124 réponses à ce sujet

[LamboIRL]

I myself think that the Baldur's Gate Trilogy where some of the best games i played. I love everything about them. I also thing that Dragon Age is a good game. For me neither one is better then the other. I have enjoyed playing them both. I enjoyed playing the different classes avaiable in the Baldur's Gate games. I do miss being able to choose a class, when playing Dragon Age, such as playing a paladin which is my favourite class of all of them, not sure why but there you go



I do miss the varity of items you could get in Baldur's Gate when compared to Dragon Age, same with the quests.

[Auraad]

Malkut wrote...

...
FR has been building this stuff for 30 years.  You can't reasonably ask any origianl IP to compete with it.
...

THANKS!

This is a good argument AGAINST DA!

Bioware should have left the world-building thing to people who are experienced with it! Bioware did this for their first time and FAILED (to me)! There is so much missing, the world is just incomplete, small (tiiiiiny) and unlogical.

And in my DA:O the elves pray to the maker - so it's the same religion/god than the humans. Save the dwarves, they got their own - if you like it or not is up to you.

[BradTheMad]

ChickenDownUnder wrote...

I suppose what I am trying to say that while Dragon Age is a good game, and may indeed be a spiritual successer of BG, it's more like the stepsister that keeps stealing your clothes. Not unique, just placed on another body.

QFT Like it or not if you have played the BG series you cannot help but compare the two, whether it was mentioned in the media or not. It also depends a lot on what you personally liked best out of BG, I really missed the deeper interactions with my party members. I liked most of them but in most playthorughs there are only two or three choices in the amin quest that will make them go away whereas in BG Minsc pretty much started bawling as soon as you looked evil at somebody else. The romance plots are also pretty straightforward whereas in BG it took me a damn long time to get Aerie on my side (that winged elf duel-class...thing). In DA you can almost do whatever the heck you want as long as you give them the right presents.
Don't get me wrong I love DA but it's just tiny things that BG did better IMO and those small things made most of the story for me.

As for the setting ie. world building I think they actually did a good job in the time-span they did it. I love the way elves are portrayed and it was quite surprise being the underdog for once.

Modifié par BradTheMad, 03 décembre 2009 - 12:27 .

[TastyLaksa]

You know why DA:O is replacing BG? Because they want to attract the MMO crowd. Explains the combat mechanics, explains the loot centric DLC's. Explains the loot centric advertising "Hey look new items. Items from dead king. Another chance to get Dog! Loot! Powerful ally shale!" as compared to "Hey look more back story!" Gamers nowadays think that fallout 3, oblivion and wow are rpgs, just because they end with RPG.

[Auraad]

TastyLaksa wrote...

You know why DA:O is replacing BG? Because they want to attract the MMO crowd. Explains the combat mechanics, explains the loot centric DLC's. Explains the loot centric advertising "Hey look new items. Items from dead king. Another chance to get Dog! Loot! Powerful ally shale!" as compared to "Hey look more back story!" Gamers nowadays think that fallout 3, oblivion and wow are rpgs, just because they end with RPG.

This.
Thanks for that statement, it hits the nail on top!

[FedericoV]

Auraad wrote...

Malkut wrote...

...
FR has been building this stuff for 30 years.  You can't reasonably ask any origianl IP to compete with it.
...

THANKS!

This is a good argument AGAINST DA!

Bioware should have left the world-building thing to people who are experienced with it! Bioware did this for their first time and FAILED (to me)! There is so much missing, the world is just incomplete, small (tiiiiiny) and unlogical.

And in my DA:O the elves pray to the maker - so it's the same religion/god than the humans. Save the dwarves, they got their own - if you like it or not is up to you.

Are you joking or what? D&D world building has been pure CRAP for something like 20 years. FR included. FR are the worst setting I've ever played with (PC or PnP). FR were so full of s*it that they have to raise down the setting and start from 0 again to give some sense to the setting...

The only interesting setting in the D&D world has been Dragonlance and then some of the d20 setting during the 3rd edition age (Midnight, Oberron and something else).

DA:O world building while not so original is logical and crafted with sense of history and taste. It's a good setting crafted for a single player RPG. While FR are created for PnP. Y. The world is tiny? You have only visited Ferelden. Thedas is huge but in the first game they can't overflow players with information about a new setting. In time we will visit other places as well!

