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

Go back to the root of RPG: non-linear narratives.

I wouldn't disagree with that sentiment either. I'm just saying that, if you want a high quality product for your game (even if it is more linear in design), then you'll want to give it as much time as it needs to reach said quality. How the developers, team leads, directors, and producers, handle said product is always unknown.

It also helped that Metro Exodus had a far more compiling, impactful story arc.

Freakin autocorrect. My first sentence was supposed to say "I wouldn't disagree with that sentiment" 

Somehow I suspect that if it was up to us to fund a game out of our own pockets, we'd feel differently about the prospect of being obligated to potentially keep paying developers ad infinitum for the sake of "maybe eventually getting a good game".

Not all maps in DA:I were terrible. The Fallow Mire was great for example. I think that's the scope of maps they should go for in DA4 for the most part. But I also loved Hinterlands, and I think one, two maximum really big maps with a lot of stuff to do and explore and that you revisit frequently during story, companion and side quests is great.

I think Bioware games work best in smaller environments. Their strength is in storytelling and characterisation. I want more choices and replayability, not pointless exploiration to hunt shards. Leave the sandboxes to Bethesda.

Fairly sure the report gave it about 6/7. Either way. 5 years is more than enough time if your not bumbling buffoons. Still ended up being an 18 month game because they were hell bent on making an even worse game, No Man's SKy. 

I'd kinda disagree with you there. 

I did a completionist run of DAI (including the DLC's) last summer that clocked in at just over 80 hours. 50 hours of that was in the sandbox zones, over 8 of those in the Hinterlands. Not for one moment did I feel that Inquisition benefited from having these zones. It would have been a much better game if these zones were cut imo. 

Bioware could & probably will refine their design in DA4 but here are the problems I have with these types of levels in DAI

1) Party banter takes too long to trigger
2) There isn't enough banter for 50 hours of exploration
3) The Inquisitor moved too slow + didn't have a sprint button
4) Exploration mechanics consisted of jogging, a measly jump button & climbing some ladders
5) Mounts were too slow & felt floaty
6) Mounts would reset the banter count down trigger
7) Re-used areas mean we don't see diverse environments & architecture. ME2 missions were small, but that game feels 100 times bigger than DAI's world despite the raw area sizes being the exact opposite
8) "One and done" levels can be designed towards specific fights or iconic scenes. I prefer this approach than having to reuse one environment for primary quests, side content & companion quests. Eg, Redcliffe village for Mages quest setup, Dorian confronting his farther, Cole confronting the templar who killed his hosts body.

It a matter of personal tastes, I just find this kind of content to be a waste of time no matter the game I'm playing. Even games that do exploration alot better than Bioware   I don't see how sandbox levels could make a DA game better, unless you turned it into an action game. 

I'd be down for large hub world environments if they were modeled off of DA:Is Crestwood region. Mainly, have areas that are segmented from each other so your choices can significantly alter the region. The area would then stand as a testament to your actions.

Apparently not, considering cyberpunk.