Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback this camera control is gawd awful too limited

Edit: Drath Malorn already made the same point. Didn’t mean to pile on.


BG3’s map density is good for pacing, like a DM saying “the party walks for a while and gets to the village.” But this utilitarian approach is what gives off theme park vibes.

The maps are built like networks, with points of interest connected by corridors. The player still has to travel but never gets to wonder what would happen if they wandered off the beaten path. They can only ever choose left or right when the minimap reveals a fork in the road.

There are other things which give the maps an air of artificiality. The obvious difference in scale between corridors and encounter areas; the deliberate placement of bridges, gates and jumps to mark new zones; the disconnect between the camp and the world.

Timelessness is the other half of the theme park problem. Since the map design isn’t going to change, Larian can’t get away with a world where not even the sun moves without the player’s input.

Ultimately it comes down to what works for each person, but to me this compromise gains the benefit of neither. Exploration doesn't feel exciting to me because it's kept strictly into "exploration areas". I think The Outer Worlds is the worst recent offender of this. The limited size of each zone made me constantly reminded of the "gaminess" of it by constantly blocking my path with invisible walls. On the flip-side, a single box saying "the journey took x hours" doesn't convey a sense of time either. Pathfinder could tell me a journey took 2 hours or 5 days, and it really made no difference to me: what mattered was how long I had to wait for the piece to move (which, more often than not, felt like a waste of my time, and on longer journeys I would just mess around on my phone).

Just my two cents, but for me this is a case of getting the worst of both, with none of the pros.

Would it be a good solution to have more camera freedom at eye level, and less visibility when zoomed out?

There are advantages to the game park design, but it would be good to keep that design hidden from view, to achieve a somewhat credible world. That would mean no more outlines on the mini map, or no mini map at all, and less ability to get bird's-eye views of the environment. The latter could be achieved by limiting viewpoint height and viewpoint position, and/or by hiding faraway surroundings.

Limiting perspectives that could never be obtained by the playable characters would need to be compensated by more freedom at eye level. For instance, being able to look up.

You absolutely nailed it here. I also feel that BG3 is really missing open expanses of city or wilderness to explore in whichever direction one desires, not simply maps with paths through them. The latter give an illusion of choice but actually it’s really quite railroaded.

I don't think map itself is necessary bad - it's the story they are telling that isn't compatible with the map they created. If Larian removed the bit were Goblins can't find the grove - all would be fine. Why not have the grove being scared because goblins are at their door steps? Why would minthara couldn't look for a safe way to invade rather then wonder where the grove is? Make the perceived tighteness of the map be part of the story. Tieflings stuck at the grove, with goblin army right at their doorsteps ready to attack. Goblins trying to find their way in to open the games and attack without getting decimated at the gates. Make character aware that a massive ship just crushed outside the place. It's same issues D:OS2 suffered from, with each zones seemingly develop in its own bubble, with little thought put to how it will be all put together. It wouldn't be a problem if each zone existed in its own bubble, like it did in classic RPGs, but it just feels off here. You create continous world and yet not design it to be a continous world.

as much as i want unlimited freedom on camera control, usual devs always restrict it to the lowest common denominator. no idea why. perhaps their idea is that they do not want the camera be the challenge rather than the game. they should provide an option in settings for unlocking advance camera control i would say.

That’s a great point! It reminds me of the large groups of potentialy hostile ennemies which function as seperate encounters who occasionally interact. I keep imagining this scene in the goblin temple:

-Hey, do you hear that?
-You mean the clashing metal and a guy shouting Torment?
-Yeah.
-It’s probably nothing.
-Yeah.

To counteract this, the game has patrols. But to do anything they need to either catch you red handed (which is rare) or telepathically learn that their boss has died. That feels really weird when no one previously made the link between the mounting death toll and the bloody footprints your party leaves behind.

Back to the camera, its limitations make those self-contained corners of the map feel appropriately seperate from the rest. During the side-fight, I’m pulled in by the close, down facing angle. With too much camera freedom, I’d be constantly reminded that these halls are full of actors in costume just waiting their turn to put on a show.

Not that I love it, but the camera angles are carefully chosen to complement the map design.
That could work! I wonder if the environments are actually designed to be viewed from every angle.