- mojeda101
- |
- Intrepid Legendary Member
Posted by: GeneralRafa
Posted by: mojeda101
Posted by: GeneralRafa
Posted by: mojeda101
Posted by: GeneralRafa
Anyone who votes for Halo/UNSC Marines in this thread is an idiot. The only thing that the UNSC has that could rival MW technology is space.
A lot of the UNSC arsenal compared to modern day technology is actually worse:
-You can only hip fire the Assault Rifle.
-The DMR is equivalent to hundreds of present day rifles.
-The Sniper Rifle is comparable to the Barrett .50 Cal.
-The Grenade Launcher is weaker and only single shot compared to semi-automatic grenade launchers and the M203.
-Rocket Launchers have horrible lock-on capabilities compared against the Stinger and other launchers.
-The Shotgun has less than half the range of present-day shotguns.
Don't even get me started on the vehicles:
-The Humvee is definitely better armored than the Warthog.
-Apaches could take out Falcons/Hornets with ease.
-The Scorpion is too weak and poorly designed to take on modern tanks like the Abrahms or T-90.
The only thing from Halo that's pretty much equal to current-day vehicles is the Mongoose.Cocerning the weapons, they have plenty of advantages, the AR is not hip fire exclusive, it can have a scope, books confirm this. Add to the fact it's faster, with Armor Piercing FMJ rounds. I love how you compare game weapons that are meant to be weak to what they really are in the books. Oh, and the Sniper fires a .57, not a .50 like the useless Barrett.
It wouldn't matter, the armor alone would be the key to war. What good is the firepower if the modern rifles if they wouldn't do ANYTHING to the ODST's or Marines armor. The Army's armor is even superior than the Military of the modern army, hell even the Police force of New Mombasa is better! It is confirmed that ODST armor could deflect .50 cal rounds, the only way you're taking down an army of over a billion is using vehicles which the UNSC are still superior.
Apaches would be gutted by Hawks. Abrams would be vaporized by Grizzly's, Rhino's and Cobra's. Even Pelicans would take down AC-130's with the missile systems and 70mm auto turret.
Learn your facts before you assume things.
What I don't understand is how you critisize me for comparing the Halo games to the MW Trilogy as mentioned in the title. The MW Trilogy is made up of games, and is not as accurate to actual real world technology. We are comparing two different types of games, nothing more nothing less. By using book canon, I might as well use more examples from real life then.
One mistake I made coming here is that I forgot that most of the people in this specific forum believe that book canon is superior to the game canon. While that's something completely different to debate about, it makes a huge difference.
"Gameplay =/= book canon"
Yes, but game canon trumps it.In terms of story you moron. Explain the differences in weapon damage when damage is multiplied due to difficulty and skulls. There is no confirmed canonical difficulty. Master Chief's shields are supposed to be stronger than the Elite's personal shielding by far, yet it never is unless on Easy. Now lets look at the marines, even on legendary they survive dozens of plasma rounds, yet they can go down in about 2. Game story is canon, not the mechanics you idiot.
Then why bring up the examples from Halo Wars? Just like the rest of the Halo games, Halo Wars had its own set of various difficulties and skulls which changed the effectiveness of the vehicles you mentioned previously. They don't have an agreed upon strength in canon, yet you are using them as an example against the real world vehicles I mentioned. What about them is so much better, and how could you prove it?
Game developers don't know everything, and neither do they need to include every aspect of modern warfare into a game. Better yet, unlike real world technology, game developers don't have to prove why a faction's technology is better. For example, how can an ODST's armor stop a .50 cal bullet aside that it was just mentioned in the books? What is the composition and knowledge of ballistics behind the ODST's armor that could justify its capabilities? You assume that their word alone is enough, when it might not even be possible in reality. I might be taking this too literally though.
The problem is that if you bring aspects of modern warfare from real life that aren't seen in Halo, you couldn't really argue against it or find a counter. If I brought something like ECM capabilities to the table justifying present day military technology in electronic warfare, nothing you could ever get from your book canon, Halopedia, or game canon would be able to explain a viable counter because the developers just never came up with a UNSC version. Instead, you would just have to assume that Halo had it better because of "technological superiority". But then again, you critisized me for assuming things anyway.Becuase the vehicles in Halo Wars have statistics that back their firepower. A Grizzly fires TWO 120mm TUNGSTEN Armor Piercing Ballistic Capped Rounds. A Cobra fires a 320mm. I could tell you their armor, fire speed, etc...
Well coming from someone who thinks game mechanics is more canon than the books, shoot a Marine with a sniper, he lives. Must I say more?
Well it's not my fault that Halo is limited. Games will be coming out soon, as well as more books, it will definitely get into more weapons. Just be patient.