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?

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

Oh he had no arguments.

I'm re-reading halo cryptum and I'm putting notes on a word document. Each time I stumble upon something, I make a new article about it or I go back to an article and I add the new information. I made a table of contents that way an article is only a click away.

  • 07.11.2011 11:42 PM PDT

id like to see a jedi reflect a solid projectile or a spartan laser

  • 07.12.2011 1:54 AM PDT

Flood's and Universe's Warhammer 40k fanatic and the one who knows much about it.

I also like House Stark and winter, hurr.

I'm still waiting to hear how Haloverse's side is going to counter my PoK+FoP sith, since no proper theory is given yet, and it has been proven possible to sense Haloverse's forces in force. Read: Vongsense.

Also, ISDs are able to destroy planet's surface to such state that everything in it is now useless. Base delta zero is naval code for such actions. Saying that ISDs do not have the firepower of certain calculations doesn't make proper sense for my eyes.

//edit: Necron's Gauss weaponry doesn't exactly destroy physical matter, it breaks down target's molecules layer by layer :3

  • 07.12.2011 2:03 AM PDT

Idzi!

But everyone saying the forerunners would obliterate SW, the forerunners are pretty much nonexistent. I think what really happened was this: the forerunners fired halo, left the milky way (which they did), and arrived in their current galaxy. They then devolved themselves, and started building a new republic. Now, their galaxy is safe, and their rebellion was able to defeat their evil galactic empire.

  • 07.12.2011 10:20 AM PDT


Posted by: teekuppi
I'm still waiting to hear how Haloverse's side is going to counter my PoK+FoP sith, since no proper theory is given yet, and it has been proven possible to sense Haloverse's forces in force. Read: Vongsense.

Also, ISDs are able to destroy planet's surface to such state that everything in it is now useless. Base delta zero is naval code for such actions. Saying that ISDs do not have the firepower of certain calculations doesn't make proper sense for my eyes.

//edit: Necron's Gauss weaponry doesn't exactly destroy physical matter, it breaks down target's molecules layer by layer :3


1) And I would like them to try and kill the Precursors. Or even Forerunners. Or a non-corporeal entity.

Three guesses as to what that last one refers too.

Point being, having all knowledge of the Wars universe won't do jack -blam!- to the Haloverse since neither of the two exist in the other verse, therefore, all knowledge does not apply to Halo. Just as well, a PoK'ed Jedi is still a biological, corporeal creature, regardless of the rediculous power they withhold. They have no spectacular shielding or armor that is immune to everything and would be perfectly susceptible to the likes of Halo, a NOVA bomb, a 330 teraton blast fired from a Forerunner ship or getting rammed by a Precursor ship.

2) And this was directly disproven by the movies, which superceded all other canon elements. You don't need calculations to tell that literally every shot fired in every movie save one is in fact no where close to that of a BDZ operation's requirements. The nature of SW weaponry is explosive devices. Explosions at 50 gigatons are the same size whether or not they went off hitting a planet, hitting a Star Destroyer or hitting an asteroid. It will still explode like a super-massive nuclear bomb.

As it stands, nothing in the movies supports this. It leads only to contradiction, after contradiction, after contradiction.

The only thing that even remotely supports the power of these ships in the movies is Ep. V's asteroid scene. But even then, that was calculated at being 4 times superior to Hiroshima, or 60 kilotons.

And yet, there is a contradiction, because the bolt didn't explode, as we learn they do in Episode VI where we briefly see a Destroyer fighting the Medical Frigate, resulting in a series of small explosion flashes upon direct hits.

  • 07.12.2011 10:35 AM PDT

Idzi!


Posted by: Dazzle369
Star wars is just lame, although I did like episodes 1,2 & 3.

Halo kicks star wars in the blam!

Are you kidding me!!!!!! Those were the worst of the STAR WARS saga!!!

  • 07.12.2011 10:51 AM PDT


Posted by: Idziman64

Posted by: Dazzle369
Star wars is just lame, although I did like episodes 1,2 & 3.

