MEGAMAP - Why is the PC slow as a snail?

Cheesebelly

So I had some time to stick things up and down, Art Attack style and got up with this gargatuan thing (which isn't complete yet, mind you)



Now, what you'll be seeing here is a resize, so you better check it out full size. Aside from minor inconsistencies, like some shadows, trees and grass color... it all fits perfectly like a puzzle. I mean, I didn't notice before now that there are some tree tops on the bottom of Candlekeep's map which fit perfectly with its southern neighbor. More over, Gullykin is a town above an ancient maze, cozily close to the ruins of a school and a place crawling with Basilisks... seems safe!

We can also now solve the mystery on why Gorion and PC were walking on the center of the map east of Candlekeep - because instead of taking the road which would take 50 seconds, they could take a shortcut to Friendly Arm Inn that could take 30 seconds, or 10 seconds to reach Elminster!

Now, my question is - why does the player need 12 hours to get from Beregost to the Friendly Arm Inn??? O_O

(PS - Cloakwood two is the only area here that didn't fit at all so far)

Ward

Wouldn't be surprised if they did this as one big map first and then split it up into areas. Probably added the funny looking ones after.

Permidion_Stark

That's really nice work. I love the artwork of the areas in Baldur's Gate. I think it is absolutely beautiful. I'd love to be able to print the whole thing out as a huge map to put on my wall.

Cheesebelly

@Ward : it would make sense actually, or at least take the borders of the previous map to create a new one. I don't know for sure, but sure the seasonal change between every 100 meters or so, is phenomenal :P

@Permidion_Stark : well, I'd first let someone shape the whole map better with Photoshop or some kind of other program, to fix those inconsistencies between map (for instance, the rock in Gullykin is red-ish, the rock in Ulcaster is vivid yellow though, but the two areas fit very well together)

Djimmy

Cheesebelly said:

Now, my question is - why does the player need 12 hours to get from Beregost to the Friendly Arm Inn??? O_O

Because there are places between areas that characters can only pass through. It is like a moive, only the points of interest are shown(the scenes, which in BG are the playable areas). Also, when you are waylaid by enemies(and must defend yourself ), an area other than the visitable, shown on the map ones is displayed.

moody_mage

I always imagine it that these are areas of note on the map and that there is a lot of travel involved to get to these places (hence how you can be waylaid on the way when travelling).

I believe there is meant to be at least a hundred miles between Nashkel and Beregost, however according to the condensed map above walking from Candlekeep to Nashke shouldn't take more than an hour or two strolling at a snails pace.

Good work though. I like it.

Eidolon

It's probably not really representative of the area but they are just points of interest and sort of glued together as a cohesive map but in reality there are huge travelling gaps in between the points of interesting.

Or then it's probably Noobers fault, as he keeps the PC busy for hours and hours.

EDIT: According to this 4e Forgotten Realms map (it's pretty accurate still):

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/wd_maps/FRposterLarge_72.jpg

The distance between Candlekeep and Nashkel is roughly 240 miles (give or take). With 40 miles per day traveling it would take the PC 6 days to make it to Nashkel.

From Beregost to Nashkel is probably about half that, roughly 120 miles, so about 3 days worth of travel.

jolly_bb

Djimmy said:

Cheesebelly said:

Now, my question is - why does the player need 12 hours to get from Beregost to the Friendly Arm Inn??? O_O

Because there are places between areas that characters can only pass through. It is like a moive, only the points of interest are shown(the scenes, which in BG are the playable areas). Also, when you are waylaid by enemies(and must defend yourself ), an area other than the visitable, shown on the map ones is displayed.

I understand your point, but:
WHY does the maps fit in so well? If the playable areas are interconnected by something we don't see (except when waylaid), it would make no sense for the pieces to fit the big set surely.

mch202

This map reminds me Heroes 3, just give the horses...

Frostiken

I subscribe to the idea that they were originally big, singular maps, but perhaps to combat the feeling of a lack of content or performance they broke them up and scattered them.

Personally I always hated the travel times of BG1 and wish there was a mod that would divide them all by two. Travel times are meaningless but it seems kinda daft that by the end of BG1, it says I've been hunting Sarevok for like seven months. The pacing of the game get laughably screwed when you consider that.

Same for 'resting'. I wish resting was resting and not sleeping. 8 hours my arse. Have a different mechanic for sleeping.

ShYariv

Hey, I did the same thing with the BG1 maps a few years ago (so it's already done).

I also added green borderlines around each area. Notice how the maps of the city of Baldur's Gate itself slightly overlap.




And here is a full size version of the map:
http://imageshack.us/a/img341/4067/bg1gc.jpg

Cheesebelly

@ShYariv : awesome!

It's interesting how nobody knows about the super secret mine in Cloakwood when it's just over the Friendly Arm Inn turf XD

Metal_Hurlant

I like how the rivers, waterways and roads all line up.

Excalibur_2102

It is odd how well they all fit, when there was obviously meant to be travelling time not seen by the player between most maps.

Frostiken said:

but perhaps to combat the feeling of a lack of content or performance they broke them up and scattered them.

One thing I wouldnt criticize BG1 for is lack of content, lol... Christ knows how long it took me to finish it with exploring every area. Im not as hardcore as some though, I admit.

Permidion_Stark

Seeing all the areas put together like that makes we wish that rather than making BG3 they would just carry on adding more maps to the edge of this to keep expanding the world outwards from Baldur's Gate.

APhantasm

Excalibur_2102 said:

It is odd how well they all fit, when there was obviously meant to be travelling time not seen by the player between most maps.

Frostiken said:

but perhaps to combat the feeling of a lack of content or performance they broke them up and scattered them.

One thing I wouldnt criticize BG1 for is lack of content, lol... Christ knows how long it took me to finish it with exploring every area. Im not as hardcore as some though, I admit.

I know what ya mean. I just completed a run through of BG1. Took me about 16 hours (real time not game time) to complete BG1. It would have taken longer if I had not used 'ctrl j' to move around, and was fighting some of the mobs in between quest objectives.

Permidion_Stark said:

Seeing all the areas put together like that makes we wish that rather than making BG3 they would just carry on adding more maps to the edge of this to keep expanding the world outwards from Baldur's Gate.

Only problem with that is they can't go too far north or south in BG1. To the South is Amn which of course is in BG2. To the North is Neverwinter, which of course is featured in NWN and NWN2, they could go maybe as far north as Waterdeep, maybe. Mostly though any expansion, in BG1 anyways, would be to the east, based on this map anyways....

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/wd_maps/FRposterLarge_72.jpg
(Note I wonder where Spellhold is on that map)

I think I would love for them to expand maybe BG2 south in an expansion pack. We got some of Tethyr (TOB is in Tethyr), so how about going all the way down to Calimshan, it is mentioned in the Trademeet quests.

reedmilfam

@Permidion_Stark - who's to say they won't? I mean, BG3 might be the same places, but expanding... Or BG1/BG2 land with expanding areas? Much butt of evil in need of sharp kicks!

APhantasm

reedmilfam said:

@Permidion_Stark - who's to say they won't? I mean, BG3 might be the same places, but expanding... Or BG1/BG2 land with expanding areas? Much butt of evil in need of sharp kicks!

Actually they probably can't because of contractual reasons. They likely can't add anything that is in NWN, NWN2, BG2, IWD or IWD2. They likely can only add new areas that are not in other games.

To add say Candlekeep to BG3 they likely would have to get WoTC approval. Since we already visit it in BG1.

moody_mage

I don't see that as the case - I'm sure they could use all of those areas in BG3 as long as they don't end up getting blown up or having permanent modifications to them.

BG3 if it happens will be new IP, therefore not constricted by the old IP in terms of content etc.

APhantasm

decado said:

I don't see that as the case - I'm sure they could use all of those areas in BG3 as long as they don't end up getting blown up or having permanent modifications to them.

BG3 if it happens will be new IP, therefore not constricted by the old IP in terms of content etc.

Well its possible, you never know. But I have my doubts. I'd expect WoTC to want them to not go back over the same area if at all possible.

BTW its all the same IP, an IP owned by WoTC. IWD, NWN, BG is all the same IP all owned by WoTC.

mch202

APhantasm said:

decado said:

I don't see that as the case - I'm sure they could use all of those areas in BG3 as long as they don't end up getting blown up or having permanent modifications to them.

BG3 if it happens will be new IP, therefore not constricted by the old IP in terms of content etc.

Well its possible, you never know. But I have my doubts. I'd expect WoTC to want them to not go back over the same area if at all possible.

Why not? BG3 will take place 100 years after TOB, so the areas wont be the same ( Baldurs gate is much bigger in that timeline ) so I dont see any reason they would object.. its entirely different game and not a remake.

Also in IWD2 you visited Kuldahar, Dragon's Eye and Severed Hand although those places were already in IWD1.

APhantasm

What makes you think BG3 will take place that far ahead in time?

Based on your thinking though then it could be possible we would see BG1 and BG2 areas in BG3.

We likely still won't see NWN or IWD areas in BG3 though. Why cause they have games devoted to those areas already. And I think WoTC would rather devote those areas to an IWD3 or NWN3.

But this wasn't about BG3 this was about expanding BG1 or BG2. The likelihood is that BG2 areas will not make it into BG1 and vice versus. Same with NWN or IWD areas. WoTC likely won't let them import areas into the old games that are in other games.

mch202

APhantasm said:

What makes you think BG3 will take place that far ahead in time?

Allow me to quote Phillip Daigle:

PhillipDaigle said:

But be aware: if a BG3 were to happen, it would most likely use whatever current D&D rules WOTC has, rather than an older rule set.

PhillipDaigle said:

The Forgotten Realms is jam packed with all manner of plot hook to bring a PC forward from the end of ToB into the future. Some more believable than others. The poll assumes that the manner in which the PC is brought forward 100+ years and into 4th Edition is handled in a super cool and awesome way.

Taken from:

http://forum.baldursgate.com/discussion/3134/an-entirely-unofficial-poll-that-has-no-bearing-on-reality-baldurs-gate-3/p1

moody_mage

APhantasm said:

decado said:

I don't see that as the case - I'm sure they could use all of those areas in BG3 as long as they don't end up getting blown up or having permanent modifications to them.

BG3 if it happens will be new IP, therefore not constricted by the old IP in terms of content etc.

Well its possible, you never know. But I have my doubts. I'd expect WoTC to want them to not go back over the same area if at all possible.

BTW its all the same IP, an IP owned by WoTC. IWD, NWN, BG is all the same IP all owned by WoTC.

BG1is one IP, BG2 another, Forgotten Relams although the first two fall within its scope is yet another IP. BG3 will be a different IP from BG1 or BG2 yet obviously still within Forgotten Realms.

BG3 will quite possibly not have such strict clauses on new content, in fact I think the BG1:EE and BG2:EE only have them as they are remakes of existing products. So BG3 in theory can be set anywhere at anytime regardless of the settings for BG1 or BG2.

APhantasm

Allow me to quote Phillip Daigle:

PhillipDaigle said:

But be aware: if a BG3 were to happen, it would most likely use whatever current D&D rules WOTC has, rather than an older rule set.

PhillipDaigle said:

The Forgotten Realms is jam packed with all manner of plot hook to bring a PC forward from the end of ToB into the future. Some more believable than others. The poll assumes that the manner in which the PC is brought forward 100+ years and into 4th Edition is handled in a super cool and awesome way.

Taken from:

http://forum.baldursgate.com/discussion/3134/an-entirely-unofficial-poll-that-has-no-bearing-on-reality-baldurs-gate-3/p1

Did you read the thread you linked to? It says in the topic of the thread Unofficial. There has been no official comment on a BG3. The only thing Overhaul has said on BG3 is that currently they don't have the rights to make it. Now they might be working with WoTC to get the rights to make BG3 but they don't have them and hence don't even have a story to go with it. So there is no way of knowing for sure if it will take place 100 years after BG2 or 5 minutes. Assuming it gets made.

decado said:

I don't see that as the case - I'm sure they could use all of those areas in BG3 as long as they don't end up getting blown up or having permanent modifications to them.

