virumor...
Well, you certainly played Drakensang more than I did. I only finished it once, after all. After the first time, I wouldn't even have tried it as an archer or mage, given how completely useless I found them on the first play through. Are you familiar with the actual Dark Eye system? I'm not, and that may have made the difference.
With DA, I've played every origin story and gotten most of those characters significantly far into the game. The choices you make DO have real consequences, not just in the multiple endings (With no spoilers given, there are at least three different ways to finish the end fight alone) but also to the point where you can unlock missions in game by playing a 'darker' character that you can't unlock by being a good guy. There are a ton of things you can do that have very real effects on how people will deal with you, whether or not they side with you or against you and a whole host of other things that really do affect the story. Your choice of origin can also have some very significant effects on the game (Like the ability to marry certain characters that will only occur if you have certain origins). It's even possible to get members of your own party to attack you if you do some really bad things.
I do find it ironic that you say DA is 'just another Tolkien-inspired high fantasy generic world' - well, of course it is. But so is the Drakensang world. There's nothing new or original about that either, and it's a blatant AD&D clone to boot. The DA system is at least developed with computers in mind.
I definitely agree that Ferdok is a far better realised city than Denerim (or Orzammar, for that matter) but as for the world itself, I thought Thedas was vastly better realised, with far more obvious depth, history and believability than Drakensang. I wouldn't want to live in Thedas, but the clear cultural development, customs and religions made the world itself really come alive, for me. I saw none of that in Drakensang.
"'choice & consequence' & character interactions alone do not make a great RPG" - this is true, but they sure as heck go a very long way towards it. PS:T is not widely held to be the best CRPG of all time because it looks incredible (It doesn't) or because the combat system is all that great (Being designed for tabletop gaming, it's not all that great for a computer game).
As for combat - the DA system is better as it's actually been designed for a computer system rather than from a tabletop system, but there's still definitely room for improvement. In terms of tactics, neither can hold a candle to a proper tabletop game, of course. I did have to vary tactics slightly in DA, but never in Drakensang, where 'run up and hit it' was a pretty good universal cure-all.
Four tanks solved everything in Drakensang. Try that in DA and you'll be dead faster than you can yell 'we're out of healing poultices!' Not only is there better class balancing in DA, but you actually NEED all classes, which you really don't in Drakensang.
Are mages powerful in DA? Sure. but so is a properly equipped warrior or rogue. You have to be pretty high level to start kicking major damage with your mage, and if you get too happy you'll end up blasting your own party by accident. One on one, archers are as good as mages at direct damage, and once your warrior gets there he'll be better yet. Especially if you've given him dual wield, which is just nasty.
Not that the balancing is perfect, don't get me wrong. Two handed weapon users are definitely weaker overall than dual wielders or shield users and some of the schools of magic are more useful than others. Some of the specialist classes are also a lot weaker than others.
But overall, DA is by far the better game.
As for the other Drakensang game - I will certainly be getting it. As I've said, I LIKED Drakensang. It was very playable, certainly enjoyable and absolutely something I'd recommend to fans of CRPGs. It just isn't a patch on Dragon Age. But then, as a party based CRPG only PS:T is superior, so it's hardly a slight to Drakensang to say that.
