World size, density, and traversal have to be balanced.
I tend to play without fast travel, and skyrim meets these three pretty well, using the carts and horse for faster travel.
GTA can be bigger, with cars and planes for long distances.
Large worlds are great, if they are packed w content, open barren landscapes are terrible.
Ghost recon wildlands for me is the sweet spot for a big, interesting world with good traversal options.
Rdr2 is too fucking big lmao
I found it to be so immersive, that the large map size was a bonus to me. I wanted to see it all, and by god I did. I have done every single thing on that game.
I found it even more immersive by camping when it got dark out, cooking to eat, and then going to bed. When I woke in the daylight, I would sit there and have Arthur drink a cup of joe, break down the camp, and continue on with my journey to wherever.
Now I want to play it all over again for a fifth time. >:(
I’ve not enjoyed single player, Arthur is only allowed to be a cunt for story reasons, the moment I’m doing it I get penalised. It’s not bad but it’s… Eh. At least it was only $30 on sale.
Ah, I’m sorry you didn’t get to enjoy it! It is my favorite game of all time, so that’s sad to hear.
Still got my money’s worth, about 10hrs in single player, although a lot of fucking about that certainly wasn’t productive, mostly just been around valentine and the place to the east. A bit more than that online.
Agreed. And while there are some days where my “I just want to walk as far as I can” instinct has me wishing for bigger game worlds, at the same time it can be a bad experience when the game tells you that you have to go somewhere and it’s either a slog to get there or you fast travel and skip the world entirely.
Same. I struggled with RDR2 and gave up on Elden Ring.
Damn I’m literally playing Wildlands now. It’s a really fun game to just drop in if you want to cause some mayhem.
8 times bigger than Witcher 3 filled wilth Witcher 3 quality content would be a godsend. 8 times bigger than Witcher 3 filled with procedural generation and AI slop… not so much.
If we’re copying Witcher 3 levels of content anywhere, can we leave behind like 95% of the ocean based points of interest? That was the absolute lowest point of the game for me by a mile.
I would be happy if they never touched wayer again. Swimming and boating were awful in The Witcher series.
Slightly OT, but I want to give a shout out to Witcher 3 as my favorite fantasy RPG.
Early on in the game I kind of struggled with it. I found the UI and especially combat, to be ‘clunky’.
After I mastered the combat UI enough to survive, I started to wander and explore. In this wandering I found some old cave filled with some decent (but not overpowered) gear. As far as I know, there was no quest that would have sent me to this cave. Also, if I hadn’t been pointed in the exact direction I was going, I never would have seen the cave entrance. These little details made the world feel ‘real’ and lived in.
Later in the game, when I was much more experienced, I was following a faint path, in the snow, over a mountain and I see another cave entrance. I go inside the cave and I hear voices. I sneak closer and I hear a fart, Then I hear a voice complaining about the smell of a rotten onion. (it was 2 trolls cooking something). This was totally unexpected and I literally LOL’d. Once again, this little bit made the world feel more real.
In summation, I don’t need games to be ‘bigger’. They just need to be ‘good’.
I do think a huge world with an engaging and dense design can still be made worse with size. In some games like Skyrim, Breath of the Wild or GTA 5, you could probably drop me anywhere and I’d know where I was, half due to good and differing region design and half because the map isn’t that big.
Back in 2015 I’d dream of a GTA 5 expansion that adds San Francisco and Las Vegas to the map, turning the north and east of the map in to a 500 yard straight of water, but in reality, two more large cities and their surroundings suburbs and wilderness would have never kept it’s memorability like the first region.
I would never finish a game 8 times longer than Witcher 3+exansions. I started once, got burned out and had to restart a year later to get to the end. Enjoyed it a lot but yeah. I don’t need like 1600 hours of anything.
1600 hours is insane gameplay loop not content size imo, I have that amount of hours in a few game but they’re either fighting games or ARPGs which are repetitive by nature.
