I think its nice to see games branch out from the basic XP gain mechanics but i also understand that it is hard to balance things right so that gaining experience is not too easy (fast) or too hard (slow). One also needs to consider the level cap and other stuff affiliated with it.
Neutral (balanced) route is the hardest route in life.
No rabid moose dropping out of trees to surround me as I meander through the forest. I want to see my enemies ahead of time so I can go around them if I really want. As long as there are no paratroopers, I'm happy.
Beyond that, it seems a lot like saying "I would love this more if it were something it's not." Tactical party combat is their thing. If you really love their stories and characters, you may just have to accept more meat-grinding than you'd like.
I get the sense that they have learned their lesson from DA2, although just for lulz, I'd love to see one rabid moose drop out of a tree and attack. Sort of like the killer rabbit in Monty Python. 
I love that mental image.
Yeah, look, I expect this big world will be populated with lots of creatures. But if they're just non-sentient creatures, they don't always need to be hostile. Take wolves and bears, which I'm sure we'll see. If you're doing some hunting or craving some critter XP, attack them. But I would think under normal circumstances, they would leave you alone. Like I said earlier, if for some reason they're extra hungry ... well, you might be tasty.
Yes, I do think the first group of bandits you meet in Lothering on the bridge in DAO is a well designed encounter. Gives you lots of interesting ways to handle it, including the "aww f it it's time for you all to die" approach, too. Now I understand they don't need to code options for an encounter with a bunch of hungry beasts, my guess is as with so much life in the wild, it's fight or flight (on your mount), but when dealing with sentients, maybe sometimes there should be a little bit of programming and scripting for multiple options.
Yeah i hate how they added random waves of enemies coming from the rooftops!
The fact that you could see them materializing in the sky made it even more jarring.
One thing it sounds like they will do right in DA:I is that the random enemies won't scale with your level.
It really destroys immersion (ES-Oblivion comes to mind here) when I've become a major badass but get killed by, oh, a giant nug or something.
Random DAII encounters had a very weather-like feel, it would rain bandits and I would add a lighning storm for them. Fun at first, then very tiresome.
Though a single rabid moose (or maybe a secret cow dungeon) would indeed be fun for the lulz 
I'm not as much against combat, as I am against combat being the most viable conflict resolution always.
And it's not even violence I want to be free of, but rather the combat obstacle courses CRPGs - and Bioware games in particular - are built around.
Sun Tsu might suggest assassination over brutal campaigning - still violence, but far more subtle. Perhaps - with things like the Agent system - we will be able to do just this. Instead of commiting massive resources to a big brawl - we can attempt to assassinate an opponent to deal with the problem.
Or even undermine the stability of the enemy. True, this doesn't work for conflicts against oddly sentient packs of animals that never act like real animals... or monolithic evil thugs... but against a group with any sort of structure, sending in a demagogue agent could help uncut the leader's authority and throw the group into shambles.
Or heck - diplomacy. I have what you need, but I want you to do what I need. You get what you need, I solve my problem.
There are plenty of real RPGs where conflict can be totally avoided (and a few, like Cthulhu where combat is suicidal). CRPGs are becoming antiquated with thier singular conflict resolution.
I look forward to any and all changes in this area.
I get the sense that they have learned their lesson from DA2, although just for lulz, I'd love to see one rabid moose drop out of a tree and attack. Sort of like the killer rabbit in Monty Python.
Yeah, look, I expect this big world will be populated with lots of creatures. But if they're just non-sentient creatures, they don't always need to be hostile. Take wolves and bears, which I'm sure we'll see. If you're doing some hunting or craving some critter XP, attack them. But I would think under normal circumstances, they would leave you alone. Like I said earlier, if for some reason they're extra hungry ... well, you might be tasty.
Yes, I do think the first group of bandits you meet in Lothering on the bridge in DAO is a well designed encounter. Gives you lots of interesting ways to handle it, including the "aww f it it's time for you all to die" approach, too. Now I understand they don't need to code options for an encounter with a bunch of hungry beasts, my guess is as with so much life in the wild, it's fight or flight (on your mount), but when dealing with sentients, maybe sometimes there should be a little bit of programming and scripting for multiple options.
