hello baldur's gate 3.
i'd like to share with you some feedback regarding the camera options.
you give us this mouse-wheel, i turn it, it zooms in sorta to the character, but then it stops, there is some maximum zoom here that i don't understand, why cant i zoom up to the characters face, and rotate 360 around it, take various camera screenshots from various angles ??
you give us a keyboard turn left / turn right mode. its too limiting, i need to put the camera up in the air more.
if i hold the mouse-wheel down, it gives me the option of swinging the camera left or right only.. why can't i swing the camera back, left right up down ?
i want,
a camera that floats up and down, left and right, and zooms in extremely close, let me turn that camera to any angle i want, don't have preset limits for it,
let me skew the angle of the camera to anything i want, let me increase or decrease the azimuth,
this is a MUST-HAVE for the final product
THANK YOU.
I agree that the camera is way to limited, we have a beautiful world crafted by larian but we are not allowed to look at it.
The downside would be that we would be able to se how ridiculously small our little adventure theme park is. Basically if we were to look out into the horizon in the grove, we could wave to the goblins in the temple(yeah yeah a little hyperbole never hurt anyone...), so it would kinda ruin the immersion(what little there is).
I guess I can say that there's a consensus about the camera : it's work in progress.
Is it work in progress ?
Because I would probably say that there is a consensus about the camera controls being lacking. I mean, it's a very very recurring feedback.
But I don't remember hearing any comment from Larian about this.
obviously larian has the "GOOD" camera. they make their cutscenes, they zoom up to the npcs faces at all kinds of weird angles, they zoom up to your characters face when its doing that mind telepathy thing, they have full complete and absolute control over the camera,
but the problem is they are only releasing the "GIMP" version, to the public...
that's what its about for me, is larian going to give us the GOOD stuff, or are they going to give us nerfs and gimps, to tide us over, while they have all the fun..
i can't have a total immersion experience unless the camera gets unlocked... the GIMP camera mode is not acceptable for me,
I agree that the camera is way to limited, we have a beautiful world crafted by larian but we are not allowed to look at it.
+1
I would not mind having a toggle to switch from first person perspective to drone camera perspective. A lot of the scenery is much better appreciated from a first person perspective, and it is more immersive. Technically it is probably not too difficult to do.
i need to put the camera up in the air more.
Have been saying that we need a proper third person camera for ages. With all the verticality they are so proud of, it makes no sense to not be able to look up. I play mostly TPS type games and coming from those to this one makes everything a constant fight with the stupid camera because I expect to not have a broken neck. Definitely in my top 5 issues with the game.
Agreed. But I feel also as mentioned this is done on purpose to artificiality make their already really condensed theme park world BIGGER. This isn't an open world RPG like the Witcher.
Points of interests are WAY too close to each other, it will look super weird changing that camera angle to see it all...
I agree with the whole thread. It's also noteworthy that the hamstrung camera movement means the game relies a lot on "dissolving" the foreground to let players see what's going on.
That dissolving feature needs work. For instance, try to enter the burning inn, hit turn-based mode, then Misty Step to the second floor. It's impossible because the game recognizes the second floor as dissolvable foreground until a character takes the stairs and actually stands up there. No matter how you wrangle the camera, the game thinks you're trying to see below and dissolves any valid Misty Step target.
It seems a lot harder to code a dissolving feature that always knows what the player is trying to see rather than to add mobility to the camera. If Larian are trying to hide the seams of their theme park world, why not limit draw distance, or use a bit of non-euclidian geometry or something?
I also agree with this thread.... My biggest beef is not being able to look up from the characters point of view. It's like they lock it to the lower 90 degrees (level with characters head and below), but not allow one to drag the point of view below the characters head to look up above that 90 degree from floor horizontal plane. I guess all the characters will not be able to look up to watch out for things like piercers or slimes on cave ceilings when in Underdark as examples.
Not sure why any game maker would go any other way than mouse look. Mouse look meaning the way dark souls, elden ring , Dungeons and dragons online are played. Simply the best system IMO. 'm' to move and mouse to look around easy.
Not sure why any game maker would go any other way than mouse look. Mouse look meaning the way dark souls, elden ring , Dungeons and dragons online are played. Simply the best system IMO. 'm' to move and mouse to look around easy.
mouse look is acceptable. no reason to not have it..
camera lock (especially the angle is bothering to me, more than the locked zoom height I would want to be able to have different angles) and also camera being unable to cope with different levels (e.g. attacking characters that stand higher, or trying to jump on something small) is annoying to say the least.
