Dear Born_Lucky,
I dont think you should estimate a game quality by comparing it with another one. I didn't play the Dragon Age, and judging by the previews & reviews I'mnot even going to.
It is better to estimate a game by general parameters

replayability- 3 (many gamers will join the opinion)
the plot - 3 (here I admit I have to compare it with its elder sisters - Gothic I, II, III)
originality - 1 (that's my own estimation, but there's really nothing new in the game)
graphics - 8
sound - 8
interface - 9 (very good and even great)

dividing these total 32 points by 6 above parameters I get only 5.3 for the "awesome game".
Well, someone would rate it higher, but not 9.0, of course. It is ridiculous.

Oh, amazing game. When Americans created their 1st 3d-game with Lara Croft they set the standards of the genre which had to be followed by any game-maker in the world. Lara could swim and dive. Two first Gothics followed the set standards (evidently the memory was still fresh those times). But seemingly it proved to be unbearably difficult for a German game-maker to keep following them further. In Gothic 3 their avatar already cannot dive and climb, though still swims. In Risen he finally lost even the ability to swim. Anticipating the next German 2d-game when he will also lose the ability to run and turn around. And (counting the contents of the dialogs) - to talk. Cardi