Keeping the same protagonist in MEA games?

I have no problems with a squadmate returning in a sequel.  The only time I would think it would be a bad idea is if they can die in a previous game, only because instead of focusing the role solely for the returning character they either remove what might tailor the role for that character or the content they would have written for that character gets split in two so they can have multiple characters fill that role which is what we saw in Mass Effect 3 since they had generic characters fill in for any potential dead character.

I prefer a new PC each time. The emotional devastation is worse when BioWare kills off a character I've played for multiple games.

Plus, it's fun to get to know the different story of a new player character each time like the DA series has done. I loved the Warden, loved Hawke, hated the Inquisitor. Two out of three ain't bad.

normally I prefer to keep protagonists. but if I end up hating the game or the Ryders, then I'll want a new one.

Eh, like others, it depends on a lot of factors. I voted for "change" but my feelings on that really depend. I like the Dragon Age series' approach to covering different events/regions in the same universe with new protagonists, and I like the original ME's trilogy of Shepard. If they have more stories to tell about the same core issue like with Shepard, I'd probably prefer another series-long protagonist. If they're more exploratory and covering different key events in each game ala DA, I'd rather have a new person to play in each game.

It's equally fun for me to further expand on a character over many games and create someone new to experience a new story.

In your opinion, perhaps. The Inquisitor is my favorite Bioware protagonist easily. I like them much more than Hawke or Shepard, seeing them as not the way to go. 

I love my Inquisitor. Couldn't stand Hawke no matter how I tried to play her/him. To each his/her own.

I agree, but at the same time when the "making fun of" is loud enough combined with other factors such as people filing legal complaints that will have an impact on the design choices of the future.  I think Andromeda is a really good sign of that because of how quiet BioWare has been because they don't want to have "you lied" or "the person from the BBB wrote a blog saying..." to possibly impact sales.  I think developers and publishers are the most worried about the really vocal people during the first couple of months of a game's release and after that they stop caring because it won't hurt the sales of the game that much.

Having a returning protagonist is fine and I agree that the concept isn't bad, but with the amount of choice BioWare does put in its games and the expectations people have of those choices when carrying forward there always needs to be a cutoff point so they can start in a new direction.

Again, all of that can be handled by an amount of planning greater than "none at all".

It can also depend on the type of story/world you have going. With the trilogy, they forced themselves to close it off to a point with the Reaper war. If you do smaller stories in an ongoing world you don't have to converge everything the same way, whether it fits or not. So choices can still be accounted for in interesting ways without breaking the setting.

Though this question wasn't directed toward me, I'll go ahead and give my two cents. I'll try to keep it brief because I've discussed this at length elsewhere on the forum.

The issue with Hawke was that your options were to play a character with very little nuance (to the point where I feel like I might as well have chosen, say, 'sarcastic,' at chargen and let autodialogue move me through every conversation not involving a decision) or someone whose lines and delivery were so inconsistent as to not feel like a real person at all. Not only that, but the personalities were so set and specific Hawke just felt like a body I was driving versus my character. Now this is fine for a game with a set protagonist but Dragon Age is supposed to be an RPG with a customizable one. I didn't feel like I could roleplay her all that much. Like, even the decisions I made seemed to cater to a personality. My favorite Hawke was the direct/aggressive version. But I felt like the game expected me to choose 'evil' options in the quests, be rude to my friends and family, and pursue a rivalmance. If I didn't 'nice' Hawke would temporarily possess her body so she could pursue an non-abusive relationship or side with some mages. Shepard suffered from this as well at times (especially in ME3), but I felt like you could mix and match the two reasonably well. And in ME1 and ME2 you had some neutral options when you wanted to be more pragmatic. As long as you didn't mind the game punishing you for it later (again, in ME3)... fortunately they've gotten rid of that.

Maybe that's what it comes down to. In the ME trilogy you were punished for not maxing out paragon/renegade to the point where you missed out on dialogue and even the best possible outcomes for specific quests. In DA2, you were punished for not going full diplomatic/sarcastic/aggressive because your Hawke would sound like an irrational crazy person. In Inquisition, I could choose whatever dialogue choices I felt were appropriate in the moment, I could choose how my character felt about specific issues and specific people, I could make whatever choice I wanted to in a quest, and my vision for that character could come to life in a believable way. And if she came across as a bit bland, well - I could use my imagination to fill in the blanks. Without having some autodialogue I didn't choose contradicting that (for the most part anyway). It's a trade-off I'm more than okay with. Could it have been done better? Sure, and I think Trespasser showed what they're capable of if they shift us back toward someone a bit more expressive.

I think another example of a voiced protagonist done well (or at least, done in a way I like) was Fallout 4. Although there were other issues with the dialogue system, I thought the way they used tone to give you different ways to respond in conversation was done really well - once you figured out which side of the wheel corresponded to which one anyway. Again, you could create a character with nuanced beliefs and emotional reactions - and I thought Courtenay Taylor (can't speak for the guy as I never played him) did a great job of sounded consistent throughout, while also sounding emotive and interesting.

I think the perfect balance would be somewhere in between the Inquisitor and Hawke/Shepard... and the bits I've heard about the Ryder twins, from the trailers and dev comments and VA interviews, makes me optimistic that that's where they land. Aaand, so much for keeping it brief. Oh well. 

I would have Voted Yes as well.

ME-Trilogy had a lot of emotional payoff keeping the same protagonist and supporting cast members 1-3. Not only did it give people 5/6 years to grow attached to these characters, but it allowed for interesting character arcs. How I felt during the Citadel DLC and end battle would not have been the same if I had just met the characters only 1 game.

Yes there are a lot of games where I love the characters, but it's not the same level as following them for so long.

Keep Ryder.

As in keep him after he dies and is taken over by SAM and becomes someone else.