Master Cheif runs the Doom Gauntlet

Originally posted by Burning thought
Infact, your argument for Chief being able to perceive and dodge bullets is getting weaker as the moment passes, apprently as you just asid 20ms is still not fast enough to percieve bullets....

But - since you insist on pressing the point, why not elaborate? And hey, why not mathematically?

--
A bullet travels from a large gun, a sniper rifle specifically, at about 1000 m/s (Physics 2nd Ed, John Cutnell). At a range of 15m ('point-blank' range for any half-accomplished marksman) that would give Chief a requirement of approx 15 ms reaction time in order to actually see it coming and get out of the way.

With that, note that CPO Mendez attested to the Spartan's reaction as significantly faster in combat situations. Note that this was again before the initiation of Project MJOLNIR, which would, as I said, multiply his reaction times.

But how does he legitimately 'gain' that reaction time, you ask?

Considering that he has a base 20ms reaction reaction time - which would be 'significantly faster in combat situations', as CPO Mendez attested to and would 'only improve as the Spartans get used to their augmentations' (Both pg 73-74, FoR)...and factoring in how MJOLNIR V 'greatly increased subject reflexes' (Pg 114-117, FoR), he can easily hit that speed.

--

Yeah...not much has changed, at all.

All you have really proved here is that:

1.) 20ms is not fast enough to dodge bullets Neo style.

Therefore:

2.) Before Project MJOLNIR, the Spartans were not fast enough to dodge bullets Neo style.

Originally posted by Burning thought
so now youve got.....nothing in your argument other than the [b]assumption that "dodge" means percieving bullets.....[/b]

According to your testimony, you were supposed to be focusing on the logic and factual backup behind this assumption, which for some reason you ignored.

Originally posted by Burning thought
since my argument was to wipe out the idea that assumption=fact, which ive accomplished

So essentially by what you have openly stated, your alleged core argument this entire time was to prove that an "assumption" is not "fact", either pertaining to mine specifically, or in a general sense. Correct?

Now, if this was directed at me specifically:

I have repeated to you no less than a dozen times by now that yes, I know it's an assumption - yes, I know it's not confirmed fact - yes, I know it's a theory being processed. And that still doesn't matter to you apparently, who insists on continuing to throw that single accusation at me: It doesn't change my argument at all, hence why I'm totally fine with saying that it's an assumption - albeit the most likely one, judging from background info/evidence, etc. I have by now proved that he can do it.

Because it's an assumption in no way actually rules it out as a valid point - not when it's been backed up to the extent that I have given it.

Despite how I've said that the very idea of the words being used as connotations in the same sentence is stupid - you continue to soldier on with it.

"It's assumption, it's not fact."

Yeah, we know already, Burning.

And if you meant it as a general statement:

That notion is erroneous on multiple levels. You're trying to establish something that was already proven and fact.

If you were really - really - trying to prove such an ridiculously obscene point, you simply would have done this: instead of jumping all over the place and attempting to pass off debating as something else each time.

assume
as-sume [uh-soom]
1. to take for granted or without proof; suppose; postulate; posit:

fact
-fækt [fah-kt]
1.) something that actually exists; reality; confirmed truth

Where does that leave us?

You were either lying outright, or making some premeditated attempt to pointlessly prove something that's already established truth. Either way, you don't look good.

Now that you have no more reason to keep saying your "it's an assumption" motto, any further attempt to even remotely say those words is just you replying without anything logical or constructive to reply with.

Originally posted by Burning thought
Report what you like, mockery is not trolling, especially since when you report a post, your reporting the whole thing, so even if I did type randomly for a couple of lines on purpose, its not worthy to report a post for trolling,

You're openly mocking my posts, and in a manner in which puts me in a obviously derogatory light. And on top of that, you aren't even correct in doing so in the first place.

Originally posted by Burning thought
otherwise almost all of your posts are trolling (beyond the fact your argument is a straw man troll in this thread)

If you really think that 'almost all' my points have been trolling, go ahead. Start hitting that report button, go nuts for all I care. See how far that gets you.

Originally posted by Burning thought
because you include at least several pieces of irrelvent text in each post. Including the little outline I mimicked.

I used your exact words, more or less, except in a simplified fashion.

Originally posted by Burning thought
That piece of evidence is the only piece that actually supports Chief has some kind of speed advantage over a typical human so far. Thus why you did exactley what I wanted you to do by posting it because .

