Re: @Robinson - OK but
I'm keeping out of the argument, but +1 for this :
The player in a game is the centre of the universe, not an outside observer.
The player in certain genres of games is the center of the universe, most RPGs and the single player elements of FPSs make you a true protagonist, whom the story revolves around. The player in Sim City, however? You're making all the decisions, but you aren't the centre of a complex narrative web, you're just the town planner. The player in Planetside, or the multiplayer component of any CoD? Just some grunt helping your team of grunts reach an objective. The player in DoTA is part of a team attempting to destroy the enemy base, but again there is no complex narrative and you just repeat the same scenario over and over again.
Many extremely successful games (CoD, DoTA, Minecraft) provide a gameplay experience that is weak or even mostly devoid of a rich predetermined narrative experience where the player(s) follow, and are the centre of, a developer created storyline. That does not stop them having a rich narrative experience, many Minecraft or DoTA players will happily regale you with stories of "that time when..." and proceed to go into great detail of how their player interactions, with either other players or the environment, provided them with a thrilling experience.
Dragon Age: Inquisition is spoon feeding me a rich, prewritten script (which I can affect, but only in predetermined ways) that I am finding compelling and enjoyable. I am the centre of the DA:I universe.
Minecraft, CoD:AW multiplayer matches, and Elite: Dangerous provide me with an environment in which to play. It is my actions which define the experience; our last ditch rush to cap points in Domination to squeeze in a win, that time we mistakenly built our vast Minecraft castle right over a creeper spawner (and then had to hunt the damn thing down so we could destroy it), the attempt to use a fuel scoop to refuel where I got interdicted 8 times in a row (and chased off or destroyed several larger and better equipped ships, much to my satisfaction). In E: D a friend of mine destroyed a Python (a giant, ponderous multirole vessel that costs many millions of credits) with his Eagle (a tiny, nimble fighter that costs a few thousand credits), a real David and Goliath moment. Funnily enough, he couldn't wait to tell people about it.
If you want to take the analogy to an extreme, people enjoy playing chess and draughts (aka checkers), and they have literally no built-in narrative. 100% of the experience is in how you play the game, and how you interact with other players, and none of it is provided by the "developers". Is E: D as boring as chess? Yes, in the sense that you will only get out what you put in (disclaimer: I have had exciting and tense chess matches). E: D has more lasers and explosions than chess, but to be fair it also has little predetermined narrative beyond reading bulletin board notices and inferring what you can from them; "War in Eranin!" would mean nothing to someone the other side of the galaxy, however someone 2 systems over could infer that there are lucrative smuggling prospects for several goods that will be in short supply (like personal weapons, an illegal item that will be in high demand), or decide to offer their services as a mercenary pilot to either side in the conflict. Or they could decide that war sounds like dangerous business, and just choose to relocate somewhere less volatile; to be fair, some games would not give you the choice to not participate in a local conflict ;)