That was some Gaffer jumping the gun with a misquote. They even felt the need to clarify on the Treehouse stream that there are towns and NPCs, but they actively avoided showing them in the E3 demo to avoid any kind of story or spoilers.
-
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.
Zelda: Breath of the Wild map size: 12x Twilight Princess, a tad smaller than XCX
- Thread starter maxcriden
- Start date
That was some Gaffer jumping the gun with a misquote. They even felt the need to clarify on the Treehouse stream that there are towns and NPCs, but they actively avoided showing them in the E3 demo to avoid any kind of story or spoilers.
Alright, that's fine then.
I just hope they learned from Dragon's Dogma about the need for randomized patrols. It's gotten tot he point where Skyrim doesn't feel right unless I have 4 times the random bandit encounters.
They literally said the opposite of that.
Zelda is cool because the fans are always so open-minded in regards to what they want in their games. It's such a relaxed franchise. I remember playing some Zelda games and being captivated doing absolutely mindless shit. It gives them a lot of space to work with in filling the world when their fanbase is so large and approaches their games so open-mindedly. Like, how is fishing going to work in this world? Zelda always has fishing and fans love it. They could easily add a massive fishing sidequest to the game and it'd give purpose behind giving a lot of areas content or making them visually distinct.
Stuff like that isn't hard to make, either. It's very simple in the grand scheme of things if they approached building the world like that. If you took Just Cause 2 or Skyrim and created interesting visually distinct areas where you could find some rare fish.. I mean would people care? Probably not. Zelda fans would. If you added that feature to a lot of other open world games, people would look past it. That's just a one very minor example and is a very simple way to add lots of personality to the world and to fill the empty space. It looks like they're already doing something interesting with hunting. The Zelda developers have a lot of maneuverability to fill the world.
Kissenkopf
Banned
Some random guy said there would be no towns and they said on the stream yesterday that they are towns and many NPCs but they removed them from the demo.
Edit: totally beaten^^
Dee Dah Dave
Member
That's great, but what do you do!
Seriously though, I'm a bit concerned that the world size is more of a gimmick than anything meaningful to the actual Zelda-ing.
I get the feeling the game will be 25% Zelda and 75% side distractions.
Seriously though, I'm a bit concerned that the world size is more of a gimmick than anything meaningful to the actual Zelda-ing.
I get the feeling the game will be 25% Zelda and 75% side distractions.
CharminUltra
Member
What this tells me is that I need to play XCX. One day.
mrmickfran
Member
Nonsense.
Both Xenoblades have shit in every corner. They're the prime example of how an open world game should be.
01DragonFly
Member
give it to me now!!!
Normally map sizes do nothing for me and I prefer a more compact world even, but after the Treehouse stream it looks like they did everything to make this one fun to explore. For instance the landmarks tempt exploration immediately (like the church in the distance or that skull shaped goblin hideout).
Hunt, cook, tame, forage, find secrets, raid enemy camps, shieldboard, fight mini bosses, uncover dungeons, shop, glide, sneak, craft, and explore.
That's enough for me, I don't know what else you were expecting.
Admiral Woofington
Member
This,
You had to fast travel everywhere.
When you have to spend hour after hour swimming to a fucking island you know there's issues lol.
Alcotholic
Banned
I felt the land looked distinctive enough. Land marks and secrets peppered everywhere. It doesnt look barren, it looks expanse, which I'm down with.
PotionBleue
Member
Besides the big bland ocean in XCX (they really should've put more small islands) and Eryth Sea in XC, I found these games to be quite lively and diverse.
GTAV Is 81 km
xenorevlis
Member
Nice! Judging from the gameplay that took place on the stream, it'll hopefully be packed with a lot more to do as well.
The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild Hunt
The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild Hunt
Throwaway123456789
Member
edit: nvm
Mineshaft_Gap
4077th
My money is on big empty world with naught to reward exploration than rupees, heart pieces, and containers to hold more rupees or potions. Nintendo hasn't made a truly great Zelda in 17 years (can't speak for link between worlds).
IAmtheFMan
Member
This is absolutely fucking insane.
I was totally thinking that "there's no way they can come anywhere close to Xenoblade X's size" but holy hell, they're doing it.
If I get the same joy of exploration as I did in that game as I do here... it's over. I just hope there's more and faster traversal options besides horses late in the game.
Please watch footage of the game before throwing out comments like this, because you're wrong.
Oh, and play A Link Between Worlds. It's the best Zelda game in 17 years.
I don't understand how you can see the footage and come to this conclusion. XCX certainly is the only open world game (of this genre) until now I can think of with interesting terrain, but the amount of things to do in the same amount of space in Zelda seem much bigger.
Climbing, managing stamina, heat and cold, health, weapons, food, stealth, orientation, physics puzzles all these things are translated in gameplay elements that come into play all the time just to walk around.
I don't know what people imagine as non barren, maybe it needs things all over the floor and Starbucks in every corner.
Zomba13
Member
You could fly.
The world in XCX was great because of the scale. You start off small but are fast and can jump high meaning you have some level of exploration then after 30 hours (or whatever) you get a skell that makes the world a bit smaller (by making you bigger) you are now faster and can jump even higher opening up new areas then after 30 more hours (or whatever) you can fly and the whole world is now yours. You fly fast and can go anywhere and it takes almost no time at all.
jesus
Large swaths of the land have no wildlife or enemies, both of which are in sparse quantities. Compare that to XCX which is chokefull of animals and enemies along with treasures. That's partly because it seems to be following the MGSV approach with having enemy camps but also leaves lots of dead space.
There's also a bunch of garbage that actually decreased my interest in exploration such as when they climbed a tower and there was only some arrows at the top. They seemed to have focus on quantity in regards to the treasures instead of quality which is going to make inventory management a pain.
nice way to look ignorant on a subject! at least get acquainted with the shit youre talking about. seriously, this is a whole new direction. you dont pick up hearts, rupees etc... you cook meals for buffs and health etc..
Apoleptica
Banned
No way it's that much bigger than the witcher 3, I dont believe it. The scaling must be completely off between the two.
That's how a big world works, there isn't life or enemies everywhere, XCX was the same. I didn't see overly long "dead" areas, I saw enemies, walls to climb, trees, wildlife, enemy camps, caves, hidden treasures, shrines, etc.
Also we can't see in too much detail what's far away so looking from afar doesn't tell a thing.
Interesting that you mentioned XCX and the say Zelda is focusing on quantity of items
That is something we'll have to see in the final game. It's hard to gauge how item management and treasures work from a demo.alundra311
Member
With a world this big, I just hope there will be unique locations with meaningful things to do aside from the shrines and the major dungeons like a wizard's tower containing a powerful artifact, weapon, equipment, or something.
Hey, sorry for being somewhat off topic, guys, but I've taken an interest in map sizes recently, so I would appreciate it if someone would provide the map sizes for recent open world games.
The OT had some calculations for The Witcher 3's map, but then I got confused. What is the real size? Also, does FFXV really have a map size of 700 sq. miles? I know it's from the banned site, but that would be insane if true, especially if every part can be explored. Just Cause 3 had a map size of 400 sq. miles, right? Or is that BS?
The OT had some calculations for The Witcher 3's map, but then I got confused. What is the real size? Also, does FFXV really have a map size of 700 sq. miles? I know it's from the banned site, but that would be insane if true, especially if every part can be explored. Just Cause 3 had a map size of 400 sq. miles, right? Or is that BS?
TW3 is ~44 sq km in the base game and ~54 sq km with the Blood & Wine and Hearts of Stone expansions. This is confirmed by the in-game mini-map measurements.
Just Cause 2 & 3 have been quoted in their marketing as 400 sq. miles (right around 1000 sq km). Doubt it's BS because its coming from the developers plus those games are legitimately huge.
FFXV can't know for sure till the game comes out.
UnemployedVillain
Member
Considering you can't even find rupees or heart containers you clearly have ignored everything said or shown about the game
You do realize this is a demo, right? They're not going to have anything important in it. Plus, considering the weapon crafting system, I wouldn't be surprised if exploring places gave you precious items for creating powerful/useful things
Thanks, I was surprised at how small (relatively) The Witcher 3 really is. All the pre release media said it was 136 sq. km, but it turns out that it was less than half that size. I guess those pre release media included the non-explorable areas.
Man, I never played Just Cause, but map sizes of 400 sq. miles or more sound amazing. And if FFXV is really 700 sq. miles, holy crap.
Also, I just remembered, how big is AC4 then? Distances of 7km or more seem so short when you're on the ship. Wouldn't it be absolutely massive then?
orthodoxy1095
Banned
Couldn't disagree more.
Never calculated AC4 but remember that relative to the real world, even the largest game maps are tiny - so a ship traveling at normal ship velocity would be able to traverse a [relatively large game map] rather quickly.
I might take a crack at it next time I play, but till then this is the best we have:
Pulled from Ubi-boards
Easily largest AC map, but remember that most of the landmass can't be traversed. All the land on the large islands that contain Havana/Nassau/Kingston are meaningless. You can visit the cities but they've got hard natural/man-made borders and the other sites are typically on the shore or don't allow you to stray too far from it.
