I still think it's a better approach than "farmby with a dream acquired greatness because of ancient prophecy"
And you can (sort of ) ackowlwdge this in game, also I like how they don't crown you "inquisitor" until you've " proved" yourself
Aaaaand I'm really glad my charachters a Nobel...none of that social mobility crap!
Nixou said:
Well, they tried to go away from it in Dragon Age 2 by making it the story where the local "Grand Savior" fails to stop centuries of accrued distrust and hatred from reaching the boiling point.
The reaction?
"This game sucks!
The gameplay sucks! The same local are copypasted ad nauseam! (fair point)
The story suck! You can't force the mage and templars from making peace even if you do everything right! (wait... WHAT!?)"
y.
I think people would have been far more forgiving had the game been better...I haven't played it but maybe its the idea that ones choices have no effect, the problem is that we as players (in a bioware game particularly) are trained to expect a certain outcome...and if its different we think we've done something wrong.... a bit like how Mass Effect screwed any "actual" moral choices by color coding it and punishing you from deviating
also I know I tend to go into full on "explain away everything fangirl mode" when it comes to bioware games (and you'd think I'd have learned my lesson after ME3 but aparently not)
but (only having finished the first act) the whole thing feels more like a clever PR move on part of the inquisition, it doesn't actually matter if the PC is chosen by Andraste or not, what matters is the [i/]people[/i] believe it, and unlike other Bioware games its not just you running around single handedly doing shit, you have armys/spys/delegates at your disposal it makes it feel more realistic
my point is I don't like "be really really powerful" stories most of the time eather, but at least IMO it makes sense in context, unlike Bethesda games where your super duper powerful simply because your the player, literally thats the only explanation