Mass Effect: Open World Vs Linear

I think the game will be like DA:I, open world when you're free roaming-exploring-driving, linear when you're locked in a main mission.

I personally like the open world aspect as long as we always have some random encounters on the way.
I mean, we will be spending a ton of time in crafting or choosing which armor or weapon to take with us or choosing which power to unlock next, so it will be nice to have a live battlefield to keep testing different loadouts.

I prefer a well executed open world game over a well executed linear game, but I stand a lot better an average (or worse) linear game than an average (or worse) open world game.

I don't think you're heathen as people have different perspectives.  I just think a lot people in this forum severely lack creativity and are fans mostly of ME3's design since that was the last game to come out.  Fans who liked more of the exploration and rpg elements from ME1 are rare here because that game came out a decade ago.  They gave up on Mass Effect once EA dumbed it down with ME2 and ME3.  

There are bad linear experiences and there are good linear experiences.

There are bad open world experiences and there are good open world experiences.

Excluding actual bad games:
Good open world = Fallout New Vegas or IMO, InFamous. Shadow of the Colossus

Bad open world = arguably the Far Cry games or Just Cause series. Games where the world has no story

Good linear = Half life or Mass Effect 2

Bad linear = Crysis 2 or Rayman Origins/Legends and other level-level, same-same bs

I would say from the new trailer, Mass Effect: Andromeda looks very much open world to me. Not Sandbox style like GTA or Assassins Creed, but definitely on the lines of Dragon Age: Inquisition or the smaller maps of Witcher 3.

Pretty exciting! No more streamlined game play done boring corridors

I enjoy open world games, hubs-based or 'linear' with big levels with multiple paths. They all got pros and cons and suit different games better and worse. Nothing's worse though than extremly linear games with tiny maps and 1 singular path. That stuff belongs in movies, not games

This poll, in my opinion, is poorly worded. An open world with "side quests" does not automatically suggest a less compelling story with less interesting characters. Both can be achieved if developers implement all features in a meaningful way that enhance the experience. Again, folks here hate this comparison, but The Witcher 3 had a great story with amazing characters while also having a fun open world and great side quests.

Obviously, that's an incredible feat and no one, at this point, has done it as well as CDPR. That being said, I think BioWare could pull it off if they really wanted to embrace the open world design philosophy. I think many here are largely averse to the idea simply because DAI had a less than successful attempt at a pseudo-open world design. BioWare Montreal claims they have learned from DAI's shortcomings, but we won't know until we play it.

Personally, I like when developers get outside of their comfort zone and do something new. I know BioWare can tell a great story and I expect many of the characters will be memorable. What is far more likely to get me excited is new features BioWare incorporates that they aren't known for. Otherwise, if what we are getting is essentially DAI 2 or ME4, then what's the point?

My personal opinion is that game design should always push boundaries and that no property (or studio) should be content with doing the same thing every game. Taking risks is part of the industry and its what keeps gaming moving forward and not becoming stagnant.