Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General BG3 Open World

I am curious if there has been any mention if the BG3 game is going to be setup in "Acts" like the DOS games where you only get to explore the parts of the land for the act you are currently in? Honestly that is my biggest complaint about the DOS games. I would much prefer the entire world be open from the start to wander around in instead of the smaller broken up areas based on the Acts. If I want to explore the woods outside Baldur's Gate and then go back and forth to the city I hope I can.

My gut is it will be the same as the DOS games but hope not.

I kind of agree, but I am okay if it is like DOS, wherein you can easily run into areas that are too challenging at your current level. It isn't necessary to be able to stumble into an area twenty levels over you; five is fine. But, if they can do it with no consequence to production, stability, balance, etc than sure go for it. At least they don't subscribe to the awful system of leveling everything to match your current level (e.g. Skyrim).

Regarding open world, I liked BG1 more than BG2.
Right from the start you could go everywhere except the city of Baldurs Gate and some quest related areas . . . if you survive. It was very easy to run into encounters that are much too hard for you.

I liked the original Divine Divinity and Gothic 1+2 too. You can go everywhere from the start, if you survive.
The only condition: There should be several options about what to do next for characters of any level.
In D:OS2 I have the problem that the power difference from one level to the next is so huge that you sometimes feel forced to do encounters in a specific order and you run into problems if you do not know the game so well that you have problems to find an encounter that fits your level.
One more reason to avoid the exponential number groth of D:OS2

Yeah, level to level difference was out of control in DOS2. Assuming they stick to D&D rules, shouldn't be such a problem, right?

A well-optimized party can fight two or three levels (called Challenge Rating in the tabletop) above their weight class, but if you give away more than that you're in deep shit. Things get looser as you level up and can power game your way ahead of the challenge curve, but especially at low levels it's fairly easy to get wiped by encounters that aren't even supposed to be particularly deadly.

If they do something like front-load low level characters with extra hit points, which was something 4e did that I think they should have kept, it wouldn't be as bad.

I agree. My friends and I are currently playing DOS2 and we usually take on stuff one or two levels over us (though they don't want to go to Tactician). Even so, that then becomes the norm instead of even leveled stuff. Deviate from the that 1/2 level difference and it becomes a joke or a nightmare again.

If they adapt the bounded accuracy elements of 5e well enough, then certain encounters should remain somewhat challenging (if not particularly rewarding) throughout. A few goblins against a 5th level party (of four) should be of little consequence, but a small band of goblins, say 10-15 against that same party of four...still not too dangerous, but definitely something to take seriously.

As for tackling higher level encounters...that same 5th level party can tackle something a bit above their weight class (by 2-3 levels), depending on certain conditions, like not a lair (assuming those rules are adapted), the party outnumbers the enemy...things like that.

That's table top 5e of course...can't say for certain with this game yet.

I would also prefer the game being more of an open world. That being said, I'm not against acts per se, as they can be done in a meaningful and interesting way. If we're playing in the midst of an invasion, then it might be cool to revisit areas at a later point in the game to see some of the consequences of our actions play out (regions being taken over by Mind Flayers vs combatting against them).

I agree, I love open world and we don't know if BG3 will have to a certain extent that exploration option since we haven't seen an in-game map yet either. But even an open world exploration should have some rules.

1. I wouldn't want to pick up a side quest (aside from the main quest) and end up wiping because there was no way to tell that the encounters were 3 to 5 levels higher than you.

2. Exploring the wilderness or areas of interest should be rewarding and not only for treasure hunting but for crafting by gathering materials.

3. Make use of heroes skills or a combination of (survival / perception / investigation / religion / nature) to find hidden areas or track down objects or bounties etc..

4. Camping mechanics to survive long journeys.

5. Don't make the main quest timed so we can have time to explore (after removing the tadpole from our brains) .

Its OK if you can get side quests that are very difficult.
Even BG2 had lots of this.

