Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback BG3 vs BG1/2 and NWN (2002 remake and... 1991 Gold Box?)

Hi all, long-time Baldur's Gate fan here-- I played Baldur's Gate 1 when it first came out, and just finished my first playthrough of BG3's early access ​(after I happened to get a new PC a couple days before Patch 5 came out.)

I realize I'm probably a little too late to the party for my feedback to have any impact on Act 2 & 3, but I have some thoughts on "expansiveness" and how BG2 and the 2002 NWN remake fell short in that regard. Overall, I found Act 1 to be a success, but I think it leaves BG3 at a crossroads: where it could either fall victim to the "on rails" nature of so many video games today (especially MMOs) or really open up in Act 2 to being a game worthy of the legacy of BG1 and (yes) the 1991 Neverwinter Nights that helped usher in the internet era on AOL (a bit of a ridiculous claim there, I know).

I. Neverwinter Nights (1991 vs. 2002)

I'll admit that I have been a skeptic of most new video games for a long time now, so I'll start with the good. Most of the grievances other people have posted on this board aside, something that I found myself *deeply* (and pleasantly) surprised about was when I finally went back to clear Moonhaven (the Blighted Village) after negotiating with the goblins on my first pass through. Passing through the north gate, hearing the whooping and snoring of all the monsters nearby in the ruined village, I started getting flashes of how much it reminded me of the *original* Neverwinter Nights, which was an absolutely LEGENDARY experience for anyone who played it on AOL back in the early 1990's. (I missed it by a few months after my friend told me about it, and only got to experience it for the first time a few years ago as an emulator).

Essentially, the city of Neverwinter was a central hub for players to operate out of, with North, East and South gates that led to ruined sections of the city overrun by monsters. (A theme vamped on by DragonRealms, another AOL MUD which originally revolved around the Northwest and Northeast gates leading out of the Crossing toward monster territory, but I digress.) As you passed through these gates to explore the ruins of Neverwinter, you would get atmospherics in the form of text messages. ("Hmm. Strange slurping noises." "Just ahead. A tapping sound.") Further still, explore these ruined sections of Neverwinter and you will find secret passages into dungeons beneath the ruins and towns, which makes for yet another parallel to Moonhaven. I still can't figure out if the similarities between Moonhaven and NWN are intentional or (most likely) coincidental based on having the same source material, but more than anything else *this* is what made me feel like I was playing a true Baldur's Gate/Neverwinter Nights game again, and I think it's easy to overlook just how important smaller things like this are to the *experience* of the game. (Full disclosure: I got my master's degree in UX Design. Moving on...)

So this brings me to my first point related to my thesis on "expansiveness:" something that the original Neverwinter Nights got really, *really* right was that as you passed through the monster-ridden sections of Neverwinter, it eventually led you out toward the wilderness and the surrounding towns that make up the geography of Faerun. Go farther still through Neverwinter Wood, ("A sign by the road says: Traveling through Neverwinter Wood is dangerous, and only the mad even try.") and eventually you'll pop out in the towns that were only accessible through the gates that you didn't originally leave Neverwinter by, making the map into a gigantic circuit where you could get to just about anywhere from anywhere. This had an *enormous* effect on the "expansiveness" of the game, and is actually something that I think BG3 has gotten right so far (at least within Act 1).

The 2002 Neverwinter Nights, by comparison, restricts the areas that your character can access by act, making it feel more like a slog to get anywhere new. Want to leave the city of Neverwinter? Sorry, there's a derpy "plague" storyline, and you have to hack 'n' slash your way through a bunch of escaped prisoners who all make the same "blleeeaaaargghh" sound before you can go anywhere else. Eventually, as you get to Act 2, things kind of start to open up on the map, but by that point you can never go back to Neverwinter (the freakin' namesake of the game!) until the last 2 minutes of the game and the entire experience feels entirely on rails.

It's my hope that, despite BG3 being split up into Acts 1-3, we don't fall into that same trap here. I thought Act 1 did a good job of seamlessly transitioning through "areas" of the map with multiple pathways into and out of each one, and with the (as yet unopened) roads to the cursed lands it seems like we won't be railroaded into just going through one pathway once the full game is released. But this brings me to the second point of my thesis on "expansiveness" as it relates to BG1 vs. BG2.

