Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback The Map is too Constrained

Everything is SUPER close together in Act 1. You do something and, one screen away, is something totally different?

It's crazy how close everything is.

I understand what you are saying, but I have counterpoints:

1. Free-floating cameras encourage convoluted terrain. For example, in Oblivion and Skyrim, the primary viewpoint was first person and the camera wouldn't go far from the character. If the terrain were really convoluted, it would be a negative because much of the scenery would be blocked at any time. In BG3, there is no first-person view and the camera can go quite far from the character, so flat terrain would be boring.

2. It is a different philosophy, apparently deliberate, maybe based on the camera angle. The world has all sorts of interesting nooks and crannies that you can get minor treasure from, get good views from, or just have fun finding. Some even reward XP for finding. If you made it an open-world design, you would have to make it much 'larger' internally in order to have the same number of hidden areas and specials. Or you would have to do like Oblivion and add more dungeons, i.e., areas that have a transition to a separate map space. Maze-like designs add replay value (yes, there are other ways to do that).

3. They have deliberately designed alternate routes to use. There are almost always multiple ways to get into and out of each area. Some are obvious, some are not:

I called it that but talking about the enemies. Sadly it applies to both, as the encounters are nothing more than the attractions you get directed to by the tunneled game design. Nothing about this game's map and encounter design feels natrual. Even when they put different paths to a location you get the obvious 'haha - you need this skill set to unlock it, do you have it? no? please buy the ticket for this on character creation/party selection'.

The only coherent enemy group are the goblins in on the first map, everything else felt like them showing of what kind of monsters they have and nearly random. Why are we even going to a mage tower with laser guns and robots in the Underdark? What had that to do with anything? DId I miss some compelling story item that really waranted that distraction?

This design is completely immersion breaking. Its nice when you are playing with friends and not really paying attention to the story as you make your own along the way, but exploring it on your own its just feels off.

I hope people keep in mind that at least right now we have access to one aboveground area which happens to be on the edge of some mountains? Are you expecting to be able to crawl up one side of it and down the other? To me, the current map fits the terrain. If we were in the middle of a plain and somehow constricted to a road, I'd understand the concern.

For being a giant cave, the underdark area we have access to so far seems pretty open to me. Being underground, they could have constricted you to a maze of tunnels.

Not sure what the expectation people have here is: something like Skyrim? That gets tiresome after a while. I personally like what they've done so far.

And hence the hope that we are not eternally on the edge of mountains, along a coast. If we say nothing - chances are that there will be a whole lot more mountains or similar features. Perhaps magma on a fire plane or travelling deep in an ocean crevasse where giant cliffs rise up from it, but the same mechanic.

That's not really the point. Its not about having a constricted space. Yeah, when you are in a ravine you don't expect endless plaines on all sides. The point is that the whole world is made like a game, filled up with encounters to the point that you just walk from one to another, but not in a good way. You don't discover anything on your own you are spoonfed depending on wheter you go left or right. It simply doesn't feel natural. Compare it to especially BG1 - though I admit they had it a lot easier as creating those maps took significantly less time so adding open spaces with just natural wildlife was easy.


The more I think about it the more I feel BG3 is build primarily to be played in a group with friends and not as immersive singleplayer experience. In a group, where you will always be doing something or 'creating' downtime talking with each other regrouping and stuff like that, this type of map works endlessly better than BG1 - and that's most likely the reason its build this way. Just think about the alternative - having small hubs connected through world map would mean a lot more loading screens. And to tell all stories and give them their own natural space on the map would need to be a lot bigger maps (which might also affect performance depending on how they structure their asset streaming)... so all in all it now makes sense to me as many other decisions around this game do. Doesn't make me satisfied with the result, but I get the logic behind it.

Both +1, perhaps I should lower my expectations at this point

If so, that's horrible. Nothing is worse than when games go focus on online modes so they suck for those of us who play alone.

Another inherited problem from DOS2.

This constricted maze of pathways is more obvious because of the way the map works. If you didn’t see that you might be fooled that things are a bit more open and expansive. But I’m not sure what the answer is as the map is very useful the way it is for showing where you can explore. Let’s just hope there are fewer of these ‘corridors’ in later parts of the game. I expect that the city itself would be really tight, but that makes sense. I also hope that it’s much bigger than Arx!