Halo kicks star wars in the blam!

Are you kidding me!!!!!! Those were the worst of the STAR WARS saga!!!


I've yet to see a compelling argument that supports that claim.

Anyway, I feel like my points to make this an actual intelligent debate are being completely ignored. So yeah, keep on -blam!-ing at each other with your superweapons and god-factions.

  • 07.12.2011 10:54 AM PDT

Idzi!


Posted by: ROBERTO jh

Posted by: CrazyJediMaster

Posted by: ROBERTO jh
What exactley is unknown about either? In a behavioral and biological sense, we know more about the Flood then we do the Covenant.

We know how they operate, how they think and what factors play into their abilities.




I've noticed Star Wars defenders tend to "forget" or dismiss Halo's greatest weapons because they're either "unfair" (while at the same time pulling a -blam!- storm of numbers out of thin air) or too "mysterious". It gives me the impression they're trying to loophole their way into any easy win, having to fight only two factions.

I'm not saying you're one of them, but it is something I look out for.



I meant the interaction between the two would be hard to quantify. The Vong were biological experimenters, the flood a biological experimentee. If one were to get in the hands of the Vong who knows what could happen or what could change. It becomes a huge moot point if you ask me.
And the problem with any super weapons is the same as a nuclear while the can be used if we go to war we don't just drop a nuke it's overkill, while many of the superweapons from the star wars universe can are often are used on a ship to ship bases not just galaxy cleansing.
Saying you have the best super weapons is equivalent to saying the USA has the most nuclear bombs. It gives you great bargaining position but how often have they actually been used.


Now I get it, I thought you were referring to the Flood overall; didn't realize you were talking about the interaction between those two specifically.

But if you break it down to simplified terms: Flood consume organic material. The Vong's tech is organic material.

Now I don't know a lot about the Vong to assume I'm automatically correct, but no organic substance has ever been resistant to the Flood except for Johnson due to his disrupted neural patterns. The only logical conclusion I see is that their race would be highly susceptible to the Flood.

And by weapon, I meant anything deemed overpowered by the Wars defenders.

For example, before Cryptum, the argument that Forerunners were unquantifiable since little was known was more valid. Indeed, the only thing we knew for sure was that their fleets could force stellar collapse.

So we waited for Cryptum.

As soon as the book came out, Halo defenders looked at the weapons and numbers presented, and calculated their strength based on their abilities. The most famous of which is the complete destruction of a Halo ring by ship weapons.

The pillar of autumn's detonation carved a 5 kilometer crater into the armor, but exploded with a force of several hundred terratons, based on the explosion's size in Halo 2 compared to the width of the Halo.

So, when 4 Forerunner cruisers demolished a Halo using only their ship cannons, carving vast gouges into the armor, the obviousness of the Forerunner's overpowered weaponry was paramount.

But no sooner had this been calculated then the Wars fans cried foul and said the Forerunners could not be considered in a debate due to either being completely unfair (while they at the same time spew nonsensical numbers with next to no supporting evidence and all the evidence against them) or them remaining far to ambiguous to consider.

Same goes for the Precursors. We know a few things about them that makes whatever weaponry they may or may not have had moot.

1) They could travel intergalactically, something the bulk of Wars factions cannot do (on no fault of their own of course, but still).

2) They were beyond normal sentient comprehension, possibly on the level of godhood.

3) Their technology could not be destroyed, this of all the points being the most controversial.

4) They could create life, something very difficult for even Force users to do.

5) Their soldiers would, naturally, be unbelievably powerful, considering their size (15 meters tall with a tail ending on a 2 meter barb)

Now as before, the lack of any information regarding them kept them out of debates, save for point 1 and 4. "Wait for more info on them" Wars defenders would say.

Well, when we got the info, they once again cried foul and said we were either bull -blam!- them, or that, again, they were still too ambiguous.

