Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback [Feedback] Dialogue is VERY Limiting

She doesn't decide what I need to know. I determine that for myself. Secret keeping is secret keeping. Mistrust is mistrust. Fear is fear (irrational here). She either TRUSTS you or she does NOT. It's that simple. But the only way to find that out is if she opens up and is honest instead of giving you a reason not mistrust her. Basically, she creates her own mistrust because of her own fear. And thus "fear consumes". She might play the role of a heartless bitch but she's actually very insecure. And very afraid. And that's what needs to be talked about more in games like this. "Fear". Or at least the context of such. At what point is someone being irrational? We get to see this more with Lae'zel. Challenge her and she'll back down. If you got good logic.

But getting back to the topic. Neverwinter Nights 1 especially has some good conversations. At least in the expansions. The debate with the first paladin about her beliefs (how not all kobolds are evil). How you talk to the kobolds and defuse tense situations without having to fight and everyone gets to live and there's no more bloodshed (or you can fight them. Up to you. CHOICE). Having a pleasant conversation with an ice dragon. And how that drow companion will argue about the friendly brain creature if you treat it as a pet, even though it's helping you IN HELL and comparing it to spiders. It's helping and guiding me and is different then the other brain creatures and trying to make sure I don't fade away into nothing in hell. Of course I'm petting it. THAT is how you handle good dialogue. Simply replay Neverwinter Nights 1 (now remade for modern comps) and examine how it handles conversations to get more ideas to implement into the game. Though I do like how the 2nd Neverwinter handles wherever your companions stay by your side or turn on you depending on how they were treated. Bishop especially. Despite NW1 having better conversations overall I find Bishop to be an interesting character. Yea yea, he's "edgy", but people in life go through this too. Has no reason to care but you can get him to care enough to not betray you. Barely. Juuuust barely. And he condemns himself to suffering in "the wall" in the end. Wanting it. Because he feels like he deserves it perhaps. We never really saw what his inner pain is all about, but the signals he gave off always hinted at something happening that made him extremely bitter. And in the end he chose his own fate. All we as the player can do is try to be understanding and give him a reason. Do well and he'll have some respect for you at least. Something to care for. But not quite enough for him to have the determination to tear himself free from that wall. But maybe enough to give him some degree of peace of mind to an extent. It's "bittersweet". Sometimes there is no happy ending. Sometimes all you can do is do your best. Trying is enough. Being understanding is enough. Would be easy to judge him. But I can only understand. Know his pain, you see. Unlike him, I bounced back.

The most interesting interaction I've ever had though is Tymofarrar from NW1. He's a DRAGON and you DON'T have to fight him. AND he's pleasant to talk too AND is actually just kind of lonely even if he's got rough edges? AND he has a kobold companion you can have? AND he doesn't make excuses, keeps his word and is honest provided you challenge him? Love that. More games need to do that with dragons and demons and monsters. THIS is what we should have more of in the Witcher games. To see the complexity of the monsters as well as how people can become heartless and cruel. Tymofarrar is somewhat both. But he also likes pies and visits the village he stole from. He'll freeze you on the spot if you talk down on him or act like you know better without proof, but he'll respect you for standing your ground and let you keep Deekin. More for Deekin himself then you though. He doesn't want the kobold suffering a fate of "isolation". He wants the kobold to be free to make his own fate. Compare this to the dragons in BG2 which are much more simplified in comparison. Only the one with the eggs in the drow city felt even remotely relatable. The others felt like they were "there just to be there". Baring the last one in throne of Bhaal. Use THIS as an example. More games need to do things like this. Not "Give me all your stuff or die and that's the end of it" (Ugh. Please be more creative then that).

He shows he has a brain. Will mention something like "That frozen paladin walked in and claimed the moral high ground". Which implies why he's frozen. Not a good way to prevent violence and fights. May as well ask to be frozen. Arabeth in the expansions becomes more interesting as well. You can put her on the "dark" path or the "light" path. Though I will note some none good/evil approach would have also been nice. I recall another paladin being able to be turned into a dark knight too. But with Arabeth it has much more weight to it. Too Mary Sue in the base game (which ruined her reputation). But she's tormented in the expansion. Knocked off her high horse when you find her in hell. She got much more interesting, but by then the base game kind of ruined her.

BG2 also has its moments. Some of the drow in the drow city. How it affects your companions. How relationships are forged, made and broken. I don't mind how BG3 doesn't mess around and gets right to intimacy (prefer it even). But it's also important to have those conversations that carry weight about trust, support, appreciation, etc. BG2 did this very well. Then we have things like a demon you're fighting only you have to HEAL it to win. And the werewolves you come across were quite interesting. Characters didn't harp on about ONE thing over and over (parasite this, parasite that. It's getting old already). There was always a NEW threat. A NEW danger. Compare this to the tadpole. It's there but it's "really in your face". AS IS THE NARRATOR! Please tone it down a notch. I've heard "Authority and power" so many times it's like a mantra I didn't ask for. At least change what is said at times. If the goal of the parasite is to manipulate the player character then it needs to mix things up a little and be more interesting then "authority and power". If this tadpole was in my end it would be getting weaker because I tune out because it's a broken record. It's getting "overused". Compare this to the turn into a bhaalspawn ability in BG2. It was more a "now and then" thing. And HOW you make it happen can vary greatly depending on where you are and what you fight. How can you get that kind of result with the tadpole? To have it "arrive differently"? Something like "Learning to coexist and he target in front of you is easy prey" or something would be an example. Which could happen if you don't fight it AND don't use it. Instead it works WITH you. Which could affect a different outcome/ending in the game. That's all tadpole related though. But we don't always need the tadpole (or narrator) around either. In fact the fact that they're there may be preventing us from doing more if you involve those two too much and too often. And hell forbid what happens if you force it in a relationship that isn't an illusion. Tread very carefully there.

BG2 had this big open world with a massive city from the start, letting you go to dark forests and places with demons and so many other things. Go to the dark forest. See a companion face a shadow illusion of her mother and breaking. With the option to support her or let her cave in. Go to the market in the city. Have a companion want a necklace and show appreciation when you do. Go to the demon place. Navigate very carefully how your conversation goes with them or get into a fight. And that's IF you're not good.

Also, on another note it would be nice if you let the PLAYER decide if they should have multiple engagements or not. Some companions should mind, some shouldn't. Jealousy talks should be had to some extent (with SOME companions. Others might already be fine with it be default. Just like real people). We had a bit of that in BG2 with Jaheira actually. "You're in trouble mister. This better have a good reason." Makes sense considering her lover recently died and is still adjusting with the player. That's got to leave some emotional baggage and fears/concerns (which leads to assuming the worst of things. Which can fuel jealousy among other things). In that situation it was about "just sex" with a drow (to save your lives apparently. Drow can be so vicious. "Sleep with me or die or admit you have a small penis") so it's not the best example. Reasons like "Because I care about both of you and why does it have to be a choice when I can put in the time and effort without neglecting you" would be better. Rough example. You might think it has to be a really complicated conversation, but with the right choice of wording it doesn't have to be. That works in life as well as games. Fact is most people are ignorant on a number of matters (Yes, I am saying people reading are probably ignorant and give in to emotions easily. Most people statistically do). This game shows it's aware of such matters. Provides the options to the player through dialogue. It's quite apparent that the companions have complicated (actually simple but SEEMINGLY complicated) reasons for why they're "fearful" (The vampire. Shadowheart) or "Direct and upfront" (Lae'zel). Which is going to affect the relationships you have with them. Or the conflict if you fall out with them. We see their flaws and imperfections. Can work on them (partly. Won't be able to do it fully until later in the game). So BG3 is doing some things right already. It just needs to build up on it. With less dice rolls and more "logic that adds up and can't be faulted". Because, you know, communication is the only thing that will save your ass. We should be getting the option to dice roll again and again with a new line of logic after a failure to be honest. Getting past closed minds is hard work. But rewarding when you finally get past it. If I had a dice roll system in life it would probably be something like "Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. SUCCESS." Turning mocking laughter in my face into being more understanding. This reminds me. Saying "You don't understand" can be very powerful and get someone to ask "What don't I understand?" Consider slipping that in with a companion at some point (Which one though? Someone that values honesty and goes out of their way to not lie seems most fitting. Lae'zel maybe?) Sure, it might have been ugly when I had to go through it. But it's good entertainment in hindsight. BG2 showed "The ugly side" somewhat but it never showed "Bouncing back from hard times". All it took to ruin a relationship with a companion was to say the wrong thing just ONCE and if that happened they were LOCKED OUT of any further interactions at all for the rest of the game. I avoided that 90% of the time, but the average player, less experienced with "reading" people, will surely easily stumble into that. To make ONE mistake that costs everything and ruins everything they built up. With no chance at repairing things. That's simply far too harsh and no, real life isn't like that if you're stubborn enough to keep reaching out in the interest of understanding each other (which we can't even TRY to do at that point). You want to repair things? Reload or new playthrough. So even though BG2 did it well in some ways here we see something that is very very flawed. Take what worked, adapt with what didn't.

Also worth noting there's a drow companion in BG2 who will respect you more when you're being harsh and honest instead of coddling her and telling her what you think she wants to hear. I also like how BG2 handled the relationship between the player and his borther, Sarevok, in Throne of Bhaal. He'll never be "good". But in the end he shows he's not "just evil for the sake of it". Even ends up dying saving someone in his ending (He's dead. SAVING someone. Happy now? Bet you didn't see that coming beforehand). Some girl he fell for I think. Wants power, strength. But perhaps to protect what matters and taking a flawed approach with that? Don't have to forgive him for murdering your farther figure. But maybe it's not about forgiveness. Maybe it's about simple coexistence. Not fighting each other. And if you don't trust him you can put him under a spell to never turn on you. But I don't do that. I'm a good judge of character. Sarevok may be many things but he's not a liar. And he keeps his word. to lie is to be weak. Because if you lie to others you end up lying to yourself. He knows this. So he won't lie. Because of his value for strength and power (and with how direct he is at showing it). Whatever you think of him that has to be respected. That he won't betray even if he could. It's the character development we should have got with Thanos in the avengers movies. We see his OTHER side. Or some of it at least. Then there's that bloodthirsty dwarf, but he won't turn on you (unless mistreated and judged? But that's just making enemies and encouraging violence). He's pure hatred and spite and will do evil things but he'll coexist and put up with you and eventually even grow a little fond of you. despite barely putting up with you at first. Even have a little moment just before the last boss in throne of bhaal. Things like this go a long long way. It's proof that you don't have to be alike to simply "accept" each other. Even if you're mirrors with opposing beliefs. I always take the understanding none judgemental approach though. So I don't fall into the trap of moral high grounds. Great in games, great in life. And boy do we need more of it in games.

I also liked how BG2 had a conversation with a companion every real half hour (it can happen ANYWHERE. At ANY time. Provided you're not in the middle of a fight. Very immersive). Currently we can only seem to talk to them at camp. What would be the middle ground of that to ensure we can talk to more then just one person outside of camp? Going to have to think on that. I think even the devs might struggle with it. I suppose you could randomly select which companion will have a conversation with you when you enter a new area, with those with more affection/positive influence being more likely. Lower the half hour to 20 mins as well and we should be able to get through three companions fully if we go at a casual pace without rushing or steamrolling. Would be a bit much to try and get through ALL of them in one playthrough. Leave room for the other half to be interacted with in the next playthrough (and if the devs can work it in see how that affects companions affecting each other based on relatinship status. Some RPG games have done this). I think the camp is suppose to try and cram in EVERY conversation. We did that in Dragon Age. But BG2 has shown how efficient it is with its own system (as well as it's massive "lock out" flaw but that can be changed). Even if it could do with letting you have MULTIPLE deep meaningful interactions with your companions. As a player choice of course. Best case scenario other companions talk about it. Conflict, tension. Working things out beyond "the odd comment" (either have a few multiple ones spread out or one BIG showdown to decide things. Better yet, both). Worst case scenario the player isn't FORCED to "the rule of just 1" and DECIDES THEMSELVES if they want to interact with others in an intimate/romantic fashion. And leave the rest to imagination if the working things out/falling out with others thing isn't there (which can be left to implication either way. eg: Your own "headcannon" for better or for worse).

Combine the conversations we had in NW1, take the ones from BG2, A little of NW2, some of Dragon Age's are also good. Mix it up, blend it together, put it here. Whatever it results in it will at least be very interesting and entertaining.

Btw, for the love of all that is unholly please don't have the narrator involved in EVERY romantic interaction. Let the actions speak for themselves (and the characters involved). While I'm all for multiple people and an open door policy everyone needs space and their own time together. We already have a parasite hovering over our heads at all times (It's looking at your naked lover in bed you know XD). A good RPG game lets the actions speak for themselves. Simply SHOWS the results and lets that do the talking. Provided those results are indeed shown. Provide solutions to the player without being coaxed or spoonfed answers (narrator). To tell the player "It's like this and that" in a relationship would be like poking your nose in another persons relationship. Be VERY certain the logic can't be faulted with no room for doubt or alternate context if you do that. Players need to have events sink in before being overwhelmed in some situations. Process things, you know. And a narrator going "Authority, power, you messed up or did well or what do you do" can just be overwhelming when simple text choices can be presented without pressure or added tension after an already very negative emotional moment with a companion. Let things "sink in" is what I'm saying. Suspense. Build up. Then at some point the next situation arrives and THEN you can do all that. This should prevent the players being overwhelmed. And also gives them time to reflect and consider their own next course of action without influence (letting them think for themselves first).