This game is NOT an RPG. It is IMPOSSIBLE to rolepay

That's because there were several distinctive tone choices in DA2 that helped shape the autodialoge based on the personality. These are not present in MEA.
DA2 is probably the best system BW has used for a voiced character, yet they completely botched it with MEA.

I for one am disgusted that Bioware have not written a game that allows us to input whatever dialogue we want in every situation and have the game voice it then adapt to it.

Poor show Bioware, poor show.

The problem is that that which came to be described as roleplaying, back when the genre emerged, actually wasn't, but was more of a tactical conflict simulation. You may recall, perhaps, that the name of the company that published D&D first, TSR, originally meant "Tactical Studies Rules".

Roleplaying, as by the term, has much more in common with acting than with tactical simulations, which was soon recognized in the P&P rpg community, leading to different ways of playing the games, depending on the GM. However, the actual roleplaying dimension of the genre was always diffuse, as informal interaction is hard to capture in rules. So, as games like D&D were implemented in video games, and computers were good at rules but bad with the diffuse, the emergence of video rpgs reinforced the tactical simulation aspect and the roleplaying aspect was forgotten for a long time, until it re-emerged with Fallout in 1996.

So we have the conflict to this day: should the the genre of video-rpgs as it emerged, be more defined by the tactical simulations aspect, or more by the acting-out-a-character aspect. People, of course, have different preferences, but since I'm something of a semantics purist, I think a genre that is called "roleplaying game" should be defined more by what the term actually suggests, namely acting-out-a-character. If I want a tactical simulation, I'd prefer to buy a game that isn't called something else. Note, btw, that I have sunk more than 1000 hours into the XCOM games, which are an example of the latter, so it isn't a case of me liking one but not the other.

Of course MEA has a third element thrown in - it's also real-time 3rd-person shooter, a genre which I actually dislike a great deal in its pure expression. So the more MEA loses in its roleplaying aspects, the less is left of what I might like. 

From my perspective, DA2's was the worst.

The only thing I could select in DA2 was tone. Motivation and intent was frequently overridden by what Hawke actually said.

There are (valid) complaints about Ryder having 4 ways to be a paragon, but Hawke's choice of resolution was welded to mood/personality/tonal behavior. You couldn't, for example, say no in a diplomatic fashion or yes assertively. For my part, Hawke was distinctively (some version of) Hawke, and has always felt like an NPC to me.

Oh they have they just got different views of the MET

Don't be a prat.

It's not a view it's a fact. You had far more choice in the trilogy over how Shepard reacted. Didn't change the story due to the nature of the medium but at least I could be a dick to those who deserved it and some who didn't. In Andromeda you can't. Very odd decision on BW's part.

And it certainly beats Final fantasy 15 in terms of choice which is also an RPG

I prefer the term co-creation, but yes, similar idea.

I thinks it's better than ME 1-3. All this game is missing is a "fuck off" option

What arguments like this prove is the worthlessness of "RPG" as a category.