Not a question of have/don't have exactly, it is an issue of focus. The focus of the games he listed are cheap story interaction (BioRomance, or action play, etc...) Not on detailed character development and its interaction within the game.
Mount and Blade actually has a focus on kingdom building and is more of a sandbox RPG where you go out and make your own character's story.
If Dragon Age 3 is anything like Origins then we can expect detailed character development and its interaction within the game. It already has the tactical camera back so it's possible to play it like Origins again.
Kingdoms of Amalur, Mass Effect and Fallout I've give you though. Those are actiony RPG's and out of them, IMO, only the first two Mass Effects are any good as RPG's (the third one felt like nothing more than a shooter with RPG elements). Kingdoms of Amalur had horrible combat and felt like a clone of Fable and TES. Fallout 3 played like a terrible shooter with RPG elements.
I also like combat to have many consequences as well. When a player is forced to consider each stage of their approach, to account for it by the round, you get much more interesting gameplay imo. Which is why I think D:OS is doing so well.
I agree on that. One of the reasons why I'm enjoying Original Sin.
