Idk, I like both the DA franchise and the BG one, but I think they're fundamentally different games, and the comparison isn't necessarily fair to either. I've played Bioware games for years, and I prefer to compartmentalize them as their own thing. To me (imho), they're based on different overarching narrative concepts. DA wants you to get really elbow deep in the various social power dynamics of the DA-verse. The origin stories in DAO were, in many ways, all about that: about socializing the player into those specific subject positions within the DA universe and then adding to it something like (a not always well executed) grey morality. BG3 is D&D based, so with a sprawling world and a long history of players creating their custom characters both via video-game mediation and via tabletop, and it's got an alignment system which DA purports not to have. So I don't know that one is better than the other, I like both approaches, but it seems to me they set out to accomplish different things. I think it's neat to be able to play a preexisting character alongside being able to create a completely custom one, that to me adds replayability to the game. But I frankly don't need a ton of handholding to invest into a character by having their Terribly Special Traumas spelled out to me in an origin prologue DA-style (much as I love the games, don't get me wrong)—I can invest just fine without it, or come up with my own backstory for RP purposes.
