• Why the tech of the Halo Universe is a step backward.
    1,885 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Sirdrone536;27440965]Xenourries[/QUOTE] Fucking heretic Xenos. [editline]16th January 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Arachnidus;27442322]Well, yeah, John Madden can testify as to that.[/QUOTE] They're also great seismographs for China.
[QUOTE=PunchedInFac;27433090]My life is now complete, I can laugh [B]no more.[/B] By all means Halo CE was an extremely fun game with a nice premise story-wise (bad execution though), but a master craft, it is not. Marathon is better story-wise. [B][/B][/QUOTE] I daresay Halo is the single most well made shooter of the past 20 years. Basically of all time. [editline]16th January 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=ChosenOne54;27441088]The only reason Master Chief stands a chance against any other video game character is because he has a bunch of books which basically portray him as Jesus with a gun. If you've played Halo, you'd know that he is horribly weak in game. And contrary to popular belief, just because he says a few one-liners in game, that doesn't give him a personality.[/QUOTE] Master Chief is rather the only game character that isn't ridiculously overpowered for no reason. You can beat these endless hordes of enemies because you are a super soldier. That does not make him weak. That makes everyone else overpowered and ADHD. [editline]16th January 2011[/editline] [QUOTE='[ToRn];27443299']I always thought the Halo tech sucked right from the first Halo game. I noticed it because it made me rage. The sniper rifle leaves one hell of a tracer, what's the point in being a sniper when each shot reveals your location. You can be hidden like crazy and you'll still reveal yourself. The warthog is the most unstable vehicle ever. You'd do better on a unicycle. Slightest knock and the warthog flips. The tanks and the weapons in general have the worst accuracy. It took a while mag of the assault rifle to kill a guy for me ... he was right in front of me. The assault rifles effective range is like 6meteres.[/QUOTE] The tank is actually one of the only things in the game with a realistic range, due to it's fast projectile with low drop. The other things there are for gameplay reasons. There's nothing fun about camping sniper douchebags. The tracer helps you identify where the shot came from and forces the sniper to either keep on the move or close in. Which is where the 6m ranged rifle comes in, because the gameplay works best at fairly close ranges.
[QUOTE=BmB;27450251]I daresay Halo is the single most well made shooter of the past 20 years. Basically of all time. [/QUOTE] How? Tell me how Halo is the best shooter of all time? Please, I'm willing to listen, because I cannot comprehend how anyone would consider Halo to be the best shooter of the past 20 years.
Because it's extremely well put together? The game logic is the most well formed I can recall seeing. It's extremely well simulated in a way that not only makes sense, but makes sense with the story.
[QUOTE=BmB;27452751]Because it's extremely well put together? The game logic is the most well formed I can recall seeing. It's extremely well simulated in a way that not only makes sense, but makes sense with the story.[/QUOTE] Like half life? :smug: But really, I found it a bit revolutionary because it mixed the way you can use weapons. Most games have different weapons to use different things, like a separate weapons for grendades, melee, and whatnot. You could melee with any weapon, and throw grenades with any weapon out. I am not sure if it was done before, but it was new for me. I also found the vehicles fun too, and the story was pretty awesome too.
[QUOTE=BmB;27452751]Because it's extremely well put together? The game logic is the most well formed I can recall seeing. It's extremely well simulated in a way that not only makes sense, but makes sense with the story.[/QUOTE] :downs:
My response should be ready shortly.
[QUOTE=BmB;27452751]Because it's extremely well put together? The game logic is the most well formed I can recall seeing. It's extremely well simulated in a way that not only makes sense, but makes sense with the story.[/QUOTE] I'm sorry, what?
