34 réponses à ce sujet

[vbibbi]

The ending of the game was in the game. Nothing in this DLC has to do with 

 

Spoiler

stopping Corypheus or sealing the breach.

 

This is all about setting up the next game.

 

It sucks that you can't play it, but please don't pretend that the game itself didn't have an ending, because it did.

 

Well the game is called Dragon Age: Inquisition not Dragon Age: Stop Corypheus, so to me the story of the game is the story of the Inquisition. The game mentions several times that there will be other causes to undertake after defeating Corypheus, and some of the missions have nothing to do with Cory, anyway (specifically the other DLCs).

 

And if this DLC is about the ending of the Inquisition and the devs have specifically called this the epilogue, I would consider it the end of the game, not the To Be Continued ending of the base game. If this were all about setting up the next game, it would be a prologue to DA4, not an epilogue. Yes, DAI has an ending, but it feels like a temporary ending midstory. If the DA series didn't change protagonists each game, then yes this could be a game ending and we would pick up the Inquisitor's story in the next installment. But as it is, if we stop with the base game, and then DA4 starts with the Inquisition in a different state than right after we defeat Corypheus, that seems like an incomplete story to me.

[pdusen]

Right, I'm just imagining that the ending left more holes than exist in the average block of swiss cheese.

 

So what do you want, every question answered? Last time I checked, that's not a requirement for an ending, and this DLC still leaves questions unanswered anyway.

 

Well the game is called Dragon Age: Inquisition not Dragon Age: Stop Corypheus, so to me the story of the game is the story of the Inquisition. The game mentions several times that there will be other causes to undertake after defeating Corypheus, and some of the missions have nothing to do with Cory, anyway (specifically the other DLCs).

 

And if this DLC is about the ending of the Inquisition and the devs have specifically called this the epilogue, I would consider it the end of the game, not the To Be Continued ending of the base game. If this were all about setting up the next game, it would be a prologue to DA4, not an epilogue. Yes, DAI has an ending, but it feels like a temporary ending midstory. If the DA series didn't change protagonists each game, then yes this could be a game ending and we would pick up the Inquisitor's story in the next installment. But as it is, if we stop with the base game, and then DA4 starts with the Inquisition in a different state than right after we defeat Corypheus, that seems like an incomplete story to me.

 

The game already had an epilogue. I remember it. Morrigan was narrating and stuff.

 

This is a second, post-epilogue epilogue. It doesn't negate the ending the game already has.

[Rhidor]

While the base game had some sort of end to it, I see that last gen users weren't able to see their choices concerning the companions, as they were completely left out of the epilogue. Also, with what happens in the DLC, it's pretty much required to get a smooth transition to the next installment, if it's made.

[Panda]

It was quite rude from Bioware state Trespasser is epilogue of the game. So basically I will never be able to see ending for game I bought and I will never be able to finish my story. I'm too tired with Bioware to get even angry, this is just utter disappointment over them.

[GithCheater]

Bioware Disingenuous Last-Gen Marketing:

 

GREAT NEWS*

 

*No DLC for you!

[Darkly Tranquil]

To the technical challenged (that's me), what was Bioware's reasoning for excluding PS3 and XBox360 from receiving the latest DLCs?

Basically it boils down to the perforce limitations of the old gen consoles. The PS3/360 are ten year old consoles with very limited system memory and poor graphics processing power (by today's standards). DAI's engine uses very high resolution textures to display huge open world zones, and the video and system memory of the old gen consoles is insufficient to cope with all the details they would have otherwise included.

The devs decided to drop old gen because the significant performance limitations placed on them by having to design within the limits of the old hardware was constraining what they could put into the DLC and they made the decision to drop old gen to focus on making the best possible gaming experience with the more powerful hardware. In the end, the mistake was not in dropping support for old gen, it was releasing the game on old gen in the first place. DAI would gave been even better if some of its design was not curtailed by having to operate on dated hardware.

[GithCheater]

In the end, the mistake was not in dropping support for old gen, it was releasing the game on old gen in the first place.

 

Actually, the mistake was Bioware showing utter contempt for their last-gen customers - as illustrated in my fine print Seinfeld reference in my previous post.

[Paul E Dangerously]

Basically it boils down to the perforce limitations of the old gen consoles. The PS3/360 are ten year old consoles with very limited system memory and poor graphics processing power (by today's standards). DAI's engine uses very high resolution textures to display huge open world zones, and the video and system memory of the old gen consoles is insufficient to cope with all the details they would have otherwise included.

The devs decided to drop old gen because the significant performance limitations placed on them by having to design within the limits of the old hardware was constraining what they could put into the DLC and they made the decision to drop old gen to focus on making the best possible gaming experience with the more powerful hardware. In the end, the mistake was not in dropping support for old gen, it was releasing the game on old gen in the first place. DAI would gave been even better if some of its design was not curtailed by having to operate on dated hardware.

 

This is speculation, not fact. If we're going to get into "could have" and "might have" and "would have" then all bets are off. You might have gotten a better version. We did get a broken, zero-effort version and no answers from Bioware as to it. Last-genners have been basically ignored from Day 1.

 

Then Bioware doesn't even have the stones to own up to it. They slip it in a press release while making it sound like they're doing last-genners a favor, and then hide the thread way the hell down in the Multiplayer Combat Strategy boards, because that's naturally the place to discuss end of support.

[Dabrikishaw]

I don't want to offend somehow, so please try to explain to me one thing I do not understand.

 

The game released a whole year after the next gen consoles were released. I knew that the game probably wouldn't be really good-looking, stable or supported that well for the old gen, just like with the last transition from PS2/PS3 for example.

 

Why not try to save up some money and get a new console before the initial game got released? I sure don't know everone's financial situation, but a year at least seems enough time to save a little each month.

 

It's just like it was a little obvious beforehand that the better experience would be on newer machines.

For me, there just weren't any games out at the time that I wanted.

 

Now that's changed, so I can upgrade in the future.

[DeeHama328]

 the actual ending of the game is DLC that last-genners can't get

Exactly.