Bungie Universe
This topic has moved here: Subject: An Interesting Phenomenon I've Found
  • Subject: An Interesting Phenomenon I've Found
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • of 3
Subject: An Interesting Phenomenon I've Found


Posted by: Cmdr DaeFaron
I don't see how Romeo's comment is out of place. As said, when they launch what does he see? A cluster of ruined frigates.

A more appropriate comparison would be.

American forces drive back the German assault. A Soldier in one area looks around and notes a number of ruined tanks.

He goes "Man, the armored core got their asses kicked here." Is he wrong? Maybe concerning the entire battle. But, based on what he simply sees he is correct.

Edit: I also Doubt in the short time they were at Earth before halo 2 johnson would get the complete tour of the planet defenses and know the details.


Once again, odd, out of place, and misleading remarks that don't fit in with the context of the situation.

And for that last statement, refer to all of my posts on the last page.

[Edited on 10.11.2011 3:31 PM PDT]

  • 10.11.2011 3:30 PM PDT

@accordingto343

Your one stop shop for all of 343's fabulous errors and ridiculous notions in the Halo lore.

So when someone has a limited context of the situation and THEIR remarks are in that context, it's misleading?

  • 10.11.2011 3:32 PM PDT


Posted by: DecepticonCobra
So when someone has a limited context of the situation and THEIR remarks are in that context, it's misleading?


Exactly...

  • 10.11.2011 3:36 PM PDT


Posted by: DecepticonCobra
So when someone has a limited context of the situation and THEIR remarks are in that context, it's misleading?


Blame Bungie for that weird little dialogue, not me.

"Navy put up a good fight" said Mickey
"Of course they did, it's Earth" said Dutch
"Better late than never" said Romeo, adding onto the fact that the UNSC did well, referring to that their orbital combat was finally pulling through.
But then, "I take it back! Navy got its butt kicked!" said Romeo, commmenting on ONE destroyed vessel, way out of the combat zone, having JUST stated that the UNSC was doing well.

That scene was full of horribly corny military conversation that... just sounded odd.

  • 10.11.2011 3:37 PM PDT

@accordingto343

Your one stop shop for all of 343's fabulous errors and ridiculous notions in the Halo lore.

Posted by: Ruby of the Blue

Posted by: DecepticonCobra
So when someone has a limited context of the situation and THEIR remarks are in that context, it's misleading?


Blame Bungie for that weird little dialogue, not me.

"Navy put up a good fight" said Mickey
"Of course they did, it's Earth" said Dutch
"Better late than never" said Romeo, adding onto the fact that the UNSC did well, referring to that their orbital combat was finally pulling through.
But then, "I take it back! Navy got its butt kicked!" said Romeo, commmenting on ONE destroyed vessel, way out of the combat zone, having JUST stated that the UNSC was doing well.

That scene was full of horribly corny military conversation that... just sounded odd.


Ruby, in the cutscene you mention, there is clearly more than one frigate's worth of debris. I don't blame Bungie for anything because I understood the context of the situation.

  • 10.11.2011 3:42 PM PDT

I am the Leader of the Awrand Forces. If you wish to join message me in any medium.

http://z15.invisionfree.com/Awrand_Forces/index.php?act=idx


Posted by: Ruby of the Blue

Posted by: grey101
Um you can even say that since you don't even read the books.


And why not, O Wise Sage?

Ackerson is a colonel and an ONI spook what he says has more weight than Johnson. A ship commander who has been at Earth far longer than Johnson; is going to know more about the defenses than Johnson.

THINK: Bungie inserted this dialogue, ITS PURPOSE being to explain the entire, FUNCTIONAL defense grid.
THINK OUTSIDE OF THE STORY ITSELF, and in the development.
Bungie WOULD NOT have inserted the dialogue if they intended for Johnson to be completely wrong and stupid about what he was talking about. This would be something people would call: "MISLEADING INFORMATION" .
Think the other way, and you can see quite clearly that Bungie wanted 300 MACs online.

Actually, the novel was released in 2006, Halo 2 in 2004, so it's really the book's fault for contradicting the game in the first place. It's a subtle quirk, but hey, that's what we're talking about.

