![]() |
![]() |
|||
![]() |
||||
![]() |
||||
Frequently Asked Forum Questions | ![]() |
|||
![]() |
||||
![]() |
![]() |
|||
![]() | ||||
![]() | ||||
Search Older Posts on This Forum: Posts on Current Forum | Archived Posts | ||||
![]() | ||||
![]() | ||||
![]() | ||||
![]() | ||||
![]() | ||||
![]() |
I don't have a problem with art design choices that can be explained away at least semi-rationally. New weapon designs can be chalked up to new models or variants of older weapons, for example. Also, I can excuse the Prometheans looking like humanoids or beasts as them being the Didact's own personal designs. Fictional supervillains do nonsensical and outlandish things all the time. But where I do draw the line are things like the shifts in the design of the Chief's armor or the Forward Unto Dawn. Those changes are severe breaks in visual continuity and serve to draw one out of the story. It's immersion-breaking. It'd be like the USS Enterprise suddenly changing in design from a Constitution-class ship to a Miranda-class ship in between Wrath of Khan and The Search for Spock but still being treated both in-universe and by the producers as the exact same vessel we saw in WoK. On the visual front at least, Star Trek and Star Wars are far more consistent than Halo.
I also draw the line on flagrant disregard of story continuity. Minor plot holes are one thing, but then you have something like Halo: Reach intentionally discarding the entire last third of The Fall of Reach for no good reason. There are good retcons, there are bad retcons, and then there are instances of "they just didn't care." Halo's producers should try its best to make minimal use of the first but try to avoid the second and especially third at all costs.