II. Baldur's Gate vs. Baldur's Gate 2

Now I'm going to get controversial here: I have a deeply held conviction that Baldur's Gate 2 is an immensely flawed game in comparison to Baldur's Gate 1. Sure, they fixed some pathing issues in Baldur's Gate 2 that marred Baldur's Gate 1, I get that. Yes, there were "no dragons" in Baldur's Gate 1. But what happens when you escape Irenicus' prison and get your first, grand overarching quest for the Thieves' Guild? "Hi, go bring me 10,000 gold, byeeeeeee!!" And then what happens when you try to leave Athkatla for the first time? "Nope, you run into some rando who is poisoned, back to Athkatla with you!"

These things bely the fact that when you eventually *do* get to leave Athkatla, there is less of a world to explore than a half a dozen unrelated modules whose whole purpose seems mainly just to get you your 10,000 gold rather than advancing anything to do with a plot. None of the geography between Athkatla and d'Arnise Keep exists as areas you can walk through. Once you finish any of the modules outside Athkatla, they are essentially *over* and there is no reason to ever revisit them (unless, yes, you want to finally go slay that dragon you already talked to once). BG2, in my opinion, is ultimately only redeemed by the late-game excursion through the Underdark, but with the final reveal of Irenicus' plot being mostly a letdown (albeit MASTERFULLY performed by the great David Warner, of Time Bandits and Tron, throughout the game) having literally nothing to do with anything you ever did at any point in the early game, there is no way that I can be convinced of BG2 being a fully developed masterpiece in the same way BG1 was.

The original Baldur's Gate, by comparison, introduces you to the Friendly Arm Inn and Beregost early on in the game, and throughout the game you are opening up the unexplored areas of the map nearby. *This* is what I feel gave Baldur's Gate and Neverwinter Nights their feeling of expansiveness-- they were essentially attempts at full simulations of their particular regions of Faerun, fully plotting both the cities of Baldur's Gate and Neverwinter *and* their surroundings-- wilderness, towns and all. And here is where I start to get a little bit worried about Act 2 and 3 of Baldur's Gate 3, but where it could also still go right and do justice to these old classics.

III. Baldur's Gate 3

I think the best way to get a sense of the directions Act 2 and 3 can go is by looking at the world map that only appears when you try to take the mountain pass route to Moonrise Towers. It was only here that I realized I had already been exploring the multiple "areas" that made up BG1/2 as icons on the map, and the transitions between them being seamless I find promising.

But will Act 2 just be another stepping stone of "completing" all of the "content" in the areas of the map outside the city of Baldur's Gate, with Act 3 taking place entirely within the city and its immediate surroundings? Will we never have any reason to revisit the areas of Act 1, and will they just be "dead" zones of expired content? Beregost continued to feel like a living city after you first passed through it on your way to Nashkel-- you were never expected to complete all its "content" before moving on to the next area. Rather, so many different things were happening in Beregost that you would continue to discover new hints about Ulcaster and High Hedge, Gullykin and Firewine, all throughout the rest of the game.

Worrisome to me is how the druid grove in BG3 is essentially *empty* after you prod the tiefling refugees along (a little bit of a tiresome plot point for me). And no matter which plot path you choose, the High Road tollbooth just becomes an empty building with a bunch of dead gnolls outside. Put simply, after you complete the content, the world dies as it stands in BG3, and I get the feeling that once we progress to Act 2, everything from Act 1 will essentially be retired content, thereby limiting the "expansiveness" of the game to whatever act you happen to be on.

This also puts a larger burden on Larian, I think-- no matter how much "content" you pack into every square meter of the game, if the world "dies" after you complete the content, in my opinion expansiveness dies with it.

At any rate, these are just my initial thoughts. I did enjoy my playthrough of early access, and the number of things that Larian *did* do right gives me hope that these are things you will be thinking about going forward. Cheers, and great work so far! Thanks for reading. (I know, it's a lot, sorry.)

Ha! And this is what I call lack of content

Not so controvertial oppinion though - I know of couple people who think Baldur's Gate1 is stronger due to feel of exploration it has.