When you get to the slum tavern you are flooded with quests such as DÁrnise keep and Firkraag. This can be hard if you go there right away without getting some easy items and exp in the city, such as the sewers under the tavern.
I think you can find Kangaxx quite early, not 100% sure if you have to beat a lich to get the quest from him.

Why remove it? It would be very cool if one of the main plot divergences happens early whereby I get to choose (or a choice happens) which leads to me being rid of it or not, choosing instead to embrace this new destiny.

The idea of having a section free from time pressure to roam freely is staple in any RPG these days. Picking up non story based side quests is key and I don't think that is something that will be left out. As fr how far one can travel and how far open world...?!

I don't need vast empty areas for the sake of travelling, I am happy with the BG concept of using a map but being interrupted with random encounters, encounters which they themselves might lead to other quests that could easily be missed by killing said encounter.

ISTR that timed missions are second only to escort quests in terms of being one of the most universally disliked game features; that may be apocryphal but it's something that I certainly find myself agreeing with. Choices and consequences are one thing, but I put enough effort into not being late IRL, I don't want my escapism to make a point of it too!

Indeed, timed quests I loathe. I understand the need for a sense of urgency at certain points of a narrative, but I will gladly accept the disconnect to allow for a more overall enjoyable experience (i.e. the game not "rushing" me through certain events).

Agree, timed quests are not great and are especially tricky/annoying to do in games that have a world clock built into them. Plus all it really leads to is players reloading and trying the "race" again.

I can understand you, but sometimes a timer makes sense.
I really dislike the "false urgency" in most games: Somebody tells you to do something now and that terrible thing will happen if you are too late, but the game does not care if you do 20 side quests and rest 100 times in the meantime.

I absolute respect the devs of Pathfinder Kingmaker for implementing hard timers. It makes no sense to walk around on the world map for month in search of treasures when your kingdom is invaded by monsters.
I mean you have several month to solve a problem that can be fixed in two weeks and if you fix it fast you have lots of time for exploration and kingdom building until the next crisis comes.
In the first chapter, I solved the main quest and explored every area I can visit at this point in less than half the time I had. At the end I have maxed out all kingdom stats and explored the entire world and still I had to skip month until I could visit the final dungeon. I think the timer in the quest menu made the game more engaging.

Even BG1+2 had some timed quests. You can get poisoned in BG1 and in BG2 you have to save Jan Jansens Family member (sister?), plus Jaheiras curse. In all those cases the time limit was so large that it was almost impossible to fail unless you forget about it or you start traveling around the world once you get them.

I also liked BG1 more for the same reason. I think it's a difficult task to balance encounters with everything open from the start so I think some developers avoid it or break things into "Acts" to make it easier. I think it should be done where in the starting areas encounters are easier then as you get further from roads, cities, patrol areas encounters get harder. Maybe deeper in dungeons they get harder. I am really not a fan of having encounters always be survivable for the players. I am more old school where there may be some warnings that an area is particularly dangerous or have some NPC's talk about how bad or dangerous some areas are but let the players go where they want. It's what I do with a tabletop session; if my players ignore subtle hints about a dangerous area well some of them are going to be rolling up new characters.

When you gain a few levels and can go back to an area you felt was too dangerous you get a feeling of accomplishment and the "Acts" system kind of ruins that for me a bit where everything in Act I is level 1-10 (Or whatever it is). The world should be dangerous and not always be balanced (like 4E D&D kind of was)

Dang just as I feared the game will be just like the DOS games with areas locked into separate ACTS. Disappointed.

https://wccftech.com/baldurs-date-3-multiple-huge-regions-custom-characters/

Yeah. No surprise there. That much was confirmed in the gameplay reveal. This system works well with Coop, as players can split if they want to, without "Gather your party before venturing forth".

I don't think there will be timed quests in BG3. It would kill the purpose of exploration, on which Sven insisted when he presented the game.

