Should the Map Size be Larger?

[Chinaboy]

Just to tell you guys that I absolutely love this game, but one thing that worries me is the size of the map. I’ve recently noticed that the map size is only 16 square km. That’s pretty small, since Skyrim is around 40 square km, and the Witcher 3 is 52 square km.

For this type of game and story, in my opinion, I think around 60 square km would be a better world size.

So would the map be expanded for the full game?

[Earl_Thorn]

You might want to search the forums… there’s been extensive discussion on this very point.

Map of the Act I and some information about the places on it

Hello there, because I was quite bored during the time when the forum was offline, I did the probable map of the Act 1 based on the first videoblog about the environment. [image] [image] Full size here In this topic I would like to show you that the map is not small at all. And also show you some location with real photos and description. I know there are already topic concerning this, but I would like to summarize it. Information about real places There are several places with inter…

Mapsize - Does size matters?

hello together, [image] (for me) surprisingly lots of people are worried about the "small" mapsize. (compared to some other big rpgs/mmos) Does size matters? What i've experienced so far in live&games, not realy. I prefer quality than quantity. I think, that a huge map looks first nice to explore, but after a while it keeps the same and the same and you already forgotten the first few places, you explored. Is it not better to have a smaller world, where you get bounded? You build a relationsh…

Have you guys seen the map size?!

Everything looked stunning, absolutely everything. Then I see the map size......Are you joking?! The map is absolutely tiny. Developers, YOU ARE ON A NEXT-GEN CONSOLE. This map size is absolutely a game killer. It is a next gen,"open-world","Sandbox" RPG. I put quotes because it cant be open world if I can travel the whole map in less than 1 hour. Come on guys this is an absolute joke. Old gen games had bigger maps, step you game the hell up Warhorse.

Essentially the crux of those discussions was around quantity versus quality. Here you’re suggesting that size is the most important factor in making a world map ‘better’. And what many have come to agree on is that whilst the map size is important, what’s far more significant is actually what that map comprises of, how it’s populated, and the extent of available and accessible points of interest. Be those towns, castles, other locations. Number of NPC’s, animals, quest points etc… all this contributes to the overall quality of a map.

What you don’t want is a huge map filled with mostly dead space… it’s a waste of time. What we do want, is a map size that is large enough in the context of the story and the means of transport (on foot, horseback), to provide us with an adequate feeling of size and space. Something that is filled with interesting things to do and see, and keeps us engaged and immersed.

@warhorse are striving for that perfect balance in both quantity and quality, and that is why they’ve chosen the map size they have. I think the majority of the backers here support the teams decision purely because we know what they’re trying to achieve, and the quality they’re putting into this game.

So I suggest going and reading those previous threads I mentioned above, your perspective may change…

[Chinaboy]

Thanks Earl_Thorn, you’re right. Warhorse should balance in both quantity and quality. Thanks for the feedback!

[DeeLiberty]

Vavra made funny and emotional post about map design:

http://www.warhorsestudios.cz/index.php?page=blog&entry=blog_011

I think small size will be compensated by the quality of the map. If the game sells well, we will probably have larger map in sequels.