You, of course, forget to mention that:

1) even Bg1 has combat mechanics much more complex than your favourite DA:O , and (lol) DA2 combined. It has more spells in one class to choose from than entire skill trees combined from DA:O.

2) it wasn't fantasy fallout, never supposed to be. It was first high fantasy game with such big STORY.

For example, Daggerfall was of course bigger, but it was mostly empty.

when it comes to tactical combat, even BG1 eats every game you described for a breakfast. And this was the biggest Bioware's achievement.

But you said just before that DA2 was a good game, so we don't have much to talk about :P I can't exchange arguments with a guy who likes PSX-like backtracking and environment recycling.

Yeah, I care about story most. Guess RPG isn't my genre then ...

Well, given that "story" was one area where DA II failed miserably IMO....

TBH, I had high hopes for DA II. It was good to see that BW were finally ready to break the mold they'd established. The problem, however, is execution, and they either didn't have enough time to properly think the scenario and the story through and then implement it, or they didn't know what to do with their new concept. >_>

Everytime I looked at DA2, from any angle possible, it looked like it was half-done.

When I saw it first on EA presentation and played it on X360, they told me that the graphics are still in alpha phase. Guess what? It didn't change a bit in final release ;p

Thanks for mentioning GemRB. Bookmarked. I might still buy the Android EE to support the making of these versions, and assuming the enhancements really make it nicer to play on a tablet.

I genuinely liked the story and the themes the game offered. It took a lot of current issues and transformed them onto the fantasy setting. I always like the "side stories" and aren't really the focus of a game and you need to "earn" by reading and searching (perfect example would be the survivalist in F:NV Honest Hearts). I don't like having everything spelled out to me. And while DA 2 did provide an entertaining little fantasy story "on top" they really put a lot into the second and third layer.

It all fell apart in act 3 however. The ending didn't make much sense at all and you could feel how it was rushed. Maybe two more month and it could have been really good.

Edit: Actually Morrowind is the perfect example of "earn your story". Damn, how could I forgot that.

The Mage-Templar conflict was interesting as a concept, but, again, I felt that the execution left a lot to be desired. Both sides were equally unattractive, with almost all Templars coming across as a bunch of fascists, whereas way too many mages would either turn out to be blood mages in secret or would just resort to blood magic at the first sign of trouble. It's too simplistic to be truly engaging, IMO, so the choice offered at the end didn't mean anything to me. And as you said, the finale in general was handled badly.

And as I said before, the un-voiced Bhaalspawn protagonist of BG did a better job of drawing me into the game world, properly immersing me in the (admittedly very basic and simple) story line than Hawke ever did. All I had left was a fundamental sense of disconnect from my player character and the world as a whole.

That is why I'd prefer even the first BG to DA II.

That is actually what I found interesting. There was no "good side" (or bad side). Black on grey morality at best. You had the bad fascist who were basically from the beginning made out to be the bad guys. Only to find out during the cause of the game how evil magic can really be and how uncontrollable it is. So those Gestapo stand ins actually have a point. No siding with them is of course a whole different decision.

Additionally the game is very dark, which I generally like in writing. The game was basically one player punch after another. No matter how hard you tried, everything was falling apart left and right.

This could very well be a general difference of preference. Silent VS voiced protagonist. There is probably no "better" answer. Personally, with very cinematic games like DA or ME I prefer a voiced protagonist, while on more "personally based games" like Morrowind or Fallout I like the silent one.

While I liked to call voice acting the "downfall of the RPG genre" I generally have accepted now that, even though there is less "text dialogue" it is usually made up by different written exposition in the game. Bioware is really good at this, the codex for ME was nearly as entertaining as the game itself, if you are a SF nut. I actually wanted to make a drinking game out of it, one drink for every SF reference ;-).

Can't wait for this game, it sounds sick. Just hope they don't botch the remake!

