^You're taking this a little too seriously. These are fictional characters. Besides, the lore of both game universes has conflicts and contradictions with their respective expanded media. The game says one thing, the comic says another, the official game guide says something else, one tie-in novel contradicts that, while another tie-in novel says something else entirely. For example: The games (the origin and core of the franchise) tell us that MC can't run beyond a steady jog (20km/h). The game lore says that Spartans can run at about 50km/h in armour, about 25% faster than the fastest humans of today (in athletic gear). Then some of the novels say that they can run so fast that they become "a blur". What's that, like 200km/h? Really? The propulsion system for the guns in Mass Effect is fictional. The shield technology in both games is fictional. Who are you to say that one is unable to penetrate the other? Which one is "correct"? Answer: NONE. There is no right or wrong, there is only your imagination. This question was meant to be fun and thought/imagination provoking, not the basis for a scientific breakdown of all elements and logical analysis.
I may have just came back to the forums yesterday, but he seems to take a lot of things way too seriously.
You have absolutely no sense of canon do you? What was the point of the thread if we were not going to actually discuss this? And in debating terms, the one with the most valid data in quality and quantity always wins debates over this kind of fiction universe v. universe battle. I presented based on logic, observations, and canon. The idea is truely little different from any other debate. There are facts that can be used [called canon in this case]. There are opposing sides. The sides are debated. Whist some people prefer to debate nonsense and speculate on things that, for the most part, go beyond the scope of the canon information and others outright defile the canon by suggesting things that would contradict canon or the whole purpose of the series' setup, I prefer to try and present a case to one side or another [or remain neutral and simply provide points and information] and actually get somewhere. The earlier comment about the lack of firm numbers is a show of laziness, incorrectness, and sheer trolling. It contributed nothing to the debate other than a grounds for which the real debaters could make strokes and counter-strokes. The idea of who 'wins' in any debate is determined, not by the people debating so much as the spectators. In this way, it is much like trial which is much like theather. You put on a good show and, if yours was the better of the sides, then the audience will concede that you won. It is subjective in this way. However, there are a number of things to take into consideration. Take, for example, a battle between a SSD and a Retribution-class. While the casual observer might say 'Oh, it can go either way.' and be somewhat right, the fact is that there are firm canon numbers for weapon powers, sheild output, etc. that would sway the argument in the favor of one side or another to any reasonable observer. Therefore, it is not always a matter of sheer opinion and speculation, but rather sometimes that of having the information avalible and the logic to come to the right conclusion. As for canon contradictions: that is normal once any fictional enterprize reaches certain threashold sizes. But that does not mean that there are not ways to weed out the real ones from the fake. Generally speaking, what comes first is the canon. This is the case for ME. On the other hand, some developers prefer to take the specific route. In Halo's case, the books take precident over the games when the two come into conflict with one another. Thus, in the case of MC's speed, durability, finess, etc. the books are the canon to follow. Its all a matter of being familiar with the universe and how the canon works. Take SW for example. The movies, specifically ROTJ, make the STs, specifically the 501st seem to be terrible soldiers, whereas in reality, they are elite and quite capible and many background factors not shown in the film contributed to their failure to defend the sheild generator on Endor. All the point being that there ARE real numbers to use in some cases and there is no excuse acceptable for not using them. Beyond that, logic and the use of reletive facts [the vague statements in canon sources] are still preferable to the aged 'its all in the name of fun, let your imagination run away with you' argument. And yes, incase you have never tried it, scientific breakdowns are thought-provoking.
Legion would kick those two, and all of your asses. Anywho, I became less of a fan of the Halo series when those damn shields started to piss me off. Longer range, more conventional weapons became absolutely useless unless you could pull off firing all of your ammunition at one person without missing a damn shot.