It might be interesting, in the case of animals, if they started running away from you after you'd killed X amount of their species.
In any case, I love dialogue and cut scenes because they advance the plots, but if that's all there were, then we might as well be playing a visual novel and not an RPG. Combat was more interesting by far in DAO to me than it was in DA2, because it was more tactical. Aside from not constantly being swarmed by Insta-Thieves, as long as you were in an area, you could generally see enemies before you ran into them--and you could avoid them if you didn't feel prepared to deal with them, or even if you just wanted to go through the game killing as few people and creatures as possible. It was slower, though in my opinion that was more realistic; all the flashy twitchy moves of DA2 were silly, and some of them (backstabbing as a teleportation move???) took away from the tactical aspect of the game.
So, I'm in agreement with others: Fewer, stronger enemies, or at least more varied enemies, would be welcome. The world seems to be filled with all kinds of creatures, from the video. Crows, seagulls, fennec fox looking things, moose, etc. Flashy combat didn't make the combat any less tedious when you had to fight the same guys, and wave after wave of them, over and over, every time you wandered to a different part of the city. I'd have much preferred if those enemies had been hanging around, doing something, and then jumped me as I walked past. There would have been fewer of them to contend with that way, it's true, but I think it would have been more interesting and more immersive.
Let us all chant in unison, my friends: "no more craptastic mobs falling on us out of the sky!"
Anyway, what can I say. Yes, I think we all agree on a common vibe; sometimes there can be alternatives to combat, and sometimes why not offer them; and if we've gotta fight, make the fights freaking interesting. Stop dropping interchangeable, boring same-old same-old mooks on us out of the sky.
So you just walk around the environment unimpeded until you run into a boss?
Nah.
So you just walk around the environment unimpeded until you run into a boss?
Nah.
Well, though this is not an MMO, they are going for the more-open-world-type design, so of course it's going to be full of critters.
My guess is, they could move toward the WoW approach. WoW is full of "yellow ring" (neutral) creatures. They will only attack you if you attack them first (although that can include accidentally singing them with an improperly targeted AoE). I would think a lot of the random wolves, bears, panthers, mabari, etc. we run into could be of that nature. A lot of beasts and animals will avoid humans, unless of course they feel threatened, hungry, or they sense danger to their young.
Not everything has to be "red ring" (i.e. aggressively attack the PC & companions on sight). Making creatures that way isn't realistic to the way they behave in nature.
Anyway, I don't mind fighting lots of different things, other than bosses, just give me variety, and make them and the fights against them interesting, not cookie-cutter.
I'm more of a player focused on the story, going through many fights just by wandering around an environment is tedious, not fun at all.
I'm playing DA2 at the moment and so this is where I feel this the most. I hope they DO NOT add this in DAI. It's extremely annoying, walking through Darktwon- fight, walking trhough Sundermount- fight and it's not like its just one wave and I'm done, there's 5 continuous waves of them all. There's no point to it as well! No reason to kill all these people at ALL. It's like those enemies are just put there to waste time, or just be annoying.
Please DAI devs, reconsider this. I don't want to be wandering around the outskirts in point A and be led into numerous fights just to get to point B.
some may agree, some disagree.
I part with last ones. A party-rpg without some good amount of tactical combat would be lame - at least in my opinion. Yeah, right, some parts in DAO and DA2 seemed a bit... stretched because of the massive amount of fighting- i give you that. But hell, why running through an empty level? for what? Riddles?
Geez, there's a genre of games, which gives you exactly that: point-and-click-adventures.
Reading such things and knowing, that everywhere apart from germany close to no one wanna play that kind of games seem kind of... paradox to me.
ALL the combat is "unnecessary". All that would be left if you took out unnecessary fights would be plot-critical bosses, maybe.
What is an unnecessary fight? I expect if the party is walking around a city nothing may happen or the party may get attacked. Let's take DA2 for example. Hawke and Aveline plus two others are walking around Kirkwall at night. Aveline is just a lieutenant (Act 1). She has disrupted criminal activities too many times. The criminal elements decide to make an example of her and that pest Hawke who helped her. Those wronged by her righteous activity make keep attacking until she is dead.
