[Merged] What kind of World Map do you prefer?

[LokiHades 9]

I'd prefer a BG1 approach over a BG2 approach. There's still a sense of exploration there.

[Luckmann 2,621]

You say "Hotspot based" and mention "BG or ToEE". That's just some kind of crazy. Baldur's Gate and ToEE are like night and day in this regard. Baldur's Gate had entire areas of the map with literally nothing but a few wolves, or gibberlings. There weren't many of them - the vast majority of areas had some subquest or were part of some subquest, or had some hidden loot or something to explore. But they were there.

 

Baldur's Gate is by far my preferred way of handling maps. But "Hotspot based" it is not.

 

Your poll is bad and you should feel bad for making me vote "Other" in something where Baldur's Gate is mentioned. Shame on you.

 

Edit: And after reading your post, I realize that you are clearly as crazy as your poll suggested. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. What you are describing as desirable is, in essence, exactly what Baldur's Gate did. Ever tried to get to Cloakwood before you had the quest to go there? Ever tried looking for the Bandit Camp? Goddamned. I feel like insulting you, but I can't, because I hate accumulating warnings. Argh.

Edited September 22, 2012 by Luckmann

[Tuco Benedicto 88]

You say "Hotspot based" and mention "BG or ToEE". That's just some kind of crazy. Baldur's Gate and ToEE are like night and day in this regard. Baldur's Gate had entire areas of the map with literally nothing but a few wolves, or gibberlings.

I don't think you understood what he's talking about.

You are speaking about how each area was populated. He's talking about the "overworld map" that linked all these areas together. That one with a bunch of hotspots where you had to click to reach each specific zone once you knew about them.

 

That in comparison with games like Fallout or Darklands, where you could move on every single spot of the map even if there wasn't necessarily an interesting location to reach.

[Merin 338]

I prefer less walking time. Less wandering. Open world games, especially open world maps, lose me quickly. I made it through Fallout 3 and New Vegas, but barely at times. Most other TES-style game I've not finished.

 

So I'm a fan of like Fallout 1 and 2 (even the random encounters while "traveling by map" as long as they don't happen too often) or Dragon Age: Origins or the Icewind Dale games.

 

not a fan of travel-travel-travel like TES and Fallout 3 on. Though the fast travel on those made it slightly more bearable.

 

Then again, I'm not a cRPG player who lists "exploration" as a big plus. It never makes my list of what I want out of a game.

[PsychoBlonde 557]

BG1 had great exploration. BG2 also had some great exploration, but it was more linear to reflect the storyline.

 

I'm not sure what they'll be able to do with the technology they're using, so I don't really have a preference regarding really specific details, but I do hope there will be a fair number of areas that are accessed "blind", by going to the edge of the current map and clicking, or by discovering them when traveling past and deciding to stop.

 

BG1 in some respects was almost "too big", because there wasn't an overaching reason to keep exploring other than to level up because everything to the north of you was Too Dang Tough. Well, that and you were curious.

 

I'd prefer that you keep on picking up weird tidbits of information as you explore, so that the relentless poking-every-corner process also contributes to the story.

[PsychoBlonde 557]

I don't think you understood what he's talking about.

You are speaking about how each area was populated. He's talking about the "overworld map" that linked all these areas together. That one with a bunch of hotspots where you had to click to reach each specific zone once you knew about them.

 

Actually, that's still not quite accurate, because in Baldur's Gate it wasn't enough to know the area was THERE, you also had to first travel to an area that physically adjoined it. So you HAD to do some physical walking around (and exploring, because the area was black when you arrived) in order to travel.

 

You can have just as much (if not more--they gotta put SOMETHING in the corners of those big square areas) exploring in a game where the map is a series of discrete areas instead of a single contiguous surface. I actually get fed up with just "exploring" in most "open world" games because of all the annoying random monsters, particularly in Fallout 3, whereas I dug into every. nook. and. cranny. in BG.

 

Oh, and the technology doesn't preclude an "open world" exactly--you could physically walk to every possible location on the overworld map in Arcanum. Granted, it was AMAZINGLY boring to do so and took FOREVER, but it was possible.

Edited September 22, 2012 by PsychoBlonde

[molarBear 38]

what about fog-of-war? do we want that in maps?

[Shevek 808]

I beleieve you have a map that matches the kind of game you are making. For a sandbox style freeroaming game like FO1/2, that map worked. For a more story based title like the IE games, the hotspot version works.

 

I like PE is going for IE style story, so I say IE style maps.

[Tuco Benedicto 88]

Actually, that's still not quite accurate, because in Baldur's Gate it wasn't enough to know the area was THERE, you also had to first travel to an area that physically adjoined it.

That's not the point, it doesn't make it anything better (even worse in some way) and it's also true just for Baldur's Gate 1, not for the second (with a couple of notable exceptions).

 

Beside, no one was criticizing the feature, we were just pointing differences.

Also, Fallout 3 is an entirely different approach from FO1 and FO2.

Edited September 22, 2012 by Tuco Benedicto

[Sales101 4]

Let's take a hike.

[Oerwinde 1,272]

I would prefer something like Storm of Zehir. Explorable overworld map with skill usage.

[Chunkyman 65]

I love wandering around and exploring, so I want it as open-world as possible.

[Odarbi 43]

I liked the Baldurs gate system a lot, and think of that as the go to default for an IE style game. I don't mind free roam open world in some games, like Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning, but I don't think a full free roam would work out all that well in a BG style game.

[oldmanpaco 79]

I like either. The traditional IE game uses the 'hotspot' method so that is what I voted for.

[Luckmann 2,621]

You say "Hotspot based" and mention "BG or ToEE". That's just some kind of crazy. Baldur's Gate and ToEE are like night and day in this regard. Baldur's Gate had entire areas of the map with literally nothing but a few wolves, or gibberlings.

I don't think you understood what he's talking about.

You are speaking about how each area was populated. He's talking about the "overworld map" that linked all these areas together. That one with a bunch of hotspots where you had to click to reach each specific zone once you knew about them.

I was, in fact, talking about the overland map.

 

Baldur's Gate 2 was "Hotspot"-based.

Baldur's Gate was clearly not.

 

 

I don't think you understood what he's talking about.

You are speaking about how each area was populated. He's talking about the "overworld map" that linked all these areas together. That one with a bunch of hotspots where you had to click to reach each specific zone once you knew about them.

 

Actually, that's still not quite accurate, because in Baldur's Gate it wasn't enough to know the area was THERE, you also had to first travel to an area that physically adjoined it. So you HAD to do some physical walking around (and exploring, because the area was black when you arrived) in order to travel.

 

[...]

And I'd like to mention that you also had to fulfil certain conditions for some maps - exactly what the OP asks for. For example, getting to the Bandit Camp wasn't just a matter of getting to the adjacent map and walk to the correct edge of it. You had to actually know where the Bandit Camp was. You had to have cause to go to Cloakwood before you could enter it.

 

I think it's just very clear that some people have only played Baldur's Gate II, and just seem to assume that Baldur's Gate had the exact same map system. Which it didn't. And it was far more awesome.

Edited September 22, 2012 by Luckmann

[Monte Carlo 4,908]

I think they are going for a BG2 type approach, but city areas aside they were too small for me.

 

I'd prefer BG1 style but that ain't gonna happen.

[True_Spike 73]

I think any of them are fine. Be it BG2 "hotspot" style, Fallout 1 & 2 free roaming style or SoZ-like skill-based exploration.

[eimatshya 138]

I'd prefer a system like what OP proposes since his suggestion about having a quest to find a place sounds pretty cool. Still, since this is an IE style game, I'm guessing they are going to stick with IWD/BGII style travel system. Which is OK, I suppose, especially since it's probably the cheapest to implement.

 

Still, my order of preference would be:

 

1. Fallout 1 & 2/Arcanum style

2. Baldur's Gate I style (the most immersive option but probably the most expensive to implement)

3. Icewind Dale/Baldur's Gate II style

Edited September 22, 2012 by eimatshya

[Luckmann 2,621]

I think they are going for a BG2 type approach, but city areas aside they were too small for me.

 

I'd prefer BG1 style but that ain't gonna happen.

I see a lot of people actually preferring Baldur's Gate 1 over Baldur's Gate 2 around here. Almost surprised to see it, So we can always hope.

[Merin 338]

I don't want BG1's style. The constant traveling is a big reason I never finished that game.

[Skie Nightfall 107]

I loved BG1 map the most, but I wouldn't cry over a system like Fallout 1/2 either.

[Tale 2,459]

I love Baldur's Gate 2's map. Absolutely love it. I still see lots of appeal in Arcanum/Fallout style map, however. Enough so that if you could have Arcanum/Fallout while looking like Baldur's Gate 2, I'd be ecstatic.

[Crom 2]

Free-roaming world works better with first-person perspective where you can scout for interesting looking landmarks in far distance even if you end up having to create tons of filler content in-between locations. Overall, I think "hotspot" style map might be better option for this kind of game and the areas you create can be almost small worlds themselves with their own visual style and backstory. You also won't have to worry about monster placement as much because you can create late-game locations anywhere you want without having to figure out how to prevent players going in there too early and getting killed. Recent example of this issue would be Fallout New Vegas where if you left the first town and headed north instead of south, you'd get killed by some of the toughest enemies in the game and it was merely an illusion of freedom while you got funneled through specific path (south->east->north->northwest)

[Baudolino05 32]

Darklands and Realms of Arkania have the best travel systems I've seen in a cRPG . Obsidian tried to revive the first one in Storm of Zehir, and to a certain degree it succeeded. I would love to see another attempt, only with more depth and a 2d map this time.

Edited September 22, 2012 by Baudolino05

[Luckmann 2,621]

I don't want BG1's style. The constant traveling is a big reason I never finished that game.

Really, walking through a map once was too much for you? There's like 3 empty areas in the entire game, and even those have some monsters to kill. All the others either have things to find or quests to solve.