Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3
Joined: Apr 2021
V
VenusP Offline OP
member
OP Offline
member
V
Joined: Apr 2021
I very much don’t like it this way. There’s no feeling of journey. Paladin asks you to find and kill demon. Demon literally stands 100 meters away so it probably can be seen from the window of the building said paladin resides. Everything is very densely packed with the transition zones so awkwardly implemented that I can’t help but wonder how all these different events and creatures exist without having a casual chat while waiting for player in boredom.

I think that barraging the player with constant encounters, scripted events and points of interest located 100 meters apart really inflates sense of freedom and discovery which I still can’t stop admiring in BG1.


Romances in RPGs brought us to this
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
That's something that has been discussed a lot at release.

That's right, everything is so close and there are a lot of inconsistencies.

Travelling on a worldmap whatever it's in ""real time"" (i.e like in Pathfinder) or through a fast travel (like in BG1/2), it really looks like a journey accross the (part of the) world.
It also add a lot of opportunity for quests, environments and so on.

Look at this ridiculous "forest" with 10 trees we have in the game or this drow leader that cannot find its ennemies... "Just follow the road and walk for 5 minutes !"
Great exemple with the paladins... That's so true...

According to me they should have divided the map in 3 or 4 smaller maps but it's an unpopular opinion and unfortunately, this won't change.
Players enjoy more fastfood gameplay without loading screen rather than consistency and immersion.

Last edited by Maximuuus; 15/05/21 09:28 PM.
Joined: May 2021
D
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
D
Joined: May 2021
I agree. The world feels too small. It's like Mt. Doom is only a 10-minute walk away from the Council of Elrond. A world map with discrete environments would have been preferable.

Last edited by Droata; 15/05/21 11:17 PM.
Joined: Jun 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jun 2020
I don't think it's an unpopular opinion, Maximuuus (did you always spell that with three 'u's?) I've rarely, if ever seen anyone in favour of the themepark world design we have right now - just people who don't necessarily want a specific other solution. I feel like the world design right now is a terrible style for a story-based RPG, really the worst.

Joined: Nov 2020
E
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
E
Joined: Nov 2020
Totally agree, it's such extraordinarily poor game design. Immersion totally thrown out the window.

Don't even get me started on the magical way portals.

Joined: Jun 2019
member
Offline
member
Joined: Jun 2019
Originally Posted by Etruscan
Totally agree, it's such extraordinarily poor game design. Immersion totally thrown out the window.

Don't even get me started on the magical way portals.

At least they're better than statues somehow transporting you all the way across an island.

Joined: Apr 2021
V
VenusP Offline OP
member
OP Offline
member
V
Joined: Apr 2021
The thing they appear not to fully comprehend is that avoiding loading screens in favor of seamless world doesn’t automatically make the game world open. Moreover I think that the “open world” fetish itself is highly overrated and being used as a cargo cult by developers nowadays. Open world mechanic is only needed when it serves the overall illusion. In the current case it undermines the illusion.


Romances in RPGs brought us to this
Joined: Aug 2014
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Aug 2014
First I have to say the environment design is simply gorgeous.

But the "theme park" design where every location is next to eachother without any sense of traveling is really awful. I don't get any of the sense of exploration or traveling that makes the world feel exciting and real in BG 1&2.

The lack of weather and night and day further make things worse.

It will get worse again when we start using the world map. If you look at the locations, they do have distance between them on the world map. Druid Grove is actually far away from Goblin Camp or Waukeen's Rest even though in game it takes only a minute's jog by foot. Also the geography doesn't match. There is a complete disconnect how the distances and locations are presented in game.

Why do we have these locations on a World Map that looks like a fast travel system, when we already have a teleportation circle system (which I also don't like one bit) in game for fast travel to the same locations?

I really wish they would break down the locations in separate areas, remove the teleportation runes, and use the world map for travel between areas.

Area 1: [Crash site, Druid Grove, ruined temple]
Area 2: [Blighted Village, Goblin Camp]
Area 3: [Waukeen's Rest, Tollhouse, Githyanki]
Area 4: [Putrid Bog]

[Linked Image from baldursgate3.wiki.fextralife.com]

Last edited by 1varangian; 16/05/21 09:44 AM.
Joined: Oct 2020
D
member
Offline
member
D
Joined: Oct 2020
I agree.
Absence of loading screens is overrated. Besides, if the game engine can hold large portions of current map, nothing prevents it from loading several smaller maps. Making loading screens even less prominant.

Joined: Apr 2021
V
VenusP Offline OP
member
OP Offline
member
V
Joined: Apr 2021
Wow, that map is beauty, haven’t seen it yet.

Imo locations better be separated and their respective sizes be extended with more space to breath. This way you won’t need fast travel portals and transition between two differently themed locations would not be as prominent and weird as it is now with color filter and sounds being changed in real time.


Romances in RPGs brought us to this
Joined: May 2021
R
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
R
Joined: May 2021
I highlighted this in one of my 5 feedback sessions recently. I completely agree that there needs to be more realistic spacing in geography. Granted that this is EA and Larian may be looking at more of issues with interactions than it is environment right now.

Joined: Jun 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jun 2020
The map kinda annoys me, because it's like Larian think that this one river and the city at the end is Faerûn... I know they know better, but even so, it would be slightly off-putting for them to title it even as the sword coast, let alone Faerûn; the map title, at most, should be "The North", or if they wanted to be a bit culturally condescending (and we know how they do so love that), perhaps "The Savage North" or "The Savage Frontier".

(Edit; well, we're not quite north enough to count as the savage frontier, I suppose... it's the northern sword coast...)

