IMO NPC dialogue being AI might be good for some background NPCs, but it's still a bit off from being consistent with main story NPCs.
It seems a lot of the suggestions people have - the "artificial DM" I suggested, physics systems and destructible environments, more usable items, etc, focus around trying to make a leap forward and bring more of the flexibility of tabletop systems to cRPGs. I *do* think they've stagnated in this regard for quite a while.
There was this video I saw recently on youtube with the most modern AI put into some game engine demo, like chat gpt stuff, but you could use a microphone and have real conversations with any NPC. The video in question had the player trying to convince the NPCs that they aren't real and are living inside a game and they all thought they were real people in a real city saying stuff like 'But that building over there is real, and I just came from a real coffee shop'.
Found it
This kind of thing is borderline terrifying. I get wrapped up enough in stories of NPCs with the very limited scripted conversations we generally have now.
Not sure I’d want them to start acting like real people.
For me the biggest areas would be to have meaningful choices that cover a reasonable range of choices, and then have real consequences following from those choices; meaningful reactivity from the world to my PC; my PC being central to the story; using the DU concept to provide a range of PC choices (while dropping the "origins" concept); a more balanced distribution of alignment personalities for my companion choices; no railroading; meaningful ways to avoid combat where the outcomes are not inferior to the outcomes from combat; the game being playable with a range of party sizes; and, ideally, a move away from DnD mechanics.
I'm gonna be totally honest, I totally don't get the last part. BG3 is probably the first game of this kind where *I'm not* worried that solving things peacefully will result in getting an inferior outcome. In fact, it's the opposite. I try to solve things as peacefully as I can in this run and it always feels rewarding. Have you really checked that part, because it really isn't true. At least it's not my experience and I also don't like to miss stuff.
For me the biggest areas would be to have meaningful choices that cover a reasonable range of choices, and then have real consequences following from those choices; meaningful reactivity from the world to my PC; my PC being central to the story; using the DU concept to provide a range of PC choices (while dropping the "origins" concept); a more balanced distribution of alignment personalities for my companion choices; no railroading; meaningful ways to avoid combat where the outcomes are not inferior to the outcomes from combat; the game being playable with a range of party sizes; and, ideally, a move away from DnD mechanics.
I'm gonna be totally honest, I totally don't get the last part. BG3 is probably the first game of this kind where *I'm not* worried that solving things peacefully will result in getting an inferior outcome. In fact, it's the opposite. I try to solve things as peacefully as I can in this run and it always feels rewarding. Have you really checked that part, because it really isn't true. At least it's not my experience and I also don't like to miss stuff.
Again, since I'm not playing the game, I'm going entirely by what poeple playing the game have said, and that is mostly people in this forum. And what I've seen be said is that avoiding combat generally (obviously not every single time) results in sub-optimal outcomes, especially from a "good" alignment POV. And furthermore, it also results in inferior/bad outcomes in later parts of the game, because generating a good path in that later situation necessitated having engaged in combat in some earlier situation. And then on top of all this there's the issue of whether one receives equivalent rewards in terms of XP and loot from avoiding combat versus engaging in it.
But if you have contrary experiences, by all means do present it, as I am always genuinely curious and interested in knowing the truth of what's in or not in the game.
For me the biggest areas would be to have meaningful choices that cover a reasonable range of choices, and then have real consequences following from those choices; meaningful reactivity from the world to my PC; my PC being central to the story; using the DU concept to provide a range of PC choices (while dropping the "origins" concept); a more balanced distribution of alignment personalities for my companion choices; no railroading; meaningful ways to avoid combat where the outcomes are not inferior to the outcomes from combat; the game being playable with a range of party sizes; and, ideally, a move away from DnD mechanics.
I'm gonna be totally honest, I totally don't get the last part. BG3 is probably the first game of this kind where *I'm not* worried that solving things peacefully will result in getting an inferior outcome. In fact, it's the opposite. I try to solve things as peacefully as I can in this run and it always feels rewarding. Have you really checked that part, because it really isn't true. At least it's not my experience and I also don't like to miss stuff.
Again, since I'm not playing the game, I'm going entirely by what poeple playing the game have said, and that is mostly people in this forum. And what I've seen be said is that avoiding combat generally (obviously not every single time) results in sub-optimal outcomes, especially from a "good" alignment POV. And furthermore, it also results in inferior/bad outcomes in later parts of the game, because generating a good path in that later situation necessitated having engaged in combat in some earlier situation. And then on top of all this there's the issue of whether one receives equivalent rewards in terms of XP and loot from avoiding combat versus engaging in it.
But if you have contrary experiences, by all means do present it, as I am always genuinely curious and interested in knowing the truth of what's in or not in the game.
Well, I do have quite the opposite experience on that matter yes, but I also know I won't be able to convince you to change your view. Of course, if you do the math and sum XP value for every enemy in a specific encounter vs XP gained, by closing the encounter peacefully, you'll probably get a bit more XP on combat, but the difference is really marginal and won't make your character progress gimped. I'm playing good character and in 90%+ cases there is an option to persuade or cheat your way out of combat, which definitely doesn't feel interior.
Out of curiosity, how would you imagine getting enemies loot after solving things peacefully? That they could just drop their gear for you to grab it? Or offer a reward for the fact, that you mercifully spared their lives? I mean, not getting their loot is not a bad design, it's the natural outcome of not killing your foes. It would have been the same in any other games, BG3 is not unique in that.
What I personally really like in BG3 is that each option results in an *interesting* outcome, even if doesn't necessarily mean getting more XP or better loot. But the narrative outcome (both immediate or longstanding) is always impacting. This is seriously one of the very few games, where I don't question my choices. I genuinely believe thinking too much about possible rewards for particular approach doesn't make sense in BG3. There is *a ton* of gear to loot in this game, and missing one or more items doesn't change a thing. You won't find legendary items an a random mob or group leader anyway.
Well, I do have quite the opposite experience on that matter yes, but I also know I won't be able to convince you to change your view. Of course, if you do the math and sum XP value for every enemy in a specific encounter vs XP gained, by closing the encounter peacefully, you'll probably get a bit more XP on combat, but the difference is really marginal and won't make your character progress gimped. I'm playing good character and in 90%+ cases there is an option to persuade or cheat your way out of combat, which definitely doesn't feel interior.
Out of curiosity, how would you imagine getting enemies loot after solving things peacefully? That they could just drop their gear for you to grab it? Or offer a reward for the fact, that you mercifully spared their lives? I mean, not getting their loot is not a bad design, it's the natural outcome of not killing your foes. It would have been the same in any other games, BG3 is not unique in that.
What I personally really like in BG3 is that each option results in an *interesting* outcome, even if doesn't necessarily mean getting more XP or better loot. But the narrative outcome (both immediate or longstanding) is always impacting. This is seriously one of the very few games, where I don't question my choices. I genuinely believe thinking too much about possible rewards for particular approach doesn't make sense in BG3. There is *a ton* of gear to loot in this game, and missing one or more items doesn't change a thing. You won't find legendary items an a random mob or group leader anyway.
Well, you seem to be emphasizing the rewards point even though that was my third and last point, the least important of my points to me. So, forget about the rewards. The real issue is that many people have categorically confirmed that certain options, choices, and paths, especially for *good* story/quest outcomes, get closed off at later points in the game when you chose to avoid combat or avoid killing someone earlier in the game. And people have specifically said this resulted in their feeling frustrated that the decision-point at which they made that earlier choice was not one in which they could possibly have reasonably anticipated the later outcome, and therefore the situation has left them very unhappy.
Btw, as far as rewards go, it is possible for a game to give material rewards to players for having chosen an option that avoided combat. It doesn't have to be the same rewards you would've received from engaging in combat. That's why I very specifically said "equivalent" rewards and not "same" rewards. A good game would find creative ways to reward the player for having taken a different path than angage in combat.
The suggestion someone made about incorporating an AI Dungeon Master in the next Baldur's Gate is compelling. We've seen glimpses of this idea in Left 4 Dead with "The Director", which dynamically adjusts enemy spawns and item placements. Imagine if Larian could evolve this idea for the cRPG domain. Currently, what I find lacking in Baldur's Gate 3 is encounter scaling. While I understand the skepticism around leveling encounters due to its subpar execution in games like Diablo 4, I believe there's a right way to approach it. For instance, increasing the quantity of lower-level enemies can give players a genuine sense of empowerment as they progress. Merging this encounter scaling with an AI DM could pave the way for groundbreaking enhancements in future titles.
