Would anybody like the sense of exploration back in BG2?

Rinpoo

I thought about this for a while, and something I had forgotten that really disappointed me in BG2 was how there were so few locations outside of where the game prodded you to mostly go. I remember exploring the plains of Baldurs Gate 1, and remember feeling happy that I could explore many areas that did not necessarily have a point to them. It was possible to run into random quests, and or find people looking for a fight; maybe a cave or dungeon with a little treasure inside of it. I would like to have more areas on the map to explore and have fun with, but at the same time I do not know if this violates contractual obligations. it would be altering the map; however it is all completely new areas and content. I don't know maybe I am just being silly, but at the time I was young and I remember when first getting Baldurs gate 2 missing that sense of free exploration.

O_Bruce

I really don't know which answer should I choose. I would like to see some more areas, but on the other hand, if they had to be BG1 style... Sure, BG1 had many large areas to explore, but on the other hands, there was two, maybe three interesting things/ecounters on them at best. Most of the time, they were just boring.

Djimmy

This discussion is awesome! I really would like that. I think both BG1 and BG2 have many areas that are not bound to the main quest, but yeah I definitely want more. It would be more natural if there were areas just for doing something else other than questing. Awesome discussion again! Thanks!

Silence

The biggest problem in BG2 was areas were not unlocked unless you found a quest first. In BG1, you picked a direction and ran with it until something caught your fancy. All the maps were connected. I hope, if they do BG2:EE, that they add a few extra maps.

Another difference is that, in BG2, they opted for detailed quests with multi-level dungeons. In BG2, they had a million maps and a million simple 5-minute map adventures (eg: the rock garden + basilisks). I'd like to see more of those too!

Sceptenar

I wouldn't mind a little more ground to explore. But I do not want BG1 style exploration for BG2, because when you get down to it, BG1 doesn't really have a lot of stuff in all those areas, and worse, the areas are incredibly boring with few if any features to set them apart from the others.

Rinpoo

ZelgadisGW said:

I really don't know which answer should I choose. I would like to see some more areas, but on the other hand, if they had to be BG1 style... Sure, BG1 had many large areas to explore, but on the other hands, there was two, maybe three interesting things/ecounters on them at best. Most of the time, they were just boring.

They do not have to be exactly like BG1 style, and that many areas. I just wish for more exploration in general, and how they go about it is completely optional. I just cite BG1 simply because it is what I am most familiar with and what most people on this board can probably understand.

Quartz

Yes, yes I would. For me, the two things that BG2 was lacking: 1. Better sense of exploration, and 2. more NPCs.

RedGuard

Incredibly boring walks through woodland occasionally interrupted by a pack of measly wild dogs? No thank you.

BG1 had a lot of areas to explore that were arguably too big and too empty. I wouldn't say no to some more exploring, random quests and encounters not related to the main story, but not like what you're proposing.

Phyrax

Aimless wandering: the best the Forgotten Realms has to offer!

Drugar

You're too high level for fun little quests where you rescue a cow or kill four gnolls that are intimidating a dwarf. You're fighting dragons, liches, demiliches even, stopping ancient evils, taking on an entire drow city...random adventures in the wild are beneath you. Leave that stuff to the young adventurers who still need the XP to level.

NymMoondown

It's probably the most important feature I would like to be changed IN BG2. Give me back the pathos of Bg1, please! Random encounter may be interesting for a hig level party too...just as in P&P. And with more quest too...

Kharas

Polls like this are to some degree pointless.. Because what you are essentialy saying is "Do you want more content for the game" or "are you happy with the content there is now".. Ofc the majority on a forum dedicated to the game, will choose the "more content" option.

You should instead ask: If they implement new areas in BG2EE, would you like them to be either "More roaming areas with exploration as in BG" or "More focused quest areas like they did with BG2".

Then we would see what kind of game people would prefer, and that feedback would proably be alot more usefull for the developers

Concerning your question now.. I think BG2 works really well the way it is, so Id prefer if they kept it in the way it is now.

Roller12

Someone has to make these areas and this is where the problem is.

Jarlaxle

Half and half, I would like some new areas, but not much like in BG.
Little new things are good, but not big empty areas with a pair of bears, in BG2 would not be realistic: a party of level 18 don't care about, and we can not encounter lich and demons everywhere.

siriusluke

-

RedWizards

Totally agree.

Exploration is paramount to BG1, BG2 would only benefit to have some fun "sidequest" (or otherwise redundant, yes redundant but fun) maps and locations.

NWN_babaYaga

The way they made BG2 work in that regard was realy perfect imo. It was a bit more focused and i like that questwise. But i enjoy it to get lost at times too.

Konabuga

Yes, exploration is always fun. You never know what you can find out threre in the wilderness. Stumbling onto quests, mysteries, derelict buildings, strange creatures and weirdos is always entertaining. Those areas just need to populated by the aforementioned elements. Thanks for bringing this up @Rinpoo.

