Not in Act 1. It was about next possible acts.
The question is, how big is Act 1 intended to be? Like a chapter? A full game? In other words, 3x3 map intending to get 10 hours of gameplay out of it, good. 3x3 map for 100 hours of gameplay, maybe not so good.
Haha the comments are hilarious! “Size doesn’t matter”, “As long as it’s big enough!”, “What matters is how Warhorse uses it” etc :´)
Just hold your horses, we will have to judge once we’re in the game 
depends, 100h hours might be realistic if you get thrown into a cell after a rather bad choice in a quest dialog and have to spend there 100h (without wait or sleep function, ref thread on wait and stuff ) until you are released - then even a 3x3 m map would be sufficient. 
in other words it depends…
I’ll simply say that the size of the map isn’t as important as the quality of content and immersion built into it. I personally am happy with the map size that Warhorse has announced and it looks like it will contain well researched castles and a large score of villages. Who knows what other inns, caves, bandit dens, hermits, or whatever else may be in encountered. Overall I think everyone will be impressed with the finished product.
1 Like
It has been said in one thread about map size and I even quoted it in another thread about map size, so i’ll do it again for those here who haven’t read it and are still somehow concerned about map size.
And for those that asked about lenght of the gameplay, it should be at least 30+ hours, which means it’s as it would be stand-alone game. Acts II and III should bring 20 more hours each.
2 Likes
Map size like in Fallout is just my cup of coffee. Not much compresed, not too big with unreasonable amount of empty places.
1 Like
Map size is a question about genre and camera modes!
As you can see on the posted map (link)
Just Cause 2 has a complete other feeling about map size
because you play in third person view.
Oblivion is ony 16x16 mi² but it is based on a first person camera mode.
So the world feels larger in first as in third.
Same with a GTA:SA map size and Crysis level scales.
Oblivion has the same feeling about map size with his first person
like Just Cause 2 with his third person!
Mostly a seeing of sight (or call it FOV) or visual^^
another good example about map size feeling is Halo with his 3rd Person Hack tools
lol true that!!!
Perhaps they are focusing more on more important things at the moment?
Hello all, noob here. Can someone enlighten me as to where the map image is??
Also, look at TES Morrowind compared to Oblivion and Skyrim. MWs map is the smallest, but thanks to good scaling and handcrafted environments/locations/towns/events instead of generated as in Oblivion and Skyrim, it feels like the biggest and the most “complete” world of those three.
Thanks Freix Doesn’t look all that small to me for an Alpha area.
It should be a map of the Act 1 area. In alpha you would get one small settlement (Samopše) and perhaps surroundings.
And I am good with that. I see projects, that keep expanding land mass, beautiful empty landmass, while not taking care to let the project/landmass/state of development grow in unison.
Morrowind’s map is a perfect example of Dan’s “potato landscape”: There are ravines and steep slopes everywhere: Almost every journey involves some rather significant detour because there are mountains in the way of everything. Create some boots with constant Levitate and you’ll be almost anywhere in a matter of minutes (if you’ve modded out the cliffracers…).
And that kind of landscape does work because of Morrowind’s setting: Vvardenfell is a volcanic island, which explains the extreme segmentation of the game world. It also adds to the “weird”/“strange” vibe that sets Morrowind apart from the other games in the TES universe. It also helps mask (in conjunction with Ash Storms and fog) the then-very limited draw distance of the engine. Which in turn helped the world to appear bigger than it is.
Real landscape, however, is much more open (unless you’ve got some serious mountains going): Rolling plains, vast forests, huge rivers and bodies of water, and so on.
And that was the first thing I noticed about KCD: The scale of everything… fits: The roads feel like roads, the forest like a forest, the houses like houses - they do not convey the miniature-like appearance as every other video game. They feel real.
Take rivers, for example: Even the smaller ones are often more than twenty meters wide. When have you last seen such a river in a game? I would wager: Never unless it was used as a boundary for the playable area. Usually, “rivers” and “streams” in games remind more more of minuscule rivulets. I haven’t yet seen a river in KCD, but I would not be surprised if it was a vast stream, riding into which would probably sweep you and your poor, trusty horsey away.
3 Likes
there are rivulets in kcd, but also proper wide rivers as seen in video footage 
What do you expect of the KC: D map? Do you know the region Sazava, where all takes place?
I have a hard time keeping me from looking up the place since I know that your map will be based on real life geography (though obviously tailored to the game) - but I want to explore that part of Sazava on foot (maybe even in real life, it’s not too far off). I seem to remember from a pic in Daniel’s blog entry on potato landscape that there’s quite a large river winding its way through some of the landscape, though.
Concerning your first question: I expect half-ways realistic measurements and dimensions (i.e. not quite as compressed as in a lot of other games). I am aware that this can be a problem along the realism-gameplay divide, since Daniel also has already mentioned the problem of having swathes of landscape where there’s nothing “happening”, just space to traverse.
Which is where I want to chime in a bit, just voicing my own opinion: I vastly enjoy “just traversing” landscape as long as that landscape does not feel ‘dead’.
If you know SWTOR, you might know what I mean by dead landscape: The weather never changes, the time of day doesn’t either, there’s no interaction, no critters, no nothing. It is like a painting: Pretty to look at for five seconds, and then I get bored.
There are, however, ways of living up the place: Have weather happen (the rain/ground fog in one of your trailers, brilliant!), day/night cycles. Have critters (e.g. hares and rabbits bolting away when they feel you approach), deer sniffing the air. Maybe even have critters display rudimentary AI, like falcons or cats hunting said rabbits and field mice. Have thunderstorms, rain, ground fog, some of them maybe even tied to day/night cycles or areas (ground fog usually builds in lower, wetter areas). “Emergent immersion”, if you will.
edit: I don’t know the capabilities of the CryEngine you use, but… how about wind?
tl;dr: What I would like from the landscape is that it feels “living” - I would wager that this also alleviates the problem of “traversing the land without something to do” a bit. The first thing I do for a lot of games (Skyrim, FO:NV for example) is downloading mods for more immersive weather. Rad storms in NV, for example, even change my gameplay: Either I find shelter ASAP and wait the storm out, or I grit my teeth, swallow some RadX and keep some/a lot RadAways handy. And sand storms? I have to put my long rifles away because I don’t see farther than my feet, and ready my Super Sledge and Riot Shotgun.
On the note of “just traversing landscape is boring” a quick idea: How about an -optional- mini game for riding? I’m no rider myself, but I am quite sure there are techniques that would help maximize the time spent/distance travelled equation.
3 Likes