But the very fact none of their technology can be destroyed by any science Wars has is proof enough that Halo wins by default. They could have no weapons at all, but they'd still in in a war. Just ram everything with ships that cannot be destroyed.

And while they call foul, they spew bs on a level unimaginable. They say a single laser blast from an X-Wing or TIE fighter is as powerful as a Shiva nuke, or that a blast from any Star Destroyer cannon is more powerful then a SMAC.

Well, I've been reading a SW novel called Death Star, released in 2007, chronicling the construction of the massive weapon. One chacracter was considering the immense power of the primary laser, and I found a rather telling paragraph that shuts down all of this fan wank.

"Tenn nodded. He'd asked about power storage first day on the simulator, and the engineers had fallen all over themselves backing away from that one. But once he'd seen the numbers--they had to keep them honest, even in sims--he'd figured it out pretty quick. The capacitors could hold enough juice to light up a planet, true enough, but once they discharged, they weren't going to be filling back up real quick.

"Once you shot the thing, you might as well turn out the lights and go take a nap, because it wasn't going to be back up to full power for the better part of a day." (here's the really good part) "True, you could still pump out some pretty low power beams--and the definition of low here was still bigger then what a Star Destroyer could manage, even letting all the hardware spit at once--but it would be a duster instead of a buster. You could scorch a city or two, boil away a large lake or even a small sea, but that was about it."


(Death Star, page 233)

All of a Destroyers hardware spitting at once, not enough to level a city or vaporize a small sea, yet they have 50 gigatons per shot cannons that rain fire like a Venusian storm?

While Covenant ships can vaporize entire oceans? (reconfirmed by the cover of "Glasslands" and the Condemned multiplayer map, proving the Assembly was wrong about their power)

It looks to me that Star Destroyers, and by extension, Star Wars weapons, aren't really that powerful, doesn't it?

Watch episode VI, the death star easily takes at least four shots in the same battle! I'm pretty sure the battle must have only been a few hours(6 hours perhaps?) So watch that and tell me that the battle took at least a day because of a book. And let me tell you, movie canon trumps all book canon.

  • 07.12.2011 11:11 AM PDT

Flood's and Universe's Warhammer 40k fanatic and the one who knows much about it.

I also like House Stark and winter, hurr.


Posted by: ROBERTO jh

1) And I would like them to try and kill the Precursors. Or even Forerunners. Or a non-corporeal entity.



Once again, I use word limitless to keep my argument useful. We know that entire planets have been almost destroyed by proper usage of certain force powers, and what makes Forerunners any more special? Especially when we know that whole fleets can be destroyed by creating force storms, and when given buff without limits, destruction of Forerunner's military forces wont be problem. If we throw in more then just one force user who has been FoP'd and PoK'd, it should give no problems for SW's side to destroy literally everything that exists within Haloverse, expect Precursors.

Also, see Vongsense. With PoK halo's side is completely unable to create surprise attacks.


Posted by: ROBERTO jh


2) And this was directly disproven by the movies, which superceded all other canon elements. You don't need calculations to tell that literally every shot fired in every movie save one is in fact no where close to that of a BDZ operation's requirements. The nature of SW weaponry is explosive devices. Explosions at 50 gigatons are the same size whether or not they went off hitting a planet, hitting a Star Destroyer or hitting an asteroid. It will still explode like a super-massive nuclear bomb.

The only thing that even remotely supports the power of these ships in the movies is Ep. V's asteroid scene. But even then, that was calculated at being 4 times superior to Hiroshima, or 60 kilotons.

And yet, there is a contradiction, because the bolt didn't explode, as we learn they do in Episode VI where we briefly see a Destroyer fighting the Medical Frigate, resulting in a series of small explosion flashes upon direct hits.


And has it been stated somewhere that those turbolaser's did even try to achieve completele destruction of their target? In episode V's asteroid scene, there is no proof that turbolasers were using their full potential in order to destroy coming asteroids. On episode IV, the goal wasn't to destroy the frigate.

