Ignore them buddy.
They are just here to get you to react.
They are contradicting themselves and saying dumb stuff to antagonise other users.
Just dont bother interacting and they will go elsewhere to feed.
The only Sci-Fi aspect of Star Wars was the “ion engine” (I’m not 100% that’s the right component of the tie fighter engine that was actually sci-fi, but it’s the first thing that came up when I searched for it), because at the time of the tie fighter, it was just a concept that was cool to think about and make fiction about.
do we understand the difference between lore and sci-fi now?
yeah i think im done with this guy, halos got plenty of sci-fi to enjoy, i don’t know what he’s on about any more.
Thanks for padding this thread with drivel, it really hurt me and was a unique lore twist when both “normal humans” talking off topic and then abandoned the topic all together in a effort to demoralise a humble Sci-fi enthusiast happend, it really made me, the troll, feel my place in the forums.
where will this one take us
If you want to stau on topic you need to be clear as to what the topic is.
For example, if you weren’t trolling, you wouldnt use sci-fi that is science fiction as a definition for
Because that isnt what sci-fi is.
Theoretical technologies is what you are speaking of.
A feature mostly found in hard sci-fi where the fiction is focused on realistic science.
Baffles me that someone would put in so much effort to troll on a halo forum.
If you really are a sc-fi enthusiast might be a good idea to know what that means.
Be familiar with the genres seminal works and tropes.
And if you want to discuss the topic of technology in the halo universe perhaps expose yourself to the franchise first.
Playing only 2 games leaves you very uniformed.
But if ypu werent a troll you wouldn’t describe hard light of all things as either innovative or realistic.
Or deny the distopian child soldier trope by showing its not unique to halo.
Happy to engage with you should you decide to approach discourse in ernest but not the inconsistent illogical “drivel” you have thrown up thus far.
1 Like
I’ve always found what ISN’T in Halo interesting as much as the lore and science based tech that is.
For example, take robotics. We see hi-tech functioning prosthetic limbs, we have/ are developing robotics now in the real world yet Halo’s humanity shows a distinct lack of robotic technology ie sentient droids to help humanity reach the stars etc.
i always wonder if an as of yet undisclosed event happened within the canon prior to the books and games whereby robotics were banned or something similar to prevent combat use or to provide jobs etc.
Given the advanced tech in Halo, having an autonomous Mantis mech would surely be of benefit vs risking a living pilot, yet beyond bodiless AI, there isn’t much automation.
Yeah that’s exactly the kind of thing this thread is about. We do see sentient droids, but it is always in the form of an enemy or with some logic error that results in un-advantageous behaviour. There has never really been the equivalent of Geth in Mass Effect in Halo as far as I am aware? Games always seem to shy away from transhumanism, with Titanfall actively looking at the role of “digital soldiers” then doing a complete 180 on the narrative in Titanfall 2.
What are you even saying dude? 
Sci-fi, sience fiction defined as:
Fiction based on imagined future scientific or technological advances and major social or environmental changes, frequently portraying space or time travel and life on other planets.
So obviously confusion stems from the fact you define
Sci-fi as this archaic definition here:
Which isn’t what that means.
Its also confusing because it seems you want to discuss hard sci-fi .
A genre halo is not a part of.
Then you started talking about how the tech hasn’t evolved despite admitting you have played 2 games and are simply not very familiar with the universe.
Being unable to actually engage in the topic you intentionally made seems odd to say the least.
So you really want to talk about predicted or theoretical technologies with a basis in contemporary sciences?
But you realise this is tied intrinsically to the lore, you said you arent interested in discussing?
The same lore you arent adequately familiar with?
And thus lack the ability to discuss the technologies of?
So you see why one might doubt your intentions.
You’ve shown this lack of knowledge both in stating things that are outright incorrect and by admission of lack of experience.
You denied a well known trope being a trope by proving its not unique as a concept.
The child soldier/hero/prodigy trope the one found in star wars in all 3 trilogies.
Then you disregarded hard light being in star wars.
But said it was a innovation in halo?
Or that it is somehow possible in halo thus fitting your bespoke definition of sci-fi but the hard light of a light sabre doesnt qualify?
Hard light of course being still considered impossible even in the theoretical sense.
Even the 1930’s progenitor Lux Metal is theoretically impossible.
As any theory based in contemporary science requires more than photons and fall closer to plasma than solid light. Or with a super conducting frame or lattice.
All the concepts you claim are absent or want to talk about inbrelation to halo like
Are represented.
We have massive narratives built around the question of transhumanism.
You claim
But also
And you dont want to discuss the lore that explicitly answers every question you have and incorporates every sci-fi trope you listed in your comments.
Stunningly bizarre behaviour.