When using words as a means of communication it is usually best to try and find the word that is most useful for the situation, not the one you are most emotionally attracted to. Otherwise you end up in two-and-fros like this more often than you'll likely care for.
We were taught in school, for example, that the word 'boring' is an exceptionally useless word for communication. You could describe chess as having boring combat, you could describe Dark Souls as having boring combat and you could describe Super Mario as having boring combat, but by doing so you're not actually communicating anything to the reader other than the poverty of your communication skills.
Thesaurus variations on the word boring are not much of an improvement.
This isn't to say the word boring is always inappropriate, it can be a very useful word, in the right situation. Usually a situation where everyone would likely conceptualise the described situation as boring: "OMG, I had to sit in the doctor's waiting room for 2 hours today, OMFG, it was so fucking booooring.".
However, you had a very specific complaint about the combat. You said you had to endure the same combat scenario time and again in a row and that this happened too often for you to enjoy the game. So the most efficient way for you to communicate that is simply to say "I got quickly bored by the repetitive combat.".
I myself wasn't a huge fan of Dragon Age: Origins, I played it when it was released, or nearabouts, and I personally found it to be borderline enjoyable. A game that just managed to keep me interested to an acceptable level. A game that was as bad as it could be without letting me give up. However, this doesn't mean I'm about to stand by and watch it used as a tool for weird agendas nor hear misinformation applied to a perfectly innocent game.
Reading your replies here, and your earlier edit, it's a lot clearer now what you meant by bringing in comparisons to attempt to clarify your analysis of why you couldn't get into it. By doing so you just happened to touch upon one of my hobby-horse issues. That being:
None of the games you cite as being you're preferred form of RPGing are party-based games, or, if they are, they are the kind that have pre-generated 'companions' whom one doesn't affect much during the game and has little control over.
And it's this fact which establishes the reason for your personal bias about combat and which allows you to associate RPGs with scenarios that have little to do with combat.
It is a completely different ball-game to make an RPG where you both create and control your own party of adventurers as compared to making a game where you only have to design around one specific character choice. This should be obvious.
If you have a party of characters, then your melee character, for example, is going to get very bored if you let your party's rogue decide that the entire game, or as much of it as possible, is going to be played in the style of combat avoidance. Not only this, but this then means that the developer can't make the good melee item drops occur during any of the avoidable combat - thereby rendering the avoidable combat even more 'trashy' than it could or should have been if all combat was mandatory.
If you only have to develop around the idea that the player is only ever going to be playing one character, such as in Age of Decadence or Fallout, then it's much easier to simply implement three or four different 'routes' through a screen, with each individual route supplying specifically the items and quests that the chosen character requires.
Do you get this? If it's a party, then specific routes are more likely to conflict with the development of all the characters, if it's a single character game, like Deus Ex et al, then whatever route you take the character can be easily developed.
In effect, you're using your RPGs to play several different genres depending on your mood. You want your RPG to be a Thief game when you want it to be, you want your RPG to be an Adventure Game when you want it to be, you want your RPG to be a TellTale Game when you want it to be, but you never demand it to be an actual normal RPG, a game where you play a party of adventurers through a pre-defined p&p-like module.
Ah, I hear you say, but when I play p&p I only play myself, I don't play everyone else and you can have solo p&p adventures. Which is all true, but it unfortunately misses the point; that point being that your role is only relevant because you are a member of a party providing a role that no-one else is currently providing.
When you select the rouge character in a party-based p&p session, you are not doing so because you are expecting to play a stealth based adventure, you are doing so because that will be your role within your party of adventurers. To perform general rogueing skills as and when needed in a generalised adventure that will hopefully have meaningful tasks for everyone at some point on the journey.
The only task that is meaningful for everybody at the same time is combat.
I'm not saying that single character games are bad or wrong or not RPGs or that you have awful taste etc, I'm saying that the preferences you have are inherently alien to the advancement of the RPG genre in it's true form and that what your preference is, is for Adventure Game/Choose Your Own Adventure Game hybrids that have some vague (or sometimes quite strong, to be fair) similarities to RPGs.
I'm also not saying that 'proper'/'pure' RPGs are forever cursed to be combat games, just that, at the current time, no-one has ever really found a more interesting way to utilise party-based mechanics. Except, ironically, Bioware, who, quite by chance, discovered that people just love romances. Which is usually Bioware's most prominent feature that gets people away from combat while maintaining the concept of party management. However, pure romance RPGs are most certainly a niche within a niche