From Reading other threads from this site and other RPG sites I just want to clear up the confusion a lot of people are having about map sizes.
I notice from searching google that even every body compares map size for open world RPG games. I just want to clear up the confusion a lot of people are having about this.
Two worlds II- from recent news 60sqaure km with a land mass roughly 25 square km and + islands. It is safe to assume with the landmass and islands that the map size is similar to the first two worlds....around 32 square km of land. and we all know the sources come from this website.
Now with that said. Let us finally clear this up. Two worlds and Two worlds 2 is using SQUARE KM. 1600 meters are in a mile so 1 KM is .621 miles.
So to compare map sizes from Smallest to biggest....here it is
*Drum roll*
Gothic 3 and 4- at 7.5 square miles
Elder Scrolls Oblivion-16 square miles
Two worlds I and II- 19.936 square miles
Sacred 2 fallen angel-22 square miles
Some of you may say you cant compare sacred to the rest of them....so if that is the case then two worlds would be the overall biggest map size in this generation.
I remember playing Sacred 2 and being astounded by its map, it was absolutely colossal. With Two Worlds 2 clocking up about 19 miles it really isn't going to be much smaller than Sacred's. This is good, lots of space to explore.
But why post this in the German section when you've written it in English?
__________________ Ī-~"At times when all hope seems lost, a light shines through the
darkness and we are reminded that courage can turn the tides of war..."~-Ī
A big map and huge distances are'nt often as good as a "smaller" one. If the enviroment, the cities/villages and so on good implemented then we will have more fun with a "smaler" map than a bigger one.
They already mentioned that they will release dlc's, i personal think that they will bring new islands because the water is much bigger than the landmass (25kmē landmass against 35kmē water).
A big map and huge distances are'nt often as good as a "smaller" one. If the enviroment, the cities/villages and so on good implemented then we will have more fun with a "smaler" map than a bigger one. They already mentioned that they will release dlc's, i personal think that they will bring new islands because the water is much bigger than the landmass (25kmē landmass against 35kmē water).
That's my feeling too mate, also water is the easiest thing to use to expand boundries. ES4 Oblivion had a stack of landmass that had been created and was never used, except by modders once it had been figured out how to disable the boundries, that must have taken valuable time to make that could have been better spent in producing a less buggy release.
__________________
If it were to rain soup.......I'd have a fork!!!!
I remember playing Sacred 2 and being astounded by its map, it was absolutely colossal. With Two Worlds 2 clocking up about 19 miles it really isn't going to be much smaller than Sacred's. This is good, lots of space to explore.
But why post this in the German section when you've written it in English?
I did put it in an english form but the moderators moved it here. Anyways, I hope this thread helps other people in the future when comparing american open world rpg map sizes to Overseas open world RPG map sizes.
I don't really care about the world size to be honest, I rather have a small, well made and lively world (Risen/Gothic2 managed to pull it off correctly) than an empty souless one.
Once TW2 modding kit kicks off and tools are well documented and made, modders might expand the world of Antaloor.
I think two worlds 2 will have a balance of both though. We need a map size that is massive especially if they are going to be split up in 12 sections for multiplayer.
I think its going to have as much content as Gothic 4 but be on a bigger map. I want to explore huge worlds...that is my thing.
I don't really care about the world size to be honest, I rather have a small, well made and lively world (Risen/Gothic2 managed to pull it off correctly) than an empty souless one.
Although I do agree with this, just look at Fallout 3 for a clear example of a huge map with surprisingly little to do and Oblivion as an example of an attempt at a more interactive map, I also believe that the more space we have to explore the better. Space on a map shouldn't be used as a method to pad gameplay length by having a three mile stretch of nothing between one city and the next. Open areas on a map should still have a degree of purpose beyond filler. Oblivion tried to pull that off by inserting alchemy collectibles all over the map and throwing in a few enemies and hunters between cities, while their attempt was admirable it just didn't work well enough, but at least they tried to make the open areas have a point beyond lengthening playtime. Hell, they had a fast travel system, the only time you ever really needed to enter the wilderness was to find new locations and mapmarkers. They could've just not bothered with the alchemy collectables and other travellers and not many people would've cared, but they did. If more developers took this approach to their worlds, large maps might eventually rival smaller maps in regards to detail and quality. If a design team as lazy as Bethesda could do that for one game, I don't see what could stop other studios from doing the same. Let's hope Reality Pump have thought about interaction for Two Worlds II's map.
