Dragon Age II and Fable 2 and 3.
Yes D.A.II was obviously rushed and it showed in quite a lot of the game. The fact that Bioware had the bare-faced cheek to only put in like 3 dungeon maps and recycle them constantly by blocking of small areas of them for each dungeon really, REALLY pissed me off. But I liked the fact that Hawke had a voice and a personality, I liked most of the changes to combat (especially melee combat), and I loved Varric, Isabella and Merril so much I pretty much completed 3 playthroughs JUST with them as my companions. I liked the overall story of Kirkwall and Hawke's rise to fame, especially the starting of the Mage-Templar War. I just wish that Kirkwall was more open, that there was more of it to explore, it felt really small for a city (especially a city that plays host to the ENTIRE game). True, it's not overall as good as D.A.:O, but it was still a pretty good game to me.
As a Brit, it feels REALLY good to have a game with British voice actors where they're not ALL cockneys or aristocrats. Yes, those accents are present, but they're only a part of the larger Albion society. Now that Peter Molyneux has left, hopefully we'll get less of the overhyping, publicity drive that was his style and more focus on delivering the promise that shows in those games. I really do like quite a lot of 3 - particularly the Sanctuary menu system (playing through 2 at the moment and that menu feels cloddy(?) as hell) - but it did feel short and the bosses of 2 and 3 were WAY too easy. The boss at the end of 2 has to be the shortest, easiest, and most disappointing boss I have EVER fought in any game! I really do hope they make a challenging and rewarding boss fight at the end of 4, because this is one of my favourite franchises, despite all the flak it receives from hardcore rpg fans.
Tl;dr - they both have bad points but there are a lot of positives in both that maybe don't get the attention they deserve.