What would you accept for a "better" DA4?

So as I see it, a main quest is one directly tied into the the overall goal of the game, ie. stopping Corypheus. Each main quest should drive you closer to the goal (or provide a setback ala haven). A good side quest allows the game to build the feel of the world, or provide a window into people/factions that aren’t mission critical, or even just allow a player in a large game to take a moment to breathe and relax. For dragon age, some of my favourite quests have been side quests, purely because they’ve helped build Thedas.

Sorry if that doesn’t make much sense. Getting my point across via forum has never been my greatest strength!

Yeah tbh it's the asme with me given that my 2 favourites from each odf Biowaer's series are ME2 and DAI. Not sure what I would accep teither becaus for me I kind of like the direction both ME and DA were heading in.

I don't like the idea that it has to be either/or, but I'll chime in to say that I find side quests valuable because they flesh out the world, make it seem more real. There are things going on other than whatever main conflict, even if it's world-ending. Some people may think it's trivial to make a trek to put flowers on some guy's wife's grave when there is a literal hole in the sky, or get a fiery ram to go home, but I like doing those small things for people. Those quests are a reminder of why we want to save the world -- for the people in it.

The "side" quests I don't like are those sorts of mindless ones that have no story whatsoever, like the item pickup ones in DAI, or requisitions in DAI, that have no compelling human or story element. Sure, the players gets a "benefit" in the form of money or power, but they'e not compelling in any way outside of that.

I have been thinking while going back and replaying BioWare games starting with Jade Empire (which I couldn't finish) and trying to figure out what changes they have made to their games that have been really bothering me and after reading one article from AskAGameDeveloper and I think I have a slightly different approach to what I think BioWare needs.

My theory isn't that BioWare needs to cut something for I think even if they do cut something from their game development cycle the same problem occurs. My observation is that BioWare tries to do too much and underestimates the amount of time and maybe even people they need to complete the elements of their games. I also don't think Frostbite is the source of this problem, but it probably made it worse. What got me along this line of thinking is how BioWare handles crunch and how they always have. They have normal work weeks until the last month or two of the project and the overtime/crunch kicks in like a lot of major projects I have been part of. Then they delay the game which according to AskAGameDeveloper is very common with BioWare the only game that wasn't delayed was Dragon Age 2 and crunch the entire delay.

So even if they cut something like companions in theory to make the game better the time development or issues that arise would still be there because the time allotted still wouldn't fix the underlying issues. I have no real idea to fix the issues I see because I have no idea BioWare how calculates the time they need to make their projects work back at the very start of development, but that is where I think something needs to be fixed or altered at that stage of development to fix some of their potential issues.

I would agree that with Frostbite they are in a good place now, I think Andromeda suffered for they didn't want to listen to what BioWare Edmonton was saying for it was reported they felt "that BioWare Edmonton was trying to take control".  So they lost out on valuable experience and why at least to me why in some places it felt like a step backwards from Inquisition.  Looking at Inquisition to Anthem BioWare seems to have worked out their problems with Frostbite.  I am still concerned that walking into EA with a plan for what they want to be done with the game they might need more time then what they have requested.  So what they might want to achieve for example would need three and a half years of active development when they have only asked for three and then run into further problems when they might run into other issues.

For Andromeda and Anthem they also needed someone to make sure the ideas for the game were good, so that they wouldn't waste development time. It seems like it should be obvious that procedurally generated planets or making a looter-shooter would not be a good fit for a company that focuses on story- and character-driven rpgs, but for some reason it wasn't obvious to them.

It really depends on what they were planning on doing with the procedural planets.  I did read once and I really regret not bookmarking it now a post from a BioWare dev that claimed the procedural content was going to be the same as the UNC missions from Mass Effect 1.  If that was the case then it would have been the same thing for those planets in Mass Effect 1 are boring.

I agree, its why I was excited for Anthem because it was something new and frankly with my experience it has the bones of being something much better then what was at release.  If anything making the same game all the time to me causes just as many problems for it burns people out and they leave and I think that is why BioWare has had such a high retention rate of employees lasting decades because they rarely make the same game twice even when its a sequel.  Besides even if I didn't care for one of the games they make it doesn't mean they aren't going to take things they learned with that game and apply it to a game I am interested in and make it better because of that.

Yeah, I'd like to see a greater focus on the main quest again. Bioware have put too much focus on companion content in the last few games. Don't get me wrong I've enjoyed the companions in Inquisition but I never felt particularly attached to them, and I think that's because stopping Corypheus was such a cakewalk.

The best friendships are the ones where you feel like you've gone through some shit with that person. This never felt like the case in Inquisition because the story was so short and easy. The deep roads in Dragon Age Origins are criticised but goddamn did I feel attached to my character and my companions afterwards - I didn't particularly need loyalty missions.

Sometimes less is more.

You simply can't take away companions or romances in Bioware games. That is undoubtedly their greatest strength.

I'm a bit concerned however about people wanting "fewer voice choices for player characters". I hope people aren't interpreting this as "we should go back to silent protagonists" for CRPGs

I'm not opposed to the idea itself. If EA threw billions of dollars on Bioware's lap then hell... have three voice actors for male, three for female and three more for non-binary. It is great.

But if it's a matter of time and resources then I think it would be best to stick with limited options. I think it was you who told me you didn't like The Witcher 3 but that game had a MASSIVE amount of dialogue, and part of the reason why much of that worked was because they only had to deal with a single actor.