|
|
|
veteran
|
OP
veteran
Joined: Feb 2021
|
Oh, I know. But he/she keeps using it as an excuse for lots of things - like the camp not being on the map, and the reason why goblins haven't found the grove, and why my characters only adventure for 5 minutes and need to take an entire 24 hours to rest when they have a tadpole eating their brain - and yet he/she and others still feel that this somehow makes sense.
Say what you want about Pathfinder Kingmaker's timed events. At least it makes sense and provides a legit immersive world. You really feel like you're adventuring and resting as little as possible. Same with Solasta. I don't feel like I'm being prompted to End Day in either of those games. I'm m encouraged to push on - and in neither game do I have a tadpole in my head.
|
|
|
|
|
|
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
|
Find me a game where you were able to survive if you approached a boss fight without being prepared for it.
I don't understand this logic. In the full game you will have a choice of difficulty levels.
In the lower levels you will not need to be fully prepared. If you don't want to die, you can always play "story mode".
|
|
|
|
|
|
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
|
There's absolutely 0% chance that Ragna is right about distances GM  Larian has chosen this way of designing the map to offer the best gaming experience according to them but no one has probably ever thought "distances are not litteral" The most credible explanation is undoubtedly that they didn't want to create a world as large as an open world but that they wanted to offer a different experience from other cRPGs at the same time. The map is really small and that's why it's not really called an "open world" game. The act 1 surface map is something like 500m² (let's say 1km² if you include the underdark) while the full map of TW3 are something like 130 km² (skyrim = 40km², RDR2 = 72km², GTA5 = 125km²). BG3's full map may probably reach 10km² at best. The map may look bigger and you play HOURS on a "small" map because the content is very condensed. The fact that the map design is not a "problem" for everyone does not mean that this statement is false and that we have to go into delusions to explain things. Of course, they could design a huge blank map only it would be boring. The map was simply compressed by cutting out unnecessary distances between them. So you have main areas like swamp, grove, village connected by smaller areas. Of course, they could cut the map to pieces only that would do more harm to the game than the current state. Individual areas would be quite small, not to mention the need for continuous loading. This would be a pretty big problem with multiplayer. Currently, players can easily do various things while on the other side of the map from each other.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
OP
veteran
Joined: Feb 2021
|
Find me a game where you were able to survive if you approached a boss fight without being prepared for it.
I don't understand this logic. In the full game you will have a choice of difficulty levels.
In the lower levels you will not need to be fully prepared. If you don't want to die, you can always play "story mode". Solasta. Haven't died once yet, and I'm finding it still very challenging, so it's not because they made the game too easy. AND, I might add, I'm playing it on Authentic 5e difficulty mode. Because they build encounters right, making it so players aren't facing deadly fights every single battle.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
OP
veteran
Joined: Feb 2021
|
There's absolutely 0% chance that Ragna is right about distances GM Larian has chosen this way of designing the map to offer the best gaming experience according to them but no one has probably ever thought "distances are not litteral" The most credible explanation is undoubtedly that they didn't want to create a world as large as an open world but that they wanted to offer a different experience from other cRPGs at the same time. The map is really small and that's why it's not really called an "open world" game. The act 1 surface map is something like 500m² (let's say 1km² if you include the underdark) while the full map of TW3 are something like 130 km² (skyrim = 40km², RDR2 = 72km², GTA5 = 125km²). BG3's full map may probably reach 10km² at best. The map may look bigger and you play HOURS on a "small" map because the content is very condensed. The fact that the map design is not a "problem" for everyone does not mean that this statement is false and that we have to go into delusions to explain things. Of course, they could design a huge blank map only it would be boring. The map was simply compressed by cutting out unnecessary distances between them. So you have main areas like swamp, grove, village connected by smaller areas. Of course, they could cut the map to pieces only that would do more harm to the game than the current state. Individual areas would be quite small, not to mention the need for continuous loading. This would be a pretty big problem with multiplayer. Currently, players can easily do various things while on the other side of the map from each other. OR... Yeah. They could have smaller areas with gateways to the next. Area 1: Beach/Nautiloid/ Dank Crypt. When you head north on any of the paths, or move beyond the area where you meet Lae'zel, gateway to the grove. Change the background so as you approach the gates you see a scrolling mountain/forest landscape. You click on the gate. Black screen with words, "2 hours later" appears. Area 2: Grove and everything up to the river. Area gates at the bridge and river crossing . Again, background as you approach the gates shows scrolling mountainous/ forest landscape. Area 3: Moonhaven and Forest. You start on a path in the woods. Trees all around. There's another bride in front of you spanning another tributary of the river. You enter the Moonhaven area. THIS adds immersion and clearly says to players, "You are going a considerable distance. But BG3 makes it clear that it is literal, because they make it a point that there are few ways out of that area. VERY few. But, back on topic, regardless, it wouldn't explain why characters are so tired after hiking only a few hours and not actually doing anything. Thus, promoting long rest.
