Extensive Analysis by Noah Gervais

I do agree with the both of you

The various enemies in Bioware games have different designs, different backgrounds, and different methodology/reasoning, but there is something to be said about too much similarity. Namely most Bioware games have an enemy that is primarily about conversion.

The Reapers = change organics into synth/organic hybrid monsters.
The Kett = Eugenics advocates that demand we become one of them.
The Collectors = Already Reaperized bugs that are abducting humans to convert them into a Reaper.
The Qunari = All must submit to the Qun and become one of them.
The Darkspawn = Everything they come into contact with becomes blighted or converted into more Darkspawn. 
The Fade Demons = (this one is stretching I'll admit) but they want to turn our world into theirs 
The Sith = So many of the enemies in Kotor are converted Jedi and republic soldiers

The execution makes a huge difference in making the enemies feel different or fresh in a new Bioware game, but the majority of them involve in one way or another capturing our identity and turning us into one of them or against our allies. Rarely do we see enemies in their games that are our enemies that mirror something realistic like political differences, border disputes, resource wars etc.  

Yes all Bioware games of the past ten years are tales of collective effort while maintaining individuality. The bad guys always want to take that away, turn everyone into the same.
Bioware celebrates differences. The crucible was the biggest symbol of Bioware's narrative ideology. Different cultures/talents strengthen the group, make it smarter. Bioware broke this down to the genetic level in a questionable scene about humanity's outstanding DNA... This fear of dissolving into a mindless (evil) collective is a very western concept, I would say. On the other hand, Bioware seem to be big fans of Jung's idea of the Collective Unconscious, a POSITIVE link between all people.

These two opposing ideas of the collective are the basis for Dragon Age. The "song" of the ancient elves was beautiful, harmonious. Then it got corrupted and turned into a threat. Of course it's also a kind of Garden Eden allegory.

Indoctrination and the blight are very similar. But Dragon Age actually features a lot of politics, racism and a bit of sexism. Both franchises reflect upon reality, especially racial and religious ideologies. Mass Effect was a bit more abstract, perhaps. But both franchises are roughly about the same thing. I mean, Solas is basically the new reapers...

It's true though that some of the more basic human motivations are not being explored all that much. Something like starvation/ resource wars, as you say. It's the most logical path for a setting like MEA has. DA2 came closest to that. Hawke's motivations were about naked survival at first. It was a nice change from the usual.

When two groups just want to survive, want their families to live, then there's a real moral dilemma if both are treated as equally deserving. This also works for decisions regarding your own people as Virmire showed. Two good people, one has to die. Mustache twirling villains and their mindless army pose no moral conflict.

*tries to e silent. Struggles, struggles, fails*

"I fight for freedom. Mine, and everyone's. I fight for the right to choose our own fate. And if I die, then I'll die knowing I did everything I could to stop you. And I'll die free"

"SO BE IT!!!! The cycle continues"

Gah!  I remember that.  I went the two kids first on that one. But the final piece of food...use it for political gain in the group (to gain favor) or use it on who needs it most (which is hard to determine) or eat it yourself (cause you need strength to protect the others)?  Such a hard choice!!!!

That type of stuff made me love Bioware in the first place (and was so well done in DAO).  Free the scumbag noble (cause his vote is important in the Landsmeet) or let him rot (cause he basically raped your family members).  Let Logahin die a noble death and keep you and your lover alive (but this means your lover hates you) or let one of you die (cause you are wardens after all) or let Morrigan do her thang (which means she has a son that could have claim on the throne and access to a 'god's soul).  All shades of grey.   Loved it. 

Edited to add - there was a reality show at one time that had folks living off the land in Alaska (a really great survival show with a group of guys and gals).  They had limited food access and had to hunt, etc.  They had one guy who was really big and strong, a good hunter, who could carry alot of equipment.  When it came time to divide their meager food, they opted to divide it equally.  The other option would have been to give the large guy a little more food because he had a higher caloric need and burned more calories with his extra work.  Long story short, their 'diplomatic' choices meant that the guy had to quit and be helicoptered out  They lost his muscle, his ability o carry more items, and his hunting skills.  Being nice is not always the smartest thing, in the end.  And that was real (well...reality-TV "real", anyway)

I always give those two food first. I can't do a Scumbag Lee playthrough. 

I've tried different variations with the remaining two pieces of food that would appear diplomatic or strategic but like most choices in that series you'll end up pissing off everyone anyway somehow someway. 

I was going to ask if he's related to Ricky Gervais then I heard him speak.

I believe so. I was more thinking about how I've heard many fans cry about how FO4 lost everything that used to be great about that franchise, accusing Bethesda of dumbing the gameplay down for the casual shooter crowd. Castrated RPG elements. Kind of similar to what Bioware heard about ME2 and 3. "Bethesda losing their way." Or how MEA lacks the charm of the trilogy.