BG3 if it happens will be new IP, therefore not constricted by the old IP in terms of content etc.


BG1is one IP, BG2 another, Forgotten Relams although the first two fall within its scope is yet another IP. BG3 will be a different IP from BG1 or BG2 yet obviously still within Forgotten Realms.

BG3 will quite possibly not have such strict clauses on new content, in fact I think the BG1:EE and BG2:EE only have them as they are remakes of existing products. So BG3 in theory can be set anywhere at anytime regardless of the settings for BG1 or BG2.

No offense but you would be wrong. Their all the same IP just different games. It's like saying all Star Wars movies, books, games, etc are each their own IP, their not they all belong to one IP.

What you have here is 1 IP, multiple licenses. All of the games are included in WoTC Forgotten Realms IP. They just happen to have multiple licenses.

BG:EE and BG2:EE are not new IP, their new licenses. If BG3 is made, the IP will be owned by WoTC. Overhaul/Beamdog will license the rights to produce and distribute the game.

Regardless of who is right here, one thing that for sure is that WoTC will have final say on the game. If WoTC don't want Candlekeep in BG3, it won't be in BG3.

mch202

APhantasm said:

Did you read the thread you linked to? It says in the topic of the thread Unofficial. There has been no official comment on a BG3. The only thing Overhaul has said on BG3 is that currently they don't have the rights to make it. Now they might be working with WoTC to get the rights to make BG3 but they don't have them and hence don't even have a story to go with it. So there is no way of knowing for sure if it will take place 100 years after BG2 or 5 minutes. Assuming it gets made.

Yes I have read the thread, which was posted by Phillip Daigle which is part of Beamdog. And of course its Unofficial because BG3 depends on BG1/2:EE success. But the point is that any new game set in the Forgotten Realms will use the newest ruleset----> timeline. As Phillip Daigle said and I quote again:

PhillipDaigle said:

I'm sure some people would like to discuss which version of the D&D rules they would prefer, and that's fine. But be aware: if a BG3 were to happen, it would most likely use whatever current D&D rules WOTC has, rather than an older rule set. Some people may not like this, but keep in mind that it makes sense for a company to promote the latest incarnation of their ruleset and you can't really expect them to do otherwise.

A great example is Icewind Dale 2 which used the 3e ruleset and took place 30 years after Icewind Dale 1 which used 2nd edition. And again in Icewind Dale 2 they used same areas as Icewind dale 1.

Awong124

I think IWD2 was 3E, not 3.5E. But by the time BG3 comes out (if ever), we might have 5E already. I've said this before, if a computer game were to be made in 4E I think it could still be good. But in my opinion, 4E mechanics won't work well in the semi-realtime setup that we're used to with the Infinity Engine. It would have to be purely turnbased.

Pecca

I've always found funny how it takes minutes to go through nashkel mines/firewine ruins, just to take ours of walk on the surface to go back:)

Amardarial

4th would be horrid for a single player game in the vein of BG/IW, it's much better suited to multiplayer/co-op type setup

5th at least looks good so far, mix of 2nd/3rd/4th taking the best of each, still holding out to see how multi-classing works, as so far doesn't seem like you can ...

APhantasm

All this talk about editions make me kinda "homesick". The only editions I ever had were D&D and AD&D, from back when TSR still owned D&D. I even have several AD&D modules. I have them boxed away someplace, haven't had a reason to touch them in forever since no one uses them much anymore.

One of my favorite AD&D modules was World of Greyhawk: Castle Greyhawk

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Greyhawk_(module)

Now there is a world I would love to see in a video game, Greyhawk. Don't get me wrong I like all the D&D worlds; Ravenloft, Forgotten Realms, etc.. I would just love to see one set in Greyhawk. Doubt that will happen since from what I read WoTC is reportedly (could be just a rumor I don't know) abandoning Greyhawk in 5E

LadyRhian

@APhantasm I have that module. Greyhawk is an entirely different world, though. But that module is kind of scattered... every level is different, and it's mostly meant as humor. I'd love to see them make a game out of EX1 and EX2, Dungeonland and Land Beyond the Magic Mirror, which are based on the Alice in Wonderland books.