Honestly sounds awful if it's the latter. Density >>>>>>> scale.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Two areas in Witcher 3 are 3.5x larger than entire Skyrim
- Thread starter DieH@rd
- Start date
Honestly sounds awful if it's the latter. Density >>>>>>> scale.
Angry Grimace
Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
If you make it 3.5 times bigger than Skyrim, it needs 3.5 times as much content, though. Its not like Skyrim was just cities next to cities.
Ultimadrago
Member
indigo-cyclops
Member
I'm very intrigued by the open world aspect. It seems like there will be a stronger focus on being an actual Witcher, or monster Hunter, compared to TW2. TW1 felt a bit more like that with more specific quests. With the technology available since both games I welcome it. As long as they realize it has to be meaningful, and I believe they do, the game will not be hindered by the open world.
I loved the sequel but it strayed a bit from what really drew me in with the first game. I'm hopeful that the third game really is the culmination of everything awesome about the series.
And we all know it will look beautiful doing it.
I loved the sequel but it strayed a bit from what really drew me in with the first game. I'm hopeful that the third game really is the culmination of everything awesome about the series.
And we all know it will look beautiful doing it.
Well they have something for you busy professionals. It's this new thing called Fast Travel™, a novel invention that makes it so you don't have to ride your horse for 30 minutes.
Skyrim hurt all of us a little bit but the bad man isn't here. This is the Witcher 3. CD Projekt Red has always delivered.
PseudoViper
Member
I'm so excited *music* I just can't hide it! 
Unless there is a way to quickly traverse it, without load screens, and it's visually varied and artistically satisfying.
That's probably a tall bar, though.
You know it was optional, right?
Deified Data
Banned
I don't really believe this. Sounds like promotionese for "3.5 times larger skyboxes and background fluff that you can't actually explore". Calling bullshit.
ThreePiMatt
Member
Which is absolutely the right way to do things. Fast travel isn't inherently evil, but the post-Morrowind style of, anytime, anywhere, for free just absolutely killed Oblivion and Skyrim for me.
The Albatross
Member
I really take map size with a grain of salt because larger maps can sometimes feel smaller. For instance, GTAV supposedly had a map that was larger than San Andreas and RDR combined, but as somebody who played a lot of San Andreas, RDR, and V, both SA and RDR felt larger (to me) than GTAV. A lot of that was because of direct access routes around the map that areas of interest in GTAV were usually closer together, and the logical highway system allowed you to pass through quickly. In RDR, you couldn't take a direct line from point A to B because of the limits of travel (horses and you could only go up certain inclines, a river provided a serious barrier and forced you to find a long way around, there were basically 3 ways to cross from the southern parts of the map to the northern,w hich forced you to take very specific, out of the way and scenic routes). San Andreas had similar challenges: getting from one corner of the map to the other was a longer drive because of the layout of the roads and the general layout of the world... GTAV had convenient roads that could get you from one place to another.
For this reason -- and others -- the whole "Map size" thing doesn't mean much to me. You can have a smaller map that feels larger because of certain obstacles.
Skyrim felt huge to me because of how they used height and obstacles to block your path. You first arrive in Riverwood and you have to get to Whiterun a short while later. There is a sheer cliff drop off what would kill you, so the only way to get there is to walk along a path that is pretty long and meandering. These are two locations that are geographically very close together, but take a long time to walk or ride.
This is all just to say ... size doesn't really matter. You can have the largest map on any videogame ever, and if you can cross between areas quickly, then the map feels a lot smaller. Still, I trust CDPR to pack this world with detail.
For this reason -- and others -- the whole "Map size" thing doesn't mean much to me. You can have a smaller map that feels larger because of certain obstacles.
Skyrim felt huge to me because of how they used height and obstacles to block your path. You first arrive in Riverwood and you have to get to Whiterun a short while later. There is a sheer cliff drop off what would kill you, so the only way to get there is to walk along a path that is pretty long and meandering. These are two locations that are geographically very close together, but take a long time to walk or ride.
This is all just to say ... size doesn't really matter. You can have the largest map on any videogame ever, and if you can cross between areas quickly, then the map feels a lot smaller. Still, I trust CDPR to pack this world with detail.
Turin Turambar
Member
Uhh? Lots of games have bigger landscape than Skyrim! I don't know why it's hard to believe.
Skyrim is very dense, there is like 300 hours of content exploring all the caves, dungeons, side quests, etc, but it's not exactly huge in terrain scope.
AstroNut325
Member
I hope it's not just plain filler material. There are only so many side quests I'm willing to tolerate.
ThreePiMatt
Member
Its optional only in the sense that you don't have to use fast travel, yes. But the quest design, journal entries, and landscape variety of Morrowind makes manual traversing an enjoyable and rewarding experience. In Oblivion and Skyrim it was frustrating and dull.
Turin Turambar
Member
*Hours of playtime on PS3 may vary
brickarts295
Member
SwiftDeath
Member
Seems overwhelming. Hopefully it's densely packed and CDPR use all that area effectively
I'm hopeful
I'm hopeful
flatearthpandas
Member
If you can explore all of that space, that is incredible.
Excited for this game.
Excited for this game.
Dragon1893
Member
You just described the first game.
What IS Skyrim's forte? The dungeons/mobs were repetitive and bland, the combat was
piss poor and the lore is pretty cliche. The only thing it has going for it is the soundtrack,
scenery and scope (kinda) lol
Deified Data
Banned
If we're talking about a single game that's one thing. If we're talking a single area being 3.5x larger than Skyrim it just screams PR pandering to me. I mean, I like CDPR but not enough to drink this koolaid.
samus4ever
Banned
No really? When did they invent fast travel? /s
But really, a lot of games don't let you fast travel to spots you haven't discovered yet, so you'll still be riding around for a good bit. Don't got time for that.
AuthenticM
Member
I hope the world doesn't feel empty, or else it'll be a giant bummer roaming it.
... in densely populated and carefully crafted areas. Most of the space is randomly/ procedurally generated filler. Creating huge worlds was never really a problem, making all of it unique and interesting is a completely different issue.
Dark_castle
Junior Member
Too big.
That's what she said.
My reaction as well. I hope you show me I'm wrong, CDR!
1000 Branches
Banned
So looking forward to this. Like its predecessor, I fully anticipate this being one of the best RPGs of its generation.
That's the ideal for me.
I will never understand the complete anti-fast travel crowd. I think it's just continued backlash from elder scrolls tbh.
When done right fast travel saves tedious backtracking and time but doesn't eliminate the need for exploration or hurt gameplay and can be ignored by those that choose to do so without consequence.
Well, to be fair, its not CRP that is bragging about a single area being 3.5x larger than Skyrim. The author of the article arrived at that conclusion based on GDC slides, he's trying to get CDP to comment on it.
well that two huge areas to search for The Witcher actual -but missing from the games because CDPR don't have big balls- protagonist.
Yeah, this is the important thing here.
I don't want Just Cause 2.5 when it's a huge empty boring map. having big empty areas just for having big map is pointless.
Yeah, this is the important thing here.
I don't want Just Cause 2.5 when it's a huge empty boring map. having big empty areas just for having big map is pointless.
Aren't they taking a more realistic approach to their world scale by not trying to cram an entire country/continent into the game like skyrim and oblivion?
Instead focusing on a few major cities and it's surrounding infrastructure? If so I think we will get the best of both worlds. Enormous scale but realistic and dense. Where I'm betting cities and towns will be larger and side areas will be more fleshed out.
Which is what I always wanted. It always bothered me that oblivion and skyrim were supposed to be these vast countries/continents but it felt like even though their game size was larger then most games the scale from a realistic standpoint was way off. Which to me actually made me feel like the worlds were rather small and lifeless.
I had the same issue with RDR, as much as I loved that game. Mexico takes like 3 minutes to cross from end to end and I can be in the mountains in 5 minutes.
thecouncil
Banned
Oof. That sounds pretty bad but we'll see if it's actually designed space. Actually, it's pretty bad no matter what, really.
Betta Lines
Member
Why does that screenshot look like someone maxed out the sharpen filter in Photoshop?
Alebrije
Member
Thats my dream game.
Messofanego
Banned
AAA Walking Simulators!
Chilling and taking in the sights sounds great if it's a beautiful world.
Typographenia
Member
CDPR, please make it worth it. Don't just make it huge for the sake of holding that over Skyrim. Please?
I trust in you, CDPR.
