Darth Blivion

He failed big time, maybe that's why Kreia calls the Exile her greatest student *shrugs*. He did save the galaxy from Malak, but it's his treachery that led to the Civil war in the first place. So it's hard to call him a hero in the conventional sense, because he only finished what he'd started. He would have been a more powerful hero IMO if he died along with Malak, as Vader did, killing Sidious. He'd probably be as compelling a tragic hero as Vader (perhaps) if his battle with Malak had ended with his death. But alas he has yet to atone for his errors as the Exile did in kotor 2. Perhaps we'll see a battle between him and the Exile, for his atonement. I predicitng Revan gets killed in Kotor 3 by the Sith, perhaps while trying to save the protagonist.

...hmm :ph34r: <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

^Exactly! Cause irreparable damage to the ships controls, set it to self destruct - if possible, damage all but one of the escape pods before jettisoning out of there with the only operatinal escape vessel. That's how to handle that situation.

I hope there is more to kotor 3 than Revan acting as a saboteur to the Sith's plans. I mean he's been away for 5 years and the bugger has hardly made head way? If that' the case, I say he's either dead or somewhere in a Sith dungeon, suffering from a second bout of amnesia. I hope you could continue with the previous PCs in a new part of the Galaxy with new and previously unknown planets. I'm just hoping we don't start with some new, generic, chosen one protargonist. If Obsdian do it they should continue with the Exile (final fantasy does it and look how far the generic jrpg has come) and probably bring in Revan to play some small, but vital role in the story e.g. revealing some tactical weakness of the Sith and such like.

The first mistake was engaging the Republic in war after they had already been weakened by two wars. The second mistake was thinking that by attacking them and conquering them, he could somehow strenghten them. The third mistake was thinking this was the only solution to this yet unkown threat. The last mistake was finding the Star Forge, for without it Revan wouldn't have had the heart to attack the Republic. Face it, as a Sith Lord Revan was a complete an utter failure

Malak was pretty easy, force storm the Jedi in their tanks before Malak can draw power from the third Jedi. Very quick, very easy. Kreia's floating lightsabers were more of a nuisance than Malak, the first time through.

This is also the reason I think Kotor 2 did a hell of a better job of setting up the boss fights than in kotor 1. I've just played both games this past two weeks, and I stand by my opinion, kotor 2's story line was better than the first's. I'm not denying that the Sion and Nihilus characters could have done with a little more expounding, or that the Malachor seemed a little disjointed (k1 had the awful starforge), but kotor 2's main story had a lot more purpose and creativity.

That's exactly what I explained. We resolve his past, and we actually play a role in how his past turns out. If you meant details of the Mandalorian wars, we don't have many details as you well know. EDIT: We don't have any details on what any of the Jedi actually did in the Mandalorian wars. So as far as the kotor series stands, the Exile's past has been highlited to a large extent.

In Kotor 2 you actually play to resolve the Exile's history. Revan is the Exile, extra lite. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You've just restated what I said and reversed the final statement. KOTOR 2 took the final quarter of KOTOR 1 and stretched it across the whole game, while adding to Revan's legacy. In fact, you learn more about Revan in KOTOR 2 than you do about the Exile. The Exile joined Revan, commanded armies, gave the order to blow up a planet (thereby severing himself from the force), then faced the council. That's all that is ever learned. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yeah! The rp section of the first game, unfortunately very little of Revan's past was resolved. WTF is up with that?! That all? He helps resurrect the Jedi; discovered why the council exiled you; discovered the details behind the civil war; discovered how and why you turned from the force and power; how Malak was a fool; discovered what really happened at Malachor; discovered that the "Sith" of kotor were merely a corrupted Republic defectors. Basically a whole lot of things that kotor didn't cover. The Exile, out of the gate, has more depth than Revan. Of course Obsidian couldn't let Revan's story wallow in a shallow pool, so they brought his story a little bit closer to the depth of the Exile's tale. EDIT: Discover why the Sith are after you; discover that the new Sith had learned from you; Discover that you are a wound in the force; stabilize the galaxy by resolving conflicts in key worlds - not merely finding star maps and meeting your parties relatives, mind you. As far as Revan's story goes, you have to gain influence with Kreia/HK 47 and that isn't necessary for the progression of the story - just serves as interesting information.

In Kotor 2 you actually play to resolve the Exile's history. Revan is the Exile, extra lite.

It's difficult, but it's the way to go to if you wish to create some tension in the story.

I know what your saying, but Obi Wan after 20 years would probably forget about the astromech droid - and that really isn't a major issue anyway. Leia remebering her mother is a continuity issue, but again how much does it affect things?

