That wouldn't have solved the "these two companions say way more than everyone else" problem.
Is it necessarily a problem? I can imagine that it
can be a problem but that does not mean it
has to be problem.
Real world people and - by extension - believable fantasy people, aren't equally talkative. Quality is a much more apparent problem than quantity.
The only non-spiteful - and despite what my inner gossip-girl wants to believe, I think everyone at Obsidian are professional enough not to let that be their motivation - and believable reason I can think of for cutting Chris' dialogue, is an admittance that the other writers' dialogue is bad in comparison and because of that, the quantity of Chris' dialogue would accentuate the overall low quality of the companion dialogue in the product.
Including the dialogue would have (slightly) raised the overall quality of dialogue.
Excluding the dialogue would (slightly) lower the overall quality of dialogue but make the low quality less apparent.
Thus if one's goal is to make a more easily digestible sausage (exclusion) rather than a better, juicier sausage with a higher content of meat (inclusion), the exclusion option becomes preferable.
It is a strange situation.
While the first sausage is better than the second sausage, it appears worse to the average eater of sausage. Though if the average sausage eater was presented with both sausages and would compare their taste, even he would know the first sausage to be the better sausage.
