What would you accept for a "better" DA4?

I see it as well, both can be bad which just makes the conversation uncomfortable. 

We have elves, dwarves, and qunari in real life that need representing, do we?

It depends on which game we're comparing DA4 to. I'm presuming Inquisition hence it's the last one and will be the follow up point.

I was fine with the size of Origins and Inquisition seemed quite large to me.

I didn't click on the poll because I feel my answer is a bit more complex.

I would claim that having a story that makes an impact is an absolute must, and the story of this genre tends to be told through quests. This removed fetch quests from the menu.

I would accept smaller world than Inquisition.

Fewer actors.

In my opinion Origins having 4 romances and keeping it simple was just fine.

I'm having hard time saying that I'd cut back on companions just because to me they are the bridge that separates this game from so many other games that I've played and they are the ones who made this game so meaningful. I always delight in many companions and in their versatile personalities. If it came down to the anvil, I would prefer to have 2 awesome characters to 3 mediocre ones.

AND

IF I ABSOLUTELY HAD TO CUT DOWN ON SOMETHING.... !!!

I'D CUT DOWN ON!!!

MWUHAHAHA!

he best RPG ever made was Planescape: Torment.

Fight me!

Deadfire's main story was a lot weaker than the original's (in part due to the more open-world nature of the game, I think) But honestly, I think they did everything else better. I believe that with fewer companions, they were able to flesh out the ones they had a lot better.

Fetch quests: Nope. To be clear, all Bioware games have them. The problem with Inquisition (the last one I played) is that filler fetch quests are the bulk of the content and that the game forces you to engage with them to progress. I ignore the boards in DA:O and the N7 missions in ME2, but I can't do that in DA:I.

Smaller world: Yes. Open world is, more often than not, bad design. In their urge to boast theirs is the biggest, developers bite more than they can chew for the sake of glorified set dressing/an overlong interactive loading screen between points of interest.

Fewer romances: Yes. I like romances, though I can do without them, but I think less is more here. I'd rather have a few, fleshed out ones.

Fewer cutscenes: Sure. Plenty of CRPGs prove you don't need cutscenes at all to have engaging dialogue or tell a good story. I want to play a game, not watch a movie. I barely remember the cutscenes from existing DA games.

Fewer voice actor choices: Yes. Doesn't make much of a difference, and it's rather wasteful.

Shorter main story: Maybe? Shorter than what? DA:I is already pretty short. So are the ME games individually, and I didn't mind that when I played them. With RPGs, I'm satisfied with at least ~30 hours of quality content, not even necessarily critical path content.

Playersexual romances: Definitely. The orientation of fictional characters is usually arbitrary anyway, and this way you can have fewer romances (see above) without leaving anyone out.

Fewer "meaningful" sidequests: God no. Good sidequests are the bread and butter of RPGs. Often the side content is superior to the main plot.

Disco Elysium comes close. But that is, if anything, even more text-heavy. I'm amazed it was as big a success as it was given the market today