Why the tech of the Halo Universe is a step backward. - Games

The MA5 fires 7.62x51 NATO rounds? You mean like the M14? Not very impressive, considering Halo is 500 years in the future, and that the MA5 has much smaller range than the M14 also. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M14_rifle[/url]

[QUOTE=P1X3L N1NJA;27222163]You think 600 rounds a minute is fast? Most 5.56 assault rifles tend to be about 800 now. And if you didnt know the rule of thumb of a firefight is who ever puts most rounds down range the fastest tends to win, hence the invention of man portable machine guns.[/QUOTE] Yes, but I would rather have a more ammo efficient weapon like the M16. (which modern versions only use 3 Round Burst and Semi-Auto)

[QUOTE=CakeMaster7;27222227]Yes, but I would rather have a more ammo efficient weapon like the M16. (which modern versions only use 3 Round Burst and Semi-Auto)[/QUOTE] m16s of today do have full auto

[QUOTE=froztshock;27205106]Don't forget Larry Niven. [img_thumb]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Vsb1A6sSm24/S4G4RWX-_SI/AAAAAAAAAJ8/xyi1ikSbg-M/s320/ringworld.jpg[/img_thumb][/QUOTE] I only read the first book, but it was really good. Also, when they made the original Halo, a number of the staff felt that they were ripping Niven off, but nobody stopped the creative process. (Probably because it wasn't worth it to change a somewhat minor detail.)

An AKM: [IMG]http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQDYzAVmwFfOQdabR7tHo8QisqQ_W7m1R-B2YZn-F3k9OYE3LH0[/IMG] An AK47: [IMG]http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT2cNOAwInZsAFdP0f3E4zFLoSOPRerp9yJJ51FsJcK9Bre5tT1Kg[/IMG] See how you could be VERY easily confused if you don't know what to look for? (Note, the AK47 and AKM pictured here both have different colored wood but if I showed you an AKM and an AK47 made in the same place by the same company, they would be almost identical)

[QUOTE=ChosenOne54;27222222]The MA5 fires 7.62x51 NATO rounds? You mean like the M14? Not very impressive, considering Halo is 500 years in the future, and that the MA5 has much smaller range than the M14 also. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M14_rifle[/url][/QUOTE] You cant really prove that it does because its performance ingame is different to that of the canon for gameplay balance. [editline]5th January 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Fire Kracker;27222250]m16s of today do have full auto[/QUOTE] Nope, only the M16 and the M16A3 did. [editline]5th January 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=CakeMaster7;27222227]Yes, but I would rather have a more ammo efficient weapon like the M16. (which modern versions only use 3 Round Burst and Semi-Auto)[/QUOTE] How is burst ammo efficent? if the guns firing a round with the ability to kill a man in the first hit why burst? Burst is ok on an M16 because you cant trust that the man wont get knocked down in 2 hits but with a 7.62 hes gonna go down.

[QUOTE=P1X3L N1NJA;27222274]You cant really prove that it does because its performance ingame is different to that of the canon for gameplay balance. [editline]5th January 2011[/editline] Nope, only the M16 and the M16A3 did.[/QUOTE] that's what he said m16

[QUOTE=P1X3L N1NJA;27222274]How is burst ammo efficent? if the guns firing a round with the ability to kill a man in the first hit why burst?[/QUOTE] Because a burst is made with ammo efficiency and accuracy in mind. Plus firing a 3 round burst creates little to no recoil (I've seen videos of it being used) but fires 3 rounds instead of one, increasing your chance of getting a hit without wasting too much ammo. (Not EVERY bullet goes to the EXACT same place)

[QUOTE=CakeMaster7;27222256] See how you could be VERY easily confused if you don't know what to look for? (Note, the AK47 and AKM pictured here both have different colored wood but if I showed you an AKM and an AK47 made in the same place by the same company, they would be almost identical)[/QUOTE] or the fact that the AKM and later models came with a ribbed top receiver to reinforce its weak shape.

