Bungie Universe
This topic has moved here: Subject: Halo vs Star Wars. Who wins?
  • Subject: Halo vs Star Wars. Who wins?
Subject: Halo vs Star Wars. Who wins?


Posted by: Spartan 100
No the same. A fuel rod impact creates a 4 meter crater. Total annahilation on that spot.
The game has limits so it's not the same thing.


It's exactly the same. The game, and the movies, have limits of CGI budget and ratings.

If you played ONLY the games, you'd come to the conclusion that the plasma weapons simply don't do much damage. The tank for some reason cannot blow up a spirit, or a phantom in halo 2. A gauss rounds wouldn't blow somebody in half.

Now, if you read the books you'd go "Oh... so that's what it really does."

Exact same thing for Star Wars. If Roberto wants to pull a dumb "It didn't do that in the movies, therefore it isn't that powerful" I will do the EXACT same thing for halo.

  • 05.12.2011 11:30 AM PDT

Welcome to bungie, you have no rights. play nice!
CLICK!

Balance issues. A game is differet than a movie.

  • 05.12.2011 11:50 AM PDT


Posted by: Spartan 100
Balance issues. A game is differet than a movie.


Which is more dramatic and thus better for a movie: ships getting vaporized in an instant, thus taking all tension out of a scene. Or ships struggling to survive and maneuver while firing at an enemy at close range. We also see actual individuals die instead of getting vaporized. They did it for the sake of the movie.

  • 05.12.2011 12:08 PM PDT

Welcome to bungie, you have no rights. play nice!
CLICK!

It must not create inconsistencies.

  • 05.12.2011 12:15 PM PDT


Posted by: Spartan 100
It must not create inconsistencies.


Are you replying to me? Can you use the quote function? And to answer you, yes SW movies weren't exactly like the books and Halo games weren't exactly like the games. Why is that? Like you said, balance issues for Halo and cinematic purposes for SW.

  • 05.12.2011 12:19 PM PDT


Posted by: saintssoccer

Posted by: Spartan 100
Balance issues. A game is differet than a movie.


Which is more dramatic and thus better for a movie: ships getting vaporized in an instant, thus taking all tension out of a scene. Or ships struggling to survive and maneuver while firing at an enemy at close range. We also see actual individuals die instead of getting vaporized. They did it for the sake of the movie.


And you know, rating + CGI costs.

  • 05.12.2011 12:20 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

SC = Supreme Commander/Supreme Canadian.

De Facto leader of the military of the APE (Allied Planets Empire).

Coup = Admiral Asskicker, ZPM hive ship

How the [REDACTED] is this still going on? Let this thread die already. Please.

  • 05.12.2011 12:30 PM PDT

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstien

Posted by: Cmdr DaeFaron
It's exactly the same. The game, and the movies, have limits of CGI budget and ratings.

If you played ONLY the games, you'd come to the conclusion that the plasma weapons simply don't do much damage. The tank for some reason cannot blow up a spirit, or a phantom in halo 2. A gauss rounds wouldn't blow somebody in half.

Now, if you read the books you'd go "Oh... so that's what it really does."

Exact same thing for Star Wars. If Roberto wants to pull a dumb "It didn't do that in the movies, therefore it isn't that powerful" I will do the EXACT same thing for halo.

Keep in mind that the canonical setting for the games is the Heroic setting. So reference weapon power and everything on THAT setting in terms of their effectiveness. Sure, visual representation may be different but that is understandable.

  • 05.12.2011 1:04 PM PDT


Posted by: UL7IM4 G33K
Posted by: Cmdr DaeFaron
It's exactly the same. The game, and the movies, have limits of CGI budget and ratings.

If you played ONLY the games, you'd come to the conclusion that the plasma weapons simply don't do much damage. The tank for some reason cannot blow up a spirit, or a phantom in halo 2. A gauss rounds wouldn't blow somebody in half.

Now, if you read the books you'd go "Oh... so that's what it really does."

Exact same thing for Star Wars. If Roberto wants to pull a dumb "It didn't do that in the movies, therefore it isn't that powerful" I will do the EXACT same thing for halo.