A wild wall of text appeared! What to do!? Allow me to quote myself. [QUOTE=ChosenOne54;27419188]Halo is a generic, monotonous, linear, repetitive, Sci-Fi first person shooter. The game puts you in the shoes of Master Chief, a generic super soldier with no personality, or intelligent dialogue, other than a few cheesy one-liners. You spend most of the game walking through identical, symmetrical corridors, mowing down some colourful looking aliens, with sub-par weapons. You are told that you are a super soldier, but this obviously does not affect the gameplay in any way, as you can die from the most ridiculous things (such as being hit by a pylon.) The story is the typical one of humans coming into contact with an alien race, and there being a giant super weapon etc. etc. This is told through generic cutscenes, with very little character development, and very little sense of urgency. The multiplayer is the reason Halo is popular, and I would argue that there are much better choices. Overall, I don't see how Halo is 'amazing in every way.'[/QUOTE] Can you honestly deny any of that? Let’s go through the points individually. [QUOTE] Halo is a generic, monotonous, linear, repetitive, Sci-Fi first person shooter. [/QUOTE] The game is ‘generic,’ because practically no creativity whatsoever went into it. The game has very little variety, instead forcing you through hallways, with the occasional large battlefield, doing nothing but mowing down enemies. There are no tactics or strategy involved either. Halo only does combat; there are no puzzles or RPG elements, or anything that adds depth. There level design is also bad, because there is so much backtracking for no reason. The hallways look identical and symmetrical. If you’ll look at Half-Life 2, there is a ton of variety. You go from city streets to sewers to an abandoned ghost town to the coast, to an old prison, and finally into a large alien structure, all while facing many different types and combinations of enemies. Half-Life 2 breaks through the typical genre boundaries by including such variety. It is truly amazing how Valve managed to fit so many shooter styles into one. HL2 does the lone wolf gameplay, as well as the Cod-esque team battles. It does the Resident Evil-esque horror levels, as well as some nail-bitingly intense sections. It does all of this, with virtually no backtracking. You are always on your toes when playing Half-Life 2, and you never do one thing for so long that it gets boring. Basically, this: [QUOTE] You spend most of the game walking through identical, symmetrical corridors, mowing down some colourful looking aliens, with sub-par weapons. You are told that you are a super soldier, but this obviously does not affect the gameplay in any way [/QUOTE] Look at Crysis. You are told you are a super soldier, but you can actually USE those superhuman abilities. In the Halo manual, it would go on and on about how Master Chief is a super soldier with super strength and speed etc. When you’re actually playing the game, couldn’t they have incorporated this more into the gameplay? It would have made things much less shallow, and much more engaging. This point highlights what I was saying earlier, about the game not having much creativity. I want to talk about the combat for a second. Halo could use some real improvements in terms of combat, because at the moment it is very shallow and mundane, especially in terms of your arsenal. In Halo, your guns, by and large have only one function - shoot until the bad guys fall down. All of your weapons have a singular drive to kill the enemies, with no deviation from this. I realize that, being a First Person Shooter, the purpose of the game is to kill, but there needs to be more depth. Now look at, say, Team Fortress 2 where weapons can do things like buff teammates, reflect projectiles, extinguish fires, jump long distances, etc. Your weapons in TF2 are tools that can serve many purposes beyond simply lowering enemy health - the Solider is practically designed around his ability to rocket jump; hence they have 'deep' functionality. The Spy is another perfect example of this. He can disguise as the other team, and cloak. This offers player an insane amount of depth, and many tactical options, which Halo simply does not offer. Additionally TF2 weapons often deviate from standard FPS weapon archetypes such as the Chargin' Targe, or the Scout's energy drinks hence your TF2 arsenal is far from mundane. Another example is the gravity gun from Half-Life 2, and I'm sure that the tactical possibilities are obvious. [QUOTE] The game puts you in the shoes of Master Chief, a generic super soldier with no personality, or intelligent dialogue, other than a few cheesy one-liners. [/QUOTE] I think this is a little self-explanatory. Master Chief, the person whom Halo fans revere and worship, is nothing but the mere shell of a character. He has about as much personality as Gordon Freeman. [QUOTE] The story is the typical one of humans coming into contact with an alien race, and there being a giant super weapon etc. etc. This is told through generic cutscenes, with very little character development, and very little sense of urgency. [/QUOTE] That brings me to my next point; story and storytelling. The story, I’ll admit, has a pretty nice premise, what with the Halos and Forerunners. Where Halo drops the ball is in its storytelling. The whole story is told through generic cutscenes, and the story is basically spoon-fed to you. All you need to do is keep shooting, and the story will take care of itself. There is so little environmental storytelling it’s astounding. If you’ll look at Half-Life, there is some dialogue and narrative, but a lot of the story is clouded in mystery, and the player himself has to explore and uncover clues themselves. You really have to ponder, and think, and explore. If you search, and dig deeper, you will find a lot of things that most players will miss. This is part of what makes Half-Life 2 so good. To conclude, I would like to bring up another one of my previous quotes. [QUOTE=ChosenOne54;27408344]There's a difference between liking games such as Halo and Call of Duty and heralding them as steps forward in the genre. They are good insofar as what they do. But what they do is very little. I do not appreciate those who fail to differentiate between liking a game and believing they are significant steps forward when most of them are not. It sets terribly mundane standards in the industry and it forces true innovation - that which exists beyond the readily identifiable - to stagnate.[/QUOTE] Thank you, and I hope you enjoyed that.
