Evidently, you do have to take some of these comments at face value; debates like this dehumanise the stories which they are derived from and also evidently a character choice, a development or a narrative neccesity do not make for valid arguments. As for an example of a narrative neccesity right here, I'll take your comment and try and put it into context.
"You have a valid point however it should be noted that Malak became stronger than before and as he clearly mentions, he'd unlocked the power of the Star forge to a magnitude Revan hadn't."
That is certainly a valid point standing on its own, yet putting this into context, can you not see traits of an archetypal super villain Malak portrays? How many times, in various works of ficiton have you heard the main antagonist gloat to our main character or our hero about his great feats, how many times have villains described every detail of there master plan for world domination to the very person in a position to stop them?
My point is that while the comment can be taken at face value, to rely get your facts right, you need to understand the context. Malak's gloating builds the dramatic tension, we see his character, we are reminded of how we dislike him and are reassured that the next two minutes of violence are completely neccesary. He insults the player, and for that we must go ape shit in his general direction. This dialogue simply sweetens the deal when we do defeat him. Vader once gloated to Luke that he would turn to the Dark Side. Could he? No.
Of course, nonetheless, its a canonical comment, but to ask for sources and proof to reinforce you argument and give this? It's a tad silly.
Sources and proof? The game, the story, even the bland cliche dialogue are the sources, or do you only operate with source books? I find those rather unnecessary.
__________________
Iboga chose not to fight, to allow himself to evolve. He had the wisdom to abandon the actions of war when he knew they would no longer serve him.
Your argument misses the point though. You're arguing for its dramatic purposes, I'm arguing for its significance beyond that, and that is: an apprentice pretty much gauging that he's former master has grown stronger just as he has.
Within the context of the fictional world the statement serves no purpose beyond the fact that it is an assessment of overall power. It's not a psychological ploy, it's not a belittlement, it's not even - as you'd mentioned - an admittance of defeat by Malak.
__________________
Iboga chose not to fight, to allow himself to evolve. He had the wisdom to abandon the actions of war when he knew they would no longer serve him.
The viedo game is suspect for the very medium it is; a game is entertainment for the player, to thrill the player; it is not the Star Wars bible. It will be over the top, it will deviate from tradition and it will most likely spark inconsistences. Another example of this other than KOTOR or the up and coming Force Unleashed, is Jedi Outcast; Kyle Katarn is shown as stronger than Luke Skywalker yet it is done for the purpose of entertaining the player.
The story and the dialogue are meant to entertain and enrich the player, again it is not the Star Wars bible. As I have already mentioned, the writers will forsake feasable facts for a good story and Malak's comments are a prime example of this. Yoda's comments in the RotS novelisation too, could be taken as biased and a victim of narrative neccesity.
Yes, these sources can be used as evidence; they can and have always been used, but it sometimes means taking the source completely out of context and you end up with a mistruth.
I agree, sometimes, if you want to debate something as pointless and moot as this, you simply have to use sources taken out of their context as you just don't have comparable evidence which are unbiased in nature to use. However when you make an argument out of a source as suspect as those mentioned, you really are dealing with copius amounts of self deception.
Last edited by exanda kane on May 12th, 2007 at 10:49 PM
I believe your missing the point, or at least not understanding the very nature of your own example. The source has nothing else to it than dramatic purpose; it is a dramatic device, and it is used very well, but don't overcomplicate the matter, it doesn't have any significance over that. There are no two ways about it, it is a moment of high drama spoken from the main antagonist who is literally mad with power, as all super villains are.
Believe you me, the writers certainly did not intend that part of dialogue to come under such close scrutiny as to be a piece of evidence in a debate such as this and to try and garner something more out of it than that would result in unfounded assumptions. If they had intended it to come under close scrutiny, we would see something much more consistent with the portrayal Revan. Like some facts.
But that still doesn't exclude the fact they still have their differences (which is what a variation is about; it's not the same thing), which is what you asked for, and what I told you. And yes, everything I said was point on.
__________________
"The ability to speak does not make you intelligent." - Sagacious Jedi Master Qui-Gon Jinn.
Ok, I used the wrong terminology, my mistake. My initial point was that they were variations of each other, just like a force push and a force wave are variations of one another.
I think you've missed the basis of my point again. Yes its a dramatic device used by the devs and nothing more in the real world. Yes the devs didn't intend for it to be used as some quantifiable evidence - they never do - but it nevertheless serves a purpose beyond drama within the SW universe itself.
The star wars story writers aren't meant to care about power levels, but we still have vs threads like these. Looking at it broadly, this evidence is all the evidence there is within the bounds of this fictional universe.