Last edited by GM4Him; 10/06/22 02:45 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
OP
veteran
Joined: Feb 2021
|
Find me a game where you were able to survive if you approached a boss fight without being prepared for it.
I don't understand this logic. In the full game you will have a choice of difficulty levels.
In the lower levels you will not need to be fully prepared. If you don't want to die, you can always play "story mode". Solasta. Haven't died once yet, and I'm finding it still very challenging, so it's not because they made the game too easy. AND, I might add, I'm playing it on Authentic 5e difficulty mode. Because they build encounters right, making it so players aren't facing deadly fights every single battle. Wait. Correction: I died a few times. Lava Forest. Spiders. But it was because I had troubles targeting them with spells like Lightning Bolt. Oh, and the Defiler at the Dark Tower. I forgot. The Defiler got me. Hardest fight for me in the game.
Last edited by GM4Him; 10/06/22 05:47 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
|
There's absolutely 0% chance that Ragna is right about distances GM Larian has chosen this way of designing the map to offer the best gaming experience according to them but no one has probably ever thought "distances are not litteral" The most credible explanation is undoubtedly that they didn't want to create a world as large as an open world but that they wanted to offer a different experience from other cRPGs at the same time. The map is really small and that's why it's not really called an "open world" game. The act 1 surface map is something like 500m² (let's say 1km² if you include the underdark) while the full map of TW3 are something like 130 km² (skyrim = 40km², RDR2 = 72km², GTA5 = 125km²). BG3's full map may probably reach 10km² at best. The map may look bigger and you play HOURS on a "small" map because the content is very condensed. The fact that the map design is not a "problem" for everyone does not mean that this statement is false and that we have to go into delusions to explain things. Of course, they could design a huge blank map only it would be boring. The map was simply compressed by cutting out unnecessary distances between them. So you have main areas like swamp, grove, village connected by smaller areas. Of course, they could cut the map to pieces only that would do more harm to the game than the current state. Individual areas would be quite small, not to mention the need for continuous loading. This would be a pretty big problem with multiplayer. Currently, players can easily do various things while on the other side of the map from each other. I think something "better" in the middle would have been possible between fully coherent world (open world) and "feeling" of a coherent world (small areas connected by something, usually a worldmap). If the Forest was bigger, eventually with the grove hidden inside it on the opposite side of the map so everyone can understand that the goblins struggle to find it. If the Blighted village had a few fields for the mill and a few more buildings. The swamp is also really really small. Bigger doesn't necessarily mean 5 times bigger, empty and/or full of filler content imo. But whatever they made a choice and I understand why you like it. The map design is just too much on the opposite of what I really like in role playing games.
Last edited by Maximuuus; 10/06/22 07:04 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Volunteer Moderator
|
|
Volunteer Moderator
Joined: Aug 2021
|
This is why we have a problem with the whole "The Map is Abstract" mindset. It ISN'T.