I take the opposite tack. For me, it's the voids between modules on the BG2 map that strike me as the lack of content-- it would be as if on the BG1 map it only had Nashkel, Ulcaster, Firewine Bridge and Cloakwood Mines with nothing in between. (And at least then half of them would be relevant to the plot!) The first half of BG2 just feels like an unfinished game to me.

Larian is not known for creating world that feels alive somewhere else than arround the player and that feels really coherent.

Just look at "the forest", the distance between the grove and the goblins camp, the variety of unexpected creatures on such a small area, the burning inn that's not burning, the gnolls that attacks the zentharim without ever attacking them if you're not close enough, the lack of D/N cycle and meteo effects,...

It looks like BG3 is going to be the same : "a theme park map" in which events trigger when you came... Then are just full of "expired content".

You won't be able and have any interrest coming back. Move on, there's nothing left here, next area to clean.

They just did not get inspired by BG1 at all and sticked to their "Original Sin design philosophy rulebook".

Just wanted to say that I agree almost entirely with this assessment, and I preferred BG1 over BG2 for many of the reasons outlined above by the OP. I consider BG1 ToSC the stronger game overall, even if BG2 seems to get most of the plaudits.

I also found NWN 2002 to be largely a disappointment, despite enjoying the toolset and the DM client, and participating in a number of persistent worlds. I liked 3rd edition well enough, I just didn't like the NWN gameplay (with its focus on the Single Character and henchmen), and I found each of the official modules pretty lackluster. Even Mask of the Betrayer, which everyone seemed to like. Still not that great in my estimation, though maybe that's my preference for lower level campaigns talking.

NWN 2002 seemed to be responding directly to the popularity of Everquest, and basically copied Everquest's FPS solo-style approach to a driving cam 3D RPG, rather than continuing in the BG/IWD Infinity full party iso tradition. They marketed it like a continuation, even suggesting that we'd be able to export/import our BG characters to NWN, but obviously that never materialized. In the end the gameplay and the whole approach to module design just departed way too markedly from its predecessors to be considered a continuation. That was unfortunate because Baldur's Gate with a 3d style toolset to build environments and create modules for endless interconnected adventures would have been fantastic.

I agree that it's something that makes BG1 special and a lot cooler than BG2. Some time back on the gibberlings3 forums someone uploaded all of the outdoor maps of BG1 next to one another, and I was surprised when I realized that, they made up an almost complete, huge map. I'd always been aware of this kind of continuity between maps while in the game, but when looking at it like this, it makes you appreciate it even more.



Did you know that you can actually put together a complete image of the Iron Throne building, if you take screen shot of the 4 parts of the building in the 4 sub-areas of the Baldur's Gate city? I found this out when I tried to upload an image to the Baldur's Gate wiki. One of the times when you have to think, these games just keep surprising you.

It's one of the things that show you just how much attention they paid to details back then.

Back on topic, though, I also hope Larian will be able to pull off something nice with their world-building and level design. A different kind of game, but Dark Souls is a game that comes to my mind when I think of this. We need a hub which we can keep coming back to and "feel like home", just having your party wander about and enjoying the environments, then we need expansive areas that eventually link back to areas that you have already accessed from much earlier.

That being said, it's not going to happen if they are going the route they took with DOS2 - the party is taken to new areas as the plot moves forward and you can never return to old areas.

On BG1 vs BG2 :

Baldurs gate2 is very interactive and always has some PNJ running into you (or the opposite) to give you quest, resulting in you always having a lot to do. The game is vast. Sure, the early area may only have a tens or so locations you can walk to outside of Akathla, but each of thoses has several quest and a lot of content. Baldurs gate 1 has a lot of maps you can access right aways, but it doesn't have Underdark (easily 5 BG1 area packed in one), Spellhold (at least 2/3 baldurs gate 1 map), the sahugin town( 1-2 area) , the pirate bay (1-2 area) , the irenicus dongeon ( 2 BG1 map) and all the baldurs gate 2 end map that you can only access after the Underdark such as the tethyr forest, small teeth pass, north forest, Suldanessalar ( 3-4 map into one) , the hell (at least 2 map into one) .
Not to mention the De'Arnise Castle for instance, is significantly bigger and more immersive that the kobold mine, as all of BG2 map are. Only the town were really polished with a lot of dialogue and quest in BG1.

