Poll: Which Space Marine Do you like?
- Thread starter Kranoes
- Start date
Recommended Videos
The 40k Marines are the best by far. The Terran Marines are just cannon fodder, the Halo Marines are idiots, and well... i have never heard of the last one. I am actually surprised you didn't mention the Colonial Marine from Aliens
That gun would bounce off of space marine armor or chip it if it was a dead on hit and should it pierce a joint or something the wound would close instantly sorry but thats the way it is. and a nuke would kill only those in the direct blast zone (most of the heavier weapons in the 40k universe are bigger than nukes by far.)CantFaketheFunk said:Well then:Kranoes said:
Nuclear Launch Detected.
And wats saying the universe isnt full of flesh eating world devouring other races that for now see us as an insignificant speck and therefore no threat? we still have 38 thousand years to reach the conclusion they have. hypothetically what would we do if orks or eldar suddenly decided to show up and conquer us? think we'd progress tech a little faster? One rule of advancement is its always fastest when it is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY. Besides being a space marine in 40k would be cool.Alex_P said:
The pictures of the ones in Warhammer are all ones of the "badass" ones who are sort of named or something. I'll admit, the Warhammer ones are quite cool, but I still prefer the StarCraft ones, they are just awesome (even though I play Protoss).
Halo ones are just lame, and I've never played or heard of Zone Raiders.
StarCraft all the way!
Halo ones are just lame, and I've never played or heard of Zone Raiders.
StarCraft all the way!
wait i was put on probation for this? "you realize camo is obsolete in a world that has ACTIVE camouflage (invisibility) space marines just dont need it cuz ambushes arent that big a deal to squads of space marines with endless morale and even if a squad is lost its not that big a deal it just means next time they go through that area they bring heavier guns." um why?
I think it was because you did it in 3 posts rather than just one. Just a guess any way.NubletInc said:
I voted for the Starcraft Marines. Sure, Warhammer may have come first, but the starcraft marines were far weaker, and they took on both hyper-advanced protoss and the slavering zerg hoards with only their little machine guns.
I'm not denying that the others could rip them to pieces, but the question was which do you LIKE more, and I got very attached to those marines over the years of starcraft.
I'm not denying that the others could rip them to pieces, but the question was which do you LIKE more, and I got very attached to those marines over the years of starcraft.
holy shit is he wearing a car?!Assassinator said:Let me give you an example then:Inverse Skies said:
Yes, they're that awesome. Huge 8 feet (or 7?) genetically modified super humans with 4 lungs and 2 hearts, and they spit acid. They win this without any form of competition.
I'm saying that it's highly unlikely that a far-future galaxy-spanning civilization capable of faster-than-light travel will be fighting interstellar wars by transporting huge numbers of flesh-and-blood people -- even heavily bio-engineered, power-armored people with two hearts and a ChainSword -- to different planets and having them fight on the ground there. The Imperium in 40k treats people and sometimes entire worlds as disposable, but they're wasting a massive amount of resources putting disposable people onto disposable planets. It takes a very particular set of technological constraints to make that at all make sense for a far-future galaxy-spanning civilization (kinda like starfighters).NubletInc said:
Also, a 40k Space Marine definitely isn't a very accurate picture of a far-future augmented soldier or even a near-future soldier. Pick up a copy of Scalzi's Old Man's War (about genetically-engineered, nanotechnologically-enhanced space marines in a galaxy that resembles the overpopulated, perpetual-resource-warring mess of a MOO or GalCiv game) or Haldeman's Forever Peace (about a near-future world war with the soldiers of the wealthy, technologically-empowered western world tele-operating robotic bodies). You'll immediately see what 40k lacks completely: communication. Scalzi's soldiers and Haldeman's "mechanics" have their brains networked together, sharing plans and intelligence and emotions at the speed of thought. More so than any high-tech weaponry, it's their awareness and cohesion that stand out. That's the kind of thing that's really going to change the future of infantry, not a third lung or a rocket-gun. And we are going to see something like it much sooner than the year 40,000.
Now, I'm not saying that 40k is bad because it's not hard-sci-fi enough. "Hard" science fiction isn't in any way objectively better than anything else (I'm not even all that into it, to be honest). But you have to recognize that the world of 40k exists for one reason: to justify why a bunch of guys in power armor would engage in warfare that represents a mix of various iconic elements of the Napoleonic Wars, World War I, and World War II. It's kinda like why Star Wars technology works the way it does: to facilitate a narrative about sword-fighting with lightsabers one moment and WW2-style-dogfighting in starfighters the next. These aren't really visions of the future, they're playgrounds set up to use narrative constraints to create a certain kind of fight scene. There's nothing wrong with that. It doesn't automatically make them inferior to fiction that accurately uses the phrase "Lagrange point", just different. It's cleaner and more direct, in many ways, just not very "realistic".
...
Okay, now that I've said that, here's why I think 40k is inferior fiction...
Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000 really started as "Oh, here's a bunch of minis on a battlemap, let's make them look cool and vaguely justify why they fight all the time". Which makes sense since minis games are usually better with some kind of compelling narrative of play. So, I actually think it's kinda cool that they went and put all this "fluff" in the rulebooks and came up with a bunch of colorschemes for the Space Marines and all that. It's like, "Look, here are some different little guys. Here are some brief descriptions you can use to help you imagine the guys being cool while you move them around on the map. Why are they fighting? Because IN THE GRIM DARKNESS OF THE FAR FUTURE, THERE IS ONLY WAR! Here is half a page about what makes all these factions stuck in a perpetual war so you never have to bother asking why they are fighting or how come nobody has won yet. Now get fightin' with your little dudes!" That seems like a good idea to me -- a quick, exciting setup for a wargame that uses fanciful minis rather than the standard Napoleonic armies or brownish Americans vs. greyish Nazis...
But then they kept at it, padding out the "fluff" with more and more fiction. So now there's this huge universe for these little guys to inhabit. But in this universe, after twenty years of all kinds of different products, THERE IS still ONLY WAR! And that's really lame. It's a huge setting with a paper-thin premise -- "the world sucks, let's fight forever, the end". And fans love it and talk about it and read the books and stuff.
I'm looking for more. I want there to be more. I can totally see the bits of setting that can be more than what they are right now. I want someone to come along and show me that there is more there. But all I ever hear about 40k is how awesome it is to have two hearts and a PowerFist. That earns a big, resounding meh. And, yeah, I even get a little hostile when people keep suggesting to me that this really is the alpha and omega of its genre.
-- Alex