And yet... it is. And that's the problem. This reminds me of how certain strategy or management games handle time. They often have two time-scales running in parallel: one for the calendar date which moves quickly, one for your units’ life cycle which moves slowly. In Tropico 4, which is a city builder, you can zoom out and watch the dance of freighters docking every three months, or zoom in and follow the slow paced life of any individual citizen. Both of these points of view function as long as you’re not connecting them, because if you do, that’s when you realize your citizens eat only twice a year. It feels like BG3 maps use the same basic concept of parallel scales for distances between “activity hubs” and “connective tissue”. The issue is that it’s hard to avoid noticing the places where those scales mesh. GM’s examples illustrate this well. Worth noting that the map feels better on first playthrough than subsequent ones. There’s a psychological trick at play here: any journey feels longer if you’re discovering the path. I wonder if Larian are counting on this effect to hide the sliding distance scale.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
OP
veteran
Joined: Feb 2021
|
Regardless, my characters should not push taking a test after only traveling from camp and maybe 5 minutes of adventure, and that was why the map was even brought up. Ragnarok was trying to argue that the map is abstract and that although you as a player may only traverse the map for about 5 minutes, your characters are spending hours upon hours traveling. So, it isn't 5 minutes of adventure and 24 hours of resting. It's meant to be hours of walking and exploring. Then you rest for about eight hours and continue. That is what Ragnarok is trying to suggest, and that is what I'm trying to say is all in his/her head. There is NO way the map is designed to indicate that you are traveling from hours between any 2 points on the map unless there is a clear transition - such as when you actually go into the Underdark. With the transition cutscenes either when you Featherfall or descend via ladder, it is implied that you are traveling for some time.
Though, I would like to point out that Featherfall's duration is only 1 minute and you fall at a rate of 10 feet per second. So, this implies that jumping from the Whispering Depths down into the Underdark and landing near the Selunite Outpost is only 600 feet at most. That is HARDLY hours of travel down into the Underdark.
So even THAT implies that you are literally moving foot for foot/ meter for meter.
I'm sorry, but there is nothing that indicates that the map is abstract at all except for the fact that it makes no sense - as mentioned earlier - that the grove is not discovered, that Aradin and company can jog 5 minutes to the goblin camp, but they were gone for over a month, that Moonhaven is too small, the bog and forest are too small, the harpies are too close to the grove, etc. etc. etc.
In short, the map makes no sense.
But again, this is not a post about the map and its inconsistencies. This is about resting, and once again I will say that regardless of whether the map is abstract or literal, it makes no sense to spend a few hours just walking and exploring and then having your characters say, "That's it. I need to rest." Again, the point is that the game promotes long rest a LOT, but short rest is limited to only 2 per day and is really nothing more than a quick kinda sorta heal/restore button that is only there for convenience and has no real other benefit in the game because long rest has no real limitations.
Last edited by GM4Him; 10/06/22 12:48 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
|
There's absolutely 0% chance that Ragna is right about distances GM Larian has chosen this way of designing the map to offer the best gaming experience according to them but no one has probably ever thought "distances are not litteral" The most credible explanation is undoubtedly that they didn't want to create a world as large as an open world but that they wanted to offer a different experience from other cRPGs at the same time. The map is really small and that's why it's not really called an "open world" game. The act 1 surface map is something like 500m² (let's say 1km² if you include the underdark) while the full map of TW3 are something like 130 km² (skyrim = 40km², RDR2 = 72km², GTA5 = 125km²). BG3's full map may probably reach 10km² at best. The map may look bigger and you play HOURS on a "small" map because the content is very condensed. The fact that the map design is not a "problem" for everyone does not mean that this statement is false and that we have to go into delusions to explain things. Ah, now I see what the problem is. This isn't an open world game, because you literally won't be able to walk from this map to Baldur's Gate. It will require area transitions, because this isn't the whole world, but one area within the world. Unlike TES or Fallout games, from 3, anyway, where you literally can traverse the whole map, with dungeons and homes requiring an area transition, here, just as in Baldur's Gate 1 and 2, Dragon Age, Mass Effect, etc., you have to travel to different zones via an area transition. Any argument based on "open world game" will fall flat, because it doesn't apply here. As to scale, when I look at a map of the US, I can actually see all 50 states. The "distance" between Chicago and Kansas City is most definitely not to scale, because it's literally easily measured in inches, while it's actually hundreds of miles. If maps were "to scale", they would be impossible to use, that's why they include an "X = y miles" scale. So the "delusion" here is that we need use an open world game as a comparison, when that's not the case. What leads me to believe that? Look at the games you listed as a comparison. A more accurate comparison would have been Dragon Age et al, Baldur's Gate et al, Icewind Dale et al, or NWN et al. You know, games that have lots of areas that require area transitions to get to, instead of open world games.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
