I've never played either of the first two. Is the series isometric-viewed? What does gameplay consist of? How demanding on PC hardware will III be? I've noticed that it will be for the PS3, 360, and PC version, but if it's not too demanding, I'm not sure whether it would be better to get it on my PS3 (definitely my more capable platform) or my PC (much less capable than my PS3, but may be able to handle something not too demanding and if the interface and style of the game are more PC-oriented, I'm not sure if the PC version would be a better choice or not).
The game is an isometric hack'n'slay, like Diablo and such. The gimmick of the first one was its focus on automatic characters, meaning you could plan the behaviour of your party and just watch for some time, and a learning-by-doing skill system. The second one brought more of a plot with it, strengthened active gameplay and automatic gameplay at the same time, letting you choose which way you want to play, and added classic skill trees. The third now seems to go more of a BG: Dark Alliance route, with the active combat the only choice, a smaller party, and only the skill trees remaining. And lots of story and choice, as is Obsidian's way of doing things.
Oh, crap, Obsidian? Then DS3 will be a buggy mess, is what it will be. Maybe a year after release they'll have patched it up.
There we go again. Why don't people approach Bethesda with the same outlook? Just look at the bloody patchlog for the fan patches.