Interesting. Being captured increases the drama, at that point it shows the Exile can be powerful but not invulnerable. The near invulnerability of the NJO Luke, makes him a shadow of his appealing OT self. The mortality of a hero, despite his prowess can only serve to draw us into his story. The first PC you shouldn't forget; was captured in the Leviathan, tortured by the former master of the Sith academy on Korriban, arrested in Manaan. So your problems with being captured in kotor 2 are unfounded. I suggest re-evalutating both the PC's again. EDIT: It's the reason why Vader is one of the most popular tragic heroes in pop culture. Invulnerable heroes are hardly interesting. That's why the Superman universe has red sun radiation and green kryptonite.

The first mistake was engaging the Republic in war after they had already been weakened by two wars. The second mistake was thinking that by attacking them and conquering them, he could somehow strenghten them. The third mistake was thinking this was the only solution to this yet unkown threat. The last mistake was finding the Star Forge, for without it Revan wouldn't have had the heart to attack the Republic. EDIT: Face it, as a Sith Lord Revan was a complete an utter failure.

So, Dark Lord of the Sith is different from Sith Lord? They are two different ranks in the Sith Order. I think that makes sense. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I don't think they are titles for defining rank in the Sith order as Palpatine could be said to be a sith lord and also refered to in a more accurate title of "dark lord of the sith". Tyranus, Maul, Vader were all Dark Lords of the Sith, but they could be simply termed Sith Lords. Their mentor Palpatine's rank ,could further be differentiated by titling him: "the dark lord of the sith" (adding the "the" in the title chnages things). But remember this terming was used on Vader as well, perhaps to maintain Sidious' cover as Palpatine. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> My head is spinning with Sith. The Dark Lord of the Sith Dark Lord of the Sith Lord of the Sith Sith Lord Sith I think there is more confusion than answers. <_< If this is an EU thing, I think it was a cool idea. Somday we will have clearity. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> All are names referring to the same thing, no need for confusion. Sith - is the general term referring to all those who are trained in the Sith order, Sith younglings and all. Sith Lord - general term for a Lord of the Sith or fully trained or more accuratley, ordained member of the Sith Order. Dark Lord of the Sith - refers to a fully trained member of the Sith Order or in the Post Bane era, two fully trained or ordained members of the Sith Order. Same thing as saying Sith Lord, only it's more specific. The Dark Lord of the Sith - the title given to the master of the Sith Order, or in the post Bane era, the one and only mentor of the Sith Order.

I had a conversation about this once. Vader was not mentioned as a Sith, but it was written in the original script. I don't know if that is true or not? I know in some comics he was mentioned as Lord of the Sith. I also have read a book once. I think it was called Shadows of the Empire. Vader was called Lord of the Sith in that book. Was it Goerge's idea to use the term Sith? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> i think someone came up with the term and George, in all his wisdom said :''Ooooh zhat ssssoundss k3wl'' and adopted it. gave him something else to put on the toy packages and fill more comic books. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> According to the prequels ("G-canon") the Sith are the enemies of the Jedi. And so what if the creator of the universe picked the term "Sith" from the EU? It's now a part of his "canon". Also, the explanation that Darth is a shortened version of Dark Lord of the Sith, fits nicely with the fact that Anakin changed his name to Vader and was titled a Sith. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I don't care if it's canon or revolver and after his last 3 ''movies'' I don't put much importance on what GL makes up and neither should any Star Wars fan. The fact is that there is a continuity flaw in the Star Wars universe(there are many others) and that is the term ''Sith'' and ''Darth'' being a short abreviation of Dark Lord of the Sith. Darth was a name, not a rank in the OT. Some fanboy thaught it would be cool that Darth would be a rank and GL agreed. GL also agreed that JarJar would be funny and cool for kids when the fanbase was thirty years old on average. Anakin did not change his name, Palpatine changed his name. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well! In the OT we discover that Anakin is in fact Vader. So GL decided to give meaning to the changing of Anakin's name and decided that "Darth", refer to Anakin/Vader's title as a Sith. If there is a Jedi order, what is the name given to the opposing order of dark Jedi? Sith, is it not (Lucas thoughts I assume). Eps 4, 5, 6 only touched the surface as far as the mysteries of the force were cncerned. So nucleus or no, accept that things that were never explained before could be elaborated.