In DAI which will be more open world I expect to see more enemies try to waylay the party in the countryside. I will use Fallout: New Vegas as an example. Get on the wrong side of the Legion or Republic and the death squads would be after the party. The squad will track the party to the ends of the world. If the party dispatch the death squad another would generate and start the hunt again.
I would expect the Red Templars to keep coming after the party if the Inquisitor opposes them or some other faction. I would not expect less combat with the veil tears, demons rushing in. The world on the brink of war. I expect to see more combat.
The point will be how well the encounters are designed.
All experience does not have to come from combat. Quest fulfillment can be a source of experience. The same amount of experience should be given for each way of solving the quest. If the quest is solved by stealth or diplomacy then the party will not get the treasure off the fallen because there are none. If solved by combat then to the victor belong the spoils of the fallen.
There should be multiple ways to solve the quest..
The problem with this issue is that different people feel different aspects of the game are most important, most integral to their own personal enjoyment. Personally, I'm in it for the story. The combat isn't of strong importance to me. I don't understand why people absolutely feel combat vs dialog/cut scenes has to be a video game vs movie scenario. Video games aren't just about combat. An interactive "choose your own adventure" story isn't less of a video game than one that's designed to simply be a series of combat offerings. Neither is more or less than a game that combines the two. A video game can have a near limitless range of focus and content. This is just people mistaking their personal preference for what's set in stone as the "right way".
Personally, I would love a "choose your own adventure" game with little to no combat. However, I realize maybe Dragon Age isn't the medium for which to offer that drastic change. I think the happy medium is trying to make a good portion of both the dialog and combat something you need to initiate and that isn't necessarily required to get the full experience in your own way. Have optional boss fights and maps that are more or less combat oriented, have plenty of optional dialog content to engage in with party members and NPCs. Don't necessarily spring it on everyone, let them seek it out if they want to.
I think that combat is an extremely important part of a roleplaying game, as is dialogue, exploration, skills&abilities and gathering of informations.
What I'd like to see is more choice, because more options to end an encounter means more options to roleplay our character.
Ideally, I'd also like to see the vast majority of combat encounters to have a reason to exist and not just be there because we haven't fought anything in a while.
Now, talking about DA specifically, some fights, especially those against demons and/or monsters, might be necessary, unavoidable and not even particularly elaborate. However, in DAO we saw some encounters that gave us the option to bribe, intimidate, accept the offer or ignore what's going on, instead of fighting. I'd like to see more of that.
As I've said before, the first bridge-bandit encounter on the bridge to Lothering is a great model for how to do a lot of encounters. (I'm not saying all, because human bandits can be reasoned with or dealt with in a variety of ways; but that won't work with demons, undead, darkspawn, dragons, and giant rats.)
Multiple ways to resolve it, and it can still come to combat, or there are other resolutions.
I do agree with people that it's not Dragon Age without combat. Knights wear armor and carry swords for a reason. It's a dangerous world. The non-awakened darkspawn cannot simply be invited into your chateau for tea. Personally, I wouldn't use a Story Mode setting, or a Auto-Resolve Combat setting, but I'd be OK with it there for other people who want it. (Yes, I can accommodate other peoples' preferences, anyway, when they don't impact mine.)
I think two ways, though, where it can at least be more creative when it comes to the role of combat in the game, are two areas I've pointed out:
1) award more non-combat XP. Beyond just quest rewards. I don't know exactly how to do this (i.e. do you give it for exploration, locating resources, resolving things like the bridge without combat, etc, etc.), or what the combat:noncombat XP ratios should be, but I do know there are workable formulas.
2) design more encounters (at least with sentients) like the bridge near Lothering. Give people a chance to parley, trick, intimidate, sneak around, deceive, whatever.
The only way I really want to see something like this happen is if it's Fallout 1/2 style where there are multiple nonviolent ways to solve a quest - but you have to work for it. Too often persuade/convince/speech just becomes an "I win" button.
