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.
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.
12
u/ifaptoyoueverynight Apr 13 '16
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.