Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Just read this article posted on wookiepedia http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Battle_in_the_Death_Star.

As it seems, garen "annihilates" vader "leaving him near death" and casted back lightning at "the most powerful sith lord in history" and resulted in "a draw" or a stalemate.

Whats even more hilarious is that he, the only force user to ever perform such a feat to allow his body to open to the force and unleashed all that energy in an explosive blast that nearly kills darth fu*king sidious and vader but ends up dead in the process.

The part which really annoyed me was him doing that DBZ move that nearly kills 2 very powerful sith lords and the fact that if this feat was ever achievable in the first place, some random uber jedi or sith in the last thousands of years would have done the same thing, hell wouldn't jedi's do that for the sake of the republic or peace?

This makes me wonder, is this excuse for a character actually that powerful? Or is he simply too overpowered? Hell and i thought bane and luke were overpowered but this new random guy is truly overpowered as stated by haden dickman whom disputed that he has the "potential to be the most powerful force user ever".

This alone contradicts lucas philosophy of "the chosen one".

A non skywalker that powerful? Omg.

opinions please.


EDIT, i meant Galen marek, not garen.

It's wiki. Never trust wiki.

And I still have faith in George Lucas and the producers to prevent such a disgrace.

Hope so, and nice avatar btw.

The link doesn't work so I question the authenticity of the article.

I was able to read the wookieepedia page and if its true that he fought Sidious's lightning to draw and nearly killed Vader in their duel then he must be close close to ROTS Yoda in power.

On a another note I was disappointed that it seems that he seems to be a lightsider or at the very least a "good guy" I would much rather have him going fighting for revenge or so he could rule the galaxy or something. I can't stand how these originally darkside characters seek redemption can we have a darkside character in a videogame stay that way and be the canonical ending some form. Seriouly the rebel alliance symbol turns out out to be the family crest of Galen Marek.

And Vader still would've been more powerful than that if he hadn't been crippled. Shame shame.

Originally posted by Elite Hunter
I was able to read the wookieepedia page and if its true that he fought Sidious's lightning to draw and nearly killed Vader in their duel then he must be close close to ROTS Yoda in power.

Close to ROTS yoda? No no, they made this idiot powerful enough to "nearly kill palpatine", something which yoda as a lightsider couldn't do.

Originally posted by Schwarzenegger
Hope so, and nice avatar btw.

Thanksies.

Anyways, even if he did almost kill Palpatine, Palpatine still killed him in the end, making him (and, in turn, Yoda) more powerful than Starkiller.

I fliped through the battle in the graphic novel. It seems similar to the Windu vs. Sidious battle. He appeared to not be giving it his all for some reason. I'll know more when I actualy read it.

Game looks to good not to play but that shit is ridiculous they should make it a non canon game, nearly being able to kill Palpatine Pfft, and this game is gonna ruin Vaders reputation enough people underestimate him as it is

Based on what I heard, I think it is still worth mentioning that while is very powerful and appears to be on the level of the PT greats we still need to note that he nearly killed Sidious by using a technique that killed him.

"zOMG! HE'S TOO UBER!" Please quit whining and just accept the fact that the secret apprentice is just so strong he can put Vader in his rightful place. I rarely hear people calling Sidious "overpowered", so what's the big f'ing deal?

Originally posted by Schwarzenegger
The part which really annoyed me was him doing that DBZ move that nearly kills 2 very powerful sith lords and the fact that if this feat was ever achievable in the first place, some random uber jedi or sith in the last thousands of years would have done the same thing, hell wouldn't jedi's do that for the sake of the republic or peace?

1) There's no reason to assume that Marek's ability in incapable of being performed. It's actually quite plausible.

2) Questioning why Jedi wouldn't perform what is essentially a suicide bombing would be asking like why doesn't the United States or Great Britain employ kamikaze attacks. Not that what you're saying makes any sense anyways (done the same thing to who? Why? What would it have accomplished? Who is powerful enough to do this?).



He can't be "overpowered" because there is no such thing in the context of Star Wars - a character can't be "too strong" if you look at it from a rational perspective.



