World Map - Density vs Size, and the Edge of the Earth

+
World Map - Density vs Size, and the Edge of the Earth

.Do you prefer smaller, more densely packed maps, or larger, more open maps? Both is obviously the preferred option, but at some point it stops being practical. Considering that, at what point are you willing to sacrifice density of a map for a larger sized map, and vice versa?

I'd rather have a dense, lively city with large buildings and dark alleys to explore, than a physically large map. I would consider a map like Skyrim to be too large, but something like GTA San Andreas and GTA IV to be fitting (felt larger than they were).

I also think physical map size is often given too much emphasis. It doesn't have to be enormous to feel enormous.

.And while we're on the topic, how would you like the game to approach the edge of the map? Giant invisible walls? Other impenetrable forces that keep you from leaving? Instant death upon passing the boundaries?

I like how the edge of the map was handled in GTA 5. While I'm not a big fan of the "the world is an island" approach, there aren't very many non-immersion breaking options available. In GTA 5, if players went too far out, the engine in their plane or boat would burn out and the player would crash and sink into the ocean. If they survived, they would be eaten by a shark or simply drown.

From what I know of Night City, it is surrounded by a barren desert wasteland, and according to Wikipedia, potentially the California coast? It wasn't too clear on that. Either way, it allows for a similar approach that I think would be best.

editors note: I hate invisible walls.
 
No one is going to agree with me on this, but lets just say, GTA San Andreas was about right, in acreage, though the city needs to be much larger within that map.
 

227

Forum veteran
Anyone who likes the idea of sacrificing density for overall size needs to go over to GOG and buy Sacred 2. Seriously. Try to enjoy the magic of playing through 20-80 hours of fetch quests on a gigantic, mostly-empty map without realizing that empty space without content to back it up is pointless and tedious.
 
No one is going to agree with me on this, but lets just say, GTA San Andreas was about right, in acreage, though the city needs to be much larger within that map.


No, I'd agree. With larger city and lots and lots and lots of buildings and NPCs and details and just total intricacy.

That sounds like a Holy Grail of my hopes for Night City and surrounding area, in fact.
 
I prefer smaller an more dense design. I don't like it when 95% of the game are but props that exist just because otherwise the spot would be flat ground. There's little point in going around there, and that way they can never depict a place like Night City without miniaturizising it to ridiculous proportions or making it a monotonic concrete jungle traveling which is nothing but a chore because most of the time there's nothing to be done there but looking around, driving over civilians and playing bumbercars. In games like GTA or Sleeping Dongs the city around you is of no consequence, and that really fine because that's how those games want it for their more restricted gameplay and interaction opportunities; but I don't think its a good solution for a (supposedly and hopefully) multifaceted RPG like CP2077 where the design (again hopefully) strives for more complex for interactions and interplay between the PC, the narrative and the world.

I think CDPR should ditch the idea of sandbox design for CP2077. I find it that a hub design, if done right, would give much better illusion of size and much meaningful interactions. And that of course doesn't mean that it can't or wouldn't be an open world (open world isn't only as depicted in GTA or Bethesda games; Fallout and Fallout 2 were open worlds just as much for one example), that the areas need to be small like DXHR and VtMB with very little free movement and exploration, or that every building must be enterable. It simply gives offers better - more dense - possibilities for interactivity through less "dead" areas, and a sense of scale because it abstracts the parts of the city you do not ever need to visit.
 
Last edited:
Sard is agreeing to Wisdom?? what happened? how long was i asleep? which date do we have? what happened to the world i knew?

View attachment 5367

but on topic, there needs to be both in some form. there should be some wide open "plains' if you will (maybe that's the desert), but in the heart of the city most of the buildings should be real and it should be dense and crowded. I can't think of a game that really had the happy medium I'm talking about unfortunately, but there it is.
 

Attachments

  • D6PfW.jpg
    D6PfW.jpg
    58.9 KB · Views: 48
Density first. Definitely.


But, I would like to have impression, that Night City is megalopolis, a living breathing city, that I can get lost in.

So big and dense at the same time.











Easy.
 
The city in Saints Row IV feels fairly "alive". Sure you can't enter 95% of the buildings but there are people and vehicles on the street you can interact with and occasionally they interact with each other to an extent. There's enough variety in NPCs and costumes you don't see the exact same NPC everywhere. The city itself is large enough to "feel" like a city not a town.
While the game does have it's problems in other areas I think they did pretty well in this one.
 
I have to agree with most of you... there is a point where a map get's to big. Exacly where that is, I don't know. It depends on the game I guess, what type of travel options are in it, etc. Only walking/running? Riding horses? Cars or other fast transports? Fast travel?

