Takahashi on X: "Vehicles are called Dolls. They are 5 Times larger than a person. So to get the same feel as Xenoblade Chronicles, the map would need to be 5 times bigger. The game world in X is e in fact even bigger than that."
Xenoblade's scale consistently impressed me. Every time I thought "they can't make this any bigger, I can't believe this is just a dungeon" and the maps got bigger and bigger without ever seeming too empty or boring. If that trend continues, I'll have to put a cushion on the floor to catch my jaw when it drops.
I personally don't see the correlation between map size and quality. I can easily think of examples in both ends of both spectrums (big map bad game, small map bad game, big map good game, small map good game), so this news do nothing for me.
I am excited for the game, have it preordered and everything, but yeah, whenever a developer uses their game's map size as a selling point it kinda makes me feel they're desperate.
Does this explain the reason why the latest trailer looks visually less refined than the previous ones? I mean, for a game like this, would you say it's worth it. Yes, I own Xenoblade, no I still haven't had the time to actually dick around with it more than 5 minutes. From what I gather though, it seems like the right compromise for a game like this, should it actually have been needed.
So does this mean X has five times the amount of fetch quests that Xenoblade Chronicles had? I'm excited for X, but I ain't excited for spending more time running around grabbing the same looking globe for a hundred or so hours.
This is currently the only game I want on Wii U, and that really wasn't until last night when I watched the Nintendo Treehouse video of it that someone posted. Also, is this a direct sequel to the first game or mostly standalone? I'd rather not have to buy Wii.
Edit: Wait, is there only one, albeit really huge map, in these games?