I'm guessing he doesn't want to change the dialogues because it allows for most roleplaying
Except that is not true. It is just a different style of writing that only disconnects the player from his PC. It actually
reduces roleplaying.
The first game had that problem by virtue of awarding game bonuses for certain responses, often non-intutively (what, giving this cold and calculated answer somehow makes me a worse rogue? ). It wasn't long before you figured out it would be better to answer in ways that would best support your character concept, rather than they things you'd actually like to say.
This game doesnt seem to have that same problem, but the dialogue system is definitely a hot mess. An
ambitious hot mess, but a mess all the same.
The problem as I see it, is that they keep designing the dialogue system around the idea of multiplayer, but that is simply not how most people are going to experience the game. Is it controversial at all to say that? I don't think so, but I welcome differing opinions. Certainly the game is fun when played co op, but it's too complex (a good thing!) to play MP for long (waiting for someone else who just wants to get some crafting done or go on a pickpocket spree is intolerable), and most players beat games like this as a single player experience.
In a single player experience, I dont want to constantly have imaginary arguments with myself, as novel as that may seem initially. From a practical standpoint, it becomes exhausting rapidly. I frequently find myself getting confused as to which character is actually speaking, and from what point of view. The fact that quest dialogue trees seem independent of the party and trigger on a per character basis is also really confusing, and makes me tread the same ground frequently.
Obviously this would be more work for the devs, but if they insist on maintaining their ambitious ideas for co-op, there needs to be some sort of way to separate that experience from the single player one.
