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

In her own different way. The drow would really hate you if you coddled her. Lae'zel can be a bitch but this drow would REALLY snap back at you. With pure venom and spite. Worst Lae'zel will do is go "I don't appreciate that. Man up and tell the truth or it's my way."

Lae'zel is more like a naive child then an experienced drow that won't stand for being duped. The drow doesn't fall into the trap of denial as easily. Meanwhile Lae'zel is more pessimistic. She's got the "can do" attitude but deals in what she believes is realistic. Still discovering the impossible can happen if you just don't give up. Eventually she does state this herself "I will get the parasite out of my head. etc, etc." (note that she doesn't mention purification here) and she gets her act together. But she needs a push from the player. The drow never needed that push. Rather simply to be understood. Without the excuses. Neither will stand for excuses, but it's Lae'zel that needs the help more. Because even if she puts on a good show of being confident and direct she's still very naive and inexperienced. But she knows enough to know how counter productive wallowing in negatives is. Which is why she's able to put on a brave face. And honestly without a fake smile to boot. The drow basically never smiles, but she will love you. If you're simply honest. Shame her ending involves dying to eating a poisoned apple.

We always get these "They die in the end" endings in BG2. But that just leaves more questions. Like "Who poisoned the drow and why". And "What drove Sarevok to protect that person and get ran through and die?" (more to the point, how did he even lose?) Would be neat if BG3 actually answered some of these questions. Could have that person Sarevok protected as a character in BG3 for example. Or whoever is responsible for poisoning that drow. Would help with tying up some loose ends.

I have similar complaints about the dialog options. I've been doing another playthrough (even though I said I wouldn't) taking screenshots of every instance where I think the dialog options are lacking, and joting down notes on what are reasonable responses a player might have to every interaction. I'm planning on either posting them here, or making a new thread for them. Funnily enough the Raphael scenes is one of the only instances where I felt everything the player might want to do or say is already there. It's very clear on repeat playthroughs they put a lot of thought into that scene.I would encourage you guys to do something similar, because the more we make them aware that this is an issue early on in development, the more likely it'll be fixed for the final game.

I can see Lae'zel still disapproving on that because "You have no conviction" or something like that.

That being said sometimes, being disliked when you say the truth or what you truly think (especially when it comes to sensitive topics) makes dialogue realistic as well.

THANK YOU!

I need a day off instead of a break to have time to read all that. BRB. I'll get to it on maybe Sunday.

Yes. Sometimes It feels like I'm stuck making choices I or my roleplay character doesn't believe in because you have to progress the dialogue/story.

" As a stupid symbol somewhere glowes, power flows through you. Authority. "


This one really should never be used more than once.
How hard can it be to just make this one, I dunno... 8 or 20 times with slight but notable alterations?
That felt very immersion breaking.

Disagree. In fact, I usually find criticism to be more productive when it doesn't try to offer solutions. Just tell me what isn't working, and I'll figure out for myself what the solution might be.

Depends. If you offer ideas/multiple solutions you can give people something to work with. But it can be just as effective to simply go "Your weakness/inability."

Sometimes I even ask "Do you want to be a better person". Even if someone talked down on me they say yes. It's very effective.


If I hear that line one more time I think I'll impale my head on a spike. REEEEEEEEEEEE!!!

Seriously though, the fact that it's stated over and over and over and over is a bad sign. Like they can't come up with anything else to say in the interactions. It makes the interactions feel less "hand tailored" and more "Plopping it in". Hopefully it's a placeholder and they actually have DIFFERENT things to say depending on WHO or WHAT we interact with.

Even random lines from a RNG selection of phrases would be something. If you're going to do it the "lazy" way. I think I've heared "power flows through you. Authority." so many times it's like a mantra when I wake up in bed. I can't NOT think it after hearing it that many times.

... Wonder if it made me more obedient with that person I engage with where I did things and zonked out? They did say "Don't worry about sleep" so I didn't. Don't regret zonking out either. That's probably my "Always do as I'm told" nature though. But with this mantra can you see how it could get people to subconsciously... Saaayyy... Think the devs are trying to take over the world by getting people to become slaves? GASP! It's not the mindflayers in the game we have to worry about. It's the subliminal messaging. Obey your new overlords.

To quote the darleks in Dr Who. "Obey! OBEY! OBEEEEYYYYY! Thing is they can make it work. Must be the fact it's obvious they panic when they're not in control. Here it's like... just saying it for saying it?

Well I am satisfied with the dialogues. At least that's more than the last one Dragon Age. Skills, class, and race already give you additional options. I'm also surprised that someone is complaining about companions. Almost all of your companions are evil at this moment and no one trusts you. That's why they respond to you like that. Only Gale is different, but he probably has his own reasons for being so nice. If you do something they don't like, they get angry. What did you want? This is very logical.




I don't know how later, but in the first act, it's very easy not to use it at all. But I like when "authority" u know…. I can feel it…

Now you done it. You just put yourself in a spot where you now have to explain why they're evil. Either that or fail to defend your claim.

Do you consider "Being afraid and protecting yourself" evil? Self preservation? Assumptions and lies that lead to such actions? Any harmful act can end well through honesty. Not through lies and assumptions. This is why honesty is so important. On failed rolls the companions will fall into denial. But that's your lack of ability. If lack of ability leads to evil...

IMO being evil is to toy with you at your own expense. It's at your expense unless you amuse me. Then what might have been at your expense might be for your benefit. Even then I still might kill you (well, not me. But you get the point). Yet through such evil acts love and trust can be forged. Quickly too. If you play. If you show you have a brain. If you don't use yourself as an excuse to give a response you "feel like" and instead make it about them.

