• 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.
  • The Politics forum has been nuked. Please do not bring political discussion to the rest of the site, or you will be removed. Thanks.

"Making things bigger won't make them better" - Devs

cormack12

Gold Member
Mar 21, 2013
11,192
30,122
1,550
Source: https://mp1st.com/news/battlefield-...wont-work-game-uses-clustering-for-objectives
Source: https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/...ny-point-being-bigger-if-its-more-of-the-same

It's been refreshing to hear Playground talk about this:

Mike Brown: So, whenever we're starting a new Horizon game, the location is the decision we start thinking about first, and it's the one that we always spend the longest thinking about. Right from the beginning we had an objective that we wanted Horizon 5 to be the biggest Horizon yet. And then it doesn't take that long from thinking about that objective until you realise that there's not any point being bigger if it's more of the same. So, therefore, it has to be diverse as well.

And now we have DICE pretty much saying the same:

In the Xbox Extended Showcase video feature, DICE Design Director Daniel Berlin commented on how the studio changed their philosophy on map design for Battlefield 2042.

We altered our way of handling level design, because it wasn’t just a simple as making it (map) bigger, and portion the locations. It just doesn’t work that way. So we’ve leaned on a new type of design mentality that we’re calling “clustering.” Now with clustering (it) means you’ll have a massive battlefield in front of you. But within this massive battlefield, you have particular clusters of objectives.

Hopefully we see more of the same from everyone else.
 

TBiddy

Member
Mar 16, 2015
4,948
7,433
830
Denmark
There's a thin line to be walked here. It really depends on the game as well. A game like Starfield needs to be massive in scope, since it revolves around exploring the universe, whereas a game like FH5 just needs to be big enough to support the different biomes.

Personally I prefer more content in less space, since that reduces one of the things I dislike most about games - moving from A to B.
 

tusharngf

Member
Oct 25, 2017
495
1,167
475
I thought valhalla will be a better game but its still the same thing again and again. I gave up on the game after 25hrs. I enjoyed dragon quest 11 more and it has small maps and an interconnected world.
 

JeloSWE

Member
Mar 23, 2015
777
1,149
580
Who would have thought Quality over Quantity was good?

Padding and watering down is the worst thing in movies/shows/books and games... and food I guess, who like a bland watery soup LOL
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kuranghi

ZywyPL

Member
Nov 27, 2018
6,063
10,776
755
I'm fully supporting that statement, I've been saying this all along. My best MP experiences were always 3v3-5v5 matches, small, tight maps and non-stop action. Same goes for SP - I much more preferred the linear PS360 titles than all those open-world walking sims from PS4/XB1 era - the story is the same length, the amount of cut-scenes that drive the story is the same, the amount of combat/actual action is the same, all those big worlds bring nothing to the table other than wasting my time.
 

lh032

I cry about Xbox and hate PlayStation.
Mar 8, 2021
1,910
4,211
470
 

blastprocessor

The Amiga Brotherhood
Jun 13, 2013
4,712
873
800
United Kingdom
Clustering isn't new though is it if you play MGS5 for example that uses clustering to break up it's open world maps.... Kinda makes sense but let's not suggest it's new game design.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Punished Miku

Diddy X

Member
Jan 7, 2018
1,530
1,832
440
Big maps are a lastgen selling point when we already realized that there's no point in making huge areas full of nothing, so mantain those sizes but now add more content.
 

GeorgPrime

Bonus Member
Jan 9, 2020
3,408
3,922
550
The bigger it gets, the more copy and paste content will destroy the game.

Do big yes... but make most stuff unique and let it count.
 
Last edited:

Razvedka

Member
Oct 20, 2018
738
976
415
I think size definitely has diminishing returns. The things to really hone in on, as mentioned, are density and dynamicism. I want things to be varied, interesting and fresh.

True, a game that is physically very small can feel limiting. But I feel like once you're at the appropriate scale there's no reason to consider "bigger" vs populating it. Our obsession with size as gamers was probably fueled by how small most games were until the 360/PS3 generation. Games like TES, GTA, Battlefield, began to really open up due to power developers were getting.

Two generations on, and now we're feeling how giant empty worlds don't really are anything. But now we have the CPU grunt and memory to address this with XSX and PS5.

My 2 cents.
 

Fake

Member
Dec 20, 2018
14,488
21,504
965
Rio de Janeiro
100% agree. And thats for everything, not just making games bigger.

Making graphics more realistic don't means the game will be good as well.
 

Clear

Member
Feb 2, 2009
13,515
9,493
1,365
Making things bigger is mainly a risk if you don't have longer/more manpower to cover the additional demands.

Its amazing how often this shit happens though; management demands the next instalment be bigger and more complex but the length of the dev-cycle remains the same.
 

DonkeyPunchJr

Member
Nov 1, 2020
1,108
2,456
425
I’d have to agree. That kind of “OUR open world is xx square kilometers” dick measuring contest is pretty dumb. I can’t remember the last time I played an open world game and thought “this game would be better if the world were bigger”.

If anything it just gives me FOMO because I know I have some quests/loot that I’m leaving on the table unless I explore every area.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ZywyPL