For those who liked and didn't like MEA, do you think DAI was better?

In the end, I didn't care for either of them.

I don't regret playing them, nor am I upset, I just didn't like either of them very much.

I suppose I liked DA:I slightly better, in that I did try to do a second playthrough that didn't get far. At the end of ME:A I knew I wouldn't be playing it a second time.

To add a little more substance why MEA wins over DAI for me.

1) I can play the main arc as fast or as slow as I want - which gives me as the player the chance to control the pacing - while in DAI I had to do sidequests to earn points to be able to advance the main plot.

2) Speaking of the main plot: MEA has with "Hunting the Archon", "The journey to Meridian" and "Merdian: a way home" some of the best missions in ME history at the end of its main plot, while I don't even remember much of the main plot of DAI and just wanted it to end at some point.

3) Speaking of side content: in MEA every planet with the exception of Kadara has a nice side story (Eos: securing the first outpost, Voeld: the Kett/Angara conflict, Havarl: Angaran history and the Roekar, HO47c: a homage at ME1, Eladaan: Krogan/outlaw territory), even the small side quests have something to do with these or with the overall arc, while in DAI we were for example asked to kill some rams. Sure there is still some really stupid side stuff (Nexus, Kadara - I'm looking in your direction), but far less and far more optional. In MEA I know what I want to do next, while in DAI I sometimes asked myself "WTF am I doing".

4) Random encounters while exploring: in MEA I can just drive by with the Nomad (the exception Havarl, but there it thematically fits), while in DAI even on a horse it could be that you got attacked by some random shit that's just costing you playing time. The devs implemented very badly "being in the middle of the mage/templar" conflict because both sides would attack you despite not knowing who we are and whether we are enemies or allies. That was so stupid in DAI.

5) Even more stupid: in DAI you could run into enemies you couldn't beat at that particular point, because you hadn't leveled up enough, while in MEA (in good ME tradition) some fights might be tough early on, but you could always solve the situations because in this world the enemies scale up with you. If you don't want me to fight a certain enemy at a certain point in the game, lock the enemy away.

6) Combat: MEA build perfectly on ME3MP and is a masterpiece for live action combat, while DAI combat was very strange.

The only point where I can give Dragon Age Inquisition the upper hand without much thought is the dialogue writing.

IMO Mass Effect Andromeda has problems to fit very good parts on its own together, because the in-between dialogue is badly written, while DAI simply has bad game mechanics, which is the reason why my answer to the question on hand is "no, DAI is not better".

Seriously? Now we are comparing 2014s GOTY to a game that was abandoned after 5 mounts?

That's bullshit. If there is one thing I know about EA is that they want to keep making money as long as they can. Them planning on abandoning a project before it releases is bad businness.

Actually they've said they didn't plan dlc.

I am playing on PC.

Good Question

Personally, I have to say Andromeda which, for all it's faults, (and they weren't insignificant), was more tightly focused on story.

That said, DAI did a lot of things really well (companions so much better than in Andormeda, dooming people from my throne, for example)

Unfortunately, for me, DAI was also bloated down with a lot of irrelevant sidequests (can you go and fetch my cow, deliver a letter, craft some bedrolls) which at times threatened to distract from the main story. Frustratingly, there were times when the missions I was assigning my minions at the war table looked more interesting than the ones I was actually going on (save my Dalish clan? prevent a war? No thanks, I'll just go and hunt 10 creatures to feed all the perfectly able-bodied refugees who for some reason can't do this themselves...)

My Rig is up to snuff, but it has troubles with DA3, unmodded. Runs Andromeda like a charm - I am one of those people who went: what bugs you are talking about? But DA3 crushes once in a while, and lags, as well as characters look really weird, with extremely realistic costuming fabrics and metals and skin textures (sweaty though), shiny lip gloss etc, but absolutely terrifying hair. I use all ultra settings, and I dunno, very, very, very weird effects. I prefer the look of DAO and DA2 b/c of it. And, yeah, the hats also show white mesh on characters' heads under the hats. So weird.

Doesn't hold water though. You don't voluntarilly sink a multi million dollar investment and a five years commitment to a single project. Whatever made them decide on not supporting SP any longer, it's not Anthem. It's rather the other way round, since Anthem got it's stay of execution when MEAs shitstorm was at it's worst. They got cold feet over pushing yet another half baked project out the door.

There is a hypothesis being floated that SP DLC isn't actually all that profitable. It seems hard to believe unless the stuff really doesn't sell, though, but without sales figures we're not going to get anywhere with it.

I think it might be more of a fair comparison if we stayed within Bio's own body of work, since each game up until this point had 2 or more expansive story content. Like, how profitable was ME3 or Inquisition's DLC? 

I don't think AIs are all that comparable since the game systems are so different.

ME:A uses up more resources than DAI. In general it takes a better machine to run. (ME:A blew up my old 6670 vidcard while DAI ran fine, for instance.) However, DAI ran badly on some relatively higher-spec machines, for reasons that have never been well-understood. So it's possible to have a machine which runs ME:A better than DAI, but it isn't common.