Yeah, I have to admit I didn't want to see it as a DOS3 based on some interface and other cosmetic issues or balancing issues from surfaces and race to the top battles. These are smaller things that can be easily changed before the game gets shipped as it affects just single teams and it would be part of the regular iterations. None of those come with prohibited costs and effort to listen to feedback. But level design at this point could very well be (as major story changes). The whole DOS design philosophy is sadly though at the core of all mechanics I've seen so far beyond simple re-usage to save time.

I would really love to know what Larian's goals were with the EA. Are they really interested in feedback to figure out what they need to change to get a BG feeling or if its just to polish their already decided mechanics. I guess they are aware of the issues mentioned here and deliberately chose to create it this way - like many other things - I would be very surprised if we are telling them new things they didn't notice themselves seeing the game every day in front of them. Sometimes though outside feedback forces you to re-evalute the priorities within your arguements, but I don't see big changes coming.

Balder's Gate MP, where the only reason was to create an entire party to control by yourself, or just to have a save where you could sub out your protagonist for another imported one if you wanted to later on hehe.

I sometimes wish I had a great Multiplayer LAN experience with this franchise, and sometimes I can invent MP reasons why such and such might be better for whatever, but BG was always a single player game for me. I have memories of randos showing up in an MP session, and think to myself, what are they doing here? No time to chat, Insta Boot! Like I'm sure it worked great for some people, who maybe really bonded over a shared campaign, but not I.

I think the reasons the old gold box CRPGs worked pretty well was that they made no real pretense about trying to accommodate more than one player, but instead just tried to simulate a multiplayer type D&D 'feel' for the single player. So the single player could have the type of campaign experience which is usually reserved only for the small group.

I actually think shit started to go downhill pretty quickly once the internet made actual multiplayer RPGs possible. Then the non RP oriented meta gaming that the earlier games were sort of structured around, started to become problematic, and the games had to start doing all sorts of new things they never had to do before, once players could actually link up and type to one another. I had Ultima and played some other early iterations of what would eventually become MMOs, but they never sold me on it like BG sold me on Dungeons and Dragons. I was already it into from books, and a few rogue gold boxes in early days, but BG clinched the love. It was the best shit since Xeen and totally absorbing. But really, that had nothing to do with anyone else except for me and my custom portraits folder, and the writers I guess.

That's why godmode full party control is so important to this particular game. For Baldur's Gate. Solid party controls and an expansive gang of companions to choose from. It has a legacy that's very different from say Neverwinter, which basically went in the opposite direction while still somehow managing to remain 'not an MMO' thing, but oriented instead around the small party and DMing. It did that pretty well, but it was never BG. DA was closer, but it wasn't the Forgotten Realms.
I'm not really sure what this one is supposed to be if its primarily co-op driven in design, I guess its like D&D Double Dragon or Contra or whatever happens in DOS, bouncing off screen with a younger sibling maybe. But that's not why I came back out of retirement. I wanted that fix of the other thing. But yeah, I agree. It does sort of feel like this whole game is geared towards fans of a Co-Op console type experience. It's kind of a bummer, since that's not really what I'm after.


As for the map, I also agree there. Especially the point about it seeming more like a maze than a world. And not in a good Mazeworld sort of way. More like a pre-written module with every square in the labyrinth worked out primarily to conserve graph paper. The compass/mini map orientation also makes it feel even more mazelike, since I'm constantly getting lost as to which direction I'm facing/moving. I love maps. I like the idea of big maps that might be unfolded and hung on the wall, with all the key stuff clearly dilineated and marked out with Xs. But that's different than what the world exploration should feel like. Least coming out of the first two games

Completely agreed.

Imo it should either be a "proper" open world or segmented world. Corridor/maze/theme park is... really bad, gamey and immersion-breaking. I think for BG3 a segmented world would work best - create "point of interest" maps with some wilderness around them. Like a druid grove map, a goblin camp map, crash site map etc. The druid grove and the goblin camp should be hours away from each other. Kind of like BG1, just with bigger maps that still keep the feeling of the world not being the size of your backyard.