Frequently Asked Forum Questions
Search the HBO News Archives Any All Exact		Search the Halo Updates DBs Halo Halo2		Bungie Webcam HBO XBL Gamertags *Ar's Simple HTML Guide Shishka's Guide for Newcomers The Lowdown on Download Accelerators Red Loser's Anti-Spamming Guide Egg FAQ | More Egg Stuff c0ld's Movie Starter Guide Shishka's HaloPC Pre-Release FAQ 3.1 AutoMagic 117 StripzMaker
Search Older Posts on This Forum: Posts on Current Forum | Archived Posts

Re: Nitpicks and disagreements.
Posted By: Hawki <hawkesaj@bigpond.net.au>	Date: 6/5/12 4:36 a.m.
In Response To: Nitpicks and disagreements. (Quirel) : Is my dislike for the new stuff reflective of how 343i is going a route that : I don't like, or is it fossilization, the fact that nothing they could do : would please me? Am I in fact, unable to accept change, or am I the one in : the right? : Huh. So this is what being a nervous wreck is like. Fascinating. Honestly, there's no answer to that. Speaking broadly, when it comes to old vs. new, I think that a ratio of sorts exists. For the sake of argument, we have Series A and Series B that form part of the same universe, with B coming after A. The closer B is to A in timeframe, the closer the ratio is to old and new, say, 50/50. The further B gets away from A however, the more that ratio shifts to more new, less old IMO. So in the case of 'Halo', with A being Bungie's trilogy and B being 343's trilogy, I'd say the ratio is at an acceptable level. Of course, there are things where I keep my preference to old school as well, even when I'm in the minority. I think one always has to remember that while they shouldn't be afraid to voice their opinion, they shouldn't act like they have some profound insight that others can't see. Not that I'm accusing you or anyone of this, but I do admit, I feel it sometimes in some old school/new school debates, but, hopefully, manage to keep the urge to go "I'm smarter than you" in check. : Kinda makes me wonder if the UNSC Infinity is rated for atmosphere. : Propellers work best in atmosphere, and I'd hate to see how they would : deploy... No, wait, I absolutely WANT to see Falcons dropped from orbit. Um...no. 'Star Wars' and 'StarCraft' did it and I roll by eyes at both. 0_0 : Query what you meant by 'following Orwell'. "Four legs good, two legs bad." From 'Animal Farm.' It's a phrase I've seen used in walker debates. : First of all, mechs have a number of weaknesses that will, regardless of : advances in technology, put them at a disadvantage to conventional : vehicles and infantry. Assuming bipedal mechs: -Larger body and metal : construction mean that the unit is much heavier than infantry. Mass scales : cubically, footprint scales quadratically, and suddenly a mech's vaunted : maneuverability vanishes over unstable ground.* : -Larger body also means it's got a taller profile, making it more visible on : the battlefield. Historically, tanks have trended the opposite way. : -Heavier body, heavier limbs means that it's not going to handle like a : human. : -If a tank or a car loses power, it stays put. If a mech loses power, there's : only one direction it's going. Sure, there's going to be a system to lock : the limbs in place** but a lot of fine motor control goes into keeping : your balance. It gets worse the taller and heavier you are. : -In biped mechs, it's considerably harder to implement sloped armor. Even if : it uses the same armor as a contemporary MBT, it won't be as effective. : -Lighter armor and more powerful servos won't make a mech more practical; : they'd also benefit conventional vehicles. : As for the charge that "Men of limited vision once said the same thing : about the aircraft, tank, and submarine", I just don't think the mech : fills a role that isn't already filled by tanks, gunships, and : infantry-portable weapons. I'll admit that I'm arguing from ignorance here. I'm not an engineer, never will be, and whatever facts I've picked up over the years in these sorts of things mostly come from fiction, sci-fi or otherwise. Of what I CAN comment on however: -I'd have thought tanks have got bigger over the years, not smaller. At least, looking at WWII tanks as compared to the large ones that one sees today. Thinking of the size differences between the M4 Sherman and M1 Abrams for instance. -Mech height would make them more vulnrable in a sense, but increased height can mean increased range of vision. Would also argue that piloting a mech could probably be done by 1 or 2 people, while a tank has a larger crew. Course this would also be based on advances in technology. -In regards to the role of mechs, again quoting from fiction here, but I've heard the argument made that a mech would fill a niche between infantry and artillery-the mobility of the former with the firepower of the latter. I'd argue that a mech would function better in close quarters than a tank because it would have more line of sight and have less width to deal with. Of course, it depends on what kind of dimensions one has in mind, but for the sake of argument, I'd point out the AT-STs of 'Star Wars' on Endor and the AMP suits of 'Avatar' (granted, they're more along the lines of exoskeletons). Both did well in their jungle settings, and I couldn't see tanks performing the roles that they did...the na'vi and ewoks defeating them regardless notwithstanding. : But that's irrelevant. Completely and utterly irrelevant, because this is a : universe where the Humvee-equivalents have no doors, Scorpion tanks go : into battle without substantial secondary armament, and fully-automatic : 7.62mm assault rifles can be fired accurately by unaugmented soldiers. Um Scorpions have secondary machine guns. And I don't think unaugmented gunfire is that accurate given game mechanics. Of course, in a real-world sense I'd expect it to be more accurate by virtue of the HUD, which explains why the 'Halo' weapons are lacking iron sights. I'd expect them to be more accurate regardless. : So the question is, why do I completely and utterly omniloathe mechs in my : Halo? Because they're something that belongs to an entirely different : genre of science fiction, like a sword as broad as a man's shoulders and : twice as long as he is tall, or a galaxy full of monocultural aliens that : are different from humans only in the size and shape of their rubber : foreheads. : I feel like it's an intrusion into a science fiction franchise I have adored, : a generic addition to something that I always felt had a unique feel to : it. Again down to personal opinion, but mechs, IMO, don't make up a genre of science fiction on their own. They can, I suppose, if the fiction is based around their existance, but...well, I'll put it this way. There's a difference to me between mechs being IN fiction, and mechs being the FOCUS of the fiction. The former I don't ever recall having a problem with. Other series have dumped mechs in at some point and I haven't batted an eyebrow, because they're one weapon among many. If mechs became the focus however, I would, because it's giving focus on something to the detriment of others. : I think it's promising that what we saw is supposed to take place a third of : the way into the game. While that means that we'll be fighting Covenant : for that long, it also means that we'll also be without Human contact, and : will hopefully have a few quite moments of exploration. Kind of the fence here. On one hand, I like exploration. On the other, that there's been suggestions the exploration could follow 'Metroid Prime'...yeah, I'm in the minority in my dislike for that game and its series, so I'll shut up. And again, I'm not that eager to fight Covenant again. More of the new, less of the old in regards to enemies IMO.