[Edited on 07.12.2011 11:17 AM PDT]

  • 07.12.2011 11:14 AM PDT

Adepto In Meus Campester
Posted by: ParagonRenegade
You were totally and absolutely correct in every way, I don't know why we were arguing, you're so amazing I should never have doubted you.

Versus threads need to die.

  • 07.12.2011 11:16 AM PDT

Plekpedia - The most epic site in the history of ever.


Posted by: Idziman64

Posted by: ROBERTO jh

Posted by: CrazyJediMaster

Posted by: ROBERTO jh
What exactley is unknown about either? In a behavioral and biological sense, we know more about the Flood then we do the Covenant.

We know how they operate, how they think and what factors play into their abilities.




I've noticed Star Wars defenders tend to "forget" or dismiss Halo's greatest weapons because they're either "unfair" (while at the same time pulling a -blam!- storm of numbers out of thin air) or too "mysterious". It gives me the impression they're trying to loophole their way into any easy win, having to fight only two factions.

I'm not saying you're one of them, but it is something I look out for.



I meant the interaction between the two would be hard to quantify. The Vong were biological experimenters, the flood a biological experimentee. If one were to get in the hands of the Vong who knows what could happen or what could change. It becomes a huge moot point if you ask me.
And the problem with any super weapons is the same as a nuclear while the can be used if we go to war we don't just drop a nuke it's overkill, while many of the superweapons from the star wars universe can are often are used on a ship to ship bases not just galaxy cleansing.
Saying you have the best super weapons is equivalent to saying the USA has the most nuclear bombs. It gives you great bargaining position but how often have they actually been used.


Now I get it, I thought you were referring to the Flood overall; didn't realize you were talking about the interaction between those two specifically.

But if you break it down to simplified terms: Flood consume organic material. The Vong's tech is organic material.

Now I don't know a lot about the Vong to assume I'm automatically correct, but no organic substance has ever been resistant to the Flood except for Johnson due to his disrupted neural patterns. The only logical conclusion I see is that their race would be highly susceptible to the Flood.

And by weapon, I meant anything deemed overpowered by the Wars defenders.

For example, before Cryptum, the argument that Forerunners were unquantifiable since little was known was more valid. Indeed, the only thing we knew for sure was that their fleets could force stellar collapse.

So we waited for Cryptum.

As soon as the book came out, Halo defenders looked at the weapons and numbers presented, and calculated their strength based on their abilities. The most famous of which is the complete destruction of a Halo ring by ship weapons.

The pillar of autumn's detonation carved a 5 kilometer crater into the armor, but exploded with a force of several hundred terratons, based on the explosion's size in Halo 2 compared to the width of the Halo.

So, when 4 Forerunner cruisers demolished a Halo using only their ship cannons, carving vast gouges into the armor, the obviousness of the Forerunner's overpowered weaponry was paramount.

But no sooner had this been calculated then the Wars fans cried foul and said the Forerunners could not be considered in a debate due to either being completely unfair (while they at the same time spew nonsensical numbers with next to no supporting evidence and all the evidence against them) or them remaining far to ambiguous to consider.

Same goes for the Precursors. We know a few things about them that makes whatever weaponry they may or may not have had moot.

1) They could travel intergalactically, something the bulk of Wars factions cannot do (on no fault of their own of course, but still).

2) They were beyond normal sentient comprehension, possibly on the level of godhood.

3) Their technology could not be destroyed, this of all the points being the most controversial.

4) They could create life, something very difficult for even Force users to do.

5) Their soldiers would, naturally, be unbelievably powerful, considering their size (15 meters tall with a tail ending on a 2 meter barb)

Now as before, the lack of any information regarding them kept them out of debates, save for point 1 and 4. "Wait for more info on them" Wars defenders would say.

Well, when we got the info, they once again cried foul and said we were either bull -blam!- them, or that, again, they were still too ambiguous.