I don't understand the point about elves religion in your DA:O... care to elaborate?

[Auraad]

FedericoV wrote...

Auraad wrote...

Malkut wrote...

...
FR has been building this stuff for 30 years.  You can't reasonably ask any origianl IP to compete with it.
...

THANKS!

This is a good argument AGAINST DA!

Bioware should have left the world-building thing to people who are experienced with it! Bioware did this for their first time and FAILED (to me)! There is so much missing, the world is just incomplete, small (tiiiiiny) and unlogical.

And in my DA:O the elves pray to the maker - so it's the same religion/god than the humans. Save the dwarves, they got their own - if you like it or not is up to you.

Are you joking or what? D&D world building has been pure CRAP for something like 20 years. FR included. FR are the worst setting I've ever played with (PC or PnP). FR were so full of s*it that they have to raise down the setting and start from 0 again to give some sense to the setting...

The only interesting setting in the D&D world has been Dragonlance and then some of the d20 setting during the 3rd edition age (Midnight, Oberron and something else).

DA:O world building while not so original is logical and crafted with sense of history and taste. It's a good setting crafted for a single player RPG. While FR are created for PnP. Y. The world is tiny? You have only visited Ferelden. Thedas is huge but in the first game they can't overflow players with information about a new setting. In time we will visit other places as well!

I don't understand the point about elves religion in your DA:O... care to elaborate?

FR may not be appealing to everyone, but its huge and detailed. Lots of background material, zillion of deep characters, the underdark and much more. The good thing is, it's such a fantatsic world, that not everything must make sense (or, everything makes sense - view at it as you like). Still, it fits - especially the 3E FR setting onwards.

OK, it may be me, but I really think this gameworld is too small ... yes, there is this map a lil larger than Ferelden (Thedas), but besides a few hints it doesn't say anything more (Orlay being the most often cited other kingdom).
There are two ways to introduce a new setting:
- small and detailed or
- large and sketchy (with perhaps one area more detailed)
Obviously, Bio chose the first option. If they would have gone for the second option and dropped more info about the rest of the world and universe (there are more gods, right? there is more culture, right? there is more live on this rotten planet, right? there is ... *hopefully* zillion more things that we have no clue about it now!), we actually would like to know more about it!
What they should have done imo is to give us a more or less rough overview over the whole world/universe to make us eager to explore the rest of the world. So, it's an encapsuled "world" (kingdom) where we already know everything ... (at least we get this impression)

Regarding the elves, someone said there were three complete religions fleshed out - well, actually there is only one god (the maker), hence one religion. Except the dwarves, they do their own thing (as always  )

On a sidenote, why does this get so much attention? Because it has "Dragon" in its name (and Bioware claimed it to be the spiritual successor of BG)... "blight age" would have been much more original, but nobody would care about it ... dragons are just so much cooler.

[back pain]

BG I and II were great games, but they have not aged well. The biggest problem with them was the retarded D&D system, sure it works great for a P&P game but its just not malleable enough to work on a computer. In some ways it is to complex, requiring a lot of meta-gaming, and in others its to simple. It is for that reason alone that DA:O is better then BG II (even when controlling for the fact that BG II came out so long ago).



However back to the topic at hand: When I play dragon age I am reminded of BG II, the games have a similar "feel" to them however its is difficult to quantify why this occurs. The job of a spiritual successor is to create a sense of nostalgia and I, and the majority of PROFESSIONAL reviewers, feel that Dragon Age accomplishes that.

[Malkavianqueen]

Auraad wrote...

FedericoV wrote...

Auraad wrote...

Malkut wrote...

...
FR has been building this stuff for 30 years.  You can't reasonably ask any origianl IP to compete with it.
...

THANKS!

This is a good argument AGAINST DA!

Bioware should have left the world-building thing to people who are experienced with it! Bioware did this for their first time and FAILED (to me)! There is so much missing, the world is just incomplete, small (tiiiiiny) and unlogical.

And in my DA:O the elves pray to the maker - so it's the same religion/god than the humans. Save the dwarves, they got their own - if you like it or not is up to you.

Are you joking or what? D&D world building has been pure CRAP for something like 20 years. FR included. FR are the worst setting I've ever played with (PC or PnP). FR were so full of s*it that they have to raise down the setting and start from 0 again to give some sense to the setting...

The only interesting setting in the D&D world has been Dragonlance and then some of the d20 setting during the 3rd edition age (Midnight, Oberron and something else).

DA:O world building while not so original is logical and crafted with sense of history and taste. It's a good setting crafted for a single player RPG. While FR are created for PnP. Y. The world is tiny? You have only visited Ferelden. Thedas is huge but in the first game they can't overflow players with information about a new setting. In time we will visit other places as well!

I don't understand the point about elves religion in your DA:O... care to elaborate?

FR may not be appealing to everyone, but its huge and detailed. Lots of background material, zillion of deep characters, the underdark and much more. The good thing is, it's such a fantatsic world, that not everything must make sense (or, everything makes sense - view at it as you like). Still, it fits - especially the 3E FR setting onwards.

OK, it may be me, but I really think this gameworld is too small ... yes, there is this map a lil larger than Ferelden (Thedas), but besides a few hints it doesn't say anything more (Orlay being the most often cited other kingdom).
There are two ways to introduce a new setting:
- small and detailed or
- large and sketchy (with perhaps one area more detailed)
Obviously, Bio chose the first option. If they would have gone for the second option and dropped more info about the rest of the world and universe (there are more gods, right? there is more culture, right? there is more live on this rotten planet, right? there is ... *hopefully* zillion more things that we have no clue about it now!), we actually would like to know more about it!
What they should have done imo is to give us a more or less rough overview over the whole world/universe to make us eager to explore the rest of the world. So, it's an encapsuled "world" (kingdom) where we already know everything ... (at least we get this impression)

Regarding the elves, someone said there were three complete religions fleshed out - well, actually there is only one god (the maker), hence one religion. Except the dwarves, they do their own thing (as always  )

On a sidenote, why does this get so much attention? Because it has "Dragon" in its name (and Bioware claimed it to be the spiritual successor of BG)... "blight age" would have been much more original, but nobody would care about it ... dragons are just so much cooler.

If you play as Dalish, you worship the elven Gods. ^__^

[Fadook]

However back to the topic at hand: When I play dragon age I am reminded of BG II, the games have a similar "feel" to them however its is difficult to quantify why this occurs. The job of a spiritual successor is to create a sense of nostalgia and I, and the majority of PROFESSIONAL reviewers, feel that Dragon Age accomplishes that.

Yes, because a lot of the elements that made BG2 so great (sheer size, party-based tactical combat, sidequests, dialogue, storyline etc.) are present as a single package in Dragon Age in a way that they haven't been since BG2. People may disagree about the relative quality of these features, but they are present in DA to at least some extent. I think that evokes the nostalgia, and why it's still reasonable to call it the "spiritual successor".

The setting even feels quite familiar, though that's a negative. It's not quite as generic as Faerun (the enslavement of the Elves and their loss of immortality due to human interaction make for interesting developments), but it still feels like typical Western fantasy.  It would be awesome to see an RPG with a grittier world that bears a greater resemblance to real history. They weren't called the Dark Ages for nothing. It was a pretty crappy time to be alive for the vast majority of the population, but every RPG makes medieval times out to be periods of high civilization.

[hankmurphy]

I think BG 1&2 seem more epic to me. the wide open world, beautiful graphics, and great gameplay blew me away when i was 15 and still hold up pretty well to any other game out there. i replayed before DAs release and was not as impressed as i was originally. i still consider BG1 my favorite all time game, but i prefer the nostalgia factor and remembering the feeling i got playing the first time to actually replaying.

im still not quite finished the main story in DA, but i have noticed many aspects that i miss from BG. in BG the world map was huge and completely filled with smaller areas. in DA the map is large, but sparsley occupied by small regions.many of the regions in BG were optional so you could really get the impression that you were just wandering the continent, doing what you wanted. in DA the regions are almost all necessary to the plot, which i felt added a very linear feel to a supposedly non-linear game. in BG i had to actively neglect the main quest to visit all regions, but in DA i merely had to play the main quest. (i am not counting DLC until we get a full-on expansion)

i have also realized that i really dislike scaling.the wary feeling you get as you enter an area not knowing how powerful the local baddies are is great and i miss it.

i also would have liked more evil options like slaughtering an entire village on a whim. being chased by guards everywhere you go for a bar brawl that got out of hand is another aspect i really miss from BG.

that said, i think DA is a great game that pales in comparison to its "spiritual successor".

