I have to go with BG2. Free-roam is nice and all, but the sheer quality of the zones, both in content and in details, from BG2 outshines those of BG1 by a margin. I'd rather PE focus on less awesome content than lots of okay content.

Anyone played Divine Divinity? It should be like that. Open world exploration was great in that. Kinda like an Elder Scrolls game, but without feeling as empty. I like that aspect better than any of the games mentioned.

Baldur's Gate 1 definitely.

 

One of the things that Baldur's Gate 1 did brilliantly was it didn't put a lot of pressure on you to do anything in particular. The world wasn't required to be saved immediately. You had next to no knowledge about where to go, what to do, or why you were doing it. That fit absolutely perfectly with the zone system, effectively allowing you to explore the entire Sword Coast and stumble across the actual plot eventually.

 

I would love for PE to go for something similar to that, offering loads of extra areas, not central to the plot, that could be explored in the same way as BG1's map.

BG1 for sure, just need to make sure that the inbetween areas are well designed and content rich too.

BG1 here too, if it's a choice between the two, but I'm pretty sure they'll adopt a more BG2 way of doing things.

BG1 but you know they'll end up doing a BG2.

 

Actually, from the comments, it looks to be more of an SOZ/Darklands type of map. There was another thread about this where some salient quotes were posted, but I'm too lazy to look for them.

There should be as much area to explore as there is interesting content. Out-of-the-way optional areas are cool, but only if they have something in them more interesting than 12 Gnolls, 3 wolves, and a bear that swallowed a garnet necklace.

Personally I'd more prefer Storm of Zehir's overland map system better.THAT was awesome. <3

Edited October 7, 201213 yr by Jaesun

I want BG1 and BG2 to have a hybrid clone baby with all the super powers of both species...

 

 

edit: you can add a 3rd sperm donor into that milkshake btw...SoZ overland map!

 

mix'em all together!

Edited October 7, 201213 yr by NerdBoner

I prefer hub-based exploration to free-roam in my RPGs.

So yeah, BG2.

BG1. It may seems like filler content (empty areas anyone), but the exploration feeling of BG1 was damn good.

every area you could travel too in BG1 had something(s) to do in them, minor quests, bounty hunters, basilisk nests, mad wizards/priests, Planewalkers looking for their pet demons etc....it made the world feel more fleshed out and gave you a sense of wonder.

Between BG1 and BG2, I preferred BG1's map style. The only reason it was occasionally annoying originally (to me) was because of the disc-swapping. But that wouldn't be an issue today (heh) so I prefer having at least some "unimportant" areas....when every area has a story purpose (or something similar) then the "world" feels more confined and less real to me.

 

That said, I don't necessarily need/want super-duper giant, open free-roaming ala Skyrim. But I like having the feeling that I'm traveling somewhere and having at least some travel-zones, or whatever you want to call them, appeals to me.

I agree with the Storm of Zehir map preference. Failing that, a Fallout 2 map would be ok as well.

 

Though when I looked at the forum and saw "Do you want to see an overw..." I thought this would be about overweight companions... I'd vote in favour of those.

Ahem...

 

Fallout 1,2 had the best world maps in my opinion. Make them fantasy beautiful but the same functionally and it'll do the trick.

Excellent topic - I'll vote BG1 for the simple exploration it offered. BG2 felt like every outside area was still restricted to a corridor.

Edited October 7, 201213 yr by Chippy

I prefer BG1 for the exploration. BG2 maps outside the city were truly beautiful, nothing to say, but I felt a bit sad about being able to go there directly, without exploring about a bit.

Baldur's Gate 1.

 

Always Baldur's Gate 1.

Most of all, I'd prefer the overland map as seen on SoZ, or Fallouts, or Ultimas III - V. If I had to choose between BG 1 and 2, I'd go for 1.

I much prefer BG1 style. I like to hear the storys in an Inn then go adventuring in the danger of the wilderness. I can sorta understand the BG2 map, you're so high level than wandering around in the forest shouldn't be too dangerous for you.

BG1 map beats BG2 hands down, it offered you a whole world and felt much more real for doing that. BG2 kind of felt like the only important parts of the world were the ones relating to your main quest.

 

Part of the change between the two though might be down to the player having been through BG1 and the developers not wanting to bother a high level player with worgs, xvarts and cows etc.