You mean, like TW3? Because, again, that's clearly a game made primarily for the console, like TW2. With a series of features anathema to what is considered a to-line RPG on this forum, usually (e.g. re: DA:O). No companions. No tactical combat. No statistic-driven combat. Real-time, AC-esque combat. Limited reactivity. Scant variability in dialogue, paralleling ME3.
I love TW3 - I think it's a phenomenal game. I just think its really funny when people cite it as a kind of preeminent example of what an RPG should be, when it has more in common with AC2 than anything that gets labelled an RPG, including DA:I.
I usually hate replying to posts that are days old, but it is worth discussing this.
The Witcher is an ARPG series. It always has been. It has a set protagonist, action-based combat, no party to control and relies less on the stats of your character than the speed of your twitch.
And that's fine - because that's the type of game it is. It's always done the same thing, just expanded and improved it.
Dragon Age has done none of those things. It doesn't have an identity, it doesn't have core concepts and it hasn't improved what it did well from previous games, it simply seeks to hop from one extreme of criticism to the next. So when people criticize its lack of tactical gameplay, it's because it debuted as a tactical game. When people criticize its lack of focus on party control, it's because the series is characterized by its party. When people criticize the lack of character customization and control, it's because the game debuted as one where appearance, race, gender, background, class, skills and attributes were all open to the player to modify.
Instead of building on all of these things, the series has morphed itself with each iteration. Drastically, fundamentally. It can't figure out what it wants to do, and winds up not making progress on fronts while introducing gaps and faults in the new approaches they work to integrate. They only build on one strength, companions, and waffle on everything else, from story to setting to mechanics.
Bioware seems to genuinely not want to make a game anything like DA:O. They try to, in order to meet the demands of fans, but the effort to please two masters of game design philosophies results in a product that often falls short. Yet they do not dare make another DA2, since it was received so negatively. So further course correction with DA:I leaves the brand diluted, the foundation shifted again.
Will DA4 be DA:I2? Time will tell. We will see if they shed the larger world design following critique, or if they keep the same model and work to add more polished content across the game world. Will DA4 borrow from TW3? Again, time will tell. We will see if Bioware takes any cues from the games combat, story-telling, cinematics, or other items.
Point being, no one can even hazard a guess what the next DA game will be like. And it's the fourth game in a series. That's why it receives so much criticism - consumers don't know what to expect and so have wildly varied concepts of what the series even is, so it's left to their mind's eye to draw up what should or should not be in it... and so Bioware loses before they even start. Which is not a good place for Bioware to be in.