But the very fact none of their technology can be destroyed by any science Wars has is proof enough that Halo wins by default. They could have no weapons at all, but they'd still in in a war. Just ram everything with ships that cannot be destroyed.

And while they call foul, they spew bs on a level unimaginable. They say a single laser blast from an X-Wing or TIE fighter is as powerful as a Shiva nuke, or that a blast from any Star Destroyer cannon is more powerful then a SMAC.

Well, I've been reading a SW novel called Death Star, released in 2007, chronicling the construction of the massive weapon. One chacracter was considering the immense power of the primary laser, and I found a rather telling paragraph that shuts down all of this fan wank.

"Tenn nodded. He'd asked about power storage first day on the simulator, and the engineers had fallen all over themselves backing away from that one. But once he'd seen the numbers--they had to keep them honest, even in sims--he'd figured it out pretty quick. The capacitors could hold enough juice to light up a planet, true enough, but once they discharged, they weren't going to be filling back up real quick.

"Once you shot the thing, you might as well turn out the lights and go take a nap, because it wasn't going to be back up to full power for the better part of a day." (here's the really good part) "True, you could still pump out some pretty low power beams--and the definition of low here was still bigger then what a Star Destroyer could manage, even letting all the hardware spit at once--but it would be a duster instead of a buster. You could scorch a city or two, boil away a large lake or even a small sea, but that was about it."


(Death Star, page 233)

All of a Destroyers hardware spitting at once, not enough to level a city or vaporize a small sea, yet they have 50 gigatons per shot cannons that rain fire like a Venusian storm?

While Covenant ships can vaporize entire oceans? (reconfirmed by the cover of "Glasslands" and the Condemned multiplayer map, proving the Assembly was wrong about their power)

It looks to me that Star Destroyers, and by extension, Star Wars weapons, aren't really that powerful, doesn't it?

Watch episode VI, the death star easily takes at least four shots in the same battle! I'm pretty sure the battle must have only been a few hours(6 hours perhaps?) So watch that and tell me that the battle took at least a day because of a book. And let me tell you, movie canon trumps all book canon.


If movie canon trumps book canon, than Star Wars has no hope whatsoever, so I wouldn't bring that into the argument. Halo wins either way though, as this has been proven multiple times in this thread.

  • 07.12.2011 11:16 AM PDT

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


Posted by: Pokezilla Linked
If movie canon trumps book canon, than Star Wars has no hope whatsoever, so I wouldn't bring that into the argument. Halo wins either way though, as this has been proven multiple times in this thread.


Actually, George Lucas has said that all Star Wars fiction is on equal grounds canonwise. And that's never been proven that Halo would win once in this thread or any other, or else the debate wouldn't still be going on.

Now that I look again, Lucas has actually said that he believes the film universe and the expanded universe are two different parallels. Which means if we're going to go full-out on canon here we're going to have to decide whether this is Halo vs Star Wars film universe or Halo vs Star Wars expanded universe.

[Edited on 07.12.2011 11:24 AM PDT]

  • 07.12.2011 11:18 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

"Time was your ally human. But now it has abandoned you. The Forerunners....have returned. And this tomb... is now yours". - The Didact


Posted by: dahuterschuter

Posted by: Pokezilla Linked
If movie canon trumps book canon, than Star Wars has no hope whatsoever, so I wouldn't bring that into the argument. Halo wins either way though, as this has been proven multiple times in this thread.


Actually, George Lucas has said that all Star Wars fiction is on equal grounds canonwise. And that's never been proven that Halo would win once in this thread or any other, or else the debate wouldn't still be going on.

Now that I look again, Lucas has actually said that he believes the film universe and the expanded universe are two different parallels. Which means if we're going to go full-out on canon here we're going to have to decide whether this is Halo vs Star Wars film universe or Halo vs Star Wars expanded universe.


GL never said that,they created a tier cause SW is full of story contradictions.

