Lit Why Starkiller fits into the EU *essay*

I suppose you never played Fallout 1 or 2 than. To me, New Vegas was a return to Fallout's roots. Not that I hate 3, after all Fallout 3 is what saved Fallout from dying after a 10 year hiatus, however it just didn't feel like Fallout.

 

I like this idea. Everyone thinks Starkiller is the guy they should be worried about when actually Juno was the traitor!

 

Pallopides was supposed to be too young to rule c. 10 ABY.

 

The only reference to her was a "remote grand niece"

 

I was just referring to the Juno is a traitor bit, I never even heard of this Pallopides person before.

 

Making Juno a traitor would be equivalent to Vergere being a Sith. Look what you've done, Ulicus. Shame on you and your Vader fanboyism.

 

Point taken.

Actually, though, you could do it with Juno being BRAINWASHED with a second personality.

 

Ah, brainwashing the girlfriend. That's not a typical move by the bad guy.

 

That was the original plan for Caedus, that he was implanted with a second personality, presumably through the slave seed even though it was removed.

 

Vader is an incredibly typical bad guy.

Why?

Because it WORKS for him.

 

I doubt an Evil! Juno retcon would do as much damage as Denning fingering Darth KFC for causing the universe breaking cluster**** of post NJO. For one the Juno retcon would only effect a game. Denning's choice to make Vergere and her teaching Sith effected a staggering 19 books and the last 7 years of Post NJO storytelling

 

Equally possible, Juno is dead and replaced with FAUX Juno.

 

So Starkiller and Juno are both clones? Unlikely but it would be very hilarious. Clonin' love!

 

I just think it's a slippery slope. Granted, it already happened years ago with Vergere, but retroactively altering a character so dramatically does negatively affect the story to the original game. I don't like the idea of stories being diminished to prop up a subsequent story on principle.

And I just think the idea is silly. Where's the benefit? There's this fan desire to put Vader up on top at the end of TFU or TFU2, but you really can't do that because ultimately the status quo for Episode IV is set. Vader can't one up the Rebellion, he can't kill the leadership, he can't find their hidden base -- if he knows the old one is on Dantooine and tells no one that's silly -- all he can do is kill Starkiller or Kota, and based on the popular interpretation, he'd already accomplished both those goals at the start of TFU2 insofar as that Kota was captured by the Empire on Cato Neimodia and Starkiller was already dead until Vader kept cloning him.

In the end, Vader has to have some egg on his face after TFU2, and to come up with ways to somehow put him on top ultimately results in no benefit for him so it's pointless and silly.

 

I maintain the ideal ending to The Force Unleashed 3 is to have it take Starkiller up to Endor.

And have Vader spare him at the end.

 

For me the need for Juno to be a traitor is not so much a desire to see Vader get some payback, but instead because Juno irritates me and I want her out of the Rebellion. I would be perfectly content with having both Juno and Starkiller killed though, just as long as they have some way to remove them from the Rebellion before Episode 4 rolls around.

 

That would be interesting, but then you would have folks upset that Vader does a good deed before he meets Luke.

Part of the problem with TFU2 is that the first game said all that can (reasonably) be said with Vader prior to the OT, and even that was viewed controversially, though not because of Vader's characterization. But if you depict Anakin Skywalker letting Starkiller and Juno drive off in their speeder through the forests of Endor in a Blade Runner happy ending style, folks are going to be none too pleased -- and I don't think they should be pleased, because Vader's reaction to learning about his was son more about how it can benefit him by making Luke his Sith apprentice; it was evil.

Subsequent stories need to be about Starkiller and not Vader, and as you point out he's a selfish man that isn't really much different than Anakin is in Revenge of the Sith, except his relationship with Vader is not nearly as amicable as Anakin's was with Palpatine. The third game needs to be about Starkiller's characterization, and it either needs to drive him to a dark place to be redeemed by Luke, or show some character progression where he thinks for Juno's safety rather than his desire for Juno -- either way he needs to be separated from Juno and the Rebellion. So long as he lives, Juno will be threatened by Vader. It's Vader's last line in the second game. The reasonable thing for Starkiller to do, if he stops thinking inwardly, only about himself, would be to fake his death to ensure Juno's safety.

 

Without a grand thread derail - Fallout 2 was an unfinished game with a lot of goofy and non-Fallout elements (a ghost? Time portal? Crashed Federation ship?). F:NV was a return to the area of F1/2, but it was a post-post-apocalyptic game. I'm still looking for just post-apocalypse, which F3 did admirably. It had random events, which F:NV was sorely lacking. And it was less linear.

 

You have a valid point there. I play with the Restoration mod so I kinda forgot about that issue. I liked the goofiness though and Fallout 3 was not without its goofiness like the Superhero quest however I can understand why all the pop culture references to be off putting.. As for New Vegas being a more linear game, I dunno, they both seemed pretty open world to me. I also have to agree that Bethesda definitely did a better job with making the world look like it got hit with a bomb. Having played both games for over 100 hours, I believe both games were great, I just happen to prefer Vegas'es Writing and story a bit better than its Bethesda counterpart.

And now back to your regularly scheduled thread...