In my opinion, they were both overwhelmingly bad and I didn't wish to be involved with either. Of course, I didn't really have that choice since it's the main scenario. What I would've liked is a third option where I choose neither and instead opt to take down both of them to cement my own claim for power in Kirkwall. Which is ironic since you do take both factions down no matter what in each of the two endings.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I fundamentally disagree with Bioware's concept of "the circumstances being the villain" and that you merely get swept up in events that are bigger than you, so that your impact on what's happening is mostly negligible, because things will fall apart anyway. If a game centered on C&C basically doesn't give you any real influence on what's happening, why should I play it. That's probably a conservative view of a player's role in a game, but that's how I think about the whole thing. See above. That's one of my fundamental problems with the game.
I like dark, but there's such a thing as too dark and bleak. And IMO DA II crossed that line to be "relevant" or possibly "edgy". Hm....that one's kinda complicated. True, in general I like my protagonists to be silent in an rpg, especially when it's a user-created character. Shepard and Hawke walk the line in that regard, as you decide their class, gender and their looks. Still, they don't feel like a character I roll up in a D&D game. And whereas I didn't feel Hawke at all, Mike in AP didn't give me any trouble with being invested in his fate. Food for thought, I'd say.

Actually, it is. The more options you have... the more options you have. Hundreds of spells and abilities made me coming back do BG1 quite a few times, and every time i made different team, with different sets of abilities, and the combat was vastly different than before.

3 classes from DA:O made battles repetitive and boring (at least on normal).

options != tactics. You really don't have THAT many options when creating a character in Jagged Alliance 2, yet it's a pinnacle of tactical games.

All you have to do in BG1, even tho you have all those options, is to repeat the same routine over and over right until the end of the game, you need to adjust your tactics very rarely. So it's about numbers, not about tactics at all. I have quite simply found myself in the need of adjusting my tactics and changing my approach to a situation much, much more in DA than in BG (and I have only played DA for a fairly short time)

Well, I'm not gonna lie, I am pissed about that. But I did complete it, including Nightmare Harvester on XBox 360 (I don't think I did any nightmare stuff on PC). Everyone said how hard it was... yeah I died a couple times because he actually wasn't a snooze fest, then I reallocated my skills (slightly under, but close to level 25, mind you) and, I shit you not, was able to kill him in 10 hits. I did this with my rogue, which is considered the hardest class with which to beat him. I did not do this with any crazy Awakening gear.

Verdict: Not hard, not tactical. On my semi-healing mage I could seriously let my teammates fight 75% percent of the game for me, cast 2 heal spells and slouch in my chair... Never mind the stupid overpowered Earthquake + Cloudkill (whatever they call it in DA:O) spell combo. Shit like that is why people can solo all parts of DA:O on Nightmare with a mage (when the game forces you to have a companion you set them to passive).

Now note, there were good parts to DA:O, it was genuinely gorgeous on my PC (and you can see the 360 struggle with that engine, probably more than it should have, I'm guessing lack of optimization). There's some interesting mechanics. At least your first mage spell isn't magic missile. You're still putting together the same basic party that you would in any game like this: Healer, Tank, melee dps, ranged dps. The same optional subs work too, melee dps and tank can be subbed for two semi-tanky melee dps. If you micro your off-healing you can get by with a semi-healer and stack all DPS, etc. Shit now I'm back to complaining, nvm.

We must have played different games than. In every game on infinity engine except Planescape (where fighting just sucked balls), I had to adjust not only my tactics but also my entire gear to every major battle. Total different approach while fighting mages, dragons, golems, rogues... I'm too lazy to think how many times I won easily previously impossible battle because I changed my approuach vastly.

It was already great in BG1, but in BG2 it was improved to INFINITE level with new subclasses, magic schools, etc. One mage can fight in dozen different ways. Heck, even differences between common warrior / paladin and berserk were amazing.

In DA:O ? Freeze the fuckers, flame the fuckers (it makes a combo), attack them with swords, repeat. You couldn't even make a different mage or warrior mostly, because upgrading your character was so vastly limited.

There was even a video on YT somewhere, where one guy finished the game only using flame/freeze combo through entire game.