Should the next Mass Effect game be linear, or open world?

I don't think they will be moving back from open world now, so this whole debate might well be irrelevant. I'm not as negative as some about the open world of Andromeda though, I found it a very good step forward from DA:I, and find it preferable to the linear environmets of ME2/3, even if they are yet to find the right balance. In my opinion, based on the kind of games BioWare make and what is expected from them, one things they should try is to make our PC and our squad/crew more involved in the sidequests. The problem with most of DA:I's sidequests and a good chunk of ME:A's as well was that they didn't seem to be stuff the Inquisitor or the Pathfinder should be doing themselves, because I pretty damn sure the Andromeda Initiative had people better suited to scan 16 rocks than the guy/gal who should be finding a home to them all.

Instead, besides proper sidequests for our PC, have more companion content. I'm sure they could link Vetra's smuggling activities to fair amount of NPCs to give us related quests, same with Liam finding new ways for people to settle in good conditions, more misteries for Peebs to solve, more gardens for Cora to take care of, more rocks for Suvi to lick, etc. It's a triple win-win-win as you get more interesting sidequests (easily), more character development (which is essential in a BioWare game) and a better integration between you/your squad and the setting, making it more lively for sure.

Now, of course, they need not make optional zones ever again. If a zone isn't worth visiting in the critical path, it should not be there, period. Focus on making the critical areas better instead on giving us MOAR for the sake of it.

I prefer their indoor maps the most so I guess that puts me as linear.

Open world is fine as long as it has something in it. If they can't pull that off, Id prefer some well designed instances

If they can create an open world that feels lived in, then I would like that as opposed to ME2-3 linear corridor shooters. I hate to bring up TW3, but in that game there were hunting cabins, people on the roads, little towns, larger towns, etc. that you could just happen upon. I think the closest MEA comes to that is Kadara. There just needs to be more stuff in the world to make it seem like it's not just an open landscape with occasional Kett bases that all look pretty similar. In FO4, there would be merchants traveling the roads, people being attacked by gouls, etc. In MEA, there's emptiness, then BAM! Kett base. Or BAM! prefab settlement. There isn't much in between in the way of showing that people live in this world and try to make a living off of it.

I also noticed that in HZD and FO4, there's so much more in the way of vegetation. Besides Havarl, there really isn't a lot of anything besides rocks and sand. I know Kadara has lethal water and Eos is a desert, but still. HZD has trees, grass, all sorts of stuff to make it look like a real world. I know we want the planets to be "alien" looking in MEA, but there should still be grass and stuff, right? I just think overall it's too spread out and there isn't enough effort put into making it a world instead of a landscape.

After DA:I and ME:A I don't think 'open world' is BioWare's best skillset. I'd be fine with the linear 'battle corridors' that we had in ME2 and DA:O as long as the combat and story are good. The open worldness is just tedious usually, and I haven't stumbled upon anything that wow'd me or made the open world feel alive/wortgh it like I did in Skyrim, The Witcher 3, and Zelda BotW.

The thing is... this Bioware can't talk any comment into account. They wouldn't know the first to do with any feedback. Not to mention Andromeda is beyond fixing. 

There isn't any leadership talent left.

"open worlds" (and yes in quotes because like 99% of the games that say open world aren't) aren't right for every story. For most rpgs I would say linear actually works best. Skyrim is the only open world game I've ever liked and without the modding community I probably wouldn't. Linear is really far superior to storytelling which rpg style games largely are about the story.

I believe the biggest issue of this game in terms of story is people don't feel like "the main mission" is urgent. As the writers stated exploration and establishing colonies are the main plot of this game while the kett are just 1 of the many antagonists.

If you play the main plot up to Gil having to fix/decipher the transponder the rest of the game meshes well to the kett story. I'm doing that on my NG+ and the game feels much more in line with the story.

I also agree some of the quests are just meh and unnecessary at best. I hate when people compare this to TW3 but I will say if they had more quests like the few you had on eos and voeld that were "mini" stories and had some emotion more players might* be happy.

Just my thoughts.

Planets should be one fifth of the size of the maps we have in MEA and there should be more of them. The problem is all that space is meaningless if its filled with either dull quests or MMO style fetch quests.

The game is already like ME 1 already. Honestly....and I call it to so this is just as much self criticism....but to call Andromeda 'open world' is disengenious. Andromeda is cut from the same cloth as Dragon Age Origins and Mass Effect 1. Open area 'hubs' you can go to and do things, main quests and side quests, and then move onto the next ones. Andromeda just has somewhat larger maps. But that does not make it any more or less of an 'open world game' as Inquisition or Witcher 3 or even DA 2 or Origins or ME 1. In fact there are a lot of missions and areas in the game that are linear.

I would say that this is what ME Andromeda did considering the mix between open areas for exploration and ones more linear for story purposes.