Aegeri

Jolee I found to be equally as annoying as the other NPC's. Canderous and HK-47 are in fact the two examples I was thinking of: Both Darkside NPC's. As for Carth, well I just wish you could of killed the sod earlier. Unfortunately you are stuck with the lot of them against your will almost.

I agree that the storyline was an incredibly big cliche, but it was overall well presented. I'd like to have a bit more NPC options in a possible sequal, especially because, with maybe 2 exceptions, all the NPC's in KotoR were too whingey and annoying. Definitely needed some stronger NPC's.

It isn't that we hate the game, I would rather see them do something different (INCLUDING another Star Wars RPG) but not bother continuing on with the very closed story that KotoR had. They could do a sequal with an entirely different story, but then there would be little point in naming it KotoR 2. I would also honestly hope that a new companies first game was NOT a sequal to another companies game. That would be one of the worst starts for a company IMO.

Congradulations, the eugenics movement would of been very proud of you.

So what? Deus Ex is a role playing game, you play the role of JC Denton, just like you play the nameless one in PS:T or jedi doofis in KotOR. Or how you play a plumber in Super Mario Brothers or a Hyperkinetic Smiley in Pac Man. I mean you're playing a role... right... Dues Ex is a first person shooter. Period. LOL, DE is more RPing than KotOR. Hmmmm maybe a little bit. Could you give some actual solid examples here though. I am aware that Deus Ex has more than a few decisions you can make that drastically affect the game, but Knights has more than a few of those themselves. Both games have multiple endings, but immediately throw the significance of this out the window by allowing you to do any of them in the last couple of levels. You are not set into one end by your choices early enough in either game. Sure Deus Ex does have more roleplaying than most games, but it is also a lot more limited in character and dialogue choices than the likes of Knights.

I assure you there are MANY of us out there. I worke as an intern at Brookhaven National Lab last summer and I would say about half the people in my department (over 400 total) believed in God. How do I know this? I saw them in church That doesn't mean they even remotely accept intelligent design. I have a large group of Christian friends and quite a few of them do not believe in Creation (others do). It may also surprise you to know, that despite being a scientist and firmly understanding evolution, I do happen to believe in God. Do I have to believe in the bible word for word to do so however? No. So just because I am a scientist that believes in God, does not mean that I accept the incredibly ridiculous assertations that Intelligent designers actually make. Intelligent design is a massively flawed theory, because in order to make it work you have to blatantly lie about how the biology of what you're talking about actually functions. The classic example is the bacterial flagella, which while incredibly complex is not actually irreducibly complex at all, and could have clearly evolved from other structures including the ATPase. So I would clearly say it is indeed true that few scientists do ascribe to intelligent design, just like how few are actually creationists, and you can tell that because none of them ever get into significant journals like Nature or Science. I've always made the challenge to demonstrate a single creationist/intelligent design paper from Nature/Science, and so far all have failed. In any event, if anyone can present a single logical proven argument for intelligent design I would be surprised. (I am a microbiologist/immunologist if anyone is wondering, and yes indeed, I am still not an atheist despite my acceptance of evolution etc. I just see God differently than most other people do).