I didn't want to imply they're outright lying about the tactical view being there. I just can't see, and I think here we really disagree, how you actually merge true tactical gameplay and action hack & slash. As others have stated that's almost guaranteed to become an issue at least for the AI dudes you don't control at any given time. It might not be impossible or maybe I misunderstand because they focus on the action stuff so much (previewing RPGS is sort of hard) but I don't buy it at this time.
So I'm still so confused about this... what are people saying AI can't manage to do again? This basically looks like Dragon Age II's combat, but from what we saw it just has a fancy "bring enemies towards you chain move". Other than that, it just looked like they made the combat feel more impactful. When you played Dragon Age II, your AI allies could manage to fight just fine. AI in other games, action games, being allied or enemy AI, can manage to block, dodge attack. This doesn't look like they are making it Ninja Gaiden or anything. What are we saying can't be done?
I disagree with this fundamentally. I see where you're coming from but I'm personally rarely satisfied with AI behavior handling tactically complex games. Mages in DAII could not manage to stay out of trouble. Spells cast automatically by the AI only worked via the tactics slots (which are actually a very decent solution for limited AI behavior) and due to the lack of friendly fire on default difficulty. This is a flaw DA shares with many other fantastic party-based RPGs and it doesn't bother me because this is exactly how I deal with it:
Positioning and timing are absolutely key, when dealing with such circumstances. I pretty such set my companion AI to do nothing without my command, and micromanaged everything - just like I did it in Baldur's Gate 2 and Dragon Age: Origins.
That is very true and I really hope that's what we'll get. But just showing tactical view being there isn't conclusive whatsoever. And them harping on the point of making combat "impactful" and more direct doesn't inspire confidence. All of that design work will go down the drain if you actually play the tactical game because you'll constantly pause and switch characters anyway and not be focussed on one character since that can't work if tactical synergies are in play. I don't believe you can design great combat for both styles at the same time. Something always has the priority. At some point either your character building choices, party composition and tactical positioning make all the difference and the game's designed around that or the action elements do. Both these styles are valid, though I vastly prefer the former, but BW keeps putting out the message that they'll make a game for everyone at the same time. And I called bullshit on that. Especially since they claimed a great number of things about their last few games and failed to deliver on a fair number of them.
I'll gladly eat my words and be content with getting a kick-ass DA3 in the end but right now I don't see it.