I don't speak much on the Origin system, but it might be surprising to know that the Origin system is probably the one thing that can potentially bother me the most about this game. Potentially because the system isn't ready yet, but the impact can already be felt on the writing.
I dislike Origin system for how it forces to double as companions for singleplayer experience and inhabitable Playable characters.
I am not sure, however, how much impact it has on writing of PC itself. Dislikes some of us have regarding “Tav” might not be necessarily result of Origins, though are most likely tied to it.
Unvoiced, player-defined characters aren’t “blanks”. Lines that player can choose from are pre-written, and pre-defined. We just get to choose of the possible lines. It is up to devs to decide what roleplaying they will support, and how wide the range of the character will be. Bioware games has been always limited. Interplay and Obsidian games were always interested in pushing the range Tod their protagonist. But make no mistake - while players can project a lot unto Nameless-One, Vault dweller or Watcher, they are still characters with their own set arcs. We can just choose how to play that role, out of possibilities offered to us.
Larian rejected that kind of approach in D:OS2. Our lines weren’t written down, but described by a narrator. Theoretically, it allows us to project whatever character, intention, motivation we want. At the same time, it doesn’t allow us to state our intention to the game, and as the result the game can’t respond to us. While BG3 returns to a more traditional PC writing, I still feel the choices at our disposal are still “cold”. They correspond to actions, but rarely intentions. We can do a lot of things in BG3, but we don’t get to choose what we want, or why we do things. I think that’s why I see D:OS2 and BG3 more as a toybox, then a story or adventure. I get stuff to mess with, but not a part to play.