Although I do agree with this, just look at Fallout 3 for a clear example of a huge map with surprisingly little to do and Oblivion as an example of an attempt at a more interactive map, I also believe that the more space we have to explore the better. Space on a map shouldn't be used as a method to pad gameplay length by having a three mile stretch of nothing between one city and the next. Open areas on a map should still have a degree of purpose beyond filler. Oblivion tried to pull that off by inserting alchemy collectibles all over the map and throwing in a few enemies and hunters between cities, while their attempt was admirable it just didn't work well enough, but at least they tried to make the open areas have a point beyond lengthening playtime. Hell, they had a fast travel system, the only time you ever really needed to enter the wilderness was to find new locations and mapmarkers. They could've just not bothered with the alchemy collectables and other travellers and not many people would've cared, but they did. If more developers took this approach to their worlds, large maps might eventually rival smaller maps in regards to detail and quality. If a design team as lazy as Bethesda could do that for one game, I don't see what could stop other studios from doing the same. Let's hope Reality Pump have thought about interaction for Two Worlds II's map.
I dont agree with you on the oblivion map. Most of the time....There has always been a quest that will take you to almost every part of the map. If you choose to explore whatever land left in that area is up to you. I mean, there was a quest to go and pick flowers in the forest...which took a while because the flowers you were looking for were not concentrated...so almost the whole forest was explored before I found the correct flowers.
I took a lot of time explorering but then after that started to do the quests....that took me back to the same areas I have already explored.
I just hope that RP have improved their world design from TW. TW had a pretty boring world to explore as it was just a bunch of hills and towns plotted between. If you compare that to the world designs of Gothic 1,2 and 3 it looks very simplistic. Gothic 3 had a really fun world to explore and everywhere you looked there were cliffs, caves, small nooks and crannys that made you want to go and explore deeper into the world.
you know I would have to agree with you. The first two worlds did have a boring map to be honest. It was just too spread out.....I really hope they make it more concentrated like they did in Gothic 3 and 4.
I remember playing Sacred 2 and being astounded by its map, it was absolutely colossal. With Two Worlds 2 clocking up about 19 miles it really isn't going to be much smaller than Sacred's. This is good, lots of space to explore.
But why post this in the German section when you've written it in English?
btw, it isnt 19 miles squared......it is more 20 miles squared.
btw, it isnt 19 miles squared......it is more 20 miles squared.
Hmm indeed, I made that post early in the morning, needless to say my comprehension isn't at its best earlier in the day. Also I read it as 19.396 this morning which is why I rounded it down rather than up.
Thank you for correcting my error I would likely have overlooked it otherwise. =)
Besides I'm a writer not a mathematician or geographer. =P
Last edited by Akataras; 13. September 2010 at 20:04..
Hmm indeed, I made that post early in the morning, needless to say my comprehension isn't at its best earlier in the day. Also I read it as 19.396 this morning which is why I rounded it down rather than up.
Thankyou for correcting my error. =)
LOL, yeah...im just being an A-hole. lol
My conversion from KM to miles made two worlds 19.9
that is why I said more like 20. But if you heard 19.396...then your statement is valid if not close to mine. :o)
lol, we are such nerds for getting technical. ahahaha
Riferimento: To clear up confusion about map sizes
Quote:
Originally Posted by thefirstknight
Gothic 3 and 4- at 7.5 square miles
Elder Scrolls Oblivion-16 square miles
Two worlds I and II- 19.936 square miles
Sacred 2 fallen angel-22 square miles
Some of you may say you cant compare sacred to the rest of them....so if that is the case then two worlds would be the overall biggest map size in this generation.
Tank u very much for this clarification. Sacred 2 is ISO only or similar to TW2?
Gothic 3 and 4- at 7.5 square miles
Elder Scrolls Oblivion-16 square miles
Two worlds I and II- 19.936 square miles
Sacred 2 fallen angel-22 square miles
Thanks for spelling this out This should put peoples's worries to a rest. I'm excited about TW2 either way. Looks really detailed
I'd like to make a small correction here, I don't know where GS got 7.5 square miles for Gothic 3 but they are very wrong, the game world is a lot bigger. More like 27 square miles, maybe they missed a 2, don't know. So it's the biggest one out of your list. Based on a lot of factors, but this is still just guessing until we have the game, Gothic 4 should be smaller then Two Worlds 2, not by much, maybe a few square miles, but both are definitely bigger then Oblivion.
English speaking forums
Two Worlds 2 - News / Game Info
This should put peoples's worries to a rest. I'm excited about TW2 either way. Looks really detailed
