While that may seem pretty obvious, I would argue that if you (the developer - that's right, you!) give the first game in a series the name fitting of a prequel - Dragon Age: Origins, for example - shouldn't the next game chronologically in the series just be called Dragon Age? I feel like by going straight to DA2, they've actually skipped the part where there was an Age of Dragons. You saw where it all began, you are about to see the next (dark) chapter, but where the hell is the original!? It's like going straight from Star Wars episode 1 to episode 5. You missed all the main characters, the crucial premise of the series, beginning with the heroic men and women that fought the good fight, setting up the world and mythos of Dragon Age, then getting launched straight into Dragon Age 2: The Continuing Adventures of Dragons. 
 
What I mean is that without a Dragon Age 1, there is no core that the series is branching off, it's just an ever-growing series of branches that are somehow (read: magically) attached to each other. These are the things that keep me awake at night!
 
Am I crazy? Is it just semantics? These questions and more will be answered by you!

cause its the 2nd dragon age game?

" cause its the 2nd dragon age game? "

Maybe Dragon Age 1 is still to come. Play the prequel to the sequel next...

I think it's more along the lines of it being confusing. Most people consider the first game "Dragon Age." If you have another "Dragon Age," people that go into a store to buy it might get confused. Putting a fat 2 on it separates the games from each other enough to where it shouldn't be a problem.

Uhhh, what? I don't see how their naming decisions have anything to do with their story telling. 
 
It's just semantics, duder.

" @joshy9411 said:

" cause its the 2nd dragon age game? "

I'm pretty sure this is true, I'll do some research and check back. "

This actually bothered me as well, as the original only received the "Origins" title quite close to release, so it's pretty obvious they threw it on there to avoid numbering sequels. 
 
@Wrighteous86 said:

" @joshy9411: They used the Origins subtitle because they didn't want to just number the games in the series (also, to signify the importance of your character's origins in the game).  The real reason it's Dragon Age 2?  Certain key members of the original team were left out of making the sequel in the quest to make it more "consumer friendly", partly because they didn't expect the game to do as well as Mass Effect (it sold better), and they started working on the sequel a while before the first game came out.  That's why this sequel is so vastly different, because they didn't expect people to like the original as much as they did.  The team who came in disregarded a lot of plans and intentions laid bare in the game's prequel, including the dark fantasy approach, the appearances of the elves and the qunari, and the tactical combat.  The original game placed so much emphasis on you creating your character and defining who he was and where he came from that they made the subtitle of the game "Origins", and then the sequel throws all that out and gives you Medieval Shepard.  Along with that was the use of subtitles rather than numbers.  It's representative of a lot of things that worry me about the sequel. "

Dragon Age was originally just Dragon Age, and it wasn't until about 8 months before release that marketing tacked on the "Origins" subtitle to emphasize the six different origin stories you could play through. 
 
So yeah, it was just Dragon Age, and then boom, marketing.

Far as I know Hawke's (the main char from DA2) story/legend kinda goes sideways with the blight, starting out in Lothering just before the blight happens and goes on through some time, so its more of a side story, then a real sequel.

I think they just want it to be very clear to consumers that it's the 2nd Dragon Age game. The first game having a subtitle and the second game having a number does feel rather weird though.

DA2 is not the sequel to Dragon Age Origins. Its a spin off title as far as I am concerned and I hope it's crap. The sequel would be Dragon Age Origins 2.....which I hope bioware make and I also hope they don't streamline it and give it the console treatment. But maybe its wishful thinking and Bioware have lost their edge and don't care about making great games anymore.

" @WinterSnowblind: The main reason people say DA sold better was because it was also on PS3.  Considering the crap ME2 sales on PS3 though, that argument is weakened.  Console gamers loved Dragon Age more than Bioware expected, bottom line.  They changed the sequel assuming they wouldn't, and now are trying to backpedal.  I think I'll still wind up liking the sequel, but it will definitely be different, and probably worse off.  I liked that DA and ME were different. "

Marketing!

" I don't think ME2's poor PS3 sales prove anything.  The game had been released for the 360 and PC, so most gamers had already played it and the PS3 version launched at full price.  I'd also point out that the console version of DA generally got pretty poor reviews and most gamers (including myself) complained about the combat system.  It worked very well on the PC but didn't at all on the consoles..  So making it more action based was definitely the right move and since it doesn't affect the PC version, I don't see what the fuss is about.  Again, I'm not sure how playing as Hawke will work out but I'm at least going to play the game before assuming everything has been ruined. "

How about we wait to compare DA2's sales with ME3's then?  :) 
Comparing them at the moment just doesn't work.  The PS3 version of ME2 is expensive, and it long missed the initial hype and buzz, meaning more casual gamers will have just ignored it. 
 
The fact DA launched on all 3 platforms simultaneously is definitely a big factor.

Because video games with 2 in the title sell a hell of a lot more than those without it (unless there's a 3, 4, 5, etc)

No, because of the colon.  If it were Dragon Age Origins you might have a case - but is is Dragon Age : Origins.  See?  Would be like saying any Superhero comic or movie dealing with the origin story isn't the first one in the series.

because trolololo 
 
never actually liked the origins name to be honest. i'm glad they didn't try to be new age with this one.

Dragon Age is the series, I agree.  However, you don't know that it wasn't always designed to be numbered.  Dragon Age : Origins = Dragon Age 1 : Origins.  You don't add the 1.  It wasn't Lethal Weapon 1.  It is common for the sequel to get a suntitle (e.g. Die Hard 2 : Die Harder).  No reason that the first can't have a subtitle and the second doesn't.
 
Also using movies as the standard is dumb anyway.
 
Die Hard / Die Hard 2 : Die Harder / Die Hard with a Vengeance / Die Hard 4.0 (international title).
 
Talk about mixing and matching naming conventions, we have a winner.

Origins was in the title just to give you a glimpse of the lore surrounding this universe.  But now that you know how the religion, darkspawn,, golems, magic, dragons and etc work  in the world.   There is no need to clutter the title.