*cries in osrs*
I feel like how big I want the game to be is a weird quantum unstable value. When I’m interested in the game I want it to keep going. But at some point I lose interest, and I want it to wrap up. But usually I don’t want to skip content that’s at least okay, especially if it affects endings and other choices.
Like I enjoyed Veilguard, but there were bits near the end where I was losing focus and kind of wanted it to pick up the pace. There have been other games where I finished all the side quests but was like “that’s it? I want more”
Not sure how to square this circle. I don’t think procedural generated or AI content is quite up to the task yet.
I do think we’ll see a game that has AI content in the critical path in the next couple years though. You’ll go to camp and talk to Shadowheart, and it’ll try to just make up new dialogue. I don’t know if it’ll be good. There will probably be at some weird ass hallucinations that’ll become memes.
Same happened to me with Zelda: ToTK. I did everything I came across, collected a lot of things I found, did a lot of questing, got so good in combat I could defeat everything without getting hit, but then I was like “it’s time to stop now” and I defeated the final boss and put the game down. It was amazing.
I do think Botw and Totk would have benefited from having the map 50% smaller to condense the content. The underworld in Totk basically ended up just being collecting DLC armor from the previous game.
Which is weird, because I totally spent like 40 hours in there lol
Oh, I spent a lot of time in there, thinking I’d find more than another mini abandoned mine site or yiga lair. The most interesting thing was the yoga boss fight. The underworld portion could have probably been turned into a really great post game idea if they had spent more time on it.
deleted by creator
I would super appreciate “Jump Back In” mode…
He’s right. We don’t need maps bigger than Skyrim, we just need content and good core gameplay loops. Being hugely moddable like Skyrim really helps too.
Mods definitely help. Same reason why I think Fallout 4 is such a big hit.
Exactly. GTA V’s biggest selling point was the worst part for me: giant map. The only way a giant map is good is if it has a ton more fun stuff to do, and even then, I’d honestly rather have a sequel/series instead of throwing everything in one game.
I still prefer gta 4, the city was worn out, lived in, cramped and dense.
Same. I mentioned SA mostly because both are in Los Santos.
Honestly one of the best games I’ve played recently is the Stanley Parable and that game is a couple of hours of poking around a quirky but literal office. Would happily buy that 60 times over one massively mediocre rpg.
The only thing that I hate from open world is emptiness, you can have big or massive world but if it’s seems so empty why bother to make it. Like Fallout & Skyrim we always use mods to fill that emptiness to make it feel alive.
I rather have game with small world but filled with many NPC like old Dragon AgeBig reason I don’t understand the obsession with Breath of the Wild and Tears of the Kingdom. The game world is empty and just feels like so much wasted space, and a ton of it looks like PS2 worldbuilding.
I didn’t play Tears of the Kingdom, but if you found large swaths of the map to be empty in Breath of the Wild, it means there’s something hidden there that you didn’t find.
It’s just about density. BotW/TotK were eerily empty and dead. But something like Elden Ring? I would play a game 10x the size of Elden Ring for the rest of my life.
This is my biggest complaint about No Man’s Sky. There are literally over a billion billion worlds, but they’re all mostly empty, not to mention all the space in between.
Skyrim is huge. I played it last year, going to all locations and doing main and side quests. That takes 100 hours or so.
Now I’m playing Elden Ring with SOTE, doing the same thing. I’m around 180h in and honestly I kind of want to finish by now.
So yeah, I don’t see 600 hours of playtime as a positive goal. Unless they mean expand the map but don’t keep up the content ratio. In that case, why the fuck would that be good? More travelling isn’t worth anything.
Honestly, my limit is about 80 hours, and that’s only if the store and side content is really good. An average story/RPG game should target 20-40 hours IMO.
Horizontally I’m fine with how big games are. They should grow vertically, and I wouldn’t mind 6 times the depth.
What do I mean by that? I have no idea. Maybe you people have
A cyberpunk game that takes place entirely in a replica of the Kowloon walled city would be cool as fuck. Just as much map “area” as fallout 4 but packed into a 1 mile cube.