No, it doesn't. Anakin had (key) the "potential" and according to George Lucas himself he no longer possesses that same potential as Vader. Ergo, there would be no contradiction.



Being part of the Skywalker bloodline is not a requirement for being "that powerful".

Actually, you are completely right. The Jedi only thought Anakin was the 'Chosen One', but it was never a fact, merely a belief... Unless GL stated he was the 'Chosen One'?

Originally posted by Lt. Valerian
Actually, you are completely right. The Jedi only thought Anakin was the 'Chosen One', but it was never a fact, merely a belief... Unless GL stated he was the 'Chosen One'?

He did. Multiple times.



I'm still psyched for the game and novelization, and am practically frothing at the mouth for both. That said, comparing Sidious and Starkiller is two completely different things. One is the ultimate villain of the saga, supposed to embody dark side power and brilliance, is the most powerful Sith Lord ever, and achieved such power through ungodly study and meditation. The other ascended to power, despite not being a Skywalker, with relatively limited training (compared to Sidious's) and at a relatively young age. And his importance is far less to the story than Sidious's or Anakin's. It's hardly the same thing, Advent.

I don't really see what the problem is, why would it be such a bad thing if Starkiller could, at this point, be stronger then Vader? He wouldn't be the first.

Stronger than Vader is one thing, but stronger than Sidious...

And he's dead anyway, so Vader was still Palp's number 2 guy.

Yeah, Vader's a top tier Force user, but he's not number one, two, or three in history.

Hence Sidious's number 2 guy. As in, his right hand man... or machine seeing as he's more machine now than man.

Originally posted by Darth Subjekt
Hence Sidious's number 2 guy. As in, his right hand man... or machine seeing as he's more machine now than man.

I wasn't responding to you, DS, nor was I disagreeing. Otherwise I wouldn't have said "Yeah".

Why is it okay that Maul "almost killed Sideous" yet when Starkiller does it he's overpowered?

I mean yeah Maul is heavily overrated, but n one believes me...

Originally posted by Blax_Hydralisk
Why is it okay that Maul "almost killed Sideous" yet when Starkiller does it he's overpowered?

I mean yeah Maul is heavily overrated, but n one believes me...

Because testimonies vary. Some say Maul was being toyed with. All that matters is that he was put through a ridiculous training regimen and quite possibly nearly killed Sidious with a lightsaber. Not the Force.

Originally posted by Gideon
I wasn't responding to you, DS, nor was I disagreeing. Otherwise I wouldn't have said "Yeah". My bad, I figured that since I said he was still number 2, and then you said he wasn't number 1, 2, or 3, that you were responding to me.

A character's relevance to the "story" has nothing to do with this discussion, Gideon. Discarding the story aspect, he is - like Sidious - just a Force user at base, which makes a comparison perfectly valid between the two.

So what if he was young or had less training? He clearly possessed an extremely high potential and his training was dedicated to harnessing that potential into power (it's said that the focus of his training was to push his power to its full limitations). Again, I'll bring up how Exar Kun became immensely powerful in a few months without even having a master. It doesn't make him "overpowered", it just means his ability to learn, his potential, etc. are high in regards to the Star Wars universe. Like Kun, Starkiller apparently has the same traits (except he had a knowledgeable master, years of training, etc.).

And please stop mentioning the name "Skywalker", it's completely irrelevant.

How so?

Palpatine's status was designed and accepted because he was the primary villain of the saga, the catalyst for the truly important events, the harbinger of destruction for the Jedi and the downfall of the Republic. Ergo, to do all that in essentially a one man show, he had to be the strongest and the smartest. Same for Anakin and Luke. It is the decisions of the power elite that direct Star Wars. If Luke and Anakin and Palpatine weren't designed for such particularly important purposes, do you honestly believe that they would have been written with such potency?

You would have to explain the reason behind Sidious' growth in power between ROTS and ROTJ in regards to the saga itself then. He didn't need to get any stronger, there was no necessity whatsoever - he had enough power to tear down any opposition at that point (including his apprentice). Therefore, Sidious is fair game.

