can you explore the whole world from the beginning?

[Striped_Wolf]

 

 

assuming you could, wouldn't you run into high level enemies and get killed?

Like in BG1, or deathclaws north of Goodspring, that's not really a problem.

 

Pfft. You never tried to explore north of the Friendly Arm Inn to early and got slaughtered by ankhegs, did you?

 

I did that, but quickly came to the conclusion that I should probably return south. That was part of the experience that made it feel real.

Also, this soundtrack while exploring 4 areas of wilderness just to get to the objective. I still get goosebumps

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKZba87MtLY

 

 

 

Edited March 21, 2015 by Striped_Wolf

[Katarack21]

 

 

 

assuming you could, wouldn't you run into high level enemies and get killed?

Like in BG1, or deathclaws north of Goodspring, that's not really a problem.

 

Pfft. You never tried to explore north of the Friendly Arm Inn to early and got slaughtered by ankhegs, did you?

 

I did that, but quickly came to the conclusion that I should probably return south. That was part of the experience that made it feel real.

Also, this soundtrack while exploring 4 areas of wilderness just to get to the objective. I still get goosebumps

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKZba87MtLY

 

 

 

 

I have been known to just put that on loop in the background forever while I'm reading TV tropes and stuff.

Edited March 21, 2015 by Katarack21

[Luckmann]

I know BG2 gets a lot of praise for it's soundtrack, but I always liked the BG1 soundtrack more. It's much more evocative, feels less repetative, and really, really, really knows how to set the mood for a given area or event.

[CaptainMace]

The large portion of empty open ended wilderness in BG1 was what hooked me on the genre.

Me too. Though I still don't think bigger areas would mean better quality.

 

Pfft. You never tried to explore north of the Friendly Arm Inn to early and got slaughtered by ankhegs, did you?

 

I did. Ankhegs were my nightmare back then. They made me realize the world ain't all sunshines and rainbows. They made me realize that I was free to go anywhere, though that didn't mean I was able to. Ankhegs north of Friendly Arm Inn or deathclaws north of Goodsprings, same thing, they belong to their games lore and design, and never felt out of place or stupid from my perspective.

 

 

I did that, but quickly came to the conclusion that I should probably return south. That was part of the experience that made it feel real.

 

This.

Edited March 21, 2015 by CaptainMace

[Katarack21]

 

The large portion of empty open ended wilderness in BG1 was what hooked me on the genre.

Me too. Though I still don't think bigger areas would mean better quality.

 

Pfft. You never tried to explore north of the Friendly Arm Inn to early and got slaughtered by ankhegs, did you?

 

I did. Ankhegs were my nightmare back then. They made me realize the world ain't all sunshines and rainbows. They made me realize that I was free to go anywhere, though that didn't mean I was able to. Ankhegs north of Friendly Arm Inn or deathclaws north of Goodsprings, same thing, they belong to their games lore and design, and never felt out of place or stupid from my perspective.

I wouldn't say out of place or strange, but it was sometimes very frustrating. I found it a little upsetting the first time; there was no warning, no way for me to know and plan my choices and actions accordingly. That's what I had a problem with, more than the actual placement or what have you.

[CaptainMace]

I see what you mean, but my point is that no warning can serve a world better than expected.

[Katarack21]

I personally disagree; I find it very upsetting when something happens like that. I feel like it's a cheap shot; I want at least the possibility of making an intelligent decision, not just getting killed at random simply because the developer put a monster here and I had no way of knowing I shouldn't be fighting it yet. If I go ahead anyway, or if I miss the information or whatever, then it's my fault and that's what ever. Otherwise I feel like I've just been had a bunch of my time wasted by some developer basically tricking me for their amusement. I'm not saying that's what it is, just that's what it often feels like to me.

Edited March 21, 2015 by Katarack21

[Tartantyco]

And is it an intelligent decision to wander blindly into the wilderness when you've never set foot outside of Candlekeep before?

Edited March 21, 2015 by Tartantyco

[CaptainMace]

What does intelligence have to do with this ? It's about crafting a world. And a world feels more dangerous, and the player feels more concerned, when you can die at any false step. I think ankheg pretty quickly make you realize your false step, it's not like it takes 30minutes of wandering north of friendly arms inn to realize that.

[Katarack21]

And is it an intelligent decision to wander blindly into the wilderness when you've never set foot outside of Candlekeep before?

It may be an intelligent decision to explore that area; it may not be. If I'm not presented with any information about that area I can't know. Going on what your implying, I'd never leave the first screen after finding the gibberlings on the road, would I?

 

Look, this isn't very complicated. I just want enough information so that when something happens I can feel like it was a result of a choice I made, whether that's good or bad, and not just me getting ****ed by random chance or a snickering jerk of a DM. This isn't some grand complex of deep meaning and hidden insults; it's really very simple.

Edited March 21, 2015 by Katarack21

[CaptainMace]

 

If I'm not presented with any information about that area I can't know

 

Same applies for the ankhegs.

[Katarack21]

 

 

If I'm not presented with any information about that area I can't know

 

Same applies for the ankhegs.

 

Not really.

[DarkWanderer]

Do you have access to the whole map from the beginning of the game, or  do you have to advance in the story quests to get areas to unlock?

Maybe early world exploration will be possible for those who really want to - they could do something like: to reach to specific location (for the first time) you'll have to access it from directly neighbouring place and from specific area exit - so maybe if you just rush forward for few territories, you'll be actually able to "unlock" most places from the beginning (not all - as some will certainly need info to unlock) - whats the point though - the only thing that is usually profitable from things like that is unlocking all your permanent companions early on, but in case of PoE there will be also temporary companions, so if we gather our permanent party members the temporary ones wont be able to join -> we'll miss their "input" (though on n-playthrough i would try doing that). 

[Tartantyco]

 

And is it an intelligent decision to wander blindly into the wilderness when you've never set foot outside of Candlekeep before?

It may be an intelligent decision to explore that area; it may not be. If I'm not presented with any information about that area I can't know. Going on what your implying, I'd never leave the first screen after finding the gibberlings on the road, would I?

 

 

No, you'd go to the Friendly Arm Inn, because that's where Gorion told you to go if you got separated. Then you get information about the Nashkel Mines, and you go there. At that point you should know that wherever you go, there are considerable dangers, and you should act accordingly. At no point does the game tell you that it's safe to roam the wilderness.

 

If you act on the information you are given in the game, there is no reason why you should be up there until you are made aware of the risk you are taking.

[Tort]

Looks like BG1 style to me. Lots of open travel, having to go to places before you can quick travel to them, with a few areas that are restricted until revealed through story progression.

IMO how you explore the setting is just one aspect of the game, its intertwined with story progression and other game mechanics and can't be considered on its own. To me, even though BG2 world feelt smaller and more constricted, it was overall far better game, with more area to explore. (although possibly I am thinking of expansions and mods, it has been a while since I played BG1/BG2 not modded).

 

In terms of exploration, BG2 had a bit too big initial quest hub, that some found confusion and missed the outdoor locations, that give you feeling of the world around you and a "change of scenery".

 

I am not sure which style we have here (more BG1 or BG2), but i believe we will have several acts that follow the main story, each act will open new areas, quest-hubs and exploration opportunists. As well as more wilderness areas then there were in BG2. - I like it.

 

EDITED.

Edited March 21, 2015 by Tort

[Katarack21]

 

 

And is it an intelligent decision to wander blindly into the wilderness when you've never set foot outside of Candlekeep before?

It may be an intelligent decision to explore that area; it may not be. If I'm not presented with any information about that area I can't know. Going on what your implying, I'd never leave the first screen after finding the gibberlings on the road, would I?

 

 

No, you'd go to the Friendly Arm Inn, because that's where Gorion told you to go if you got separated. Then you get information about the Nashkel Mines, and you go there. At that point you should know that wherever you go, there are considerable dangers, and you should act accordingly. At no point does the game tell you that it's safe to roam the wilderness.

 

If you act on the information you are given in the game, there is no reason why you should be up there until you are made aware of the risk you are taking.

 

If you only go to the places that are mentioned specifically in the main plot, you will also miss out on roughly half the game experience. I'm not saying I need to be lead along by hand like a frightened child; I'm saying I want to be able to make choices about the dangers I face to some extent. When something comes up out of nowhere, with no context and no prior build up, and just slaughters my entire party because I happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time it doesn't make me think "Oh, wow, how realistic!" it makes think "****, that son of a bitch! Where the hell did that bull**** come from! ****! **** this thing! That's half an hour down the drain!"

[Tartantyco]

That's not what I said. I'll get back to you when you actually read my post.

[Katarack21]

That's not what I said. I'll get back to you when you actually read my post.

I did. I'll get back to you when you cut the douchebaggery down.

[Osvir]

BG1 style is the superior style. Anything else is heresy.

This^'

 

 

Baldur's Gate exploration is superior to anything I've seen ever since, and I hated what they did in BG2. We shouldn't have been dumped in Athkatla to begin with.

 

Haha, you know, that's probably exactly what the main character felt/feels too and might be what the designers wanted you to feel too "Where the hell am I? Who the hell is this Irenicus? What the F************************************K!!!!".

 

EDIT: I don't mind unlocking quest areas by finding people to talk too and such (I am unsure because I never left Athkatla before at least unlocking some areas, but if you go to the gates, don't you open up new areas like Baldur's Gate?).

 

What I do felt a little bit sad is that I couldn't travel back to the Sword Coast in BG2. I understand why, from a technical perspective, and budget as well. And that BG2's story wasn't designed for it either... but still! :D (Which is why I hope that if Obsidian makes Pillars of Eternity 2 start in another region, that they keep the Eastern Reach/Dyrwood in it and consider its participation in the plot).

Edited March 21, 2015 by Osvir

[Luckmann]

No, you'd go to the Friendly Arm Inn, because that's where Gorion told you to go if you got separated. Then you get information about the Nashkel Mines, and you go there. At that point you should know that wherever you go, there are considerable dangers, and you should act accordingly. At no point does the game tell you that it's safe to roam the wilderness.

 

If you act on the information you are given in the game, there is no reason why you should be up there until you are made aware of the risk you are taking.

I want to really agree with you, and your point is actually very valid, but in this particular case, I think it's pretty reasonable, especially if you are playing anything that's supposed to do well in the wild (Ranger, Druid, for example) to explore the immediate surrounding of the Friendly Arm Inn.

 

This is partly because the Friendly Arm Inn map is pretty small and the Friendly Arm itself takes up so much of it, and I realized that if we extrapolate on the format we can deduct that most often, maps aren't back-to-back and you actually travel some distance between each map point, but.. I can see how someone would make the mistake.

 

That being said though, I still completely agree with your point. I hate it when games feel the need to constantly remind me of what I'm doing is a bad idea. I prefer it very much when things can be deducted reasonably in accordance to the universe presented ("realism" if one will). As you say, if you follow the directions, as you should as a lone 16-18-or-whatever-old after having your foster father murdered under odd circumstnaces starting out at level-1-or-whhatever, it is your own damn fault if you get killed while exploring the total wilds.

 

But again, that being said, it is not utterly unreasonable that, in this situation presented, the character would actually go "Eh, screw it, I never liked Gorion anyway". That is something Baldur's Gate I isn't actually good at handling. In many ways, the main quest is quite narrow. But that's really a separate point to all of this.

 

I did. I'll get back to you when you cut the douchebaggery down.

You think the avatar is a mistake?

 

 

Baldur's Gate exploration is superior to anything I've seen ever since, and I hated what they did in BG2. We shouldn't have been dumped in Athkatla to begin with.

 

Haha, you know, that's probably exactly what the main character felt/feels too and might be what the designers wanted you to feel too "Where the hell am I? Who the hell is this Irenicus? What the F************************************K!!!!".

 

That is actually a very valid point, and I really do think that that was part of the feeling they were going for. Dumped in an unknown land, lots of things going on, people everywhere.

 

But it could've been pulled off better, I think. It doesn't really come across very well and I feel that the pacing of the game is off. Maybe not entirely because of it alone, but it definitely contributes to it. I really, really liked BG2 in many, many ways, but when it's raised to the skies, I can't help but to feel that the story, the storytelling, the exploration and the pacing was a lot better in Baldur's Gate 1.

 

And the music, but with that we're so deep in the land of subjectivity that it's hard to argue, methinks.

 

 

And the NPC:s. The BG2 ones were better fleshed out, but they still ranged largely from annoying to eh I'll take it. I even felt they messed up Edwin a little. Only a little, though. And Korgan being Chaotic Evil annoys me to no end to this very day.

 

 

EDIT: I don't mind unlocking quest areas by finding people to talk too and such (I am unsure because I never left Athkatla before at least unlocking some areas, but if you go to the gates, don't you open up new areas like Baldur's Gate?).

 

What I do felt a little bit sad is that I couldn't travel back to the Sword Coast in BG2. I understand why, from a technical perspective, and budget as well. And that BG2's story wasn't designed for it either... but still! :D (Which is why I hope that if Obsidian makes Pillars of Eternity 2 start in another region, that they keep the Eastern Reach/Dyrwood in it and consider its participation in the plot).

 

Nope, in BG2, you can't leave the city until you've actually had locations placed on your map. If you have Throne of Bhaal, you can travel to Watcher's Keep, but that's it. Either way, once you have unlocked a map (Umar Hills, Trademeet, etc) you can travel there instantly, as opposed to in BG1, where you actually had to go there on foot at least once, map by map. Which I much prefer.

 

Also, if we want to get technical, you were still on the Sword Coast in BG2. It stretches from Waterdeep to Athkatla, at least as defined by Volo (I can see arguments as to whether the Sword Coast actually stretches past the Cloud Peak Mountains (south of Nashkel) and one definition says that it's to the river Chionthar by Baldur's Gate is the south end of the Sword Coast, which is just absurd).

 

I also think that BG2 detracted too much from the bhaalspawn saga and there weren't the same sense of mystery about what was going on, the same exploration and investigation as there was in BG1. I instead felt like I knew practically everything by the time I left Irenicus' dungeon (even if that's not entirely true) and then I had it pinned on me to save Imoen whether I wanted or not, and it all felt a bit forced, a singular goal I may not even care for dangled in front of me for practically the entire game with no twists or turns in that. Yes, things happen, but it never really changed that.

 

And then I think it's odd that Throne of Bhaal took us to Tethyr and wherenot, when the prophecy was supposed to be centred on the Sword Coast. BG2 spun a bit out of control towards the end and then Throne of Bhaal felt like a wrap-up. I don't dislike it as much as I know many do, and the ending did feel truly epic to me, and some of the twists were interesting the first time I played, but.. BG2 should've restrained itself and then there should've been a final BG3, centred perhaps on Waterdeep. Stories are self-contained so they could've burned it just as much as they burned Saradush, and it would've felt more important than a one-map city I really never knew or cared about anyway.

 

That said, I agree with you to a degree, I would've loved it if we could've had a truly seamless experience throughout the entire saga, but I can see how it'd be hard to do. I hope that PoE works on that and tries to make it so, using the same engine and just "update backwards" so to say, at least if PoE itsef becomes a trilogy or similar. I really hope that any potential PoE sequels start in a new region too, but keeps reconnecting to the previous game, not necessarily by our choices, but it shouldn't be so self-contained and isolated as BG2 became to BG1.

 

I think there's like rumors about the iron crisis in Athkatla, that's the only "reconnect" I remember. And we're talking about a major iron ore crisis and nearly a war in a region that is just, just barely north of Amn. I think that at least as birds fly, the distance between Amn and Nashkel is shorter than the distance between Amn and Trademeet (it is hard to know for sure, because the BG2 map is kinda screwed up and hard to correlate to an actual map of Faerun, but I think that Trademeet is by Lake Esmel; the far end of it, even - which, by the way, would mean that the distance between the Windspear Hills and Amn is farther apart than Baldur's Gate and Nashkel. The supposed distance between Amn and Suldanessellar in the Forest of Tethir is at least twice the distance between Nashkel and Baldur's Gate. See, I said it was screwed up.)

Edited March 21, 2015 by Luckmann

[Stun]

Not all Eldoths are created equal, people!

[Horrorscope]

Yeah, those links and map is eriely BG1. As said, I'm doing quick catchup on this game. I would think generally you take advantage of some pc advancements over the past many years, perhaps seemless maps, neverending, going from one end to the other with no loads type thing. Not a deal breaker, but that would add immersion and be really slick. Each map/load seems almost identical to what you would expect from BG (including load times, lol), I felt those were what they were due to restrictions back in the day, not because it was ideal.

[Stun]

I felt those were what they were due to restrictions back in the day, not because it was ideal.

It's a little of both, actually. Restrictions and Ideal.

 

These games don't have tile-based environment art. Every inch of the terrain is hand drawn and hand painted. But the result is that they look so much better.

 

I wouldn't want PoE's world to be one gigantic seamless area because no matter how big and dense it ends up being, it will still feel like the world is smaller, and there's no way they could make it look as good or as detailed. And we didn't ask for a sandbox anyway. The IE games weren't Sandbox.

Edited March 21, 2015 by Stun

[Horrorscope]

 

I felt those were what they were due to restrictions back in the day, not because it was ideal.

It's a little of both, actually. Restrictions and Ideal.

 

These games don't have tile-based environment art. Every inch of the terrain is hand drawn and hand painted. But the result is that they look so much better.

 

I wouldn't want PoE's world to be one gigantic seamless area because no matter how big and dense it ends up being, it will still feel like the world is smaller, and there's no way they could make it look as good or as detailed. And we didn't ask for a sandbox anyway. The IE games weren't Sandbox.

 

 

I get your first point, about if it were done as a very large seemless, you would have more open space between areas. While not being a 3d world, the more hand painting would be needed. The counter to that, more open area's would have to be substantially easier to draw than cities.

 

Because you could travel between cities in full that doesn't make it sandbox, imo there is a whole set of features that make a sandbox. What I do feel seemless does give you is a greater sense of adventure, discovery, hidden lands off the beat.

 

I always got the BG era reasoning of the small areas and loads, tech. But Bioware stayed imo way too long on expanding the same engine over and over. All their games up until DA:I have had a very small corridor feeling, where a special place is taking a branch in a cooridor and going a couple hundered yards for the "secret loot", to me that never worked well.

 

So overall I don't really want to defend small areas and loads in todays ram filled pc's. I would say I'd choose large-seemless over small-loading, simply on sense of adventure and immersion. Like I prefer opening a door and being able to stand within it's jamb's, seeing both inside and outside at the same time, with no loads. That is starting to happen, falls on immersion for me. I also and as polietely as I can, quetion if you really would prefer small area/loads to one seemless world, imo if the game had that and you played that, you'd love it. I could be wrong, but I see it more of defending the honor of.

 

This is more of an overall ideal state and not trying to lay blame on the game, it is what it is, but it is something I see that can be improved upon, they really really meant going for a BG vibe!

Edited March 21, 2015 by Horrorscope

[jackyjackyjackychan]

I wish we could go whereever we want and explore a la skyrim. I enjoy exploring areas and searching for treasure while ignoring the quests. Although I like the isometric style I hope the game is not too linear like the Baldurs Gate games were.