Dungeon Siege 3 is not a real Dungeon Siege game...

[Oner]

When I first started playing Diablo I, if you told me i'd be running through deserts and jungles in Diablo II, I would have thought you were nuts. But not only were we doing that in D2, it was fun.

I hate the jungle in D2 personally.

[GreasyDogMeat]

Not saying its a terrible game, I enjoy it - it def needs some revamps in some areas but you can't say this is part of the Dungeon Siege series because they took absolutely 0 game play from the original, all they did was buyout the name and use it on their own product, because lets face it.. if they didn't have Dungeon Siege for a name this game wouldn't be as successful. Its just a ****ty Dragon Age clone, with multiplayer. Oh well!

I can understand why some old fans of the series might not like the complete change. What I can't understand is why people would be fans of the old series in the first place. I personally loved Fallout 3 and New Vegas despite them being drastically different form the originals. Think of it this way, the series was dead and this new incarnation may result in a sequel more true to the 'beloved' originals, just as New Vegas was closer to the original Fallouts than 3 was.

 

I also find it odd you enjoy '****ty Dragon Age clones. I'm enjoying DS 3 more than DA 2 so far. If Dungeon Siege 3 is a clone/spiritual successor to anything it is the Baldur's Gate Dark Alliance games.

Edited June 23, 2011 by GreasyDogMeat

[deteego]

Not saying its a terrible game, I enjoy it - it def needs some revamps in some areas but you can't say this is part of the Dungeon Siege series because they took absolutely 0 game play from the original, all they did was buyout the name and use it on their own product, because lets face it.. if they didn't have Dungeon Siege for a name this game wouldn't be as successful. Its just a ****ty Dragon Age clone, with multiplayer. Oh well!

 

Well to be technical, they took the lore from the DS series and evolved the game in a different way.

 

The fact that the games have the same lore is why its DS3

[WorstUsernameEver]

Frankly the "Dungeon Siege franchise = crap therefore you are not allowed to complain about Obsidian making a sequel in name only" argument is an amusing one, and similar to one that I saw used by the rudest and more annoying Fallout 3 fans all the time when people politely (and non-politely, of course) argued that Fallout 3 wasn't a Fallout game because of its genre shift.

 

Seems amusing to see it here, especially considering that the Dungeon Siege franchise is tied to its gameplay rather than its lore, compared to Fallout where you can see why, despite the gameplay being completely different, Fallout 3 and New Vegas could still be considered Fallout games.

 

Well, amusing and sad anyway. Doesn't really reflect well on the community.

[sorophx]

Fallout 3 wasn't a Fallout game because of its genre shift.

the "genre shift" isn't the issue though. FO3 is very much like FOT - in the same universe, only with really stupid things (Humvees, hairy Deathclaws, Liberty Prime, Mudcrab people etc.). I still enjoy FOT. but it's not a good Fallout game.

[GreasyDogMeat]

Frankly the "Dungeon Siege franchise = crap therefore you are not allowed to complain about Obsidian making a sequel in name only" argument is an amusing one, and similar to one that I saw used by the rudest and more annoying Fallout 3 fans all the time when people politely (and non-politely, of course) argued that Fallout 3 wasn't a Fallout game because of its genre shift.

 

Seems amusing to see it here, especially considering that the Dungeon Siege franchise is tied to its gameplay rather than its lore, compared to Fallout where you can see why, despite the gameplay being completely different, Fallout 3 and New Vegas could still be considered Fallout games.

 

Well, amusing and sad anyway. Doesn't really reflect well on the community.

I may get overly defensive, but I also find it amusing you don't seem to mind the flood of overly hostile critiques like calling the game a '****ty Dragon Age knock-off'.

[WorstUsernameEver]

Frankly the "Dungeon Siege franchise = crap therefore you are not allowed to complain about Obsidian making a sequel in name only" argument is an amusing one, and similar to one that I saw used by the rudest and more annoying Fallout 3 fans all the time when people politely (and non-politely, of course) argued that Fallout 3 wasn't a Fallout game because of its genre shift.

 

Seems amusing to see it here, especially considering that the Dungeon Siege franchise is tied to its gameplay rather than its lore, compared to Fallout where you can see why, despite the gameplay being completely different, Fallout 3 and New Vegas could still be considered Fallout games.

 

Well, amusing and sad anyway. Doesn't really reflect well on the community.