Keep in mind that the canonical setting for the games is the Heroic setting. So reference weapon power and everything on THAT setting in terms of their effectiveness. Sure, visual representation may be different but that is understandable.


Actually, I think heroic is the 'closest' to canon, not the actual canon diff.

Either way, I can pull lines like that as well. "Warthogs that were on the PoA could not be destroyed, due to the game not allowing it."

Overall, it's an absolutely retarded line to use to destroy and argument.

  • 05.12.2011 1:19 PM PDT

.....Darth Bane

  • 05.12.2011 1:39 PM PDT

Welcome to bungie, you have no rights. play nice!
CLICK!


Posted by: SC Matt Klassen
How the [REDACTED] is this still going on? Let this thread die already. Please.

I still want to write my halo vs star wars fan fiction. I think I might redo chapter one.
I don't know where I'll post if if I manage to write a lot on it.
Probably on waypoint or at the limit, Bungie.net.

  • 05.12.2011 2:01 PM PDT


Posted by: Cmdr DaeFaron

Posted by: Spartan 100
No the same. A fuel rod impact creates a 4 meter crater. Total annahilation on that spot.
The game has limits so it's not the same thing.


It's exactly the same. The game, and the movies, have limits of CGI budget and ratings.

If you played ONLY the games, you'd come to the conclusion that the plasma weapons simply don't do much damage. The tank for some reason cannot blow up a spirit, or a phantom in halo 2. A gauss rounds wouldn't blow somebody in half.

Now, if you read the books you'd go "Oh... so that's what it really does."

Exact same thing for Star Wars. If Roberto wants to pull a dumb "It didn't do that in the movies, therefore it isn't that powerful" I will do the EXACT same thing for halo.


Also implying that Star Wars has the same canon policy as Halo.

Halo's canon policy is new information first, then games for plot and story elements (Reach=sadface), as graphical limitations are a severely limiting factor for accurate depictions of yeild or other tech, then books and then comic books, with the all encompassing word of 343 industries having the final say.

Star Wars is much simpler.

It goes: G-canon(movies)>T-canon(TV shows like the Cartoon Network show and the grittier, live action show that has yet to be released. Also includes the Clone Wars movie that started the cartoon show)>C-canon(comics, books, cartoons, non-theatrical films and games)>S-canon(secondary)>N-canon(non-canon).

So when something in the EU contradicts the movies, the movies always win out. I'm not bull -blam!- you when I say this; its how its set up. If you think its "dumb" complain to George Lucas or the continuity holocron keeper, not me, not anyone here. We don't have authority over Star Wars canon, we just tell it how it is. And how it is says that their weapons are not that disgustingly powrful.

To deny what is and is not canon in SW is stupid. The rules are right their in front of you.

  • 05.12.2011 2:09 PM PDT

-blam!- Was that actually blammed out? Or did I just type it? You'll never know.


Posted by: ROBERTO jh
It goes: G-canon(movies)>T-canon(TV shows like the Cartoon Network show and the grittier, live action show that has yet to be released. Also includes the Clone Wars movie that started the cartoon show)>C-canon(comics, books, cartoons, non-theatrical films and games)>S-canon(secondary)>N-canon(non-canon).


Well, he's right on that. Is Halo gameplay canon? Just a general question, because I've been told it's not.

  • 05.12.2011 2:15 PM PDT


Posted by: saintssoccer

Posted by: Spartan 100
Balance issues. A game is differet than a movie.


Which is more dramatic and thus better for a movie: ships getting vaporized in an instant, thus taking all tension out of a scene. Or ships struggling to survive and maneuver while firing at an enemy at close range. We also see actual individuals die instead of getting vaporized. They did it for the sake of the movie.


Of course the more dramatic aproach is the movies; that does not make their power any more effective.

Really the only two universes I know of that keeps weapon depictions consistant is Star Trek and Halo, though mostly Trek. The entire existence of Trek is based around keeping everything consistent, which is, funnily enough, what killed it.

So the Trek policy is even simpler then Wars.

Movies and TV shows are canon. Books are not.

