I'd use these elements as inspiration:
Story: Baldur's Gate series.
There is absolutely no contest. It's Bioware's only multi-game story where everything in the main plot made sense throughout the story and where I left at the end with complete satisfaction, with several different characters and regardless of how I played through the story. Considering that I don't even like the setting, that's a significant achievement. The story featured both a grand scope and great personal significance for the protagonist, which is something they didn't achieve again successfully IMO. Honorable mention: Knights of the Old Republic
Characters, general: Dragon Age Origins
While most of Bioware's games feature memorable characters, I feel that DAO's characters were fresh and natural, less burdened by trying to fit into several templates, feature specific sets of tropes and represent different real-world groups than those who came later, while being less simplistic than those who came before.
Characters, specific: Dragon Age Origins / Dragon Age: inquisition
What we have here are two companion characters with a closer connection to the main story than the others: Morrigan and Solas. I think that characters who lack such a strong connection are lesser in some way. For that reason, I like to argue for fewer companions, but that incurs other problems. In any case, I think each game should include at least one such character.
Combat gameplay: Dragon Age: Origins
I mean it. Why? Well, DAO is the only game where combat feels tactical, where positioning matters, where you can plan ahead in meaningful ways and where the perceived need for balance doesn't cripple some types, while not being as overly complex as in the BG games. From my point of view, the only advantage combat has in the later games is that it's over faster, because it is way less interesting and I want it to be over.
Dialogue system: Dragon Age Inquisition, but without paraphrasing and with more options in more dialogue nodes.
I've said it often enough: paraphrasing destroys roleplaying because it means you don't know your character's mind. It's the single worst feature ever introduced into Bioware's games and it even surpasses ME3's ending in its annoyance factor. I need *content-complete* information about what my character is going to say when I choose a dialogue option, not just a hint of the general direction. Apart from that, DAI's dialogue system works reasonably well. I still want more options here and there, but it was sufficient for the most part.
Lore and Worldbuilding: Dragon Age
I'm always impressed with the work that went into the setting. In spite of some unfortunate retcons, it holds together well and the stories arise naturally from it and attempt to make themselves at home in it. Contrast with Mass Effect, which started out reasonably well, but where the stories consistently ignored and contradicted established lore if it was inconvenient for the writers.
Side missions: Mass Effect 3
These were heavy-weight side missions that felt plot-significant, included significant dialogue beyond personal companion-related stuff, and were written well (in fact, much better than the main plot - though that's not something to take inspiration from). Compare that to ME1 and DAI, where most sidequests consist of "go to X, (optional: kill everything), (optional: pick up stuff), collect reward" and didn't have much, if any, dialogue. Me2 had the loyalty missions, but they didn't feel plot-signficant, they were just more personal stuff.
Antagonist: BG2 Shadows of Amn
Carried by excellent voice acting and reasonably convincing writing, Jon Irenicus is Bioware's best main antagonist. His motivations, while opaque throughout most of the story, make sense in the end, he wasn't stupid as most antagonists and ironically, in spite of the mask he did not come across as faceless, a simplistics template. Honorable mention: ME1's Saren, though he and Benezia were loaded with some unfortunate tropes that spoiled the experience for me.
Retour en haut
. 
.
