The OP seriously thinks THIS is a good idea:
1. One reads all the options one could pick what to say.
2. Then one picks the option one likes best.
3. And NOW .... a "full voiced protagonist" repeats what we just have read ...
And unsurprisingly all the OP can muster as "reason" for this obviously completely stupid idea is "its the 21 century".
And all you can muster as a counter argument is "It's stupid"
Ignoring the facets that such a system can contain. Like, dynamic experiences.
For example;
When opting for one of the Barbarian intimidate options. Instead of just reading a line written in all caps and having the character make a frowny face and the other party simply responds to your silence with fear.
You instead select the option and your character, now fully voiced, acts it out. Your character is screaming at the other party and getting up in their face to intimidate them, and amid this, the other party is reacting in real time to your character. They will be getting defensive, trying to back off.
The latter creates a more immersive experience. Characters react to things in real time. Even if you know what your character will say due to reading it beforehand, the overall impact of the dialogue is more prominent. Characters can react to what you say AS your character says it, rather than after the fact. Your character feels more alive because they're actually saying things, not just staring silently at everyone.
And then in other dialogues that are theoretically more neutral and can be taken multiple ways, we have to assume what tone the character is going to have, no matter what we interpret a line as indicating. A line that can seem like a playful joke could be delivered really harshly and outright mean. At least without a voiced protagonist we can accept that however an NPC is interpreting our words, it's down to them in part, not purely how our character said it.
I also think you're overestimating just how limited we are with an unvoiced protagonist. Currently, If my sorcerer character wants to keep saying to Gale that sorcerers are better than wizards, I can picture that being just a running tease, a joke between the two of hem. If it was voice acted though, I have no doubt Larian would have those lines be delivered like a pompous jackass who genuinely believes it.
I've played rpgs with fully voiced protagonists I've enjoyed, specifically all the mass effect games and the latter two dragon age games, and I've loved them all, so it can work. But silent rpg protagonist work too, and I honestly think they're generally better for a crpg where you can have such an open space for creating a character. Sure there games are always limited, but they implicitly encourage you o build out and imagine your character backstory, they encourage you to make a character your own and roleplay them, and that's something I don't think should go away. It's notable that as soon as dragon age went fully voiced, their protagonists got much more defined backstories. Because that's something a game has to do if it's going to be fully voiced, so that the character can be defined. Further, how are you going to make it feel natural for a barbarian and a wizard to say the same lines the same way? Because in between those unique class dialogues there's a slew of neutral dialogues that every character can and probably will say. Again, a game with as many classes as BG3 makes it hard because those classes imply different ways of being. Different types of people. DA2 and DAI get around this with differing tone options and making background more significant than class, but in BG3 we have so many classes and possible backgrounds. Just by virtue of those, you create too many possible personalities to create a voice for.
