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


November 12th, 2009, 22:34
Originally Posted by Benedict View Post
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'm pretty sure the thread is refering to the full BG campaign, or else the title wouldn't make much sense. The specialisations didn't kick in until Shadows of Amn, here is a full list.


*Edit* Why are you having to use Google anyways? That tells me that either- 1.) You've never actually played the BG games, or- 2.) It's been so long since you've played them that you don't have a strong recollection of them. (what I believe)

Originally Posted by Benedict View Post
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).
txa1265 summed it up perfectly in his last post, although you tried your hardest to rationalize against what he said as well.

Originally Posted by Benedict View Post
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.
Again, you seem to be missing the point. It's not about whether or not anyone cares if those things are there, they are just facts that I was pointing out.

I'm sorry, but in all honesty, you're the only one here who is acting like a fanboy. Why else bother to argue something like this, especially when it's been so long since you've played BG that you apparently can't even remember all the details about it? Besides, nobody was even trying to imply that one game was superior to the other.

Bottom line - A game from 2009 should be better in EVERY conceivable way than a series that was finished nearly a Decade before. DA is an improvement in some aspects, but not in all of them, that's all I was pointing out. I wasn't implying anything beyond that.
Last edited by JDR13; November 13th, 2009 at 00:40.
JDR13 is offline


JDR13's Avatar
Original Sin Donor


Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Florida, US
Posts: 23,615
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)