Yeah, you have - only that's not why you're in this debate with me. I've addressed it above.

Originally posted by Burning thought
I used rolling and diving as examples only, [b]they were not however my argument, they were simply examples of how your assumption is worthless.

But your assumption is your argument, my assumption was at first a mockery as to how assumptions dont mean jack in this thread and continued to be simply an opinion of what Chief is likely to have done, my argument as ive made clear and said 100 times throughout the thread is that assumptions do not make your quote credible evidence for his bullet reaction.

I win the debate because my argument was that assumptions do not equel proof/evidence, I win because youve had no choice but than to post some real evidence from the book (20ms reaction) that Chief has above average speed, I win because your only argument left if you still bother with it is that your assumptions apprently deem the "dodge" in your inconclusive quote an instant bullet reaction.

yes so youve bolded my opinion on what the quote was, nice one....is that my main argument? no....not in the slightest, my main argument is:

and:

I laugh if you actually took my opinion on what I think "dodge" meant as my main argument.

I used that definition to make you realise that the quote is inconclusive and that its not good evidence for chiefs speed because "dodge" has many meanings, its obvious youve been confused the entire debate which considering your skills at debating is all fair and well but thats no use to try and attempt to make it seem I was debating "for" him simply rolling out of the way.[/b]

When two people debate, Burning, it means that they take opposite sides of one topic. Based on what you are trying to say, you're attempting to make it look like you somehow 'arbitrarily' came up with a request for evidence, and somehow are not taking sides when you were clearly biased in the first place. No, you made that request because you were under the impression that Chief did not possess 'bullet-time' capability, not because you wanted a reliable source of info just for the heck of it.

If you had simply been suggesting examples - which you weren't - you would have brought them up by referring to them as possibilities, not probabilities. Yes, you did say "he could have done this, he could have done that'. And the only other things that were listed as examples were the ones you going "As for surprised it's more like he's surprised that the bullets missed him, surprised he's still alive, etc." Those were examples, I'll grant you that much.

But, lo and behold - you said yourself that "it sounds to me like he did more of a James Bond dodge".

That's undeniable evidence that you instantly formed a theory, as I did, right then and there. Any attempt to deny this is futile.

Right off the bat, you explicitly ruled it out as a possibility and made your own assumption quite evident. You also seemed to stick to it adamantly I may add, thus far you are still clearly under the impression that Chief did not dodge that bullet Neo style.

If that wasn't proof enough for your failed skullduggery, you amazingly defended your own assumption earlier, whether you realised it or not:
--
You: "This is the Webster's definition for the word 'dodge'. It includes all these actions as possibilities."

Me: "OK."

Later on:

Me: "So why would Chief have done a James Bond style roll/dive out of the way, as you have said?"

You: "It doesn't matter, he dodged it anyway. Your point fails."
--

As you can see, you instantly attribute the word 'dodge' to one of those possibilities you mentioned, probably without even realising it and . Not only that, you made it sound like it was already confirmed. Which, ironically, was exactly what you accused me of in the first place, was it not?

You claim that your original goal was for evidence and support of my original declaration. When I give you my logical explanations and background facts, you barely even acknowledge them.

For all your outcries of "you have no real backup", or "you're assuming, assumptions are not fact", you have made an enormous mistake in those accusations.

You're far worse off.

Originally posted by Burning thought
your quote is indeed worthless as an example of a percieving bullet speed feat,

Originally posted by Burning thought
all along I told you, your debating this is pointless because your assumption is worth nothing to MC canon.

Originally posted by Burning thought
as i said, I knew id win eventually

Originally posted by Burning thought
Your insecure because all youve got nothing but assumptions on MC being able to percive bullets.

Honestly.

Originally posted by Burning thought
You have no real evidence still....try again...

Null point.

Originally posted by Burning thought
Again, explain to me why I would give a damn if chief did indeed roll, dodge, or do a super Neo?

Originally posted by Burning thought
I had fun, very much of it, i won the debate AND it seems even if I wanted to allow you to troll this thread more by debating seriously as my main argument what Chief actually did withi n the word "dodge" in that quote it seems youve little evidence FOR that.

I'm not going to say the hammer will hardest fall here, because I already have disproven you on three separate occasions.

I would normally, at this point, say something along the lines of "I anticipate your next post" but it's pointless by now, because you've been simply saying the same thing to me despite me explaining where you're wrong. But let's have a recap of where we currently stand with your excuse-leaping.

