Originally Posted by robertthebard
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Originally Posted by JandK
I would also add that RagnarokCzD is absolutely right. The distance in the game is clearly not meant to be taken literally. It's a game, and games require a certain level of suspension of disbelief.

Putting forth arguments that take the distance literally seems like a try-hard way to find fault, in my opinion.

When a game litteraly show a bridge between two location, there is only a bridge between two locations in this world.
Not saying its better, but that's why some other games have a worldmap or even loading times between two areas.

Larian's map is unimmersive as hell even if you try hard to find "explanations". They created something in the middle of open world and small maps that has pros (no loading, faster gameplay...), but also cons (story incoherence, lack of immersion, limited exploration,...)
...and how far apart are those areas? I've played plenty of games with a bridge that didn't lead to an area transition, or to a new area. Is it different terrain that's throwing you off or something?

Now, when I was building in NWN and NWN 2, I did use bridges for area transitions sometimes. But sometimes, a bridge is just a way to get over something that may be impassable any other way, like a river, or a chasm. Neither requires that it's an extremely long distance, however.

Oh please tell me the names of "plenty other rpgs" that have very small areas with just a bridge or anything else between them.

You know, like if Pathfinders areas had bridges between them rather than a loading time + a worldmap.
That's how the map is designed in BG3 for the better and/or the worse.

Ofc the bridge itself is not the problem... I though it was obvious.

Last edited by Maximuuus; 09/06/22 08:18 AM.
French Speaking Youtube Channel with a lot of BG3 videos : https://www.youtube.com/c/maximuuus