|
There's absolutely 0% chance that Ragna is right about distances GM Larian has chosen this way of designing the map to offer the best gaming experience according to them but no one has probably ever thought "distances are not litteral" The most credible explanation is undoubtedly that they didn't want to create a world as large as an open world but that they wanted to offer a different experience from other cRPGs at the same time. The map is really small and that's why it's not really called an "open world" game. The act 1 surface map is something like 500m² (let's say 1km² if you include the underdark) while the full map of TW3 are something like 130 km² (skyrim = 40km², RDR2 = 72km², GTA5 = 125km²). BG3's full map may probably reach 10km² at best. The map may look bigger and you play HOURS on a "small" map because the content is very condensed. The fact that the map design is not a "problem" for everyone does not mean that this statement is false and that we have to go into delusions to explain things. Ah, now I see what the problem is. This isn't an open world game, because you literally won't be able to walk from this map to Baldur's Gate. It will require area transitions, because this isn't the whole world, but one area within the world. Unlike TES or Fallout games, from 3, anyway, where you literally can traverse the whole map, with dungeons and homes requiring an area transition, here, just as in Baldur's Gate 1 and 2, Dragon Age, Mass Effect, etc., you have to travel to different zones via an area transition. Any argument based on "open world game" will fall flat, because it doesn't apply here. As to scale, when I look at a map of the US, I can actually see all 50 states. The "distance" between Chicago and Kansas City is most definitely not to scale, because it's literally easily measured in inches, while it's actually hundreds of miles. If maps were "to scale", they would be impossible to use, that's why they include an "X = y miles" scale. So the "delusion" here is that we need use an open world game as a comparison, when that's not the case. What leads me to believe that? Look at the games you listed as a comparison. A more accurate comparison would have been Dragon Age et al, Baldur's Gate et al, Icewind Dale et al, or NWN et al. You know, games that have lots of areas that require area transitions to get to, instead of open world games. We could nitpick about what is really an open world game and what is not, but BG3 is definitely not AT ALL like BG1 and 2, Dragon age Origin or Mass Effect either. BG3 will have something like 8 "medium" regions while BG1 has something like 30 "small" area. The worldmap is useless in BG3 while it's a part of the world design in the other games. When you're in a village, you're in a village. When you're in a forest, you"re in a forest. Between the forest and the village there's something that the game doesn't show you (worldmap). That's not how it works in BG3 and the forest between the villages doesnt even look like what most of us usually call "forest". Of course BG3 is not a real open world game but you're absolutely wrong if you consider that the design is the same as the games you named. It's a middle ground that lead to this unique (and strange theme park) style.
Last edited by Maximuuus; 10/06/22 04:17 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Sep 2020
|
As to scale, when I look at a map of the US, I can actually see all 50 states. The "distance" between Chicago and Kansas City is most definitely not to scale, because it's literally easily measured in inches, while it's actually hundreds of miles. If maps were "to scale", they would be impossible to use, that's why they include an "X = y miles" scale. So the "delusion" here is that we need use an open world game as a comparison, when that's not the case. What leads me to believe that? Look at the games you listed as a comparison. A more accurate comparison would have been Dragon Age et al, Baldur's Gate et al, Icewind Dale et al, or NWN et al. You know, games that have lots of areas that require area transitions to get to, instead of open world games. Real maps are fine because everything is equally proportionally to scale. Every single distance measured on the map (in inches) can be multiplied by the same conversion factor to get the real-world distance. The issue with the BG3 map is that either things are differently scaled, OR everything is too close together. The grove, the nautiloid, the Blighted Village, most houses, all-distances-while-in-combat-mode: all of these are clearly at the same scale. Characters moving X inches on your screen always are traveling Y "game-world" feet. However, is this true for the more transitory areas? When characters walk from the Grove to the Blighted Village, how far are they moving? Actually a few hundred feet, or dozens of miles? The former means the goblins are incredibly dumb for not finding the Grove. And the former means that the map is inconsistent, which is additionally problematic because the map is inconsistent to an *unknown* degree, meaning the player has to assert their own headcannon for which areas aren't to scale, and to what degree. Your last few sentences are exactly what some of us want. Consistently scaled areas, with transitions between different areas to reflect larger distances travelled.
