Now, with AI and a completely simulated dialogue and all that you might get more options - but there is a shitload of work put into what there is now and it really shows with each person having something unique to say - BG3 is well above and beyond other games in that manner. It isn't as fluid as with a DM there, but you just cannot get it without an intelligence designing it as you go - so for something like this you need a huge jump in AI that can speak its own words and design its own animations - and there is no indication that we are close, as a species, to making that possible in the near future.
Hmm, I didn't honestly mean an AI simulated dialogue even - most of things mentioned above could be done with simple scripts and conditions, like the siege situation, for defense:
- Is the leader of goblins incapitated or dead? Apply the debuff to bad guys and decrease the morale value.
- Is morale low enough? Make the attackers (including the leader, if able to) flee.
- Is the battle over? Minthara is dead? Standard celebrtion cutscene.
- Battle is won and the drow is still alive, but incapable of further fight or movement - the cutscene with capturing scenario is played.
- The tieflings are victorius and the leader of goblins escaped, slightly altered (1-2 lines diff lines) cutscene plays with Zevlor, with player having same choices as with scenario before.
There is no need for very complex code or big brain AI style for this. The ideas work both ways, since very well you could apply the same thing to tieflings, with them panicking if enough of them die and Zevlor's death would have quite big impact. The potential secret tunnel attack also would be done in a simliar way to how does the attack begin now - shared beginning, shared cutscene, but ability to pick the side and + a little bit of talk after, then differing final cutscene.
Gonna repeat this again too, we have the prisoner cage in camp, ability to knock out and resurrect npcs. It would not be hard to put this to use, with the effort going mostly into dialogues and conditions, as for how do we treat our prisoners. Like I said before, this option for obvious reasons should be only possible for major npcs, not for some random goblin (because mo-cap, voice acting and making good dialogue is not free).
As for the Kagha, I was talking about more storyline implications and potential rewards, making it a plausible choice for players to decide to side with her.
It's all about basically adding more conditions with new results and some cutscenes here and there.
I agree that BG3 is way above most of the games when it comes to dialogues, reactions and choices, but few parts were noticeably lacking and judging by the reactions from the past, most of people would like to have them improved. Would this be done, (including things from the previous posts) noone could say anymore that the evil side is boring/one sided/"murderhobo"/chaotic evil only. Also, many currently problematic parts, like mega long siege because 20 goblins have to take a turn until all of them are dead would stop being a such a problem, with you needing to kill let's say 3/4 of enemies, instead of all of them. While at same time, providing you with choice of tactics other than "nuke every single enemy", this applying to both sides.
Do not forget, that Larian does care a lot about their games too, adding often hidden things, that players spot rarerly, like what happens with Kniles in Divinity 2 if you teleport him in to cage; or the whole Gareth storyline, having actually plenty of possible results. Solving the major quest in only basically 3 ways - kill goblin leaders, defend the grove/attack the grove (both are "murderhobo" only) is also quite unsual. Again, take look at what you could do in Fort Joy. There is a reason why if people hear Larian, they associate it with high quality games.
