Current Events > Is Red Dead Redemption 2 evidence that a game can be...TOO big?

(+) Yeah! (+)

In your humble opinion...

---

No, but I think The Witcher 3 is a bit too big.

---

Open world games would be way better of there were like 1/4th the map size but 4x deeper with richer quests/dialogue/meaningful choices etc

---

Jabodie posted...

No, but I think The Witcher 3 is a bit too big.

That's weird because I'm pretty sure Witcher 3 is much smaller

Also the side content is way more satisfying imo

If Ridley ended up not being too big, then nothing can be too big.

Only too small.

---

DarthAragorn posted...

That's weird because I'm pretty sure Witcher 3 is much smaller

Also the side content is way more satisfying imo

I don't mean map size, but in scope. Besides, the physical size of the map doesn't really matter with instant fast travel everywhere.

---

Never played RDR2 but apparently it has actual content despite being long (like The Witcher 3). "Too long" for me is something like the latest Assassin's Creed games, where it's long by virtue of all the mind-numbing filler content

---

Breath of the Wild is about the only real "open world" game thats any good anymore.
---

Eh. When mobility in games improve, we can talk about big worlds. The boring horse shit really ruins the game.

---

GTA4 was the perfect size to be honest. Big enough to explore but small enough to memorize. Just wish they would have used more of it and utilized it to its fullest potential.

---

ZEROWOLF posted...

GTA4 was the perfect size to be honest. Big enough to explore but small enough to memorize. Just wish they would have used more of it and utilized it to its fullest potential.

Did you play the DLC by any chance?

---

Absolutely not. Roaming around that game is great. The bigger the better

---

If RDR had more stores and merchants which would be more realistic, it would be 9/10 for me.

---

The size is perfect

---

Bump

---

I've only played about an hour of RDR2, unlocked the base camp (where you can shave and buy upgrades and stuff)

Is it bigger than AC Odyssey??

---

ledbowman posted...

Absolutely not. Roaming around that game is great. The bigger the better

Tell that to MGS5, big empty world with barely any enemies in it. Or FF15, same deal. Bigger doesn't always mean better, because the larger the game gets the harder it is to fill it with characters.

I liked the map in MGS5, I never felt like it took too long to get to where I wanted to go.

---

Ivany2008 posted...

Tell that to MGS5, big empty world with barely any enemies in it. Or FF15, same deal. Bigger doesn't always mean better, because the larger the game gets the harder it is to fill it with characters.

But I'm talking about RDR2

---

I think it really depends on the game.

Personally I loved just about every bit of RDR 2, and unlike many open-world games this one had a ton of neat stuff packed everywhere in the map. I took me 4 months (not actual play time) to finally get bored (and even then it was mainly because I just wanted to try other games). The world size felt right in that game.

Some like Assassins Creed: Odyssey though were way too big for my tastes. A huge world with a lot of places that looked too similar and without any huge distinctions from each other. At 50 hours I wasn't even half way done, but it felt like I'd been playing forever. I just gave up at that point. A good game, but it wasn't focused enough

---

rdr2s outdated gameplay mechanics ruins the game

---

No

RDR2 isn't too big aside from maybe West Austin being tacked on.

But sure games can be too big. I don't see the appeal when it's randomly generated either.
---

WizardPowers posted...

Open world games would be way better of there were like 1/4th the map size but 4x deeper with richer quests/dialogue/meaningful choices etc

People tend to say this like it's a tradeable resource. It's relatively easy to build a big map. It's hard to develop rich quests, dialogue and choices.

---