Modifié par hankmurphy, 03 décembre 2009 - 09:32 .

[nuculerman]

hankmurphy wrote...

that said, i think DA is a great game that pales in comparison to its "spiritual successor".

it pales in comparison to DA 2?  Rofl.  I think you mean "spiritual predecessor."

I find complaints over DA:O not being as good as BG2 hilarious.  Go play BG2 again.  If you still think it's a better game, there's something wrong with you.

The crazy tendency humans have of holding on to the past as if it were better is just weird and psychotic.  Everything was better in those good ol' days.  "When I was your age, we didn't have television, and everyone was smarter because of it."  Okay, grandpa, but when you were my age the unemployment rate was 30%, the average life expectancy was 55 years, and America was about to enter a second world war... so excuse me while I hold to the idea that times are better now.

The same thing happened with FO3.  Fanboys cried out, "ZOMG, FO1 and FO2 were SO MUCH BETTER!"  Well I had to see for myself.  I played them.  They weren't.  Same thing with Deus Ex.  "Best RPG ever!!!!"  So I played it.  It was a great game.  But best RPG ever?  I'm sure I would have thought that had I played it when I was 14, but seriously?  It's not anymore.

DA:O is way more immersive than BG2.  The story is far more interesting (not the general story arc, but the world they developed).  And DA:O has WAY more room for expansion.  Have you even talked to the characters.  Orleis is bigger than Fereldan.  There's an island filled with Qunari.  There's a region ruled by Assassins.  Calm the hell down.  DA:O has a lot more to offer in DLC and eventually sequels.  And it's better than BG2.  Sorry.

For all those people who continue to complain, here's an idea.  Go get your BG2 copy.  Go and get your FO2 copy.  Sit down with a CRT monitor, wired keyboard and mouse, and play them until you get hard for the past.  Stop coming to forums and whining about how much better the past was.  It wasn't.

[hankmurphy]

nuculerman wrote...


And DA:O has WAY more room for expansion.  Have you even talked to the characters.  Orleis is bigger than Fereldan.  There's an island filled with Qunari.  There's a region ruled by Assassins.  Calm the hell down.  DA:O has a lot more to offer in DLC and eventually sequels. 

is orleis bigger than fereldan? i wouldnt know because I CANT GO THERE.  youve been to this island filled with qunari? how do i get there?  the playable game map is small in comparison to BG.

if BG seems outdated, its because it came out over a decade ago! when most people remember their favorite game its because of the nostalgia factor. no video game had ever delivered on the scale that BG did before it was released. it remains a landmark RPG along with the original fallout, regardless of how outdated the games seem now. without a superior game such as BG to influence modern games, what would you be playing? the fact is BG and bioware had a big impact on modern RPGs and that would not have happened if BG was not one of the greatest.
will DA stand the test of time? 10 years from now will we be praising DA?

Modifié par hankmurphy, 03 décembre 2009 - 10:12 .

[Tianwyn]

BG I and II were great games, but they have not aged well.

I would beg to differ. I play BG2 at least four times a year, and usually more, since the modding community has been so active. BG2 is still the ultimate game for me. I'm not going to say that people should like it more than DA or anything, but just because DA is newer, has more voicing and 3-D graphics, does not make it superior to BG2 in my eyes. The Baldur's Gate series made me care more for my PC and the NPC's more than any other game to date, because of its story. Mods just make it even better.

I do like DA; I haven't enjoyed a new game this much for a while. It's more the spiritual successor to BG than NWN1 ever was. But for me, it still doesn't touch BG2.

The crazy tendency humans have of holding on to the past as if it were better is just weird and psychotic.

A valid point, but the same can be said of people automatically latching onto what's new and exciting because everyone else is.

Modifié par Tianwyn, 04 décembre 2009 - 12:17 .

[Valmy]

Regarding the elves, someone said there were three complete religions fleshed out - well, actually there is only one god (the maker), hence one religion. Except the dwarves, they do their own thing

The City Elves live beside the humans and worship the Maker. The Dalish Elves worship their own Gods. Did you miss all the giant altars to their Gods all over their camp?

[Valmy]

hankmurphy wrote...
is orleis bigger than fereldan? i wouldnt know because I CANT GO THERE.  youve been to this island filled with qunari? how do i get there?  the playable game map is small in comparison to BG.