Tl;dr waaah dont u dare say anything is bettar thn half layfe. We could go into a long, drawn out omnislash battle but that wouldn't make you change your mind because you're just going to keep defending half life against my statements that Halo is great (non sequiteur?) no matter what. To prove this, let me state I already have, and quite well, denied nearly every single one of those points yet you continue to quote yourself because anything saying the thing that is cool to hate is actually good is invisible to you. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Massive Troll" - RayvenQ))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=BmB;27453254][B]Tl;dr waaah dont u dare say anything is bettar thn half layfe.[/B] [/QUOTE] Now you just proved yourself as a massive troll. :colbert: The man deals a nicely built, well-rounded argument (he even admits that MC and Gordon have about the same degree of personality) and you reply to him by figuratively sticking out your tongue and making faces at him trying to incite his reaction when all you are actually doing is drawing pity from everyone in this thread. He does not hate Halo. He isn't against the idea of Halo. He just refutes the idea that Halo is as great and revolutionary as you make it to be. [editline]16th January 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=BmB;27452751]Because it's extremely well put together? The game logic is the most well formed I can recall seeing. It's extremely well simulated in a way that not only makes sense, but makes sense with the story.[/QUOTE] Nearly every game will tailor it's character's tactics with the story, even before halo. That's not anything new or revolutionary.
[QUOTE=ChosenOne54;27453110]A wild wall of text appeared! What to do!? [/QUOTE] Hate to break it to you, but that pretty much defines, FPS. You get the occasional one that is different but what you said is pretty much what an FPS is supposed to be. Call Halo generic all you want but it wont change the fact that I fucking enjoy it. Hell I love its simplicity, I love the fact that its generic, I love how basic the mission design is, I love Halo, its a break from other games, a game where you can say "I just want to shoot fuckers"
I loved the first Halo, I still consider it a masterpiece. The story and gameplay were simple, but somehow found a way to be incredibly engaging. I remember driving the warthog for the first time into those artificial caves, completely uncertain of what I was going to run into. It was exciting. I haven't been legitimately excited playing a game since then. What I think the first Halo did right was give you solid reasons for what you are doing. In Half-Life, sometimes I found myself thinking "Why the fuck am I here? What is my goal?" whereas in Halo, you're always going somewhere specific to do something specific, and the objectives always made sense. It was also cool how the game begins as a "ur humen keel da alienz" simple story but gradually unfolds into something much more complex as you discover the secrets behind the halo. The last level of Halo was perhaps the best ending to a game I have ever experienced, as the whole warthog run at the end made my heart stop. I didn't really care for Halo 2, 3, or Reach, but the first Halo was great fucking game. I think simplifying it down to "lol spehss mahrene keel da alienz wit gunz" really discredits it a lot. The environments might not be drastically different, but they evoked a lot more emotion out of me than Half-Life did. When I stepped outside into the city in Half-Life 2, I thought "This is cool," but when I stepped out of the escape pod at the begging of Halo, I thought "Holy shit, this is amazing." When I was in the library (most hated level of Halo 1), I was thinking, "Holy shit, get me the fuck out of here oh god," whereas in Half-Life's Ravenholm I was just thinking, "God dammit I'm tired of this level, I want it to end already." But that's just me. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, I just think it's silly how people try to take the piss out of Halo. The first Halo wasn't popular because of hype or anything, it was popular because it is fucking amazing. Hell, it was so good that the rest of the Halo's rode the first one's wave all the way up to Reach.