[QUOTE=P1X3L N1NJA;27222378]or the fact that the AKM and later models came with a ribbed top receiver to reinforce its weak shape.[/QUOTE] THAT'S EXACTLY the difference I was referring to! Great job. That's the primary way of telling them apart.

[QUOTE=CakeMaster7;27222356]Because a burst is made with ammo efficiency and accuracy in mind. Plus firing a 3 round burst creates little to no recoil (I've seen videos of it being used) but fires 3 rounds instead of one, increasing your chance of getting a hit without wasting too much ammo. (Not EVERY bullet goes to the EXACT same place)[/QUOTE] Or you could just hold your trigger for a second then let go. Im not a fan of burst.

[QUOTE=P1X3L N1NJA;27222398]Or you could just hold your trigger for a second then let go?[/QUOTE] A SAW wasn't made for accuracy the same way an assault rifle is. The whole point of machine guns is saturation fire, and it's extremely inefficient. Plus, you really think EVERY soldier will be watching their ammo carefully when they start spitting rounds? (Saturation fire is the idea that you just shoot as many bullets as possible to increase your chance of getting a hit instead of being accurate)

[QUOTE=Fire Kracker;27221709]we made a railgun recently which is cool[/QUOTE] Didn't it melt after the first shot? :3:

[QUOTE=mobrockers;27222457]Didn't it melt after the first shot? :3:[/QUOTE] I thought Railguns were still experimental. (At the most)

I always figured the 7.62 cartridge of the MA5B was a fair bit stronger as well, I mean a couple decades ago the maximum range of a .22LR was somewhere around 1000 yards, today that same bullet will travel 2 miles. It's at such an extreme that older manufacture .22 rifles that used to fire the less powerful loads will actually be damaged by firing modern .22LR cartridges. In the future I'm sure there have been advances in propellant chemistry allowing better performance than a modern day 7.62x51 cartridge.

[QUOTE=Fire Kracker;27222250]m16s of today do have full auto[/QUOTE] Nope. The only reason you'd need to go full auto is in close range which is what the M4 was made for. (The M4 is basically the M16 with a shorter barrel, full auto, and a nice new name)

[QUOTE=CakeMaster7;27221650]Humans NOT trying to invent even better ways to kill each other and everything around them? What did they do to the Humans?! I know they weren't expecting anymore war but that doesn't change the fact that we're human.[/QUOTE] They were expecting war, in fact before the Covenant arrived everything was going interstellar war-ward. However, this was after hundreds of years of peace that led to a unified world government. With the increasingly rebellious colonies they turned into more of a military state to prepare for dealing with the inevitable conflict. This instead came in handy for dealing with OP aliens. Halo is science fiction not science jerk off. The simple statement that is being made about technology is surprisingly good. It's getting faster, but it's not that fast. We didn't have flying cars in 2000 and we're not going to have magical guns in 2500. In fact chances are we're closing in on a sort of limit to how efficient a man portable gun can be. A hand held railgun might very well be prohibitively expensive for no real gain in combat efficiency. Whereas it works wonders in huge space weaponry compared to anything invented before. Do you use an axe in your daily life? Axes haven't changed much, they were invented thousands of years ago. Guns were invented only a few hundred years ago. And in the year 2500 they might not be all that different from now. Sure they'll be better and shinier but ultimately a gun is a gun and an axe is an axe. And that, I think is a very realistic way to think about technology. The things that work well now are probably going to work just as well hundreds of years from now. And people will still be people. So what Halo is presenting isn't really the future It's the present, 500 years from now. This is a very nice deviation from the borderline magical worlds presented in most science fiction where some special whatever has completely changed the face of the world and now everyone are completely different blah.

[QUOTE=BmB;27222551]They were expecting war, in fact before the Covenant arrived everything was going interstellar war-ward. However, this was after hundreds of years of peace that led to a unified world government. With the increasingly rebellious colonies they turned into more of a military state to prepare for dealing with the inevitable conflict. This instead came in handy for dealing with OP aliens.[/QUOTE] You know who we need to stop these evil Covenant? GORDAN FREEMAN! (JK)

[QUOTE=BmB;27222551]They were expecting war, in fact before the Covenant arrived everything was going interstellar war-ward. However, this was after hundreds of years of peace that led to a unified world government. With the increasingly rebellious colonies they turned into more of a military state to prepare for dealing with the inevitable conflict. This instead came in handy for dealing with OP aliens. Halo is science fiction not science jerk off. The simple statement that is being made about technology is surprisingly good. It's getting faster, but it's not that fast. We didn't have flying cars in 2000 and we're not going to have magical guns in 2500. In fact chances are we're closing in on a sort of limit to how efficient a man portable gun can be. A hand held railgun might very well be prohibitively expensive for no real gain in combat efficiency. Whereas it works wonders in huge space weaponry compared to anything invented before. Do you use an axe in your daily life? Axes haven't changed much, they were invented thousands of years ago. Guns were invented only a few hundred years ago. And in the year 2500 they might not be all that different from now. Sure they'll be better and shinier but ultimately a gun is a gun and an axe is an axe. And that, I think is a very realistic way to think about technology. The things that work well now are probably going to work just as well hundreds of years from now. And people will still be people. So what Halo is presenting isn't really the future It's the present, 500 years from now. This is a very nice deviation from the borderline magical worlds presented in most science fiction where some special whatever has completely changed the face of the world and now everyone are completely different blah.[/QUOTE] I want to be able to walk around with a phaser in 100 years, if I can't, don't bother keeping me alive till then.

[QUOTE=BmB;27222551]They were expecting war, in fact before the Covenant arrived everything was going interstellar war-ward. However, this was after hundreds of years of peace that led to a unified world government. With the increasingly rebellious colonies they turned into more of a military state to prepare for dealing with the inevitable conflict. This instead came in handy for dealing with OP aliens. Halo is science fiction not science jerk off. The simple statement that is being made about technology is surprisingly good. It's getting faster, but it's not that fast. We didn't have flying cars in 2000 and we're not going to have magical guns in 2500. In fact chances are we're closing in on a sort of limit to how efficient a man portable gun can be. A hand held railgun might very well be prohibitively expensive for no real gain in combat efficiency. Whereas it works wonders in huge space weaponry compared to anything invented before. Do you use an axe in your daily life? Axes haven't changed much, they were invented thousands of years ago. Guns were invented only a few hundred years ago. And in the year 2500 they might not be all that different from now. Sure they'll be better and shinier but ultimately a gun is a gun and an axe is an axe. And that, I think is a very realistic way to think about technology. The things that work well now are probably going to work just as well hundreds of years from now. And people will still be people. So what Halo is presenting isn't really the future It's the present, 500 years from now. This is a very nice deviation from the borderline magical worlds presented in most science fiction where some special whatever has completely changed the face of the world and now everyone are completely different blah.[/QUOTE] the cell phone was made just a few years ago so was the cd, computer, games, we could have pay phones replaced by touch screens or wait no they do in SK but still shits getting real

[QUOTE=mobrockers;27222887]I want to be able to walk around with a phaser in 100 years, if I can't, don't bother keeping me alive till then.[/QUOTE] We MAY not have Phasers but we'll definitely not be using weapons that're not too similar to today's weapons, in my opinion. (That is if we don't destroy ourselves and send ourselves back to the Stone Age, which would be a rather ironic ending to the Atomic Age)

First step is caseless ammunition; indeed that's currently being developed in the US. The first system without the use of explosives will almost certainly be railguns. It's doubtful we'll see handheld laser weapons for a long time.

I think people overestimate Moore's law, or whatever the technological equivalent is. Past behaviour is not necessarily indicative of future behaviour. But with regards to weaponry, we're actually not much more advanced than we were a hundred years ago, and there's no reason for things to change much more. The real changes will be in information warfare, in knowing the positions of every single one of your enemies, not just a frankly inadequate radar. [editline]5th January 2011[/editline] Which can be defeated by crouching.

