RPGWatch Forums - View Single Post - Is Dragon Age really a BG successor?
View Single Post


November 12th, 2009, 15:18
Originally Posted by JDR13 View Post
Let me give you an example of rationalization.

Trying to take the base classes *and* specialisations of DA and comparing them to just the base classes from the BG series, and then saying that DA has as many classes as BG. If you want to combine those then BG1/2 has around 40 classes, it's not even close.
Taking BG1 that I've done some googling on, what specialisations were there beyond the base classes? It has been a decade or so since I've played it, so I'm sure that you're more familiar (and again I'm genuinely asking, not being defensive or confrontational or picking a fight, really just trying to understand your views), but googling doesn't suggest anything in the way of later specialisation. Paladin, fighter, ranger, cleric, druid, mage, thief, bard. Various multi-class combos. Mages have specialisations (but the array of skill trees for mages in DA I'd say more than covers that).

How do you get to 40 class options? Unless you're counting all the potential different levels at which you could duel class, in which case there's more differentiation in character builds in that respect I guess (although with the limited range of skills & abilities probably overall less combinations).

I could see your point comparing against say NWN2 where they've got 30 odd classes & specialist classes & any number of combinations and race specialisations which have quite significant bonuses / level penalities / spell like abilities / resistances etc, but my memory of the BGs were that they were pretty basic and (especially with the lack of skill trees and special abilities barring spells) I'd felt fairly restricted creating a character.

Take off the fanboy glasses for a second, you're getting way too defensive for no reason. Nobody ever suggested that one game was"worse" than the other. My points were about variety and choices that aren't present in DA, and yes, they are factual. Whether or not *you* care about those things being absent is not the point.
Not getting defensive, just trying to explain what I was actually asking, which still seems to be causing some trouble. You listed some factual differences, fair enough, but you also said that those differences represented a step backwards, which I read as suggesting that those differences made the game "worse" (even if there are other aspects that are better and overall there's no clear winner). Was that not what you meant? If so then this is a bit of a pointless discussion (probably is anyway).

If not, could you take off your own fanboy glasses for a moment and explain to me why *you* care about those things being absent? That's more what I'm interested in, and again this is not picking a fight, I don't want you to say what you got out of them so I can try and say you're wrong, I'm just genuinely curious to know what it is about the way that you play games and the way that you think when you're playing games that means you get value out of gameplay options in which I see no value.
Benedict is offline


Original Sin 2 Donor


Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: London
Posts: 2,352
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)