: I'm not saying you were saying anything about rejecting
: it because it wasn't made by Bungie. I'm saying that
: extra information which Myth3 provides which isn't in
: the first two Myth titles is not the same as extra
: information which Myth3 provides which contradicts the
: first two Myth titles. You seem to think it is.
This is a good point, but some of the new but non-contradictory information provided is just plain stupid, like the Tain being some disposable, mass-producable little thing. (God, the line "This is 'a' Tain" just enrages me!!!!) On the other hand, some is more acceptable, though Myth III's sloppiness on all points makes it less so.
On to the contradictions, and some new ponderables of my own.
1) Damas needed to prolong his life with ritual sacrifice and self-mutilation, says Myth I. Damas was a Heron guard, says Myth III, and therefore already immortal...oops...
2) While I have not seen the game, it is probable that the Trow would have to fight alongside the Myrkridia, their bitter enemies, at some time if they fought for Moagim. Oops, another contradiction.
3) In their eagerness to set up absolutely everything (except the things they fundamentally screwed up) for Myth I's beginning, the developers of Myth III had Connacht name Myrdred "The Deceiver" after his betrayal of the Light. However, the journal writer in Myth II said that Myrdred was renamed "The Deceiver" when Balor bent him to his will. (This is not as unforgivable a mistake as the other two, since the journal writer could have gotten mixed-up facts. Balor is Connacht, after all.)
There are more contradictions mentioned on this post, I'm sure, but I have a bad short term memory. On to the ponderables. I'll start with this quote: "Ah, Sinis! I thought you died when Mazzarin collapsed the Shrine of Nyx upon you!" Here is the first (and, in the reliable texts of Myth I and II, only) reference to Nyx, which Myth III's team later developed as the Trow god. But also, this quote makes reference to Mazzarin, who is (only in Myth III, mind you) said to be the first and greatest avatara. But Alric speaks like the event is in living memory, for he recognizes Sinis, who he thought was re-killed by someone named Mazzarin. Now we must examine the flavor text that the Thrall and avatara share. (There is only one for the avatara, though, since you only see one non-undead one.) It is this: "...the seventh wave of Thrall stumbled and climbed over the slippery, piled dead, and Mazzarin saw The Watcher with them and at last knew the number of his days..." It's obvious why this is on the Thrall: It makes references both to them and to their creator, The Watcher. And maybe it is on the avatara because it references the founder of their order, Mazzarin! So there are four possibilities (if Myth III is looked on as just a possibility): Mazzarin is the founder of the order, killed long ago by the Watcher, and a more recent avatara named after him collapsed the shrine of Nyx on Sinis, who escaped to get hacked to bits by Alric, OR Mazzarin founded the order during the Wolf Age and lived for a long time until he was killed by the Watcher and brought back as the shade you later kill (in which case Myth III is once again wrong) OR Alric was making reference to a long ago battle which he remembered from histories, in which case Sinis is one really old shade, OR Sinis was killed for the first time when the shrine of Nyx collapsed on him (he would have to have been some renegade avatara), in which case any of the previous three could be true. Keep in mind that in the first possibility, there is no way to know which Mazzarin is the shade and which is referenced in the flavor text, or if the same one is the shade and in the flavor text. I would go for the second possibility. The first is just too confusing, and was probably not what Bungie meant to be the truth in TFL. Of course the thing about Mazzarin being the founder is probably not either, but that can be later ignored. The third one doesn't make sense at all, and neither does the fourth, and they're not interesting enough to be defended.
Tell me what I've missed.
