I think he just doesn't like the format...or the format is so obvious for him it kills any connection he has with the choice. I know how he feels. Gamers are wont to break down choices into their components, and when the game plots most choice outcomes along simple, predictable paths (alignment scale choices being a prime candidate, but also the obvious "Evil guy gets immediate rewards, good guys get abstracted/delayed rewards" he talks about)...choices lose meaningful context. You're just bit flipping at that point and its obvious. ME does it the best because they've put the time in to at least give choices some subtle outcomes that can't always be predicted. The game has a long memory and content has been built specifically around player reactions.
But even ME relies on a morality meter.
I agree that part of it didn't necessarily square with me either, because his schtick wouldn't let him provide specific examples of what he really wanted. But I think we all get the gist of it. At worst, it's three different ways to say "I'm going to kill you now", and serve no purpose other than to fulfill the expectation of us having a response of some sort before we do the predictable. And even weaving through some morality system where some choices have less than obvious consequences, at some point, your choices start becoming defined more by the mechanics than the depth of your attachment to playing a character.
And then there's always the issue of games never being able to account for the fantasy people have in their head. Good games try to leave you enough space to exercise your fantasy within reason. Toady's latest DF talk actually touches on this. Even he admits DF will never be able to procedurally account for all the ways players will see themselves...the best it can do is offer tons of options and interpretations by the world of the options players chose....while giving people enough room to craft their identity in personal ways (names, primarily, but also backstory, uniforms, crap like that.)