|
|
|
|
|
|
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Mar 2013
|
i think the issue most likely it was designed so that players don't waste much time on moving from point A to point B as the whole party is on foot. if they are designing the game having more spaces and traveling perhaps every characters may need a mount. not sure if dnd5e has mounts but that will be interesting though and also may required lots of efforts in getting it right too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
OP
veteran
Joined: Feb 2021
|
i think the issue most likely it was designed so that players don't waste much time on moving from point A to point B as the whole party is on foot. if they are designing the game having more spaces and traveling perhaps every characters may need a mount. not sure if dnd5e has mounts but that will be interesting though and also may required lots of efforts in getting it right too. Nah. Simpler approach. There is virtually one way out of the Beach/Dank Crypt area. Provide a transition Area Exit portal. You pass through it. Loading screen. Grove area loads. Game has text appear as new area is loaded. "2 hours have passed.". You are now brought into the grove entrance area. This does multiple things. 1. Gives players a real idea of how much time/distance has been traveled. It is much further between major story zones than a few seconds journey. 2. Map locations don't need to be so big, thus making each area quicker to load. You can then add additional effects like weather without creating severe lag for lower end computers because you don't have such a big environment that the effects are effecting. 3. If you want to continue to have nebulous camps that don't actually have locations on any map, this is now explained by "your camp is somewhere between the two map locations. 4. As Ragnarok keeps saying, this then does actually add content to a single adventuring day as opposed to "I went 30 seconds through a village and my party is now tired? Seriously?". If I know my characters woke up and traveled a few hours between the grove and Moonhaven, that means they've certainly done more that day than traveled a few hundred feet. 5. They can then expand each environment to make it appear bigger. The forest around Moonhaven can appear to have more forest all around. You just can't explore all of it. You have select area exits that seem to lead deeper into the forest. Things like that so each region actually seems like a real region. Overall, it makes the game more immersive to have smaller maps within larger environments.
|
|
|
|
|
|
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
|
There's absolutely 0% chance that Ragna is right about distances GM Larian has chosen this way of designing the map to offer the best gaming experience according to them but no one has probably ever thought "distances are not litteral" The most credible explanation is undoubtedly that they didn't want to create a world as large as an open world but that they wanted to offer a different experience from other cRPGs at the same time. The map is really small and that's why it's not really called an "open world" game. The act 1 surface map is something like 500m² (let's say 1km² if you include the underdark) while the full map of TW3 are something like 130 km² (skyrim = 40km², RDR2 = 72km², GTA5 = 125km²). BG3's full map may probably reach 10km² at best. The map may look bigger and you play HOURS on a "small" map because the content is very condensed. The fact that the map design is not a "problem" for everyone does not mean that this statement is false and that we have to go into delusions to explain things. Ah, now I see what the problem is. This isn't an open world game, because you literally won't be able to walk from this map to Baldur's Gate. It will require area transitions, because this isn't the whole world, but one area within the world. Unlike TES or Fallout games, from 3, anyway, where you literally can traverse the whole map, with dungeons and homes requiring an area transition, here, just as in Baldur's Gate 1 and 2, Dragon Age, Mass Effect, etc., you have to travel to different zones via an area transition. Any argument based on "open world game" will fall flat, because it doesn't apply here. As to scale, when I look at a map of the US, I can actually see all 50 states. The "distance" between Chicago and Kansas City is most definitely not to scale, because it's literally easily measured in inches, while it's actually hundreds of miles. If maps were "to scale", they would be impossible to use, that's why they include an "X = y miles" scale. So the "delusion" here is that we need use an open world game as a comparison, when that's not the case. What leads me to believe that? Look at the games you listed as a comparison. A more accurate comparison would have been Dragon Age et al, Baldur's Gate et al, Icewind Dale et al, or NWN et al. You know, games that have lots of areas that require area transitions to get to, instead of open world games. We could nitpick about what is really an open world game and what is not, but BG3 is definitely not AT ALL like BG1 and 2, Dragon age Origin or Mass Effect either. BG3 will have something like 8 "medium" regions while BG1 has something like 30 "small" area. The worldmap is useless in BG3 while it's a part of the world design in the other games. When you're in a village, you're in a village. When you're in a forest, you"re in a forest. Between the forest