Yeah, I mean, shooting arrows that phase through rock and buildings are cool, but a woman? WTF, Boobisoft? (Sarcasm y should be implied, but phone makes it difficult. Alexios was Godawful, though, while Kassandra was entertaining even if not historically canon).
I think this is a decent point until you dig into the principle of "Suspend of belief or believability" that any frictional work (books, movies, game) creators needs to know.
Many people conflict believability vs possibility. All work of frictions (game or otherwise) is about the formal. Good frictions have cohesive believabilities, that isn't always possible in reality, the same way Bad frictions may have the possibilities, but not believability.
An example, Frozen or any good cartoons. We know cartoons are not real, we know talking furniture & animals are not real. But we can suspend that belief as long as there are rules & the world is believable.
I give another extreme example to illustrate my point.
Say a game set in ancient Japan when samurai fought each other. Which one is more off-putting
1) Your main character is a samurai that has a magic sword that can cast lighting, & love child of an Oni & pleasant woman or
2) Every other samurai is a red hair hot chick, & the other half morbidly obese hairy chest Eskimos
Most people probably would accept 1 better, even though magic & Oni are not real, as people can suspend the belief. 2 might be more possible, but its less "believable" & much harder to fill "the suspend of belief"
I can elaborate more but I think people get the idea.
To summarise, just because you are creating friction, doesn't mean anything goes. Believability, cohesiveness, rules need to exist. Just because something can be possible, doesn't mean it makes frictional work "believable"