Not saying the DSIII writing is bad — by general standards the narrative is well written and entertaining. I just didn’t find the story or any of the characters particularly deep or as interesting as previous Obsidian games, the side quests aren’t very inspired at all, and I didn’t really feel like choices made throughout the game made that big of a deal until the ending sequence runs through conclusions to your major choices. Basically, I didn’t feel like the story was the focal point like it normally is in Obsidian games. And that’s not a major negative — obviously I feel it’s a great game for making my list of games I feel deserve more recognition.

What was so bad about the writing in DSIII? Even compared to other Obsidian games it was pretty inspired and had loads of depth if you went into the lore including some amazing charachter motivations (Which results in possible having one of gamings most releatable main “antagonists”). Not to mention at the same time it subverts subtly most common rpg troopes and does a much better job at that than NWN2 did.

Actually, in overall writing only MOTB and KOTOR2 (a “finished” version) are better. Its certainly way better than NWN2 and SOZ. F:NV features some better sidequests and Alpha Protocol better dialouge, but that’s about it.