[tysonstorm]

Nope.

Fancy graphics has taken precedence over quality game content. And whats worse is some of these best selling open world games fit on a DL-DVD with gb's to spare.

And then you have to buy DLC.

[Danger Close]

I think bigger is better. I love wandering around in Fallout and Elder Scrolls and always got disappointed when I reached the edge of the map.

Fallout 4 is next up. And I'm hoping for at least a 50% increase in the map size. Come on, Beth, indulge me.

Originally Posted by Sick Bullet

It is very big still though, but I was surprised with the world on Assassins Creed 3 it's huge probably the biggest open world game I've played.

The problem with AC games is the bits in between the cities. They were boring for me and I hated having to travel between them.

Originally Posted by Vast_Girth

Big is good, but there is definitely such a thing as too big. Skyrim for example, i think i would have preferred to be half the size, but with a vast increase in the variety and quality of the quests...

Skyrim is filled with side quests and a lot of random encounters in the middle of nowhere. Plus, there had to be parts of open-open worldiness for Mammoths and Giants to roam and for Dragon attacks etc.

Originally Posted by Hotbird

As long as the world is well designed and thought out properly then bigger is better.

San Andreas got this right for me, each area was well defined and had its own identity, navigating was from one city to the next was easy enough without needing to constantly refer to the map and even with a map so large you could always find something to do near by.

With the abundance of sandbox games these days I find it disappointing when you can drive from one side of the map to the other in less then a minute, it that's the case you map is too small.

For me SA was annoying in between the cities. There was too much of nothing out in the Back 'O Beyond. But in GTA IV there wasn't enough of that.

[Eraserhead]

Open world can be good but very daunting. If you're one of those people who gets jittery worrying if they've missed the slightest thing in a game then something like Skyrim could drive you absolutely mad. (You know the sort of person - the sort that just *had* to walk around every single map of Baldur's Gate to remove the black "fog of war" bits and get a nice, clean, clear map :-)

It's not much fun if you spend ages wandering about for no reason, though, or the effort of going from A to B is frustrated by constantly respawning random enemies (I'm talking to you Far Cry 2).

[Jimmy_McNulty]

I love FoW, i see it as a personal challenge to remove it all.

[tombigbee]

Personally I'd rather play in a smaller world where I could go in a majority of the buildings and do a lot of different things than a huge world where there is hardly anything to do but look at it.

I was disappointed with LA Noire for that reason. I thought it was going to be GTA as a detective but instead there was nothing to do aside from play the main story.

[Tal'shiar]

Nothing comes close to TBC World of Warcraft for massive map size. Took forever to travel to instances and raids, in fact, it was half the fun.

But no, size really isnt much of an issue, it really depends on the game. GTA4 was smaller than SA, but it was more alive so it was better. Skyrim is big, but once you figure the taxi service, you will be fast traveling about a lot rather than walking everywhere.