Couple of the mid-size islands let you go deeper, but are restricted with linear pathways or mountain walls.
----
JC 2's in-game map has proper measurements if I remember correctly. Panau is roughly 20 miles by 20 miles with all landmass + water, so 400 sq miles. Pretty much all of that can be traversed, but it's a little bland if you don't like blowing shit up.
Looking at the Steam sale for JC3.
----
With Witcher 3, I'm somewhat certain that the 136 sq km figure came from the rumor mill and not directly from CDPR. CDPR chose to put actual in-game measurements (in meters) so it doesn't make much sense that they would quote inaccurate numbers.
FWIW, I confirmed that the mini-map measurements were in meters via angular diameter calculation (TW3 pre-B&W had a 60 degree FOV, which is when I verified).
We can do the same with BotW but we need particular circumstances to do so.
Huge Succeeded
Banned
GAF will become a MUCH better outlet for discussion and gaming news, the day that it becomes a ban-worthy offense to post a thread with a bullshit title/premise. I know I've been complaining about that a lot lately but only because people have been getting stupid with that shit over the last two weeks or so. People in such a highfalutin rush to be The Guy who posts The Thread that they earnestly don't give a damn if they proliferate lies or incorrect information and muddy up discussion. To the point where 50 people could correct them in a thread and they won't even edit their OP.
GAF is a pretty big forum and the discussion here gets around, even if that discussion is built on top of lies and bullshit. It'd be helpful if, in the future, people tried to remain cognizant of that fact.
*30-second live-action God of War 4 TV spot crops up on Youtube
GAFfer: "WHOA that's awesome better post a thread about it!"
Title: New 1080p/60fps God of War 4 trailer shows off Neo graphics
if you haven't caught my drift yet, the idea that the game has no towns and NPCs is yet another pseudo-factoid lump of BS that a kneejerk threadpost brought to life. And I'm sure it won't be the last until those types of threadposts come with a free all expenses paid trip to Grayname City.
Mr Touchdown
Member
We totally need something to fly on towards the end of the game.
Calling either a big bird or a dragon right now.
Calling either a big bird or a dragon right now.
Damn, some pretty great analysis here, man. And yeah, AC4's landmass is tiny compared to most open world games. It's the oceans that are massive. It makes sense, though, since most of the game is focused on sailing. The figure becomes much less impressive when you realize that on a ship, the world isn't that big at all. I'm amazed by JC2's map, though. 400 sq. miles on foot or in the air. Now that's HUGE.Never calculated AC4 but remember that relative to the real world, even the largest game maps are tiny - so a ship traveling at normal ship velocity would be able to traverse a [relatively large game map] rather quickly.
I might take a crack at it next time I play, but till then this is the best we have:
Pulled from Ubi-boards
Easily largest AC map, but remember that most of the landmass can't be traversed. All the land on the large islands that contain Havana/Nassau/Kingston are meaningless. You can visit the cities but they've got hard natural/man-made borders and the other sites are typically on the shore or don't allow you to stray too far from it.
Couple of the mid-size islands let you go deeper, but are restricted with linear pathways or mountain walls.
----
JC 2's in-game map has proper measurements if I remember correctly. Panau is roughly 20 miles by 20 miles with all landmass + water, so 400 sq miles. Pretty much all of that can be traversed, but it's a little bland if you don't like blowing shit up.
Looking at the Steam sale for JC3.
----
With Witcher 3, I'm somewhat certain that the 136 sq km figure came from the rumor mill and not directly from CDPR. CDPR chose to put actual in-game measurements (in meters) so it doesn't make much sense that they would quote inaccurate numbers.
FWIW, I confirmed that the mini-map measurements were in meters via angular diameter calculation (TW3 pre-B&W had a 60 degree FOV, which is when I verified).
We can do the same with BotW but we need particular circumstances to do so.
In fact, The Witcher 3's map isn't very big either. Sure, when you first arrive at Velen, it looks massive. But when you get a hang of the area, riding on Roach makes traversal quite fast and the map feels smaller than originally thought.
TheCongressman1
Member
I agree. Space between things is just as important as stuff to do. And I think it's quite obvious that there's plenty of stuff to do, even just in the starting area.
The most important aspect of this game is that every skill you have lets you interact with the world in interesting ways. How you play boils down to how creative you are and how skilled you are.
SinCityAssassin
Member
The Witcher 3's total landmass is around 135 km/sq at launch, and GTA V's is 81 km/sq.