I think halo had some of the most fucked up science of all the fiction games! phantoms and wraths would be useless against an apache helicopter or F/a 22 Raptor. A humvee is far superior to a warthog. Not to mention guns that fire plasma are slow as shit and dressing in bright purple, blue and yellow may make you look baller as shit, you're going to get a face full of .50 Cal. Plus a pelican was all right but then again not fantastic!
"I don't like a lack of realism or any speculation in my fiction! That makes it bad!"
[QUOTE=ShazzyFreak0;34440165]yes. still using ballistic weapons and flat metal plate armor 500 years into the future sure is correct!!! (it's not)
no shit the mongoose and warthog are most possible because they are based off of a car/truck and an atv.[/QUOTE]
To be honest, it's questionable if ballistic weapons will not be the norm for infantry even in the future due to the sheer cheapness they have.
Admittedly the munition will probably be smart, airbursting common and a bunch of other stuff.
The bigger issue as far as Halo is concerned is it's equipment and fluff bible. A canonical book that pits most of the equipment is vastly inferior to modern standars. If I recall, the grenade launcher has less range than a good normal thrower.
As to ships - obviously things like exposed bridges and similar are a pretty big idiocy. In that sense I really like sword of the stars and Nexus the jupiter incident ship designs. They've definitely got the ideas down correctly.
(nexus even has low tech human space age functional ship designs)
[QUOTE=Doom14;34442200]I love how people praise Halo, and then fail to see it's a pretty much a marginal rehash of Bungie's earlier trilogy, Marathon - dumbed down to make it easier for people to understand and with some more movie homages.
Halo's plot? Bread and butter. You're average Xbox kiddo understands it.
Marathon's? People still actively argue about how it actually went down and all the finite details. And are still making new discoveries based on in-game content.
Oh, not to mention that the alien ground invasions in Halo make little to no sense. All their vehicles are painted florescent colors. Most alien weapons fire slow-moving plasma that a freaking human being has a chance of dodging at medium distance. And I fail to see how the Banshees have any air control with how pathetically slow they are. Sure sure, we may have somehow lost all of our air bases everywhere - but even if we had a single surviving fighter, bomber or ground-attack plane - we'd just be wrecking their day.[/QUOTE]
I found that hilarious in skyline. The whole time they go on about how the aliens are superior to us in every regard. But in the one single armed air combat scene we see, a few human remote controlled drones, horribly outnumbered, utterly devastate all alien air assets. Hell they butcher them.
The movie was utterly crappy as it was, but that broke whatever credence it had remaining. Because if a few drones were able to do that, even a bunch of old migs would be able to loiter beyond engadgement range and shoot down enemy aircraft with impunity.
Jesus, OP, I know close to nothing when it comes to Science Fiction series, but I can still see how bullshit your opinions are.
People hate on halo too much
A lot of effort went into designing the characters, technology and universe. Read some of the books and maybe read a bit about the history on the wiki and you'll see it's not as generic as you'd think
[QUOTE=Whomobile;34440522]Also
SCIENCE
[B]FICTION [/B][/QUOTE]
I don't think I have ever heard an argument that even came close to this in terms of stupidity. If there is no science in science fiction, it's not really science fiction! Mass Effect, Deus Ex, Surrogates, I, Robot, AI, 2001, Firefly, The Day the Earth Stood Still, GATTACA, etc are science fiction. Star Wars, Independence Day, Stargate and many more have no science and are therefore not really (good) [b]science[/b] fiction.
Fuck me learn your fucking definitions, science fiction uses science as a way to expand the narrative not as a fucking limitation that everything has to follow modern constraints.
[editline]29th January 2012[/editline]
Star wars, Independance day is science fiction cos it uses futuristic/extraterrestrial elements to drive the story.
I think Stargate presented quite a few scientific topics far better than any other TV series I've seen
Is it just me or does it seems like the OP is a troll with a huge boner for Halo?
The last thing I care about in a show is the realism of the space ship design, as long as it looks appealing to the eye.
star trek is fairly scientific isn't it?
I think OP has read way too many cracked articles.
