Pretty well most of the time.
This must not be one of those times, then.
I'm having difficulties conceiving of the notion that what you've been doing for these last few pages has been "debate."
Just because they don't aligned with your perceived notion of Galen and the rest of the shit TFU crew - that doesn't mean it's not debating.
Next.
It's pretty simple really. You go into a thread, agree with what the majority says and do this often for a long period of time then BAM you have your reputation.
Except, anyone who's bother reading through my history would know this isn't the case, lal. I've always been now to have radical idea's the doesn't match with the majority.
When you're discounting feats simply because you think they're exaggerated in a franchise which is filled with contradictions and exaggerated feats it's a little frustrating admittedly. Sorry if I seemed a little pompous to you in my response. I can see why you would have thought that.
I'm only echoing with the writers of the series themselves said in regards to TFU. Furthermore, I don't use feats as the end-all-be-all like you do, so I have no problem getting around the contradiction and such, usually.
Originally posted by Deronn_solo
This must not be one of those times, then.Just because they don't aligned with your perceived notion of Galen and the rest of the shit TFU crew - that doesn't mean it's not debating.
Next.
Except, anyone who's bother reading through my history would know this isn't the case, lal. I've always been now to have radical idea's the doesn't match with the majority.
I'm only echoing with the writers of the series themselves said in regards to TFU. Furthermore, I don't use feats as the end-all-be-all like you do, so I have no problem getting around the contradiction and such, usually.
Must be.
Perhaps that was a little harsh. Though to be fair you were the one quoting the TFU crew and then not taking into account that as well as saying the feats were over the top ( as in spectacular ) that they also meant for Galen to have Luke Skywalker's potential.
Interesting. Such as?
Then I guess it's more of a fundamental difference in how we view Star Wars power scaling then anything else. Fair enough.
Originally posted by The_Tempest
DC, what say you about non-TFU outliers such as SWTOR, OCW, etc.
Only thing is, most of those characters have appeared in several other novel/source books/comics so "scaling down" to properly ranking them while shouldn't be all that hard.
Originally posted by Selenial
lmao.
What's so funny....? mmm
Originally posted by The_Tempest
I am well pleased. Carry on.
🙂
Originally posted by Syndicate
Perhaps that was a little harsh. Though to be fair you were the one quoting the TFU crew and then not taking into account that as well as saying the feats were over the top ( as in spectacular ) that they also meant for Galen to have Luke Skywalker's potential.
I'm pretty sure I already acknowledged Galen's Marek's greatness in my post to Eli, or whatever his name is.
Interesting. Such as?
I'm pretty sure many people don't have Vader on a even playing field with Caedus, or rank Kyp as high as I do...
Then I guess it's more of a fundamental difference in how we view Star Wars power scaling then anything else. Fair enough.
I use the 33/33/33 theory. Meaning 33 percent feats, 33% accolades, and 33% hype/universe placement, and 1% my personal opinion in the matter when ranking a character. If feats were all that matter a case could be made Kyp is > Yoda. But accolades says Yoda is his superior, and his placement in the Universe tells me the Grandmaster of the "Golden age" of the Jedi Order, and someone as revered as him - wouldn't be below a relatively insignificant Jedi from a later era.
Originally posted by Deronn_solo
What's so funny....? mmm
Originally posted by Selenial
I never argued that it wasn't about the Force being unleashed, merely that the way they showed the Force being Unleashed was by making a powerful character and making him fight powerful characters. All I'm saying is that making a character be intensely strong for the purpose of making a strong character, isn't grounds for it being disregarded. If you get my drift.Vitiate is made as strong as he is to give the illusion to protagonists can't do anything to stop him. He's hyped for the sole purpose of hyping him, it's called story telling. We don't dismiss all his feats entirely simply because he's powerful, now do we.
If every other character in that game was far beyond what they'd previously shown then I'd understand, but they are not, so I do not.
Originally posted by FreshestSlice
No, I'm sure it had nothing to do with Marek lifting AT-STs and crushing them. It was just about a powerful guy fighting other powerful people.
Again, since when does that make feats invalid.
Like I said, no one claims Vitiate can't dominate people with TP just because that was only brought in as a huge plot point. No one claims Sidious isn't a good duelist just because he was designed to appear unbeatable in the films.
Intention is irrelevant.
With all due respect Sel, Rahm Kota was OP as **** in the first game, and Vader says he was nothing compared to guys on the Council, in a very un-hyperbolic, and emphatic fashion.
So that "If every other character in that game was far beyond what they'd previously shown then I'd understand, but they are not, so I do not."
Is rendered moot when we take that into account, and scale off Kota's exaggerated power, as a measuring stick.
Originally posted by Deronn_solo
With all due respect Sel, Rahm Kota was OP as **** in the first game, and Vader says he was nothing compared to guys on the Council, in a very un-hyperbolic, and emphatic fashion.So that "If every other character in that game was far beyond what they'd previously shown then I'd understand, but they are not, so I do not."
Is rendered moot when we take that into account, and scale off Kota's exaggerated power, as a measuring stick.
Council Members are not necessarily the best combatants in the order, even if they were, Rahm Kota had 18 years of constant battle to hone his skills and force powers.
How long did it take AotC Kenobi to improve exponentially to RotS Kenobi? 4 years of war. The same can be said for Kit Fisto and the other members of the council, at least, those who didn't peak.
It's not ridiculous to assume that Kota is just a powerful individual, they do come around quite often you know.
You misunderstand my point. I never said the Council was end, be all in power --- I'm only using them as the measuring tool, because Vader did.
Secondly, where is the evidence Kota improved to where it would render Vader opinion would be absolutely moot? He was a rather pathetic drunk in the first game, if anything, that would have actually stifled his abilities rather than prove.