My point is, George Lucas didn't care about the yield of Wars' weapons or the continuity of the rest of the universe when making the movies. He made the movies he wanted to make. Then he made the canon policy very simple to understand. Movies>all.

He has no real interest in the rest of the Wars universe; as far as he's concerned, it doesn't even exist. He has openly admited that he has never read a single Wars book or played a single Wars game because he's not interested in what he referrs to as the secondary universe.

And thats why its set up to be movies>all. He wouldn't want any of his own work to be superceded by something he has little control over, especially something that dabbles in the universe he created.

He made a very secure canon policy. His story and his Star Wars remains completely untarnished, while he lets the writers have their fun.

Now that's not to say that he doesn't advise the creation of certain things. I think their was a comic that asked if they could kill Plo Koon I believe it was (rediculously tall neck guy), but George said no, implying he'd appear in the live action TV show.

George's say in the rest of Wars is basically plot only. In a science fantasy universe like SW, technology is your last concern. Your main concern should be to tell the story you want to tell, how you want to tell it.

In fact, it could be said that thats part of why Lucas made the canon policy. If he keeps plot continuity in check so much as he does, and his apparent least concern is technology continuity, he'd need a fail safe to keep the tech-lovers happy and something to fall back on in the case of contradictions.

  • 05.12.2011 2:24 PM PDT

Roberto, you are saying the "Hard canon" smacks the floor with the "Soft canon" aka, things not George Lucas.

Halo, the games are hard canon, the books are soft canon.

You keep pulling bull-blam!- about the movies (which NEVER state how powerful the weapons are) overriding the tech manuels/cross section books released alongside the movies from lucasarts, then I'll start pulling bull-blam!- about halo hard canon as well.

Edit: Also, look at the battleship battles from WW2, you didn't have massive explosions from capital ships hitting each other.

Your comment about how the fighters should be vaporized? If you bothered to look they are! the part hit is GONE, the pieces away from it are blasted apart.

Stardestroyer.net, I'm fairly sure if you read the "about" I'll check it in a bit, the guy uses ONLY canon information about the stats.

[Edited on 05.12.2011 2:36 PM PDT]

  • 05.12.2011 2:26 PM PDT


Posted by: dahuterschuter

Posted by: ROBERTO jh
It goes: G-canon(movies)>T-canon(TV shows like the Cartoon Network show and the grittier, live action show that has yet to be released. Also includes the Clone Wars movie that started the cartoon show)>C-canon(comics, books, cartoons, non-theatrical films and games)>S-canon(secondary)>N-canon(non-canon).


Well, he's right on that. Is Halo gameplay canon? Just a general question, because I've been told it's not.


And that's why you can't use gameplay elements to depict accurate weapon yields, in such a case as small arms fire.

Games really should be secondary to books. Comics take far too much creative license, so they can stay third wheel. But books can explain how things happened in a much easier way, without the technological and game limitations inherent in the games.

A back smack will not kill where a punch to the face wouldn't. The fact a knife or pistol/SMG rounds can pierce MJOLNIR armor at all is not accurate.

And thats why, like Wars, the games>books policy is for plot elements. But even then, the books should supercede the games. Videogames are not as descriptive as books are, and take far too much license for it to be logical (combat encounters for example. They're set up for gameplay, not story)

  • 05.12.2011 2:31 PM PDT

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstien

Posted by: Cmdr DaeFaron
Halo, the games are hard canon, the books are soft canon.

Bungie has stated that books are actually hard canon.

HSP: Would the books make the cut?

JS: The books are, for better or worse, part of the canon. In the future we may choose to revise or flat-out ignore some of the less appealing ideas (Johnson's biological immunity to the Flood, for example), but folks should treat them as defining elements of the Halo universe.


[Edited on 05.12.2011 2:38 PM PDT]

  • 05.12.2011 2:34 PM PDT


Posted by: UL7IM4 G33K
Posted by: Cmdr DaeFaron
Halo, the games are hard canon, the books are soft canon.

Bungie has stated that books are actually hard canon.


Actually, in the sense I'm talking about, the books are 'soft canon'. Games are primary to them.