We have proven that Halo wins in a full fight,but your thichhead can't just accept it right?You can't even form a valid argument,the reason why this debate is still going on is because you guys can't accept your loss,counter arguments are crushed and yet you still go one like a Flood combat form trying to rise from dead.

Give me reasons how Star Wars would even stand a chance against Halo in a this kind of fight?

  • 07.12.2011 11:33 AM PDT

Idzi!

I now look at this argument like this: most current halo information vs most current SW information. The death star is gone, SSD is gone. Master Chief is nowhere to be found. The Forerunners and precursors are not gonna intervene, because they're gone. So as it is: no Death Star, No Spartans, no Executor, no Forerunners or Precursors.

  • 07.12.2011 11:36 AM PDT

Idzi!


Posted by: hotshot revan II

Posted by: dahuterschuter

Posted by: Pokezilla Linked
If movie canon trumps book canon, than Star Wars has no hope whatsoever, so I wouldn't bring that into the argument. Halo wins either way though, as this has been proven multiple times in this thread.


Actually, George Lucas has said that all Star Wars fiction is on equal grounds canonwise. And that's never been proven that Halo would win once in this thread or any other, or else the debate wouldn't still be going on.

Now that I look again, Lucas has actually said that he believes the film universe and the expanded universe are two different parallels. Which means if we're going to go full-out on canon here we're going to have to decide whether this is Halo vs Star Wars film universe or Halo vs Star Wars expanded universe.


GL never said that,they created a tier cause SW is full of story contradictions.

We have proven that Halo wins in a full fight,but your thichhead can't just accept it right?You can't even form a valid argument,the reason why this debate is still going on is because you guys can't accept your loss,counter arguments are crushed and yet you still go one like a Flood combat form trying to rise from dead.

Give me reasons how Star Wars would even stand a chance against Halo in a this kind of fight?

Lightsabers and the force trump energy swords and the flood.

  • 07.12.2011 11:37 AM PDT


Posted by: Idziman64
I now look at this argument like this: most current halo information vs most current SW information. The death star is gone, SSD is gone. Master Chief is nowhere to be found. The Forerunners and precursors are not gonna intervene, because they're gone. So as it is: no Death Star, No Spartans, no Executor, no Forerunners or Precursors.


If you use the lastest thing of halo, it's pathetic. No forerunners, UNSC has barely any ships, Covenant are shattered and broken, leaving the Elites with a small fleet...

  • 07.12.2011 11:38 AM PDT


Posted by: graver0679667
id like to see a jedi reflect a solid projectile or a spartan laser


Jedi can block both. In the book Shatterpoint, Mace Windu blocks bullets. And spartan lasers are like blaster rifles. Except slower. And those could be blocked easily.

  • 07.12.2011 11:39 AM PDT

Idzi!


Posted by: Cmdr DaeFaron

Posted by: Idziman64
I now look at this argument like this: most current halo information vs most current SW information. The death star is gone, SSD is gone. Master Chief is nowhere to be found. The Forerunners and precursors are not gonna intervene, because they're gone. So as it is: no Death Star, No Spartans, no Executor, no Forerunners or Precursors.


If you use the lastest thing of halo, it's pathetic. No forerunners, UNSC has barely any ships, Covenant are shattered and broken, leaving the Elites with a small fleet...

That is how star wars wins

  • 07.12.2011 11:39 AM PDT


Posted by: Cmdr DaeFaron

Posted by: Idziman64

Posted by: Dazzle369
Star wars is just lame, although I did like episodes 1,2 & 3.

Halo kicks star wars in the blam!

Are you kidding me!!!!!! Those were the worst of the STAR WARS saga!!!


I've yet to see a compelling argument that supports that claim.

Anyway, I feel like my points to make this an actual intelligent debate are being completely ignored. So yeah, keep on -blam!-ing at each other with your superweapons and god-factions.


Go to redlettermedia.com and watch his Star Wars reviews. Those will explain to you why episodes 1,2, and 3 are garbage.