[QUOTE=Croix;34443942]I think OP has read way too many cracked articles.[/QUOTE]
Part of our series on Five Posts You Should Have Seen Coming But Didn't
[QUOTE=latin_geek;34442301]I've always imagined human spaceships to have that spinning ring for simulated gravity and living space, and an ion engine on the middle
[IMG]http://www.geeks.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/2001-banner.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://www.geeks.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/Red-Planet-300x248.jpg[/IMG]
Best design. People forget that your spaceship doesn't benefit from being pointy since there's no air in space.[/QUOTE]
If we're gonna talk best space ship design here then here's my 50c :
[img]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_NVbGxxojoV0/SGVH8k29q4I/AAAAAAAAAiY/u6ONi8JUu-k/s400/Borg+ship.jpg[/img]
Because it doesn't matter what form your ship is if it doesn't has to counteract the atmosphere.
[editline]29th January 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=En-Guage V2;34443941]star trek is fairly scientific isn't it?[/QUOTE]
Fun thing about Star Trek is that it inspired many real technological devices. There was a show about it on Discovery.
[QUOTE=Jack Trades;34443979]If we're gonna talk best space ship design here then here's my 50c :
[img]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_NVbGxxojoV0/SGVH8k29q4I/AAAAAAAAAiY/u6ONi8JUu-k/s400/Borg+ship.jpg[/img]
Because it doesn't matter what form your ship is if it doesn't has to counteract the atmosphere.
[editline]29th January 2012[/editline]
Fun thing about Star Trek is that it inspired many real technological devices. There was a show about it on Discovery.[/QUOTE]
Kinetic weaponry would tear those flat surfaces apart.
[QUOTE=acds;34444010]Kinetic weaponry would tear those flat surfaces apart.[/QUOTE]
Yeah but for space, it's a much better design than a forward thrusting space ship. The absolutely ideal shape in space is a sphere, a square is not so bad either though. You get easy standardisation of section, very little lost space, and a bunch of other beneficial things. Also standard kinetic weapons in space? Have fun.
[QUOTE=Robber;34443796]I don't think I have ever heard an argument that even came close to this in terms of stupidity. If there is no science in science fiction, it's not really science fiction! Mass Effect, Deus Ex, Surrogates, I, Robot, AI, 2001, Firefly, The Day the Earth Stood Still, GATTACA, etc are science fiction. Star Wars, Independence Day, Stargate and many more have no science and are therefore not really (good) [b]science[/b] fiction.[/QUOTE]
No, they're just on a very different position on the hard|soft scale.
[quote]This ship fails so hard it deserves its own spot in the list. Sure, I think it is one of the coolest looking ships ever imagined, but it is so frackin impractical I could frackin frack it for all frackin day. The reason it fails: it can not stand still, not even in space. What the frack. I mean really? just take a look at it landing and taking off. Why does it need to be shot out of a tube? It has and engine and the ship has two pointless runways for frack sake. And who was the genius that put metal skid instead of wheels for landing? Why does it even have to land like that? Why can't it just come to a stop and hover down like all the other ships?[/quote]
It takes off like that because it has no horizontal thrusters, only the engines at the back and maneuvering thrusters on the nose, so catapulting it down a launch tube is the best way to get it out up to speed (and safer too than just piloting it down the tube itself)
For that same reason, they can't all ine up on the landing bay and take off, if they tried to take off normally, their skids would provide too much resistance and if they tried to raise the skids first, it'd just drop to the deck. Plus if you have wheels, you'd need lines to catch the ships to stop them, meaning fewer ships at a time could land.
As for landing, wheels wouldnt work because even though Vipers come in by matching the speed of Galactica and increasing their speed slightly, wheels would not only bounce more, they'd also be more easily damaged and not provide as much resistance so they can land quicker (landing quick = good in combat situations)
True, Lee Adama does hover land it, albeit in peace time (using inertia and flipping it around and using the thrusters) but a couple of points. 1. the MKVII he arrives in has full computerised avionics (whoch would allow them to do that easily), however, once the attacks begin, the VII's get a ton of their avionics stripped, due to the vulnerability to the Cylons, and the MKII's simply don't have those avionics at all, they werent even designed with it in mind, which is probably the reason for the way the Battlestars Launch and recieve vipers in the first place.
