-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
When is a game too big for its own good? (map size)
- Thread starter Mr Swine
- Start date
I completed RDR and only fast traveled once and that was because I forgot to do something back where I had ridden from. I rode every where in the game.
Yet Skyrim, I was the opposite. I walked everywhere except when I was over encumbered with too much loot, then I would fast travel or hop on a horse, (which ever one it let me do) in order to sell my goods, then I would walk back to where I came from. It was the only way to discover so many areas.
Fast traveling. Pffft. I laugh in your general direction. :lol
Definitely a case of a game designed to just have a big world and fill with as much vapid and pointless content as possible. The majority of the first 2 worlds exist to solely send you on endless 3 part fetch quests.
UnlovedJew
Member
Fallout 3. Although that just might be my hatred of just general travel in that game.
SatelliteOfLove
Member
The inclusion of that tends to make maps too big for their own good.
HP_Wuvcraft
Banned
When I got to Baneswood and the cutscene of the Tree of Life behind that huge eye door, I was all "wow, this is a fucking huge outdoor temple. I'm going to have tons of.... wait why do I need to go left?".
Fallout 3 did a very good job of being filled.
Draw your sword.
Pretty much.
what a fucking dull and boring land with empty areas full of nothing, I'd rather have it cut in half and filled interesting and unique looking cities than the boring-fest we got.
boutrosinit
Street Fighter IV World Champion
Fallout 3.
You only get fast travel once you find places. Still a pain in the arse.
You only get fast travel once you find places. Still a pain in the arse.
Never. A game is never too big.
In Elder scroll games I actually purposefully ignore horses so I can walk everywhere and the world feels bigger. that way I can also enjoy the scenery, harvest alchemy materials and so on.
A game can get boring, but that has everything to do with game play or storyline progression (if any), not with the size of the world for me.
In Elder scroll games I actually purposefully ignore horses so I can walk everywhere and the world feels bigger. that way I can also enjoy the scenery, harvest alchemy materials and so on.
A game can get boring, but that has everything to do with game play or storyline progression (if any), not with the size of the world for me.
rainking187
Member
Yep, Just Cause 2. I didn't accomplish much in this game because it took so long to get to missions I usually just got bored and ran around doing other shit. It is the only game I've ever played where I thought it was too big.
Anyone who thinks it's impossible for a game to be too large for its own good has never played Explorer on the Spectrum
Those aren't accurate. On that scale, Burnout Paradise has buildings that are larger than entire WoW cities. That road on the far right can be travelled in... it's been a while, but it's something like 50 seconds? Admittedly your vehicles aren't as fast in WoW, but you're still not going to get more than about a halfway through a single *zone* (those smaller patches of colour) in that time.
Those aren't accurate. On that scale, Burnout Paradise has buildings that are larger than entire WoW cities. That road on the far right can be travelled in... it's been a while, but it's something like 50 seconds? Admittedly your vehicles aren't as fast in WoW, but you're still not going to get more than about a halfway through a single *zone* (those smaller patches of colour) in that time.
Blue Ninja
Member
Skyrim's a bit of a strange case for me. While I generally like the size of its world, I wish the cities in it were bigger.
I would say that if your game needs a fast travel option (as in "let me go instantaneously to point B), it's a clear indication that your map is too big.
It litteraly means that, after a while, the player doesn't want/doesn't see the point to play your game outside of some key areas..
In LA Noire, I drove once or twice and then let my buddy do the job for me because there was NOTHING to do between missions.
In RDR, I forced myself because the landscape was amazing
. Other than that it was booooring.
On the other hand, Batman Arkham City's map was big (not huge) and provided an actually FUN way to go from A to B. Flying was so smooth and fun that the feature alone made it something that I wanted to experience again and again.
The same goes for Zelda SS : Going to the opposite point of the map was fun because the world is well designed and fun to explore. Plus, you could always quickly fly there. The only complaint I have is that the transition was not smooth and broke the feeling of a real open world..
And in the middle of this there is SoTC : A huge and empty map with next to nothing to do but that the player want to explore. it's so...beatifully eerie (and the means of transport is fun !).
So yeah, you should always design an interesting and fun map in which the player will want to move into at any time AND/OR design a way to travel that is faster and fun but that will let the player actually enjoy your big map and feels that he is a part of it.
It litteraly means that, after a while, the player doesn't want/doesn't see the point to play your game outside of some key areas..
In LA Noire, I drove once or twice and then let my buddy do the job for me because there was NOTHING to do between missions.
In RDR, I forced myself because the landscape was amazing
. Other than that it was booooring.On the other hand, Batman Arkham City's map was big (not huge) and provided an actually FUN way to go from A to B. Flying was so smooth and fun that the feature alone made it something that I wanted to experience again and again.
The same goes for Zelda SS : Going to the opposite point of the map was fun because the world is well designed and fun to explore. Plus, you could always quickly fly there. The only complaint I have is that the transition was not smooth and broke the feeling of a real open world..
And in the middle of this there is SoTC : A huge and empty map with next to nothing to do but that the player want to explore. it's so...beatifully eerie (and the means of transport is fun !).
So yeah, you should always design an interesting and fun map in which the player will want to move into at any time AND/OR design a way to travel that is faster and fun but that will let the player actually enjoy your big map and feels that he is a part of it.
Stealth Daggerfall thread.
And I hate when people bring fast travel as a counter-argument since it completely defeat the purpose of playing in a large world. I never used fast travel in the TES games because I love exploring around in the wild and finding hidden caves or ruins.
And I hate when people bring fast travel as a counter-argument since it completely defeat the purpose of playing in a large world. I never used fast travel in the TES games because I love exploring around in the wild and finding hidden caves or ruins.
Bomber Bob
Banned
fallout 3 is gud, you guys
Thank Christ for airplanes later in the game.
Really? I loved that map design, there was something interesting almost everywhere, and distance between cities felt correct, not like they were right on top of one another.
Thank Christ for airplanes later in the game.
nah, i drove everywhere. in my tow truck. i basically towed random people from where i was to where the next mission was. i was a total dick, seriously. i sometimes took cars to the edge of harbor ports and watch the ai drive themselves to a watery suicide. sometimes i even took articulated lorries to the top of mt. chilliad then race all the way back down, as though i was late for the next job.
You can fast travel.
RDR for sure. Yeah they wanted to make it feel like there was indeed a huge expanse of land you were traversing but it just got annoying, especially when just going from the first two cities. A lot of useless, undifferentiated space too.
I can't say how I'd do it better though without compromising the expansive feel. Maybe the annoying traversal bit was just true to the experience they were trying to emulate.
I can't say how I'd do it better though without compromising the expansive feel. Maybe the annoying traversal bit was just true to the experience they were trying to emulate.
King of the Potato People
Member
Shadow of the Colossus, it gets a bit boring looking for the colossi.
MutantCamel
Banned
I don't know, but suddenly I want to go home and play San Andreas... I guess any game with a big map and no means for fast travelling (vehicles or menu option at least). I would have killed for a bike in Fallout 3, it would be fun having to find/steal fuel a la Mad Max.
Cave Johnson
Member
HUH? San Andreas smaller than Oblivion? You can easily run from one end to the other from the latter although I doubt you can get anywhere unless you have a vehicle or have a lot of patience.
It was the over world what killed the experience a bit for me. Tiny map with a huge restricted zone smack in the middle so you needed to go around it all the time. Put in some snipers in the mix and it just became an exercise in frustration.
The actual flying did feel great though.
Metroid Killer
Member
No More Heroes fits this topic perfectly.
A really great game, that was too ambitious when it came to its overworld. Santa Destroy was a really poor man's Liberty City and it felt very tedious and uninspired to drive through the streets.
I don't know if the sequel or remake have better overworld as I haven't played them.
A really great game, that was too ambitious when it came to its overworld. Santa Destroy was a really poor man's Liberty City and it felt very tedious and uninspired to drive through the streets.
I don't know if the sequel or remake have better overworld as I haven't played them.
No More Heroes fits this topic perfectly.
A really great game, that was too ambitious when it came to its overworld. Santa Destroy was a really poor man's Liberty City and it felt very tedious and uninspired to drive through the streets.
I don't know if the sequel or remake have better overworld as I haven't played them.
In the sequel, you fast travel using a map with key locations on them. (Story Event, Airport 51, Naomi's Lab, Hotel, Various Jobs, and Revenge Missions). It seems to be a much better approach. I've never played NMH1 so I can't compare the two, but the second is fantastic I just finished it a couple of days ago.
Trivia corner: one of the official guidebooks for Final Fantasy XII had a section where they calculated how long it took, and how far it was, to traverse the two furthest-apart points in the game's world map; namely the entrance to Giruvegan and the airship terminal in Balfonheim. The total was about 8500 meters, and Vaan's jogging speed was a bicycle-like 17.8 km/h.
The caveat is that oftentimes there would be space between two maps that you could see but wouldn't actually have to walk through, such as the space between the Dalmasca desert and the entrance to Rabanastre, as the game would take you from the edge of one map to the edge of the next automatically. But even if they estimated these distances too, it would still be under 10 kilometers. Dalmasca is a small place!
The caveat is that oftentimes there would be space between two maps that you could see but wouldn't actually have to walk through, such as the space between the Dalmasca desert and the entrance to Rabanastre, as the game would take you from the edge of one map to the edge of the next automatically. But even if they estimated these distances too, it would still be under 10 kilometers. Dalmasca is a small place!