I have no idea how many people actually were disappointed. Maybe it's just a vocal minority and the usual do-not-like-change-phenomenon. FO4 was the biggest disappointment in a long time to a friend of mine that almost made him quit gaming altogether. I was curious and found many similar opinions online...
Bethesda was also criticized for not even bothering to fix the old Skyrim bugs when they released the Special Edition. Instead causing new ones that once again the community has to fix for them.

I don't have an opinion about FO4 myself because the only Fallout game I've played so far is New Vegas, which wasn't even made by Bethesda.

I have seen almost everything I enjoy turn to crap eventually because creative minds and the settings they created just ran out of ideas, so perhaps I'm being cynical. But I see it as the natural progression of all things. Art, entertainment, governments, societies and even whole civilizations peak and then slowly crumble.

This is not a bad thing at all! Everything that "dies" gets replaced with something else. Not necessarily better, but not necessarily worse either. I'll be sad to see something I enjoyed lose its enjoyment, but I didn't mean to say that it's something to be bitter and cry about forever. Rather than looking at something as the only option and if it's gone the world ends, one is perhaps better advised to look at what, in this case, gaming has to offer as a whole. If, say, Bioware did their part influencing the industry and other companies are picking it up and adding something new of their own that I can enjoy, isn't that just as good?
Hypothetically, if Bioware has handed the torch over to CDPR as the company that gives me my cinematic RPG fix, then technically I have lost nothing. One just replaced the other.

The real problem to me is that if we keep expecting one company to provide us with the best experience forever, this can only end in disappointment and bitterness. The key is to "enjoy it while it lasts". It's not all that cynical. And I'm not saying Bioware cannot deliver something great anymore. It's not all a steady decline, sometimes there are comebacks etc. And one must not forget that Bioware as a company is constantly changing. So new talent might give us something new and exciting.

Obviously those who loved the game would have to apply this to whatever THEY happen to be currently disappointed with.
The more we are invested in something, the harder it is to let go. I'm still mad about how Dexter ended. And some people are still mad about ME3. It's stupid though. Plenty of other things to enjoy out there.

Oh I actually just meant the flavor dialogue options that might impact the course of conversations rather than the final decisions where you pick the red or blue (that was indeed a insta-win choice)

I liked the system more when it was something like approaching a merc that has useful information. He's trying to put up a defense and not tell you anything useful. Your ultimate goal is to get him to realize the boss he's protecting isn't worth it.

You can appeal to his sense of self-worth "You're a pawn to that boss, you think they are looking out for anyone but themselves?"

or

You can appeal to his sense of self-preservation by making darkly funny comment that is a not-so thinly veiled threat to push them out a window.

I also liked that you could threaten to do something as a bluff but not be forced to act on it. That's actually how I played Shepard a lot...I think deep down they were a good person and very kind to loved ones, but very intimidating to enemies and always at the ready in case they have to take someone down. They'd prefer not to have to get messy and knows that sometimes just the threat of violence is enough to solve a problem. 

A lot of full renegade is just straight up sociopath. 

Why?  Pillars of Eternity was absolutely FULL of dialogue options based on having a particular skill, stat, or race. And they aren't necessarily "I win" buttons.  Some are.  A lot aren't.  What they really represented were different ways of approaching a conversation.

So why should being able to talk a good game make you able to talk down hardened gunmen when you have a reputation for avoiding conflict?

Heck, that's what made ME1's skill system interesting.  You had to put separate points into being able to be diplomatic AND intimidating.  All that was missing is making certain situations easier or harder (or impossible) based on which skill you used.

Edit:  also, greying out unusuable options might have been a mistake too.  Go ahead, use that option if you THINK you got what it takes to pull it off 

Not a persuasion check as such (those are specific stat checks: Resolve for persuasion and Might for intimidation). There are also skill checks to bring up possibly pertinent information. Lore for esoteric information like history, politics and such. Survival to identify herbs and poisons, and such. Other stats come up as well. Perception can have you point out inconsistencies in a story, for example. But again, these aren't necessarily "I win" checks. Sometimes all they do is let your character show off how knowledgeable they are. Sometimes a person may even take offense if you point something out.

In addition, the player's actions actually build towards a reputation. Being kind, helpful "Paragon" might get you the Benevolent reputation, which might make some people more willing to trust you. Although others may see you as a soft touch and try to take advantage of you. OTOH, being all violent and merciless may get you the Cruel reputation, which may get people to treat you more aggressively rather than talk. But on the other hand may get less savory characters to think you're their kind of people.

There's other reputations as well: Rational, Stoic, Passionate, Honest, Deceptive, etc.

AS for the second part: I mean past actions should play into how people perceive you, making certain persuasion attempts easier or harder. You know, choices having consequences