DA:O tried to be dark fantasy, but it never was. It had some dark elements, but its overall tone wasn't totally dark fantasy.
DA:I however, is so Disney it's not even funny. Which isn't bad on its own, but it's bad because the Disney style doesn't go along with what the game tries to present: a world full of despair and anguish due to a massive cataclysm, but it conveys the opposite.
Everything is so bright, so clean. Look at the areas, all but 2 are so bright and lovely. Look at the people, there is no danger to them. There's no sense of urgency, nothing.
Look at the Inquisition. They succeed at everything and fail at nothing, there are no setbacks (the only setback in the game results in a high point), there is no conflict, nothing. There is no despair, no helplessness in a time of disorder and calamity, nothing. The villain is a complete jokester, conceptually great but had less effort put into than the game's main token character. No screentime, leads dumb monologues instead of killing the protagonist, general incompetence throughout the whole story. Instead of defending from him, the Inquisition chases him and succeeds at every step of the way. He's like a bug in your room, annoying, but you know you'll eventually kill it.
It's why DA:I fails so epically at worldbuilding and storytelling. One of the reasons is that it relies on telling more than showing, and in some cases, shows the exact opposite of what it's telling, creating a big jolt of disconnection between the player and the story. Another is that most of its worldbuilding is rallied to the War Table - where everything is text. Most of the War Table missions are in a bubble and have no effect other than doing them - don't do 90% of the war table missions and all you miss is 50 influence per mission, shit loot, and text. There is no effect for the majority of them, no one refers to them, nothing. You just do them, that's it. You might as well not do them because the "rewards" are more often than not pitiful. Even if I do these missions, am I simply supposed to believe that the Inquisition is doing something? Why is there no difference if I did them or not from a storytelling standpoint, then?
Also - in marketing material ("Lead them or fall" - "will you save the world, or lead it to its better end?" - Morrigan) and through in game dialogue (Mother Giselle, Cassandra, Lord Seeker Lucius) it's alluded to that the Inquisition you are building might not necessarily be a force of good, and that it's possible you might lead it to be like what the previous Inquisition was - an organization founded to do good that turned into being tyrannical and brutish. However you can do no such thing, both the Inquisition (and the Inquisitor, to an extent) can be nothing but a goody two-shoes that always saves the day. If our path was set in stone, why suggest the possibility of deviating from it?