I don't mind if it takes some time to get to a new place if it is the first time your going there though... and I can be somewhat ok with it even if it always takes all that time. But if there is fast travel in a game I will most likely use... of course in general I will also have explored everything from my current location to where I am going, so it's not like I would miss anything/much if I started to use fast travel later on. I don't really have any problems with "the edge of the map"... even if it is invisible walls.

The biggest problem I have with "sandboxy" kinds of games is that I tend to very easily get distracted and pulled away from the main quest of the game, and spend my time on everything else but the main quest. It's the reason why I have never finished Oblivion, or Skyrim and other simmilar games. Heck in Skyrim with the first character I played, I got about 70 hours into the game, got to something like level 35'ish, and I had not even been up and talked to the Greybeards yet... and then I stopped playing.

My second character, which I probably did not start untill about a year after the first time I stopped playing, I added some mods to Skyrim, and then I told my self: "I am not going to let my self be distracted, I AM going to follow the main quest, and only go do other things if I need to level up to handle the enemy!"... I have played that character for 167 hours, reached level 57... so how far have I come in the main quest? Well, further then with my first character, I am on the first quest the Greybeards send you of to do outside of their mountain (so basicly just after they gave you that mini training when you first talk to them)... XD

Heck... this can be a problem for me even in games which are not compleatly sandboxy... take Dragon Age Origins. That is a pretty linear, and not very sandboxy, type of game. And yet I have still not finished that one either. My first character (a Human Warrior) I have played for about 150+ hours, and when I stopped I only had the last area in the Dwarven main quest left, plus a few sidequests to do, befor I was going to go to the Landsmeet. That was 3-4 years ago, I did play about 10 of the last hours in 2012 though.

About 2 weeks ago I finally decided to once again pick up playing DAO (plus all it's DLC's, plus DA2 and it's DLC's, in preperations for DA3). I decided to start over (as a Human Warrior again), to refresh my memory of it all. So far I have finished the Mages tower quest, and I am almost done with the Dwarves (only need to give someone the crown), and a large amount of sidequests, I have the Elven main quest and the Redcliff main quest left to do, plus sidequests of course, befor I reach roughly the same place I was the last time, and I have already played 82 hours. XD

Basicly, the only games I tend to finish these days are games that I can finish within the first 50-100 hours (for most normal people this is probably half or a third of that time)... which means that it's mostly FPS games... the exception is Mass Effect 1, 2 and 3, those are some of the only "long games" I have finished during the recent... 10 or so years. XD Even most FPS games takes me longer to finish then most people... not because I am bad at them or something (I would say I am actually fairly good at them)... but because I prefer to sneak around and silently snipe and/or take out the enemy. Crysis 1 probably took me 20 hours to finish.

Take Farcry 3 for example, if I am going to take one of those bandit camps. I first spend time moving around the entire thing to check it out and find all the entrences, make sure I tag all the bandits in the camp, and then spend X amount of time just sitting there observing the bandits patrol pattern, locating the best spots I can take them out without other bandits noticing it, usually with my silenced sniper, or with my silenced assault rifle or pistol if I have to go inside the camp. I rather spend 15-30 minuts doing all that (depending on how big the camp is, how many enemies, how easy it is to take them out one by one, etc), then just rush in and be done with it in less then 5 minuts. I have not finished Farcry 3 yet... XD
 
Last edited:
The fact that you can be sidetracked from the main story line is actually a good thing as far as most RPG players are concerned. If you can enjoy the parts of a game that don't involve the main quest-line as much, or even more then, the main story the game is well designed from an RPG point of view.
 
Heh. It will be! It will be like Witcher 3 maps...only filled with City!

Now I want to make a Novigrad vs Night City thread but since we haven't seen either such a thing is fruitless. Still we do have an idea on how big TW3 will actually be. Do you really think Night city alone will be comparable to that titan or to the Novigrad area itself?
 
The fact that you can be sidetracked from the main story line is actually a good thing as far as most RPG players are concerned. If you can enjoy the parts of a game that don't involve the main quest-line as much, or even more then, the main story the game is well designed from an RPG point of view.

True... I have after all spent something like... 300+ hours each in games like Skyrim and Dragon Age Origins, and probably some 300+ hours in Fallout 3 and New Vegas combined, played Farcry 3 for 45 hours so far, and that's not counting all the hours on top of that I have played with each game, due to that the games do not count all the time you spent reloading and redoing something, or goofing off or what ever, you only see the time the games have actually recorded in your save files.

And I guess that is what most game developers want, that people spend as much of their time possible playing as much as possible of that developers games. So as such, all of those games I mentioned, and all of the ones I have not mentioned, which got the same treatment from me... would probably be considered a success by the developers when it came to me.

It's just that slight annoying little thing... that I never got to see the end of most of them, because I "burned my self out" on the game long befor I reached the end in most of them. I would like to see the end in them, but most of them I never will. Hopefully I manage to stick around for all of DAO and DA2, and then DA3 when it comes... but there are no garantees. XD
 
The fact that you can be sidetracked from the main story line is actually a good thing as far as most RPG players are concerned. If you can enjoy the parts of a game that don't involve the main quest-line as much, or even more then, the main story the game is well designed from an RPG point of view.