Edit: Roberto, you say George Lucas doesn't give a -blam!- about them, then why do you bring up it as if he does "NAO!, they aren't that powerful!"

Hell, Stardestroyer.net uses the movies in calculating weapons power.

[Edited on 05.12.2011 2:40 PM PDT]

  • 05.12.2011 2:37 PM PDT


Posted by: Cmdr DaeFaron
Roberto, you are saying the "Hard canon" smacks the floor with the "Soft canon" aka, things not George Lucas.

Halo, the games are hard canon, the books are soft canon.

You keep pulling bull-blam!- about the movies (which NEVER state how powerful the weapons are) overriding the tech manuels/cross section books released alongside the movies from lucasarts, then I'll start pulling bull-blam!- about halo hard canon as well.


You seem to be blinded by nerd-rage at he moment. Just chill and think for a second.

the hardest of all hard canon in Halo is, now, anything released or directly stated by 343i, or the newest canon release.

The Encyclopedia, is, therefore, the ultimate bible for Halo canon. Or anything stated by 343i.

And no where in my post did I post anything at all related to the movies directly stating the strength of Wars' weaponry, and neither, in your apparent blinded mission to pick my posts apart for fallacy, did you ever read me saying that. But I do not have too. I can just look at how they're depicted in the movies and tell you that they are no where even remotely close to giga or magetonnage blasts.

The strongest ship weapon in the movies ever is the Venator "glassing" a CIS frigate in Ep III, a shot which blew the ship in half.

I mean how many times do you want me to say it? The turbolasers on the Executor are supposed to be peta and gigatons. Yet they can't vaporize a small starfighter a few meters long made of normal titanium. Titanium which, I remind you, has one of the lowest vaporizing temperatures in the periodic table of metals.

Thusly, that impact looked more like what would happen if a WWII ship gun landed a direct hit on a WWII fighter plane.

And those same guns only blew out the engines on one very lucky A-Wing pilot who managed to pull a dive into the Executor's bridge. If the guns were as powerful as the EU says, then neither of those ships should have existed. But, as is always the case, the movies overrode the EU.

  • 05.12.2011 2:43 PM PDT

Nah, not blinded by nerd rage. Tired of your anti-star wars bull-blam!- maybe, but not nerd rage.

Take a look, and read this page.

http://stardestroyer.net/tlc/ all the numbers from that page are gathered/calculated FROM the movies themselves.

  • 05.12.2011 2:54 PM PDT

-blam!- Was that actually blammed out? Or did I just type it? You'll never know.


Posted by: ROBERTO jh


Well, the thing I don't like about gameplay not being canon is that you can take it to the extreme and basically say that anything not in a cut scene can't be confirmed as canon.

  • 05.12.2011 2:57 PM PDT


Posted by: dahuterschuter

Posted by: ROBERTO jh


Well, the thing I don't like about gameplay not being canon is that you can take it to the extreme and basically say that anything not in a cut scene can't be confirmed as canon.


Just like he's taking this "Numbers aren't canon" to the extreme?

  • 05.12.2011 3:08 PM PDT

-blam!- Was that actually blammed out? Or did I just type it? You'll never know.


Posted by: Cmdr DaeFaron

Posted by: dahuterschuter

Posted by: ROBERTO jh


Well, the thing I don't like about gameplay not being canon is that you can take it to the extreme and basically say that anything not in a cut scene can't be confirmed as canon.


Just like he's taking this "Numbers aren't canon" to the extreme?


Pretty much. I think that as far as canon goes in this argument everything should be fair game. It's just easier that way on both sides.

  • 05.12.2011 3:15 PM PDT


Posted by: dahuterschuter
I think that as far as canon goes in this argument everything should be fair game. It's just easier that way on both sides.


Yep, use what we know Covenant/UNSC can feasibly do versus the empire... and lets say one other similar faction.

  • 05.12.2011 3:21 PM PDT

Without Jedi and Sith? Probably the Halo universe. Mind you, if you're bringing the Force users into the picture...

  • 05.12.2011 3:54 PM PDT