Agreed. But I feel also as mentioned this is done on purpose to artificiality make their already really condensed theme park world BIGGER. This isn't an open world RPG like the Witcher.
Points of interests are WAY too close to each other, it will look super weird changing that camera angle to see it all...
I mean, I agree with the first part, but disagree very much with the idea that things are too close together. I think it's been a major problem with games for the last decade that they just make bigger worlds, but have nothing interesting to fill them with. It's just more walking between copy + pasted content (I love how the bandit population outnumbers the civilian population in most of these games like, 30 to 1). It feels big, but also empty and lifeless. I much prefer having everything close together than just putting a mile of green landscape between each point of interest. Holding "W" for 5 minutes isn't my idea of a good time.
I think it's been a major problem with games for the last decade that they just make bigger worlds, but have nothing interesting to fill them with. It's just more walking between copy + pasted content (I love how the bandit population outnumbers the civilian population in most of these games like, 30 to 1). It feels big, but also empty and lifeless. I much prefer having everything close together than just putting a mile of green landscape between each point of interest. Holding "W" for 5 minutes isn't my idea of a good time.
Agree!
I also agree. My issue with the map, however, is that it destroys all semblance of time and immersion.
Example: Halsin has been missing for over a month. Where did he go? The Goblin Camp. Where is that? 5 minutes jog from the grove at the most. Makes no sense.
Example:. Forest? What forest? It's more like a forest let.
I don't like blank space travel either. I'd just rather have smaller maps with transition portals implying there's more travel between important zones rather than a forest that is so small it takes 30 seconds to get from one end to another. There are no animals, and there is nothing much to it.
You could break the map up into the following smaller maps:
Beach/Nautiloid/Dank Crypt and Wilderness
Grove and Harper Camp (includes meeting Ed and siblings)
Outside Grove, East Bank (Harpy Zone - because why are they allowed to be so close to the druids domain?)
Forest and Moonhaven (includes Owlbear Cave and Scratch)
The Bog
The Temple of Selune
Risen Road East (Toll House and gnolls)
Risen Road West (Waukeen's Rest and Gith)
Each transition from one map to another takes hours of travel, thus indicating there is much more landscape than what you literally play through.
The point is that you don't transition between environments so suddenly, and each environment isn't so small. A forest isn't just a few trees. Part of the reason Halsin and company were gone for over a month is that there was a lot of landscape between the Temple and Grove, places for them to explore and hide in from the goblins as they fled.
I think it's been a major problem with games for the last decade that they just make bigger worlds, but have nothing interesting to fill them with. [...] It feels big, but also empty and lifeless. I much prefer having everything close together than just putting a mile of green landscape between each point of interest.
Having long stretches of landscape devoid of game content makes the world feel big and credible, but it can make the game boring. Having all the encounters and places of interest close to each other makes travelling in the game's world consistently exciting and entertaining, but it can make the world feel very artificial and non-sensical. (In Baldur's Gate 3, this is one of the two main causes of the theme park feeling.)
It may sound as if devs have to pick the less unsatisfying of two options. But these are not the only two options.
24 years ago, a then-little-known game called Baldur's Gate used another solution. I don't know if it had been notably used before, nor what games used it afterwards, but it worked pretty well in Baldur's Gate. The solution can be summarised as such :
"Your journey lasted 16 hours".
By breaking the game world into explorable-playable maps, the game can keep exploration exciting while making the world feel big and credible.
I'm well aware that, at this point in Early Access (though that was quite probably also true months before Early Access), there is almost no chance that Larian will change this in BG3. But I wanted to stress the fact that there are more than two options.
Oh and Baldur's Gate handled the world-made-of-playable-maps quite satisfyingly as well. There was no in-world character stressing the division of the game world into playable maps. There was no teleportation portals referred to in-world but usable only by the players. It was handled through the UI. So we players could file it into the "video game rules" folder, where characters have HP and inventories, and we can save/reload games.
I think it's been a major problem with games for the last decade that they just make bigger worlds, but have nothing interesting to fill them with. [...] It feels big, but also empty and lifeless. I much prefer having everything close together than just putting a mile of green landscape between each point of interest.
Having long stretches of landscape devoid of game content makes the world feel big and credible, but it can make the game boring. Having all the encounters and places of interest close to each other makes travelling in the game's world consistently exciting and entertaining, but it can make the world feel very artificial and non-sensical. (In Baldur's Gate 3, this is one of the two main causes of the theme park feeling.)
