Originally posted by FreshestSlice
Because Lore wise that's impossible and it's in the campaign guide that he dueld Malak?
I recalled and pointed out arguments of some critics in one of the discussions involving Revan, at that time.
This is the thread: http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=533096&pagenumber=3
These remarks from critics are GOLD:
Originally posted by mattatom
Wow punishing his officers? That clearly makes him better than Dooku.Yes but do we know how? No, exactly he could have grenaded the fck out of Malak or killed him with blasterfire, which makes him, an average trooper.
Hordes of Sith? I see four. Plus two have blasters which even a youngling could deflect blasterfire from more troopers for a time and slay some before being overwhelmed.
&
Originally posted by AthenasTrgrFngr
why? i mean im sure dooku can handle someone who's primary weapon of choice is a blaster.
&
Originally posted by Enyalus
Dunno. Revan defeating Mandalore the Ultimate with a blaster would make him pretty uber. 😛
&
Originally posted by Alistair
Lets use your own logic by interpreting pictures. Did the picture show Malak decapitated? Lightsabers tend to slice things apart on contact and we didn't see malak decapitated, how do you know Revan didn't pull out a blaster or dropped a few mines during the duel along with using his lightsaber? How do you know the picture is even accurate?How do you know that picture, which was simply a vision of that jedi even turns out to be accurate? The image shows the redeemed revan in his sith armor and mask, the TOR website shows him in a regular jedi robe during the star forge incident with a hood and without a mask. Thats a direct contradiction, and the latter seems to make much more sense than the former considering all post jedi civil war Revan pics show him in a brown jedi robe without a mask.
&
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Ever heard of slicing out someone's knee cap and capping them in the heart with a blaster bolt fired from a gun you tucked back in to your robes?Keyword: can. "Always in motion is the future."
And you don't see Malak dead from a saber wound or do you?
A.) That picture has Bastila present in that fight when she was not present. It's validity is shattered with that alone. B.) Regardless of its validity, even if Bastila wasn't in it, it still shows Revan in loose-fitted free-flowing skirt. That vision of Qel-Droma's has him in a billowing cloak. So which is it? The ambiguous vision or the non-canon drawing?
----
Criticism of Revan used to be that bad.
And just look at the magnitude of bashing that I received in that thread for my assessments.
Originally posted by FreshestSlice
Critics will still argue that now? But considering it's flat out denied in the source, I don't need to "provide evidence."
KoTOR II neither confirms nor denies, Meetra Surik's superiority over Revan.
Originally posted by FreshestSlice
Kreia implies draining planets is completely possible and that the ancient Sith knew how to do it.
I don't recall critics ever believing in this possibility. In-fact, critics have denied such a possibility for even Emperor Vitiate for a long time, before the launch of
Rise of the Emperor expansion for SWTOR.
Originally posted by FreshestSlice
Besides the fact that we both, and many others, think you're incredibly biased, no not really. Especially on her placement of characters such as the Exile and Traya.
I don't bash people for their preferences. But she pretends that she is superior or that people consider her credible, and asserts that I don't have any reasoning ability or assessment ability.
In her face:
Long ago, I stated that Revan was powerful Force-user and competent warrior. Guess what? Official revelations supported my stance.
Long ago, I stated that Revan is more powerful then the Exile. Guess what? Official revelations supported my stance.
Long ago, I stated that Vitiate have the potential to ravage entire planets. Guess what? Official revelations supported my stance.
Critics always came up with excuses such as grenades, guns, preparation, rituals and other nonsense.
---
To me, a person is not credible by simply believing in the norm; like people used to believe that Earth was FLAT. A person who challenges prevalent beliefs or attempts to recheck their credibility, is most credible due to his superior assessment ability then norm, if his findings are validated. This is what happens in the scientific field.