Forums - Gaming Discussion - Densely packed or big and spread out maps, content wise?

I...

Prefer large maps, spread thin. 1 6.67%
 
Prefer tight, small maps, filled to the brim. 3 20.00%
 
Prefer a balance between content and size. 9 60.00%
 
I prefer procedural generation/other... 0 0.00%
 
Indifferent/comments/middle America... 2 13.33%
 
Total:15

It recently occured to be that this age old, open world debate should be a lot different now with Botw (not to say it isn't dense but it's not exactly jam packed and it's fairly empty). It's generally been the case, from what I've seen since the dawn of GTA with the third installment and games following, that gamers would choose dense content filled maps over looser designs with a few fringe people wanting size with content spread thin.

Lets poll this and see, please do share your opinion in the comments.

Opinion: After God of war which is the definition of densely packed a kind user suggested Yakuza 0 which I hopped on at a discount and I'm loving it. The two maps in the game are tiny, so small they'd fit into trevors trailer park in GTA5 (Almost) but they are JAM PACKED. I've always favoured a balance between size and content distrubution depending on the game, for example Just cause 2 is too big for me (even though it overcomes that with it's easy traversal) with content spread to far apart and GTA4 was too small with not enough content in it. Copy/paste and repetitive content aside I think I'm more on the side of smaller desnsely packed maps these days. I just don't want to spend the time wandering or in traversal these days and with God of war I've also realized I don't want to have to spend gaming time hopping from location to location with fast travel that isn't punished in some way, looking at loading screens and at the end of the day being removed from the game nor do I want to spend hours walking the map. God of war has accomplished this so well I think it'll take a while for other games to catch up if they ever do. A perfectly sized and distributed map with linear aspects and no un-immersive fast travel and loading screen simulation.

Your thoughts and opinions? Also, what do you think of about traversal? Do you like the easy fast travel new age designs or do you wish games would ease off of that return to a more immersive method. Perhaps GTA's taxi system is the proper balance? Perhaps you are more of a Morrowind type? Pehaps you couldn't give two flying, pink fucks...



 

China Numba wan!!

Around the Network

Also, don't make the obvious jokes. It's unbecoming.



 

China Numba wan!!

i find it difficult to pick really, because i find it dependent on the quality of the game, and in this instance, the quality of the map design. if the world is something that appeals to me, either will do.

I'm playing Horizon right now, and the map compared to other big open world games like The Witcher 3 is rather small. But there doesn't feel the need for it to be bigger - the settlements aren't particularly interesting or interactive, there isn't a lot of NPC's with important things to say, not that many side missions, only one merchant in each place that stocks everything. So I'm happy for that more focused map design, where the world is great to look at but there isn't too much of it. On the other hand, something like Skyrim is huge, and there are big areas that in the larger scheme of things are pretty aimless, but the world is so gorgeous that having a stroll around isn't boring, as there is always an NPC to talk to with a side mission reasonably nearby. So I enjoy both approaches when done well.

On the flip side, if the world isn't particularly interesting, I would definitely prefer them smaller and more focused. As much as I like the GTA games, the main thing that makes that franchise great rather than outstanding is that I don't find the maps that appealing. I never think of just walking or driving around in a GTA game, and the maps are too big for my liking.



"It's generally been the case, from what I've seen since the dawn of GTA with the third installment and games following, that gamers would choose dense content filled maps over looser designs with a few fringe people wanting size with content spread thin."

....

what?

GTA is literally the opposite of dense content filled maps.



Really hard to say for me. On one hand, I love Shadow of Mordor in part because it features a relatively small map packed with things to do. On the other hand, I love games like Morrowind or Breath of the Wild with large swaths of "empty" terrain.

So much depends on mission design, controls, transportation options, exploration opportunities, and atmosphere.

I guess that's kind of a non-answer



Around the Network
AngryLittleAlchemist said:
"It's generally been the case, from what I've seen since the dawn of GTA with the third installment and games following, that gamers would choose dense content filled maps over looser designs with a few fringe people wanting size with content spread thin."

....

what?

GTA is literally the opposite of dense content filled maps.

I didn't say it was, the debate around map size versus density arose around the time GTA got popular and spawned many open world off shoots. 



 

China Numba wan!!

John2290 said:
AngryLittleAlchemist said:
"It's generally been the case, from what I've seen since the dawn of GTA with the third installment and games following, that gamers would choose dense content filled maps over looser designs with a few fringe people wanting size with content spread thin."

....

what?

GTA is literally the opposite of dense content filled maps.

I didn't say it was, the debate around map size versus density arose around the time GTA got popular and spawned many open world off shoots. 

You didn't say it was, but if it wasn't then your statement would be wrong, right? Since the biggest open world franchise of all time is GTA. So obviously you were implying it. "that gamers would choose dense content filled maps over looser designs with a few fringe people wanting size with content spread thin."



it depends really i played over 400 hours in both witcher 3 and botw (still haven't beat this btw) and I'm sure at least 200 hrs in both games was just me riding around sight seeing ....as for fast travel i rarely use it. unless I'm in a rush



AngryLittleAlchemist said:
John2290 said:

I didn't say it was, the debate around map size versus density arose around the time GTA got popular and spawned many open world off shoots. 

You didn't say it was, but if it wasn't then your statement would be wrong, right? Since the biggest open world franchise of all time is GTA. So obviously you were implying it. "that gamers would choose dense content filled maps over looser designs with a few fringe people wanting size with content spread thin."

You're almost reaching Polyglot levels of contrarian, lad. I meant what I said, and I'm not rewording it because it was confused by you, I said no where that GTA is densely packed nor was I implying it. In fact, I'm fairly sure I said GTA 4 was empty. G'day Mr. Contrarian.



 

China Numba wan!!

John2290 said:
AngryLittleAlchemist said:

You didn't say it was, but if it wasn't then your statement would be wrong, right? Since the biggest open world franchise of all time is GTA. So obviously you were implying it. "that gamers would choose dense content filled maps over looser designs with a few fringe people wanting size with content spread thin."

You're almost reaching Polyglot levels of contrarian, lad. I meant what I said, and I'm not rewording it because it was confused by you, I said no where that GTA is densely packed nor was I implying it. In fact, I'm fairly sure I said GTA 4 was empty. G'day Mr. Contrarian.

...What?

Stop with this nonsense already John. You don't have to make everything about comparisons to some random user. 

Even if you didn't imply it or say it(never said you said it btw), think through it logically. Your OP says "It's generally been the case, from what I've seen since the dawn of GTA with the third installment and games following, that gamers would choose dense content filled maps over looser designs with a few fringe people wanting size with content spread thin."

But GTA, the most popular open world series of all time, is not densely packed. 

Put 2+2 together. Even if you didn't mean it that way, it at least means your OP doesn't make sense. It's never been a fringe group of people who want content spread thin. On the contrary, it's quite common for developers to just use open world design as a gimmick, with said world having very little actual content in it.

You're either just bad at following through logical conclusions or you simply don't like people being "contrarian" (what i'm saying isn't contrarian, it's just a response to your OP). 

Last edited by AngryLittleAlchemist - on 01 May 2018