So we have Bungie saying 300 MACs are there, while the book coming out two years later says 150. So blame GoO for this. The author didn't quite grasp what Johnson was saying, I guess.
Bungie expects you to think for yourself, find the most reliant answer based on the situation, just because a character said somthing, doesnt mean its true

If more than one character says "Reach was a victory"...then maybe reach was a victory

But if you SEE how reach fell, and can think for yourself, then you can see that they are lieing

  • 10.11.2011 3:45 PM PDT

I am the Leader of the Awrand Forces. If you wish to join message me in any medium.

http://z15.invisionfree.com/Awrand_Forces/index.php?act=idx


Posted by: Ruby of the Blue

Posted by: Cmdr DaeFaron
I don't see how Romeo's comment is out of place. As said, when they launch what does he see? A cluster of ruined frigates.

A more appropriate comparison would be.

American forces drive back the German assault. A Soldier in one area looks around and notes a number of ruined tanks.

He goes "Man, the armored core got their asses kicked here." Is he wrong? Maybe concerning the entire battle. But, based on what he simply sees he is correct.

Edit: I also Doubt in the short time they were at Earth before halo 2 johnson would get the complete tour of the planet defenses and know the details.


Once again, odd, out of place, and misleading remarks that don't fit in with the context of the situation.

And for that last statement, refer to all of my posts on the last page.

*Sees last of the covenent retreat*
"Yeah, we won"

*New guy comes in and sees huge fleet of debris*
"Holy crap, we got owned"


Are either misleading?

  • 10.11.2011 3:46 PM PDT


Posted by: WEDGESKYWALKER
*Sees last of the covenent retreat*
"Yeah, we won"

*New guy comes in and sees huge fleet of debris*
"Holy crap, we got owned"


Are either misleading?


This. As my example said. If somebody makes a comment about taking a beating, but his view is in a limited area, does that make it false? Nope. Even if the entire battle featured few losses.

  • 10.11.2011 3:52 PM PDT


Posted by: grey101

Posted by: OrderedComa

Posted by: Sigma617
Oh wow. I leave home for a few days and this is what happens?

To add onto my point, 2 ODPs are are insignificant loss compared to the Orbital defense net as a whole. These platforms are semi mobile and they could have covered the breaks in the net with little effort. Even if they couldn't the home fleet could have substituted for the lost ODPs.

It is appalling how the UNSC lost to Regret's expeditionary fleet. They were VASTLY outnumbered even if you discount the ODPs.


How did they lose? Only one ship got through the ODPs and that was through the small hole in the defenses. . So does Regret slipping through and then running for his cowardly life at most a couple hours later equate to the UNSC losing?


What the -blam!-?


The whole point is NOT to let anything through your defenses, period. It doesn't matter how small the breach is but the fact there is a breach.


Regrets ships breaking through shows that the covenant COULD break through and ontop of that there is then a gap that can be exploited.

We only know that regrets ship got through, but we do not know if any of the other ships got through right after. Seeing how he made an in atmosphere jump, the others probably did the same.
Making the ODPs pointless and explaining how there are still ODPs during GoO while ships are uncovering the portal.


The guy is equating one ship getting through to losing the entire battle against Regret's ships. Of which Regret's ship was the only survivor, and even then the UNSC had a killshot of it in their sights in the form of the ODST squads dropping down to the carrier, and if Regret hadn't split off and buggered out of there Chief would have been on his way there as well. I don't see how that particular battle counts as a loss.

  • 10.11.2011 7:47 PM PDT


Posted by: DecepticonCobra
Posted by: Ruby of the Blue

Posted by: DecepticonCobra
So when someone has a limited context of the situation and THEIR remarks are in that context, it's misleading?


Blame Bungie for that weird little dialogue, not me.

"Navy put up a good fight" said Mickey
"Of course they did, it's Earth" said Dutch
"Better late than never" said Romeo, adding onto the fact that the UNSC did well, referring to that their orbital combat was finally pulling through.
But then, "I take it back! Navy got its butt kicked!" said Romeo, commenting on ONE destroyed vessel, way out of the combat zone, having JUST stated that the UNSC was doing well.

That scene was full of horribly corny military conversation that... just sounded odd.


