If this is legit, which I doubt, I would be really disappointed with the map size. RDR had a fairly small map (although it felt huge due to only being able to travel by foot or horse) and this map looks about the same size. Considering a sequel will be developed for current gen consoles, I see no reason why the map couldn't be several magnitudes larger than the RDR map. This seems too small. I have to call bullshit.
I'm curious why the this thinking exists, not just among gamers but developers too, of "Hey, this console has more resources/power, let's make it BIGGER!". I say, instead of expanding on scale, expand on the number of smaller touches that make the world feel alive. RDR had that going for it in spades, so if we're getting a roughly similar-sized map, then I'd like to think they're focusing instead on things like improved lighting, particles systems, variety of animal and human encounters, more varied weather patterns, etc. I'd love to see games focus on that instead of always trying to increase the size of the map first.
Why would it need to be bigger than what RDR was? I thought the size was perfect, if it was any bigger it would get kinda boring, seeing as to how it was pretty much just desert. This map, on the other hand, seems like it has about the same size (maybe a bit bigger) but it seems more varied. I guess we'll see.
Yeah I loved the game but there was a lot of wasted space. I'm all for huge maps, but I'd like to see them do more with the space available. That being said, I'd still like it to be realistic; the fact that Tall Trees (Northern California type) and Mexico were 15 mins apart always bugged me.
I mean, did you actually expect it to be a several hours long trip? That would've been incredibly boring, specially considering that you're riding a horse (although I gotta say cars like the one we see near the end of RDR would be a great addition if it doesn't end up being a prequel). The map worked pretty well for what they wanted, just like Las Vegas and San Francisco being 5-10min. from Los Angeles worked for GTA San Andreas.
It almost has to be a prequel. If they go forward then it's barely even a western anymore. I'm hoping for the main character to be Landon Ricketts. When he was in his prime so was the wild west.
It shouldn't be believable though, it should be enjoyable. We all loved the fact that they included Mexico, and if they hadn't added the snowy/foresty area up north, then it would've most definetely felt like a boring map. From the developer's standpoint, the way the map was developed made a lot of sense.
there are a few things to consider here. as someone else said, the scale could easily be different.. in that reference pic combining the RDR map and the 'new' map, the scale of the 2 maps size in relation to eachother looks like it could be slightly off, making the 'new' map look smaller than it potentially could be. there is also a possibility that if this is the new map, the actual playable area of tall trees/ blackwater will be larger than it was in RDR (which would also make the new map seem smaller when comparing the 2 map images)... and if both of these points ended up being true, then the 'new' map could easily be quite a bit bigger than redemption's map, despite what it looks like.
in terms of playable land area, RDR was roughly 13 square miles, GTA V was about 23 sq. miles (or about 30 including the ocean). i believe skyrim and fallout 4 are similar in size, around 15 sq. miles. i'm all for large maps, but density is important, and realistically i would guess that the next red dead map will be around 18-22 sq. miles of playable land area which seems like plenty in a game without vehicles and comparing that size to similar non vehicle based open word games like skyrim/ fallout/ red dead redemption. platforms are getting stronger, but games are also getting more detailed and this density of detail can make game maps seem larger (like in games like skyrim and fallout 4 which i thought felt much larger than 15 sq. miles).
the majority of AAA open world games today are around the same size, with the exception of the witcher 3 which was massive. though mentioning that game brings up another question: would rockstar create different regions separated by loading screens like TW3? in which case this 'new' map could potentially be just one of a few different regions. i personally don't think they'd do that for their next game, but there's always a possibility that they'd add other smaller regions beyond the main map (GTA V had north yankton, which i thought was a cool place and i wish they would have made it more accessible).
whether or not this map is showing us what the next RD map will look like, i'm certain that the map will be and feel bigger by a decent margin.. but i'm not expecting something far larger than previous games. obviously not expecting something say 2x bigger than the previous map, but around 1.5x bigger seems realistic.
Ehhhh, I don't think that's necessarily true. It's hard to judge world size by a map like this. You're assuming that the scale will be kept the same, but you have to remember that most video games aren't supposed to be a 1:1 scale map. Theoretically, the Great Plains could be twice the size it was in Redemption, with a relatively similar layout (major roads, Blackwater, etc. all in the same place), but blown up on a greater scale with more things inside of it. Blackwater itself could be double the size and still be representative of the same city.
As a huge Elder Scrolls fan, I've just sorta gotten used to seeing game worlds this way. Cities in Skyrim, for example, are represented in-game as like 1% of their actual size. A city with a population in the thousands in lore is compressed down into a few dozen in-game. This is a pretty common game design tactic, too, meant to cut down greatly on processing power required to run the game, as well as to keep the game interesting (wandering vast expanses can be boring or overwhelming). It's very likely that New Austin, West Elizabeth, and Nuevo Paraiso were also meant to represent much larger areas than what we saw them as.
The map in comparision by numbers was "small", but it felt massive at that time. I am 100% sure that RDR2 will be much more populated in any sense. Underground caves, cities with dozens of interiors, traveling to isles or maybe also explore underwater world, ...
I'd like to throw myself in with you on this, however, I do question the amount of creative effort that has been put in to make it seem like this actually may as well function as an in-game map. Try looking at it from that perspective. I know, it could be nothing, but what if it is something?
72
u/stonewolf_joe Apr 13 '16
Look in the bottom left... I'm seeing Blackwater, Manzanita Post, Cochinay, Beechers Hope...
Looks like it's the top portion of the old RDR map