Are we assuming we can travel from one end to the other the in a straight line?
What does not change the fact that passing a map (Novigrad +NML) from the north to the south, in the ideal line, the slowest pace of a horse is 15 minutes, and the average 6 minutes.
If the entire map Skellige is the same size, then running over both (Novigrad+NML+Skellige) locations (assuming they can) is the slowest pace horse 30min and 12 minutes average, gallop even less (in a straight line). To 40 min a little lacking...
And I doubt that the pace of the horse on the gameplay has been slowed
If the entire map Skellige is the same size, then running over both (Novigrad+NML+Skellige) locations (assuming they can) is the slowest pace horse 30min and 12 minutes average, gallop even less (in a straight line). To 40 min a little lacking...
And I doubt that the pace of the horse on the gameplay has been slowed
I thought the purpose of this debate was to discuss the size of the world? Movement speed aside, we have factual statements from people who have actually played the game.
In the recent GameStar interview they said the Novigrad + No-Man's-Land map is larger than Skyrim. And we have the earlier developer statement (that's a year or more old) that the map is 20% larger than Skyrim. Either way it is safe to say that The Witcher 3 is by no means small and at least larger than The Elder Scrolls maps. Since Skyrim's map is pretty much the largest open-world in recent memory it is safe to say The Witcher 3 will be satisfactorily large.
Whether it takes 40 minutes to cross the Novigrad + No-Man's-Land map and Skellige map individually, or whether it takes 40 minutes to cross them combined seems beside the point. Either way, we're dealing with the largest single-player open-world game since Elder Scrolls Daggerfall (MMO maps are larger still, so are racing games. But f!@# racing game amirite?)
In the recent GameStar interview they said the Novigrad + No-Man's-Land map is larger than Skyrim. And we have the earlier developer statement (that's a year or more old) that the map is 20% larger than Skyrim. Either way it is safe to say that The Witcher 3 is by no means small and at least larger than The Elder Scrolls maps. Since Skyrim's map is pretty much the largest open-world in recent memory it is safe to say The Witcher 3 will be satisfactorily large.
Whether it takes 40 minutes to cross the Novigrad + No-Man's-Land map and Skellige map individually, or whether it takes 40 minutes to cross them combined seems beside the point. Either way, we're dealing with the largest single-player open-world game since Elder Scrolls Daggerfall (MMO maps are larger still, so are racing games. But f!@# racing game amirite?)
Last edited:
To me the size of the world is not that important as long as what is in it is meaningful and interesting. I rather have a more compact world full with things to do than a huge world where it takes forever to find anything interesting. That is not to say it shouldn't make sense in terms of distances. For example I am a little worried about Novigrad and Oxenfurt which are the two biggest cities in the game are so close together.
It was only a theoretical example given by one of the RED...
Omg, i didn't think about that. One more thing to be hyped about in the witcher 3! 
I ride and walk a lot, and have found that for a 'back of the envelope' estimate a straight line measured in km and used numerically as miles gives a good stand in for timings including hills, non-direct routeing and other frictions of travelling.
e.g. If I can walk at 4.5miles per hour, and the total distance to be covered is 9km as the crow flies, then I should finish in around 2 hours. If I can cycle at an average "flat pace" of 20 miles per hour, and the total distance in a straight line is 70km, then I should cover the distance in around 3.5 hours.
This is a bit rough and ready, but does give a fairly consistent basis for my travelling style, and the local road/prow conditions and terrain. Actually calculating the values using Ride with GPS and a custom excel spreadsheet on the resulting gpx trackline gives estimates within a few % of the 'rough cut' value, and usually within a gnat's whisker of my actual performance when walked/ridden.
Around half the 'addition' comes from indirect routeing, dog-legs, meanders etc, and the remainder from increased time needed when speeds are above and below the average.
e.g. If I can walk at 4.5miles per hour, and the total distance to be covered is 9km as the crow flies, then I should finish in around 2 hours. If I can cycle at an average "flat pace" of 20 miles per hour, and the total distance in a straight line is 70km, then I should cover the distance in around 3.5 hours.
This is a bit rough and ready, but does give a fairly consistent basis for my travelling style, and the local road/prow conditions and terrain. Actually calculating the values using Ride with GPS and a custom excel spreadsheet on the resulting gpx trackline gives estimates within a few % of the 'rough cut' value, and usually within a gnat's whisker of my actual performance when walked/ridden.
Around half the 'addition' comes from indirect routeing, dog-legs, meanders etc, and the remainder from increased time needed when speeds are above and below the average.
The map from the preorder doesn't seem to be the real map, unless they made some changes from the 35min map. You can see some average differences between the 2 maps.
And obviously you can go deeper in south, i don't think they made some invisible wall on the water at the south of the Mire.
And obviously you can go deeper in south, i don't think they made some invisible wall on the water at the south of the Mire.