Delve as deep as we can into the "science" of everything? Really? I took it as a prompt for light-hearted, not very serious discussions about the pluses and minuses of each character. Not the basis for a structured, argumentative debate on which one is better than the other in a fight, in which you have to provide canonical evidence. Most other people seem to be following my line of thinking rather than yours. I can play that game. I normally don't like to for reasons that will hopefully become apparent, but I'll make an exception here. Spartans are initially humans that have been enhanced. Agree? They are given massive boosts in the form of drugs, implants, careful scientific conditioning etc., but are essentially near-perfect humans that have been very heavily artificially enhanced. But artificial enhancements can only do so much. How can they make a human run upwards of 200km/h? Even with Mjolnir armour, the energy required would be astronomical (energy required to run fast increases exponentially as you increase speed) and would put an order of magnitude more stress on your organs and muscles than is possible. Drugs, training and implants can only do so much. They can't allow a human to perform 1000% of his original capability without major adverse effects. Similar story with the reflexes. MC can dodge and catch bullets? Well fuck. I give up. Let's ignore the fact that in the time it takes for the fastest human to react and move, a current day bullet could travel a quarter of a mile (I'm not even talking about bullets 500 years in the future). Let's ignore the fact that the finest human naked eye isn't the tiniest bit close to being able to even begin to perceive a fired bullet. Let's ignore the FACT that to slow down the bullet safely, he would have to move his arm at least twice the speed of sound. If the guy can dodge and catch bullets, then why do they bother with armour? How good are these enhancements? If I'm supposed to sit here and just take what some liberal writer has drummed up and stuck the word Halo on the front for money, then I concede. You've already won. A lot of the lore that we can extract from the game and it's official companion books is within the realms of possibility. Some of it clearly isn't. For the purposes of this argument, I think it "defiles the canon" as you put it. It really does contradict a lot of the core pillars of the rest of the canon. MC can't dodge and catch bullets, else we wouldn't have much of a shooting game, which is the origin of the Halo universe. "The books are the one to follow." The books don't even agree! Which one? Why is one taken over the other? Why do they conflict with the games, the core of the Halo franchise, so severely? What if I don't accept your convoluted justification for taking the books first? Writers can do what they want. I'm fine with them writing a book set in the Halo universe, and I'm fine with them suddenly saying "actually MC can run faster than in the games. No, not 10% more. No, not 15%. I reckon 1000%." Heck, it probably made for more epic scenes. But how can you use it in an argument? The lines are too blurry. When "evidence" varies by that much, there's not too much point in trying to have a debate. We start to make assumptions, and then the debate goes to hell. We don't know the effects of biotics on MC, so I'll just assume that they do nothing. We don't know whether the omni blade is better than the energy sword, so I'll assume the energy sword goes right through. Go on, prove me wrong. O wait. You can't. And I can't prove that I'm right. I like talking about the lore of these games. I like trying to understand how a mass effect field could work, and the capabilities of Mjolnir armour. But there isn't a single source of undisputed information. Not only that, but the variation between credible sources varies so greatly. Having a light-hearted, semi serious discussion is what I prefer. I understand what you're trying to say, really I do. You can say that certain things in one universe are better than something from another. But this is a case where, for so many reasons, you can't even debate about it. Not in a rational and structured manner anyway. And please show me where I'm being lazy, incorrect, or a troll.