Not every game has to be open world. I don't mind acts; they break up a story into manageable chunks and, usually, give you an act boss as the clear goal to an area.
This allows players to know if they're over- or under-leveled for an Act, and can also be used in the narrative. Like in Diablo 2; beating Act 1 and going to Act 2 not only revealed more of the story (and thus WHY we went to Lhut Golen), but was also a time skip; it took our heroes in-world, probably weeks or months to make that trip.

In an open world, either everything has to be close together, thus making a smaller, cluttered world, or what content there is is so spread out that the world feels more empty.

So I don't have a problem with an Act-based story.

Sorry pal but BG3 will not be a open world there are going on the lines of the past BG games when you go from one place to another on a world map

Yea, it really is a considerably less exciting system. I love the open world of BG1, but BG2 was still a good compromise. There’s something really immersive about knowing that you can go wherever you want and do whatever you want. That the scary dragon is there waiting for you, all the time, always at fixed strength. Because why shouldn’t he be? He lives in that world just as much as you do. The sense of urgency was beautifully handled in the beginning of BG2 as well, because every quest that you do, no matter how random, helps you gather that gold you need to progress the main story.

The act system of DOS is just less interesting in every single way. You can still have chapters, like BG2, and have some areas locked behind those, but the freedom of travel is necessary for creating the impression of a living, breathing world.

But as other people said; no surprises here.

NO surprises, only disapointement again

Well, splitting into large maps is not itself a bad thing, as long as you can freely move back to previous maps regardless of where you are in the story. My preference is that maps should have content of mixed difficulty to avoid a linear feel, although I know that does not always work.

I thought that the Witcher 3 managed it quite well having several large maps with some general difficulty progression going between them as the story progressed, and giving fairly clear guidance through the journal when a given story/quest path was likely to be an inappropriate level. There are probably many other ways to indicate encounter CR if putting it directly in the journal is considered a bit blunt.

Not that getting into overly difficult situations should be as common if the level range is only up to 10.

I had opened a topic about the map system and the liberty between zones and my fear about a "Divinity" Style...

And of course it's an another proof of the bad impact of a copy/paste Divinity on Baldur'spirit with Origin Companion, a little number of NPC and a list too long for my soul.

The recent interviews confirms a Divinity System with one Act= one map without the liberty of back. It's an another disappointment for this "Divinity 3".

The game being set in different acts with no way for the player to track back, yeah that doesn't sound very exciting to me. And yeah I think the overall structures of BG 1 AND BG 2 are more interesting (and compared to modern RPG trends, refreshing) than what we saw in DOS 1 and DOS 2. But I dunno if I feel it's such a big deal, compared to the quality (or lack thereof) of the content inside these acts. A game can still be great with a really predictable, unflexible structure.

What's that about little number of NPCs?

I'm torn on this. I can appreciate what Divinity did with the seemless maps but everything felt kind mushed together. I always find it immersion breaking in games like this that the ancient lich lair is a short hike from town. I like feeling that I have gone far off the beaten path to find something in the wilderness.

Acts don't bother me as much. BG2 had acts but they didn't lock you out of the areas you had been to previously. I want to be able to return to a place I have been to see what impact my choices have had or to address a new situation that pops up.

BG2 locked you out depending on what chapter (act) you were on. Only chapters 2,3 and 6 are on "shared" maps. Chapter 1 is the starter dungeon, chapter 4 is fixed to the pirate town and Spellhold, chapter 5 is set in the Underdark and chapter 7 start in Suldanessellar to finish in Hell.

Swen's comment says nothing about locking access to the previous act regions either. It could work like BG2 for all we know.

Personally fairly large acts that allow free roaming.. and getting yourself in serious trouble ... can be a lot of fun.
I don't think you will be able to go back to most "act1" locations after act 1 etc, but thats a guess.
With 100+ hrs of fun should be plenty of opportunity for diverse and unique areas.. wilderness.. underdark.. cities.

