>>50818
There is a difference between dialogue and dialogue. If you actually have choices and they are meaningful (eg. they help to solve a situation outside fighting - rpgs aren't just battle tactics, or shouldn't be) that's great. But just producing dialogs that are barely interactive animation sequences, where the player has nothing to do just read/listen - and especially where he would pick different replies or questions - then that's bad.

I have problems with the DnD system they pick for the newer games.
>you dip into this and add 3 level of that, so your basic Sundancer gets +25BAB and Spiderfist ability you get a killingmachine
Everything beyond BG2s complexity is superfluous and it doesn't make the game more enjoyable. Sometimes the different abilities of the classes just mean the same thing with different coating. The original basic classes and those couple of prestige ones meant more than enough variety. Meaningless details for zoomer brained millenials to enjoy, with their special snowflake character, combination of prestige classes.
Not to mention all the races... What's wrong with the basic human, half-elf, elf, dwarf, gnome, halfling, half-orc categories? Why add some retarded Miitzwoul race with +4 to STR and CHR and -5 to CON?
In fact I would huegely prefer M.A.G.U.S. in this question where:
>you are human
>you want something else? the rulebook says you can? FUCK OFF
(Well, kinda.)
Sad no video games came out with MAGUS ruleset and setting.