Is Shepard more relatable than Ryder?

1) Scott was made Pathfinder within 1 hour which wasn't "knee deep into the game" imo
2) Not being told what kind of hero I was supposed to be didn't cause me to feel disconnected to Scott. On the contrary I was able to make decisions based on what I would do if I was Ryder (not based paragon or renegade playthrough). 
3) Being on the Pathfinder team is a big deal. In addition to the initial training, Scott is a recon specialist. He demonstrates his capabilities on Habitat 7 by dealing with Kett, rescuing his team  gathering data on the planet without help from SAM.
4) Why use the memed-to-death Sara in this comparison?

The Kett don't interest me at all. They don't even explain their goals well besides "mah we evil".

You nailed exactly what I've been saying.  It's about expectation and delivery of narrative.  By the end of ME:A, I loved Ryder.  One of the main reasons why, as many people have brought up, you get to be Ryder as they go through the hero's journey.  But the introduction of this character from a narrative standpoint was executed poorly.  Shepard's on the other hand (and remember, Shepard is a straight-forward, simple character with 1 goal) doesn't have the most compelling personal journey, but has a very well executed introduction.  So in the first 20 minutes of the game, I related to Shepard more than Ryder - emotionally.  By hour 60, about equal.

They could have handled it better, though

Spoilers for the prologue

 

well im the same age as the ryders but i relate to alec more.

I'll preface this by acknowledging I do like Ryder. Nonetheless, Shepard proved a more compelling character even if I disagree she were as fleshed out as that video attempts to argue. With Shepard, expectations and history were firmly established in a believable manner. It made sense why Shepard held the position and skills she did, and the narrative continuously reinforced it. Even omitting the reaper war entirely, Shepard still possessed the experience to go far on merit alone.

Where I feel an argument for relatable can come into play is dialogue choices. Despite Andromeda having seemingly more robust dialogue tree, I felt more than a few instances Ryder were a BioWare character whose story I'm watching whereas Shepard I could better craft their personality. Admittedly, that became somewhat muddy in ME3, what with all the auto-dialogue. But it almost feels this streamlining process rears its ugly head again.

I don't know if I would say Shepard is more relatable, but I would say she became far more interesting. In fairness to Ryder, she'll hopefully have another game to better establish herself.

I actually never connect that much with Shepard nor Geralt, to me DA:O is still the best RP game out there because it truly gives you six arcs to built upon. The Inquisitor comes close, since they did something of the same with Josephine questions about your life and you could even choose two different voices. For me an RPG is that, The Witcher and ME are more like a action games with set protagonist with some elements of RP in the mix.

Idk maybe a little nihilism could help? man if you are not joking than I am sorry.

N7 is a real man.

Ryder is a contemporary guy who tries to please everyone lmao.

Yeah, I think a lot of that has to do with Shepard (and most of there past games) giving you clear differences in options that were ehh, lets say emotionally or morally opposites of each other. DAI and MEA lacked a good bit of that. I mean they definitely give you a few 'choices' that are opposites, or give you the opportunity to play a jerk or no-nonsense 'no, we're destroying this' or 'I don't care about the concequences, my way' like a Renegade Shepard.

Issue for me (and I should say I loved the game regardless of this) is that they weren't very morally opposite. There all kinda morally, in general conversation, on the same line. Ryder is a boy/girlscout. You can be a Snarky one, you can be an emotional cry baby one, you can be an intellectual or professional one but holy shit your a damn scout MOST of the time. The only times they're not is when some situation decides they're not. So instead of it being a consistent through out the game represented in conversations it's just in a few moment to moments where you get to not be that super scout doin' their best.

It's something BioWare has mentioned time and time again about how having bad choices, having that Renegade, having the angry and intimidating like options available is - regardless of if you choose them - makes the other options have more impact then they otherwise would. If Shepard could only be a 'renegade' in a few prompts, in major choices or a few side scenes but was Paragon ALL the other times it would of landed way, way differently then it did.

So yeah that's why I think you may of had that issue, and one I had hoped they where veering away from due to DAI basically being the same thing. DAI had that in goddamn spades, but the 'tone icons' cropped up like 20% of the time. Rest of it was all confusing 'heres 3-4 options for progressing the conversation but they're just kinda all neutral or something I guess?". Felt super, super weird and that I wasn't able to direct the character how I wanted due to that.

DA2, I felt, was the best evolution on there system they started with KoTOR they basically used for MET (just with different names for things). It gave you 3 very distinct ways to handle any response opposed to MET's 2 (with sometimes a neutral 3rd that was generally similar alternative to Paragon).

I'm all for grey choices, but if all my conversation options are grey then it's all the same. Also, responding isn't a real choice-choice, it's just how your character 'is'. They need to be more distinct. Bring back DA2 style, Snarky hawke best hawke!