Someone mentioned "timed" quests... although i would prefer they to be in the minority.. some time quests make sense, e.g. you must get tadpole removed in 7 days or x happens.

I think that is a fake out timed quest, the tadpole isn't supposed to come out at all, but the character doesn't know it's a mutant tadpole so they only think they have 7 days.

Naturally there is a lot of speculation, and I too have my opinion. I'm sure that some people will embrace the tadpole and what might happen so there is no reason to expect that if characters do not have their tadpole removed, there will be a consequence. What that consequence would be is completely unknown but I think that a character should turn into a squid face.

Naturally I believe that decisions in each Act will directly affect what will happen in subsequent Acts. There will probably be game saves, but what type is unknown. I think that Larian wants MAX game repeatability with different characters.

I think there will be modding available at some future point in time.

I think they said you "could" save scum but that "failure" just leads to different game play options.

This is probably my biggest greif with the game (coupled with the game being too highly styleized but thats another thread). There should be ways to traverse the whole world *unless* there is something in the world that blocks you. In Baldurs Gate you cannot enter the city because of the iron crisis, it has to be solved within the game before you can continue. It makes sense in the world. You cannot enter the Bandit Camp before you have a map to it, makes sense too because its obviously hidden. You cannot enter the Cloakwood though, doesnt really make much sense other than that its too close to the starting area and it would make people wander into their deaths. But dont know, north of the Friendly Arms Inn is lands infested in Ankhegs that one-shot any level 1-2 character that goes there. In the SCS mod (I think it is) the Cloakwood is open from the start except for the mines and I guess you could make the arguement that the mines are a covert operation and thus hard to find (similar to the bandit camp) but yea.

But you had Durlags Tower just east of Nashkel and you "shouldnt" go there until you're basically done with the game. Curious, but why is that? Well, it does create a sense that the world is there regardless of you. It doesnt care if you go there or not, the world just *is*. This for me is a marker of excellent game creation. The only thing that aught to stop you from going somewhere is the difficulty of the content (or as mentioned, it makes sense in the world). You want to retrieve the farmers sons body in the Ankheg cave at level 2? Go ahead and try, most likely you will reload several times and make a note that you will return once you're higher level.

Invisible barriers and linear progression kills immersion faster than anything else.

No it doesn't. A city needs a constant stream of supplies going in or else it collapses. Hence, people have to be entering, or there's cargo to hide in, or sewers to sneak through, something.

There is a way into the city, you are just not allowed to enter for plot reasons.

We don't know much about the plot. Complaining about not being able to go everywhere when you don't even know the plot reasons is stupid.



Videogames have finite content, because every bit has to be put in by the developers. Every open world videogame has either invisible barriers, or impassible waist-high fences, or barriers blocking everything, or vast expanses of nothing, or edges of the maps, because there has to be a limit to exploration.

I dont think you understand what immersion means, or perhaps you never experience it while watching a movie or reading a book. Or playing a game for that matter.

If your point here is "a game can never be as real as reality" well, I guess you got me, dont have a counter-arguement to that. You are 100% right.

Not really. Big chunk of BG2 is linear. BG1 uses leveling to lead players into a fairly linear progression, on top of pointing them into intended direction via quests. It's not really about how linear/open the game is, but how it is presented. It all comes down to how well (if at all) structure of the game is hidden. Some games try to be immersive but use to obvious ways of confining the player. Some games don't try to be immersive in the first place. Some games are open, but everything is so irrelevant the game feels shallow and unengaging, and as the result unimmersive.

The trick is for you to be engaged enough with the game, as to not think how artificial it is. You not being able to go, or do what you expected to be able to do is one such factor that can bring you out of the experience, but it's just one of many.

Obviously. The game has to lead to the end. But what the game does is basically, "you should probably go here, but wait a minute, look over there.. whats that? an area totally unrelated to your current goals..?". The game offers a linear route down through the middle of the map and you can basically reach the end by avoiding pretty much 90% of the content (number pulled out of the air). BG2 doesnt offer as much freedom, though.

