I had no idea what the difference between GTA, Elder Scrolls and Witcher 3 was!

I'd like it around the size of Skyrim. Maybe a bit smaller. 2/3rds of Skyrim. I think that'd be a great world size. Much bigger than that and they'd really struggle to make it interesting with this kind of game.

To me it doesn't matter how big that space is, just as long as that space has a purpose and is used to enhance the game. I don't want them to create a massive space have have 90% of it with nothing in, it is simply a waste of time and resources that could be put into better things.

Where you getting the twice the size of Xenoblade from?

not too big and i want it to feel alive

Big enough so that the devs feel as though they've achieved everything they can possibly do. So long as they keep on putting in good, valuable content the world can grow. The only reason a world is "too big" is because it's empty; but a Skyrim sized world would be nice.

As big as Morrowind, as dense as Shadow of Mordor or Dragon Age Inquisition.

Oh nowhere, that's what I'd like them to say, but I was just kidding, that'd be too much. In some way I would love it to be huge, but then it would be difficult to do a massive Zelda like that. I'll like whatever they do, previous titles were ok and this one is already confirmed to be bigger so it'll be fine.

I don't think that'd be good at all. It'd be far too large for a Zelda game.

Zelda doesn't have the same option as Xenoblade of just filling the gaps with endless enemies. Well it technically does but that wouldn't make a good Zelda game because fighting enemies isn't as key in Zelda for progression as it is in Xenoblade. So in Xenoblade, all of that time spent travelling, you're at least always building your character. Whereas in Zelda, you wouldn't be. Zelda needs to be more about the items, the places, the secrets, etc etc. All of those need a smaller world really.

Bigger isn't always better. Not too impressed by Xenoblade Chronicles X so far. Those grass sprites... Yikes. Zelda U looks like everything was handcrafted and placed deliberately.

I agree with everyone here, but that aside...

I feel that the size of an open world should be linked to how quickly one can traverse it. Most obviously, games with vehicles like cars and planes will need bigger game worlds than the likes of Elder Scrolls games.

In Zelda U, the main methods of travelling seem to be going by foot and riding Epona the currently unnamed horse. Assuming Epona is not hard to get access to, players will coover the most distance on horseback. Assuming the game uses not entirely unrealistic horse speeds, Epona will travel at a rate of 25 miles per hour, or 40 kilometers per hour for you non-Americans.

The following is a list of some games' approximate area in square miles (lovers of kilometers should multiply by 2.5 or so):

• Batman: Arkham City - 2
• Skyrim - 15
• GTA5 - 50
• Far Cry 3 - 300

If this batch of games seems eclectic, that's the point. Obviously I'd want a bigger map than Arkham City, which features no real vehicles. But Skyrim, despite the less accessible horses and rough terrain, has fast travel. GTA5's world has vehicles that are much easier to get, go at speeds over 100 MPH, and in some cases fly.

Based on these thoughts, I think Zelda U's map should not have a much larger world than Skyrim. Because of how math works, areas become larger disproportionately quickly. If you wanted to take Skyrim's map and re-scale the world so journies took 50% longer, the map would grow by 125%. So I feel that Zelda U should have a map somewhere between 20 and 30 square miles, assuming that most areas are fairly open and encourage direct travel via Epona.