So all in all, there is about the same numbers of map in BG1 and BG2 , except BG2 did it better with more PNJ, quest, interractions. BG1 looks big, sure it is, but it's sometime empty as well, with vast, empty forest and mountain with only trash mobs to kills.
Personnally, I like BG2 far more than BG1, even though the first one is a great game,its was rought on the edge.


On BG3 : The game feels a bit more compacts and linear compared to its elders. usually you have access to a crossroad, where you can go nord, south, left, west, from which you choose a direction, usually resulting in you landind in a smaller map section (the swamp, the goblin fortress, the village, and what nots). its not as big and vast as BG1 or BG2. You have a lot of blockers (tree trunks in front of you, destroyed bridge, wall, whatever can stop you from going out of tracks). So imo its the least ''free'' of these three games.

Yes. That's not particularly impressive IMO, but it is impressive how well Bioware guides players - sure you can go any direction, but players are skilfully guided in the right direction.

There are also attempt at Ultima-like simulation - with guards being called when you are stealing, or bigger differences between nights&day.

I also agree that biggest flaw of BG2 is a sheer amount of optional side activities players can get lost in and forget about main motivation of our character.
There is however plot and there is character and world building - and the sidequest fulfill those well. Not to mention that it is in BG2 where companions, became companions. That's something that made RPGs like that come to live.

It is overall a more sophisticated, and polished experience, which focuses on things BG1 was capable of doing well (unique handcrafted locations and story) and ditching things that it didn't ("world simulation"). I like to think of those as low and high level adventure. With BG1 focusing on us dealing with mundane problems and fighting off wolf's, while as higher level party you get to do cool stuff and traveling is reduced to the interesting snippets through random encounters.

Yeah the connected map view is pretty cool.

The one posted above does have some crops though. You can see where it stops just south/east of Beregost. (We're not seeing Nashkell or the Carnival, the Gnoll Stronghold or Firewine Bridge/Ruins, Gullykin etc.) Just shows the gate to Baldur's Gate there too. So only seeing about half the discrete areas there from the BG1 in the G3 map.

Perhaps it would be more impressive in full? but it does show how the areas link pretty seamlessly.

BG2 was a great game, but I definitely see where the OP is coming from. The expanded companion interaction in BG2 is a good point and was certainly a hallmark of the sequel, though honestly I found the more limited companion interaction in BG1 worked pretty well for that game. It created a more casual vibe with the numerous possible party combinations, such that the player was encouraged to kind of pick up and ditch as they went along, low pressure. Whereas in BG2 I felt there was more pressure to roll with a core crew or to preplan the group based on things like romances, or whether someone was going to bail at a critical moment or start getting all up in another companion's face like a ball and chain. Or even chosing a crew based on meta knowledge about what kind of equipment would be available to them later.

I like the idea of expansiveness via seemless area transitions, but without a world map that is divided into quadrants I worry they'll just end up with something like Skyrim. Skyrim was awesome for the expansiveness vibe at the start, but quickly started to get all bloated and crowded out, with way too many things keyed off the main world map.

This is a good point. There is a solution though.

DM mode is something that has been discussed where you have the ability to edit in additional content, we won't see it until after the game is finished but there is such high demand I don't see it not happening and the game is designed for DM mode to exist. This would only occur in multiplayer of course.

But I like the idea of the world "regenerating" in a sense. This is what would happen over time anyway, "life abhors a vacuum and all that". Kick the dirty ol' goblins out and maybe some kobolds take residence in the Goblin camp afterwards. Kill the hag and the redcaps and some giant swamp snakes take her place as they move in on her territory.

The OP is delusional to think Larian will create an expansive game like BG1. Just play DOS2 and you will be quickly disappointed. They lock you out of prior places, the respective huge maps of each Act feel repetitive and restricted and the world is sterile. They even lock your companions after Act 1.

The expansiveness and low stakes beginning are the only things BG1 does better than BG2. The rest, there is no comparison.