Ruby, in the cut-scene you mention, there is clearly more than one frigate's worth of debris. I don't blame Bungie for anything because I understood the context of the situation.

THIS. Bungie should not have to hold your hand the entire way through the series, use your amazing gift of rational thought to realize something must be wrong with the ODP grid. I mean we can take simple evidence from solely Halo 2 to indicate that all the ODPs were not online. If Regret got through, and he did, then obviously the ODPs did not do their job. In such context, where it is the very small force of Regret, compared to the expected Covenant force, it becomes very obvious that the ODPs did not function as designed meaning they could not possibly be fully operational, unless those who designed them were completely full of themselves and vastly overestimated their abilities... Just accept that Johnson is not omnipotent just because Bungie wrote his line, I mean if everything that every character said was 100% true all of the time then the dialogue would be awfully boring and the story quite frankly would suck.

  • 10.11.2011 7:50 PM PDT


Posted by: Cmdr DaeFaron

[quote]Posted by: WEDGESKYWALKER
*Sees last of the covenent retreat*
"Yeah, we won"

*New guy comes in and sees huge fleet of debris*
"Holy crap, we got owned"


Are either misleading?


Based on the way it is presented, yes. It's not something you do with a consistent story.
Phew, good thing Halo was never that to start with.

[Edited on 10.11.2011 8:18 PM PDT]

  • 10.11.2011 8:17 PM PDT


Posted by: Ruby of the Blue
Posted by: WEDGESKYWALKER
*Sees last of the covenent retreat*
"Yeah, we won"

*New guy comes in and sees huge fleet of debris*
"Holy crap, we got owned"


Are either misleading?


Based on the way it is presented, yes. It's not something you do with a consistent story.
Phew, good thing Halo was never that to start with.


Actually, the way it's presented is not misleading. Unless you take "we got owned" as "we lost".

Again, CONTEXT BASED. You are basically saying if a general who wasn't even in the battle goes "We won without any real effort." that it's more true, and the soldier who was on the front line that goes "We had to really work to drive them from this emplacement, we lost a few tanks." is misleading and false.

When it's not. The soldier's line, in context of his spot on the battlefield, is entirely true. It does nothing to ruin consistency.

edit: How about we use halo 2 dialogue. "We've done it, they are falling back, we won!" *ODP explodes* Marine: "This is bad, real bad."

I guess the first guy's comment is misleading because he should've known about the bomb but his limited viewpoint of the battle AKA CONTEXT, showed them as winning.

[Edited on 10.11.2011 11:23 PM PDT]

  • 10.11.2011 11:19 PM PDT


Posted by: Ruby of the Blue

Posted by: Cmdr DaeFaron

[quote]Posted by: WEDGESKYWALKER
*Sees last of the covenent retreat*
"Yeah, we won"

*New guy comes in and sees huge fleet of debris*
"Holy crap, we got owned"


Are either misleading?


Based on the way it is presented, yes. It's not something you do with a consistent story.
Phew, good thing Halo was never that to start with.


Way to go: assuming EVERYBODY has the same assumptions, interpretations, insight, knowledge of common ground, nerve and experience.

A story is about multiple characters...and each of those characters is different. What one of them might consider a small loss because they've seen worse, might be total destruction in the eyes of another one who is new to this for instance, or hasn't seen anything on the same scale.

Bungie decided to give every soldier in Halo a different background and personality and to have them behave "realisticly". As in: not everybody thinking exactly the same.

For instance: at the end of Halo CE, you've got Cortana "celebrating" a huge victory over the Covies and Flood in her eyes, while the Chief is already shaking his head and thinking of the hundreds of UNSC troops dead, before Cortana then shifts her perspective and mood...
Thats a similar situation as the thing going on at Malta, Cairo and Athens. Thats the same thing as the ODST's obviously judging the First Battle for Earth on statistics before seeing the damage first hand and taking back those words.

And in a way it was true: UNSC did defend well against the first fleet.

  • 10.12.2011 12:57 AM PDT

Posted by:ScubaToaster
Posted by: HipiO7
This man, this man right here put it so eloquently that I actually cancelled my own 2000+ word long post.
/slow clap for respect


:)
The person who said participating is important, not winning, obviously never won anything.

It simply shows that we are fighting an enemy that is superior in numbers and in technology.

