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

Yep. Dragon Age will have a lot of work to do because this game is not fucking around when it comes to combat.

Yeah, but momonolith also got greedy with micro transactions. So that's one good reason not to compare games to them for any reason.

I never liked how much the combat transformed from Origins to so......
How do you say it?
Flashy.

Of course combat is supposed to look and feel cool but at the same time I think it is supposed to be somewhat grounded in reality so we can better immerse ourselves in our characters struggles.

In other words DA2 and DAI combat makes it pretty hard for me to take it seriously at times when warriors shield bash iron gates open, rogues leap backwards half a mile and the actual fighting looks like this:




Assassin's Creed seems to also transform their combat to a little flashier direction in their newest game.

And while this below looks totally unsuited for a AC game I realized something like that would instead look really cool in the next Dragon Age. With party based tactical element implemented of course.



SO in other words fighting in Tevinter's hot sands should look like this in my opinion.

Not that I know of, but coincidentally, TIL that there is a taxonomy of video games for critical analysis.

www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/131205/game_taxonomies_a_high_level_.php

IMO, the main, high-level combat style categories are:

• Turn-based, as for most JRPGs, XCOM
• FPS (COD, Battlefield)
• Third-person action (TW3, Devil May Cry, Max Payne)
• Third-person cover-based (ME, Gears of War)
• Mixed first/third (Fallout 3)
• Strategic (DAO, Dawn of War, Starcraft)
• Fighting (Street Fighter, Mortal Kombat)
• Isomorphic (Diablo)
• Platformer (Metroid, Castlevania)
• Bullet hell (Touhou Project)
• Soulsbourne (Dark Souls, Bloodbourne)

Each of those high-level categories have multiple sub-categories, like 3P action with stealth, or 3P action with Arkham's flow mechanic. Some of the high-level categories were formally sub-categories or even niche, like bullet hell or Soulsbourne, but have become so popular and have been copied so frequently, that they have risen to the top as their own categories.

HZD has been praised for being a "best of the best" mash-up of various games that preceded it. No one thing in HZD is novel, but the combination of the best graphics technologies, stealth mechanics, hunting mechanics, riding mechanics, climbing mechanics, archery mechanics, melee mechanics, setting, etc., etc., make for an enjoyable experience.

The problem with all of those games is they are built around melee-oriented character. Geralt primarily uses a steel and silver sword. Talion primarily uses a sword and dagger. All of the assassins generally use daggers, swords, or even their fists.

The other issue is what combat system would you use from AC? The animation-heavy and counter-driven system that has largely been in place since AC2? The slower and harder combat system that was in ACU? Or the copy/paste of TW3 combat that is now in Asassin's Creed: Origins?

With a game that needs to support warriors, rangers, and mages, there are simply way too many varying play styles to make a "one size fits all" combat system. It's the same reason many are critical of combat in Skyrim, because there are way too many different types of classes and weapon types to make a system that's truly refined and impactful.

I don't think you understand. Let me break this down for you even further. Dragon Age has a wide variety of classes and sub-classes. They are not just warriors and rogues using melee weapons. We have a large variety of warriors (sword and shield, two-handed weapon), rogues (daggers, bows), and mages (staves). That's a broad overview, as the depth of these classes even goes beyond that.

I don't think you realize how utterly difficult it is to make a system that accommodates so many different play styles. The Witcher 3 and Shadow of Mordor, by comparison are very simple. They are almost entirely built on melee combat, alone. It makes far more sense to compare Dragon Age to Skyrim, which also has a large variety of classes and weapon types. Skyrim also has an issue of having to accommodate too many play styles, leading to an underwhelming combat experience.

The only practical way of resolving this issue would be to take away play styles and specialize in one, as is the case with TW3 and SoM. That's obviously not going to happen, so I hope you realize the futility in constantly saying "Dragon Age should copy X game." Not to mention, BioWare can't just snap their fingers and make the combat "way better than Witcher or SoM if they get their shit together." Game development is far harder and more difficult than you give it credit. Not to mention, you aren't even considering the fact that enemy AI would have to be completely revamped and re-written to accommodate such a massive change in combat approach.

I'm not expecting "the impossible" and you really shouldn't either. You will only set yourself up for disappointment. As long as the combat in DA4 is better than what we've had in previous games, I'll be happy. As far as trying to "remain on top," I don't believe BioWare has been on top for a very long time. The last game they developed that was undisputedly a commercial and critical success was Mass Effect 2, and that was seven years ago. DAI sold well and also received various awards, but it's an incredibly divisive game for fans. Some love it. Some hate it. I personally found it to be a mixed bag that was a chore half the time. Many seem to agree that TW3, and CDPR, have surpassed BioWare at its own style.

Dragon Age has always been a class-based system since the very beginning. It sounds like you want to do something similar to Mass Effect Andromeda's "profiles," although that system seems to be highly contentious among the player base. I actually prefer classless systems myself, such as what you might find in Skyrim or Fallout 4, but I really don't see how that could be justified in Dragon Age. Characters always have defined roles, and unless they try and justify from a storytelling perspective why the protagonist can be a warrior, rogue, and a mage, then I don't see that working well. Not to mention, some Dragon Age fans are absolutely against a "combat-based RPG." I'm not one of them, but some would rather the game go back to its tactical roots.

OK think of it this way: If a game offers a great story, characters, and superior combat gameplay over a game sticks to traditional tactic-based RPG gameplay. Who would most people choose?

I don't see how tactics can go onto a DA game unless you command an army to takeover a fortress or a small country, but they can keep the tactic-based menu of your companions abilities on certain situations. Just amp up the combat.

Two choices, really. Either go in full with turn based, like with Larian's games, or real time action gameplay with companion support, like with Dogma.
These little-bit-of-both bore the hell out of me.
Imo, second is a better option, as TB just becomes tiresome for 20+ hours.

And fucking hell Bioware, this is what high level mages should be: