Poll: Does Size Matter?

[Antari]

No its not that kind of thread! But really. Does map size matter to you? Does it make a difference for you if it takes 3 hours to run across the map? Or are you more concerned with the details of the map, even if it is the size of a walk-in closet? This question has recently come to mind while playing Just Cause 2. Which definately has an epic sized map. But there is alot of open forest, so while it looks big you will only use small portions of the map for each mission the rest is, as ZP put it, added travel time. What are your thoughts on how games are using map sizes? In good ways or bad.

Suggestions for additional polling options are welcome.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

as long as its implemented well so no gun can become too overpowered on the map then im fine with the map size, as long as its not gargantuan size at least.

i just hate mas that favor the fuck out of certain weapons and unless you use those yours probably gonna get buttfucked,

as long as they do that, then im probably okay with the map.

 

[aPod]

Quality > Quantity

Thats always been my take on it. I'd prefer greater detail over greater size any day. Really it makes or breaks a sandbox game when you'd rather just fast travel everywhere or walk around explore the world on my way.

I think Red Dead Redemption did a pretty good job at both i love riding around in the world. And the scenery pretty awesome.

 

[viking97]

oh ok, i thought... nevermind

OT yea to me it does, but i like detail in it. take superman returns (i know i know but its the first thing that comes to mind) had the biggest world map EVER at the time of release, but there was absolutely nothing to do in it.

i think size matters more to me than detail though.

 

[Weaver]

Only if you DO something with that size.

 

[tehweave]

You tease! You rope me into a 'does size matter' thread. It's about multiplayer maps. TEEEEAAAAASSEEEE.

Anyway, the size does not matter, but in more recent years, most maps have the ability to be 3 dimensional. (Meaning there's fucking levels to it.) You need to have enough space so that people can actually move (I made a Timesplitters Future Perfect map that was one square surrounded by narrow slopes that fell to a death trap. Meaning that if you had more than 3 people, one slid to his death and was insta-killed.) but having nothing but maps like the snow one from Halo or the snow one from Timesplitters 2 or any snow one for that matter, are too much as well.

The temple in Smash Brothers Brawl/Melee is fun, but so is final destination. (One single platform.)

 

[Erana]

It depends greatly on the game.
For the most part, in an RPG I love big open spaces, but after playing a whole lot of MMORPGs, I find that having well-developed but smaller environments are better, because you don't have to wade through all sorts of riff-raff and monsters while you try to go about your business. A big, endless field is a lot less stimulating than an intriguing mansion.

With FPSs, I don't need maps to be all that big a floorplan, but I enjoy them sooooo much more if they at least have the illusion of being on a grand scale.

 

[RaphaelsRedemption]

It's about the quality, not the quantity. Who needs acres of snow? Or crater-filled nothing? No one. But I see so many maps where the developers cut and pasted the same map over and over again and slapped a different location name on it, and went, oh look at our huge sandbox game!

A city you can walk around, go into the shops, interact with the people, go to a different town, one that looks different, talk to the people there about how they hate the inhabitants of the last town, all the while finding more and more surprises and new features... hell yes! The Citadel from Mass Effect comes to mind as a place I liked wandering around.

Hectares of... nothing. Samey looking nothing, whether it be snow, trees, buildings, sand, etc. will aways piss me off. Same game, Mass Effect, did this, with the hundreds of crappy planets. Scan, land, drive around bumpy landscape, find probe, find mineral (you're the most important person the universe and you're looking for IRON deposits? WTF?), kill Thresher Maw, defeat obligatory ambush... Yawn.

Make it interesting. And make it different to what came before. Or I will stop playing.

 

[UnusualStranger]

As everyone else has mostly expressed, hell yeah size matters.

Having to run, drive, or ride for 10 minutes doing nothing and experiencing nothing doesn't make a game good, or even feel big. It makes it feel empty, and boring.

What is so great about a huge ass map when there is only 1-3 points of interest, and they are all on opposite ends? All it turns into is annoying travel time. And the only time travel time is good is when I have the option to skip it.

Which, when it comes to huge maps, I usually can't.

 

[DustyDrB]

I tend to liked more corridor-based games like Mass Effect 2. You can make a game feel huge without stretching the map out to tons of empty space. Twilight Princess was good for this. Why strive for the mundane?

Off topic: Is there a guide for making polls? It really bugs me. Have at least one positive option, one negative option (a "slightly positive/negative" option is acceptable), and a neutral option. Here we always seem to get a 2 or 3 options that are pretty much the same magnitude of positive or negative, and some food-based answer ("I like ______"). And lots of meh, meh, meh, meh. Enough with the meh and the I like pie, make a decent poll. Thus ends my tangent.