Unique is an antonym of generic. Your criticism of origins was that they were too generic.
I don't represent BSN, and if you can't handle someone who disagrees with you saying as much, you don't belong on a forum. What's you think people would do, applaud you for having a different opinion, and bow to the superiority of your taste in monster design?
The darkspawn aren't dwarves, or humans. They're not ghouls, either. They're a separate species, born of broodmothers. Broodmothers were once another race, but they're clearly not still human, dwarven, etc, by the end of their transformation. There's no reason darkspawn should look like zombies. At least in DA:O each darkspawn variant looked different from the others.
First off, you can disagree all you want. You're being a snide dick. There's a difference.
Second, no, darkspawn are not dwarves and humans, but they WERE dwarves and humans. The genlocks in DA2 look like they were based on dwarves. The hurlocks in DA2 look like they were based on humans. The qunari in DA2 were redesigned to look more like ogres. All of these were good changes. It turned standard fantasy monsters into more Dragon Age specific monsters. They at least looked SOMEWHAT similar to the races they were based on.
The genlocks in DAO had nothing in their looks that said that they were based on dwarves.
The hurlocks in DAO had nothing in their looks that said they were based on humans.
The shrieks in DAO had nothing in their looks that said they were based on elves.
They looked like standard Tolkein monsters. And in a game where you're trying to show what the taint does to the different races, standard Tolkein monsters doesn't cut it.
Third, if you think that the darkspawn variants in DA2 didn't "look different from the others", then I have no idea what game you were playing, but it wasn't Dragon Age 2.