The problem with this issue is that different people feel different aspects of the game are most important, most integral to their own personal enjoyment. Personally, I'm in it for the story. The combat isn't of strong importance to me. I don't understand why people absolutely feel combat vs dialog/cut scenes has to be a video game vs movie scenario. Video games aren't just about combat. An interactive "choose your own adventure" story isn't less of a video game than one that's designed to simply be a series of combat offerings. Neither is more or less than a game that combines the two. A video game can have a near limitless range of focus and content. This is just people mistaking their personal preference for what's set in stone as the "right way".
Personally, I would love a "choose your own adventure" game with little to no combat. However, I realize maybe Dragon Age isn't the medium for which to offer that drastic change. I think the happy medium is trying to make a good portion of both the dialog and combat something you need to initiate and that isn't necessarily required to get the full experience in your own way. Have optional boss fights and maps that are more or less combat oriented, have plenty of optional dialog content to engage in with party members and NPCs. Don't necessarily spring it on everyone, let them seek it out if they want to.
You are lumping everything into the video game category and appear to be ignoring within that category are different sub categories or genres.
Adventure games are a different genre from computer role playing games. The combat and encounters in a adventure game are far more scripted. Computer role playing games allow for random events. A chance that something may or may not happen. Most of those random events happen to be combat.
I would like to see an earthquake or windstorm random event (which may happen in DAI). The party has to seek shelter or die. Maybe an avalanche that buries the party.
Call of Duty is a video game, but not an adventure game or computer role playing game by many people's definition. The Sims is a video game, but falls mostly in the life simulation genre. (Medieval Sims is simulating medieval life to a degree.)
Zork is a video game, but it falls in the category of interactive fiction. Interactive fiction is the precursor of the Interactive Movie. The elements in Zork are completely scripted.
Unfortunately some genre fall out of favor. There are few companies making adventure games, interactive fiction or interactive movies. CRPGs are a niche market compared to some other genres.
People have expectations when they hear this game is a computer role playing game or action computer role playing game. Let me make it clear DAI is being marketed as an action-crpg. That word action normally means combat.
What I meant was the combat that you're forced into while wandering through an area that is meaningless. If something like bandits were waiting for you to pass by to rob something or some thug to prove himself it would make more sense, waves of random enemies is NOT fun. Maybe it'll be fun in Inquisition if they continue to do them, who knows right now.
I totally agree with the OP. When I want to explore I shouldn't be bogged down by worthless random encounters that contribute nothing to the story other than "moar lewt" and exp. There's a time and place for everything. Shoving combat in players' faces when they don't feel like fighting is the wrong approach. The Lothering example was perfect because it showed how bandits were taking advantage of the Blight panic.
I totally agree with the OP. When I want to explore I shouldn't be bogged down by worthless random encounters that contribute nothing to the story other than "moar lewt" and exp. There's a time and place for everything. Shoving combat in players' faces when they don't feel like fighting is the wrong approach. The Lothering example was perfect because it showed how bandits were taking advantage of the Blight panic.
If the party is exploring a forest,walking in a city at night, in enemy territory I expect to see combat. Since there is a war going on between mages and templars, the veil is torn and demons are pouring out of the Fade I expect to see combat. What do you mean by shoving combat in the player's face when they do not feel like fighting? How is Bioware going to know when or when not the player feels like fighting?
Please bioware, no more enemies falling from the sky/appearing from nowhere, like Dragon Age II. I bet half of the population on kirkwall lives on the roofs, and they are pissed off at hawke 
Personally I'd love to see more Mass Effect 1 'dialogue' style quests where your primary objective is to take a stance (such as the preaching hanar, Rebekah's child, etc...) or even do some detective style work (scanning the Keepers, getting Rita out of Chora's Den). That's personally what makes that game so immersive for me. With Inquisition focusing on many factions, there's bound to be Mage/Templar, Human/Elven, Dwarf Caste, and other conflicts that don't necessarily need a sword or fireball spell to engage.
Assassination and thieving style quests work better for games that focus solely on a single player character (Elder Scrolls series) versus a party based game. Unless of course, you can use your party's skills via dialogue options to plan it out (like giving orders during the suicide mission in ME2 of who does what).
Mostly I'd like to also see battles that can come to a resolution that doesn't involve killing. I'd like to see more bad guys getting apprehended and maybe punishments other than death as an option (prison time, forced labor).
Retour en haut