Combat should NOT be a jack-of-all-trades.

Then you, of all posters, should be well aware of why BioWare is going this direction.

It's also great business acumen to recognize changing trends and how to best adapt them into your own product. Try to do something for the sake of being different, or that you know is less popular, and you may find yourself obsolete and out of business.

BioWare has already attempted your approach several times. If your approach worked, we wouldn't be having this discussion right now. Sometimes, it's good to learn from your competitors and to try and surpass what they are doing with your own twist. Lets not judge DA4's system until we actually see it in action. You may find you might not actually miss the tactical mode nearly as much as you think, depending on how BioWare implements this new combat system.

Disappointed if that would be like what I thought... I would hold the bottom line that: 1) I am able to fully control every team mate; 2) I can pause during combats. I don't want to play it like in MEA (have very limited control on followers) or TW3 (Hit and roll).

I'd like to assume, in this hypothetical game Mark is speculating about, that 'different direction' is not equal to 'do what MEA did', at least not in the complete sense that some people appear to be reading that statement as. There is a wide range of options between the way DAI handles issuing commands/AI to followers compared to MEA.

Again, just theory crafting here...

In DA:O, I liked the ability to queue orders (and my guys obeying the bloody orders); the tactics were nice, too, although it could get a bit heady at times. I only "jumped" in my companions to set up the orders (pausing the combat as I did).

In DA:I, I hardly ever use the tactic camera, or even pause (sometimes for retargeting, or whenever it's getting a bit too hairy for me to make sense of the battlefield). I like the more real-time feel to it; don't like that I have to click repeatedly on a bad guy just so I can bash him on the head. Auto-attack is a thing. I jump into my companions when I feel like it / feel confident my character won't make a fool of himself while on his own. I like that companions are, overall, more independent... but OMG as a sneaky, dirty backstabbing rogue, I miss being able to tell them to hold their ground and *mean it*. The clear command / attack my target worked fine, and are nice to use. I still don't really know what follow / defend is meant to do in the *cough* tactical *cough* screen, though.

I wouldn't mind having less tactics than DA:O, assuming my companions know what they're doing (fireball against a rage demon? lol) and that I can at least set them as healer / aggressive / crowd-controller etc. Basically something a tad more explicit than follow / defend.

And, although I personally don't mind being a bit more action-y -- if anything, I'd like combat to be harder -- I came into DA:I thinking it was the sort of RPG I was used to. I thought my combat ability was supposed to be tied to my character's skill points, not to *my* twitch reflex or how bad my tendinitis was on that day. But that would mean having to strike a balance between combat and other skills (persuasion, lock-picking etc), which DA:I doesn't offer any longer. (I keep thinking of Arcanum: Of Steamworks and Magic Obscura; you could win the game by fighting or by talking, or by stealing bazillions of stuff. Fun. If my character was rubbish at combat, it didn't matter how good *I* was -- and vice-versa, to a degree!)

So... I don't know. If the future combat system detracts from roleplay, then it's a no-win for everyone. There's a gazillion hack-and-slash games out there; DA can't, and shouldn't try to, compete with them. On the other hand, if the new combat system they're thinking of walks hand-in-hand with, or even enhances, roleplay, then yes. Yes, please.

Your argument is somewhat fair, but in my opinion DAI had handled that well except for the stupid AI. I wouldn't mind an action-oriented game, but I hope the combat is still team-based.

Here's another combat parameter to consider: pace. Soulslike games have very deliberate combat pacing, so that you can anticipate attacks for block and evade. On the other extreme are button-mashing games like Devil May Cry and Bayonetta, where combat is frantic and more about landing consecutive hits to power up a super or a combo.

DAI is kind of in the middle. A little too fast paced for perfecting blocking and evading, like in Dark Souls. I was also somewhat discouraged that I could never do a better job than the AI at skills like Block & Slash for 2H NPCs. On the other hand, it's not fast paced enough to use any of the consecutive hit or combo mechanics of button mashers. Should it stay in the middle or move in one direction or the other?