Last edited:
Fine. But that doesn't change the fact that The Witcher 3 is by no means small. And anyone who was satisfied with the size of Skyrim's world should have no complaints about the size of The Witcher 3.
Last edited:
There is too much water, and I personally do not like it. I expected sailing to be a small part of the game which would serve as a distraction, but it seems like that we are going to spend a lot of time on water.
I would have preferred to see more dry land locations such as Gors Velen and Brokilon. I'd prefer a map that covered more of the Northern kingdoms, including Kaer Morhen (being part of the map and accessible any time) all the way down to Rivia, Lyria, and even Cintra, instead of so much water and islands.
This is what I personally would have liked to see:
View attachment 12117
I would have preferred to see more dry land locations such as Gors Velen and Brokilon. I'd prefer a map that covered more of the Northern kingdoms, including Kaer Morhen (being part of the map and accessible any time) all the way down to Rivia, Lyria, and even Cintra, instead of so much water and islands.
This is what I personally would have liked to see:
View attachment 12117
Attachments
-
new map.jpg
Impossible... To create such big map and fill it with interesting people and quests is just not possible. Unless you have few billions on your bank account and 12 years to develop such game...
You do realise that your map would include whole countries (with the size of real world countries like Poland and Hungary). Even it it was scaled down it would still remain way too big for a game. It would cost billions of Euros and take at least a decade to create such a huge game-world with quests, characters, its own story arc and content in general. Also the game would be unplayable: it would take ages to explore and also it would distract you all the time from the main quest line. People would get bored of it pretty quickly due to its ridiculous size and the amount of filler content it would offer.
There's more water on the mainland than I expected, but since I believe there are a lot of cool surprises to find underneath I'm not that bothered (I'm calling it - there's some huge underwater cave where it's back to swordfighting some beastie). I also really like the look. I don't know anything about geography but it still has this organic feel to me. More of a real place than just a gaming slab of earth. I also expected something bigger, but that has nothing to do with CDPR. Just my own fault for hyping too much and reading a few too many overly optimistic speculations by other fans and believing them. Besides, it's hard to measure, especially when Skellige is scaled down and at least Kaer Morhen is missing. Overall it looks beautiful and I'm excited to explore this land.
The actual map would end up something like this if you cut the extra mountains and water, and a portion of these locations such as Novigrad, Oxenfort, and even Kaer Morhen are already in the game. By scaling down and reducing the distances it actually would not be as intimidating as you make it to be.
View attachment 12118
This is Skyrim's map. If this was possible in 2011 on last gen consoles, then I say there is a high possibility that a map like above is possible in 2015.
Attachments
-
asl.jpg
@shawn_kh you surprise me. This dream of yours is huuuuge. Let's take that cut map of yours and mark down rough estimates of TW3's areas, without White Orchard,
The exact size of the circles I placed doesn't matter. I think we can agree that they cover the areas, give or take. The extra territories you dream about being added would make for a gargantuan map. I Googled for a word that's better at describing something absurdly big but I couldn't come up with anything else.
Putting this as comparison...
Firstly, because while it may seem impressive due to the images being different sizes, in actuality Skyrim, according to what we know, is around the size of Novigrad+NML. Or if we wanna be generous, then the mainland + Skellige. Just two of my red circles. Either way, it's no where near as close in size to the areas you included in your expanded map.
Secondly, because I think Skyrim's map is a good example of this:
A Lesson In Cartography In Potato Land - a developer diary from Kingdom Come.
If it's between choosing to have most of the northern kingdoms but in turn meaning that when I piss in Novigrad it rains in Tretogor because everything is ridiculously squeezed together, or having just a small section of the north but done in a convincing manner, I'll choose option 2. Because it has to be either\or in this case. We can't have both. Not with CDPR's limited resources and today's technology.
The exact size of the circles I placed doesn't matter. I think we can agree that they cover the areas, give or take. The extra territories you dream about being added would make for a gargantuan map. I Googled for a word that's better at describing something absurdly big but I couldn't come up with anything else.
Putting this as comparison...
...is irrelevant.This is Skyrim's map. If this was possible in 2011 on last gen consoles, then I say there is a high possibility that a map like above is possible in 2015.
Firstly, because while it may seem impressive due to the images being different sizes, in actuality Skyrim, according to what we know, is around the size of Novigrad+NML. Or if we wanna be generous, then the mainland + Skellige. Just two of my red circles. Either way, it's no where near as close in size to the areas you included in your expanded map.
Secondly, because I think Skyrim's map is a good example of this:
A Lesson In Cartography In Potato Land - a developer diary from Kingdom Come.
If it's between choosing to have most of the northern kingdoms but in turn meaning that when I piss in Novigrad it rains in Tretogor because everything is ridiculously squeezed together, or having just a small section of the north but done in a convincing manner, I'll choose option 2. Because it has to be either\or in this case. We can't have both. Not with CDPR's limited resources and today's technology.
Last edited: