It is an interesting video, I am pretty sure I posted it before.
Seriously though, it’s a good perspective. I am not sure I agree with the idea that just because an option is there in a dialogue tree or elsewhere that all the options convey something about my character.
My initial reaction was the same as yours, but the more I think about it, the more I think he might have a point.
Dialogue tree should be reactive - it should react to the character we created, and it should react to how we roleplay. Surely, the game should give me an option to claim I am an elf, if I am playing a dwarf. Or pick barbarian specific line, if I am a bard. Why should it give me an option to initiate shag with a companion, if I didn't indicate in any way that I am interested in romancing said companion? On a bigger picture, the more I thought about it, the more it explaned why I found BG3 conversations uninteresting. Most of the time, the game offers me options I simply never shown interest in.
I think of something like PoE1&2 - and why I love dliague trees in those. They track my choices of race and class and subclass, and build reputation build on my choices allowing me to delve even further into avenues I have been pursuing. It also responds to my reputation, and even with companion romance (as flawed as they are), companions initiate romance based on traits my character displays, meaning the characters who first show interest in romancing my NPC usually align with character I am roleplaying.
That's design I haven't been fond in Larian games in genneral - making all options always available to the player, no matter if it makes sense for character I am roleplaying.
)
