Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
5 
Report this post
So the way that it works out IMO is that BG1 feels bigger because of the way the game had to make due with the simplistic visuals with it's design choices due to limitations of the time. Also, when you factor in the perception of "travel" in BG1 to each map chunk, it can give the illusion of being bigger.
However, if you removed the "travel" from BG1 and sewed all the map chunks together, it wouldn't actually be that big. This link here: ...
https://baldursgate.fandom.com/wiki/World_Map
...actually does that if you scroll down a bit. It's not really that big. What BG1 does really well is give the illusion of time passing as you go from chunk to chunk, giving the illusion of size effectively. It also doesn't really have much questing or anything in it and is more akin to having like, little events, sprinkled throughout each map chunk.
BG2 is similar in this regard but has less freedom of travel, so it feels more limiting and by extension, smaller.
BG3 is by far, much bigger, as it includes essences of both BG1 and BG2 (Above ground and Underdark) It's just not split up into chunks, it's one map per act (mostly) baring a few examples. This is because game development has come a long way in 20+ years.
From what I've seen of all the games, I think that BG3 is the bigger game, as far as traversal maps.
I don't particularly disagree with anything you've said. I had already looked at that link but if I hadn't it would have been useful so thanks all the same. I still can't find actual dimensions to give me a real comparison. The only similar example for BG3 I could find was when it was going to be a bigger game with a different map.
I do think the illusion is actually underrated in games. If I have the illusion of choice I don't mind too much as long as I'm immersed in it. For example in BG3 the illusion of open world/choice was shattered very easily for me and the story pretty easily fell to pieces when I strayed from the linear path. Particularly because there were main storylines that just literally didn't go anywhere and had zero payoff or consequences. They took forever to finish it and then just didn't finish it. It felt like other Larian projects in that regard where they kind of hope you don't get halfway through. The acts felt completely separate from one another. It also happened whenever I camped and everyone tried to jump my bones and speak to me. Very different to the pacing of BG1. I wanted to get out of the underdark and act 2 in BG3 but not in the way I sometimes want to escape from a difficult dungeon in BG1 because I felt like there was peril.
I think in another universe BG3 would have started in or had access to Baldur's Gate the city earlier and felt much better with a limited space that suddenly opens up. But for me by the time I got there I'd gotten fed up and the story became ludicrous. Act 2 felt like danger was on the doorstep, but also just wander about Moonrise Towers and no one cares, and then suddenly none of that matters you're in a normal city that feels upbeat. I also got hit by the bug that caused massive slowdown depending on which version you started in for act 3 that the updates never solved for me.
I actually feel like I've done far more quests and had more interactions in BG1 than BG3. The writing is just so good. BG3 has excellent voice-acting but also some ridiculously one note only in the 2020s pandering such as Nightsong or the "romance" scenes. I actually had non-trivial reasons to return to cities in BG1, I had this with Arcanum too before playing this.
For me this game is another reminder that a lot of game development hasn't really gone anywhere except visually and frankly a spell in this and spell in BG3 do not look 25+ years apart. Only the cutscenes do. The inventory and amount of useless junk in BG3 is actually worse. I still think BG3 is not quite as good as Divinity Original Sin 2 while the best versions of what Baldur's Gate are to me are found elsewhere (Tides of Numenara, Pillars of Eternity 2).
I'm just having far more fun with this than BG3. But anyway I'd like to know the actual physical dimensions.
I came across this Web site (https://loremaps.azurewebsites.net/Maps/Faerun) Which allowed me to measure the distances. So for research purposes, this is the tool I used.
For the first Baldur's Gate game, I'll use Candlekeep as the Southwesternmost point and Durlag's Tower as the Southeasterly. That is a distance of approximately 150 miles. If we go North to Baldur's Gate, that distance is 144 miles. Since part of the map runs south of Candlekeep, I'll round that up to 150. So for the first game, it covers an area of approximately 22,500 square miles. If we add in the Siege of Dragonspear expansion - using the Ruins of Dragonspear as the Northern edge - it increases the size to 55,500 square miles.
For Baldur's Gate 2, we can see that Athkatla is the Northwesterly corner of Amn. It can be safe to assume that "Small Teeth Pass" is located in the mountain range known as the Small Teeth, which is approximately 115 miles South. The Eastern edge is much harder to determine, though, given that the maps I have show the Umar Hills and Tradesmeet [i[South[/i] of the Small Teeth mountain range, firmly in Tethyr. Also given that the large body of water to the East in the BG2 map doesn't appear on the tabletop material, I'm thinking they took some artistic liberties with the geography of BG2. If we assume that that body of water is supposed to be the lake located Northeast of Athkatla, then it is around 150 miles away. That would give us an area of 17,250, more or less - and keep in mind that's just a guess.
Don't get me started on the Throne of Bhaal expansion. There's only one landmark on that one - Saradush - and that is located 660 miles Southeast of Athkatla. There isn't anything else on the BG2 map that corresponds with the other resources I have, so I have no way of determining how much area that game encompasses. Given that the portals could take the player nearly anywhere in the Realms, it might not be possible to make this determination, anyway.
I haven't played Baldur's Gate 3, and I had trouble finding an overland map that made sense to me. I did see that the Friendly Arms Inn is in the game, though, so that tells me that the area is smaller than BG1, at least. The Friendly Arms is approximately halfway between Beregost and Baldur's Gate, so half the distance North and South of BG1. I couldn't determine how far East BG3 goes, though.
Also keep in mind that portions of BG2 take place in the Planes, where distance might operate differently than the Prime Material Plane. In addition, the Underdark has a notorious reputation for being difficult to map, so I didn't even try with that part of the game(s). Hopefully that gives you a rough idea of the land area involved in the games, at least!
Freakin' Google Maps over here doing the work of a cartographer. Good on ya.
Link is blocked as malicious on my end but I trust you.
Overall map size of BG3 as far as like, it's partition of the Sword Coast, is probably the smallest of the games. Actual explorable areas are much much larger than previous games though.
I think maybe I was thinking in a game sense, as opposed to like, the actual literal geography of the games.
BG1 probably takes up more space on a map if you had a globe. BG2 (like Sstavix said) takes place all over the place so it's size is difficult to quantify. BG3 as far as the gameplay is concerned, has more to explore, but geographically takes up less space than BG1.
As for BG2, Siege or anything else I cannot say as I have only ever played BG1 and Tales. I play other games as well like sci-fi 4x which I like a lot...
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3315485336
Yeah sorry Sstavix but the interactive map you put a link too, even though really nice, I'm sorry to say the distances are all skewed and it's actaully squashed, which is apparent when you zoom out and compare west to east with makes it look very square and all the other maps it's much more elongated
just compare it with this one also:
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3237175758
I dunno I could be wrong or right...just seems a little skewed to me with all the other maps I've seen
I found that map that provided distances and figured it would get us in the ballpark, at least. But what do you make of the BG2 maps? Is it just me, or does it seem like the developers rearranged the locations just to try and get them to squeeze into the same locale?
Hey no probs Sstavix, you were in the ballpark for sure and if anything it's the map makers fault not yours
Sorry no idea about BG2, I never played it, it's on my bucket list though but if you see my gaming history it's patchy at best. And being a completionist games like BG are tiresome...I'm 640 hours into my first ENHANCED playthrough (I beat the original game when it came out)...and I'm only in Durlag's Tower and just arrived at Buldar's Gate. yes, you read it right. 640 hours
640 hours? What's taking you so long!
Just kidding! The important thing is that you're having fun. You are having fun, aren't you?
yeah I'm slow
edit: playing on insanity doesn't help...
to be honest I get sidetracked A LOT...I tend to never finish a movie/game/anything...hectic life mine unfortuately 640 hours in BG1 is maybe 40 hours playing the rest was on pause while I was doing something else or sleeping....
Thank you - you flatter me, sir.
A few years ago i decided that I should try to work on my backlog of games and get my game completion percentage up. I think it was around 24% when i started... but it's turned into a sort of meta-game as a result. i'm still working on the backlog, but I've thrown in the occasional new game into the mix, too.
And no SAM for me! That's against the rules! If I can't get an achievement because I lack the skill, I'm simply going to have to live with it.
This year I wanted to get one RPG done a month. I got distracted from that goal.... but at least i have BG 1 and 2 done!
Larian's map design is highly compressed in the sense that there's a druid grove right next to the goblin village, which in turn is but a walk away from the swamps. But it brings back some actual exploration. With places you discover for yourself -- and those places oft having several points of entry and exit (quite a few of times, not at all obvious). One inspiration of Larian? ULtima...
But yeah, BG1 sticks out from the crowd in a big way. No less as its forests are often times just... forests. It's not an obstacle course crawling with f*ckers, loot and quests. Really looking forward to Kingdom Come II -- KCD I actually reminded me some of BG1 in that way. Except, it's taken a step further, towards "realism". Actual EVENTS are rare, even just random attacks. But when they happen... almost had a heart attack when I was ambushed at night by bandits once. :-)
What's so unique about it? I've seen it in many games...Final Fantasy 7, Witcher 1, even going back to Daggerfall released 5 years before BG1...not sure I get what you mean, a different area accessed from a map? Seen it many times....
Yeah it's "interconnected" in the same way as every other game with different map areas...via loading. Daggerfall was exactly the same....released way before BG1
This is the process in BG1: go to edge of screen, select area on map, loads different area. Many many games used this system and it used to be the norm before Skyrim raised the level to full on persistent open world...which is now the norm.
I should have worded it differently. It's not so much that it's interconnected (though out of all the BG games, it's the only one that does such -- in BG2, not even the city districts you explore actually connect). Ultima had that way before as well, as said an obvious influence.
However, overall, it's rather that it's both a (semi-) open world, as well one that isn't build like a bloody theme park, with stuff to find around every corner -- for Bethesda, even the capital wastes are build like a tourist attraction. In fact, one of the reasons that BIoware ditched this type of exploration entirelly, was vocal criticism regarding the game being "boring". Like nothing happening, just empty woods, booh .
That's why I'm really looking forward to KCDII. They're trying to build a world as opposed to a theme park also. And in doing such, doing something barely anybody does: Risk boring players. (34:00 minutes onwards) www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwE2goNeshY&t
That said, for BG1, not all of that was fully intentional. Bioware have since admitted they were running out of time implementing more content into their vast wilderness that is their version of the Sword Coast... and a lot of that was last-minute efforts. Likely also the random NPCs approaching and just having a chat to disappear.