There has to be limits within the game but as long as the "wall" that blocks you offers some kind of in-game explanation its usually fine. As my example above, you cant enter Baldurs Gate because of the iron shortage. This is enough of a barrier even if it doesnt makes complete sense.

Well, when I understand all of you correctly the best open world game was Gothic 1.
The area is surrounded by a magical barrier that kills everyone who wants to leave and the main story is to escape this place.

I really liked the general concept of Gothic1+2.
You could go almost everywhere you want, but in the beginning you were very weak and everything could kill you.
You could also climb and swim almost everywhere, only the magic barrier stopped you.
Those games were great, just the combat system and controls were far from perfect.

In that sense BG1 was better than BG2.
BG1 was one giant map ( plus indoor areas and dungeons ) and nothing but strong monsters stopped you from going everywhere.

I prefer RPGs with a somewhat more linear structure. Acts give narrative purpose. In open world sandbox games, you're quickly swamped in quests and lose sense of direction. Everything blends together, and the quest log becomes a vital crutch for the quests to even give a sense of completion by the time they are finished.

BG2 was somewhat, mostly, linear and the many chapters divided story progression and geographical locations. Most of which you were locked out of once completed. Irenicus' Dungeon, Baldur's Gate region, Brynnlaw, Underdark, back to Baldur's Gate region. DOS2's acts weren't dissimilar to that. So much of the criticism directed at the linear form of DOS2 and by presumptive extension BG3, is also indirectly a criticism against the original game, which is funny to me.

I think it's poorly done in the game. Shutting you out of previous parts of the game/map when you advance. I believe that you should be able to visit every area in the game even as you progress through the story. In a game like Baldurs gate, you want an open world. Bg1 and 2 never did this. You could explore everything, even if you advanced to being close to clear the game. This Is in my opinion a flaw. I do see why they want to close off earlier areas, for the story. But it is a bad choice. The players should be able to explore everything, even if they have advanced storywise. In my opinion.

BG3 is amazing in a lot of ways, but in the open world part, they fail.

It's not an open world game. Lol.

Hmm. BG1 had more of that exploring going on, but then at the same time had not much finding going on, as there were lots of maps with just trees and a handful of random mooks in it, be it a gnoll or a gibberling or a wolf, all requiring the same tactic. The occasional 'find my dog or cat' quest here and there. There's not a single *cool dungeon* to be found in all of BG1, outside of the expansion pack and that was true then, as it is now.

BG2 fixed that problem, and is, in fact, a lot more similar to BG3. Now yes, you can revisit most areas. But even if you *can* go back to the Windspear Hills, why would you? Once you cleared it, it's an empty map. The occasional Orc or Goblin may spawn in, but that's it. Same holds true for the huge Act 1 maps in Bg3 - which will be left open to revisit for a LONG time. Depending on how you resolved the big quest in Act 1, you can lkeep trading at the Druid Grove until late Act 2. Still, in Bg2, most of the actual main story places you can't revisit, either. Irenicus'dungeon, Brynnlaw, Spellhold, Ust Natha are all locked out once you're past it.


Having said all this, I had kind of hoped that how you resolve Act 1, would translate into how Acts 2 and 3 played out, and/or you'd revisit that place for a second reckoning. You know: "Kagha is awesome, you will soon seen why." - I'm still waiting for an answer.

Before this post was necro'd, the last post was from 2020. Truly the Withers of forum posts.

Yes, I would quote Gothic1&2 as my favourite examples of open world RPG.

And while I prefer BG2 over BG1, yes, the open world, free roam nature of BG1 is for me it's strongest point - both on its own and compared to its sequel.

I don't mind cut off points - or cut off point. There is only one, max2 really. However, I really didn't appreciate "end of act1" warning, as it is not clear what is being cut off exactly.