+1 As many have pointed out already, this game was released as EA to give both the developers and players a good shot at getting the best possible end product, and thus all feedback can be useful or at least appreciated. +1 It has also been kindly pointed out that a demeaning attitude doesn't bring much to the conversation. We all look at this product with different eyes and we all have different experiences that influence the way we look at it.
The overarching plot of the game is of course the most important, and yes, in some situations choices doesn't really matter much. Also, as some people have pointed out, +1 the fact that your choices affect your companions in most situations is a good point in itself. Like my devil example (2nd post), it's probably more about the dialogue you have with your companions after the encounter, than anything else. With that said, we also have a lot of people talking about how the choices may matter further down the line, which can be great, but the player should get some kind of hint if they do. If I insult Raphael and he keeps the same dialogue, but changes to an irritated expression, then I as a player will know that what I said had an impact on him. That impact could be radical or it could be something really small, like a missing or added dialogue option or a possibility for an extra investigation check at a later point in the game. So far though, I've been left with a feeling that quite a few seemingly important conversations doesn't matter much at all. And that bothers me.
As a reference point for me I like to use Greedfall as an example of a game that poses as "choices matter" but in fact doesn't deliver at all. I'm not saying BG3 is the same or will end up the same, but getting the same feeling about the game's choices is a good reason for the raise my voice in the form of feedback. This is not about Greedfall per se, but I will use a few of countless examples from that game to express how I look at an illusion of a choice, that can ruin the whole experience. Major spoilers incoming.
Greedfall presents itself as a game about choices. My first playthrough of the game was basically roleplaying the main character's backstory, acting as diplomatic as possible. It worked out alright. The story is fun, it works well with that kind of playthrough, but combat is a bit tedious.
My second playthrough was quite the opposite. I tried to force the game in a different direction by skipping certain quests, not building relations with any factions or my team members, and tried to basically rile people up.
1) Skipping an optional and important quest. In the prologue there is a quest that leads to betrayal and revolt. I decided to not finish this quest to see what difference it made on the game. The game decided it was a very important quest, so when I left the prologue and reached the main area of the game I was also forced into the next step of the quest. The game disregarded that I didn't finish the pre-requisites but just decided to change the past for me. Another option would of course have been to make the quest mandatory.
2) The second point is related to the quest mentioned above. The quest involves your closest friend and how he stabs you in the back, quite suddenly. That's a good story arc in general and the game tells you that the revolt may be underway if you don't do something, but it doesn't give me any hints at all that my close friend will betray me. No dialogue about him being upset, having dark thoughts, or any other indication that anything is wrong with him. That works out well if you finish the quest and he doesn't stab you in the back, but not for the other way around.
If there is a future impact, I don't feel like it's unfair to ask for those small hints.3) At a point in the game one of your companions is filled with rage and is about to kill a helpless man. In my first, diplomatic playthrough, I stopped my companion, for her own good. In the second playthrough I didn't. The result was a different cinematic, but it didn't have any impact on my companion's personality or her relationship with me.
All other interactions she had with the game world stayed the same, despite the game telling me (through a choice I was forced to make - stay her hand or let her kill the man) that an important choice was underway.4) Lastly, no matter what allies you gain in the other factions or how much you've developed the relationships with your companion, nothing is changed about which companions who join you for the final mission, and pretty much nothing is changed in the epilogue (NPC endings like in Fallout 2 or Fallout New Vegas).
If I have a huge impact, but my interactions with the world doesn't change the world, then what's the point?Excuse wall of text
Edit: The Rpahael example stands in very strong contrast to say the Gith'yanki patrol. In the case of Gith'yanki you can take charge of the conversation and reach a peaceful solution (while being a badass). It's three hard rolls to do it, but it leads to a different situation and a different solution to the encounter. As previously stated, I get that we can't have that everywhere, and that the main story encounters are more important in that sense, but I'm missing the details and the nuance in the side-quest encounters quite often. The devil's in the details, and the details will end up making a game like this from an RPG-perspective (in my point of view).