First off - you repeatedly throw the words "It's an assumption, assumption is not fact" at me. I have addressed this above in three separate replies, also negating any further use of it as nothing more than senseless spamming.

Second - you make the impression that you didn't take sides and were simply asking me for evidence. I've also disproven this beyond the shadow of a doubt. I also find it curious how you went from believing that he did it, to not believing that he did it, and then again believing that he did it while claiming that you really did this entire time right when I have given you evidence that is insurpassable or inexcusable. And then right after go and pursue it again. I address this issue multiple times as well.

Third - you claim victory by winning because you successfully defended a basic, already true, concept. I have also plugged up that particular claim with one post. ("Look, the sky IS blue! I win! You lose!"😉

Your actions were far too unbalanced and self-contradictory to argue otherwise, in all three cases you have erred and erred quite terribly.

But I wanted to pay the most ridiculous part of your post (by far) some special attention:

ime trying to get you to post real evidence rather than assumptions and to stop trolling and get back onto the debate at hand

The person who took the debate far too personally, that was warned by a mod for insulting, is accusing me of trolling, when I have actually not attacked you as a person at all this entire debate.

The person who ignored (even despite your claim) relevant info and instead chose to ridicule my points directly and barely even explain why....who also chose to reply with petulance and ignorance for the most part instead of a properly mature and concise matter...who, was reminded several times by me to either debate properly or not at all...is telling me to get back onto the debate at hand.

The person who actually partially ignores the evidence and backup I provide in some instances, tells me to come back and get 'real' evidence.

I think everyone in here can see how ironic those three statements were.

And judging from the way you've launched a tirade of completely unnecessary, cliche internet disses regarding me and my posts in your reply to Jaxx, with increasingly desperate insisting that you've won, I'd say I would be right on the money that you've cracked at this point.

If you really had won, it wouldn't be necessary to claim - let alone repeatedly, that you've won. Usual symptoms.

Up to now you've leaped from stepping stone to stepping stone and logically have nowhere else to go, but with that said I'll expect a blusterous reply anyways, in consideration of your complete disregard for debate manners, logic, or function.

I'll end this post with a smile.

Godspeed.

Burning Thought and DarkC, please keep it professional.

DarkC, also realize that no one is required to take your book citations as concrete proof of anything.

Originally posted by General Kaliero
Burning Thought and DarkC, please keep it professional.

DarkC, also realize that no one is required to take your book citations as concrete proof of anything.

His claim doesn't click at all in a logical sense, why would you pursue a point when it was all going to be invalid by the rules of this thread anyway?

Ime not spreading out the troll food by replying to all your posts DarkC since that is worthless, so I will make this post to target the relevent points and facts, whats the point in filling yet more of this thread with worthless nonsense only to end up with the same conclusion for both our sides in another 20 posts? the fact is, you wasted both our time from the beginning and its obvious youve "blusted" "blundred" etc etc, your way through trying to seemingly put together some kind of debate out of assumptions.

Now lets look at this straight, my argument began that your evidence as GK just certified is worthless anyway, then you complained and ranted about how much you hated that rule and that you wouldnt abide by it...you could have just kept cool and said "okie fair enough, I dont like the rule but hey, what can I do?", but no...you not only have posted the books quote anyway but youve spent the whole of the last pages trying to not only use illegal (on this forum) evidence in the first place, but its not even inconclusive, you then continued to try and use your assumptions apprently "backed up" with evidence (also illegal) to apprently prove he did some sort of Matrix dodge.

So make your choice? theres only a several you can make, you either:

A: Wasted both our times constantly assuming about MC apprent feats, actually beliving your assumption was worth using for MC as evidence....or...

B You were indeed realising your assumptions were worthless, as is your book usage, but you continued anyway....continued for many pages, effecivtly making not only pointless and worthless claims even you realised are not usable on this forum, but also trolling for the same reason you actually KNEW all along your wasting time.

And stop with all your finger pointing, "oh BT! its obvious your main argument was that MC rolled or dived!". I mean seriously....that does not even make sense when I have made clear in previous posts and in the beginning my argument was against your assumptions and using MC's evidence, I admitted that despite thinking myself your wasting my time and that of this thread, ill humour you because some good information may come out of it and to a certain extent it did (MC 20ms but also that that is not enough to dodge bullets) as well as some statistics and other feats for chiefs armour even if all of them were indeed illegal evidence.

There is not a single shred of evidence, nor any reason to belive that my main argument was apprently my opinion of MC merely rolling/diving, that was an opinion and I made it clear, there is no logical sense why I would even debate something so pointless to me....why do I care for taking assumption as this as my main argument while also saying assumption is worthless? even using a definition to certify that your point of view is not ncesserily the truth and that even if the evidence was not legal it would be inconclusive. Unfortunatley youve not made it clear from the beginning that you outline that your assumptiosn were indeed inconclusive and even if that was the case....you may choose option B above which imo is worse than option A.

Now ime not going to post in this thread again concerning this matter, its worthless and as GK is showing, its causing problems in this thread and what he did not point out, is that we are in a way stretching this thread pointlessly with a debate that is even if using 100% fact and legal evidence, worthless....since I dont think there is any requirement for MC to be able to dodge bullets in a Doom gauntlet anyway, I would be surprised if anyone actually thinks its relevent considering he is typically more enhanced than the Doom marine....

If you want to continue this DarkC in some shape or form, please PM me in the future and do not fill up this thread with something not even seemingly worth debating now that I realise nothing much good can come out of it, but also illegal.

Originally posted by DarkC
His claim doesn't click at all in a logical sense, why would you pursue a point when it was all going to be invalid by the rules of this thread anyway?

And this seems to certify option B for your reason for being in this thread, as i said above, I continued because how rude would it be simply to tell you to go away? or simply to ignore your posts? it would indeed be rude, i think i did indeed report you earlier but it was not attended to until now at the very end....

Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
Yah. Srsly.

C'mon Blax, your sayin Cheif's got no emotions, yet he gets suprised by ducking bullets... Suprise is an emotional response.

Served!

It was a joke, you douche! dur

I know... can't use smilies from a PS3

EXCUSES!

Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
I know... can't use smilies from a PS3

PSN id or GTFO!

PSN ID is the same nick I use here. tho I rarely go on PSN

So,as I was saying, how is Chief going to deal with Mancubuses? big fat things with rapid fire plasma cannons, each gun looks to be the same size as the cannon on some vehicles.

Also what about Hellknights? their enormous, strong etc, their not easy prey either.

Chiefs only disadvantage is that he cannot use the same weapons and objects the marine could.

Originally posted by Burning thought
Ime not spreading out the troll food by replying to all your posts DarkC since that is worthless, so I will make this post to target the relevent points and facts, whats the point in filling yet more of this thread with worthless nonsense only to end up with the same conclusion for both our sides in another 20 posts?

If you don't want to reply to every last post that I make, fine - just don't complain about it when you don't really need to. It''s not like I'm holding a gun to your head and forcing you to. Whether you're too lazy to, or simply lacking in things to contribute, I don't really care. Just make sure you read my posts properly.

Originally posted by Burning thought
its obvious youve "blusted" "blundred" etc etc, your way through trying to seemingly put together some kind of debate out of assumptions

Originally posted by Burning thought
Now lets look at this straight, my argument began that your evidence as GK just certified is worthless anyway, then you complained and ranted about how much you hated that rule and that you wouldnt abide by it...you could have just kept cool and said "okie fair enough, I dont like the rule but hey, what can I do?"

"He can go invisible........and stab things."

As if that weren't enough, you actually agreed with me on how it was a dumb rule - and now you're falling back on that several pages later. Make up your mind.

Originally posted by Burning thought
but no...you not only have posted the books quote anyway but youve spent the whole of the last pages trying to not only use illegal (on this forum) evidence in the first place, but its not even inconclusive

Yes, I used assumption, and established that I was. As it stands, I have provided sufficient evidence to support this assumption that he did a super Neo.

Right here all you're really attempting to do is use an 'argument from ignorance' fallacy, where you'd settle for nothing short than a direct quote that specifies and describes that he ripped The Matrix off.

You're welcome to continue trying to prove that he didn't, but don't simply dismiss my arguments as invalid just because it's based around speculation when it's a really speculative subject in the first place.

Originally posted by Burning thought
And stop with all your finger pointing, "oh BT! its obvious your main argument was that MC rolled or dived!". I mean seriously....that does not even make sense when I have made clear in previous posts and in the beginning my argument was against your assumptions and using MC's evidence

But seeing how I've already chucked your claims on why you're arguing into the fire. You say you're debating on purely evidence, when it turned out you weren't - you say you're debating strictly to prove that assumptions aren't fact, when it was an absurdly clear point already proven.