And that is somehow able to outwit us in amazing ways.

  • 10.12.2011 7:44 AM PDT

I am the Leader of the Awrand Forces. If you wish to join message me in any medium.

http://z15.invisionfree.com/Awrand_Forces/index.php?act=idx


Posted by: DonVinzone1

Posted by: Ruby of the Blue

Posted by: Cmdr DaeFaron

[quote]Posted by: WEDGESKYWALKER
*Sees last of the covenent retreat*
"Yeah, we won"

*New guy comes in and sees huge fleet of debris*
"Holy crap, we got owned"


Are either misleading?


Based on the way it is presented, yes. It's not something you do with a consistent story.
Phew, good thing Halo was never that to start with.


Way to go: assuming EVERYBODY has the same assumptions, interpretations, insight, knowledge of common ground, nerve and experience.

A story is about multiple characters...and each of those characters is different. What one of them might consider a small loss because they've seen worse, might be total destruction in the eyes of another one who is new to this for instance, or hasn't seen anything on the same scale.

Bungie decided to give every soldier in Halo a different background and personality and to have them behave "realisticly". As in: not everybody thinking exactly the same.

For instance: at the end of Halo CE, you've got Cortana "celebrating" a huge victory over the Covies and Flood in her eyes, while the Chief is already shaking his head and thinking of the hundreds of UNSC troops dead, before Cortana then shifts her perspective and mood...
Thats a similar situation as the thing going on at Malta, Cairo and Athens. Thats the same thing as the ODST's obviously judging the First Battle for Earth on statistics before seeing the damage first hand and taking back those words.

And in a way it was true: UNSC did defend well against the first fleet.
Ohnoes, you're misleading me, was CE a cakewalk, or was it hard? :O

  • 10.12.2011 1:04 PM PDT

Bloodshot sub-leader members needed ask about joining and i will get in contact with the other leaders to approve of membership
Clan motto:Born of fire! Born of steel! Born of war! BORN of blood!

*book reference* awkwardly i cant remember the book but if i remember correctly during one of the covenants first assults on the outer colonies an armor division held off countless covenant raids to allow the civilians to evacuate *all exept for one transport made it* the division counted in the thousands but as usual the covenant comes in a larger force.... the resulting battles killed all of the members of the armored divison and convinced some elites that humanity should be allowed into the covenant *didnt work obviusly* correct me if im wrong tho im half asleep so yea...

  • 10.12.2011 2:19 PM PDT


Posted by: DonVinzone1

Posted by: Ruby of the Blue

Posted by: Cmdr DaeFaron

[quote]Posted by: WEDGESKYWALKER
*Sees last of the covenent retreat*
"Yeah, we won"

*New guy comes in and sees huge fleet of debris*
"Holy crap, we got owned"


Are either misleading?


Based on the way it is presented, yes. It's not something you do with a consistent story.
Phew, good thing Halo was never that to start with.


Way to go: assuming EVERYBODY has the same assumptions, interpretations, insight, knowledge of common ground, nerve and experience.

A story is about multiple characters...and each of those characters is different. What one of them might consider a small loss because they've seen worse, might be total destruction in the eyes of another one who is new to this for instance, or hasn't seen anything on the same scale.

Bungie decided to give every soldier in Halo a different background and personality and to have them behave "realisticly". As in: not everybody thinking exactly the same.

For instance: at the end of Halo CE, you've got Cortana "celebrating" a huge victory over the Covies and Flood in her eyes, while the Chief is already shaking his head and thinking of the hundreds of UNSC troops dead, before Cortana then shifts her perspective and mood...
Thats a similar situation as the thing going on at Malta, Cairo and Athens. Thats the same thing as the ODST's obviously judging the First Battle for Earth on statistics before seeing the damage first hand and taking back those words.

And in a way it was true: UNSC did defend well against the first fleet.


Ooh, very well put. :o

The problem with what we're arguing about is that I look at it as a fallacy in which Bungie can't make their minds up,
while the users here look at it as different points of view.

I look at the outside influences and developments, those which are what really rule a story.


[Edited on 10.12.2011 2:30 PM PDT]

  • 10.12.2011 2:28 PM PDT

  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • of 3