Should DA (and BioWARE in general) go for more linear experiences?

Agree. Bioware want to tell a story, it's really obvious, they're not so interested in player choice. Probably for the best if they went a more linear route imo.

Loved FFX and X-2 as well

I don't know abou tthat I actuall yliked ho wDAI was done. I think with ME yes it may need to perhaps be more linear and streamlined. But with DA I actually think a more open world suits it more especially given that both Origins and Inquisition both told stories on bigger maps only DA2 was a linear one and I believe it was the least popular of the 3. Personally I like all 3 and in fact I do like 2 moer than Origins however. This is based on what I know of the games we've had so far though.

I know many people seem to like having a much bigger world to explore but from a role playing aspect, I'm always wondering how to justify wandering off rather than focusing on the main threat.

The Hissing Wastes were huge and all I remember is that it took ages running around it, which you needed to do if you wanted to catch companion banter. Even on a horse there seemed a lot of just boring travelling across the desert before I got to something interesting. Yet I had no real reason being there. The Venatori had a presence but I never really understood why they had such an interest in the place as nothing there impacted on the fight with Corypheus. In fact my first run I totally ignored the Hissing Wastes until after Corypheus was dead. Could there not have been something there relevant to the main plot?

The same was true of the Temple of Solassan and the stupid part about that is that by the time I had collected all the shards to get to the final chamber, I was so powerful the boss fight was not hard at all. Now I feel the whole shards quest was a wasted opportunity. If the Temple had contained the item that was necessary to defeat Corypheus, then having to travel around vast areas of other maps in order to recover the shards would have had some point to them. Then there would have been the benefits of open world for those who like to explore for the sake of it but also a relevance to the main plot for those that don't.

This was also true when it came to the upgrades for Skyhold. I trudged around looking for elf root and other items because I thought it might be important to upgrade my base, as it was in ME2, as I thought the final battle might take place there and it could impact on the survival of my team. As it turned out it was purely cosmetic. So instead of penalising those who couldn't be bothered upgrading the keep, I was left feeling what is the point?

So no matter how large the area is to explore, I would like something there to be relevant to the main plot or important sub-plots, like companion quests or information about my enemy or a weapon that may make my final battle easier (without it necessarily being essential), to justify my going there at all.  As Phoray says even if it just adds to the story element it would be something.

There i disagree if they do worlds like the witcher or skyrim, please no main quest in it. Then i can avoid it. I hate running around or riding. I need story.

Yeah, FFX was good and quite liked too, but FFXIII, the movie with some gameplay in between, was quite regarded as an awful FF. Writing aside, the linearity of the game was over the top. What many forget, is that FFX wasn't so linear. Even if with limits, the game had lots of exploration and segrets to discover, optional contentent, NPCs and stuff to do. FFXIII was a long corridor, with little to nothing to do. Only one area was open, and there was a little side activity of hunting monsters. Nothing. Else. So, I feel open and linear games should all find an equilibrium.

A big STEN no

Just improve the open world. It’s effort that’s needed

Still playing dai and most are f the games you describe are 1 and done.

Area like the storm coast would have been much better if the Npcs in the area were for example

1 the bandit leader was way more interesting
2 the wandering mage with the locked house was more interesting and powerful- imagine if he could ambush and capture you or could capture your mage follower (remember in dao that we could lose the fight and end up in prison)
3 first time there it’s bandits, bears, and a giant plus respawning spiders in caves.
4 the hinterlands rift is much more challenging than anything in storm coast


They put a lot of effort into these locations but with a little more effort in the monster area and not it would have been much much better

I know this is DA but I'm gonna talk about ME also a little.
I don't want to say Bioware can't do open world properly considering all of their open world games had issues because of Frostbite, and suffered very short development cycles. 

However, their open world is probably the least interesting thing about the game. Is it beautiful? Yes. But their environments are:

• Huge, empty landscapes
• Constantly recycled assets
• Containing weaker side quests that have little to no cinematics or very low production values

I've always thought they could just compromise by using large open-ish hubs like the Divinity games have done, or TW1. That way you have more control over the narrative and some of the freedom and immersion of an open world.

I think Bioware should focus on its strengths and qualities, instead of squandering again its talent and resources in chimeras in which it is not specialized, such as Rockstar or Bethesda with sandbox games.

I'm trying to think very hard what the open world in Dragon age Inquisition brought to the franchise, brought to me. Eeer, basically it added little. Yeah. It was beautiful and shiny for like what ? 5 minutes before I got used to it and got bored with the lack of content. It wasn't immersive despite their efforts, because they needed to make alive their empty world. That's a lot of work. Yes an openworld isn't just about appareance. On the opposite, Bioware lost the focus of its narrative, made disappear close cutscenes that we had in both DA:O and DAII, to save some resources probably, which is much more important to me, something I'm not willing to sacrifice.

The same happened with Andromeda that followed the path of Inquisition. I much prefer M1, a game released in 2007 lol, M2 with its corridors than Mass effect Andromeda with its open world.

Their last game, Anthem that went even further combined with multiplayer, is just the last thing that crushed their quality brand.

I'm just willing to bet that an open world should take A LOT of resources to the point they need to sacrifice things that as rpg gamers we clearly like.

Also I'd like to point out, that an openworld often brings A LOT of bugs. Every single game, like Skyrim, Fallout 4, Assassin Creed Valhalla, and lastly Cyberpunk had many bugs at the release ( even if for this one there are more reasons than that ).

It's thanks to these open worlds that games take now 6-10 years, it's not just about graphics...

I just need a good rpg, a good story, a good gameplay, good cinematics, first, much more important, and yes an immersive world, but what we had with DA:O, M1, M2, M3 was totally sufficient. I'd rather have a much smaller world and much more RPG and stories content.

Higher graphical fidelity, as well as improved visual presentation quality, definitely plays a part in development time. However, I'd say the incessant need for "more content" is what largely leads to sequels being generated over 5+ years. I still remember an article from Amy Hennig (creative director for the Uncharted games) saying at a DICE event that the average gamer isn't satisfied with only a AAA, 8hr experience with no frills. And she's probably right.

I don't think it's bad that a more linear game be given more time to development time if it leads to a better product in the end. What would ME3 have looked like if it were given 3-5 years to work on instead of 18 months? Would BioWare had needed to rely on reused level assets so heavily in Dragon Age 2 had they been given more time? Finally, a linear story experience doesn't necessitate that the next game in the franchise will come out in less than three years. Uncharted 4 released nearly 5 years after its predecessor.

I don't think having more time or money necessary makes a game good.  Uncharted 4 did well because of the employees they making the game since if the reports are true they looked for developers that would fall into the perfectionist category and then watch them work crazy hours for that perfection.  The problem I think BioWare has had all these years isn't time or money, but the leadership making key mistakes especially after the Doctors left.   So they could just have easily made different or bigger mistakes if given a longer development window for either game.