Bungie Universe
This topic has moved here: Subject: Unexplainable errors in the Halo canon. (Spoilers)
  • Subject: Unexplainable errors in the Halo canon. (Spoilers)
Subject: Unexplainable errors in the Halo canon. (Spoilers)


Posted by: Alf stewert

Posted by: Beowolfe

Posted by: privet caboose
Posted by: Beowolfe

Halo makes people feel like you play as a normal person, and I know this because I've argued with countless people trying to convince them that Master Chief is actually a super-soldier. During the entire halo game series no Spartan has ever been shown to be the super soldiers that they are.


Monsters and Return to Sender portray Spartans pretty well.

Those are rare exceptions; monsters I'd have to agree with, but being that it's from Halo Wars and the circumstances surrounding it is peculiar I don't tend to take it as seriously as I do with other sources.
Return to sender, well, the way they showed it seemed to indicate that there was a factor of luck involved, but seeing as how I don't know the exact situation, I can't comment on that.

But that's besides the point, those cases are rare even in cutscenes, and I'm also looking for signs outside of the cutscenes, namely gameplay. That Halo has never done.
see Beowolfe you over analyse things instead of enjoying it, how do you know what a spartan acts like? you dont and in situations they dont act like spartans(which you believe) you go Ape-blam!-, you see even spartans with there agumations will be Different and never act the same as another. (this also goes towards the whole idea on emiles death if you remember that?)
Ahhh... one of my favorite arguments in this thread, Emile's death.

But to be honest, all of your points are based on speculation in that specific argument, I still don't understand what's a "worthy kill", or why would a Phantom just leave two Elites instead of destroying the second Pelican.

Nothing in that scene made sense.

  • 02.20.2011 12:09 PM PDT
  • gamertag: An0nz
  • user homepage:

CoD is a good game, even if the Halo series are better in some aspects. Anyone who insults either is just bad in that game. Grow up.


Posted by: Alf stewert

Posted by: Beowolfe

Posted by: privet caboose
Posted by: Beowolfe

Halo makes people feel like you play as a normal person, and I know this because I've argued with countless people trying to convince them that Master Chief is actually a super-soldier. During the entire halo game series no Spartan has ever been shown to be the super soldiers that they are.


Monsters and Return to Sender portray Spartans pretty well.

Those are rare exceptions; monsters I'd have to agree with, but being that it's from Halo Wars and the circumstances surrounding it is peculiar I don't tend to take it as seriously as I do with other sources.
Return to sender, well, the way they showed it seemed to indicate that there was a factor of luck involved, but seeing as how I don't know the exact situation, I can't comment on that.

But that's besides the point, those cases are rare even in cutscenes, and I'm also looking for signs outside of the cutscenes, namely gameplay. That Halo has never done.
see Beowolfe you over analyse things instead of enjoying it, how do you know what a spartan acts like? you dont and in situations they dont act like spartans(which you believe) you go Ape-blam!-, you see even spartans with there agumations will be Different and never act the same as another. (this also goes towards the whole idea on emiles death if you remember that?)

Over analyze? Not really. Halo Reach is one of the first games that literally jumped out me so many times with a "MAKES NO SENSE" alert that I cannot possibly enjoy it unless I ignore the majority of the game.

And how do I know what a Spartan acts like? Through the description of over 3 novels maybe? How do you convince yourself that Spartans even Halo 1-3 cannot sprint or cannot roll away from harm? I don't know their personalities or behaviours, but I know their capabilities, or at least, if they are indeed chosen to be the most elite, then the capabilities they should possess. Halo games simply does not portray the abilities well if at all, simple as that.

The cutscene of Emile's death was retarded, it could have been a lot better if Bungie actually took the time to make everything logically fit, but they simply didn't. The problem there was that there were things in the scene that went against common sense; The Covenant didn't get the advantage because they were smart about it, they got the advantage because the UNSC made stupid mistakes.

  • 02.20.2011 12:24 PM PDT


Posted by: Beowolfe
The cutscene of Emile's death was retarded, it could have been a lot better if Bungie actually took the time to make everything logically fit, but they simply didn't. The problem there was that there were things in the scene that went against common sense; The Covenant didn't get the advantage because they were smart about it, they got the advantage because the UNSC made stupid mistakes.


Logically fit? You mention things jumping out as "OMG THIS MAKES NO SENSE!" yet when I went through, nothing did that.

Emiles death? Simple. Phantom came up in an area the cannon could NOT hit. Seeing as the MAC cannon was the bigger threat, it destroyed the pelican in it's way, then swung behind it. As it passed overhead, two elites dropped (directly under it.) One landing on the main gun, the other above the control booth. Emile draws shotgun and fires, knocking the first over and stunning it. As he climbs through the windshield he pumps the shotgun, then finishes the Zealot. Second zealot, moving slowly (I have tested this ingame, if you walk slowly enough, you won't appear on motion trackers standing up.) then grabs Emile and stabs him from behind. As Emile is pulled off the blade he draws his Kukri and stabs the Elite in the neck, throwing them off.

That's pretty much what I got from it, within the first few times of playing the campaign. Tells me what in that doesn't make sense?

  • 02.20.2011 1:39 PM PDT

*sigh* Nothing in that scene makes sense. Here, have this quote:

Posted by: Beowolfe
I'd thought that his arguments, although not complete, would be sufficient to prove my point...but looks like I'll have to add my own...
So the MAC was aimed at the cruiser, and let's assume that Emile was not able to turn it to destroy the phantom there were still plenty of stupid things in the short cutscene...
-Why did none of the Pelican pilots seem to have realized that the phantom was there? there was no "Noble 4 (or Captain Keyes), we have an incoming phantom, approaching fast" or whatever. Let me remind you that you can actually see that phantom coming in the cutscene itself.
-When the phantom did show up, why did the pelicans not engage it? Granted, the first pelican (which was the escort, supposed to be on guard) was taken out fast because it did not shoot at the phantom as it appeared, instead, it faced a completely wrong direction. That still doesn't change the fact that the pelican carrying Keyes did not engage the phantom at any point.
-Why did the phantom change its target from the pelicans to Noble six? The pelican is obviously a much larger threat.
-Why did Noble six just crouch there? a well trained soldier would have tried to do something; get to cover, run to avoid the plasma bolts, or even just warn Emile. None of these happened.
-The covenant phantom just left after dropping off the two zealots. Why didn't it stick around to make sure the job was done? Why didn't it engage the pelican and Noble six? For that matter, why didn't the pelican engage the phantom?
-Emile was frking slow. He definitely took his time killing the first elite, something that should not happen in a clearly hostile area. The entire sequence of stand up-aim-pump-shotgun-shoot took way too long. Why didn't he pump the shotgun as he aimed?
-And then he proceeded to fail by saying "who's next?" to the dead body of the elite instead of looking around for more danger, not checking his motion sensor, since he was caught off-guard by the second zealot.
-At the point when the second elite showed up, he again showed the skills and agility of a standard marine instead of an augmented super-soldier. First, he was not aware of the elite's presence, despite the lists of clues he would have had, then, when it growled, he did not even dive away, turn around, or anything. He lets himself get stabbed.

So there you go...a list of things that didn't make sense in one single cutscene because Bungie couldn't spare some time making sure the cutscenes were logically constructed. By the way, saying emile's armor may have been damaged doesn't make it true. For all we know, it wasn't, as we didn't see it happen. Saying that the armor was damaged has no proof; only speculation.



[Edited on 02.20.2011 1:48 PM PST]

  • 02.20.2011 1:48 PM PDT

If you can read this, that means I'm not a Shaolin monk...

yet.


Posted by: Juan Teran
*sigh* Nothing in that scene makes sense. Here, have this quote:

Posted by: Beowolfe
I'd thought that his arguments, although not complete, would be sufficient to prove my point...but looks like I'll have to add my own...
So the MAC was aimed at the cruiser, and let's assume that Emile was not able to turn it to destroy the phantom there were still plenty of stupid things in the short cutscene...
-Why did none of the Pelican pilots seem to have realized that the phantom was there? there was no "Noble 4 (or Captain Keyes), we have an incoming phantom, approaching fast" or whatever. Let me remind you that you can actually see that phantom coming in the cutscene itself.
-When the phantom did show up, why did the pelicans not engage it? Granted, the first pelican (which was the escort, supposed to be on guard) was taken out fast because it did not shoot at the phantom as it appeared, instead, it faced a completely wrong direction. That still doesn't change the fact that the pelican carrying Keyes did not engage the phantom at any point.
-Why did the phantom change its target from the pelicans to Noble six? The pelican is obviously a much larger threat.
-Why did Noble six just crouch there? a well trained soldier would have tried to do something; get to cover, run to avoid the plasma bolts, or even just warn Emile. None of these happened.
-The covenant phantom just left after dropping off the two zealots. Why didn't it stick around to make sure the job was done? Why didn't it engage the pelican and Noble six? For that matter, why didn't the pelican engage the phantom?
-Emile was frking slow. He definitely took his time killing the first elite, something that should not happen in a clearly hostile area. The entire sequence of stand up-aim-pump-shotgun-shoot took way too long. Why didn't he pump the shotgun as he aimed?
-And then he proceeded to fail by saying "who's next?" to the dead body of the elite instead of looking around for more danger, not checking his motion sensor, since he was caught off-guard by the second zealot.
-At the point when the second elite showed up, he again showed the skills and agility of a standard marine instead of an augmented super-soldier. First, he was not aware of the elite's presence, despite the lists of clues he would have had, then, when it growled, he did not even dive away, turn around, or anything. He lets himself get stabbed.

So there you go...a list of things that didn't make sense in one single cutscene because Bungie couldn't spare some time making sure the cutscenes were logically constructed. By the way, saying emile's armor may have been damaged doesn't make it true. For all we know, it wasn't, as we didn't see it happen. Saying that the armor was damaged has no proof; only speculation.


True.

  • 02.20.2011 2:09 PM PDT
  • gamertag: An0nz
  • user homepage:

CoD is a good game, even if the Halo series are better in some aspects. Anyone who insults either is just bad in that game. Grow up.


Posted by: Cmdr DaeFaron

Posted by: Beowolfe
The cutscene of Emile's death was retarded, it could have been a lot better if Bungie actually took the time to make everything logically fit, but they simply didn't. The problem there was that there were things in the scene that went against common sense; The Covenant didn't get the advantage because they were smart about it, they got the advantage because the UNSC made stupid mistakes.


Logically fit? You mention things jumping out as "OMG THIS MAKES NO SENSE!" yet when I went through, nothing did that.

Emiles death? Simple. Phantom came up in an area the cannon could NOT hit. Seeing as the MAC cannon was the bigger threat, it destroyed the pelican in it's way, then swung behind it. As it passed overhead, two elites dropped (directly under it.) One landing on the main gun, the other above the control booth. Emile draws shotgun and fires, knocking the first over and stunning it. As he climbs through the windshield he pumps the shotgun, then finishes the Zealot. Second zealot, moving slowly (I have tested this ingame, if you walk slowly enough, you won't appear on motion trackers standing up.) then grabs Emile and stabs him from behind. As Emile is pulled off the blade he draws his Kukri and stabs the Elite in the neck, throwing them off.

That's pretty much what I got from it, within the first few times of playing the campaign. Tells me what in that doesn't make sense?

Yea, I'd recommend you to first read what Juan posted there, then go back to where that argument was in this thread and read the guy who I quoted when I was writing that, and see how well your arguments stand up. This same argument has been going on for ages.

  • 02.20.2011 2:11 PM PDT

So full of hate were our eyes that we could not see. Our war would yield countless dead but never victory. So let us cast arms aside and like discard our wrath. Thou, in faith, will keep us safe whilst we find the path.

uh, maybe it's just me, but I remember fighting through about a phantom-load of Covies to get to the Mass Driver... So it didn't just drop off those two elites.
as for why more didn't drop; The Elites could have done it of their own initiative: they saw the Mass Driver directly below, and dropped as the Phantom passed.
Considering the timing of the covies coming out of the building, however, I'd assume that the Phantom had already dropped the majority of its troops and then moved to allow the two zealots to take the Mass Driver.
As for why it didn't attack Keyes' pelican, I dunno. perhaps because of the giant UNSC warship taking off from the planetright in front of them, undoubtedly with point-defense weapons on it (though why they weren't firing yet is beyond me, unless they weren't operational for some reason, be it ammo, power, or damage)
note: I don't mean to present the warship bit as sarcastic, only as a legitimate possiblility

  • 02.21.2011 9:43 AM PDT

Posted By: Beowolfe
No, I'm looking for logic. Games are focused on gameplay,not logic. In a Halo (excluding Halo Wars) game, no automatic weapon can get headshots, you're limited by the game mechanics in terms of what you can do, and the story is only as good as the cutscenes.


Gameplay can be a little illogical sure, but that doesn't mean that games are illogical, they can be just as logical as a book or a movie, or just as illogical. You can't really tell where an automatic weapon's projectiles are hitting in, it's not like real life where you can see on the corpse where your bullet hit, the only automatic Halo weapons that you can see where you hit your opponent are the Spiker and Needler, and I've had those hitting people in the head quite a few times, so you can get headshots with them, it just doesn't give the medal for headshots.

You're probably right. Not 100% of players who play both will agree with me. Only 99%. It's like asking if someone thinks $1000 is more than $500. It's just that obvious. Halo doesn't show your super-soldier might through gameplay, the player just knows that you play as a super soldier, but you never actually use abilities that would prove to be so.

First of all, your friend...well, he's your friend, so he's probably going to side with you, and second, I don't know what he's smoking because Crysis 2 isn't actually released yet. (not the retail version anyways)And honestly, whenever someone say that they honestly just sound like they're fairly narrow minded and set on the simple idea of "everyone wants to copy from mainstream games". Just like how when everyone hears of Guild Wars 2, they immediately think "they're trying to copy World of Warcraft". On another note, if your friend is making judgments based on the recent fail of the Crysis 2 MP demo, then I doubt he can make a proper judgment. If, however, he's gotten himself on a copy of the leaked beta, well, I personally have only seen an friend play that as well, so I can't comment on that.


I don't even think 99% percent would say that, I wouldn't take that as fact unless there was some concrete evidence of such staring me in the face. I'm sorry if you disagree, but Halo does show your super soldier abilities in game play, as I said, you are always much faster than everyone else, you do much more damage when you punch enemies, you can flip any vehicle (granted the Elephant is only able to be flipped over for the sake of gameplay and the lolz), and you can easily dispatch threats the average mook gets slaughtered by.

He was talking about what he'd seen of the promo material for Crysis so far, I don't know how much he's seen, or played, of what has been released by Crytech so far, but it doesn't sound that impressive. Even if it isn't rip-offs of the mainstream games, it sounds like just another average shooter like Halo and CoD on the market.

I probably am years behind in PC gaming, last PC game I got was Battle for Middle-Earth II. And as for the whole "mindset" thing, I've known games can show exactly the same stuff a movie could, but as you said the technology is limited, so if you wanted a lot of "movie" style graphics or scenes you'd have to sacrifice other things to get there.

There is a difference between knowing that the player is special and having the game actually SHOW you, the latter being portrayal. For example, what would make you feel like a soldier more during World War II? Being enlisted in the army reserves, or actually being sent to the front-lines?

If a game tells me I am a super-soldier, and yet from my capabilities are limited compared to other sources (novels) or other portrayals (competing games or movies) then I find it kind of hard to actually believe that I'm special.

There is a fine line between plot and ability...and I think you should learn that before you step into that argument again. In any case, I'm talking about player-controllable abilities, not abilities as you would describe a character.

And I just love when people say that. There are ways to make NPCs better without making them play the entire course of the game. Look at Gears of War. Look at Mass Effect, or even look at CoD. First, there's nothing wrong with making NPCs who are good enough to match that of an average player, that just means you get to put more enemies on the field. Secondly, these NPCs can be demonstrated to be special through other means than making them so smart the game plays itself, namely, cutscenes that occur more than once that reinforces this specialty throughout the course of the game.

Brawl is not a FPS, is it? Many game genres sport the "drain health and yet still alive thing", but that doesn't fit well in FPS games. Then again, this is a small issue; as I've said before, all that they had to do was trigger the cutscene as soon as the shields were drained, and everything would make much more sense.


You don't need to be shown something to know you're not ordinary, it helps, but one should not have to be -blam!-ing shown the character doing something special and out of the ordinary to know they're different.

Every time I've played the allies in CoD have been just about as effective as my NPC teammates in Halo. I think everything's pretty good for Halo's friendly AIs, except for driving, that is not so hot. I was more saying that if the AI for Noble Team was as good as Spartan are supposed to be the game would play itself, I'm not talking about if they were excellent AI, and except for Emile's shot-gun "sniping" I think they're very effective and an excellent AI.

No, it isn't an FPS, but it's still a common thing in gaming, whether something is an FPS or not. I thought it worked fine in Reach, but that's just me.

Yea...I CAN use it as evidence, because that's simply a comparison to see how gameplay can be used as a tool to fill in the descriptions, it's not about whether Spartans should do this or that, but rather that if they were fleshed out properly, it would look much more like Crysis than Halo. Go watch a Halo match in theatre mode...So arcade it's not even funny.

Yea, Spartans are stronger than marines in game, but that and flipping vehicles (which automatically flip when you hit a button) are the only times you really see their strength in gameplay. In Crysis, you can actually use that strength in situations other than hitting people, and the actions are usually portrayed more similar to how you would see in Mirror's Edge, where you can visually see your characters perform the actions.


I now have a little better knowledge of Crysis since I went and watched some gameplay earlier, and from what I saw the enhanced speed or whatever it was worked like the Sprint AA in Reach. I saw nothing special about it at all, it looked like every other FPS I've seen. And I doubt either of us is going to make any headway in our argument with the other on this point, I think the Spartans are fine, and you don't, I doubt anything is ever going to change, at least on my part.

That's because, from what I saw, Crysis had a much more destructible environment than Halo. If Halo had a more destructible environment then you would of course have more uses for your strength, but that would take away from Halo's feel as primarily a shooter. Crysis also seemed to have a much more "open world" feel than Halo, destructible environment works well in those kinda games, not so much in a straight up shooter.

  • 02.21.2011 6:40 PM PDT
  • gamertag: An0nz
  • user homepage:

CoD is a good game, even if the Halo series are better in some aspects. Anyone who insults either is just bad in that game. Grow up.


Posted by: OrderedComa
Gameplay are illogical;not talking about games as a whole here here

We're talking about gameplay portrayal...gameplay cannot be logical or else it'd be a simulator, and that is definitely not Halo. And when I talk about headshots, I'm not talking about if the projectiles hit their head or not, because clearly they do. Neither am I talking about getting the headshot medal;at least not the medal itself. I'm talking about how in halo, when you shoot someone in the face with an automatic weapon it does not do more damage than it would if you were shooting their fingers. It does equal damage across the hitbox.

99%
You don't think, but I'm willing to wager that it will be a fairly lopsided ratio if indeed enough people played the games. We'll see soon enough, Crysis 2 will be released on PC and on consoles in March.

And honestly, you don't get it. I don't care if the player is stronger than their NPC counterparts in gameplay, mainly because the NPCs are absolutely horrid in terms of combat abilities that they may as well not be there. It's like if I claimed I was strong because I can lift more than a nine year old. What I care about is the fact of the players actually "feeling" like they are super when they play the game; when people play a halo game,most of them are not going to be staring at the NPCs, so their "norm" and their perception of the super-soldier ability is focused on what THEY, as they player, can do, and Halo's limited mechanics certainly do not give you that feeling.

Friend's comment

Doesn't sound impressive...Try the best graphic card killer of all time...And again, you still have that assumption that things will just "be something equal to what the mainstream games are". No. It will not be "just equal". It will be better, if not for any other reason than the simple fact that it was worked on with superior tech. Cryengine 3 is undoubtedly one of the most advanced game engines in the market today.

Again, your friend, if he has not played the game (Crysis 2) itself, cannot make accurate judgments. I have actually seen a close friend play the leaked beta for a fair amount of time and tried the 360 demo myself, and intend to play the PC version of the demo again.

Halo has poor portrayal

No. You don't "have to" be shown. But the simple fact that Crysis/Crysis 2 does show it whereas Halo doesn't, means that Halo loses in this department.

And in any case, as I said above, Halo does not give you the feel of playing as a super-soldier when in comparison to how it CAN BE. You know it's sad when the best portrayal of the Spartans in the halo franchise comes from the Halo Wars cutscene "Monsters", and yet the FPS version of the same class of super-soldiers can do nearly nothing similar.

First of all, Halo friendly AIs are plain retarded, it has pretty much always been. Secondly, yes, CoD AIs are not much better, but as I said, at least they repeatedly remind you that they are indeed special through cutscenes. And my main points were based on GoW and Mass Effect. That's kind of why I left CoD as last, and added the word "even" before it. And these aren't even the only examples. There are plenty of FPS games where the some AI can be no less capable than the player themselves, and yet the game does not play itself.

The last hp gone but still alive thing is not something that is used in FPS games; in FPS games, when you shoot someone dead, well, they're dead unless the plot has an explanation for why not. Again, I really don't care about this point as it can be easily fixed if they had just taken a little time.

Crysis
Little better...but still insignificant. Where should I start?
Let's begin by mentioning that Crysis 1 is released in 2007, and you are equating (keyword here) parts of the game mechanic to a game released in 2010. So the 2010 game has only JUST picked up something that has been done 3 years before?

The maximum speed acted much like Halo Reach's sprint, that much is true, apart from the greater increase in speed. However, let's not forget that maximum speed is separate from the normal sprint in Crysis, whereas the only way to sprint in Halo is to use the AA. Yea, makes sooo much sense that a super soldier cannot sprint unless they have an "armour ability".

The same applies to all other abilities in Crysis. The different nano-suit modes augment a particular aspect of the wearer, but are separate from their normal counterparts. You can still easily beat a person to death without using strength mode, armour mode is just an optional second shield unlike Halo where much of the battle depends on having the shield. Stealth is different, but in comparison, the stealth beats active camo on general effectiveness due to the simple fact that using it does not limit your other aspects. (at least in Crysis 1, they apparently nerfed it)

Then, let's think about one important thing. You took a look at gameplay videos of Crysis 1. One. Gameplay videos are usually un-expressive of the whole potential in the first place, but you looked at the Crysis 1 instead of Crysis 2, which is radically different from the first.

Maximum speed and maximum strength have been merged into one; power mode. I personally do not understand this fully as of now, but apparently in singleplayer campaign, the power-mode works in conjuction with armour mode. Of course, this means that you don't sprint as fast in power mode as you do as Maximum speed in Crysis 1, but you still run fast enough that you can tell the difference. This opens up an entire new potential of tactical usage, which is what Crytek was aiming for when they made the first game; a game that's based less on basic FPS elements and more on adaptability.

So yea, unless you've played Crysis 2, I doubt you actually know what it feels like when you actually play the game, and even when you start to play it, you won't know exactly what it feels like until you master the usage of the different modes to the point where you transform from one to another as smoothly as a super-soldier would do. Btw...destructive environment plays a minor role in this, there are A LOT of other things you can do that makes you feel like a super soldier. Go look up Crysis 2 videos at Gametrailers. One thing to keep in mind...Multiplayer and Singleplayer have different mechanics.

  • 02.21.2011 8:59 PM PDT

Posted ByBeowolfe
Gameplay


If you are saying that no gameplay, except for simulators, can be logical, then why are you faulting Halo for displaying something that supposedly all video games display?
How do you know that headshots from automatics don't deal the same amount of damage to the head as the precision guns? Did you look at the actual coding for them, or are you just making up facts? How are you reaching this conclusion?

NPC Comparison

And how, pray tell, will Crysis 2 going to consoles as well as PC tell us what people think? It certainly wouldn't be the sales, you can't tell any opinions from sales other than "this game is popular, people are interested in it/like it. I don't doubt the possibility that people might think Crysis super soldiers are better, but I won't believe it is fact unless I see concrete evidence indicating so. I only have your opinion to go on, and one person's opinion is not enough to accurately decide what the masses think.

Very few people I have seen on here, or talked to, have felt like the Spartans in Halo didn't feel like super soldiers. The only idea remotely similar that I've seen is that "Bungie doesn't do a good job portraying super soldiers" which is entirely different from "this doesn't feel like a super soldier". I've never not felt like a super soldier when playing Halo, you're completely welcome to feel differently, but I don't think the majority of the populace will agree with you.

Halo Portrayal

As I said, neither of us is going to get anywhere arguing this, I think Halo does an excellent job with the Spartans, you don't, and I know I'm not going to change my opinion, and I don't think you are going either.

I don't think the AI is retarded at all, only when they get behind the wheel. And I haven't played Gears or ME. And CoD doesn't have cutscenes, at least not what I'd call cutscenes.

You missed what I was saying in the last post, I was saying that Noble's AI can't be like a Spartan would really be, because the game would play itself then. I think they've got a very competent AI, Kat's and Emile's driving/ shotgun "sniping" aside, they just can't be what a Spartan is supposed be though because the game would play itself and you'd just basically be watching the action.

Crysis

You missed my point, I was saying it's nothing special because it's the same sort of thing as Reach's Sprint AA, not when it was implemented in the series.

Oh gosh, the last sentence in that second paragraph is so very narrow minded, even if you are being sarcastic. It would seem from your comment that you don't know what the Sprint AA is at all. It doesn't "allow" a Spartan to sprint, it overloads the locks on their speed letting them sprint or run faster than they normally could. And saying they need an AA to sprint is confusing gameplay with canon. It's the same as saying that Link needs to be on a ledge in order to be able to jump.

I looked at Crysis 1 because it's already out, and I didn't know how far along in development Crysis 2 was, and seeing something in a trailer is nowhere near the same as seeing something actually used in gameplay.

  • 02.22.2011 12:26 PM PDT

In my opinion, what Bungie wrote is Canon. As far as that goes, the only thing that really matters is that master chief (in cryosleep), cortana, and Keyes escape Reach on the PoA. Everything written by other authors, outside sources and other people outside of bungie is where the canon errors are

Basically, it's Bungie's universe, what they say goes. other people are wrong, even if they wrote stuff down first

  • 02.22.2011 12:59 PM PDT

Signatures are for squares.

Posted by: Son Of Mountains

Basically, it's Bungie's universe, what they say goes. other people are wrong, even if they wrote stuff down first


No it isn't.

  • 02.22.2011 1:02 PM PDT

Posted by: privet caboose
Posted by: Son Of Mountains

Basically, it's Bungie's universe, what they say goes. other people are wrong, even if they wrote stuff down first


No it isn't.


Wait...who made all these games again? Who came up with the idea?
Sure wasn't Eric Nylund or any of those authors

look man, eric nylund wrote a book based on the game, then bungie made the game based on their own ideas. I think that Bungie's story should carry a little more weight than the novels.

[Edited on 02.22.2011 1:08 PM PST]

  • 02.22.2011 1:07 PM PDT

By the power of truth, I, while living, have conquered the universe.

Posted by: Son Of Mountains
Posted by: privet caboose
Posted by: Son Of Mountains

Basically, it's Bungie's universe, what they say goes. other people are wrong, even if they wrote stuff down first


No it isn't.


Wait...who made all these games again? Who came up with the idea?
Sure wasn't Eric Nylund or any of those authors

look man, eric nylund wrote a book based on the game, then bungie made the game based on their own ideas. I think that Bungie's story should carry a little more weight than the novels.


The Fall of Reach has been set in stone canon for 9 years. Why should Bungie's mandated, half-assed game take canonical priority over well-written fiction?

Reach not only corrupts TFOR's canon, but also The Flood, First Strike, Ghosts of Onyx and Evolutions.

  • 02.22.2011 1:14 PM PDT

Posted by: ajw34307
Posted by: Son Of Mountains
Posted by: privet caboose
Posted by: Son Of Mountains

Basically, it's Bungie's universe, what they say goes. other people are wrong, even if they wrote stuff down first


No it isn't.


Wait...who made all these games again? Who came up with the idea?
Sure wasn't Eric Nylund or any of those authors

look man, eric nylund wrote a book based on the game, then bungie made the game based on their own ideas. I think that Bungie's story should carry a little more weight than the novels.


The Fall of Reach has been set in stone canon for 9 years. Why should Bungie's mandated, half-assed game take canonical priority over well-written fiction?

Reach not only corrupts TFOR's canon, but also The Flood, First Strike, Ghosts of Onyx and Evolutions.


it takes canonical priority because it was made by bungie. you know, the same people that came up with the rest of the story arc.

  • 02.22.2011 1:17 PM PDT

Signatures are for squares.

Posted by: Son Of Mountains
Posted by: privet caboose
Posted by: Son Of Mountains

Basically, it's Bungie's universe, what they say goes. other people are wrong, even if they wrote stuff down first


No it isn't.


Wait...who made all these games again? Who came up with the idea?
Sure wasn't Eric Nylund or any of those authors

look man, eric nylund wrote a book based on the game, then bungie made the game based on their own ideas. I think that Bungie's story should carry a little more weight than the novels.


I never said it was Eric Nylunds universe either, it's 343i/Microsofts universe. Not Bungies.

  • 02.22.2011 1:20 PM PDT

By the power of truth, I, while living, have conquered the universe.

Posted by: Son Of Mountains
Posted by: ajw34307
Posted by: Son Of Mountains
Posted by: privet caboose
Posted by: Son Of Mountains

Basically, it's Bungie's universe, what they say goes. other people are wrong, even if they wrote stuff down first


No it isn't.


Wait...who made all these games again? Who came up with the idea?
Sure wasn't Eric Nylund or any of those authors

look man, eric nylund wrote a book based on the game, then bungie made the game based on their own ideas. I think that Bungie's story should carry a little more weight than the novels.


The Fall of Reach has been set in stone canon for 9 years. Why should Bungie's mandated, half-assed game take canonical priority over well-written fiction?

Reach not only corrupts TFOR's canon, but also The Flood, First Strike, Ghosts of Onyx and Evolutions.


it takes canonical priority because it was made by bungie. you know, the same people that came up with the rest of the story arc.


So what? Empire Strikes Back wasn't directed by George Lucas, yet it's considered to be the best SW film of the Saga - many of us here say the same about TFOR and established canon.

  • 02.22.2011 1:21 PM PDT

best material =/= canon
stuff written by creators of the game = canon

  • 02.22.2011 1:27 PM PDT


Posted by: ajw34307
Posted by: Son Of Mountains
Posted by: privet caboose
Posted by: Son Of Mountains

Basically, it's Bungie's universe, what they say goes. other people are wrong, even if they wrote stuff down first


No it isn't.


Wait...who made all these games again? Who came up with the idea?
Sure wasn't Eric Nylund or any of those authors

look man, eric nylund wrote a book based on the game, then bungie made the game based on their own ideas. I think that Bungie's story should carry a little more weight than the novels.


The Fall of Reach has been set in stone canon for 9 years. Why should Bungie's mandated, half-assed game take canonical priority over well-written fiction?

Reach not only corrupts TFOR's canon, but also The Flood, First Strike, Ghosts of Onyx and Evolutions.


TFoR and FS are the only ones even remotely touched by Reach, nothing else is changed at all. You're free to feel how you wish, but I was very impressed by Reach, it feels just as good as the other four games, not half-assed at all, but feel how you wish, I won't lose any sleep over what you think.

  • 02.22.2011 1:27 PM PDT

Posted by: ajw34307

So what? Empire Strikes Back wasn't directed by George Lucas, yet it's considered to be the best SW film of the Saga - many of us here say the same about TFOR and established canon.


directing is not the same as writing, mang

this argument also makes no sense because there are no canon debates in the star wars universe. it's all written based on a story by george lucas.

This thread seems to be about canon debates between two separate writers and stories

[Edited on 02.22.2011 1:32 PM PST]

  • 02.22.2011 1:31 PM PDT

not sure if any body mentioned it or not but whats with cortana?
halo 1-3 she's a human built AI, but in reach she's a forerunner AI that halsey discovers under the ice in the fore runner ruins, and that you have to deliver to the pillar of autumn. but cannon wise it makes no sense as she supposedly watched john throughout his training, etc, and choose him( as stated in halo 3) because he was lucky. that right there jumped the shark for me...

  • 02.22.2011 1:32 PM PDT

By the power of truth, I, while living, have conquered the universe.

Posted by: Opposing Forces
not sure if any body mentioned it or not but whats with cortana?
halo 1-3 she's a human built AI, but in reach she's a forerunner AI that halsey discovers under the ice in the fore runner ruins, and that you have to deliver to the pillar of autumn. but cannon wise it makes no sense as she supposedly watched john throughout his training, etc, and choose him( as stated in halo 3) because he was lucky. that right there jumped the shark for me...


No. -_-

Cortana split herself into 2 fragments, one was aboard the Autumn and the other was with Halsey under SWORD Base examining the Latchkey Artefact. There was never a hint saying that she was of Forerunner origin.

  • 02.22.2011 1:35 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: OrderedComa

TFoR and FS are the only ones even remotely touched by Reach, nothing else is changed at all. You're free to feel how you wish, but I was very impressed by Reach, it feels just as good as the other four games, not half-assed at all, but feel how you wish, I won't lose any sleep over what you think.


The thing is that TFoR, FS and any other book are just as canon as they were before Halo: Reach was released. Can you honestly read any of those novels and come up with in your mind ''No, this is not the case and something that can't have happened anymore because of Halo: Reach'' ?

I can honestly tell I can't. It would seem like you would be trying to nitpick over nothing that gets you anywhere.

  • 02.22.2011 1:47 PM PDT
  • gamertag: An0nz
  • user homepage:

CoD is a good game, even if the Halo series are better in some aspects. Anyone who insults either is just bad in that game. Grow up.


Posted by: OrderedComa

If you are saying that no gameplay, except for simulators, can be logical, then why are you faulting Halo for displaying something that supposedly all video games display?
How do you know that headshots from automatics don't deal the same amount of damage to the head as the precision guns? Did you look at the actual coding for them, or are you just making up facts? How are you reaching this conclusion?

I am not faulting Halo in particular, but rather just making it clear that gameplay cannot be logical. It was a simple assertion to start with, You're the one trying to argue the fact by assuming I was talking about how games overall are illogical.
The precision guns can kill a person in one shot to the head after the shield is dropped. How many shots of sustained fire would you have to shoot with an automatic weapon to the head to kill them?
And why are you side-tracking this? I wasn't even talking about precision weapons vs automatic, I was strictly focusing on the automatic weapons mechanics, which simply does not differentiate between body shots and headshots; even after the shield is down, the bullets do equal damage to the head as to the most outward parts of their hitbox. You don't need to look at the code to see this and there have been numerous cases where people tested it. It was purely made for balancing reasons.

And how, pray tell, will Crysis 2 going to consoles as well as PC tell us what people think? It certainly wouldn't be the sales, you can't tell any opinions from sales other than "this game is popular, people are interested in it/like it. I don't doubt the possibility that people might think Crysis super soldiers are better, but I won't believe it is fact unless I see concrete evidence indicating so. I only have your opinion to go on, and one person's opinion is not enough to accurately decide what the masses think.

I'm impressed by your ability to make connections...Why would I look at the sales for this? I'm simply saying, after Crysis 2 is actually released both on consoles and pc, there will be a far larger amount of people who is actually knowledgeable to this particular topic, instead of right now where only selected PC gamers actually knows about it. Then, if we make an actual comparison at that time, we will see which one actually portrays super soldiers better, won't we? I'm not ignorant enough to expect you to take my word for it.


Very few people I have seen on here, or talked to, have felt like the Spartans in Halo didn't feel like super soldiers. The only idea remotely similar that I've seen is that "Bungie doesn't do a good job portraying super soldiers" which is entirely different from "this doesn't feel like a super soldier". I've never not felt like a super soldier when playing Halo, you're completely welcome to feel differently, but I don't think the majority of the populace will agree with you.


Perhaps my recent posts have been focusing on why Halo does not feel like super soldiers because I had to argue my side, but if you were to look at the beginning, I clearly stated that Halo games simply did not portray military prowess very well, especially super-soldiers. So that's basically what you said "Bungie doesn't do a good job". The later posts are only focusing on the evidence to support this, I personally have never actually claimed that the games outright had you playing as a normal soldier. In fact, I'm fairly sure I agreed with your assertions that the Spartans were still a step up from other characters.

That being said, those facts simply are not relevant to the topic at hand. Again, the whole reason I brought in Crysis was to COMPARE and see what Halo could have easily been. Comparisons aren't absolute, Crysis is simply BETTER at the portrayal.



As I said, neither of us is going to get anywhere arguing this, I think Halo does an excellent job with the Spartans, you don't, and I know I'm not going to change my opinion, and I don't think you are going either.

I don't think the AI is retarded at all, only when they get behind the wheel. And I haven't played Gears or ME. And CoD doesn't have cutscenes, at least not what I'd call cutscenes.

You missed what I was saying in the last post, I was saying that Noble's AI can't be like a Spartan would really be, because the game would play itself then. I think they've got a very competent AI, Kat's and Emile's driving/ shotgun "sniping" aside, they just can't be what a Spartan is supposed be though because the game would play itself and you'd just basically be watching the action.


Why do you keep repeating the first part? It's pretty obvious that neither of us are going to change our stances, but you are clearly less knowledgeable on these matters and yet you continue to argue on shaky grounds.

The AIs are at best ineffective and at worst retarded, go start a thread about that and you will see what I mean, I have nothing more to say about that when there is so much proof on my side.

I didn't miss your point, the point was just irrelevant.Noble team doesn't need to act like actual Spartans. Hell, I'm pretty damn sure that there isn't actually an engine that can even replicate the thought process, tactics, and abilities of a super soldier, seeing as how there isn't even any known super-soldiers in modern world.

They just needed to be competent,something like Gears Of War and Mass Effect and the other countless numbers of games out there that do the same thing. The fact that you don't know the games I mention as evidence means that you can't make an accurate judgment due to the simple fact that you only see one side. CoD didn't have "cutscenes" per-say, but they have scripted cinematics that play. Doesn't really make a difference, just a different name;the point is that they have considerably more of it.


You missed my point, I was saying it's nothing special because it's the same sort of thing as Reach's Sprint AA, not when it was implemented in the series.

Oh gosh, the last sentence in that second paragraph is so very narrow minded, even if you are being sarcastic. It would seem from your comment that you don't know what the Sprint AA is at all. It doesn't "allow" a Spartan to sprint, it overloads the locks on their speed letting them sprint or run faster than they normally could. And saying they need an AA to sprint is confusing gameplay with canon. It's the same as saying that Link needs to be on a ledge in order to be able to jump.

I looked at Crysis 1 because it's already out, and I didn't know how far along in development Crysis 2 was, and seeing something in a trailer is nowhere near the same as seeing something actually used in gameplay.


Didn't miss the point here either, I was just making a clear statement on how Halo Reach finally adapted to something that's been done years before. It wasn't even my main argument, which was the second paragraph, which pretty much just answered what you're saying.

I knew exactly what the Sprint AA is...And I laughed when I first found out. It's a bloody poor excuse to implement something that should be as natural as breathing. It has been demonstrated countless times that Spartans can sprint regardless of the armour ability, so why would they even need it? It's not like their original "jog" was that fast. They weren't running at 40km/h at their normal run, it's simple comparison to other units in game. Warthogs go WAAAY faster than Spartans, and you're not outrunning marines (who are by no means sprinting; just jogging) by a tremendous extent.

What you're saying is that the spring armour ability is something that's similar to what John did during his Mjolnir V test run, but that's not even close in terms of the speed. John ran at a speed of (apparently) over 100km/h, with severe consequences. The sprint ability just allows the spartans to run at the speed they're normally supposed to be running. Again, simple comparison of different units in game.

You looked at Crysis 1. Good for you. As I said, Crysis 2 is radically different, so what you saw of Crysis 1 won't really make a difference. There are also something called "gameplay trailers" that although do not present a constant stream of gameplay, they do highlight abilities able to be used in game. The times have passed where games have are reliant on CG trailers.

All I will say is that you don't know enough about my side (in this argument anyways), and I certainly do know about your side (in this particular argument), so while you are in no real position to make accurate judgments, I certainly am more qualified.

  • 02.22.2011 4:32 PM PDT


Posted by: manwith
Posted by: OrderedComa

TFoR and FS are the only ones even remotely touched by Reach, nothing else is changed at all. You're free to feel how you wish, but I was very impressed by Reach, it feels just as good as the other four games, not half-assed at all, but feel how you wish, I won't lose any sleep over what you think.


The thing is that TFoR, FS and any other book are just as canon as they were before Halo: Reach was released. Can you honestly read any of those novels and come up with in your mind ''No, this is not the case and something that can't have happened anymore because of Halo: Reach'' ?

I can honestly tell I can't. It would seem like you would be trying to nitpick over nothing that gets you anywhere.


I'm on the same side of the debate as you manwith, I guess my post wasn't clear enough, I don't believe that Reach destroyed canon at all, I still believe everything can happen as both Reach and TFoR state things do, except for the Battle of Reach being extended a bit. I was trying to say that TFoR and FS are the only books where the opposition even has a leg to stand on, making the claim that Reach destroyed the canon of the whole Halo Universe is ludicrous in the extreme and only makes the one saying it look foolish.

  • 02.22.2011 7:10 PM PDT