I may get overly defensive, but I also find it amusing you don't seem to mind the flood of overly hostile critiques like calling the game a '****ty Dragon Age knock-off'.

 

"They did it first!" is a bad defense. You haven't really addressed my criticism, you have tried to divert attention. Especially since, I actually never said that the rudeness is justified. But yeah, personally, I'm more concerned to how the Obsidian community reacts compared to the emotional outburst of the Dungeon Siege fans.

[GreasyDogMeat]

"They did it first!" is a bad defense. You haven't really addressed my criticism, you have tried to divert attention. Especially since, I actually never said that the rudeness is justified. But yeah, personally, I'm more concerned to how the Obsidian community reacts compared to the emotional outburst of the Dungeon Siege fans.

I'm on the same side of the fence that I was on when Fallout 3 came out. I loved the old versions and I love the new version. 'Course in Dungeon Siege's case I only have been enjoying the new version. I don't have a lot of pity for DS fans. Previews have been out for ages, the demo was out for weeks that I played multiple times and was a clear indicator the game was nothing like the previous one... which is a very good thing IMHO. Everyone's favorite franchise goes through changes and you either go with it, or you ignore the new versions and move on to something else. Something I've done with franchises that have gone bad (for me) in the past.

 

The thing I keep driving at because I've yet to see a DS fan put in a coherent manner is what was so great about the originals that is lacking in this one? Its all been this game sucks because its not like the original.

[Jubileet]

Yes different developers have different visions, that's why they make their own game. Regardless, of what the developers vision is IMHO, you should at least stick to the series. In this case all they did was use the name to market their original game.

I'd say that's a pretty clever marketing strategy, no?

 

 

Agreed, in the end a company's main goal is to make the most profits possible. One can argue that it is not ethical, but /shrug from a business standpoint I don't see why they would care about this. In a world where the bottom line outweighs customer satisfaction, a players expectations will never be 100% fulfilled.

 

Not saying its a terrible game, I enjoy it - it def needs some revamps in some areas but you can't say this is part of the Dungeon Siege series because they took absolutely 0 game play from the original, all they did was buyout the name and use it on their own product, because lets face it.. if they didn't have Dungeon Siege for a name this game wouldn't be as successful. Its just a ****ty Dragon Age clone, with multiplayer. Oh well!

I can understand why some old fans of the series might not like the complete change. What I can't understand is why people would be fans of the old series in the first place. I personally loved Fallout 3 and New Vegas despite them being drastically different form the originals. Think of it this way, the series was dead and this new incarnation may result in a sequel more true to the 'beloved' originals, just as New Vegas was closer to the original Fallouts than 3 was.

 

I also find it odd you enjoy '****ty Dragon Age clones. I'm enjoying DS 3 more than DA 2 so far. If Dungeon Siege 3 is a clone/spiritual successor to anything it is the Baldur's Gate Dark Alliance games.

 

 

I don't doubt that there are fans out there that love DS3 more than the originals. I can't really speak for Fallout / New Vegas series as I never player so I can't comment / compare. However, I don't agree on your logic that if a series is "dead" remaking a new completely new game with zero focus/feedback/research into the original series is the solution. Honestly, why would you bother? Personally, I feel creating your own game (which is what I feel they did here) is the more logical approach. A classic example is a horror film series, originals are always the best but for profits sake it they keep making ****ty sequels. From a consumer standpoint, when you watch a sequel and it sucks, you feel like you've wasted money. If there was never a sequel the movie you probably would have a much higher opinion, but instead for the sake of making a profit the industry loses credibility. That is just my opinion, though.

 

Lastly, I enjoy it because there really isn't any good 4 player + co op's out there at the moment. Its certainly the best release in the recent years, however by modern standards its still a sub par game. I agree that I find it more enjoyable than DA2, I didn't even buy DA2, just played the demo and hated it. DS3 feels like a crappy clone because the story is very similar.. Legion = Warden, need to find more Legion / Wardens etc. and so forth.

 

Not saying its a terrible game, I enjoy it - it def needs some revamps in some areas but you can't say this is part of the Dungeon Siege series because they took absolutely 0 game play from the original, all they did was buyout the name and use it on their own product, because lets face it.. if they didn't have Dungeon Siege for a name this game wouldn't be as successful. Its just a ****ty Dragon Age clone, with multiplayer. Oh well!

 

Well to be technical, they took the lore from the DS series and evolved the game in a different way.

