@virumor
I don't have to ask Bioware forum members or Bethesda forum members. I ask Ultima or Baldur's Gate where role playing wasn't about leveling up or exploring (though these normally are part of an RPG), role playing in these games were about choices and dialogue which are plenty in Origins.
@Divine Avenger
The computer controlling them is part of the real time combat. It's party based but not turn based like Final Fantasy. How the computer controls them is up to you. If you hated them performing abilities on their own, maybe you should have set their tactics to "don't perform any abilities without player control" which is where the computer does nothing and you have to take default control of them. There was more depth to Origins than you thought through your one play through :P
The story is actually based around your character. He is the guy who makes the choices, he is the guy leading everyone and he is the guy who everyone comes to hail as a hero in Dragon Age 2. If you decided to follow your companion's advice and SPARE Wayne (who you can actually kill) then that was YOUR choice. I killed Wayne when she got in my way and I destroyed the Circle because my character believed mages were dangerous (so much that he didn't have any mages in his party).
RPGs aren't like set stories with one ending. The greatest RPGs will have more than one ending and ways to influence the story. Maybe your hero was the guy who simply slayed the archdemon and listened to companion advice but my first hero was a Virgin Templar who killed Zevran and Wayne, sided with the Templars, destroyed the werewolves and was best friends with Alistair. He later refused Morrigan's offer (due to his faith in The Maker) and died a hero. Another hero of mine was a prince who was a badass ruthless bastard who killed everyone who got in his way, slayed several High dragons, romanced Morrigan, had a son with some dwarf woman back in Orzammar, knocked out Inora and killed her demon possessed son - Conner - and then survived after slaying the archdemon. He still wasn't as badass as my city elf who was racist against humans and killed them whenever he got the chance, whereas my dwarf prince was funded by greed (performing tasks that offered him the best reward), this guy was solely motivated by his evil, the only good he ever done was saving his family back in Denerim because even evil people have love but - unknown to you - a city elf can sacrifice his father in a blood ritual and then leave his remaining family members to die when the darkspawn attack. He can also leave Shanni to get raped. You can literally make a city elf who doesn't give a damn about his own family or father.
Dragon Age: Origins has as much detail as DKS. It was carefully crafted. I disagree with your last statement, even if it was made to get more money, so what? The detail in the game was enormous. Everyone is out to make money, you simply hated the combat but detail was every in the game if you looked. Dragon Age 2 was made to get more money and the recycled environments is proof of that. It was a decent game but no where as near as good as Origins which contains a more memorable story than Divinity 2.
Origins is a story about YOUR Grey Warden making whatever choice that you decide. If you chose to simply tackle the main plot alone and bend to every whim and demand of companions, it was your choice to do so. Others tackled more than just the main plot and even disregarded the advice of their companions with which several can be killed if the circumstance arises (so the story can't be about them). Alistair can be executed, Morrigan can be sent away and killed in the Witch Hunt DLC, Leanna can be killed, Wayne can be killed, Sten can be left at Lothering to die, Oghren can be killed and Shale can be killed. It's a game about The Warden and what he or she decides.
Divinity 2 is the story about a on-going war with which The Dragon Knight is a small part of. Yes, later quests can be tackled at whatever direction the player likes (much like Origins) but choices are limited and you literally find yourself going to point A to C at every command of Ygerna with which it is revealed, that you were simply her pawn and even in FoV, you're a pawn of the Demon Man. Divinity 2 isn't Divine Divinity where you're no pawn (some of the dialogue with Zandalor is totally different than the dialogue the DK has with him in Divinity 2, in Divine Divinity, he sometimes insults you just as you can insult him, he's not shown as a mentor but rather as The Divine's friend and ally. You actually save him once - just as he saves you - whereas in Divinity 2, he's your mentor who seems to have the answers to everything) of anyone. The Dragon Knight is everyone's pawn and the only point where you get to make any choices are with side quests.
Initially I thought that with Divinity 2, you could either be a Slayer or a Dragon Knight. I thought it would be a battle between the two. I thought you would have choices which would influence the story. I mean the DK could still get the dragon memories from Ygerna but what if he decided against going to the Maxos Tower and what if The Slayers offered him the choice of destroying the dragon memories from his mind? It would have made for an interesting scenario and would have changed what areas you explored too. I remember the early previews did mention such things but they can't always be trusted just as my memory can't either...
Point being, Divinity 2 was a straight forward journey where you made little choices in side plots which didn't matter. You were used in Divinity 2 just as you were used in FoV and the DK relied constantly on other people to help. He relied on The Demon Man to free him and then he relied on The Demon Man's device to help him destroy Damien's fleet with he alternative being Bellegar's device which require him relying on Bellegar. Divine on the other hand was the guy that Zandalor relied on. There's a difference. The Grey Warden was the guy Thedas relied on. In terms of story, Origins and Divinity were better than Divinity 2 and both offered more choices.
