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

TBH I think with Dragon Age it suits open world more because of it's medieval magic and mystery nature whic his why DAI go tawa ywith it and becam ewha tit did ME on the other hand ma ybe better suited to a moer enclosed environment fot rit's stories. Yes I did like Andromeda amnd the fact it took a lighter tone which I appreciated. Which is why I still pla yi tand will likely continu eto do so but I think it's moer down as t ohow open the world is as I think MEA got i tjus tabou tright in terms of size compared with DAI which I felt was a little too open. I hate to bring it up again but looking again at Horizon Zero Dawn as an example it had an MEA sized map and a DA style world and it just worked  at least for me. It felt like the perfect balance between the 2. If Bioware can give us a world and areas similar to that of HZD then they could be on a winner. I think they got pretty close with MEA so I don' t think it's beyond them. Bioware jus tneed for me with DA is just do what Guerrila did with HZD did is make a map or similar sized maps to that to tell their stories in.

Is that really the root of RPG? My PnP games were always pretty linear.

It's not like CP 1977 is a failure, as opposed to a disappointment. It's already earned out, and I'm sure it'll eventually patch up to be a pretty decent game on current gen hardware.

LOL! true   clueless = IPO's  (just kidding)

Honestly, whatever BioWare picks, big open world or smaller areas / hubs specific to certain parts of the plot: both approaches need quite some iteration on their part. Their open worlds look pretty but feel empty, and if their hubs get any more static they'll give me vibes of Madame Tussaud's.

The details might be of interest, since we're discussing general design principles. Unless your methods wouldn't be adaptable to the CRPG format.

Well whatever they do, it’d be nice if NPC’s in hub worlds weren’t static mannequins with idle animation. I feel like at the very least, there should be people doing things on a kind of loop, at least to such a degree that it looks like they have tasks or doing personal things, like a maintenance worker going back and forth, checking a panel, then checking a datapad, etc., and perhaps ambient dialogue that updates as the story progresses. Even Fallout 4 managed to have the NPC’s actually do these basic things, and eventually stop what they’re doing and go to sleep. I guess what I’m really looking for is the “lived-in” feel of the environment. Even if it’s not quite a hustle and bustle, it can feel at least a little alive. 

I think a bigger concern of mine for BioWare NPC’s is how they handle non-cinematic dialogue. I’ve always argued that the problem wasn’t the lack of the shot-reverse-shot we’ve been so used to in older BioWare games, but rather the lack of any meaningful animation or interactivity with the environment as these characters spoke. Like, they’ll just stand there with their arms crossed the entire time, or do the same generic gestures we’ve seen as far back as ME1. No one will move around, sit down, or have any body language reflective of what they’re saying, like if a character was angry. These little things go a long way to making sequences more engaging. Of course, there’s the general quality of the actual dialogue that takes place to account for, but that’s another story. 

Driven how? Driven where?

In my games (both sides of the screen) there was almost always something going on in the world. Players could respond in various ways, obviously, but the thing was still a thing. (Depending on the game system, ignoring it might not even be an option; your alignment, GURPS Disadvantages, Hero System Psych Limitations, etc., can pre-commit your characters to certain actions.)

I agree that worked pretty well, although I remember thinking at some point their games were starting to feel a bit formulaic due to that. One thing DAI did that hurt it was having a huge open area (the Hinterlands) too early in the story and people got distracted, forgetting what was even going on. KOTOR and DAO took more time before they opened up, and importantly the different planets/areas were directly tied to the main story.

It wasn't a perfect system because the order of planets/areas often had "best" ways to do it. Like in DAO doing Circle Tower before Redcliffe and Orzammar having higher difficulty. In KOTOR, Korriban made sense to do last. Still, I did play these in a variety of orders that helped with replayability and the world feeling more open. 

100% this Your friend sounds like a wonderful GM

Why even have a GM at all if not to give the game a sense of narrative, direction and purpose? If the GM should be entirely at the whim of the players and allow them to override or ignore the narrative they've crafted, they can accomplish that well enough by just staying home and not writing anything.

What's "background" in this context? What's the "experience"? I could use this ridiculously broad definition you've put forth it to claim that official pre-made DnD campaigns are "just stories", and not real RPGs.

What's the point in setting up a background if the players can choose to ignore it? Why should I spend extensive time crafting locales and NPCs for a bustling port city when there's every chance the players will demand to fuck off to the mountains instead, when I haven't written anything for the mountains?

If there's no plot, then how does the GM know what "background" to make in the first place? Exactly how much work is the GM meant to do to accomodate player freedom? At which point do you consider the possibility that players might be being unreasonable?

Assuming you even do find a doormat GM who'll just put up with players running roughshod over a campaign they supposedly wanted to participate in, how the fuck is any of this relevant to video games? BioWare should somehow be able to anticipate and accomodate the infinite choices that their millions of players might want to make? Is that what you're saying?