And good? Good will likely just try to stop you or turn its back on you. Make demands. Try to have its way and be selfish while claiming you are. Instead of trying to play at all. Leaving you to suffer. Even a monster will play with you. That's the irony of it all. Such contradictions. Look at Nero in Devil May Cry 5. Or Luke Skywalker from Star Wars. Makes it ABOUT the enemy. Gets through to them. That's how it's done. What did Dante do? He went "Give me this. Stop you that." And the jedi in general? "Do it my way. You're not allowed." Just doesn't work that way. It violates choice and control. Like you can't be your own person.

And the worst part? Too many "good" and "nice" people do that. That's evil.

I'm so sorry but You've written too much for my poor english. You also dig too deep because dnd just have archetypes, so you don't need to think so hard about why they are evil.

Also not true about ‘failed rolls’. In some dialogues, even if you fail roll they still approve of your attempt. I said "they angry at you" because you initially choose the "good choice" or something similar, which does not coincide with their opinion. So their annoyance can be understood. They’re not mad cuz ‘fail roll’. Maybe only in private conversations when you try to push them and fail it. But this is a different. Because it's not about your worldview, it's about their trust you.


I mean, I don't have a problem with my companions being evil, I enjoy it, cuz I play evil way. And they can be nice with you for use you, manipulate you. We just don't know it yet. But this is also normal. We can also do this.

I just try explained why their rudeness in the first act and why I think its absolutely normal. Why should they be nice to the player from start? No reason for me.

What I'm basically saying, in terms that you can understand, is that your companions aren't motivated by "evil" purposes. They're motivated by self preservation. Survival. Evil is more like "Torture you for fun". I fail to see how the companions are evil. Even the vampire will be good if you convince him. Otherwise you let him be evil. He's pretty much the only exception. You said "Most are evil". I am saying "I disagree". You can't just go "Evil just because". You need to state REASONS for it. Otherwise what's the point in being evil?



It depends on the situation actually. Example: Fail to talk someone out of trying to kill you, in this case Shadowheart, then the failed dice roll results in her taking a hostile action towards the player character. That is, she tries to kill you. This is not an evil act however. She sees the player character a danger/harm to her sanity at the time. So it's basically defence. At least in her own perception. This is where "player ability" factors in. The dice rolls are supposed to represent "Saying things right". But since the words are always the same regardless of the dice roll it doesn't really show that.



You're saying you don't know. This contradicts. You spoke as if they're evil. But now you say you don't know if they are? Are you simply mistrusting them? If they are treated WITH mistrust it will make them evil (to you). That's not to say trust blindly. But have those understanding conversations. Which, ergo, factors in dice rolls. F up and they won't let you get close. Or, as I stated already, even try to kill you. That's the problem with the dice rolls. That getting close to a companion or not is dependent on "luck".

Does more approval mean more likely to get them to open up with easier dice rolls? If not then what's the point in approval at all?


You just said it yourself that it's normal. We're both in agreement on that. Normal isn't evil though is it? Evil is more "toying" with you. violating things like choice and control. That doesn't mean it's a bad thing. Can be fun even. But evil has more intent. As does good. What the companions are doing is defending their own well being.

You also first said the companions are evil. And now you say they are normal. I'm seeing a contradiction here. They are using you, yes. And honesty is important. I think you're more concerned about how secretive they're being. I suppose lies and secrets will always lead to harmful events. Would you call keeping secrets evil?

It's a lot of dialogue where my character wouldn't really say any of it.

I agree that dialogs could be improved and that maybe it would be good if there are a little less "tadpole-centric". I mean, reading the forums it seems I lost a lost of conversations for choosing to never use the tadpole powers. In part because it seems that using the tadpole make it stronger (narrative wise) and partly because you can choose to respect others provacy even if you don't trust them yet. And apparently, that means that many scenes at camp won't trigger, but don't offer alternative.

Well, I think that choosing to not use the tadpole should have alternative dialogs at camp and also a counterpart:

1. If the companions become aware that you choose to not use the tadpole powers, that should get some kind of reaction. Some like Astarion would think you are stupid for not doing it. But others like shadowheart might appreciate that you respect their privacy.

2. Since companios have tadpoles, some of them might want to use the power on you. And you should be able to notice when the fail to do so. And be offered several reactions. That would be nice.

Then there is the part of custom character vs origin character. The example of a mage talking to Gale is an example of how conversation options might need a little more work. I mean, when Gale says your magik is weak, you should be able to prove him wrong and get back at him latter. Also, while it is part of the romance, why Gale can access the weave but a wizard character can't?

Right now, it seems most conversation choices are geared towards showing you "how cool are the origin characters". Well, Ok, but maybe as the story progresses the custom characters should be offered choices to "get even". So if Gale is condescending to a wizard character, maybe latter you should be able to tell him that you already knew that or that "in fact" he is wrong and correct him. Or, you know, speak as colleges who respect each other and doesn't look at the ither as "lesser". The problem is not that companions are arrogant or evil or whatever, that is ok. The problem is that there are not reactions that allow the player to say that you think they are those things or to tell them to "tone it down". Or even to respect your privacy and that you don't want to tell them your past. I mean, why do they get to not trust you, but you are forced to trust them and answer? That should be a choice.

I get that you can't have infinite choices, but you can have a few that aren't variations of the same (Trust the companion or not talk at all).

As for reactions, I agree that some times intent should be the thing judged, regardless of success. And once the relationship starts to improve, it would be nice for companions to show interest by asking you things and by trying to earn your approval. That would create a sensation of reciprocity... In a way, Astarion is the only one who I have seen to do that when he agrees to only drink from enemies (or animals, even if that make him angry).

But I don't think dialogs are bad, just limited and with unreliable triggers that many times mean that you miss on them.