and the village there's something that the game doesn't show you (worldmap). That's not how it works in BG3 and the forest between the villages doesnt even look like what most of us usually call "forest". Of course BG3 is not a real open world game but you're absolutely wrong if you consider that the design is the same as the games you named. It's a middle ground that lead to this unique (and strange theme park) style. There is no nitpicking required. Open world games have a definitive definition, and despite your claims, this game does not fall into that category. You cannot, and will not be able to, traverse the entire map w/out loading screens. In this regard, it is exactly like all of the games I listed as valid comparisons. Your opinion is fine, but your method is flawed. It's "useless" here because it literally has no use, other than demonstrating that there's more to the world than this one map. So, what do "most of us" call a forest? Is it "densely packed trees with game trails that you can barely traverse", or "a lot of trees in one location, with maybe a river/stream running through it with open meadows and game trails"? Now I don't know what most of you call a forest, but I've been in both of these examples. I've been in a forest where I couldn't see the canopy, because the trees were so tall; Sequoias. So you have a presumably narrow definition of what you'd accept as "a forest", and anything that doesn't fit that preconception is wrong? Based on how you want to "nitpick" what an open world game is, it's likely that your preconceived notion is wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
|
It ISN'T. And yet... it is. And that's the problem. Now you get it.  The Dank Crypt's entrance is on the beach. You crash on the beach. The nautiloid is north of your position. It's tentacles are still around you and over the beach where you crashed. So, you KNOW the nautiloid crashed on the edge of the beach. But how big is that beach? That is the real question here ... was Nautiloid few steppes back, or few miles back? Yes i know you can still "see the tentacles" but "seeing the tentacles" is exactly the same problem as with "measuring the distance by using distance you can run during single turn" you did last time ... Bcs you keep measuring game enviroment. :-/ In order to understand that abstraction, you simply have to accept the possibility that someone draw a line there and distance that is in the line is unknown. Like this: This is what you see: ![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/aImfJ2C.png) And this is what it could easily mean ... if im right and distances in game are to some sort of degree abstract: ![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/BvAOwaE.jpg) AND (and that is the most important point) anything in between those two options aswell. You travel around the bend to the pier with the dead fishermen. You are traveling within wreckage of the Nautiloid ... you are distracting yourself with this. Its inside of single building ... I mean yeah that ship was big, but hardly few miles. Intellect devourers are all around, having come from the nautiloid that has crashed right there next to the dank crypt. If it was all abstract, it would take hours Well even if it would take them hours ... At the same time as there are Intellect devoureres "coming from the Nautiloid" ... Karlach "also coming from the Nautiloid" is allready on her way to the Tollhouse at least ... Wyll is allready somewhere around Grove at least ... Gale started to explore teleportation runes, taking under concideration that you need to find one first in order to teleport there, we can be quite sure that he was on the cliff before ... and Shadowheart managed to reach doors of that crypt aswell. So ... who can really say it would be impossible? The only way the entire collection of scenarios makes sense is if it is all one map with everything literally near one another. It would certainly make some sort of sense, yes ... But it would also create lots of other problems, you have to admit it since you were complaining about them aswell. You know ... Goblins being unable to find something that would take them less time to walk than usual person need to travel to visit local store? Or that question with how long is Halsin missing, or what did he did so long out? Stuff like that. Shadowheart, if you don't have her with you by then, is pounding at the door and mentions finding another way in at the top of the cliffs. I have created new game specialy to check this ... ( Two actualy since first time i have created Githyanki ... bad choice ) And the exact quote is: "I'm going to see what's at the top of this cliff." ![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/QAIh2Yg.png) So i dont think she knew about any other way up ... Question is: Wouldnt she know ... IF the map would be litteral? It only makes sense that the crashed nautiloid is blocking your path around, and the only way to get out of the area is through it two times - unless you cut straight through it and skip Astarion's area. Yup.  (Yeah i cut the rest, bcs i didnt manage to find any sense in it. :-/ ) But let's then say that the entire first area, including the Beach, Nautiloid, Astarion's Locale, the Path Where You Meet Gale, and the Dank Crypt are all one location that is literal. Then, after that, it becomes abstract between that basic area and the Wilderness/Grove where you meet Lae'zel and then get to Silvanus' Grove.
If that's the case, first of all, why NOT then make it a single map and have a transition point to the next area? Bcs loadings are concidered boring. Come on, tell me ... and answer honestly ... how many times have you seen WHOLE cinematics that are in Tutorial? How many times have you seen dragon landing on the tip of Nautiloid, or set it on fire and blown it ... How many times have you seen Illithid from help eating cambion, just to be killed by Imps moment later? And the most important ... do you understand that no matter what number you say, unless you say "every single time i played" wich i doubt you would ... that is exactly the case. (And just for the record ... even if you would actualy never ever skipped single conversation, single cinematic, etc. ... other people still do, bcs we want to PLAY we dont want to see any tables with "boring stuff". ) But let's just say it's because you're avoiding transition times to speed up gameplay. Fine. Weird, but fine. See? You get it. Second, doing this actually strips players of freedom of choice. I would say it lesens the risk that player will screw the story for themselves ... Thats why some events are unavoidable, again common practique in PC games. look upon the Dank Crypt, the cliff where Nadira is with her telescope, and Orn the bear down by the shore... Again, measuring in-game distances ... same misstake over and over. Is there no path from there to other areas at all? Is the only path, even when you pass for miles of distance, out through the eastern gate of the grove and down that single path? What would be the point of other paths? O_o And i mean from roleplay perspective ... You have the Grove ... and you have the Crypt ... There is path between them ... and potentialy miles, miles, miles, miles and miles of forest ... where exactly would those "other paths" lead to? O_o And boy that's an awfully far distance for the tiefling boy to wander from the safety of the grove even though there are lots of goblins lurking about looking to kill them - and gnolls who months before slaughtered a lot of them. Kinda weird that he'd wander to the beach so far away with so many dangers lurking around. He might go a short distance if he was poking his nose outside the grove a bit and heard some enchanting music, but miles? Not likely. And that is EXACTLY the part where that abstraction come to play. You seem to keep presuming that 1 step in game = 10 steppes in the world ... But that is not the case. Sometimes you walk 50 feets in game ... and it is 50 feets in the world ... Sometimes you walk 50 feets in game ... and it is 500 feets in the world ... Sometimes you walk 50 feets in game ... and it is 50.000 feets in the world ... That is basicaly the definition of "inconsistency". :-/ There are just parts of map missing, no they are not missing everywhere, and no they are not the same size ... but they HAVE TO BE missing, so the game goes smoothly, so the story makes sense, so Larian dont need to spend 10 years just creating the enviroment. Thirdly, the harpies are singing a tune that mirrors Alfira's. Now that's strange. Why would they sing a tune that is close to hers if they didn't hear her singing the tune? How could they hear her sing the tune if they were miles away?
Nope. All the evidence points to it all being a literal distance. You noticed they have wings, and can move ... right? I also dare to presume that you are familiar with therm "easter egg" ? Nah, just kidding. For the real tho: Thats the neat part, it can be litteral distance. Thats the problem here ... we dont know where Larian draw their lines, we dont know wich part of how big part of the world they deleted in order to create this map. In the bog, there is a camp. A child and parent were killed there by what appears to be ettercaps. I checked this aswell ... And in my game Tav said it seems like the work of Red caps. O_o ![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/rIeETd3.png) So ... im skipping the rest of the point, since i presume this was just misstake. what about the fact that I have engaged the Gith Patrol in combat and run to Waukeen's Rest and actually received the aid of the Flaming Fist to help me fight them and kill them? Are you implying that while in combat my character ran miles upon miles along a single road with Gith hot on my trail? Nah ... i would imply you are just purposefully trying to break the game, and you succeeded ... just as people do when they are using exploits ... clap, clap, congratulations, confetti, champagne and the usual stuff ... You find out that system isnt perfect, hope you are happy now. Now, what were we talking about? IF I traveled for 8 hours ... why on God's Green Earth would my companions then say they're tired and we should call it a day? Have you ever tryed to travel 8 hours straight? There is your answer. We haven't done a God-blessed thing? There is one thing ... you may find it interesting, maybe you heard about it ... its called "Immersion" and its not used only when you coveniently need some argument to support something you want. The game encourages Long Rests - OFTEN! Yup ... no surprise there. This is especially true if upcoming battles are tough - like the spider lair - and you know you need a full rest to take the monster on. Uh hello? Immersion ... again ... remember? Thats how the game is telling you: You dont "know". ( Also you dont really even "need" full rest for this one, but that is another topic.) The encounters are designed so that you are meant to Long Rest before them. But that's not how RPGs work. You aren't supposed to know what's coming, and if you don't know what's coming, you need to still be able to beat it without having to reload. The whole point of a ROLEPLAYING game is that you are taking on the role of the character. You are meant to be able to survive EVERY encounter even if you have absolutely no idea what's coming. Funny ... you seem to understand. And yet ... you are able to write the first quoted sentence ... im confused. O_o
Last edited by RagnarokCzD; 10/06/22 05:57 PM.