A move to more deliberate combat does call into question the handling of companions. They'd have to stay the hell out of the way if you're concentrating on doing a block & counter, or evade/roll and backstab maneuver.

Thw "funny" thing is, I bought DAI thinking I was buying that game in the video. Then what we got was a completely watered down version. All that content from that video was cut. I wonder how many hours were wasted designing, rendering, and voicing that clip, just to throw it all away.

You can largely blame the PS3 and X360 ports of DAI for much of that content being cut. Those particular consoles were so antiquated that they could not handle the full experience that was DAI. Instead of just dropping those ports, like BioWare should have done, they gutted DAI instead in order to ensure a larger audience. The same exact situation happened with Watch_Dogs 1. It's why I'm always wary of games that come in between generations.

The only company that I actually believe did it the right way was Rockstar with GTA V. They made a version that was for the X360 and PS3, and then they shortly thereafter released a version for the X1, PS4, and PC. If BioWare really was that desperate to release DAI on old hardware, they should have just given those players an inferior version of the game, while the full version was retained on then next gen hardware.

Agreed. Many in the industry were skeptics and believed Todd Howard was foolish for revealing Fallout 4 so late. They thought that the marketing buildup to launch wouldn't be long enough, leading to suffering sales. How wrong all the critics were. Fallout 4 ended up being BGS' fastest selling game to date (Skyrim still has sold the most copies). I thought it was brilliant that BGS not only showed off actual, substantive game footage, but even gave a release date all in the same reveal.

Certainly. Even had the older consoles not been supported, what we saw in 2013 wasn't a guarantee of being in the final product. It just would have been far more likely, but it's commonplace for content to be cut in order to accommodate tight schedules and a rapidly approaching release date. What I can tell you is BioWare is never going to do a demo like that ever again. Truth be told, I'd rather not see any actual footage or gameplay of DA4 until its a year or less away from release.

I don't expect to see DA4 until 2020 at the earliest. I'm going to estimate that BioWare will dedicate three years of development to this game. Anthem is still the primary focus at Edmonton, so the team on DA4 is still relatively small at this point. It's possible a new generation of consoles could be out by then, which would place DA4 in a similar situation to DAI. Obviously, BioWare would want to acquire as many sales as possible, but at what cost?

That being said, with these mid-generation upgrades (PS4 Pro and XB1X), I'm actually expecting this console generation to be extended as a result. Since these mid-generation upgrades aren't a vast improvement over their predecessors, it wouldn't be that much of an issue to build DA4 for PS4 and X1, but having a enhanced version for the PS4 Pro and XB1X. Obviously, timing is key. It's always better for development studios to release games on hardware that is mature and well-understood, rather than in between cycles on new and old hardware.

This. One thing I've been always annoyed with the combat of ME franchise (except ME1) is that it puts so much emphasis on the protagonist. You cannot control the companions. They have fewer powers and you have very limited customization on them. It makes me feel that the companions are just like squires (or even pets) giving some banters, while I can almost ignore them in combat.

There's nothing wrong with being a 14 year old Korean boy!

In all seriousness, what I took away from that reply is "don't assume we are going to handle companions like MEA, but we are likely moving away from how DAI handled them." I'm curious what these "wide range of options" could be, as they more or less stated Advanced Tactics, as we know them at least, will not return.

I'm under the impression the game will be much more action-oriented than DAI, which does call into question how followers will be handled. It goes back to that divide of those who just want an action RPG, versus those that want a more strategic and party-based RPG. I'm not sure how a developer can truly make both sides happy.

Most RPGs just pick one approach, generally being the "followers are optional" one. I can't see BioWare necessarily doing that for DA4, but I'm also not sure how they can still make combat work and be fun. I don't envy BioWare's task, and I sense that someone is not going to be happy with what they come up with inevitably.