I think there should always (well ok, nearly always, not every mundane task needs a high level reaction) be some form of interconnectivity between the main quest and sidequests. You are afterall a man/woman on a mission, whether it be personal or regarding something/someone else. That while you are free to go about your business, what you do will build up to have an effect on how you can approach the main quest and the storyline when you decide to come back to it. You might piss off a certain group and lock yourself out of their part in your storyline, you might start a chain reaction that escalates in a gangwar as time passes by making your reaching of your (next) MQ goal much harder, you might cause a certain MQ semi-essential NPC to get killed requiring you to readjust your approach. If you fuck with too much stuff, it might lead to a premature ending of the storyline (think about Wasteland 2's way of pissing the rangers off).

The way I see it, a main quest that patiently waits - inside a safe bubble that concerns nothing outside of it - for your arrival when ever you choose to, is a bad form for a proper RPG.
 
I think there should always (well ok, nearly always, not every mundane task needs a high level reaction) be some form of interconnectivity between the main quest and sidequests. You are afterall a man/woman on a mission, whether it be personal or regarding something/someone else. That while you are free to go about your business, what you do will build up to have an effect on how you can approach the main quest and the storyline when you decide to come back to it. You might piss off a certain group and lock yourself out of their part in your storyline, you might start a chain reaction that escalates in a gangwar as time passes by making your reaching of your (next) MQ goal much harder, you might cause a certain MQ semi-essential NPC to get killed requiring you to readjust your approach. If you fuck with too much stuff, it might lead to a premature ending of the storyline (think about Wasteland 2's way of pissing the rangers off).

The way I see it, a main quest that patiently waits - inside a safe bubble that concerns nothing outside of it - for your arrival when ever you choose to, is a bad form for a proper RPG.

Even if I can think a main quest that waits for you indefinite, as you go about his buissness of doing anything else but the main quest, is a bit ridiculous and what not... I still don't mind that all to much my self. Sure... it would probably mean that I finished more games if there was a timelimit on the main storyline. It depends on the game really.

A game like Skyrim for example, if they set a timelimit in that game I would probably feel a bit to rushed everytime I started a new game (think I have had 5 characters in it so far, with anything from 10-15 hours played, to up 166 hours played on my last character). Because I would know that "oh now I have to go and do ALL of this stuff befor I can just go about my business doing what I really feel like doing this time"... or somehting of that nature.

It's actually partly the reason why I rarely go back to playing Fallout 1 (which is a game I really like)... because your forced to do certain things first, in order to then be able to go do what you feel like. At least if you play the 1.1 or later updated versions of FO1. In the 1.0 version of FO1 you had that first time limit of 150 days as normal (250 if you set up a caravan to send water to your village)... but you then also had a final timelimit of 500 days total (400 if you set up a caravan to send water to your village) befor the game ended. For the 1.1 update the developers removed that 500 (and 400) day limit.

I don't mind to much if a game does have time limits, and I will probably enjoy them a lot anyway (like FO1). But it can cause me to not go back to those games as often as if they had not had a time limit. Which is saying a lot, because I rarely go back and play games as it is... most games only get 1 playthrough for me. And only some get's played 2 or 3 times. The ones I return to consistently are few, maybe a handful... two hand fulls at most if I stretch my definition it a little. I mean heck... I have gone back and restarted a new game for Fallout 3 more times during the last 6 years, then how often I have gone back and restarted a new game for Fallout 1 duing the last 14-15 years. And I do by no means consider Fo3 to be better then Fo1... Fo1 is far superior to Fo3 in my opinion. XD

The Fallout game I tend to go back to and replay the most is Tactics actually... which is a game know a lot of Fallout fans don't really like.
 
Last edited:
The time limit in Fallout gave the main objective a sense of urgency and importance, and a dynamic feel to the world (that it doesn't revolve around the player). There was a plausible reason for it to exist (and 5 months was quite generous). It's goofy in games like Oblivion or Skyrim where there's an ancient evil arising that's going to destroy the world any minute now... but not before you can bother to deal with it. An implication of urgency that breaks the minute you notice that things wait for you indefinitely, that nothing happens without you around.

There are ways to make timelimits more than just a "doomsday clock", like altering the conditions in the world and/or the people in it --- eg. if you don't deliver the weapons to the front line in given time, the enemy will invade those areas making your moving there much harder than before.

But if there is a plausible reason to cause a "fail" through loitering for too long, then that should happen. If you don't chase the convict and catch him in time, he will be gone and you have failed; if you don't deliver the waterchip in time, your family and friends will die and you have failed.
 
Top Bottom