Exploring the Scientific Realism of Halo: A Critical Analysis

[dbmorpher]

I was recently browsing the halo wiki, looking at the technological advancements man had achieved in the 26th century. As I was clicking along the technologies seemed very real and lifelike, from the way ONI creates it's AIs or the Shaw-Fujikawa Translight Engine Halo looks very well thought out scientifically.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I don't see how Halo could ever be described as realistic. It's classic soft science fiction with force fields, plasma guns, artificial gravity, inertial suppression, cyborg supersoldiers, faster-than-light travel and a weapon that can kill all life in the galaxy with a flick of a switch.

Stick to hard sci-fi literature if you want something moderately close to reality.

 

[EBENEZR]

Worth noting, Asimov would probably say it was true sci-fi, ie "trashy", but not SF or Science Fiction. I don't think the tech is believable as much as commonplace in future-based games. Personally, the biggest bone I have to pick with most sci-fi is artificial gravity. There is no way that the majority of its occurrences in games would be possible, only ever in stationary objects.

 

[Khantazm]

And then (10 years after the original game and a couple years after I got introduced to the franchise) I discovered (as my English improved, too), that it was all a reference to the Biblical story of the Flood, possibly intended as a historical explanation for it (although this notion is never brought up in the games, admittedly). Talk about realism.

Speaking of bones, my personal biggest bone with Halo was that it took me so many tries to get through some sections, that Master Chief's eventual success seemed based entirely on luck (if you think of tries as universes in the multiverse explanation of quantum physics... and I did then).

 

[andrien]

I still like my counter strike.