You could, in theory, manually hover land a Viper, whether it be MkII or MKVII, but the mathmatics involved make it dangerous and impractical when you can just come down oon the deck and get turned around fairly fast.
tl:dr Vipers don't hover land because they werent designed to, and thus are launched via a system thats designed for launching them.
The Reimagined Battlestar Galactica is actually pretty damn close to actual science, with the few obvious sci fi elements (FTL, Artificil Gravity etc) oh and Galactica's FTL isn't it accellerating from nothing to a millions miles a second, it's a [I]jump[/I] basically from point A to point B without travelling the distance bewteen two places, ala star trek or stargate, it isn't so much actual Faster than light movement, but rather point to point teleportation.
All in all, aside from the sci fi tropes, BSG Reimagined is far more likely to be space in 500 years than Halo is.
Nice job leaving out all the smaller space ships/fighters.
[img]http://www.dk.co.uk/static/html/features/starwars/technology_gallery/images/ARC-170%20Fighter.jpg[/img]
This is from Star Wars and I think it looks both practical and good, no?
80s scifi is vbest scifi
Also
[quote]Ok so the video does not have anything to do with it really, but its basically like that anytime the ship gets hit with a bullet. Space ships are big, heavy, metal, thick objects in space. Now If I were to shoot a cannonball at it, It would most likely penetrate the hull, but it wouldn't cause the cockpit to catch on fire and sparks to shoot out from the ceiling like in every damn tv and movie. Its like flying a tin can with c4 inside, the tiniest spark will set the whole thing off.[/quote]
Except, you know, ships have circuitry and if what the consoles are connected to systems that get damaged, theres a chance of overload.
and by the way, C4 is pretty fucking hard to set off accidentally, just for reference.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5E_2tmSOCsk[/media]
And just because you don't get how the weapons in mass effect work, doesn't make it a fail, just means you fail to understand it.
[QUOTE=Doom14;34442200]
Oh, not to mention that the alien ground invasions in Halo make little to no sense. All their vehicles are painted florescent colors. Most alien weapons fire slow-moving plasma that a freaking human being has a chance of dodging at medium distance. And I fail to see how the Banshees have any air control with how pathetically slow they are. Sure sure, we may have somehow lost all of our air bases everywhere - but even if we had a single surviving fighter, bomber or ground-attack plane - we'd just be wrecking their day.[/QUOTE]
Gameplay and story segregation. The Covenant weapons are a [I]lot[/I] more dangerous in the novels, where they hit hard and hit fast. If they were as good in the video games as they were in the books, they'd be pretty overpowered.
They invade the planets (rather than just bombing them) for honor and/or hunting for artifacts.
[editline]29th January 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=ForestRaptor;34444615]Nice job leaving out all the smaller space ships/fighters.
[img]http://www.dk.co.uk/static/html/features/starwars/technology_gallery/images/ARC-170%20Fighter.jpg[/img]
This is from Star Wars and I think it looks both practical and good, no?[/QUOTE]
Star Wars fighters are powered by Applied Phlebotinum. There is no real sense in how they work, and they couldn't work either in atmosphere or in space. In space, the wings would be entirely pointless unless they were also heat radiators, and in atmosphere, they'd provide little to no lift and the ship would be extremely unstable because of how chunky it is.
Babylon 5 provides one of the most realistic fighter designs.
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/iBHpc.jpg[/IMG]
Ignoring the fact that it uses a human pilot instead of a computer (People need huge amounts of mass for life support - computers would take up a fraction of the mass and space), it's fairly reasonable. It has tons of vernier thrusters for maneuvering, and the wings are there mostly to space out the thrusters some.
Personal failure in science fiction? Star Ship Troopers [I]movie[/I] (not book).
When they begin to capture the [sp]Brain Bug[/sp] they have hand-held grenades that are the equivalent to the modern day Massive Ordnance Air Blast. And instead of using armor, they just send waves of walking casualties to put the smallest dent in the bug's forces.
Why not just get a ship filled with thousands of them and have it orbit the planet dropping 15 per square mile. It would render the planet lifeless for the most part, and massive battalions of armored could drop in and fly out within a day.
Traces of my brother can be found in this thread.
Any advice on where the corrupt admin took him?
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;34445209]Personal failure in science fiction? Star Ship Troopers [I]movie[/I] (not book).
When they begin to capture the [sp]Brain Bug[/sp] they have hand-held grenades that are the equivalent to the modern day Massive Ordnance Air Blast. And instead of using armor, they just send waves of walking casualties to put the smallest dent in the bug's forces.
Why not just get a ship filled with thousands of them and have it orbit the planet dropping 15 per square mile. It would render the planet lifeless for the most part, and massive battalions of armored could drop in and fly out within a day.[/QUOTE]
Because Bug nests are underground, so surface bombinb would be largely ineffective, and I assume you mean the bomb Rico/that black guy held, thats not actually a grenade, its a warhead from a nuclear missle. (Why, by the way are only effective because they are fired into bug tunnels.)
[QUOTE=RayvenQ;34445276]Because Bug nests are underground, so surface bombinb would be largely ineffective, and I assume you mean the bomb Rico/that black guy held, thats not actually a grenade, its a warhead from a nuclear missle. (Why, by the way are only effective because they are fired into bug tunnels.)[/QUOTE]
He does raise a good point though. You'd think that with as advanced as their spaceship tech is, they'd have some pretty awesome armored vehicles.
I'm not huge into my science fiction, but the Mass Effect universe is my favourite sci-fi universe, I remember being about halfway through the first game when I was bored and decided to read every codex entry, and I was shocked to learn that they came up with a (relatively) scientific explanation for almost everything.
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;34445209]Personal failure in science fiction? Star Ship Troopers [I]movie[/I] (not book).
When they begin to capture the [sp]Brain Bug[/sp] they have hand-held grenades that are the equivalent to the modern day Massive Ordnance Air Blast. And instead of using armor, they just send waves of walking casualties to put the smallest dent in the bug's forces.
Why not just get a ship filled with thousands of them and have it orbit the planet dropping 15 per square mile. It would render the planet lifeless for the most part, and massive battalions of armored could drop in and fly out within a day.[/QUOTE]
That's pretty much what they do in the books.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cN7OdT1lQQ0[/media]
This makes for a better movie though.
[QUOTE=CommieTurtle;34445329]He does raise a good point though. You'd think that with as advanced as their spaceship tech is, they'd have some pretty awesome armored vehicles.[/QUOTE]
Yeah but Humans are cheaper though. Its a terrible film in itself, because it completely didnt do what made Starship troopers unique.
Uchu No senshi is the japan version of starship troopers that hast the actual mechs, and Roughneck Chronicles is somewhere inbetween the books and the film.
The Marauder scen in SS3 was kinda neat though.
[editline]29th January 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Saber15;34445111]Gameplay and story segregation. The Covenant weapons are a [I]lot[/I] more dangerous in the novels, where they hit hard and hit fast. If they were as good in the video games as they were in the books, they'd be pretty overpowered.
They invade the planets (rather than just bombing them) for honor and/or hunting for artifacts.
[editline]29th January 2012[/editline]
Star Wars fighters are powered by Applied Phlebotinum. There is no real sense in how they work, and they couldn't work either in atmosphere or in space. In space, the wings would be entirely pointless unless they were also heat radiators, and in atmosphere, they'd provide little to no lift and the ship would be extremely unstable because of how chunky it is.
Babylon 5 provides one of the most realistic fighter designs.
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/iBHpc.jpg[/IMG]
Ignoring the fact that it uses a human pilot instead of a computer (People need huge amounts of mass for life support - computers would take up a fraction of the mass and space), it's fairly reasonable. It has tons of vernier thrusters for maneuvering, and the wings are there mostly to space out the thrusters some.[/QUOTE]
Plus, the Starfury has the whole cockpit ejectable, including the life support, in case of emergencies/frame damage.
Don't forget Omega Destroyers that actually have rotating sections.
[QUOTE=LDTInsomniac;34440373]Actually, now that I've looked it up, Artificial Gravity has been mading using superconducters, magnets and a [U]lot[/U] of electricity. For it to work on a ship you would just need to improve the technology.[/QUOTE]
Any reason why it's not a fail in halo, but is one in Sci-fi shows? They're even further in the future, they have the ability to do it even better, requiring less energy, which can make their ship float, by repelling it from Earth.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
