no reason why they can’t give any other form of game play the same treatment and have it abide to the same rules. Rule number one being that game play always takes priority over cannon.

why are you talking about campaign when i clearly said MM?

> > > i guess i just never thought of the going left or right path canon issue.
> > >
> > > new alexandria must have wreaked havoc on your brain lol.
> > >
> > > i just think the MM = canon to be a poor idea. instead of one or two instances it would be easier to <mark>just say this is all canon or none is canon.</mark> now this stuff is starting to get to me too now that you mentioned it…
> >
> > If they did it like that then the Campaign would either be none cannon or they would have to make it so that PPs can two shot you so that it would be all canon. It wouldn’t work. So if we can allow for the cannon to work the way it does in Campaign then there’s no reason why they can’t give any other form of game play the same treatment and have it abide to the same rules. Rule number one being that game play always takes priority over cannon.
>
> why are you talking about campaign when i clearly said MM?

Because the canonical rules that affect MM apply in the same way as they do Campaign. Both game modes can share the same canonical rules.

Campaign doesn’t need to be definitively cannon or none cannon so neither does Wargames.

> > > > i guess i just never thought of the going left or right path canon issue.
> > > >
> > > > new alexandria must have wreaked havoc on your brain lol.
> > > >
> > > > i just think the MM = canon to be a poor idea. instead of one or two instances it would be easier to <mark>just say this is all canon or none is canon.</mark> now this stuff is starting to get to me too now that you mentioned it…
> > >
> > > If they did it like that then the Campaign would either be none cannon or they would have to make it so that PPs can two shot you so that it would be all canon. It wouldn’t work. So if we can allow for the cannon to work the way it does in Campaign then there’s no reason why they can’t give any other form of game play the same treatment and have it abide to the same rules. Rule number one being that game play always takes priority over cannon.
> >
> > why are you talking about campaign when i clearly said MM?
>
> Because the canonical rules that affect MM apply in the same way as they do Campaign. Both game modes can share the same canonical rules.
>
> Campaign doesn’t need to be definitively cannon or none cannon so neither does Wargames.

ah now i gotcha. thanks for clarifying.

> > Now, for the sake of consistency, it is best that multiplayer be separate from canon. Because if War Games is canon, that means everything in War Games must be canon too. And some things in War Games may not have logical or reasonable explanations.
>
> Not necessarily. <mark>Many things in Champaign and Spartan Ops aren’t canon</mark>, but we still consider the whole to be so.

How?

General gameplay: Enemy numbers, exact types, strength, combat abilities, etc.

Gameplay=/=canon

Campaign represents the overall canonical story, but it doesn’t go exact. There are 4 difficulties, for one thing. Spartans don’t jump around like idiots during combat in canon, they use cover. Elites don’t stand still when being shot in the head, they move.

> Campaign represents the overall canonical story, but it doesn’t go exact. There are 4 difficulties, for one thing. Spartans don’t jump around like idiots during combat in canon, they use cover. Elites don’t stand still when being shot in the head, they move.

That’s part of the problem with having an expanded universe. We know how Elites actually fight and how Spartans actually fight. So why don’t they fight like that in-game? If Spartans take cover, then why don’t we add snap-to-cover mechanics? If Spartans can sprint at 55mph, why should I not be able to sprint in-game?

So then, if gameplay is not canon, then canon shouldn’t be a valid reason (by itself) to add to or change the gameplay.

> > Campaign represents the overall canonical story, but it doesn’t go exact. There are 4 difficulties, for one thing. Spartans don’t jump around like idiots during combat in canon, they use cover. Elites don’t stand still when being shot in the head, they move.
>
> That’s part of the problem with having an expanded universe. We know how Elites actually fight and how Spartans actually fight. So why don’t they fight like that in-game? If Spartans take cover, then why don’t we add snap-to-cover mechanics? If Spartans can sprint at 55mph, why should I not be able to sprint in-game?
>
> So then, if gameplay is not canon, then canon shouldn’t be a valid reason (by itself) to add to or change the gameplay.

That’s exactly the point he’s making, that Campaign represents the story but doesn’t accurately represent what happened in gameplay. For example, on the mission Reclaimer, John-117 didn’t stop for two minutes to -Yoink!- a recently deceased Elite.

Canon doesn’t add to or change gameplay is the whole point of the thread.

> As a disclaimer, let me state that I already know and agree with the OP: Halo 4 was restricted by development time, not canon.
>
> Now, for the sake of consistency, it is best that multiplayer be separate from canon. Because if War Games is canon, that means everything in War Games must be canon too. And some things in War Games may not have logical or reasonable explanations.

So basically, Spartans aren’t allowed to have fun via combat training.

Right… :stuck_out_tongue:

I agree with S 000 DeM. War Games’ canonicity is not the reason for lack of features from previous games. Time constraints make more sense. I mean, they could have integrated Elites into Halo 4 War Games as Invasion, just with Spartans acting as Elites, much like the Flood War Games, where Spartans act as Flood. The only difference would be armor options, which may have been the one thing that forced 343 to put a kill switch on Elites. It could also have been making Playable Character animations for them. There’s a bunch of stuff that could’ve been made and didn’t. I prefer to focus on what did make it into the game, as it is a more positive outlook on the game in general. :stuck_out_tongue:

> That’s exactly the point he’s making, that Campaign represents the story but doesn’t accurately represent what happened in gameplay.

I understand that. I wanted to point out that just as canon shouldn’t be given as a reason to restrict gameplay, it also shouldn’t be given as a reason to add to it. This wasn’t clear and I apologize for that.

> That’s exactly the point he’s making, that Campaign represents the story but doesn’t accurately represent what happened in gameplay. For example, on the mission Reclaimer, John-117 didn’t stop for two minutes to -Yoink!- a recently deceased Elite.

Although I wouldn’t put it past him :wink: