- UL7IM4 G33K
- |
- Senior Legendary Member
"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstien
Posted by: OrderedComa
1. Why would it be impossible for it to land with the same boosters? If they can lift it off the ground and keep it there 'til it can get off on its own, then why can't they be used to land the ship too? If indeed they were fitted onto the ship while it was still in space in order to allow it to land on the planet, then it would not take much time due to object in space being relatively if not totally weightless. And why should landing in drydock take all that long, it's just a matter of setting the ship down in its cradle.
2. No, I do not think the IIs would be sitting idly in orbit. I think they were helping down on Reach, Jun even mentions Red Team aiding with civilian evac. So obviously they weren't doing anything. And everything still seems pretty urgent to me. The fact that the UNSC stands no chance of pulling off even a loss that could be called a victory and there are still civilians and military personnel on the ground that need evac would seem like they'd be pretty desperate to buy any sort of time they could as quickly as they could. Before the second fleet arrived they probably could have pulled off a dignified loss and saved a great deal of the people on Reach. When the Fleet of Particular Justice arrived, they knew they were completely screwed and needed to buy more time, and that is what the SMACs were doing, they were giving them time.
1.If you notice, the boosters only got it off the ground. The main thrusters pushed it into orbit. A nudge if you will. Unfortunately the boosters on the POA cannot be directed downward to slow decent so it should be physically impossible for a ship of that design to land even with boosters such as the ones used to take off. Not to mention if it had boosters just for landing then there is a whole extra part to this story where they decided to put boosters on it in-orbit during a global invasion to allow it to land, then have more boosters attached to take off just for one damned AI fragment with really inconsequential information for the actual Halo storyline.
2.Then how were they dropped by the PoA if they were helping the entire time? They are either on the PoA in orbit to be dropped or on the surface helping. It seems you can't decide which is which. If they were dropped when the first Covenant cruiser was found then I doubt they would have needed to make such a dangerous descent nor would there be any actual hot zone to fly through. If they were dropped after Winter Contingency then they weren't helping until then. And no, while the urgency is there it is definitely not the same amount nor the same kind.
-.- *sigh* NO! What I am saying is that I cannot properly argue this issue because I cannot check the exact wording and context of what you are talking about. So I cannot form a proper counter argument to your points without looking like a total moron. Try reading what I actually say next time and then think about it and not type up the first response that comes to mind.
You gave me an argument despite not knowing. One that basically said that I was wrong. Don't try to make me the bad guy here when what you said is right here on the same page of the thread:
"I am reading what you say/type, however what you are saying is not right, and is refusing to acknowledge new canon information. I do not have GoO with me, so I cannot check information out properly, but from what I remember GoO was incredibly vague on the details of the SIII program and augmentations."
Actually know, my argument is not a fallacy, it is a perfectly logical deduction. I am not saying they did do it because they kidnapped people in the past. I am saying it is a safe assumption to make going off of ONI's track record.
No, it isn't a safe assumption. It using past actions to justify current ones taking place. That has no basis beyond "they did it before, why not again?". It is not evidence.
I remember the incident you're talking about, but I don't remember them almost killing each other. Remember though, that was before anyone had actually done any training or anything, before they were all Nakama (family). None of the Spartans would kill each other in training.
If the book didn't mention what happened to the supposed washouts (they weren't even really washouts, there just wasn't room for them in the program), then how do you know some them didn't become the Headhunters or other teams of SIIIs?
Mendez clearly states that if they had not stopped the fight they would have killed each other. You are also ruling out training accidents (which do happen). I doubt that all 400+ of the III's in Alpha and 370+ III's in Beta never had an accident. One that may have crippled one of the children.
That is a possibility, but the book itself does not leave room for that. At least not with Beta. Even Kurt's modified Spartans were only from Gamma and were still part of the original number of Gamma Spartans.
However reading about something, and actually encountering it are totally different things. Like I can read all I want to about lions and how best to fight or kill one, but that won't do me much good if I actually go out to deal with one. Same with the Brutes, they were not encountered much after Harvest so the UNSC would not have very much information on them.
Video logs, personal accounts, audio, extensive visual representations, etc. It wasn't just some biology book readout. And no, your incapability to kill the Lion is not because of the book, but you being unable to perfom the actions necessary. A Spartan is far different from that. If I tell you to shoot someone in the heart I doubt you'll do a good job of that in a real combat situation. But a Spartan? He'll use the skills at his disposal to make it happen. Same with the Covenant. ANY bit of information is helpful.
For Halo Wars? No, I haven't used any marketing material in relation to Halo Wars in this argument at all (not that I know of at least >_> ).
In general. The only evidence you have given here is links to marketing material.
And they might very well have mentioned something about sending a message at the end, I don't really remember as I haven't played Halo Wars in a while.
Still, assuming everything in Halo Wars is non-canon changes nothing, seeing as the general assumption is that the UNSC knows nothing of any of the events that transpired during Halo Wars. Either way, this isn't the main part of the argument. Halo Wars does break canon and it acknowledges that it does so.
Actually yes it does. Have you read Halsey's Journal (or talked to someone who has), it explains a lot of questions raised both with Reach and have been bothering the Halo community for some time. And I didn't say that new information explained things, I said that new information takes precedence over the old. Like if advertising released by Bungie for a new a Halo game said that the events of Halo were all a dream by a gigantic, floating, extra-galactic Soffish living amongst pimps at sea, then that would be canon, until some new information from higher up contradicted it.
I read it thoroughly and it only gets away with a single thing and that's the part about Cortana. Everything else is about 70%. And sure, that advertisement may be canon, but does that mean we have to be happy with its complete disregard for earlier canon? It isn't about canon or non-canon. Its about the current canon making sense with the original canon. Which it pretty much doesn't.
Neither of us has presented "real" evidence, both of us have been arguing from our opinions and using our common sense to back our claims up. And I did not say people couldn't be dissapointed or angry, I said they were blowing things out of proportion and not willing to search for solutions or acknowledge plausible theories from other fellow Halo fans.
You presented a .jpg from the Bungie Website. I not only typed out sections of the books but gave you page numbers. But I guess that isn't "real evidence". You dismissed them merely by not knowing the context of which I intentionally made sure was present.
I never said there was no point in arguing either, I said that making blanket statements like "X Halo game/book breaks canon" are exceedingly foolish because we haven't seen the Halo Bible.
So why discuss it?
I'm fine with arguing with people over supposed inconsistencies between Halo materials, but I draw the line at people calling anything non-canon unless it has specifically stated not to be canon, such as the Halo Legend episode Odd One Out for example, 343i has stated it was a non-canon "just for fun" spoof on Halo. No problem with saying that's non-canon, but saying Reach or TFoR are non-canon because they don't seem to match would be what I find issue with for the reasons listed above.
This is my issue, you entered the thread assuming that the issues with canon were figments of someones imagination, therefore our "supposed" broken canon doesn't REALLY exist. Yet I have given you constant proof of their existence but you still seem to think that they are only minor inconsistencies that MUST be explained in this fantastically amazing book that the devs have that miraculously explains all our problems. I agree that making any claims about it without reading the Halo Bible is pointless. But the POINT of this thread is discussing the inconsistencies of current canon, and unless I missed the publication of the Halo Bible it does not fall into that category and cannot be applied here.