 

The fact that the games have the same lore is why its DS3

 

I understand what you're saying but I don't think its fair to say its an evolved game of DS1/2. Its not "evolved" in anyway, its a new game. Gameplay, character customization, multiplayer, co-op, camera, etc. etc. is all different and by different I mean in no way similar. You can't even control the second party member! The name was used and some lore, thats all. Nothing else was brought back / evolved into DS3.

[GreasyDogMeat]

Not saying its a terrible game, I enjoy it - it def needs some revamps in some areas but you can't say this is part of the Dungeon Siege series because they took absolutely 0 game play from the original, all they did was buyout the name and use it on their own product, because lets face it.. if they didn't have Dungeon Siege for a name this game wouldn't be as successful. Its just a ****ty Dragon Age clone, with multiplayer. Oh well!

I can understand why some old fans of the series might not like the complete change. What I can't understand is why people would be fans of the old series in the first place. I personally loved Fallout 3 and New Vegas despite them being drastically different form the originals. Think of it this way, the series was dead and this new incarnation may result in a sequel more true to the 'beloved' originals, just as New Vegas was closer to the original Fallouts than 3 was.

 

I also find it odd you enjoy '****ty Dragon Age clones. I'm enjoying DS 3 more than DA 2 so far. If Dungeon Siege 3 is a clone/spiritual successor to anything it is the Baldur's Gate Dark Alliance games.

 

 

I don't doubt that there are fans out there that love DS3 more than the originals. I can't really speak for Fallout / New Vegas series as I never player so I can't comment / compare. However, I don't agree on your logic that if a series is "dead" remaking a new completely new game with zero focus/feedback/research into the original series is the solution. Honestly, why would you bother? Personally, I feel creating your own game (which is what I feel they did here) is the more logical approach. A classic example is a horror film series, originals are always the best but for profits sake it they keep making ****ty sequels. From a consumer standpoint, when you watch a sequel and it sucks, you feel like you've wasted money. If there was never a sequel the movie you probably would have a much higher opinion, but instead for the sake of making a profit the industry loses credibility. That is just my opinion, though.

 

Lastly, I enjoy it because there really isn't any good 4 player + co op's out there at the moment. Its certainly the best release in the recent years, however by modern standards its still a sub par game. I agree that I find it more enjoyable than DA2, I didn't even buy DA2, just played the demo and hated it. DS3 feels like a crappy clone because the story is very similar.. Legion = Warden, need to find more Legion / Wardens etc. and so forth.

I've tried to contemplate why Obsidian would choose, of all franchises, Dungeon Siege. My theory is they wanted to make Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance 3, that is basically what Dungeon Siege 3 is, except they couldn't get the rights to it and Square had the DS rights standing by. They could have perhaps created an entirely new franchise, but perhaps theres some lingering stigma over Alpha Protocol's reception. Maybe Obs devs actually loved Dungeon Siege, though I find it odd they would take it in such a different direction if they were fans.

 

At the end of the day, and I don't mean to sound rude, I don't care because I've always hoped there would be a sequel to Dark Alliance 2. Now there is! Except its called Dungeon Siege. DS 3 is an action RPG made for me. It manages to go beyond the utterly mindless click fests of most ARPGs, add a story with some actual choice and interaction as opposed to the usual 'read a paragraph of text briefly describing next quest' story of most ARPGs. I get harsh about DS 1 because its entire focus is on something I hate in RPGs: Inventory management. Thats what DS 1 is... an I(nventory)M(anagement)RPG. That was the point of the game, pick up something and compare it to what was in hand. If better equip, if worse toss/sell. Because it certainly is no tactical RPG. You turn on auto attack and click the ground near the monsters and watch them fight. The only tactic that comes up during battles is if its time to push the 'drink potion' button. DS 1 is Uwe Boll and DS 3 is Peter Jackson and the Uwe Boll fans are complaining the new movie has good acting and a thrilling plot.

[Jubileet]

"They did it first!" is a bad defense. You haven't really addressed my criticism, you have tried to divert attention. Especially since, I actually never said that the rudeness is justified. But yeah, personally, I'm more concerned to how the Obsidian community reacts compared to the emotional outburst of the Dungeon Siege fans.

