I think the game works incredibly well as it is. My only real objection is I would like greater reactivity of choices and their consequences, a lot tighter writing, more nuance in the storytelling, and appreciate more convincing characters. For me, everything more or less works well enough that all anything needs is a little fine tuning, but the writing is just so. . .mediocre. However, I have been fascinated with history and the humanities all my life and I imagine my standards for excellence are somewhat higher than the typical consumer for this type of project.
Not gonna lie, I don't even know what the phrase "tighter writing" means.
Think Hemingway. Choosing efficacy over the extraneous. Poetry and prose have their place, but when they become distracting or directionless they can fatigue the reader. At that point, one needs to pare back on their composition. Its shedding the fat, because lean writing can do more work with greater efficiency.
I personally think the writing is fine as it is for a game of this size. There are many good novels out there that you would find not so compelling if you had only a third of the whole story in hand. And it's exactly what we got in EA. So stating the writing is bad without having the full arc of certain characters is kind of premature, don't you think?