So why did open world games start getting smaller maps with next-gen?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
F

futurefields

Diamond Member
Jun 2, 2012
6,470
32
91
One thing I noticed over the years - open world games got smaller (but yes more densely architectured) maps. Across almost every genre this was the case -

Elder Scrolls and Fable games had larger (but yes, blander) maps on the original Xbox and PC.

Same with GTA. San Andreas was a huge map.

Then when Xbox 360 came out the game worlds got a lot smaller.

They were more realistically designed, but you feel as if you are playing in "a box" rather than a large open world.

Was it memory constraints or a time thing? It takes too long to make maps that are both detailed and very large?

And with Next-next gen Xbox and PS4 coming, will we see game maps for open world games start to increase in size again?
 
zerocool84

zerocool84

Lifer
Nov 11, 2004
36,041
472
126
I'll take a more realistic smaller world than the larger more bland world and that's what they gave us. Yes console power was an issue but they did real well with what they had to work with.
 
purbeast0

purbeast0

No Lifer
Sep 13, 2001
53,546
6,368
126
futurefields said:
why not have both?
Click to expand...

the reasons in your op.

- time
- hardware
- budget

even if you had infinite power, it would take more time to create more detailed environments, which would mean more money as well.

i personally thought gta4 looked like crap (on console never seen pc version) and was very unimpressed with it.
 
F

futurefields

Diamond Member
Jun 2, 2012
6,470
32
91
I would think at this point there is a lot of built in stuff to speed things up.

Rockstar must have some kind of fast building designers and thing like that. I am sure they did not hand place every polygon in GTA4/RDR.

And with streaming shouldnt world size be a non-issue? Itsnot like they are rendering the whole city at once. In theory they could make a game with GTA4 level of detail, with a map infinitely larger, due to the concept of streaming?
 
Atomic Playboy

Atomic Playboy

Lifer
Feb 6, 2007
16,432
1
81
There are significant space limitations. Dual layer DVD holds 12 times as much information as a CD, so there was a decent jump in the size of maps with the jump from CDs to DVDs. Dual-layer blu-rays are only about 5 times as large as DVDs, and that's only for PS3, so multiplatform games won't try to take advantage of space they won't be afforded on the Xbox 360. You also see downloading emerging as a viable alternative to physical media, but there's significant issues with the broadband system in America, either in terms or availability or monthly data caps, which make 50 GB+ games unlikely. When the next generation comes out and uses higher capacity physical media, we may get larger worlds. But you also have to take into account that geometric and texture complexity have gone up tremendously, and that takes up a lot of space as well.
 
D

dagamer34

Platinum Member
Aug 15, 2005
2,591
0
71
Because we've reached the point where the limiting factor is the time needed to generate assets, not the power needed to put them on screen.

Open world, extremely detailed environment, reasonable budget. Pick two of three.
 
ImpulsE69

ImpulsE69

Lifer
Jan 8, 2010
14,946
1,077
126
Daggerfall was huge, but it was mostly empty space (granted there was alot of areas). Maps are smaller, but they have much more density and more going on. People don't want to real time travel 20 km's on a fetch me some bread quest these days.
 
Dumac

Dumac

Diamond Member
Dec 31, 2005
9,391
1
0
Morrowind has to best world map of a single-player game to me.

Generated worlds like in Oblivion and Skyrim can't compare.
 
F

futurefields

Diamond Member
Jun 2, 2012
6,470
32
91
ImpulsE69 said:
People don't want to real time travel 20 km's on a fetch me some bread quest these days.
Click to expand...

I think a lot of gamers would want that if the world is dynamic enough, especially open world RPG fans.

Actually thats exactly what most fans of open world games want.

Emergent gameplay, and the ability to forge your own path, real role playing away from the main path.
 
Last edited:
HeXen

HeXen

Diamond Member
Dec 13, 2009
7,835
37
91
The argument i made with Thief 2 to Thief 3. Thief 2 was bigger, but less detailed and more space to move doesn't mean it has purpose for existing. For any game, 1000 feet of grass is pointless compared to 100feet complete with wild animals, interactive objects...etc.

So far, i think Skyrim did it best. In games like GTA series, the landmass has some detail, however it's the same crap that the first square block had, buildings, NPC's and cars with some spaced out points of interactivity that could fit in a much smaller space and do nothing less other than take less time.
 
zerocool84

zerocool84

Lifer
Nov 11, 2004
36,041
472
126
HeXen said:
The argument i made with Thief 2 to Thief 3. Thief 2 was bigger, but less detailed and more space to move doesn't mean it has purpose for existing. For any game, 1000 feet of grass is pointless compared to 100feet complete with wild animals, interactive objects...etc.

So far, i think Skyrim did it best. In games like GTA series, the landmass has some detail, however it's the same crap that the first square block had, buildings, NPC's and cars with some spaced out points of interactivity that could fit in a much smaller space and do nothing less other than take less time.
Click to expand...

Meh, Skyrim still had tons of filler space. Sure it fit really well but it's still the same amount of empty space as other games.
 
Sulaco

Sulaco

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2003
3,825
46
91
HeXen said:
The argument i made with Thief 2 to Thief 3. Thief 2 was bigger, but less detailed and more space to move doesn't mean it has purpose for existing. For any game, 1000 feet of grass is pointless compared to 100feet complete with wild animals, interactive objects...etc.

So far, i think Skyrim did it best. In games like GTA series, the landmass has some detail, however it's the same crap that the first square block had, buildings, NPC's and cars with some spaced out points of interactivity that could fit in a much smaller space and do nothing less other than take less time.
Click to expand...

The problem with that is that it also can totally kill the immersion experience of really feeling like you're a part of the world, and really rewarding you for exploring.

I call it the Oblivion phenomenon. As much as I loved Oblivion, the "compact" nature of much of the maps made the world feel artificial. You'd have ancient, massive ayelid ruins...like.....100 yards from each other.

I don't buy the "well, as long as it's populated with stuff" aruegment that less is more. It will depend on the game, but having too much junk just crammed into a smaller area gives that Theme Park feel that the world is condensed by design, and that's the last thing I want in a massive open world game or RPG.
 
Dumac

Dumac

Diamond Member
Dec 31, 2005
9,391
1
0
futurefields said:
Arent Skyrim and Oblivion maps more hand made than Morrowind?
Click to expand...

No, they overworld was auto-generated and the dungeons are populated with generated loot.

Everything in Morrowind feels hand placed in comparison.
 
Oyeve

Oyeve

Lifer
Oct 18, 1999
22,048
877
126
I hear the next GTA game is supposed to be larger than SA. Hopefully it will be and also that we can actually use/walk/drive on it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom