Encounter density and area sizes

[illathid]

Completely disagree with the OP. BG1 wilderness areas were horrible. I like the BB's area's much, much more.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

To give this a new spin and keep it in line with the thread topic, I wanted to see the area size that you see on screen and the map comparing PoE with BG1 and BG:EE. Basically the 'scale' of the areas which I think is important. We all know PoE's maps are smaller just by the general ~feel~ of playing the beta. But how much smaller? The answers are surprising. To keep this in the same size as BG1, I shrunk the PoE's and BG:EE maps to the same size.

 

1. Zoomed in. Dyrford Township compared to BG:EE and BG1.

Pillars of Eternity. 3 x 3 screens. 9 screen maps in all (approx.)

Baldurs Gate:EE 4 x 4 screens. 16 screen maps in all (approx.)

Baldurs Gate. 10 x 10 screens. 100 screen maps in all.

 

Also, note this is zoomed all the way in for BG:EE which you most likely won't play it so. I prefer about zoomed halfway out which would likely give more maps. But for the sake of zooming all the way in, I showed it for comparison and it still gives more maps.

 

 

 

 

2. Zoomed out. Dyrford Township compared to BG:EE and BG1.

 

Pillars of Eternity. 5 x 5 screens. 25 screen maps in all (approx.)

Baldurs Gate:EE. 8 wide x 9 down screens. 72 screen maps in all (approx.) (Widescreen monitor is making them rectangular which accounts for the approx. 8 across and 9 down)

Baldurs Gate. 10 x 10 screens. 100 screen maps in all. (Can't zoom out but shown for comparison)

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. Zoomed in. Dyrford Township, Dyrford Crossing, BG:EE and BG1. I decided to see how 'small' Dyrford crossing is to the actual town of Dyrford. Surprisingly (at least for me), they're the same size in scale.

Pillars of Eternity. 3 x 3 screens. 9 screen maps in all (approx.)

Baldurs Gate:EE 4 x 4 screens. 16 screen maps in all (approx.)

Baldurs Gate. 10 x 10 screens. 100 screen maps in all.

 

 

4. Zoomed out. Dyrford Township, Dyrford Crossing, BG:EE and BG1.

Pillars of Eternity. 5 x 5 screens. 25 screen maps in all (approx.)

Baldurs Gate:EE. 8 wide x 9 down screens. 72 screen maps in all (approx.) (Widescreen monitor is making them rectangular which accounts for the approx. 8 across and 9 down)

Baldurs Gate. 10 x 10 screens. 100 screen maps in all. (Can't zoom out but shown for comparison)

 

 

 

5. To scale the PoE map down to the size of BG1 and BG:EE and what you see on the screen, this is what it looks like.

Baldur's Gate

 

Baldur's Gate Enhanced Edition

 

 

Overall. the 'scale' of the outside and wilderness maps are very small compared to Baldur's Gate. Even BG:EE does it better with having more screen maps and makes the game world bigger which is why there's a feeling of exploration in the Baldur's Gate game. The PoE maps make it feel very much like IWD, small and bumping into enemies.

Edited October 12, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[Sensuki]

The fact that they're in a 16:9 format also makes them feel "thin" as well, would be nice if they were taller / in 4:3 or 5:4 format instead. such as 1920x1280 per screen.

Edited October 12, 2014 by Sensuki

[Hiro Protagonist II]

Just realised I have the maps in the 'zoomed in' and 'zoomed out' back to front. Should be:

 

1. Zoomed out.

2. Zoomed in.

3. Zoomed out.

4. Zoomed in.

 

But the maps are correct. I also find it small when crossing the side of the map. When zoomed in, it takes five screens. In BGEE it takes 8 to 9 screens. And when zoomed out, it takes 3 1/3 screens in PoE and takes a little over 4 screens with BGEE. I feel it even more when playing the original game (which I do all the time) with taking 10 screens to get to the other side of the map. I had a quick look at WL2 and it has bigger maps in relation to scale.

 

Wasteland 2 Rail Nomads camp. The box doesn't come up on the map so I had to approximate with the surrounding buildings.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 12, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[Starwars]

I would like to say though that I feel Wasteland 2 had the area sizes completely wrong. It's nice to have big maps but in that game, they just feel unnecessarily big. A lot of them (especially town maps like Rail Nomads and Rodia) could have been a *lot* smaller if you ask me.

It being 3d (as well as fighting the camera) does have a lot to do with that. I don't get that nice sense of exploration in WL2 that I do in the IE games (and even PoE). Uncovering the maps mostly felt like a nuisance to me, waiting for the moments in the game that are actually fun.

[Gladiuss8@gmail.com]

 

 

Also Hiro, thanks for posting these screens. I hadn't imagined how BG would look so old in comparison.

 

 

I actually thought that BG looks a lot better... ; ) I guess there's no pleasing us all. 

 

Also, for those thinking that "this is just beta", based on experience from MANY other games, things won't change as much on release.

Edited October 12, 2014 by Gladiuss8@gmail.com

[Quetzalcoatl]

If you genuinely think BG's graphics look better, there's indeed no pleasing you.

 

To stay on topic: Stormwall Gorge has a much better lay-out than Dyrford Crossing, which does indeed feel a bit cramped. The fact that about half the bestiary is on display doesn't exactly help either. 

Edited October 12, 2014 by Quetzalcoatl

[Sensuki]

I think he's referring to art. I think Baldur's Gate 1's stylization (particularly the colors) of terrain and some of the tree models are magnificent. I'm pretty sure they just purchased the tree models rather than doing them from scratch.

 

I've had a look at a number of PE's Wilderness areas in the game files and they all look strange. It's like whoever created them thinks that trees don't grow in clumps and must be arranged in specific patterns.

[Quantics]

Damn city boys, don't know what a damn forrest is supposed to look like.

 

I hope that PoE will have bigger maps for wilderness areas than what we have seen so far. Exploration was by far the the most exciting thing in BG for me.

 

Sensuki, when you say you've had a look at a number of wilderness areas in PoE, you mean you somehow managed to unlock access to areas that are not supposed to be accessible in the BB? 

[Sensuki]

No, one of the files contains a small image (like 1024x1024 pixels) or something of the areas, and there are tools out there that can extract these files.

 

If the other areas were shipped with the beta, the beta download size would be a lot larger.

 

There are currently ~100 areas visible in the game files, and there's supposed to be around 150 or so. Maybe they haven't painted over the other ones yet.

 

I hope that PoE will have bigger maps for wilderness areas than what we have seen so far. Exploration was by far the the most exciting thing in BG for me.

I do recall Josh saying there was at least one 8x8 area in the game (15360x8640px). Defiance Bay Copperlane District, Ondra's Gift and Heratige Hill look to be pretty large maps, the first area of the game looks pretty big (we've seen it in the IGN video etc) and there's a couple of dungeon levels and exterior maps that *could* be big, but yeah it's hard to tell from the small images in the files.

Edited October 12, 2014 by Sensuki

[morhilane]

To give this a new spin and keep it in line with the thread topic, I wanted to see the area size that you see on screen and the map comparing PoE with BG1 and BG:EE. Basically the 'scale' of the areas which I think is important. We all know PoE's maps are smaller just by the general ~feel~ of playing the beta. But how much smaller? The answers are surprising. To keep this in the same size as BG1, I shrunk the PoE's and BG:EE maps to the same size.

 

1. Zoomed in. Dyrford Township compared to BG:EE and BG1.

Pillars of Eternity. 3 x 3 screens. 9 screen maps in all (approx.)

Baldurs Gate:EE 4 x 4 screens. 16 screen maps in all (approx.)

Baldurs Gate. 10 x 10 screens. 100 screen maps in all.

 

Also, note this is zoomed all the way in for BG:EE which you most likely won't play it so. I prefer about zoomed halfway out which would likely give more maps. But for the sake of zooming all the way in, I showed it for comparison and it still gives more maps.

 

 

 

 

2. Zoomed out. Dyrford Township compared to BG:EE and BG1.

 

Pillars of Eternity. 5 x 5 screens. 25 screen maps in all (approx.)

Baldurs Gate:EE. 8 wide x 9 down screens. 72 screen maps in all (approx.) (Widescreen monitor is making them rectangular which accounts for the approx. 8 across and 9 down)

Baldurs Gate. 10 x 10 screens. 100 screen maps in all. (Can't zoom out but shown for comparison)

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. Zoomed in. Dyrford Township, Dyrford Crossing, BG:EE and BG1. I decided to see how 'small' Dyrford crossing is to the actual town of Dyrford. Surprisingly (at least for me), they're the same size in scale.

Pillars of Eternity. 3 x 3 screens. 9 screen maps in all (approx.)

Baldurs Gate:EE 4 x 4 screens. 16 screen maps in all (approx.)

Baldurs Gate. 10 x 10 screens. 100 screen maps in all.

 

 

4. Zoomed out. Dyrford Township, Dyrford Crossing, BG:EE and BG1.

Pillars of Eternity. 5 x 5 screens. 25 screen maps in all (approx.)

Baldurs Gate:EE. 8 wide x 9 down screens. 72 screen maps in all (approx.) (Widescreen monitor is making them rectangular which accounts for the approx. 8 across and 9 down)

Baldurs Gate. 10 x 10 screens. 100 screen maps in all. (Can't zoom out but shown for comparison)

 

 

 

5. To scale the PoE map down to the size of BG1 and BG:EE and what you see on the screen, this is what it looks like.

Baldur's Gate

 

Baldur's Gate Enhanced Edition

 

 

Overall. the 'scale' of the outside and wilderness maps are very small compared to Baldur's Gate. Even BG:EE does it better with having more screen maps and makes the game world bigger which is why there's a feeling of exploration in the Baldur's Gate game. The PoE maps make it feel very much like IWD, small and bumping into enemies.

 

Sorry to tell you this, but I think your way of comparing the game maps is crap.

 

First, BG:EE and BG have the same map size regardless of what you think about it, Beamdog couldn't re-render them because the original assets were lost (hence the blurring of texture when zoom). Second, you should have compared Dyrford Village map with the Naskel Village map by using the buildings has references.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

Sorry to tell you this, but I think your way of comparing the game maps is crap.

 

First, BG:EE and BG have the same map size regardless of what you think about it, Beamdog couldn't re-render them because the original assets were lost (hence the blurring of texture when zoom). Second, you should have compared Dyrford Village map with the Naskel Village map by using the buildings has references.

 

 

There's always one isn't there? Someone who doesn't read.

 

You didn't read my post did you? I'm talking about what you see on the screen. I'm talking about scale. What you currently see on the screen compared to the rest of the area map.

 

In my post from the previous page of this thread. I showed that what you see on the screen with PoE compared to BG is that the characters, the doors, buildings, barrels outside are the same size when PoE is zoomed in. Note: The same with the doors, buildings, barrels outside is the same size. And then when you zoom out, PoE is similar to BG:EE with similar sizes with the characters. Okay let that sink in for a moment. If it hasn't sunk in yet, I'll say it again. The characters are the same size on your screen with BG and PoE zoomed in. I measured the characters with the screen shots when I put the screen shots at the same height. The characters are also similar size when PoE and BGEE is zoomed out.

 

Now given the characters are the same size, then lets look at what else you can see on the screen shall we? Looking at the map, we can see how much screen takes up in the area map when zoomed in and zoomed out with PoE, BG:EE and BG even though you can't zoom out with BG but it's still relevant. Because it's about screen to area. What you see on the screen compared to the entire area map.

 

And with BG/BGEE the wilderness maps are all the same size as the one I used. And Beregost is also the same size. And Nashkel is also the same size.

 

Nashkel is also 10 x 10 screens in the Original Baldurs Gate. The whole area is 100 screens with what you see on your screen. That's called scale. Below is a screen shot from a 22" 1680 x 1050 widescreen monitor.

 

 

 

 

 

So instead of jumping in, frothing at the mouth and saying it's crap. How about you do some research, measure the maps, and compare the scale of all three games. It's not about pixels, it's about scale.

Edited October 12, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[anameforobsidian]

To respond to the initial post, detail and density are more valuable than raw size.

 

To quote random sources from the internet, Oblivion is almost double the size of Skyrim, and Just Cause 2 crushes most other games in size.  That doesn't mean that extra space is useful or valuable.  Give me Gothic's tiny but intricately designed land any day over Oblivion's mindless sprawl.  That's not saying that size is inherently bad, but it's not inherently good either.  Density of content is far more important.

 

I just finished replaying BG1 this morning, and I was struck by a waste of space in many of the wilderness areas.  Some are fun, but quite a few (especially the ones around Ulcaster), are just empty.

 

 

To respond to Hiro,

 

What does it matter if the scale is off and the graphics get every so slightly cartooney because of it?  BG1's huge scale led them to include a lot of empty areas or really pointless content?  In the post above you use Nashkel, but a full half of Nashkel is pointless (and the terrain feature makes it an extra waste of time to explore.  Would the game really be worse off without Noober, pixel-hunt Ankheg plate, and two fields?

 

Also, while BG may be more vertical, I can't get past the ugly black marble they used in the enhanced edition.

 

And BG1's trees are ****ing great.  They do use great choice with color scheme and environment in general.  I would have liked to see some hardwood forests in the game though, and/or some denser forests.  Even cloakwood is a bunch of tree patches.

Edited October 12, 2014 by anameforobsidian

[Hiro Protagonist II]

I just finished replaying BG1 this morning, and I was struck by a waste of space in many of the wilderness areas.  Some are fun, but quite a few (especially the ones around Ulcaster), are just empty.

 

To respond to Hiro,

 

What does it matter if the scale is off and the graphics get every so slightly cartooney because of it?  BG1's huge scale led them to include a lot of empty areas or really pointless content?  In the post above you use Nashkel, but a full half of Nashkel is pointless (and the terrain feature makes it an extra waste of time to explore.  Would the game really be worse off without Noober, pixel-hunt Ankheg plate, and two fields? 

 

Who's talking about cartooney? I have no idea what you mean. 

 

Yeah, the maps are big in BG1 and quite often empty in a lot of places, but they also have some unique encounters as well. Also I think it's great to be able to go from one encounter to the next without tripping over trash mobs every 5 seconds like you do in PoE. Why is it a problem to have some space between encounters? Why shouldn't you be able to go around encounters if you want to?

 

So you want everything in 2 seconds of each other? Walk from the inn to a shop in 2 seconds? Walk to another shop in another 2 seconds? Why the rush? You need to catch a train and need to get this area finished in 20 seconds? Why can't you have a second inn down the bottom of the Nashkel map?

Edited October 12, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[anameforobsidian]

I didn't say that incredibly dense was the most preferable, I don't think it is.  However, there's a difference between exploring say the lighthouse, coming into content that you can approach different ways every few screens, and having 3/4 of Ulcaster be useless and hard to traverse or a full half of the mines outdoors.  Sometimes their commitment to scale led to vast wastes of space (zombie farms being the worst offender).

 

Also, cartooney was just because I thought you were complaining about a distortion of scale.

Edited October 12, 2014 by anameforobsidian

[morhilane]

 

Sorry to tell you this, but I think your way of comparing the game maps is crap.

 

First, BG:EE and BG have the same map size regardless of what you think about it, Beamdog couldn't re-render them because the original assets were lost (hence the blurring of texture when zoom). Second, you should have compared Dyrford Village map with the Naskel Village map by using the buildings has references.

 

 

There's always one isn't there? Someone who doesn't read.

 

You didn't read my post did you? I'm talking about what you see on the screen. I'm talking about scale. What you currently see on the screen compared to the rest of the area map.

 

In my post from the previous page of this thread. I showed that what you see on the screen with PoE compared to BG is that the characters, the doors, buildings, barrels outside are the same size when PoE is zoomed in. Note: The same with the doors, buildings, barrels outside is the same size. And then when you zoom out, PoE is similar to BG:EE with similar sizes with the characters. Okay let that sink in for a moment. If it hasn't sunk in yet, I'll say it again. The characters are the same size on your screen with BG and PoE zoomed in. I measured the characters with the screen shots when I put the screen shots at the same height. The characters are also similar size when PoE and BGEE is zoomed out.

 

Now given the characters are the same size, then lets look at what else you can see on the screen shall we? Looking at the map, we can see how much screen takes up in the area map when zoomed in and zoomed out with PoE, BG:EE and BG even though you can't zoom out with BG but it's still relevant. Because it's about screen to area. What you see on the screen compared to the entire area map.

 

And with BG/BGEE the wilderness maps are all the same size as the one I used. And Beregost is also the same size. And Nashkel is also the same size.

 

Nashkel is also 10 x 10 screens in the Original Baldurs Gate. The whole area is 100 screens with what you see on your screen. That's called scale. Below is a screen shot from a 22" 1680 x 1050 widescreen monitor.

 

 

 

 

 

So instead of jumping in, frothing at the mouth and saying it's crap. How about you do some research, measure the maps, and compare the scale of all three games. It's not about pixels, it's about scale.

 

 

You are not comparing scale. You are comparing viewport size.

[Namutree]

 

I just finished replaying BG1 this morning, and I was struck by a waste of space in many of the wilderness areas.  Some are fun, but quite a few (especially the ones around Ulcaster), are just empty.

 

I like exploring a general area of a map and not knowing what to expect. Will there be trash mobs? Will there be a special encounter? Will there be nothing? It creates a greater sense of wonder. Not to mention the it also makes it feel more authentic.

 

 

  Would the game really be worse off without Noober, pixel-hunt Ankheg plate, and two fields?

 

Yes.

[Sensuki]

First, BG:EE and BG have the same map size regardless of what you think about it

The stupid thing about BG:EE at least is the default zoom is below source res ... yuck.

Edited October 12, 2014 by Sensuki

[Hiro Protagonist II]

You are not comparing scale. You are comparing viewport size.

 

Is that the best you can come up with? I've already shown the characters, buildings, barrels outside of buildings are the same size in relation to each other in a previous post. Also, I've shown with PoE and BGEE that when zoomed out is the same in relation to each other on the same monitor. And then when you go to the area map, you can see how much you are seeing compared to the rest of the map. Are you disputing that the areas in PoE are not smaller than BG1/BG:EE in scale? If you are, then back up your claims. I already have with mine.

Edited October 12, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[Hiro Protagonist II]

I didn't say that incredibly dense was the most preferable, I don't think it is.  However, there's a difference between exploring say the lighthouse, coming into content that you can approach different ways every few screens, and having 3/4 of Ulcaster be useless and hard to traverse or a full half of the mines outdoors.  Sometimes their commitment to scale led to vast wastes of space (zombie farms being the worst offender).

 

Also, cartooney was just because I thought you were complaining about a distortion of scale.

 

And yet, we've gone from a couple of encounters in BG1 wilderness maps from 18 years ago to Dyrford crossing with only ONE good encounter with the enemy adventurers at the Dragon Egg. Everything else is trash. And even worse with the Gorge map with no good encounters at all, as ALL the enemies are trash mobs.

 

I don't get your distortion of scale thing. Again, I have no idea what you're on about or how that even makes sense to being cartoony.

[morhilane]

 

You are not comparing scale. You are comparing viewport size.

 

Is that the best you can come up with? I've already shown the characters, buildings, barrels outside of buildings are the same size in relation to each other in a previous post. Also, I've shown with PoE and BGEE that when zoomed out is the same in relation to each other on the same monitor. And then when you go to the area map, you can see how much you are seeing compared to the rest of the map. Are you disputing that the areas in PoE are not smaller than BG1/BG:EE in scale? And no, I'm not talking about viewport. I'm talking about scale. If you are, then back up your claims. I already have with mine.

 

 

I'm not saying anything about the PoE map size. I'm saying your comparison doesn't work because BG:EE and BG map scale stay the same, zooming do not cause the map or objects on it to be re-scaled. 

 

Below, the PoE map should take the exact same amount of space in both images, because the scale of the map haven't changed between BG:EE and BG even if the viewport is larger in your BG:EE example.

 

 

 

5. To scale the PoE map down to the size of BG1 and BG:EE and what you see on the screen, this is what it looks like.

Baldur's Gate

 

Baldur's Gate Enhanced Edition

 

 

Edited October 12, 2014 by morhilane

[Hiro Protagonist II]

I'm not saying anything about the PoE map size. I'm saying your comparison doesn't work because BG:EE and BG map scale stay the same, zooming do not cause the map or objects on it to be re-scaled. 

 

Below, the PoE map should take the exact same amount of space in both images, because the scale of the map haven't changed between BG:EE and BG even if the viewport is larger in your BG:EE example.

 

If we take the BG:EE map with PoE overlapped on it, since the characters, doors, buildings, barrels outside are the same size, there's a definite scale issue there. Remember, characters are the same size with BG:EE and PoE. Therefore the BG:EE with PoE overlapped on it shows how small the PoE map is in scale.

 

So we have two issues here. Scale with BG:EE / PoE and PoE is smaller in scale. And viewport which makes PoE even smaller when compared to BG1.

Edited October 12, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[Sensuki]

PE maps are smaller than Baldur's Gate / Baldur's Gate 2 maps going by number of screens. I do recall Josh saying that he personally prefers Black Isle style areas and he also prefers smaller areas (IIRC).

 

So yeah I think we will find that exteriors in PE will be smaller in general (with a few exceptions) than the IE games, particularly in height. Something to bring up for future installments I think.