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

One issue that is digging into me more and more is how the map feels more like a maze than a world. Open fields and forests could create an effect of random encounters and more of a feeling of exploration - and can increase replayability - but instead this map feels like I'm navigating a maze to get to different areas and my guess it is to force encounters which is never ideal. There is a web of routes that narrow and hit bottlenecks to force events. I'm hoping that later areas are much less constrained than the first area has been.

It's one of the marks of Larian. They don't have an openworld like Bethesda but limited areas that can be explored. Nevertheless I agree that the map feels too constrained, sometimes there are places wich I don't get the reason I can not explore. I assume that to create a full openworld like Red Redemption with the isometric would be quite complex (and the isometric is another mark of Larian).

Yeah it does feel a bit small, even smaller than DS02 as far as the freedom of movement and space in act one. The distance travelled in DSO2 on the first act just seemed massive in perspective. It wasnt exactly open world but I think they got it right there.

I only noticed how off this enviroment is once I played Pathfinder. Smaller hubs connected through a world map for travelling would have been about the same amount of work (easier for optimisation as well) and would have yielded more real feeling maps. Pathfinder and BG1 demonstrated how you can still add exploration to such world-hub combinations. The result of Larian here was that to me it completely felt like a module in a handbook for a DM to use - each map a chapter with its own little optional encounters to pick up or not before moving to the next chapter - which is ironic since Pathfinder Kingmaker was based on a module and didn't have that feeling at all, but felt much more like a story and a world to explore.

I don't see them changing this. It would require probably major reworks and a change in world building philosophy would also affect every hub afterwards. Once you start changing the map, you need to adjust for encounter, story, quests on that map... even if its just adding a bit more ground. You don't want it to feel added, but integral to the original design.

There were some larger, more open areas in the DOS games (especially the first) – but nothing close to the scale of an open-world RPG. Hopefully we’ll see some more open plains etc in the full release!

To be honest I'm less troubled about the 'confined space' as much as how fake it feels. It feels like it is made for a game with each location having a purpose. I know this might sound stupid at first, but you can read the game designers expectations in every tube you walk through or set piece with an encounter. In BG2 from what I remember and definitely in Pathfinder Kingmaker or Pillars of Eternety you also have 'sets' for quests, but they have small maps so the whole doesn't feel like a themepark where you go from attraction to attraction that's around the next corner waiting for you.

I don't suspect they'll change this first chapter at all - but let's hope they change the later ones that aren't done yet.

We already talked about this is many tthreads but yea, I still agree.

The world feel inconsistent to me because everything is too close.
It causes story issues but it's also not very immersive.

Wouldn’t it be awesome if we could have mounts – then everything could be much more spread out. Maybe for BG4… there’s just something off about a D&D party not being able to ride anywhere, bring a wagon along for loot.

I guess I'm not seeing the argument here. Is it a completely open world? No...but there are multiple paths through (and around) most things here. Examples:
1) When you first land on the beach, there are paths through the area that let you bypass encountering all of the companions.
2) There are several paths into (or around) the crypt
3) There's no reason to go into the blighted village if you don't want to. There are paths to the north and south to go around.
4) There are multiple ways into the underdark
5) many more...

All of these things let you take in as much (or as little) of the world as you want. Other than the one point where you end up outside the druid's grove, everything else felt like I could do as much as I wanted and didn't feel like I was forced on rails to go in some linear path.

I doubt the other maps are not done. They most likely are not polished at all, bugged and missing key assets, but you*d block all other teams if you don't have the basic map layout. They could not possibly finish the game next year if they are not already working on the maps' story and encounters. Usually this happens in parallel, as games is not made chronologically. Maybe Larian is thinking about changing smaller things in those areas, but map design is something really affecting a lot.


I must admit the impact of this issue isn't that big if story and gameplay immerse you enough and make you forgiving. At least for me its the case. But it is an area Larian could improve opon in future to reach the next level. I just don't see it happen with BG3.

It is the feel - the ambience. It feels constrained even if it isn't as constrained as it feels. It feels like every inch was planned out and you are constrained to those inches. It does not feel real.

I don't need the paths between point A and point B to be super different - I just want them to feel open. There are more than just roads in your typical DnD campaign and certainly there is significant area just off the roads. It feels like they are overdoing the elevation mechanics and in order to do that they need to constrain you to very narrow routes. As stated by others - it feels like everything is just crammed together as well - uncertain how these people are able to even sustain life with no farmland or forests they can enter.




Absolutely. If you have a grassland, that would be an ideal way to traverse it.

I agree but It's because it is a game with a linear story so the map is laid out that it progresses you through leveling and to the stories end. It is not an open world game.

+1 OP Less constrained maps please

loved this kind of comments because they perfectly aim the problem with BG3 without trying to do so.

BG was an amazing and cool open-world with a lot of palces without any utility but which just have to be. You could reun across a forest map, there was not much but hey it's a forest, it's normal.

So, As I was saying, this kind of comments, even if it's not their purpose, exactly show why BG3 isn't in the good way to be a truthworthy successor of the BG licence.

Hm.

I have mixed feelings about this topic.

I agree it would be cool to have less restrictions on travel- there tends to be "pathways" rather than having access to every hilltop and forested area.

But, on the other hand, BGIII is wildly less constricted, less of a mousetrap maze than, say Solastas, which lots of people seem to tout as superior or more "D&D" like than BGIII. In Solastas it's strictly a one way ride, generally with only one way to approach each encounter in a certain order. One of the things I greatly dislike about it is the complete lack of choice and creative freedom- which makes it utterly unlike a session of D&D under a competent DM.

With BGIII you do have the options to approach destinations from multiple directions. You aren't suckered into having to go to places in any order- there is a certain freedom to proceed as you will- it's more a matter of not all spaces being "accessible".

Which, does feel pretty weird sometimes.

I suspect things will open up some and be a bit looser once we get into the rest of the game, since DOSII was larger and more open.

I understand from a designer aspect that such a densely packed game as this is a lot easier to control situations with this corridor like approach- and to Larian's credit, they go out of their way to allow approaching areas from multiple directions, revisiting locations, very creative tactical planning, and so on.

But yes, it could feel a lot more compelling with an "opener", bigger feeling world.

D&D like and BG like overlap but aren't identical. Solasta is a dungeon crawl, making it IWD like. Solasta's combat is closer to DnD and thus more fun but no one believes that the graphics and/or voice acting is better.

I like the BG3 maps. Everything is interesting to do and doesn't waste your time. I am tired of open world games with huge maps with nothing on them except for boring collections and rabid animals.

Couldn't agree more. I was going to post a similar thread asking whether there would ever be 'open' wilderness areas in BG3; an expanse of land you can freely explore without being shunted in to one of several paths. Everything feels like a series of pathways at present which is sadly another example of an immersion breaking mechanic in this game.

I am not asking for open world, simply maps which don't force the party into a constant series of corridors.

Yes, the maps break immersion. Someone came up with the phrase amusement park map and I think that captures it -- the game is constantly announcing that it is a game.