You obviously aren't, in either case - so really, what were you debating about?

Originally posted by Burning thought
here is not a single shred of evidence, nor any reason to belive that my main argument was apprently my opinion of MC merely rolling/diving, that was an opinion and I made it clear

What happened to everything I mentioned earlier, about your quotes?

From what you have said before, you have also been under the impression that, "No, he didn't do it", simply because it's not 100% clear.

You said you weren't taking sides and claiming that all you really did was an arbitrary request for evidence. I have toppled that claim. You're in no position to attack me for forming an assumption and defending a issue, when you did it yourself.

Originally posted by Burning thought
there is no logical sense why I would even debate something so pointless to me....

Considering the courses of action you have taken up to now, it's quite evident that this really isn't a 'worthless' debate to you.

Originally posted by Burning thought
I admitted that despite thinking myself your wasting my time and that of this thread, ill humour you because some good information may come out of it and to a certain extent it did (MC 20ms but also that that is not enough to dodge bullets) as well as some statistics and other feats for chiefs armour even if all of them were indeed illegal evidence.

...honestly.

Another lesson on self-contradictions, I feel.

Originally posted by Burning thought
why do I care for taking assumption as this as my main argument while also saying assumption is worthless?

You formed an opinion that you could not back up and only now discard as worthless.

Originally posted by Burning thought
even using a definition to certify that your point of view is not ncesserily the truth and that even if the evidence was not legal it would be inconclusive.

Originally posted by Burning thought
Unfortunatley youve not made it clear from the beginning that you outline that your assumptiosn were indeed inconclusive and even if that was the case....you may choose option [b]B above which imo is worse than option A.[/b]

If you really feel like pressing this issue, feel free to go search where I said it wasn't an assumption, or that it was solid fact.

Originally posted by Burning thought
you then continued to try and use your assumptions apprently "backed up" with evidence (also illegal) to apprently prove he did some sort of Matrix dodge.

So make your choice? theres only a several you can make, you either:

[b]A: Wasted both our times constantly assuming about MC apprent feats, actually beliving your assumption was worth using for MC as evidence....or...

B You were indeed realising your assumptions were worthless, as is your book usage, but you continued anyway....continued for many pages, effecivtly making not only pointless and worthless claims even you realised are not usable on this forum, but also trolling for the same reason you actually KNEW all along your wasting time.

And this seems to certify option B for your reason for being in this thread, as i said above, I continued because how rude would it be simply to tell you to go away? or simply to ignore your posts? it would indeed be rude, i think i did indeed report you earlier but it was not attended to until now at the very end....

Now ime not going to post in this thread again concerning this matter, its worthless and as GK is showing, its causing problems in this thread and what he did not point out, is that we are in a way stretching this thread pointlessly with a debate that is even if using 100% fact and legal evidence, worthless....[/b]

As I was saying to Kaliero, this claim simply doesn't hold any ground given the above point, and the fact that you later on accepted and even demanded that I quote specific paragraphs, cite page numbers and titles.

Odd how you instantly seem to think they're 'worthless' again, after all that's been said and done.

If you really think this debate has been a waste of your time, you only have yourself to thank and fault at this point.

Originally posted by Burning thought
since I dont think there is any requirement for MC to be able to dodge bullets in a Doom gauntlet anyway, I would be surprised if anyone actually thinks its relevent considering he is typically more enhanced than the Doom marine....

If he can't allegedly destroy other things without those, he has to rely on other things. He's always told his Spartans that their minds would protect them better than the armor, and serve a better weapon than any rifle.

Originally posted by Burning thought
If you want to continue this DarkC in some shape or form, please PM me in the future and do not fill up this thread with something not even seemingly worth debating now that I realise nothing much good can come out of it, but also illegal.

In light of the sheer amount of times me or my points/arguments have been outright bashed, I would hardly think that it was a gesture of courtesy that drove you to ask for evidence from the book.

I rest my case.

Originally posted by Burning thought
So,as I was saying, how is Chief going to deal with Mancubuses? big fat things with rapid fire plasma cannons, each gun looks to be the same size as the cannon on some vehicles.
Also what about Hellknights? their enormous, strong etc, their not easy prey either.

It doesn't really matter if they're stronger, faster, or better armed than the Chief if he can outsmart them, hence my mentioning of the whole 'head's a better weapon than any rifle and more protective than any armor' idiosm earlier.