Wait I had a similar idea once! Youre right that would be cool af, but very difficult to get right. In open world games you usually get away with “isolated” side quests, in a dense cube this is difficult – which might be a good thing, it forces interconnectivity.
I’ve thought a lot about this. It would have to be a game with no combat. Too cramped. It’d be a nice puzzle game like Myst, tho.
Edit: Stray 2: Kowloon
I was nodding along in agreement but now that you mention it I also didn’t really know what you were saying
I’d interpret vertical content growth as content per area, deep story lines, stuff like that. It’s a common enough comment, see e.g. MMO players complaining about “content drought”.
I think the issue is that most game’s core gameplay loops are not endlessly replayable. Lots of single player RPGs fall into the trap of being alright to progress through for maybe 20 hours, but you can quickly become so powerful that the rest of the game falls into busywork. It’s really hard to meaningfully introduce new and interesting gameplay after the 30 hour mark, but without it things become same-y.
I’d argue this is just a fault of poor game design though. There are RPGs with really well iterated gameplay loops, with a wide array of variety, that I’m happy to put 400+ hours in. Games like Baldur’s Gate 3, or Elden Ring, have a lot of freedom and variety in the way you can approach a playthrough, even allowing you to dramatically change things mid-playthrough, while still feeling mechanically satisfying to play. A 10/10 game will feel good to play forever, but a 7/10 might get boring after 15.
Agreed, to an extent.
I do think advancements in AI will eventually give us open world games with infinite procedurally generated engaging quests and NPC interactions. That’ll be cool. In the meantime, I don’t need a team of humans to burn themselves out to produce a large amount of bleh content.
Ehh, I think it’ll be a looong time before machine learning can make meaningful character interactions.
It may be able to make maps faster, slightly better versions of something like No Man’s Sky or Minecraft (both already sporting functionally “infinite” procedural generation), or fill a city like Cyberpunk 2077’s with slightly less mindless wandering NPCs, but I don’t think it’ll help make story-based RPGs bigger in a useful way
The NPCs that stand out in an RPG do so because they typically have a well-crafted, and finite, story arch which is incredibly difficult to do with machine learning and trying to make things more procedurally generated.
I think we’re nearly there as is. There’s already mods that integrate ChatGPT with Skyrim NPC’s. There’s definitely room for improvement, but just these fan projects have achieved some impressive results.
Pair that with the developers’ eagerness to eventually fire most of their writing staff, and they’ve got a lot of incentive to dump money into improving what already exists.
My concern is that this will lead to more abandonware. Star Trek: Bridge Crew had integrated voice commands using some IBM service to process. Once their agreement with IBM ended, they shut down the feature in the game. So what happens when a developer integrates AI as a cornerstone to a game’s storylines, using remote servers to do all of the processing, and then decide to end support for the game?
Only if the interesting content scales with size.
I am honestly excited to what GTA6 can bring to the content map. Considering how dense some parts of GTA 5 already are.GTA V dense? I found it incredibly bare, especially coming from GTA SA.
Yeah V has the most lifeless map of any GTA since 3. Even NPC detail was missing like umbrellas when it rains.
Didn’t play it so I can’t comment on the SA part.
At least they have loads of little details in obscure placesThat describes pretty much all GTA games though. The difference with V is that it has a much bigger map, so there are a lot more areas with uninteresting details.
Maybe it’s just me but I felt like the space was for the better. Maybe it’s just the fidelity of the game that helps it vs the older gen.
Honestly, I feel like games have been getting too big. The ends of RPGs always feel like a slog these days.
Maybe it’s because every game thinks it needs a 3 act denouement. Maybe it’s because there’s 100x the games coming out now compared to when I was young and the feeling of wanting to get to the next one is rushing me. Or maybe I’m just plain getting old.
In any case, I’m ok with shorter games.
It’s not an open world, but Mirror’s Edge is a great game.
Wasn’t the second game open world tho? But that might be the reason it lost its charm for me.
Yes, it was. But EA ruined it with their launcher, so you can’t play it on Linux.