  • 07.12.2011 11:40 AM PDT

Revan, universe vs universe FAILS. as I've tried stating at least THREE TIMES NOW. Of course, my voice of reason is completely -blam!- ignored each and every time.

You are trying to include the flood at their strongest, the forerunners at their strongest, and the precursors at their strongest.

This is impossible (in a general sense) as when one was at it's best, the other two were gone or weak.

  • 07.12.2011 11:41 AM PDT

Flood's and Universe's Warhammer 40k fanatic and the one who knows much about it.

I also like House Stark and winter, hurr.


Posted by: hotshot revan II

We have proven that Halo wins in a full fight,but your thichhead can't just accept it right?



Posted by: Pokezilla Linked

If movie canon trumps book canon, than Star Wars has no hope whatsoever, so I wouldn't bring that into the argument. Halo wins either way though, as this has been proven multiple times in this thread.


Yet neither of you or anyone on Halo's side has been able to counter my FoP+PoK'd force user theory.

  • 07.12.2011 11:42 AM PDT


Posted by: saintssoccer

Posted by: Cmdr DaeFaron

Posted by: Idziman64

Posted by: Dazzle369
Star wars is just lame, although I did like episodes 1,2 & 3.

Halo kicks star wars in the blam!

Are you kidding me!!!!!! Those were the worst of the STAR WARS saga!!!


I've yet to see a compelling argument that supports that claim.

Anyway, I feel like my points to make this an actual intelligent debate are being completely ignored. So yeah, keep on -blam!-ing at each other with your superweapons and god-factions.


Go to redlettermedia.com and watch his Star Wars reviews. Those will explain to you why episodes 1,2, and 3 are garbage.


I have watched the first part of the ep1 review. That is, I call it a parody of a review because it's utter -blam!-. Way too much extra things tossed in, ignoring movie dialogue. (Why are they going underwater? when it was explained clearly). The reviews did NOTHING to convince me of anything.

  • 07.12.2011 11:44 AM PDT

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


Posted by: hotshot revan II
Give me reasons how Star Wars would even stand a chance against Halo in a this kind of fight?


That's been done, many times. Although you're the one throwing around the term "thick head," it's more applicable to you personally than anyone else in this thread. You've never proven that Halo wins in a full fight. Ever. Saying that you have makes you sound like this.

In fact Revan, by this point I've really just given up trying to address anything you say because it's always just so monumentally asinine. This post was just special.

Anyway, people speaking for Lucas have said that, George himself has said that he thinks of the films and expanded universe as two separate universes. So if we really want to get into a canon debate by Lucasian standards then we would have to choose which Star Wars universe we'd like to have in the battle.

Trying to discredit something by saying it isn't canon in a debate like this is a sad tactic, especially the things that the Halo side has been trying to argue against. It gives the impression that rather than trying to have the universes battle, you're trying to just chop down the other universe to try to make them have a disadvantage instead of having them battle at full power.

This applies to canon arguments and either side saying something like "well you can't do that to my side because that doesn't exist in my universe." It's a battle between two fictional parties. You assume that both sides can fight to their full potential and that they have everything available to them, or else what's the point? It's a pretty cheap victory for you if you somehow win when the other side is not at full potential, and that goes both ways.

  • 07.12.2011 11:47 AM PDT


Posted by: aaz b
Does the Flood count as a God-Faction?


Depends. If it's being put in at full end of forerunner flood war strength ALONGSIDE the full forerunner fleet or UNSC/covenant fleets, then yes.

However, if it's put in but you including that the UNSC/Covenant (or bulk of forerunners) where consumed because the flood are entering the Star Wars galaxy with those numbers, then I'm cool. Or if you have it entering as it was first release from alpha halo(CE) or when they first arrived in the forerunner flood war.

Edit: I always took that line as "George lucas just doesn't get involved in the finer details of canon." not "Everything EU is basically an alt-universe"

[Edited on 07.12.2011 11:54 AM PDT]

  • 07.12.2011 11:51 AM PDT