(Edit 2: My brain isn't working. I was swapping BG and Waterdeep in my head... Bg is way south, so it's Southern Sword Coast)

Last edited by Niara; 17/05/21 01:30 AM.
Joined: Apr 2021
V
VenusP Offline OP
member
OP Offline
member
V
Joined: Apr 2021
Originally Posted by Niara
The map kinda annoys me, because it's like Larian think that this one river and the city at the end is Faerûn... I know they know better, but even so, it would be slightly off-putting for them to title it even as the sword coast, let alone Faerûn; the map title, at most, should be "The North", or if they wanted to be a bit culturally condescending (and we know how they do so love that), perhaps "The Savage North" or "The Savage Frontier".

(Edit; well, we're not quite north enough to count as the savage frontier, I suppose... it's the northern sword coast...)
Yep, this title is odd. Unless this is but a fracture of what they are going to include in the release version, which I highly doubt.


Romances in RPGs brought us to this
Joined: Apr 2021
V
VenusP Offline OP
member
OP Offline
member
V
Joined: Apr 2021
I guess the problem that arises when you separate locations is how to draw borders of a location, and my bet is that Larian want to avoid any dark zones or any kinds of visually artificial borders. While I can clearly see where they come from in this, I also think there are many creative ways of how to make said borders looking nice and natural: mountain ridge, river, etc.

Either way they will have to restrict camera with this approach, but I don’t think it’s something necessary evil.


Romances in RPGs brought us to this
Joined: Jan 2021
L
member
Offline
member
L
Joined: Jan 2021
Wait, is that the river Chionthar? The big mountain range is a bit out of place...

Anyway, the hyper-condensation of the map already causes some awkwardness in the main plot with how the goblins need help to find a druid grove essentially on their doorstep. They even have an outpost almost with a direct line-of sight with the front door, and there's a True Soul and his two lackeys nearby who 100% could not have missed the battle at the gate near the beginning of Chapter 1. That whole thing would make a lot more sense if the goblin camp and blighted village were on (a) different map(s) from the Druid grove. As is the Grove is like a 30 second jog across the bridge from the village, so the whole thing seems very strange, and I can imagine similar oddities cropping up later on if that sort of design philosophy holds true.

On that world map it looks like they are pretty far away from one another, it would be cool to see that more reflected in the maps we explore.

Joined: Apr 2013
R
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
R
Joined: Apr 2013
I assume this is a case of people generally dislike the solution that is offered as opposed to like another solution. I don't like that the world feels like it's tiny planet from Rick and Morty but at the same time BG3 is already exruciatingly slow. I wouldn't want a bunch of filler wilderness and pauses inserted to break it up.

It's a balancing act that involves several parameters. It's not easy to get right and its not easy to change course.

Joined: Apr 2021
V
VenusP Offline OP
member
OP Offline
member
V
Joined: Apr 2021
I never understood the complain about BG3 being slow. I don’t even understand what does it mean for a game to be slow. I remember some IBM era games with delays in feedback — that’s slow. BG1 is huge and full of empty wilderness. But it doesn’t make you go there. You can quickly main quest it without visiting like 80 percent of its locations. And boy will you miss a lot of fun doing that.

Imo this is not about balancing. It’s about ideology. How do you want players to interact with your world. Do you want to spoon feed them with entertainment, or you want them to act on their own, not being afraid that oh god they will miss that huge cinematic scene. The former ideology is what makes contemporary games dull cash grabs, while the latter what made BG1 a cult classic.


Romances in RPGs brought us to this
Joined: Nov 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Nov 2020
I seriously hope this is a fraction of what they intend the game to take place in cause yeah, right now things are a bit too close and tidy. If say Karlach was farther away from the tollhouse, the quest would feel a little less convenient in a good way.

Joined: May 2021
D
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
D
Joined: May 2021
It doesn't have to be that tricky. When a player gets near the edge of a map, ask if they want to make camp and continue travelling. Have a nice cutscene where the group decides which destination to go to next, and then show their journey across the world map while loading assets for the next environment.

Joined: Aug 2014
member
Offline
member
Joined: Aug 2014
I agree with the criticism. Having all events and important locations folded inward so much deprives the player of two very important sources of joy: immersion and a sense of accomplishment. Immersion is lost when you realise that ridges and other unpassable areas only exist as fences between the different theme park attractions, and that NPCs are obliged to stay at those locations instead of bothering to take a few steps. It doesn't make a believable world. Should there be more areas where less important things are happening, the world will be more compelling. Especially so because the basic scenery is very well designed. Just looking around and carefully picking your way (because beforehand you don´t know where danger or opportunity lurks) can be a rewarding experience by itself. And when you do discover something interesting, your sense of accomplishment as an explorer will be all the greater.

However, I have the feeling that the theme park approach is a basic characteristic of Larian´s game design (and they are quite good at it too, I have to admit). It was also there in the Divinity games. So a radical change is probably a lot to ask. And changing the map of the first chapter likely is too. I hope they are still able to space out things in the other maps though.

It does seem to me that the constant availability of the overview map, and its level of detail, contribute much to realizing we are walking around in a theme park. Perhaps if the ability to zoom out and move the camera was limited we would be better kept in the dark as to the real nature of the game world (we should choose the blue pill). The same goes for the map. It is a really useful tool, to check where you´re going and which areas have already been explored. But at the same time it gives away information that from a gameplay perspective should perhaps be better kept from the player. So what about exchanging the high resolution satellite imaged map for something that is more like the inaccurate and sketchy paper or parchment map that the game´s adventurers are more likely to possess? Sometimes removing features can be the best way to improve a design. In this case, I think it will aid immersion and sense of accomplishment, and award the adventurous and explorative spirit.

Last edited by Ikke; 29/05/21 11:12 AM.
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5