It's how he won a wrestling match with a Brute.

Originally posted by DarkC
Both attributes you mentioned can be assigned to similar enemies in the Halo universe, in this case Mancubus with Hunters/Covenant ground vehicles, or Hellknights with Brutes (who allegedly can even rip Hunters apart).

It doesn't really matter if they're stronger, faster, or better armed than the Chief if he can outsmart them, hence my mentioning of the whole 'head's a better weapon than any rifle and more protective than any armor' idiosm earlier.

It's how he won a wrestling match with a Brute.

Brutes are not as large and Hellknights, and they dont teleport out of thin air either. and what has Chief done canonically in the forums sense of the word to convey he could defeat many Manucbuses?

Their not usually smart anyway nor do they require to be, thier battle monsters, their not made to think, they have heavy weapons and hides for killing. MC outsmarting them with what exactley?

MC could conceivably find a way around some of them without actually engaging them, but in most cases, especially in the base, that option won't be available to him, particularly in Delta.

He's going to have to fight them head-on most of the way, and the majority of encounters are against multiple opponents. Once things like Hell Knights get introduced, things are going to get rough.

Originally posted by Burning thought
Brutes are not as large and Hellknights, and they dont teleport out of thin air either. and what has Chief done canonically in the forums sense of the word to convey he could defeat many Manucbuses?

Their not usually smart anyway nor do they require to be, thier battle monsters, their not made to think, they have heavy weapons and hides for killing. MC outsmarting them with what exactley?

And no, Brutes are around the same size as Hellknights if not bigger, according to the unit manual found in the limited ed. of Halo 3, Brutes weigh in at more than half a ton and are almost 3 meters tall.

About the teleporting thing, I know the Hellknights are warped in from hell, but the portal from that is quite obvious and easy to see - furthermore, the process itself is significantly long enough so that someone doesn't get caught off guard. If you're referring to an in-combat teleportation ability I haven't seen it, in either text or YouTube video.

Well, that's the thing, they're all muscle and gun and sheer brute force, but that doesn't mean that they'll beat someone who lacks those qualities yet makes up for them. They can't think or rationalize, which means that someone like Doomguy or Chief can outwit them, bait them into traps, run out of LOS repeatedly, etc.

Originally posted by DarkC
If there's a huge number of them all at once, that's going to be hard. I don't think a direct frontal assault is a realistic possibility, neither with Hellknights. If Chief's using Halo weapons, they'd go down with the heavy weapons like the FR Gun, Rocket Launcher, Brute Shot, etc and he's tougher than Doomguy.

And no, Brutes are around the same size as Hellknights if not bigger, according to the unit manual found in the limited ed. of Halo 3, Brutes weigh in at more than half a ton and are almost 3 meters tall.

About the teleporting thing, I know the Hellknights are warped in from hell, but the portal from that is quite obvious and easy to see - furthermore, the process itself is significantly long enough so that someone doesn't get caught off guard. If you're referring to an in-combat teleportation ability I haven't seen it, in either text or YouTube video.

Well, that's the thing, they're all muscle and gun and sheer brute force, but that doesn't mean that they'll beat someone who lacks those qualities yet makes up for them. They can't think or rationalize, which means that someone like Doomguy or Chief can outwit them, bait them into traps, run out of LOS repeatedly, etc.

What do you mean? the monsters always do a frontal assault at least in case wtih the big ones, the smaller ones are sometimes more stealthy. And canonically the larger weapons would be harder to carry, hed be able to prob carry one heavy weapon, I mean how many shots do heavy weapons usually have? not many....theres a lot more shots required to kill the larger mosnters than a few, I think they outlive most vehichles.

Can you actually show me the info please? a link that would suggest Brutes are bigger, ive only played to completion the first game and from that I dont remember brutes being as large as Hellknights, I only remember fat, sluggish things with high endurance.

Thats what I mean, they appear suddenly in hell, the only time they are slowly brought in is when you first meet them. But my main issue is that Chief could not strategically run about taking into account positions, because his opponents do not technically excist in the area until they are suddenly ported in.

Chief will have little chance to do any of those things...if youve seen the Doom environments and as DSZ has said, MC will be fighting in tiny corridors, he would not have hardly any running room, would be in danger of getting pushed into a small space himself or surrounded.

Originally posted by Burning thought
ive only played to completion the first game and from that I dont remember brutes being as large as Hellknights, I only remember fat, sluggish things with high endurance.