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