I'm on the same side of the fence that I was on when Fallout 3 came out. I loved the old versions and I love the new version. 'Course in Dungeon Siege's case I only have been enjoying the new version. I don't have a lot of pity for DS fans. Previews have been out for ages, the demo was out for weeks that I played multiple times and was a clear indicator the game was nothing like the previous one... which is a very good thing IMHO. Everyone's favorite franchise goes through changes and you either go with it, or you ignore the new versions and move on to something else. Something I've done with franchises that have gone bad (for me) in the past.

 

The thing I keep driving at because I've yet to see a DS fan put in a coherent manner is what was so great about the originals that is lacking in this one? Its all been this game sucks because its not like the original.

 

From what I can think up off the top of my head...

 

Dungeon Siege 1 & 2 (some features are only available in the 2nd)

 

 

Character Customization (Cosmetic)

Character weapon / armor / skill versatility (Ex. Not limited to a single weapon/skill/armor type)

Camera versatility

Not limited to 1 playable character (up to 8 if I remember right in the 2nd)

Control over multiple characters at once

Not as linear more of an open concept

party formations

towns were towns (not corridors)

more variety of active / passive abilities

less story (imo, hack n slash games shouldn't have a huge story and dialogue every 5 minutes)

 

Multiplayer

supported up to 8 people

was not limited to a shared camera

did not share the same gold

could use / save your own character

Mods & Modding tool kit

LAN

Edited June 23, 2011 by Jubileet

[Oner]

Frankly the "Dungeon Siege franchise = crap therefore you are not allowed to complain about Obsidian making a sequel in name only" argument is an amusing one, and similar to one that I saw used by the rudest and more annoying Fallout 3 fans all the time when people politely (and non-politely, of course) argued that Fallout 3 wasn't a Fallout game because of its genre shift.

 

Seems amusing to see it here, especially considering that the Dungeon Siege franchise is tied to its gameplay rather than its lore, compared to Fallout where you can see why, despite the gameplay being completely different, Fallout 3 and New Vegas could still be considered Fallout games.

 

Well, amusing and sad anyway. Doesn't really reflect well on the community.

And who said that? Sorophx and maybe 3 new arrivals? Great job passing judgement over the community for what a few people did herr lord inquisitor.

[GreasyDogMeat]

From what I can think up off the top of my head...

 

Dungeon Siege 1 & 2 (some features are only available in the 2nd)

 

 

Character Customization (Cosmetic)

Character weapon / armor / skill versatility (Ex. Not limited to a single weapon/skill/armor type)

Camera versatility

Not limited to 1 playable character (up to 8 if I remember right in the 2nd)

Control over multiple characters at once

Not as linear more of an open concept

party formations

towns were towns (not corridors)

more variety of active / passive abilities

less story (imo, hack n slash games shouldn't have a huge story and dialogue every 5 minutes)

 

Multiplayer

supported up to 8 people

was not limited to a shared camera

did not share the same gold

could use / save your own character

Mods & Modding tool kit

LAN

Other than the multiplayer points, it pretty much looks like I'm just not DS' target audience as most of those features I don't care about.

-Character creation: It wasn't very impressive in DS 1 and I'd rather have speaking fleshed out premade characters than a character you can design BUT NEVER UTTERS A SINGLE WORD let alone a grunt.

-Weapon/Item versatility: Dealing with all that garbage in DS 1 was a massive pain and I hated it. While its true you are stuck with the sword and can't equip a mace or axe etc., I'd gladly lose that ability in favor of the much easier to deal with inventory management of DS 3.

-Why should an action RPG have more than a few controllable party members at once? Having up to 8 characters in DS 1 made the game a mess... furthermore an extremely easy 'auto-attack' mess. This ties in with control over multiple characters & party formation points.

-More variety of active/passive abilities MUST be refering to DS 2. Cause DS 3 beats the crud out of 1 as far as that goes. Sure DS 3 has more spells, but most of them are upgrades to lower versions. IE you can summon a skeleton, now you are up a level and you can summon a wolf! Nice but not a big deal IMHO.

-Less story is a big no-no for me, action RPG or not.

 

The only points I agree with:

-Less linear world/towns. For me the other strong points have helped this issue, but the game would have benefited from more open areas to explore, no question.

-Camera. Yup... it sucks. At best its OK in single player. Better camera in first game no question.

 

You did at least make sense about why someone might prefer those elements. I just don't think DS 1 was my type of game.

 

And who said that? Sorophx and maybe 3 new arrivals? Great job passing judgement over the community for what a few people did herr lord inquisitor.

Since when am I a new arrival?

Edited June 23, 2011 by GreasyDogMeat

[Oner]

And who said that? Sorophx and maybe 3 new arrivals? Great job passing judgement over the community for what a few people did herr lord inquisitor.

Since when am I a new arrival?

"I don't understand how anyone can like it" =/= "They've no right to complain"

[WorstUsernameEver]

I never intended to pass judgment on the whole community but to reduce the condescending attitude to "sorophx and a few new entries" is.. well, reductionist.

[sorophx]

And who said that? Sorophx?

no

 

while I did say DS1&2 were crap, and I did say people didn't have any right to criticize Obsidian in such a manner, it doesn't mean that I said they couldn't criticize DS3 because both previous games were crap

[Jubileet]

From what I can think up off the top of my head...

 

Dungeon Siege 1 & 2 (some features are only available in the 2nd)

 

 

Character Customization (Cosmetic)

Character weapon / armor / skill versatility (Ex. Not limited to a single weapon/skill/armor type)

Camera versatility

Not limited to 1 playable character (up to 8 if I remember right in the 2nd)

Control over multiple characters at once

Not as linear more of an open concept

party formations

towns were towns (not corridors)

more variety of active / passive abilities

less story (imo, hack n slash games shouldn't have a huge story and dialogue every 5 minutes)

 

Multiplayer

supported up to 8 people

was not limited to a shared camera

did not share the same gold

could use / save your own character

Mods & Modding tool kit

LAN

Other than the multiplayer points, it pretty much looks like I'm just not DS' target audience as most of those features I don't care about.

-Character creation: It wasn't very impressive in DS 1 and I'd rather have speaking fleshed out premade characters than a character you can design BUT NEVER UTTERS A SINGLE WORD let alone a grunt.

-Weapon/Item versatility: Dealing with all that garbage in DS 1 was a massive pain and I hated it. While its true you are stuck with the sword and can't equip a mace or axe etc., I'd gladly lose that ability in favor of the much easier to deal with inventory management of DS 3.

-Why should an action RPG have more than a few controllable party members at once? Having up to 8 characters in DS 1 made the game a mess... furthermore an extremely easy 'auto-attack' mess. This ties in with control over multiple characters & party formation points.

-More variety of active/passive abilities MUST be refering to DS 2. Cause DS 3 beats the crud out of 1 as far as that goes. Sure DS 3 has more spells, but most of them are upgrades to lower versions. IE you can summon a skeleton, now you are up a level and you can summon a wolf! Nice but not a big deal IMHO.

-Less story is a big no-no for me, action RPG or not.

 

The only points I agree with:

-Less linear world/towns. For me the other strong points have helped this issue, but the game would have benefited from more open areas to explore, no question.

-Camera. Yup... it sucks. At best its OK in single player. Better camera in first game no question.

 

You did at least make sense about why someone might prefer those elements. I just don't think DS 1 was my type of game.

 

And who said that? Sorophx and maybe 3 new arrivals? Great job passing judgement over the community for what a few people did herr lord inquisitor.

Since when am I a new arrival?

 

 

You should try to look at that list again and see it more towards what DS3 could have been if was truely "evolved". You're basically comparing DS3 to DS2 and 1, of course the graphics and such will be subpar in the earlier games.

 

1. Well, the point here is that the game had character customization and DS3 does not. You could easily introduce this into DS3, it would just be simliar to Dragon Age. Leave out your name from dialogues and have a number of voices to choose from (lets say 4 since there is 4 different voices in DS3 already). You could have character customization & you could hear your characters voice. Premade toons is one step into a linear direction, I was hoping for more originality I guess since the previous two games offered it. I would think this is what the fanbase would have expected to see in the third game.

 

2. What do you mean by inventory mangement? I also would expect to see the same versatility with gear and weapons that I saw in the first one. Theres just as much inventory management in DS3 that there is in the third, infact you could argue that its worse now because you have less characters to control. So basically, you're getting junk gear from the start of the game for characters you could even encounter or can play yet and you end up just selling it all anyway. If you're referring to organization, then I'd say DS3 is better than DS 1/2, but like I said before, instead of the dev's keep versatility and adding organization they choose another linear path and restricted players to 1 type of weapon / armor and added organization.