Originally posted by Advent
You would have to explain the reason behind Sidious' growth in power between ROTS and ROTJ in regards to the saga itself then. He didn't need to get any stronger, there was no necessity whatsoever - he had enough power to tear down any opposition at that point (including his apprentice).

From a narrative perspective, Sidious is the very personification of the dark side -- far moreso than any other Sith Lord -- as supported by testimonies from Count Dooku ("darkness beyond darkness", "black hole of the Force", "an event horizon", "beyond power", Master Yoda ("...the birth of one strong enough to embrace the dark side fully and become its dedicated instrument.", numerous sourcebooks, the omniscient narrator of Revenge of the Sith, and George Lucas's own statement that Palpatine is the revenge of the Sith. Once he achieved his goals, why on Earth would he stop attempting to achieve power? For practical necessity, no, Sidious no longer needed to continue his study in the Force. But numerous sources make it clear: Palpatine was a grandiose, malignant narcissist. Speculation by Prince Xizor in The Mandalorian Armor is supported by the Dark Empire Sourcebook and the Dark Side Sourcebook: Palpatine's ultimate goal was to assimilate every last living organism into his being, stifle all life, until only he remained in the universe. The Galactic Empire was but the first step in an eternal plan for complete apoethesis. Thus his obsession with Luke and Anakin Skywalker. Two great Jedi with the potential to surpass himself in power; it wasn't enough to kill them, though he certainly could have. He had to dominate them in every aspect and to remake them into his own image.




Fair game for what? Sidious's rise to power isn't being attacked because, for the purposes of the saga, he is supposed to be evil incarnate: powerful, seductive, intelligent. He is to embody all of those things, because he (not Exar Kun, not Marka Ragnos) is the bad guy. And unlike other characters, Palpatine not only embodies the "virtues of evil" (if there is such a thing) but also its vices. His is something that transcends arrogance. His narcissism is truly on cosmic proportions.

Originally posted by Gideon
From a narrative perspective, Sidious is the very personification of the dark side -- far moreso than any other Sith Lord -- as supported by testimonies from Count Dooku ("darkness beyond darkness", "black hole of the Force", "an event horizon", "beyond power", Master Yoda ("...the birth of one strong enough to embrace the dark side fully and become its dedicated instrument.", numerous sourcebooks, the omniscient narrator of Revenge of the Sith, and George Lucas's own statement that Palpatine is the revenge of the Sith. Once he achieved his goals, why on Earth would he stop attempting to achieve power? For practical necessity, no, Sidious no longer needed to continue his study in the Force. But numerous sources make it clear: Palpatine was a grandiose, malignant narcissist. Speculation by Prince Xizor in The Mandalorian Armor is supported by the Dark Empire Sourcebook and the Dark Side Sourcebook: Palpatine's ultimate goal was to assimilate every last living organism into his being, stifle all life, until only he remained in the universe. The Galactic Empire was but the first step in an eternal plan for complete apoethesis. Thus his obsession with Luke and Anakin Skywalker. Two great Jedi with the potential to surpass himself in power; it wasn't enough to kill them, though he certainly could have. He had to dominate them in every aspect and to remake them into his own image.





Fair game for what? Sidious's rise to power isn't being attacked because, for the purposes of the saga, he is supposed to be evil incarnate: powerful, seductive, intelligent. He is to embody all of those things, because he (not Exar Kun, not Marka Ragnos) is the bad guy. And unlike other characters, Palpatine not only embodies the "virtues of evil" (if there is such a thing) but also its vices. His is something that transcends arrogance. His narcissism is truly on cosmic proportions.

I certainly agree with your character assessment; as much is true. But that's all that was, Gideon. He didn't need to become more powerful, so I'd say that makes him "overpowered" by definition's standards.

But let me try the argument from a different approach: what you're saying for Sidious could pretty much be applied to Marek, as well. For the purposes of the game, Marek is supposed to be very powerful.

I just don't see how it makes sense to say Sidious is from the movie, therefore exempt. When discussing the EU, there really is no main villain since everything - including the entire movie saga - is a part of one history. Saying that Sidious is the bad guy of the entire SW mythos would be like saying Hitler was the bad guy of man's history.

I really see nothing wrong with it personally.

I mean he is still less powerful than Sidious, as a suicide attack could not kill him.

So what if he is not in the movies, or even what would be considered a "main" character?

For the purpose of the game as Advent said, he had to be very powerful.

Exactly.

And his suicide attack would've pretty much had to have been a desperation move, so it'd be likely he just wasn't powerful enough to overpower Sidious anyways.

Originally posted by Advent
A character's relevance to the "story" has nothing to do with this discussion, Gideon. Discarding the story aspect, he is - like Sidious - just a Force user at base, which makes a comparison perfectly valid between the two.

So what if he was young or had less training? He clearly possessed an extremely high potential and his training was dedicated to harnessing that potential into power (it's said that the focus of his training was to push his power to its full limitations). Again, I'll bring up how Exar Kun became immensely powerful in a few months without even having a master. It doesn't make him "overpowered", it just means his ability to learn, his potential, etc. are high in regards to the Star Wars universe. Like Kun, Starkiller apparently has the same traits (except he had a knowledgeable master, years of training, etc.).

And please stop mentioning the name "Skywalker", it's completely irrelevant.

One could easily respond that Exar becoming that powerful in a matter of months, or Bane in an absurdly short time, is a clear case of author favoritism and plain bad writing all around. Introducing a new character or making one your own and essentially overpowering them to hell and back is not a new thing with Star Wars. Gary Stuism is pretty prevalent, really. And Starkiller is the latest for that. Revan is another because he allows the player to essentially be the most awesomely special Sith or Jedi of the Old Republic.

Say what you will about Palpatine, but he took what seems to be a somewhat decent amount of time to reach the plateau he got to. It's gotten old that every guy with a lightsaber and the writer's backing becomes a Force God practically overnight, surpassing everybody and their mother. Star Wars has grown filled to the brim with them.

Originally posted by Advent
I certainly agree with your character assessment; as much is true. But that's all that was, Gideon. He didn't need to become more powerful, so I'd say that makes him "overpowered" by definition's standards.

I believe most of us define "overpowering", in the context of a character's relative level of potency, is when an arbitrary character demonstrates remarkable strength and mastery despite an incredibly young age, relative insignificance, and if his last name isn't Skywalker or Solo. Which, by those standards, Starkiller is. Though, again, I'm still psyched about the game and novelization. Starkiller tanking Palpatine's lightning isn't something that particularly disturbs me; it doesn't suggest equality or superiority. But it is unbelievable that he could achieve that particular level in such a short amount of time.



And I have no problem with that. But despite a lackluster family, short lifespan, questionable training, it is illogical that he could be on par with the most powerful Sith Lord in history. Again, not that it matters, because he didn't necessarily stalemate or surpass the Emperor, which is what I've been trying to explain to everyone for weeks.



I disagree completely. And it's not because Sidious is from the movie that he receives exemption. But let's be frank: LFL has made it 100% clear that the movies > EU. It's all the story of Anakin Skywalker, Luke Skywalker, Leia Organa Solo, Emperor Palpatine, and Obi-Wan Kenobi. Everything pre-TPM is just exposition and everything post-RotJ is falling action; ramifications. Hell, they even base their calender system around the Battle of Yavin. With respect to fine characters like Exar Kun, Darth Revan, Darth Bane, etc -- for their contributions were immense -- it's not their story. As far as the Sidious and Hitler comparisons are made, Hitler's the most infamous tyrant and mass murderer in history. He's the one that people are going to think of first. As far as Sidious, everything post-RotJ is directly tied to Sidious's machinations and ramifications of his victories and defeats. I'm not saying that because he's my favorite character, but Sidious isn't just "one of many". He's the primary villain, puppeteer, and shaker in the most important aspect of the SW mythos. By definition, he transcends all other villains in importance and projection. Making him the main villain.

I'm so tired and sick, we're going to have to continue this tomorrow. Good night Advent and thanks for the debate.