It may sound as if devs have to pick the less unsatisfying of two options. But these are not the only two options.
24 years ago, a then-little-known game called Baldur's Gate used another solution. I don't know if it had been notably used before, nor what games used it afterwards, but it worked pretty well in Baldur's Gate. The solution can be summarised as such :
"Your journey lasted 16 hours".
By breaking the game world into explorable-playable maps, the game can keep exploration exciting while making the world feel big and credible.
I'm well aware that, at this point in Early Access (though that was quite probably also true months before Early Access), there is almost no chance that Larian will change this in BG3. But I wanted to stress the fact that there are more than two options.
Oh and Baldur's Gate handled the world-made-of-playable-maps quite satisfyingly as well. There was no in-world character stressing the division of the game world into playable maps. There was no teleportation portals referred to in-world but usable only by the players. It was handled through the UI. So we players could file it into the "video game rules" folder, where characters have HP and inventories, and we can save/reload games.
Exactly. You and I are basically saying the same thing. From Beach/Nautiloid/Dank Crypt/Wilderness to Grove, they could have a small cinematic that says, "Hours later," or something like that, showing them walking through more mountainous terrain. Then the MC and party are near the mound outside the gate. Cutscene with Aradin and party ensues.
I’d happily take 5 minutes of wandering a beautiful but potentially dangerous woodland over Larian’s theme park where you can’t move for finding some event or NPC to deal with.
I think it's been a major problem with games for the last decade that they just make bigger worlds, but have nothing interesting to fill them with. [...] It feels big, but also empty and lifeless. I much prefer having everything close together than just putting a mile of green landscape between each point of interest.
Having long stretches of landscape devoid of game content makes the world feel big and credible, but it can make the game boring. Having all the encounters and places of interest close to each other makes travelling in the game's world consistently exciting and entertaining, but it can make the world feel very artificial and non-sensical. (In Baldur's Gate 3, this is one of the two main causes of the theme park feeling.)
It may sound as if devs have to pick the less unsatisfying of two options. But these are not the only two options.
24 years ago, a then-little-known game called Baldur's Gate used another solution. I don't know if it had been notably used before, nor what games used it afterwards, but it worked pretty well in Baldur's Gate. The solution can be summarised as such :
"Your journey lasted 16 hours".
By breaking the game world into explorable-playable maps, the game can keep exploration exciting while making the world feel big and credible.
I'm well aware that, at this point in Early Access (though that was quite probably also true months before Early Access), there is almost no chance that Larian will change this in BG3. But I wanted to stress the fact that there are more than two options.
[spoiler] Oh and Baldur's Gate handled the world-made-of-playable-maps quite satisfyingly as well. There was no in-world character stressing the division of the game world into playable maps. There was no teleportation portals referred to in-world but usable only by the players. It was handled through the UI. So we players could file it into the "video game rules" folder, where characters have HP and inventories, and we can save/reload games.
Exploration in BG3 is exciting and entertaining to me but not because everything is so close... It is because there are definitely A LOT of (interresting) hidden content compared to a real open world full of filler content.
It is more "dynamic" at best, but just a bit more space wouldn't have hurt the excitment imo. Another option between a very big world and a small and totally unbelievable video game map is probably possible too.
Personnal preferences ofc. I fully agree with the meaning of your message even if I disagree with a detail.
Edit: Drath Malorn already made the same point. Didn’t mean to pile on.
Having all the encounters and places of interest close to each other makes travelling in the game's world consistently exciting and entertaining, but it can make the world feel very artificial and non-sensical.
I think it's been a major problem with games for the last decade that they just make bigger worlds, but have nothing interesting to fill them with. [...] It feels big, but also empty and lifeless. I much prefer having everything close together than just putting a mile of green landscape between each point of interest.
BG3’s map density is good for pacing, like a DM saying “the party walks for a while and gets to the village.†But this utilitarian approach is what gives off theme park vibes.
The maps are built like networks, with points of interest connected by corridors. The player still has to travel but never gets to wonder what would happen if they wandered off the beaten path. They can only ever choose left or right when the minimap reveals a fork in the road.
There are other things which give the maps an air of artificiality. The obvious difference in scale between corridors and encounter areas; the deliberate placement of bridges, gates and jumps to mark new zones; the disconnect between the camp and the world.
Timelessness is the other half of the theme park problem. Since the map design isn’t going to change, Larian can’t get away with a world where not even the sun moves without the player’s input.