Message Index

Little things I haven't seen in other threads	Phoenix_9286	6/4/12 3:42 p.m.
Re: Little things I haven't seen in other threads	Quirel	6/4/12 3:49 p.m.
Re: Little things I haven't seen in other threads	GrimBrother One	6/4/12 3:54 p.m.
exactly *NM*	kidtsunami	6/4/12 6:00 p.m.
Re: Little things I haven't seen in other threads	Phoenix_9286	6/4/12 3:55 p.m.
Re: Little things I haven't seen in other threads	Gravemind	6/4/12 4:15 p.m.
Don't.	Quirel	6/4/12 4:21 p.m.
Re: Don't.	General Vagueness	6/4/12 8:46 p.m.
WOW! That Mech Is Hung Like A Horse!	SEspider	6/4/12 4:07 p.m.
So that's where all the codpieces went.	bluerunner	6/4/12 4:10 p.m.
Seriously, what is it for?	bluerunner	6/4/12 4:15 p.m.
Kind of what I'd expect from the engineers.	Quirel	6/4/12 4:16 p.m.
Re: Kind of what I'd expect from the engineers.	tadboz	6/4/12 7:42 p.m.
Re: Kind of what I'd expect from the engineers.	Quirel	6/4/12 11:14 p.m.
Re: Kind of what I'd expect from the engineers.	tadboz	6/5/12 10:11 p.m.
It would seem Jehuty has finally met her match *NM*	SonGoharotto	6/4/12 10:33 p.m.
Re: Little things I haven't seen in other threads	SIX min WHISTLE	6/4/12 4:15 p.m.
Re: Little things I haven't seen in other threads	Hawki	6/4/12 5:53 p.m.
Re: Little things I haven't seen in other threads	SIX min WHISTLE	6/4/12 6:39 p.m.
Re: Little things I haven't seen in other threads	General Vagueness	6/4/12 8:58 p.m.
Re: Little things I haven't seen in other threads	Hawki	6/4/12 11:08 p.m.
T3 - T2 comparison isn't fair to anything. *NM*	SIX min WHISTLE	6/4/12 11:14 p.m.
Re: T3 - T2 comparison isn't fair to anything.	Hawki	6/4/12 11:24 p.m.
Nitpicks and disagreements.	Quirel	6/5/12 2:55 a.m.
Re: Nitpicks and disagreements.	Hawki	6/5/12 4:36 a.m.
Re: Nitpicks and disagreements.	Quirel	6/5/12 8:55 a.m.
Re: Nitpicks and disagreements.	Hawki	6/5/12 5:50 p.m.
Re: Nitpicks and disagreements.	Quirel	6/7/12 1:23 a.m.
Multi-sided Battles Confirmed.	Bones	6/4/12 8:16 p.m.
Re: Multi-sided Battles Confirmed.	Deafhawk36	6/4/12 11:31 p.m.
yeah, seriously, where? i want to see awesomeness *NM*	kidtsunami	6/4/12 11:36 p.m.
Eh, doesn't matter entirely	Avateur	6/4/12 11:48 p.m.
Here you go buddy...	Chris101b	6/4/12 11:55 p.m.
ah cool, thanks, so awesome *NM*	kidtsunami	6/5/12 12:17 a.m.
Mech reminds me of	Mator	6/4/12 9:20 p.m.
Re: Mech reminds me of	Mator	6/4/12 9:22 p.m.