Ps:T is also not quite comparable because even though it is D&D it actually is a highly bastardized version of 2e D&D, with only three "classes" being represented in the game and even those classes having been considerably simplied and changed from actual 2e classes to where they really didn't mean much of anything. So it was a D&D game in which neither classes nor alignments were truly present or were extremely watered down.
To repeat what I've said before, which seems to be escaping many of you commenting on my take here: I am tying # of available companions to # of available class and alignment options. So a game having a small # of companions (ex. DA, D:OS, Ps:T) is OKAY when the game system has only a very small # of classes or no classes (and/or no alignments). But when a game has at least 12 classes, and the good-neutral-evil alignments dimension on top of those classes, then I expect a sufficient # of companions to allow me, the player, to play my game with a party of my choice based on alignments as well as adequate coverage of the different party roles represented by all of those different classes.
What is the criteria for "adequate"? 36? That's just one each for each class and Good, Neutral and Evil. I mean, if we're going with Lawful, Chaotic and Neutral as well, we could end up with as many as 120. Do we need True Neutral options too? Where are you trying to draw that line for a "sufficient number"? Will they have time to develop the game by the time they're done developing these companions? Are you going to be ok with just Warrior, Rogue and Mage archetypes, or are you going to need the specific classes?
What happens if you don't like the personality associated with one, or more, of the companions for that specific alignment? Are they going to have to make multiples to accommodate that as well? Where does it end?