[QUOTE=Jimjim32;27223158]I think people overestimate Moore's law, or whatever the technological equivalent is. Past behaviour is not necessarily indicative of future behaviour. But with regards to weaponry, we're actually not much more advanced than we were a hundred years ago, and there's no reason for things to change much more. The real changes will be in information warfare, in knowing the positions of every single one of your enemies, not just a frankly inadequate radar. [editline]5th January 2011[/editline] Which can be defeated by crouching.[/QUOTE] I agree, but history tells you a LOT about how new weapons will be treated. Now robots in war has gotten the EXACT same response that chemical weapons and the crossbow received, with people wanting them banned and bringing new change but in the end, everyone gets that new weapon system and it's equal again. And from what I've heard Land Warrior will fix the whole information problem, with satellites and UAVs giving real time intel. (Land Warrior is a digital system that's supposed to give every soldier the ability to have intel with things like a high tech HUD that lets you see things like the camera on ANOTHER SOLDIER'S weapon.)

160 new posts. "Hey, maybe it'll be something intelligent and unfanboyish!" nope. instead we're arguing about crossbows and shit. :saddowns:

[QUOTE=CakeMaster7;27223201]I agree, but history tells you a LOT about how new weapons will be treated. Now robots in war has gotten the EXACT same response that chemical weapons and the crossbow received, with people wanting them banned and bringing new change but in the end, everyone gets some and it's equal again.[/QUOTE]Chemical weapons are a whole different beast to robots and crossbows, on account of the horrendously painful deaths they cause in comparison to their usefulness on the battlefield. A better example to use would be shotguns in trench warfare.

My name has Halo in it and I fully agree with the original post.

[QUOTE=Sgt Doom;27223298]Chemical weapons are a whole different beast to robots and crossbows, on account of the horrendously painful deaths they cause in comparison to their usefulness on the battlefield. A better example to use would be shotguns in trench warfare.[/QUOTE] They still got the exact same treatment. It's still a weapon system. When Crossbows were first made in Europe (Yuh know, like in the Dark Ages or whatever) some people wanted the Crossbow completely banned because it was "cowardly" and killed in a way that was very new at the time, just like Chemical Weapons like gas used in WW1. Don't forget that the Crossbow had a MUCH better range and a LOT more power than the Longbow, the bow of choice in Europe at the time.

[QUOTE=CakeMaster7;27223378]They still got the exact same treatment. It's still a weapon system. When Crossbows were first made in Europe (Yuh know, like in the Dark Ages or whatever) some people wanted the Crossbow completely banned because it was "cowardly" and killed in a way that was very new at the time, just like Chemical Weapons like gas used in WW1. Don't forget that the Crossbow had a MUCH better range and a LOT more power than the Longbow, the bow of choice in Europe at the time.[/QUOTE]The difference being chemical weapons have actually been banned from warfare by mutual agreement due to the brutal inhumanity of them. They are not comparable. Crossbows and robots are very effective, and don't cause any undue suffering. Chemical weapons do (melting skin, burning lungs and whatnot) and aren't particularly effective to justify the suffering; in WW1 they accounted for a very small percent of casualties in the battles in which they were used.

[QUOTE=Sgt Doom;27223444]The difference being chemical weapons have actually been banned from warfare by mutual agreement of the powers that had the greatest stockpiles of them because of the brutal inhumanity of them. They are not comparable. Crossbows and robots are very effective, and don't cause any undue suffering. Chemical weapons do (melting skin, burning lungs and whatnot) and aren't particularly effective to justify the suffering; in WW1 they accounted for a very small percent of casualties in the battles in which they were used.[/QUOTE] I'm just saying that all new weapon systems that completely change how war at the time works (like use of robot soldiers) has almost ALWAYS met the same reaction. The other reaction is that it's effectiveness isn't realized until later. (The Machine Gun for example) (And you're very true about the Chemical Weapons ineffectiveness though)