DAI was not believable at all. The gameplay was build around the main character leading a small party and running around the countryside doing various tasks. Which would have been fine if they were an inquisition agent or soldier. But why would the inquisition send out their leader and saviour to do menial tasks like gather X stones or Y herbs? They die and the inquisition loses the one with the magic hand... It was really disappointing, because BG1 & 2 are among my favourite games, but after trying DAI (apart from the story it was the awful dialogue system) I kind of gave up on Bioware games.
BG3 is a hit & miss, but it is still a better premise than DAI. Though I wonder whether some things are just not implemented yet. Shadowheart, who has the most content, will refuse to join you (unless you roll a persuasion check) if you play a githyanki. If she doesn't join your party, she later comes at you with a knife and it's implied it's because of that box. What is creepy is that this box tracks the main character; I've tried losing it, yet it always ends up in the inventory.
Yeah --- I feel you regarding Bioware (MEA was the nail in the coffin for me). DAI was ok, but suffered from bad combat mechanics (that overhead camera thing was a joke) and pissing all over the dark lore of previous games.
However, I still maintain that the "deference to the player char" in DAI was well implemented. I mean, for each place you visit you get 1) a war table summary of why you are needed there, 2) a run down by your three advisors, and 3) the dwarf scout who meets you at each place to let you know the score. Sure, one could argue that the Herald should not be doing every little task they are asked to do, and some of the area missions were kinda stupid, but the point is that there was a very clear system in place that explained why people followed and why you were going to one area to meet with whoever you were meeting, etc. In fact, I think it was one of the deeper mechanics I have ever seen in an rpg that attempted to justify why you were doing anything. Add to that the war table missions where you were the deciding vote after reading the input from your three advisors, as well as the seat-o-judgement rulings, and boom ---- there is a logical (sort of) in-game reason why folks follow you around.
DAO = you were the last Warden who held the treaties and won over companions as you quested
DA2 - you had friends and family that had your back as you improved your lot in life
DAI - you were the Herald and were trying to build infrastructure and legitimacy
Idk --- I had no issue in those games with *overall* internal consistency. Here, in BG3, it is much more nebulous. You are all looking for a healer and somehow, you take the lead to decide where to go next. And I think it will only get worse if one plays as an origin char. I simply cannot see why any of my companions would follow any of the others around.
Of course, perhaps Larian will have solid writing that explains it upon full release. You may indeed have the alpha tadpole. Or, perhaps there will be some scenes with arguments at camp between party members that ultimately come down to you being the deciding vote. Or any other number of ways to establish your role and the party's reason(s) for following you.
I am hopeful!