You just don't get it, do you? The canon rules are not that difficult to follow. Unless directed otherwise, books take precident over the games and in hierarchy order of precidence by which they come. In this case, say that The Flood contained material that contradicted The Fall of Reach. If that were to occur, as the latter preceeded the former in publishing, even if both are declared canon, it would be given precident over the former unless you are given another lead. On the matter of 'science' in sci-fi, it isn't a matter of what is possible according to the authors so much as what can be drawn from it. In this case, the authors set the base ground facts and the rest is made by logic unless it is otherwise changed and/or directed by the authors. On the matter of games v. canon: that is sheer... ugh. Anyone who keeps track of any fiction universes know by heart that there are always differences. Take an FPS. In reality, you don't really pick up enemy weapons [even on the off chance that you know how to use them] because you can never guarentee that they maintained it or its ammo at any time. In an FPS... do I really have to say it? Of course there are differences. Its called game mechanics. For that matter, there are two principal things that govern the differences between books and every other media on a fiction universe: game mechanics and plot armor. Books, on the other hand, have much more room to manuver. It is why the games are usually exercises in canon, not establishers of it. I followed the canon. The books, which you apparently have not read yet, explain the sciences or at least lay them down as they are. That he can move so quickly is established as canon and explained to a certain extent. I did not 'win' the argument for MC. On the contrary, all I did was attempt to clear up misunderstandings and incorrect facts and challenge the supporters of Shepard to legitimize their claims in relation to what I have presented and the other canons that exist in respects to the Halo universe. I demanded no more than anyone else would in any other debate. That they have failed to counter my presentations with anything else than complaints that I am 'taking this way too seriously, bro' is not my fault. For the actual record, having actually attempted to weigh the two sides with the knowledge of the Halo universe that I posess, which is nearly infinitely more vast than that of my knowledge of the ME universe [as my earlier posts can contend, I am actually in accordence with how some other sites have judged this debate and believe that Shepard would have won this battle. Parhaps I misjudge the extent of what the ME universe allows Shepard [for, as I said, my knowledge fo the ME universe is smaller than my knowledge of the Halo universe] to do, but I have yet to see any reason to have a reasonable doubt about my choice. I, in fact, was hoping, in a way, to see a real challenge to the notion that Shepard would win presented here on this thread, but was disappointed by simple sheer numbers of people drowned in their own fanboy [or fangirl] - ism, lacking any critical analysis of the situation at hand. Or parhaps I mistakened the OP and took this as a serious debate when it was in fact just a simple vote to see who was more popular. Either way, the idea of analizing the situation should be taken under consideration and dealt with accordingly. There is little that has been presented that I can see that cannot, at the very least, be logically inferred from what is known. For that matter, the very nature of a universe v. universe debate is that you have to drawn logical conclusions from the facts presented as, in no official way, have the two combatents ever come into conflict, nor likely will they.
Pick either the game or the novels to draw your arguments from. The video games would put Shepard in great advantage. Novels have Shepard raped.
Canon is canon. Only those who know that they would lose or win an argument outright have the bad habit of cheery-picking what canon that they want to follow. That would be like if you got into a debate over who would win between Russia and the US and sided with Russia and discounted the entirety of the US military right out of the gate. It simply doesn't work that way.
Canon the cameras? How is that relevant. Edit: Anyway I'm not cherrypicking. Both novels and video games tell different stories of the characters in question.
"Canon" as anyone in a fiction debate should know, is the word used when describing facts as are provided by the makers of the universe. There is official and non-official canon. The former is used in serious debating. The latter is just for entertainment. Officially, by definition, canon is an accepted principal or rule. The above definition is adapted from how it is used in debates over fiction-based battles. I am not as familiar with ME lore as I am with Halo, but Halo does not actually, to my knowledge, tell a different story. The Fall of Reach covers pre-Reach to the actual battle to when they arrive at the first Halo installation. The Flood covers the events of Halo 1 from multiple perspectives, including MC. First Strike covers the events after Halo 1 and before Halo 2. Ghosts of Onyx cover what happened to the Spartan program after First Strike shortly after the first arrival of Covenant forces at Earth as well as the legacy of the Spartan IIIs. Contact Harvest is a flashback to the events that preceeded The Fall of Reach including the Insurrection and the beginnings of the war between humanity and the Covenant as told from a story revolving around a Grunt's experience and a seperate view from Sgt. Avery Johnson's experience. The latest three books, Cole Protocol, Cryptum, and Primordium, I have not yet read, but from what I know, they do not contradict each other. The first tells the storyline from another point of view and the latter two are primarily the stories of what happened concerning the Forerunners, long before the events of the Halo games.
Master Chief: Let me insert my energy sword into your Halo. Shepard: I'm Commander Shepard, and that was the worst joke on the Citadel. Master Chief: Let me release my Flood into your Ark. Shepard: I should go. Kudos if you got all the references
Says where? I thought it was whatever was established first and what was considered the main series set the benchmarks for what was and wasn't canon. It's what allows us to write off and forget those terrible Zelda CDI games, most of the Star Wars expanded universe, and any and all inaccurate-to-the-source-material tie-in novels.
