How big is too big for open world games?

This is just an open discussion. Do you find fast travel to defeat the point of open world? If it's so big you have to fast travel places to not want to rip your eyes out, isn't that kind of implying the map could be condensed? "Open-world" seems to be a modern day stamp of approval to many gamers, so I'm just wondering... how big is too big? Or at what size do many parts of the map just seem to be useless filler?

I don't think size should be an issue. I only use fast travel for places I've already explored. I always walk or ride a horse everywhere else because I want to explore. The only thing I ask is that traveling places not be boring. Put events, landmarks, etc in between long stretches to keep players interested.

Good topic.

Different people are going to have different preferences. I'm one for quality over quantity usually so I don't mind a smaller world if it means that most of the stuff is interesting and high quality content.

I don't think that size is an issue so much as long as there's enough interesting things to fill that size. I also don't think that fast travel is an issue on it's own either, it's more about giving more flexibility and more options to players.

its a really difficult thing to get right.

in games like skyrim or witcher 3, for example, i always find it a bit daft that one second im in a snow covered area in the middle of a blizzard and, without travelling very far, i can be in a field covered in flowers in what looks like a lovely summers day. or that a dungeon full of mosters is 30 seconds away from a peaceful hamlet and no one bats an eyelid.

but making a game thats real world sized just wouldnt be practical. bethesda did it (daggerfall is about the size of the UK)...but did it really add much to the game?

elite dangerous is about 1/4th the size of our galaxy (anyone going to test if they really can fly from one star to another in sub light? i bet frontier put a big easter egg in the middle of nowhere somewhere in the galaxy :P) but the biggest complaint is there aint an awful lot to do in the game.

i think it really depends on what the developer is going for. if a developer making a survival game then something more real world in size may actually be preferrable for example. if its an adventure or RPG then daggerfall is a bit overkill. the witcher 3s scale is about right i think...maybe a little bigger.

I don't have a problem with size. I love exploring and being lost in a game after i'm done with the main quest or feels like it. It's only a pain in the ass if there is no fast travel. I remember the first version of Dragon's dogma was really a pain in the ass before you finish the game, yet just cause 2 who is much bigger was a breeze to travel around.

I've never had an issue with a game being "too big". Though games with large open worlds do kind of have a tendency to have a good chunk of open, unused space. But still, I like roaming around and exploring so I haven't actually been too bothered by this.

If this is a case for open worlds? Skyrim was bigger than I personally like OW Maps. But then more linear well crafted layouts fit me better. I prefer maps in games like Monster Hunter, and Bloodborne. When how the area is built reflects gameplay.

I think fast travel is necessary in many games but I would like to see it more limited or challenging in future games.

As for map size, for more realistic games it's okay to have wide open areas with uninteresting things just like you might see in real life. I also enjoy games with smaller, condensed maps filled with things to do and see. Both examples have a place in the gaming world.

As long as the world is filled with things to do, than I don't think it can be too big. As for fast travel, I used to be able to live without it but Fallout and Skyrim have spoiled me. Don't get me wrong, I like exploring and finding interesting things, but I'm a hoarder and always loot everything, so I want to be able to travel back and forth fast. I could almost not play Dragon's Dogma due to its lack of fast travel and even the Witcher 3 annoys me a little bit that I have to travel to sign posts, but that's better than nothing.

There is no such thing as too big when it comes to an open world. As long as the space serves a purpose. If it's just there as a empty space and you have no reason to be there, then that is to big.

It really depends on the game and what they are trying to accomplish. Sleeping Dogs map size was fairly small in comparison to most games like it, but I felt it littered the world in interesting ways because it wasn't overwhelming. Skyrim for example has a huge world, sometimes pretty barren,but even then I loved that due to the variety of environments and biomes. It all depends if it is handled well and done in a way that will continuously engage the player.

I guess that it depend on the game: In GTA5, if the world was bigger, I could have never learn the town.

