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.
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.
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.
I'm pretty sure I already acknowledged Galen's Marek's greatness in my post to Eli, or whatever his name is.
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...
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.
Registered: Jul 2014
Location: Off learning Ground Realities
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.
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.
Registered: Jul 2014
Location: Off learning Ground Realities
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.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Kaz doing pretty good against Galen, winning even, until Marek crumbled one of his playthings, and he lost his shit?
Not really, Kaz got in a shallow cut while Galen was distracted, he then started using Lighting, before he was hit by the mannequins which he then defeated, Kaz got sad and then Galen smashed him before he died.
Jun 21st, 2016 09:55 PM