Alright, now to actually debate something without sinking down to BmB level. [QUOTE=ChosenOne54;27453110] The game is ‘generic,’ because practically no creativity whatsoever went into it. The game has very little variety, instead forcing you through hallways, with the occasional large battlefield, doing nothing but mowing down enemies. There are no tactics or strategy involved either. Halo only does combat; there are no puzzles or RPG elements, or anything that adds depth. There level design is also bad, because there is so much backtracking for no reason. The hallways look identical and symmetrical. If you’ll look at Half-Life 2, there is a ton of variety. You go from city streets to sewers to an abandoned ghost town to the coast, to an old prison, and finally into a large alien structure, all while facing many different types and combinations of enemies. Half-Life 2 breaks through the typical genre boundaries by including such variety. It is truly amazing how Valve managed to fit so many shooter styles into one. HL2 does the lone wolf gameplay, as well as the Cod-esque team battles. It does the Resident Evil-esque horror levels, as well as some nail-bitingly intense sections. It does all of this, with virtually no backtracking. You are always on your toes when playing Half-Life 2, and you never do one thing for so long that it gets boring. [/quote] I'm going to have to disagree on some points here. There's more variety to the environments than you might be letting on. I'll give examples: Halo CE - Pillar of Autumn (UNSC ship interior, also revisited the wreckage in the end [The Maw] ) Halo surface (Alpine (I guess, not sure), and nighttime arctic) A large plateau (night mission before the Truth and Reconciliation) Inside the Truth and Reconciliation (Covenant cruiser) Large island with forerunner substructure [Silent Cartographer] A swamp with more substructure (that level where you first encounter The Flood). Who can forget the giant warthog dash in the final level? Halo 2 - I'll give you this one, which I consider to be the weakest in the series in terms of campaign. Halo 3 - (again, not as good as CE, but it's a definite improvement from 2 in my opinion) African jungle (first level) Hidden UNSC base (bit of hallway-itis and backtracking here) Tsavo Highway Voi (destroyed urban environment with flood infestation) The Ark (large desert-like area with substructures) Whatever you'd classify the mission The Covenant as (which is one of my favorites in Halo 3). And then there's the Cortana level *shiver* ODST - While it had the least variety in environments, it was a bit more Sandbox-ish, and had a better story New Mombasa city Coastal Highway Data hives underneath the city Wildlife reserve (sans the wildlife interestingly enough, although I guess you could say the brutes ate it all) Reach - Closest to CE in terms of environmental variety Mountainous area ONI Sword Base Space around Reach (space fighter level :D) Covenant corvette (I think?) Urban city environment Sky around New Alexandria (Falcons, Banshees, Pelicans, etc.) Beneath Sword Base (underground arctic cavern interlaced with forerunner technology) [quote]Look at Crysis. You are told you are a super soldier, but you can actually USE those superhuman abilities. In the Halo manual, it would go on and on about how Master Chief is a super soldier with super strength and speed etc. When you’re actually playing the game, couldn’t they have incorporated this more into the gameplay? It would have made things much less shallow, and much more engaging. This point highlights what I was saying earlier, about the game not having much creativity.[/quote] I do agree, they could have made playing as the Chief more interesting while still keeping the game balanced and challenging. The Rookie and Noble Six seem like more appropriate roles. Halo 3 and Reach add a bit more to the combat with equipment and Armor Abilities (the latter being more interesting and effective). That does not, however, mean the game has little creativity. [quote]I want to talk about the combat for a second. Halo could use some real improvements in terms of combat, because at the moment it is very shallow and mundane, especially in terms of your arsenal. In Halo, your guns, by and large have only one function - shoot until the bad guys fall down. All of your weapons have a singular drive to kill the enemies, with no deviation from this. I realize that, being a First Person Shooter, the purpose of the game is to kill, but there needs to be more depth. Now look at, say, Team Fortress 2 where weapons can do things like buff teammates, reflect projectiles, extinguish fires, jump long distances, etc. Your weapons in TF2 are tools that can serve many purposes beyond simply lowering enemy health - the Solider is practically designed around his ability to rocket jump; hence they have 'deep' functionality. The Spy is another perfect example of this. He can disguise as the other team, and cloak. This offers player an insane amount of depth, and many tactical options, which Halo simply does not offer. Additionally TF2 weapons often deviate from standard FPS weapon archetypes such as the Chargin' Targe, or the Scout's energy drinks hence your TF2 arsenal is far from mundane. Another example is the gravity gun from Half-Life 2, and I'm sure that the tactical possibilities are obvious.