__________________
Iboga chose not to fight, to allow himself to evolve. He had the wisdom to abandon the actions of war when he knew they would no longer serve him.
Last edited by Allankles on May 13th, 2007 at 09:28 PM
There's no such thing as narrative necessity, that's why your argument is flawed. They don't have to go the "power level" route for dramatization. There's no contract that say they have to, and theres no evidence that shows they have to do that to dazzle us.
Lastly, video games are as valid a story telling medium as any book. If this isn't a part of your arguement then ignore the previous sentence.
__________________
Iboga chose not to fight, to allow himself to evolve. He had the wisdom to abandon the actions of war when he knew they would no longer serve him.
Last edited by Allankles on May 13th, 2007 at 09:39 PM
I have already covered this point with my first couple of posts, and I do agree, partly. This is some of the only evidence you will get, yes, but there are certainly different levels of it, and the unbiased accounts aren't just limited to sourcebooks. The comment given, which has already been discussed, can be used, but only if you realise this is a highly limited source, and is suspect to being a mistruth.
Levels that could be described to have a firmer grip on Star Wars canon can certainly appear in sources outside of sourcebooks; KOTOR is still an example of this. The difference between reliable information in the game and suspect sources, is still the context.
A reliable quote in the game, related to Malak's comment, when placed in context, is GOTO's perspective on both Revan and Malak. Understand, if you don't find this to be a reliable source, it's open to discussion. Comparing both Sith Lords, Malak is described as crude and brutish, while Revan, subtle yet strong.
GOTO's tell the player this is general conversation, where his goal is to answer the Exile's questions and inform her. GOTO is a droid and therefore mainly deals in facts, and by his very nature, highly dramatic and unreliable dialogue aren't one of his traits. That is still evidence, in the same way as Malak's comment is , but it is on a much more reliable level in it's context.
GOTO also speculates that Revan believed the Star Forge was only a limited source of power, and therefore being subtle, he did not use it. Malak didn't posses any of Revan's subtedly, and he gloats that he has unlocked the Star Forge's power to a degree Revan never could.
This is a dramatic device, yet it also gives us a hint of Malak's character much in the same way GOTO's does. Malak did not recognise the Star Forge as a limited source, he didn't understand its nature in the way Revan did, and although he unlocked more of its power, it may have been out of Revan's choice.
GOTO's comments, arguably a more reliable source, invalidate Malak's claim, further solidifying it as a dramatic device on behalf of the writers. As you say, the writers words are all we have in the bounds of a fictional universe, but some sources are simply more reliable as factual information.
Last edited by exanda kane on May 13th, 2007 at 09:59 PM
My argument if you want to call it that, isn't flawed. Narrative neccesity, a dramatic device, call it what you want; it's used alot in any fiction, and one of the most effective examples of it, especially in science fiction like Star Wars, is to couple a dramatic device with terms and factors the audience will understand. In the Star Wars case, it's "power", strength in "The Force", whatever you want to call it, and these very boards are testament to the fact that it sells copies off the shelf. If writers started to describe Yoda "as a damn made of sticks stopping the flow of a small stream", or a "mediocre light bulb amidst the shade of an extremely large umbrella", then there would be complaints, not that they would, but it's a hypothetical scenario.
As for your last point, yes, videogames are as valid a story telling medium as any books, different yes, but certainly valid. However, that's what they are valid as; examples of story telling, not canonical representations of power in a ficitonal universe.
That's your opinion but I only have to look at Jedi Academy to prove you wrong. Jaden Korr the protagonist is never implied to be uber, merely strong enough to overcome his challenges. Look at shadows of the empire or clone wars (I know those don't have Jedi, but still...)
There isn't a necessity for "power level" dramatization. If anything, it usually comes off as juvenile and more often than not is the result of a shallow plot. I know SW has mostly dealt with escapist fiction, but it still has potential for a lot more.
__________________
Iboga chose not to fight, to allow himself to evolve. He had the wisdom to abandon the actions of war when he knew they would no longer serve him.
Your certainly missing the point there, your confusing dialogue with the action that comes complimentary with a videogame and nitpicking. Of course, with a game with options of choice like Jedi Academy, although the feats are achieved, its the methods in which they are which are sometimes unreliable. For exmaple, a few years ago, many hands down said that Dooku would beat Anakin in a duel, yet the neccesity of the plot let him beat Dooku. It heightens the excitement for the audience, yet these feats are still achieved.
Diaglogue is suspect to dramatic neccesity, if it is written with any kind of engagement with the audience, and you simply can't ignore that fact.
Star Wars is B movie material, Lucas has admitted its origins in that genre, don't try and add layers of undeserving complexity to it, or you'll eventaually find out that it simply does not work.
May 12th, 2007 10:04 PM