Huh?  You only got to go to a tiny part of the FR in BG.  Once city and a few towns and villages.  And that was it man.

DA:O is more like BG2 where you can only go to a few hotspots and the rest of the Kingdom goes unexplored, where BG you could wander around random places.

I do wish they had more areas of Denerim though.

[RunCDFirst]

BradTheMad wrote...
It also depends a lot on what you personally liked best out of BG, I really missed the deeper interactions with my party members. I liked most of them but in most playthorughs there are only two or three choices in the amin quest that will make them go away whereas in BG Minsc pretty much started bawling as soon as you looked evil at somebody else. The romance plots are also pretty straightforward whereas in BG it took me a damn long time to get Aerie on my side (that winged elf duel-class...thing). In DA you can almost do whatever the heck you want as long as you give them the right presents.

While preference between the game is going to be based on different opinions between what people think make a good game.... this is just patently false.

The interactions in Baldur's Gate were shallow. You had a lot of responses you could give, but very few of them could do anything. The interactions in Dragon Age are far deeper than Baldur's Gate and there is a greater player agency. Your choices can actually have quite a large impact on the outcome of the game.

People are free to like Baldur's Gate Trilogy over Dragon Age all they like, but at least be accurate in the reasons why you like one over the other.

[Auraad]

nuculerman wrote...
...The crazy tendency humans have of holding on to the past as if it were better is just weird and psychotic.  Everything was better in those good ol' days.  "When I was your age, we didn't have television, and everyone was smarter because of it."  Okay, grandpa, but when you were my age the unemployment rate was 30%, the average life expectancy was 55 years, and America was about to enter a second world war... so excuse me while I hold to the idea that times are better now.
...

You asume too much!
Why can't you just admit that many people are absolutely able to compare features of either game and draw their own conclusion?
Why do you think it's always nostalgia?

As a matter of fact I'm going to play the BG series again because they're more epic and cult (once I get it to run on my new machine, that is  )

[Auraad]

Tianwyn wrote...

BG I and II were great games, but they have not aged well.

I would beg to differ. I play BG2 at least four times a year, and usually more, since the modding community has been so active. BG2 is still the ultimate game for me. I'm not going to say that people should like it more than DA or anything, but just because DA is newer, has more voicing and 3-D graphics, does not make it superior to BG2 in my eyes. The Baldur's Gate series made me care more for my PC and the NPC's more than any other game to date, because of its story. Mods just make it even better.

I do like DA; I haven't enjoyed a new game this much for a while. It's more the spiritual successor to BG than NWN1 ever was. But for me, it still doesn't touch BG2.

The crazy tendency humans have of holding on to the past as if it were better is just weird and psychotic.

A valid point, but the same can be said of people automatically latching onto what's new and exciting because everyone else is.

Thanx for this - I couldn't have stated it better.

[DarkSpiral]

I am not going to rehash anything that's been said here, I hope.



DA and BG are apples are oranges. They are built for different player bases, in different decades, who have VASTLY different expectations. The fact that there are a small handful of vocal people that argue about which game is better and why doesn't change the fact that the entire population of the DA forums is a small drop of water in the bucket of DA players. Most of the players don't care, and possibly don't even really know, about BG.



And frankly, the two most active posters in this thread are no longer arguing about what's better...they're arguing about what they liked more. The graphics in DA are in fact BETTER than BG. No one is seriously going to deny that, it's a no-brainer. What is being argued here is subjective. It's even been called subjective, by several people. You aren't going to change each other's minds. Please stop. The hostility is beneath you both, since I assume (as you are both old enough to recall details of a game that's over ten years old) you're both adults.

[Krigwin]

Just wanted to chip in that the "lolnostalgia" argument, really isn't one. I was so pumped for DA:O I actually loaded up tutu and did another playthrough about 3 weeks before just so it would be fresh on my mind when I finally got my hands on DA:O. All the way from Candlekeep to Throne of Bhaal, did it about as quick and painless as you can imagine. The gameplay has aged pretty terribly but the graphics and music are timeless in my opinion, and the story and writing is classic.

I had finished up BG2 about two days before DA:O launched so I remembered everything. DA:O is new and prettier, and it has lots of shiny new features that... pretty much every game nowadays has, but it still doesn't compare. Which is fine with me, because it's a terrific game on its own and I'll be waiting for the inevitable sequel before I start doing any real comparisons. But so far I haven't seen anyone give any good reasons for why they think DA:O is possibly better other than "lolunostalgic" and "FRsuxlol".

