I think this is a function of the economics that rule the game industry today. (Yes, even at BioWare.)

The problem is that what used to be a distinct genre of game, the first-person shooter, became so economically successful that now it has become the default template for every type of game. Stories that in the past would have been told in the format of an adventure game, or an RPG, or a strategy game, are now forced into the format of an FPS, for the simple reason that today AAA titles are FPSes, full stop.

This leads to all sorts of weird mutant games, such as the Mass Effect titles, where the things the designers want to do jar roughly against the format. You spend most of your time in Mass Effect games running around gathering power-ups and shooting stuff. (Pedantry alert: it's from a third-person perspective rather than first-person, but the core run-cover-shoot mechanics are the usual FPS staples.) Periodically this tedious routine will be interrupted by a brief non-shooting interlude, which happens to be where all the interesting stuff in the game happens. But after a few minutes of that the game pulls you right back to the running and gunning. You can practically hear the game grunting at you through clenched teeth: "This is a AAA title, dammit! You better believe you're going to be running and gunning!"

If adventure games were still an economically viable genre, you could imagine Mass Effect making a hell of an adventure game. Rip out all that running and gunning and just focus on telling the story, since that's clearly where the designers' hearts are anyway. But they can't do that, because between publishers, retailers and gamers, the marketplace won't allow it. If you want to make a game with a AAA budget in the 2010s, it has to be a shooter, or at least be close enough that you can argue the point.

So you get a bunch of games that try to weld the mechanics of the FPS onto stories that would fit other formats much, much better. (I'm looking at you, BioShock.)