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

Let me expand on Mayrina. Yes, you can tell her that her brothers are dead before but if you kill the hag first you suddenly become mute to the words "the hag killed your brothers", Why?
People have a defense mechanism, this is why most of the time we don't want to admit we are wrong.
A normal person will always defend themselves when they are being blamed for something. The NPCs do that well most of the time. The PC however doesn't.
It's as if you're roleplaying a robot instead of a real person.

Considering we are allowed to be given a choice about our character's stats, class and even origin. It feels like we are only allowed to play the dumb character when it comes to dialogue, especially when talking or having arguments with major NPCs.

One person asks for a few, then the other person asks for more, and suddenly there's a lot of it.
It cannot be changed, as long as you don't throw spoken dialogues out of the game.
This is the last thing they should do. Not sounded characters are a tragic choice. This is one of the major problems I have had with PoE that has now fixed PoE2.
The voiced characters have a much greater personality, at the same time it limits the number of dialogue options, but it's just a small price.

That's why I don't feel like I'm roleplaying, why can you only say your point on certain moments? You become mute to certain words if you don't choose the proper lines.
That's more like playing a robot and not a real person to me.

That being said, personally it's not about having the last word but just being able to say an actual reasonable point not just taking everything the NPC says to you.
Doesn't mean NPCs have to listen to reason though because some people don't in real life, makes it realistic that way.

Only if you accept everything, why would you do that?

I'm fully aware that just because I gave a feedback doesn't mean that they'll accept my feedback.
Doesn't mean I'll stop trying though considering they're asking one from us.

The Mayrina thing annoyed me too, in my case I was upset to find a bolt to her head did not kill her after the way she spoke to me. This whole encounter including with the hag is bugged for a lot of people, hopefully they will also fix the dialogue order as well.


It would be great if they could allow for this. I also hate not being able to defend myself. I am not sure it would be possible to add enough options to please everyone, we may be stuck with imagining our responses.

I raved on and on about how limited and unresponsive the game is when it comes to player choice. Dialogue is one of this issue's aspects.
Replaying Baldur's Gate 2, it is a problem that was there as well, but it's been fucking 20 years Larian, and many games have refined and evolved the way dialogues in these kinds of games work. I hate to bring it back all the time, but again, check out the Landsmeet scene in Dragon Age Origins. The Witcher games and Fallout New Vegas are also good examples of well written Rpg Dialogue. Agian Larian, you are making a big game in the big league now (and your sell numbers prove it), this kind of lame ass dialogue doesn't belong in an AAA product.

Well, to be honest lame ass dialogue is a staple of an AAA product.

I feel it might be that Larian is treating dialogue as just a system, rather then a core pillar. In many other RPGs - Witcher, Dragon Age, Pillars of Eternities - dialogue is the main way of telling the story and giving player decisions to make. If you can convince/threaten/poison/initiate combat etc. an NPC, those will be done through dialogue - essentially if you have a choice, it’s presented via dialogue. In those games, if there is an option to talk, you talk. If you can initiate combat you often HAVE to do it through dialogue.

Larian games seem to be closer in that regard to Tim Cains RPGs (or immersive sim design) - decision as to what to do and what you can do, doesn’t come exclusively through a dialogue. You have ways of interacting with NPCs, without initiating dialogue. Those games tend to rely less on “setpiece” dialogues - like mentioned Landsmeet. While it might be an extensive scene, you are limited to it - you can’t stealth around, pickpocket, steal, attack in addition to talking.

I had some problems with this too, most notably on my first playthrough when I never got into the inner grove because you basically have to threaten to force your way in before someone remembers, "Oh yeah, Kagha wants to talk to this one." And most of my characters would never do that. Now I just have to ignore the actual line and pretend my character said something else (like, I dunno, "Can I talk to Kagha please?").

Well I don’t entirely agree with you, but it’s fine margins...

However there is critique and there’s being an arse. I’m not against saying something doesn’t work or is poor, but there are still ways and means.

It's a very good way of explaining it. I said before it is a design philosophy. But I think you hit the nail in the head. And honestly I don't think it's necessarily a bad game design. I can only say it's a design philosophy I don't particularly like, because I feel like that extra freedom isn't worth the lose of cohesion

Yeah being an arse like "You suck, do better".
I don't remember saying any of that though and it's not like I didn't give any examples. I posted them in the very beginning of this thread.

That's actually sad imo. I feel like every roleplaying game nowadays prevents you from roleplaying.

Normally I'd just be quiet about it but considering they're asking for feedback and I also want this game to be as good and as enjoyable as possible. I'm doing my best to be heard.

I really don't want to give examples of games because I feel like I'm just looking for that same game again but I realized looking at other games can also make your game improve.

Neverwinter Nights is the only game I've played that have a satisfying dialogue tbh (I never played the games you mentioned yet, barely have time now)

Let's see, if Delphine from Skyrim is in Neverwinter Nights, you'd be allowed to say to her...
"That dragon you want me to kill helped me fight the World Eater while I'm trying to learn Dragonrend. What are you doing at that time? Sitting in your Sky Haven Temple?"

if you have a 14+ Wisdom.

I like the dialogue in BG3. I mean, it's not good like Planescape: Torment or Disco Elysium, but I think it's pretty good, for a non-literary RPG.

I think that it all boils down to how much work Larian is willing to put into it. I think that right now they putting more work than they did in dos2 (there are no situations where you have the same dialogue with an NPC because he is related to companion quest for example) but I think that it's still not enough (the game doesn't even address the fact you are possibly not alone when meeting Astarion).

Considering how many options there are in the EA itself (the final act 1 will be bigger) you cannot avoid all such situations.
A lot of it will probably be improved, but I wouldn't expect to eliminate all of them, after all, the game allows you to go to the quests in any order.

They need to add more lines, even if 90% won't be voiced. BG 1 & BG 2 had just the the first part voiced, the rest was just text, but the dialogues could have far more branches. This is one example where RPG's went backwards.

What I do now is: save & reload before every dialogue, until every option is tested. After that I know what to pick. Really need an exhaustive walkthrough with full explanations, all spoilers included, if stays this way. This is the price paid for having every line voiced.

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).

This might be a bit like cheesing the game, but I wish we could tell people more that we need to think about it.
Like when Zevlor for example asks me to kill the Goblins, I'd rather just say that I'd like to think about it to avoid disapprovals from party members then just go and do it xD.

Lae'zel is exactly like that example . . . she respects you based on your actions and dislikes you if you try coddling her.
And BG3 has companion banter at regular timed intervals that I've really enjoyed. And as for talking to your companions . . . you CAN talk to them anywhere its just some specific conversations that only happen in camp. You also don't need to wait for exclamation marks above companion heads to discover new dialogue . . . that just indicates that the game feels there is something you really should talk about.