Eh, no apology necessary. There are a ton of ways to make a video game and construct narrative and choices and what works for you is just as valid as anything else. Mass Effect could really go either way. I personally like stat based dialogue systems combined with organic development that isn't easy-win based on numbers, but that's just because I feel more immersed in that no-guarantees of life. It's a fine line though, because game narrative is still ultimately artifical, and being totally undercut and robbed of your choice sucks.
I think a better example of where I felt cheapness in the series reactive choices are the Mass Effect 2 NPC conflicts, like Jack vs Miranda and Tali vs Legion. Instead of an organic conflict where the NPCs act and behave with a convincing autonomy with you stuck in the middle, you can easy paragon your way out of it. Do the side quests and paragon through those. Then paragon through the triggered argument. You could ignore the actual dialogue and as long as you hit those blue words everyone will be okay.
I just find that boring and very unnatural. Like your the puppetmaster.
EDIT: Yeah see, what Sou Da is talking about. That kind of complexity is interesting. It's like BW fans want the story to pander to them and be exactly as they shape it, instead of reacting to them. Iron Bull betraying is a decent example. Encouraging him to remain loyal to his people does not and should not guarantee he stays loyal to you. His character should just be a stagnant template for you to mould as you see fit, but a believable identity with his own beliefs and motifs. You engage, you might even influence, but you can't perfectly predict the course. When a supporting cast has a convincing illusion of autonomy it makes them all the more believable to me, and thus even more fun to engage with.
