Possibly controversial take, but I believe Open World games should strive for smaller world sizes

[amazing_hamster_3470]

Gothic 1 covers an Area of about **1.1 km².**

Gothic 2 covers an area of about **2.5 km².**

The world in both games is tiny, yet it feels pretty large. The average time to finish the first game is 27 hours, 43 hours for the second game, which is surprisingly high. It's because the games are packed with content and utilize both terrain and gameplay elements to create corridors.

There are no mounts, you just run around. In about 2/3 of the playthroughs you find teleporter stones which act as a quick travel.

To compare:

* **S**kyrim covers an area of **38km²**
* Elden Ring is about **80 km2**
* Witcher 3 with DLCs roughly **140 km²**



Question is - do we really need such large worlds? Sure, if you want 80 hour game 2.5 km² most likely won't be enough, but still. Fallout 4 is smaller than similar games (about 25 km²) and it still feels pretty damn large due to lack of mounts.

Like, I understand striving for large world in games like GTA or Cyberpunk where one of the core gameplay elements is just driving, but c'mon, do we really need worlds that huge (and empty) in RPGs?

 

[kalph09]

Not needed IMO. Another good example is No Man Sky. Some gamers walked hours just to get across a map. I have about 25hrs on this game, most of the time spent on walking or running aimlessly, although I like this game for its music, weirdness, Color pop, it would would often get bored and quit.

 

[nimr0d]

Not smaller world size but more alive worlds and lesser of the copy paste side content

 

[joy.das.jd]

Gothic 1 covers an Area of about **1.1 km².**

Gothic 2 covers an area of about **2.5 km².**

The world in both games is tiny, yet it feels pretty large. The average time to finish the first game is 27 hours, 43 hours for the second game, which is surprisingly high. It's because the games are packed with content and utilize both terrain and gameplay elements to create corridors.

There are no mounts, you just run around. In about 2/3 of the playthroughs you find teleporter stones which act as a quick travel.

To compare:

* **S**kyrim covers an area of **38km²**
* Elden Ring is about **80 km2**
* Witcher 3 with DLCs roughly **140 km²**



Question is - do we really need such large worlds? Sure, if you want 80 hour game 2.5 km² most likely won't be enough, but still. Fallout 4 is smaller than similar games (about 25 km²) and it still feels pretty damn large due to lack of mounts.

Like, I understand striving for large world in games like GTA or Cyberpunk where one of the core gameplay elements is just driving, but c'mon, do we really need worlds that huge (and empty) in RPGs?

I have not played either of the GOTHIC games. So can't say about anything about it.

But i really loved ELDEN RING and WITCHER 3. There is so much to do and the world is pack full of hidden stuffs. Especially in Witcher 3, the world is jam packed with stuffs. Such things offer more replay value of games. I, for one love to take my sweet time in exploring here and there.

But at the same time games such as AC : ODYSSEY were pack full of filler quests. There was very few worthwhile side quests. And things were getting boring after about 50 hours mark. And i am yet to complete that game.

Further , good open world games are terrific value of money. So at the end of the day it all boils down to whether the games are full of goodies or if it's full of copy paste. I will not mind a small map size if the game has actual content.