Alpha Protocol - Lethal stealth takedown

[bushwhacker2k]

Dungeon Siege 3 has actually a lot of lore taken from the previous games. Even an entire subquest, not to mention the intergral part the 10th Legion played in Ehb.

The lore is all they took (and I didn't hang around long enough to see the specifics of that), without it the game has NOTHING to do with dungeon siege.

The gameplay changed, sure, some for the best, some for the worst.

IMO not really arguable, the game isn't even vaguely similar, it's a hack and slash game with little to no customization... dungeon siege was about building a character from scratch and getting good at whatever you continuously did, this has preset classes. In dungeon siege the combat was mostly automated, with you choosing what to do when you paused; in this, you click a button and swing your weapon, whether it be at empty air or an enemy.

I'm okay with you liking Obsidian, everyone has their own opinion from their own values, but this is NOT a Dungeon Siege game. I've gone over this on other forums, they shouldn't have done this, they should have AT LEAST made it a spin-off like New Vegas instead of tacking on a 3 when it's got less than nothing to do with the earlier games.

Also, to quell the impending argument: maybe the game is decent, that's not what I'm saying. What I AM saying is that Obsidian took a popular game series name and used it in something that really wasn't relevant and pretty much destroyed one of my favorite game series.

[GawainBS]

dungeon siege was about building a character from scratch and getting good at whatever you continuously did, this has preset classes. In dungeon siege the combat was mostly automated, with you choosing what to do when you paused; in this, you click a button and swing your weapon, whether it be at empty air or an enemy.

I'm really failing to see the difference. DS1 consisted of sticking to one weapon class, and keeping the right mouse button pressed on one enemy, then the next. There was no customisation, except gear, and *maybe* swapping out a spell or two depending on the situation. No "builds". Dungeon Siege 2 had a great skill system, huge improvement over 1, and required some tactical thinking. DS3 has several customisation options, which matter, and requires quick thinking and some tactics and skill usage.
My point: except visually and the party mechanics, DS3 is closer to DS2 than DS2 was to DS1. I admit that DS3 is guilty of getting consolised. Personally, I did prefer DS2 mechanics as well.

[bushwhacker2k]

I'm really failing to see the difference.

Okay... if you have genuinely played all 3 games and you can't tell how different 3 is from the previous two, then I don't think anything I say is going to make a difference. I will refrain from elaborating because I don't think I could add anything constructive at this point.