which one in trilogy should I play first ?

[Wraith analyst]

which one in trilogy should I play ? or should I play them in order ?
which one in trilogy is the best and which one is the worst ?

[Wraith analyst]

Originally posted by Killah:

1 and 2 only

why? is 3 not good?

[Zeeaire]

1 and 2 are great, while 3 was extremely boring story- and gameplay-wise...(in my opinion)

[Galaduir]

In dilogy, I'd say. DS3 is an abomination having nothing similar to 2 previous (brilliant!) parts of the serie.
I'd recommend to try to play DS1 as it is, then DS2 as it is, and then try to play them both in Legendary mod that allows to play all the campaigns from DS1 and DS2 in DS2 interface, mechanics and graphics. It's one of the best mods for any games I've ever seen (google it).

[Wraith analyst]

Originally posted by Arrhtheis:

In dilogy, I'd say. DS3 is an abomination having nothing similar to 2 previous (brilliant!) parts of the serie.
I'd recommend to try to play DS1 as it is, then DS2 as it is, and then try to play them both in Legendary mod that allows to play all the campaigns from DS1 and DS2 in DS2 interface, mechanics and graphics. It's one of the best mods I've ever seen (google it).

thank you

[Archangel]

1 and 2....3 is a waste and lost touch with the original atmosphere and style of play

[Wraith analyst]

Originally posted by Archangel:

1 and 2....3 is a waste and lost touch with the original atmosphere and style of play

thank you

[KatArus]

They are all completely different games actually.


First one in a semi-open world action RPG. There are no quests in classical sense and you just explore the world, find treasure and defeat enemies. You can play alone and have a single very strong character or have a party of up to 8 people. Area progression itself if linear but maps themselves are huge and there is no fast travel so it's a mixed bag. Good if you like party management and exploration, bad if you hate games with backtracking like Borderlands.

Second is basically streamlined and generally improved first one. Party management is the same at it's core but party size is walled behind gold and difficulty setting (fixable by mods) and story is now quest-based. You no longer have a big seamless world and are tied to cities via teleporters (which is good) but areas are now tiny and EXTREMELY linear and tiny (which is bad). Enemies now slowly respawn and you can grind if you want to. Gameplay-wise it's much better but atmosphere-wise it's much worse.

Third one is a console game by Enix (as in SquareEnix) which means it's basically real time JRPG but without party management (you can only have one char besides yourself and there are only like 4 of them. Previous games had ~20 each for reference), all loot is character-specific and story is edgy and dumb. And all characters have cleavages like boob plastic surgery is mandatory there or something. it's not BAD, it's just not Dungeon Siege, period.

[Vamrem]

It is not a "trilogy", they are separated individual games with no relation besides some lore. 1 and 2 are unique in their gameplay: Action RPG, hack'n slash oriented (Diablo style), with party management and very good itemization. The 3rd is a casual console game not unique at all (it is very similar to thousands out there). If you are searching for the name "Dungeon Siege", only the 1 and 2 was made by Chrys Taylor, with a superb OST and unique gameplay, you can like or dislike, but there aren't games like those two.

[Casual Sun]

1 and 2. 3rd one doesn't exist. If you do want to make it a trilogy, play 1 and 2 then play Dragon Age: Origin as that is essentially the spiritual successor of Dungeon Siege.

[MEMPHIS]

Originally posted by Casual Sun:

1 and 2. 3rd one doesn't exist. If you do want to make it a trilogy, play 1 and 2 then play Dragon Age: Origin as that is essentially the spiritual successor of Dungeon Siege.

Yeah but... Dragon Age sucks.

[Vamrem]

Originally posted by Casual Sun:

1 and 2. 3rd one doesn't exist. If you do want to make it a trilogy, play 1 and 2 then play Dragon Age: Origin as that is essentially the spiritual successor of Dungeon Siege.

I should clarify that any Dragon Age game never was the spiritual successor of any Dungeon Siege game. They are totally different sagas in all possible ways; in genre (one ARPG other RPG); in lore (they are based on different worlds); even in concept itself (one is hack'n slash grinding, the other other choice-consequence). Dragon Age has more in common with games like Baldur's Gate (and possible it's spiritual successor), while Dungeon Siege has more in common with Diablo 2. The only in common those games have is that both have a complete party management system (DS 1 and 2, the third is just a generic linear game with a weak "henchmen" system).

Originally posted by MEMPHIS:

Yeah but... Dragon Age sucks.

eh... no, just visit Metacritic and when all reviews, official + users, agree in around 9, it is called a masterpiece. (Other thing are Dragon Age 2 and Inquisition, whom was a disappointment compared with Origins).

[Angrypillow]

Originally posted by MEMPHIS:

Originally posted by Casual Sun:

1 and 2. 3rd one doesn't exist. If you do want to make it a trilogy, play 1 and 2 then play Dragon Age: Origin as that is essentially the spiritual successor of Dungeon Siege.

Yeah but... Dragon Age sucks.

The first one is a masterpiece, and one of my favorite games of all time. The latter installments are garbage.

[Marcus Astronomius]

Originally posted by Casual Sun:

1 and 2. 3rd one doesn't exist. If you do want to make it a trilogy, play 1 and 2 then play Dragon Age: Origin as that is essentially the spiritual successor of Dungeon Siege.

I fail to see how DA:O is in any way similar to Dungeon Siege..

[TyrantXP]

there is no trilogy.
Dungeon Siege 1 - is probably good, but never played
Dungeon Siege 2 - is Awesome :)

and Dungeon Siege 3, have nothing to do with those 2 games and if yes,
then the 3rd game is just awful joke.