[/quote] Technically, aren't weapons mainly for causing harm to an opponent? And I don't think TF2 is a great comparison to be making. To me, the two games are extremely different. I think sticking to comparing it to Half-Life would be better. In terms of combat, Halo isn't that bad. There's a nice variety of opposition to fight (especially when you throw in the vehicles since you can fight those on land as well), and the weapons are pretty decent in their variety. [quote]I think this is a little self-explanatory. Master Chief, the person whom Halo fans revere and worship, is nothing but the mere shell of a character. He has about as much personality as Gordon Freeman.[/quote] I agree, I enjoyed Noble Six and the rookie more as player characters. [quote]That brings me to my next point; story and storytelling. The story, I’ll admit, has a pretty nice premise, what with the Halos and Forerunners. Where Halo drops the ball is in its storytelling. The whole story is told through generic cutscenes, and the story is basically spoon-fed to you. All you need to do is keep shooting, and the story will take care of itself. There is so little environmental storytelling it’s astounding. If you’ll look at Half-Life, there is some dialogue and narrative, but a lot of the story is clouded in mystery, and the player himself has to explore and uncover clues themselves. You really have to ponder, and think, and explore. If you search, and dig deeper, you will find a lot of things that most players will miss. This is part of what makes Half-Life 2 so good. [/quote] I don't see it. There really wasn't as much story-digging and discovery as you say in Half-Life 2, the mysterious appearances by the G-Man, the signs of missing younger generations and etc., but that was kind of it. Maybe it's just the fact that I haven't played it since the year it came out, but I don't see it. Halo has it a bit better with the hidden terminals and datapads strewn throughout the campaign. I love the way Half-Life 2's in-game cutscenes work. It definitely adds to the experience, but I don't see what you mean when you say the Halo cutscenes are generic, they seem pretty well done to me. Also like I said, there's more to the story if you can find it. EDIT: And on the terms of lack of urgency and no strategy: Strategy - Legendary and Co-op. Urgency - The Library
[QUOTE=Mombasa;27456827]And on the terms of lack of urgency and no strategy: [/QUOTE] Urgency was 343 guilty spark for me the feeling of "Ive got to get the fuck out of here" with that music making it worse.
Just to get this clear: is the Assault Rifle's range much, much larger in the books than ingame?
[QUOTE=Raiskauskone V2;27457101]Just to get this clear: is the Assault Rifle's range much, much larger in the books than ingame?[/QUOTE] In Contact Harvest Jenkins gets bullseyes at 300m and even refers to it as "easy pickings" meaning that it can go a lot further than 300m.
[QUOTE=PunchedInFac;27454059]Now you just proved yourself as a massive troll. :colbert:[/QUOTE] Rusty agrees with me that he should be perma'd, and he's not the only one, I can guarantee you I can find at[B]least[/B] 10 people that can vote for his gold removal.
[QUOTE=P1X3L N1NJA;27457178]In Contact Harvest Jenkins gets bullseyes at 300m and even refers to it as "easy pickings" meaning that it can go a lot further than 300m.[/QUOTE] That's actually quite standard for rifle cartridges.
[QUOTE=PunchedInFac;27457881]That's actually quite standard for rifle cartridges.[/QUOTE] Isnt that a good thing? Considering everyone is going nuts saying "OMG REAL LIFE GUNS ARE BETTER THAN HALOS" The assault rifle could probably do about 800m if marines can adjust their HUD, which I dont know if they can or not.
[QUOTE=ChosenOne54;27419493] "as you can die from the most ridiculous thing (such as being hit by a pylon.)" Not in Half-Life. [/QUOTE] I beg to differ. I've been killed in multiple Source games, not just Half Life, by retarded physics objects before.
It a much less common occurence in Half-Life. In Halo, you die from being nicked by a warthog, while in Half-Life 2 you can survive being hit by a train.
[QUOTE=ChosenOne54;27459202]It a much less common occurence in Half-Life. In Halo, you die from being nicked by a warthog, while in Half-Life 2 you can survive being hit by a train.[/QUOTE] How is that better?
