Tanthalas

People being upset at the possiblity of BG3 being very different to the original series, to the point that they won't even be in the same genre, doesn't make sense to you. But being upset that not everyone is excited at the possibility of getting a BG3 that has little to do with the originals, both plot and gameplay wise, does? You apparently don't like BG's gameplay anymore, but it's not that surprising that people keep loving the genre and want to see more of it. As for the comparison to FF and Tales of, I already pointed out why the comparison is flawed. The FF series (not sure about the earlier Tales of) established itself as a series that does not have interconnected games from the very beginning. Such is not the case with BG. BG1 and 2 are intimately linked to each other, so fan expectations of a BG3 would be that it would keep to this.

Hmmm... You must be new here. Anyway, I did, what's the problem? What was wrong with what I said or do you simply not like it because you don't agree with it? You and a few others have stated this so you are not alone but the irony and hypocrisy in this statement lies in the fact that none of you complain about Tales Of games having no relation, or Final Fantasy, Elder Scrolls, Fallout or Ys. While some of those are Jrpg, the subject to comparison remains the same so I'd like someone to enlighten me how having no relation calls for the need to be called another name other than Baldurs Gate III or thereby fails to qualify it when everyone here plays other franchises that do this very thing and it's never bothered them before... Not that we know for sure it's going to be called BG3 anyway. I never played Fallout or Y's, and I only played Oblivion and Skyrim. But comparing BG3 having nothing to do with BG1&2, with the FF and Tales series doesn't make much sense. From the very start, each FF game never had any story connection to the previous one, and when they did, they were called FFX-2, FFXIII-2, FFXII: Revenant Wings, etc. I haven't played all Tales games either, but the only ones I played with a connected story were Tales of Berseria 1 & 2. This is not the case for Baldur's Gate, where from the onset the two games in the series were deeply connected by their stories. Sure, a BG3 could have some connection to BG1&2, but CHARNAME's story ended 20 years ago, just leave it be. And then when you add that the game you advocate for (an open-world ARPG) doesn't even have similar gameplay, for Pete's sake, if you want to call the game BG, at least give it a subtitle like the Dark Alliance games.

As a huge fan of BG1&2, a BG3 is something that I'd love to see. But I fear that instead of giving something that actually plays like BG, they'd turn it into an open world ARPG. Sure, the PS2 Dark Alliance games were loads of fun to play, but they weren't BG. If you don't want to make a BG game, then you shouldn't call it Baldur's Gate. Make the Forgotten Realms game you want, but call it something else.

I'm also currently awaiting PoEII for the PS4. I really liked the first one (though the loading times were stupid).

I know that that particular achievement has a "problem". While the "Merchant of Ehb" deed seems to account for all your transactions in the game, the achievement requires you to make those transactions in a single playing session (aka, no loading save files barring when you die and select continue). I think people usually get that achievement easily by selling and then buying back equipment you sold. There's another achievement with the same problem. The one that requires you to take a certain amount of damage. EDIT: Just saw that you already got your answer in another topic.

I know this is a stupid suggestion, but have you tried starting a game with your PS3 logged-in on PSN? For some reason my Limited edition items only appear in my inventory when I start the game if I'm logged on to PSN.

Are you saying that you only got this problem after downloading the DLC? On hardcore I used to get one-shotted because I completely neglected my Stamina, with 3000+ HP I only get 2-shotted. Haven't retried that battle after installing Treasure of the Sun. Going to try it out tonight. I know that the fight on top of the tower was a lot harder for me.

My only problem with Dungeon Siege III was that the game felt a bit short. In contrast with the main game, I feel that the content added by Treasures of the Sun was well worth the money. The new areas added looked good for the most part, and it was also a nice surprise to see the large amount of voice-acting present in the DLC. The added lore was great too. I especially like how in some conversations we actually got to see the scene from several angles instead of just looking at the backs of our characters. Like others have mentioned it would have been nice to see more monster models but it didn't break the DLC for me. The Enchantment system, though limited, was a nice touch to the game, and its great that you can use it in the main campaign too. The increased difficulty, throughout the whole game, was also very welcome. And I don't think that you need to use Reinhardt to beat Hardcore, I know that I did just fine with Katarina (though having an amulet with almost 400 Doom on it helps a lot). I just have one remark about the increased difficulty. The problem might just be in how I play the game but I think that most bosses make the Armor and Block statistics useless, which is why I can see people playing with melee-oriented characters having trouble. With Katarina I just go with a glass cannon build and ran in to do Empowered Shots and then run away. I think there should have been a way to make Armor and Block worth something, instead of Stamina being the only Defensive stat worth investing in. As the game stands, blocking against bosses was useless (for me at least). EDIT: Though I really hope that we'll get to see more Dungeon Siege III from Obsidian, as a whole I really liked the game and the DLC.