I think it would have been better for Bioware to just advertise DA:O on its own (and not gone the blood and gore sex scenes mature game for mature gamers only approach), and not even try the "spiritual successor to BG" nonsense. Trying to draw fans from the old-school D&D crowd isn't the right way to go, Dragon Age needs to create new fans entirely if this franchise is ever going to stand on its own.

[doctorofdarkness]

Krigwin wrote...

 more dynamic and varied party interaction

This is interesting; the main pro-BG2 argument I've seen on this thread has been that the companions are more interesting because some are incompatible with each other, i.e., they'll attack one another if they're stuck in the same party. 

Fine, this isn't really in DA (apart from once, if Wynne gets a little upset at what Morrigan's saying...) but there's a much higher degree of interactivity otherwise- and it's progressive, too.  Two of your party members gossiping about you while wondering if you're eavesdropping on them, debating the meaning of life, three of them chatting (once or twice), even occasionally coming out with something that really fills out their character more (like discovering that Wynne lost a child in her youth)...now THAT's interactivity, and it's more immersive than the 'party comes to a halt while two NPCs converse, ignoring everybody else' interaction in BG2.

There are plenty of good points on both sides of this debate but I think it's pretty unreasonable to call DA's party banter less dynamic and varied than BG2.  Check out the videos on youtube and the transcripts already springing up online; the depth and sheer number of interactions is astounding- and everybody has a different, clearly delineated relationship with everybody else, even the 'quiet' ones (Shale has a bit of a golem-crush on Sten, I was delighted to discover).  What's the dynamic between Cernd and Mazzy, for instance?  I played the entire way through once with both of them and I don't remember them talking once.

Not that BG2's banter was bad- it was great, and revolutionary- but DA's is a definite progression towards a party where you appear to be controlling a group of real people with real attitudes towards each other, rather than scripted decisions to attack another companion, having exchanged six lines of dialogue previously, because their alignments are different.

[Jacks-Up]

I won't comment much but I will say that BG 1 & 2 villains were a lot better.

[CBGB]

This is a textbook example of why you can't please everybody:

lorderon99999 wrote...
So here why, IMO, DA:O is not the Spiritual Successor of the BG saga...

1- Story:
Let look at the story of DA:O: Save the World....Mmmmm where did I see that? etc

Since it's fitting for a single-player RPG to offer you a chance to be a singular hero, something that can't be done directly in an MMORPG, that's hardly a problem. It's especially not a problem for a game that is the spiritual successor to a game in which you save the world.

If you just saved, say, the family farm, imagine how many threads there would be bemoaning how much more important your task seemed in Baldur's Gate.

2- Sense of progression:
In DA:O you start the game not very strong and at the end you finish up killing archdemons and dragons....What a great sense of progression....

Seems a good progression to me.

I've read dozens of complaints about DAO on things I can't imagine posting about: a player who wants to return the game unless Devs give a bigger dex bonus to archery, another who rails about how there are no spears in the game, and even complaints about the range of hairstyles.

I think the mage hats look silly, too, but I'm not about to drop the game in protest.

Dragon Age comes closer to feeling like a novel than any other game I've played in many years. The characters are so real, some of their statements have sparked good discussions with non-gamer friends (especially Morrigan's observations on what 'all men are ready to believe,' and what that says both about men and about her).

I remember only one other game that ever made me feel this way, and it's a fitting spiritual ancestor.

[Malkut]

Auraad wrote...

FR may not be appealing to everyone, but its huge and detailed. Lots of background material, zillion of deep characters, the underdark and much more. The good thing is, it's such a fantatsic world, that not everything must make sense (or, everything makes sense - view at it as you like). Still, it fits - especially the 3E FR setting onwards.

Someone once said that the Forgotten Realms is not so much a high fantasy campaign setting based
on medieval Europe as it is a high fantasy campaign setting based on
high fantasy campaign settings.  I think that pretty much sums up the difference between DA's setting and the FR.

Regarding the elves, someone said there were three complete religions fleshed out - well, actually there is only one god (the maker), hence one religion. Except the dwarves, they do their own thing (as always  )

Didn't read the codex at all, did we?