In future titles it could be implemented as half the areas being open to exploration and the other half opened by quests.

elminster

Get rid of all the map markers. BG1 didn't have them. No more of this helping hand nonsense.

Nihilus

I have advocated the merits of isometric graphics for a long time, but I have to say area exploration is not among them. It's certainly not nearly relevant as in 3D, open world games. I say time and resources are better spent on creating more quests, more subplots, more interaction between characters and so on.

Klonoa

@Rinpoo - Breath of Fire!

Well, since we are talking about "enhanced editions" I can't see why not. I can see why they didn't add a lot to the original game, there was already so much there and what was made with the cost of the game was already generous.

bigdogchris

I felt overall that BG2 was a good game but I did have more fun with BG because of the exploration. I was disappointed when I played BG2 and found that you just fast travel between area's more than explore the wilderness between them like in BG. Maybe I'm old fashion but marching through the woods at level 1 is fun for me.

Washcloth_Repairman

Absolutely! That was my largest complaint with BG2. I liked the exploration in BG1, and actually having to GET to areas (for the first time) instead of just fast traveling.

Crawley

One of the things I don't like in BG2 is getting everything on silver plating. Quests are not very hard to get through unless there's a tough part there. Take the skinners quest for instance. Almost everything you need is in one place. Only the beggar with the skin part and the police guy are a bit further away... You don't even have to think how to solve the quest, as it solves itself before you. The same goes with finding quests, because in BG2 quests find you.

Duran

I would love to have more areas to explore and have existing quests spread out to them. Also love the idea from BG1 that you actually had to travel to each area. BG2 exploration was good but needs to be more like BG1 making the magical item find more enjoyable.

Baldur

I liked that in Baldur's Gate, travel to locations was a literal 'map by map' thing. Even though the Cloakwood was on your map, you still had to make the trip across the maps to get there. It made it feel more like you were travelling. Now, I love Baldur's Gate 2, but having that in there would just be a cherry on top as far as I'm concerned, as opposed to jumping straight to Trademeet from Athkatla. I mean, hell, speaking of Athkatla, at least there you had to travel around to open up the other parts of the city.

GemHound

You are in Amn. A little exploration is going to be FAR from empty.

DiscoCat

I'm sorry, I don't see the appeal in aimless wandering. We don't need more Oblivions and Skyrims. What's great about BG2 is that there is almost always a reason for you to be in any given location. You almost always have some task or quest driving you forward. You're not just doing it to 'explore'. You don't go around 'exploring' for random quests when Imoen/your soul is in need of rescue.

That's what completely breaks the immersion in games like Oblivion. It's like "hey, let's take some time to explore this random generic cave or these random generic Ayleid ruins while we're on an urgent mission to save the world".

Boaster

BG2 is too guided. Explorable areas are great! Adds to the environment and atmosphere of the game.

noctum_excidii

@DiscoCat I appreciate what you said. I totally agree that in BG2 there is almost always a given reason to be in any area. Unfortunately I never played BG1 and am all the more looking forward to make it up. Anyhow I find in BG2 that before you leave to rescue Imoen the game makes more fun as you are free to go everywhere you please. Once you were on the pirate island i found the course to be too monotonous. As example it takes so long till you get to forge all the good stuff by the dwarf as you cant just visit him by chance

Mordecai

@Rinpoo

I completely agree. One of my favorite things about BG1 was some of the senseless wandering in the lower half of the map. I wish there was even more of it.

Part of the reason this was so enjoyable is the extent to which it mirrored what actual adventuring would be like--a torturous amount of waiting punctuated by bouts of sheer terror. I remember the first time I fully exploded the BG1 map. I would become so bored looking across what seemed an empty land that I'd stop paying full attention or send my characters across the map with a single click, whereupon I'd accidentally stumble on something and get someone killed. It not only makes you a better player, but it makes you more patient and really binds you to the gameplay.

If you want one fight after the next, then you should really be playing Diablo III. I'm not trying to insult anyone, but I am trying to say that there's a reason the Baldur's Gate series was popular. The immersion is an essential quality in explaining why it's still alive today.

Additions to the immersive nature of the gameplay, such as expanded areas, quest lines, items, spells, locations, story lines, etc., should all be welcomed (so long as they're believable and decent--please avoid things like Sarileth's mod).

Any detractions from the immersive nature of the gameplay should be viewed, at the very least, suspiciously. I understand that WotC has specifically stated that they do not intend to alter material so much as add to it. I really hope that's the case, with particular emphasis on "add".

For those players that don't want to run around or earn the extra and vital experience, items, and gameplay, additions wouldn't really affect anything so long as these additions mirror the "unnecessary" parts of the BG1 map: they're worth a fair amount of experience, gold, and trinkets, but avoiding them won't affect the gameplay largely in any direction.