Yeah, I have no desire to get into a long detailed discussion about why DA is what it is. I can already see that you won't accept my discussion as you are already excusing publishers involvement in the process.
And I can argue you're biased as well judging by all your previous negative posts on Bioware.
But you seem to forget that different people have different opinions and I was merely disagreeing with yours.
I'm aware publishers can be involved (i.e development time, release dates, marketing, shooting down ideas etc) but it was Bioware's choice to make DA2 what it was just as it was their choice to write those endings for ME3.
Mass Effect 2 was developed when Bioware was under E.A and it turned out pretty good.
Dragon Age 2 was a flop because Bioware rushed it and took away features which made the original one great. It was Bioware's decision to take the combat and turn it into an action mess.
Mass Effect 3 was a flop because they took even more RPG elements away (you only get two dialogue choices most times) and ending the series with a poor ending. Bioware's poor writing there had nothing to do with E.A.
I hate E.A as much as the next guy but they have nothing to do with development.
ME2 was fun, no doubt, but it was disappointing because they stripped all the RPG elements (albeit however minor they were) from the first game. I can't fathom how you could actually believe that EA had no say whatsoever in the development of DA2, ME2/3, etc. Bioware exists in name only. They are wholly owned by EA. It's like Eidos Montreal and Square Enix. When EM was bought out by SE, the former effectively ceased to exist (and they've stated as such on the EM forums), except in name only.
By the way, I do want to specifically address one comment, as it directly corresponds to my point.
It was Bioware's decision to take the combat and turn it into an action mess.
Just as it was Larian's decision to make DD a real-time action RPG? Just as it was Larian's decision to make D2 a third person action RPG? And Larian wasn't even owned by the publisher, just funded by them. How much more control do you think EA exerts, as owner of the Bioware brand?
If you really believe EA had no say in any of those development decisions, you're just deluding yourself.
ME2 hadn't stripped many RPG elements out. In fact it was deeper as it replaced armor sets with individual armor pieces with their own benefits and statistics. Skill trees were numbered down but you were given a choice to evolve an ability at the end. Most of the skill trees in the original simply consisted of weapon skills anyway (i.e assault rifle, pistol) and ME2 replaced them with more abilities.
ME1 gave the illusion of choice but none of your choices in the story mattered or had any impact (other than the choice to save either Kaiden or Ashley). ME2 on the otherhand had choices that had impact and you could even end up with everyone dying in the end.
ME2 was the perfect mix between action and RPG. It was a proper action-RPG with gameplay far superior to the first. ME3 steered completely towards action shooter territory.
I'm on the Bioware forums so I read all the developer blogs, the developer comments on the forums and their twitter posts where they go into detail why they're going their route and why they genuinely think it's for the best. I'm not denying EA doesn't have a say in things but half the stuff is also Bioware's decisions (i.e romances, story, writing) and I just find it funny when fans say EA made the ending of ME3.
And Divine Divinity originally started as The Lady, the Mage and the Knight, a real time action-RPG.