As long as there are places to explore, too big is never a problem. If it's empty with no life, it then becomes overwhelming.

For many it about who fast and fun you can travel it. So things like GTA4 bottleneck just ruins it even if it is not that large.

For FPS little to no open world elements to them is best.

Size isn't the problem..like everyone says

it's a long road from point a to b,but if I can't find interesting things along the way,then I choose the chicken's way,if only I have showed mercy for GTA 5 since they come with a map in the box like the 4th of the series did,I might learn lots of important places and roads so I know my getaway route,I showed mercy for RDR though,because there's always something to do in a land that is barren and hardly any advanced civilization like Blackwater.

As long as the game is entertaining and rewarding, I don't mind how large or small the area to explore is. For example, Skyrim is huge, but it is beautiful, diverse, there are always new discoveries along the way, and no two trips are the same.

On the other hand, Destiny patrols are also huge, but they are extremely repetitive and offer nothing new. So I definitely prefer quality over quantity

If I ever use fast travel in your open-world game, then it is a poor open world game.

If I don't want to explore every nook and cranny for fun, then it should never have been an open-world game in the first place.

I think Bully and Red Dead Redemption are the two best open worlds. Big enough to feel freedom, but small and dense enough to encourage exploration and 100% completion. The perfect mixture. Also; open worlds need to be organic, not with a map that is plastered with information telling you where everything is. If you have to tell the player where secrets are, it's because your open world is too big, and poorly designed.

I dont think size is all that much of a factor to me..

I am fine with any size just as long as the open world is enjoyable to get from point a to point b, is fun to navigate the world, has nice pacing of content delivery among other things.

I don't think games have made proper use of their current size yet. The game world size has just become a selling point.

Games like gta and red dead redemption are too big for me..

Just Cause 2 is a perfect example of a big open world game with plenty to do and a massive amounts of vehicles
at your disposal.

I do not feel that a game can be too big, it is merely a matter of what the developers put in that open space. They should make the world as big as the story and content needs it to be, rather than making a huge map and then dotting it with pointless collectibles that just waste the player's time.

Kingdoms of Amalur does a pretty decent job of utilizing all of the space it has, wasting very little. I would much prefer, though, a game with ten highly developed, voice acted, animated, involving and interesting quests, than 50 fetch quests with dialogue little better than hand-waving.

Hard question.

Can't say if i ever felt an open world game was to big.

@ps3hdalltime: Let me start by saying GTA V is one of my all time favorite games. However, GTA V map is really not that big. The perimeter of the city part can be driven around (in a super car) in about a minute. Not to mention, there really aren't a whole lot of interact-able buildings at all in the city, when it comes down to it it's mostly just decorations. For GTA games it's pretty big though, and I love that game, but compared to RPGs it's tiny. It seems enormous when you first start but the more you play (and more and more and more in my case) the sooner you realize it's really not all that large at all. The city itself is very consolidated and the rural areas are a lot of desert and mountains- which are mostly just a huge obstruction you have to drive around. And since GTA is not an "exploring/gathering" game a lot of the rural area (which is about 50% of the map) could have been used a lot more efficiently. While I loved the rural/city component, the city could have been larger and another city North of the desert section (or something like that) would have made that area serve a purpose, instead of the rural area just being dead space and undrivable areas. Still though, GTA V is definitely for its class a great open world, just falls short in comparison to true "open-world" RPGs. I love the direction Rockstar took with GTA V, but in VI I'd love to see a bigger map with more buildings and houses that you can actually enter, and less filler like enormous mountains and stretches of empty desert cliffs/ blank buildings. Big for the sake of big is where open world annoys me, and I feel GTA V had some elements of this if you really get down to it.

This post was inspired by me playing The Witcher, which right now is one of the largest open world games I've encountered. I've been playing for a couple weeks now and I truly feel like the world is immense. Not sure if "too big" or if there is such thing, it just inspired me to see what you guys thought about size in O.W. games.