[QUOTE=P1X3L N1NJA;27458176]Isnt that a good thing? Considering everyone is going nuts saying "OMG REAL LIFE GUNS ARE BETTER THAN HALOS" The assault rifle could probably do about 800m if marines can adjust their HUD, which I dont know if they can or not.[/QUOTE] Speaking of HUD the marines have on their eyepiece. Since there's no ironsights in the guns, do they have fps style view on their hud with a crosshair or something? Seriously I have never figured this out [editline]16th January 2011[/editline] Why 500 years into the future we would ever ever ever and ever remove such practical thing as ironsights? Surely when the batteries run out or the techy stuff breaks down you can always revert to them and regain most of the combat efficiency
[QUOTE=BmB;27453254][highlight](User was banned for this post ("Massive Troll" - RayvenQ))[/highlight[/QUOTE] Holy shit, he's finally been banned?! Time to bring this thread back! [editline]16th January 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Turnips5;27439868]Then let us fight the good fight and discuss future weapons. Personally I'm a fan of the idea of laser and plasma-based weaponry, plasma is more sci-fi at the moment but still really cool, but the US navy are now actually using lasers on warships ([URL="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=laser-downs-uavs"]for real. check it out [/URL]) as a kind of point defense system.[/QUOTE] They also use lasers to dispose of landmines and IEDs. The laser melts the casing. [editline]16th January 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Raiskauskone V2;27460499]Why 500 years into the future we would ever ever ever and ever remove such practical thing as ironsights? Surely when the batteries run out or the techy stuff breaks down you can always revert to them and regain most of the combat efficiency[/QUOTE] We use an EMP on them. The Spartan's suits would be deactivated and the soldiers can't aim their guns. SIMPLE. [editline]16th January 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=P1X3L N1NJA;27459300]How is that better?[/QUOTE] Yeah Chosen, when you say it like that I gotta ask, HOW IS THAT BETTER? [editline]16th January 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=ElectricSquid;27458514]I beg to differ. I've been killed in multiple Source games, not just Half Life, by retarded physics objects before.[/QUOTE] That's because Valve is too lazy to fix the physics engine on that shit. I think it needs to be fixed also. [editline]16th January 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=xeonmuffin;27457286]Rusty agrees with me that he should be perma'd, and he's not the only one, I can guarantee you I can find at[B]least[/B] 10 people that can vote for his gold removal.[/QUOTE] You've got my vote. (You know, if I get one) [editline]16th January 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=ChosenOne54;27441088] Jesus with a gun.r[/QUOTE] The difference being that Jesus probably wouldn't even shoot the gun.
After a small bit of googling - I remembered there being something odd about the ranges a while ago. Managed to find a rundown of the weapons and directly quoting. [quote=some different place] So I got my hands on a copy of the Halo Encyclopedia, and I figured that despite the number of other Halo threads going on at the moment I'd start one dedicated to it, or more specifically to the silliest part of it: ground combat. Disclaimer: not being much of a console gamer, I've never played Halo Wars or ODST, so if I make some glaring ommission based on things that happen or appear in those games, that's why. Similarly, it's been a while since I read some of the other Halo books and my memory's pretty fuzzy. Don't crucify me on account of that, please... M6 Magnum I'll begin with the pistol. Pretty straightforward, at least if you're a Desert Eagle fan -- a four-pound, .50 caliber pistol isn't the usual fare. Range is listed at 100 - 150 meters, which mostly makes sense given its usage in the games. A specific Spartan variant is mentioned, which weights 5.95 lbs (there are real-world rifles almost that weight!), a big step up from the standard weight of 4.09 lbs. The 12.7 x 30 mm is slightly smaller than .50 AE, so this isn't quite a Deagle in Spaaace! M7 SMG The SMG is curious because it mentions that it's fires "0.2 in (5 mm) x 23 cased/caseless" cartridges. How exactly do you make a weapon firing cased/caseless rounds? There's a nifty diagram on one of the pages showing a lineup of all the small-arms rounds, from the Gauss Cannon's 25 x 130 mm bullet down to the pistol ammunition, and the M7's round is clearly a caseless round, with the bullet embedded in a rectangular block of propellant. A typo? Possible, or the writers just don't know what they're talking about... quite likely given some of the other silly things found in here. The round doesn't have any real-world equivalent, but seems similar to the 5.7 mm and 4.6 mm rounds used in FN's and H&K's PDW designs. An obvious question is why the SMG, which has a listed range of 50 m (significantly less than the pistol) doesn't just use the pistol's ammo. Well, the pistol entry has a sidebar with a 12 different variants, one of them being a carbine variant with a longer (35 mm) barrel and a detachable shoulder stock. I'd think this would be a much better weapon in general than the M7, but apparently UNSC thinks otherwise? (Read: game balance) There are also versions with features like selective fire and smart-linked scopes. MA5 The assault rifles also make sense, for the most part. The MA5 is panned for its bad accuracy: "The inaccuracy of the Assault Rifle has rendered it obsolete on most battlefields, and its weakened attack against energy shields makes it a liability against the Covenant. However, due to its large clip and high rate of fire, the MA5 is ideal for expeditionary forces, where accuracy is often secondary to firepower." The range is then listed as 300 m. In its entry the cartridge used is 9.5 mm x 40, but elsewhere in the Encyclopedia it's said to be 7.62 mm x 51, and this is corroborated by other sources, so that must be a typo. In any case, a look at the 7.62 mm round shown on the cartridge diagram seems to indicate that this is, in fact the same 7.62 mm x 51 NATO cartridge developed after World War 2 (disclaimer: I haven't measured it out with a ruler, I'm too lazy. I doubt it matches perfectly. ) This invites us to ask exactly why, after centuries of technological advancement, the UNSC is using an outdated round, and moreover why can they not design a rifle using it to be accurate past 300 meters -- a feat easily achieved by numerous designs of the last few decades? The only exceptional quality to the MA5 is its 60-round magazine, though that probably contributes to its 11.5 lb weight. One of the listed variants is the MA5C, which has a slightly longer barrel and is more accurate. BR55 The BR55 entry also leaves us with more questions that it answers. If it was made to rectify problems with the MA5 such as its inferior accuracy, why does the BR55 only have a range of 200 meters? The round given, 9.5 mm x 40 FMJ, doesn't match any real-world cartridge but is similar in both dimensions and appearance to the Russian 9 mm x 39 silenced rifle round, which fires heavy armor-penetrating bullets at relatively low velocities. A similar round would explain the BR55's supposedly superior wounding capability but inferior range, as the arcing trajectory of a slower round makes accuracy at longer ranges more difficult. While on the subject of the assault rifles, one can't miss out on the wonders of the M301 40 mm grenade launcher, one of the most spectacularly bad entries in the book. It's an underbarrel GL for the MA5 -- a good concept, sure. What's terrible is the the range and accuracy. "When correctly utilized, it can lob 40 mm grenades at targets within a 99 feet [sic] (30 m) zone and up to 164 feet (50 m) depending on wind, trajectory, and skill." Really, Halopedia? What is this, a spring-powered tosser with a randomizer added for extra fun? For some context, an M203 underbarrel GL -- the sort currently used all over the world -- has a maximum range of 400 meters and is supposed to be capable of hitting within 5 m of a target at 150 m range. For even more context, an infantryman is expected to be able to throw a hand grenade 35 meters -- and a skilled thrower can chuck one even farther than that. Forget the issue with the MA5, this is one for the record books. And it gets better! "Their annoying tendenc to detonate in the hands of unskilled soldiers has made them of limited use." Protip, Halopedia: put fuzes on your grenades so that they aren't armed until a certain distance away from the firer. It's what everyone else has done since the 1970's or so. M41 Vulcan Equally bad is the M41 Vulcan mounted on the Warthog. Weight, length, and the round used are all roughly similar to the GAU-19, which makes sense. What doesn't make sense is the part where the range is 100 m. And no, this is not a random typo, because the range in feet is also conveniently provided: 328. Really, Halopedia? The range should be at least 1,000 meters, possibly more. Gauss Cannon At least the M68 Gauss Cannon is better done. Firing 25 mm x 130 mm projectile at "Hypersonic speeds" it has a range of 5 miles (8 km) "With good sight range". Unprotected infantry within sixty-six feet of the muzzle may suffer permanent hearing damage or loss when it's fired, not really surprising as any big cannon can do that to you. This is why the Army issues hearing protection even for firing small arms. The oddity here is the round -- it's said to be an APLP/F (Armor-piercing, limited-penetration/frangible) round. Frangible sort of makes sense as an aftereffect for the round to maximize damage after penetration, but having both armor piercing and limited penetration does not. Does it go through things or doesn't it? Make up your mind, Halopedia! In the scaling diagram for cartridges the round is nearly cylindrical, without much taper to it at all; someone could probably attempt to low-end calc the KE for it based off of the size and stated hypersonic velocity. The idea of mounting a small cannon on a Humvee equivalent isn't that bad, either. Small autocannon have been mounted on Jeeps, Land Rovers, and Humvees before; so there is a precedent for carrying large-caliber weaponry on such a small vehicle. One has to wonder about the stated range, however. Given that it's an open mount on a light vehicle that is being aimed by hand, accuracy at the more extreme ranges must be questionable: presumably the thing above the barrel is some sort of optic, but it doesn't seem that there is any sort of stabilization for the weapon. At higher speeds on rough terrain there would no doubt be a very low probability of hitting anything, even given the high velocity. Rocket Launchers There's nothing inherently wrong with the rocket launchers or their entries, provided of course that you like the idea of a rocket launcher that adds a whole lot of extra weight for the benefit of an immediate second shot. To be honest, this isn't necessarily a bad idea, as volley-firing rockets to destroy enemy armored vehicles or suppress infantry positions is a viable tactic used by many skilled light infantry practicioners, such as the Chechens and Afghanis. Sniper Rifles The standard sniper rifle is a fairly straightforward weapon, which appears to be a copy of the Mechem NTW-20, down to its chambering in 14.5 mm Russian. As such there isn't much of a critique that can be made, except for the UNSC choosing to use a centuries-old rifle, and and even older cartridge. Its stated range of 1,500 meters is also noticeable lower than the NTW-20's range of 2,300 meters, possibly because it is shorter and lighter. The Stanchion is an interesting weapon -- the only application of MAC technology to infantry weaponry. For a similar weight to the sniper rifle, the Stanchion can propell a .21 caliber round to a range of 4.66 miles (7,500 m). With a muzzle velocity of 15,000 meters per second, it can penetrate a foot (30 cm) of titanium. Not titanium-A, presumably. With such fearsome capability one wonders why these advanced weapons aren't much more common than sniper rifles using ancient 14.5 mm rounds... Shotgun Not much to say here. It's a shotgun, the only notable thing being the larger-than-usual 8 gauge chambering. It is noted that there are many types of ammunition ("dozens" being the exact quote) such as flechettes, rifled slugs, and incendiary rounds. Heavy Machine Gun The AIE-486H Heavy Machine Gun is another Hall of Shame weapon for Halopedia. There's nothing inherently wrong with a 7.62 x 51 mm minigun, but there is something wrong when it has a listed range of 100 meters. What's this supposed to be useful for, again? .308 Caliber Machine Gun I'm including this one mostly for laughs. It's "An outdated machine-gun from a bygone era" that fires 0.308 in (7.6 mm) rounds... with a range of 30 meters. What bygone era is this from, the Napoleonic Wars? Either they're mis-using machine gun and this is supposed to be something more like a Skorpion, or there was some Dark Age of human weapons design in the 22nd century -- which might actually explain some of the other terrible things we see. Whew. That's most of the UNSC weapons... took me most of the day making this thread. I hope at some point to try and catalogue some of the Covenant weaponry and the ground vehicles, but that'll have to wait for another day. Anyway, thoughts? Comments? Someone else has to have a theory on UNSC gun regression. [/quote]
[QUOTE=Zethiwag;27160401]Also the human tech is weird - in 500 years, do you think we would really still be using bullets? And there are no hoverboards or flying cars[/QUOTE] Humans have been slamming matter into more matter since the dawn of time. I don't think that will really change unless we make a drastic change towards energy weapons. Hoverboards and flying cars are too corny for Halo's style of science fiction. Things are supposed to look like the near future, not like star wars or the jetsons.
Here is the hierarchy of good halo games, in order. CE Reach ODST 3 2 Wars
[QUOTE=CakeMaster7;27462333]Holy shit, he's finally been banned?! Time to bring this thread back![/QUOTE] This is the second time he got banned in this thread. [QUOTE] Yeah Chosen, when you say it like that I gotta ask, HOW IS THAT BETTER? [/QUOTE] CUZ!
[QUOTE=cqbcat;27462687]Humans have been slamming matter into more matter since the dawn of time. I don't think that will really change unless we make a drastic change towards energy weapons. Hoverboards and flying cars are too corny for Halo's style of science fiction. Things are supposed to look like the near future, not like star wars or the jetsons.[/QUOTE] But the "flying cars" actually work in Star Wars at least. (As in they fit well and don't look corny) [editline]16th January 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=ChosenOne54;27463480]This is the second time he got banned in this thread.[/QUOTE] Really? I was unaware.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.