I still dont understand why cant we change Race for our hirelings.  Lets us play Githyanki as racist as they trully are!
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
|
Loading screen or not is definitely nitpicking, so is "despite your claims, this game does not fall into that category" when I clearly wrote "of course BG3 is not a real open world game".
The point remains the same. BG3's maps are not designed at all like the maps in the other games you named even if there are loading screens in all of them. If loading screens is your only argument, I'm definitely out.
I've personnaly never called "forest" a pack of 25 trees I can cross in 3 minutes. Maybe you already have.
(The river doesn't run trough "the forest", it's goes along it. But that's a detail).
Last edited by Maximuuus; 10/06/22 06:09 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
|
OR... Yeah. They could have smaller areas with gateways to the next. Lets play pros and cons! Pros: THIS adds immersion and clearly says to players, "You are going a considerable distance." Cons: it would be boring.
Of course, they could cut the map to pieces only that would do more harm to the game than the current state.
Individual areas would be quite small
not to mention the need for continuous loading.
This would be a pretty big problem with multiplayer. Now wich desing win this contest hm? You will find out AFTER the commercials! Nah, just kidding ... the one Larian used, obviously ... only mad man would sacrifice everything else just to get some level of immersion. --- It feels like BG3 maps use the same basic concept of parallel scales for distances between “activity hubs” and “connective tissue”. Wanna hear something crazy? Larian also uses two time-scales running in parallel ... Sadly that causes some bugs to occur quite often. :-/ Like if your turn takes too long, time-limited (aka turn-limited in turn based mode) effects (like AoE damage, buffs like bless or rage, ...) dissapear prematurely. --- The issue with the BG3 map is that either things are differently scaled
And the former means that the map is inconsistent, which is additionally problematic because the map is inconsistent to an *unknown* degree, meaning the player has to assert their own headcannon for which areas aren't to scale, and to what degree. I couldnt say it better, thank you!
Last edited by RagnarokCzD; 10/06/22 06:13 PM.
I still dont understand why cant we change Race for our hirelings. Lets us play Githyanki as racist as they trully are!
|
|
|
|
|
|
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
|
Actually, if you think about it, any limitation of rest is completely pointless at the moment.
First, Larian would have to fix the events in the camp at least so that they could queue up rather than overwrite each other.
Despite having almost 200 hours on the meter, until today I have not seen Astarion's scene with the stars (if it weren't for YouTube, I wouldn't know it exists).
This is the real problem. Until this is resolved, any rest restrictions do not make any sense
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2021
|
None of this distance stuff bothers me when I'm playing. I don't want more loading screens. I don't want to spend an hour running my character from one place to another.
I get that I'm travelling when I go from the grove to the Blighted Village. It doesn't matter to me how far. I don't need to know exactly. It's enough to understand that the village is some distance away and travel is required. It's all suspension of disbelief.
Getting super literal and measuring the distance out at a couple of city blocks seems like an active effort to break immersion.
This is a game. It's going to have boundaries. There are limitations to what can be done, and you have to meet the devs at least halfway.
You could sit around all day wondering how the duergar and deep gnomes got to this section of the Underdark. Did they have to go to the surface and then go back down underground? What about the dead drow by the illusory mushrooms who was scouting out a new path to the surface? Where did he come from? There's no path that we can find to his city. And what about the prisoner who gets tortured? He runs off and disappears? Where did he go? Did he teleport? Or should we just accept that the environment is more complex than what we're seeing... because there are obvious limitations and the game environment is all we have available. We have to accept that there are additional paths.
Just like we have to accept that the goblins have additional areas to explore while they're looking for the grove. Of course, for us, there's only one path. It's simple to get from the grove to the goblin camp. We can't get lost in the forest. All we can do is walk along the road.
This is why it's hard for me to understand the complaint. I feel like, as someone else mentioned, it's complaining for the sake of complaining. Like it's just actively pointing out flaws that are clearly meant to be overlooked because it's a game and not real life.
Hyperfocusing on this stuff isn't particularly insightful. We all get it. You have to suspend disbelief with some stuff. It's not complicated.
Frankly, I would much rather things stayed the same with the map than to sit through loading screens and get obsessive about how far the pine tree is from the river's edge.
|
|
|
|
|