I had a conversation about this once. Vader was not mentioned as a Sith, but it was written in the original script. I don't know if that is true or not? I know in some comics he was mentioned as Lord of the Sith. I also have read a book once. I think it was called Shadows of the Empire. Vader was called Lord of the Sith in that book. Was it Goerge's idea to use the term Sith? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> i think someone came up with the term and George, in all his wisdom said :''Ooooh zhat ssssoundss k3wl'' and adopted it. gave him something else to put on the toy packages and fill more comic books. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> According to the prequels ("G-canon") the Sith are the enemies of the Jedi. And so what if the creator of the universe picked the term "Sith" from the EU? It's now a part of his "canon". Also, the explanation that Darth is a shortened version of Dark Lord of the Sith, fits nicely with the fact that Anakin changed his name to Vader and was titled a Sith.

So, Dark Lord of the Sith is different from Sith Lord? They are two different ranks in the Sith Order. I think that makes sense. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I don't think they are titles for defining rank in the Sith order as Palpatine could be said to be a sith lord and also refered to in a more accurate title of "dark lord of the sith". Tyranus, Maul, Vader were all Dark Lords of the Sith, but they could be simply termed Sith Lords. Their mentor Palpatine's rank ,could further be differentiated by titling him: "the dark lord of the sith" (adding the "the" in the title changes things). But remember this terming was used on Vader as well, perhaps to maintain Sidious' cover as Palpatine. EDIT: What differentiates a Sith Lord really are the terms, mentor and apprentice.

Vader is known to be a Sith in the movies, but it is never discussed in the OT - an era where force users in general are a rare species, and their religions considered obsolete. As someone said, the term Sith doesn't mean anything to the majority of the people in the OT, as it only applies to the adherents of that ancient religion, Palpatine and Vader.

Darth Nihilus takes the cake. He embodied what it means to be Sith, to the point where his selfishness would consume the very order he was affiliated to. As for Revan: he isn't even a Sith in the true sense of the word. His lame idea that if he could put the Republic under his thumb through war*(which would only weaken an already weakened Republic) makes be wonder, as to how brilliant he really was (as his supposed brilliance is only hear-say at the moment). I can see why Obsidian fit this idea in their story as they were trying to seperate Revan from his vain, generic apprentice Malak, but it only makes Revan seem like a confused, self-inflated mad-man (not bad qualities for a Sith, but the wrong qualities for a saviour). Revan the "dark lord of the sith" is a hoax. He failed, and is far from the best at anything. At least his compatriot the Exile had good reason to go dark side: revenge against the arrogant Jedi who cast him out, and led the galaxy to ruin through their inaction during the mando wars.

I asked myself that question before playing the game, and then I found myself being drawn to the story. It did so many things with the story, it had depth, and thats why I like kotor2 better than 1.

I f Revan's vision for attacking the Republic was to strengthen it for wars ahead, than he is far from the genius Bioware and OE have written him to be. Afterall, a house divided upon itself cannot stand.

Well from what I understand, the term "wound in the force" refers to his "force deficiency" brought about about by the sub conscious severing of his force connection. As far as Nihilus is concerned, he learnt this techique from Kreia's teachings (she knew of the Exile's wound, right after the Mandalorian wars). Nihilus may have had a similar wound as the Exile, but unlike the Exile his deficiency brought about an unquenchable craving for the force, which if not appeased consumed his own connection to life. Thereby creating his ability to seperate the force from life, so as to devour it. Sion's body was destroyed almost completely, but through sheer will was able to use the dark side to keep himself "alive". The fact is that Sion is an anomaly just like the Exile and Nihilus, only that he is dead, but strongly connected to the force i.e unconnected to life but connected to the force. The unusual Sith Assasins, were simply the followers of Sion and Nihilus and learnt their techniques from them.

And you think Nihilus, Sion and Traya were among these Sith she was talking about? The TSL Sith Lords didn't care for petty claims of dominion and they certainly didn't care for the Star Forge. Bastila doesn't know any of the three great Sith Lords, so she would only be refering to the Korriban sith - whom Kreia also mentions. They followed the true path of the Sith, by pursuing power - fighting over Malak's left overs didn't concern them at all.

I do not understand this at all. If you want something 'Star Warish,' why not watch the Star Wars movies? Hell, play KOTOR again, there's your interactive Star Wars fix for when you need to play some Star Wars. Why does every game have to be the same? Why does every story have to be just like Star Wars? It's been done; let's have some variety, let's have something new. Let's do something exciting and adult and non-Star-Wars with the Star Wars setting because it hasn't been done before. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I agree that; enough has been done with the "starwarsy" feel, that we warrant a change of climate, and Kotor 2 is exactly that change. I prefer Kotor 2 because it doesn't sacrifice story in an effort to be 'star warsy'. K2 is for the non star wars fan.