 

3. I believe 8 players were playable at the same time in multiplayer, I think it was 4 or 6 in DS2 and 4 in DS1 for single player.. can't remember. I'm not a very big fan of micromanaging but this is a feature I really loved about DS is that you had the ability to try out different classes and jump around toons based on the fight and most importantly if your main toon died you had more control over the situation rather than leaving it up to the AI to save you. Which I have to say is HORRIBLE in DS3, AI ignores all enemies and tries to res you repeatedly even if he/she is being attacked which ultimately ends up in their death. This is my personal preference, I feel like this is a key factor in what also defines the game. Lastly, inregards to the previous statement, all characters in DS talked besides your toon so it wasn't complete silence. Hell, all characters in DS3 are monotone, voice acting is terrible.

 

4. Yes, I was referring to DS2 on that statement with a side of DS1 in it in regards to spell casting. DS2 had trees / branches you could go down to make your character more unique. DS3 is going in the right direction but, they basically give you all abilities by the end, so meh you're basically no different from joe smoe. In DS3 it doesn't really matter though since you can't take your own toon into anyone elses game anyway so.. bleh. Game will get dull after everyone beats it, where as in DS1/2 you coudl play it again on a more difficult level and get better gear / tough mobs.

 

5. I agree RPGs should have a story, but I feel like "Hack N Slash" games are its on genre, the story doesn't really matter too much its about Dungeon crawls with friends. Like I said before, DS3 is more Dragon Age ish in this retrospect. It steers away from everything the original games were defined by and made its own entity.

 

The point of my list was to compare functionality and gameplay of the original games to DS3 and how they differ. I wasn't expecting a clone of the previous too games, I was hoping for an expanded upon game of the first too. Get rid of some of the boring crap from the second one, add better graphics, multiplayer features, and mechanics. Basically bring Dungeon Siege up to modern day gaming standards, unfortunately they didn't do that at all. I was disappointed to say the least, I think its a decent game I just don't agree with it being called Dungeon Siege since the name was clearly just bought out and used for marketing. But, oh well nothing I or anyone can do about it now anyway.

Edited June 23, 2011 by Jubileet

[Vhati]

Its a fantastic game, and thats all that really matters. Your average hack and slash game can be found anywhere, dungeon siege was nothing special prior to this game(go ahead and flame me, ive played em and i call it how i see it). Atleast now it has its own identity and gameplay that is unique and pretty deep.

[Renevent]

Nothing special...meanwhile both games are rated higher (both professional and gamer averages) and had nice online communities that lasted quite a long time plus tons of great mods supported by a pretty large modding community.

 

I don't think DS3 is a terrible game or anything, but it's feature set (from the originals) have been paired down and it's multiplayer is just whack (yes, whack lol). I don't mind gameplay has been changed, but I would expect all the the things they cut to be replaced with something of equal weight...didn't happen though. If there was ever a game series that defines 'consolitus' this is it.

 

DS3 will be forgotten by years end.

Edited June 23, 2011 by Renevent

[hopfrog16]

Nothing special...meanwhile both games are rated higher (both professional and gamer averages) and had nice online communities that lasted quite a long time plus tons of great mods supported by a pretty large modding community.

 

DS3 will be forgotten by years end.

 

I feel the modding community would have lasted longer, too, if the online multiplayer wasn't unplugged prematurely... bleh. =P

[sorophx]

DS3 will be forgotten by years end.

who cares?

[Renevent]

DS3 will be forgotten by years end.

who cares?

 

People.

[C2B]

DS3 will be forgotten by years end.

 

And I will bet the complete opposite. In fact I think with time it will gain popularity.

Edited June 23, 2011 by C2B

[Renevent]

DS3 will be forgotten by years end.

 

And I will bet the complete opposite. In fact with time it will gain popularity.

 

Considering it's already slipping off both sales and gameplay charts, I doubt it. Then again I don't have a crystal ball so maybe flat out saying it will be forgotten was a bit strong...so let's just say early indicators aren't very favorable.

Edited June 23, 2011 by Renevent

[C2B]

DS3 will be forgotten by years end.

 

And I will bet the complete opposite. In fact with time it will gain popularity.

 

Considering it's already slipping off both sales and gameplay charts, I doubt it. Then again I don't have a crystal ball so maybe flat out saying it will be forgotten was a bit strong...so let's just say early indicators aren't very favorable.

 

Really? Yes, its slipping. Thats not really surprising though since the game has been out a few days. And it still compares favorably to a lot of other games in that respect.

 

But you're right we'll see.

Edited June 23, 2011 by C2B