Originally posted by Lightsnake
One could easily respond that Exar becoming that powerful in a matter of months, or Bane in an absurdly short time, is a clear case of author favoritism and plain bad writing all around. Introducing a new character or making one your own and essentially overpowering them to hell and back is not a new thing with Star Wars. Gary Stuism is pretty prevalent, really. And Starkiller is the latest for that. Revan is another because he allows the player to essentially be the most awesomely special Sith or Jedi of the Old Republic.

I can see what you're saying, but what I'm trying to get at is that authors/devs/Lucas really can't make a character too strong, since in the SW universe, strength is determined by your potential and learning capabilities. And neither of the aforementioned really have a defined point of being "overpowered".



I definitely think the same, it's not like I don't become tiresome of the influx of all-powerful new (and in some cases, returning) characters. I think Jacen Solo would fit the bill here. Even though he was quite strong prior to becoming Caedus, it doesn't make sense he leaped up to the level where he could almost match Luke "The Grand Master" Skywalker.

@ Gideon:



His young age shouldn't really make him "overpowered" though, because his potential and learning rates are just extremely high, combined with his rather exhaustive training regime and teacher.

As I said, his relevance to the movie saga doesn't really matter since its just another part of SWs' history, like Marek's story is. We're discussing this with the EU in mind, so the movie saga loses its importance. And ergo, Sidious loses his immunity to "overpowered" persecution since he and Marek are in the same boat (see: the second quote you responded to).

And his last name is entirely irrelevant since "Skywalker" is just a bloodline.



I hope Microsoft sends my 360 back in time for the game's release, which they should. I got a nice gift that is known colloquially as the "RROD" or "Red Rings of Death" a.k.a. hardware failure. And I've heard sometimes it takes up to three weeks to return sometimes, but meh.

Since we're talking the game: I've read that it's supposed to give some insights into Vader's action during the OT, do you know if that has any truth behind it?



It's not illogical at all since it can be explained. In Star Wars, characters are powerful because of their potential.

In Marek's case, we know he had a high potential and a training regime that literally pushed his power to its limitations to match (which would make one improve at a much higher rate than normal Jedi training). It's likely he had a high learning rate, too. So, how is it illogical for him to progress to such a level? Not all people need to gain power at the same rate Sidious did to become uber powerful.



But only insomuch as they're of a higher level of canon. Meaning they take precedent when it comes down to any contradiction that arises between them and the EU. They are not entirely more important in the grand scale of history (yes, they are an important event, but not necessarily a more integral part).



It's hardly the story of a handful of people, Gideon. That's just absurd, is our history all about a few select persons? No, and the same thing would apply to Star Wars since the EU encompasses it as a whole.



Yeah, but it'd be incorrect to say that he was the villain of history, since it was only during a certain era. I'd say Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein is the first person current Americans would label such now.



I'm sorry, but I just can't agree with that. We're going to just have to agree to disagree on this point since - as I can clearly see this going -, we'll be arguing in circles.

EDIT:

No problem. Good night, Gideon - just let your mind Escape into the Advent of the dreamworld (lol).

Originally posted by Advent


I can see what you're saying, but what I'm trying to get at is that authors/devs/Lucas really can't make a character too strong, since in the SW universe, strength is determined by your potential and learning capabilities. And neither of the aforementioned really have a defined point of being "overpowered".

Thing is, though, there's a point when potential and learning capabilities starts getting silly. That Bane can start basic training and become a Force God in three years pushes the bounds of credibility. Kun's turn to The Sith War Kun in...six months surpasses belief. Starkiller somehow having these reserves is just mind boggling.

Jacen is sort of understandable. He was already second to Luke before his turn and the Dark Side does send you down roads. His intense power and level of study beforehand had at least been established to make him a credible threat when he turned. It was more 'Ooooh, look here, forbidden knowledge!"
And then, a month later, he's the greatest threat to the galaxy.

For the love of...

THERE IS A THREAD FOR FORCE UNLEASHED.

It was posted in two days ago. Continue the discussion there or not at all.