24 years ago, a then-little-known game called Baldur's Gate used another solution. I don't know if it had been notably used before, nor what games used it afterwards, but it worked pretty well in Baldur's Gate. The solution can be summarised as such : "Your journey lasted 16 hours".
By breaking the game world into explorable-playable maps, the game can keep exploration exciting while making the world feel big and credible.
Ultimately it comes down to what works for each person, but to me this compromise gains the benefit of neither. Exploration doesn't feel exciting to me because it's kept strictly into "exploration areas". I think The Outer Worlds is the worst recent offender of this. The limited size of each zone made me constantly reminded of the "gaminess" of it by constantly blocking my path with invisible walls. On the flip-side, a single box saying "the journey took x hours" doesn't convey a sense of time either. Pathfinder could tell me a journey took 2 hours or 5 days, and it really made no difference to me: what mattered was how long I had to wait for the piece to move (which, more often than not, felt like a waste of my time, and on longer journeys I would just mess around on my phone).
Just my two cents, but for me this is a case of getting the worst of both, with none of the pros.
Would it be a good solution to have more camera freedom at eye level, and less visibility when zoomed out?
There are advantages to the game park design, but it would be good to keep that design hidden from view, to achieve a somewhat credible world. That would mean no more outlines on the mini map, or no mini map at all, and less ability to get bird's-eye views of the environment. The latter could be achieved by limiting viewpoint height and viewpoint position, and/or by hiding faraway surroundings.
Limiting perspectives that could never be obtained by the playable characters would need to be compensated by more freedom at eye level. For instance, being able to look up.
BG3’s map density is good for pacing, like a DM saying “the party walks for a while and gets to the village.†But this utilitarian approach is what gives off theme park vibes.
The maps are built like networks, with points of interest connected by corridors. The player still has to travel but never gets to wonder what would happen if they wandered off the beaten path. They can only ever choose left or right when the minimap reveals a fork in the road.
There are other things which give the maps an air of artificiality. The obvious difference in scale between corridors and encounter areas; the deliberate placement of bridges, gates and jumps to mark new zones; the disconnect between the camp and the world.
Timelessness is the other half of the theme park problem. Since the map design isn’t going to change, Larian can’t get away with a world where not even the sun moves without the player’s imput.
You absolutely nailed it here. I also feel that BG3 is really missing open expanses of city or wilderness to explore in whichever direction one desires, not simply maps with paths through them. The latter give an illusion of choice but actually it’s really quite railroaded.
I don't think map itself is necessary bad - it's the story they are telling that isn't compatible with the map they created. If Larian removed the bit were Goblins can't find the grove - all would be fine. Why not have the grove being scared because goblins are at their door steps? Why would minthara couldn't look for a safe way to invade rather then wonder where the grove is? Make the perceived tighteness of the map be part of the story. Tieflings stuck at the grove, with goblin army right at their doorsteps ready to attack. Goblins trying to find their way in to open the games and attack without getting decimated at the gates. Make character aware that a massive ship just crushed outside the place. It's same issues D:OS2 suffered from, with each zones seemingly develop in its own bubble, with little thought put to how it will be all put together. It wouldn't be a problem if each zone existed in its own bubble, like it did in classic RPGs, but it just feels off here. You create continous world and yet not design it to be a continous world.
as much as i want unlimited freedom on camera control, usual devs always restrict it to the lowest common denominator. no idea why. perhaps their idea is that they do not want the camera be the challenge rather than the game. they should provide an option in settings for unlocking advance camera control i would say.
You create continous world and yet not design it to be a continous world.
That’s a great point! It reminds me of the large groups of potentialy hostile ennemies which function as seperate encounters who occasionally interact. I keep imagining this scene in the goblin temple:
-Hey, do you hear that?
-You mean the clashing metal and a guy shouting
Torment?
-Yeah.
-It’s probably nothing.
-Yeah.
To counteract this, the game has patrols. But to do anything they need to either catch you red handed (which is rare) or telepathically learn that their boss has died. That feels really weird when no one previously made the link between the mounting death toll and the bloody footprints your party leaves behind.
Back to the camera, its limitations make those self-contained corners of the map feel appropriately seperate from the rest. During the side-fight, I’m pulled in by the close, down facing angle. With too much camera freedom, I’d be constantly reminded that these halls are full of actors in costume just waiting their turn to put on a show.
Not that I love it, but the camera angles are carefully chosen to complement the map design.
Would it be a good solution to have more camera freedom at eye level, and less visibility when zoomed out?
That could work! I wonder if the environments are actually designed to be viewed from every angle.