PDA

View Full Version : Does size matter?



BATISTABUS
01-19-2013, 03:27 PM
;)But seriously, this is about the size of maps in AC games, particularly in AC3 and moving forward. AC3 had several large map, but I felt there was one thing that really held the scope of the game back...load times. I'm not just talking about having to wait in the white room, but I'm talking about not being able to walk from location to location seamlessly (like in Red Dead Redemption). On the current generations of consoles, there are a number of limitations that prevented this from being a feature in AC3. This type of thing keeps the flow of game-play, and in my opinion, makes the world seem larger and more realistic. For this to actually be feasibly possibly, map size would likely need to be reduced. There are pros and cons to a smaller map, so what do you think? Would you prefer smaller locations if we could walk into buildings or into the Frontier without loading times? Or do you prefer to traverse and explore larger locations?

SixKeys
01-19-2013, 04:11 PM
On PC the loading times aren't any different for me than in the other games, they usually last up to 10 seconds. So it's not the loading times that bug me but the general feeling of emptiness. Mind you, I had kind of a similar feeling with RDR although the random events helped make traversing the wilderness more interesting. In other words, it's not the size of the maps, it's what you do with them. I like the concept of the Frontier but it needed a lot more stuff to keep me interested.

Hidden Legaciez
01-19-2013, 11:08 PM
i hate having to run across the whole map

Sushiglutton
01-19-2013, 11:39 PM
I think they should have skipped New York and used those resources to flesh out Boston and the Frontier instead. New York didn't really add anything in terms of gameplay and very few missions took place in the open city. Basically they just repeated everything from Boston once more, with slightly different liberation missions. I don't think it was worth the vast amount of work it must have taken to build it. One city, seamlessly connected with the wild, would have been perfect imo.

dxsxhxcx
01-20-2013, 12:40 AM
IMO they should come back to the way things were in AC1/2, several small/medium size cities, this way they will have more time to work on the quality of the content added...

BATISTABUS
01-20-2013, 12:58 AM
I think they should have skipped New York and used those resources to flesh out Boston and the Frontier instead. New York didn't really add anything in terms of gameplay and very few missions took place in the open city. Basically they just repeated everything from Boston once more, with slightly different liberation missions. I don't think it was worth the vast amount of work it must have taken to build it. One city, seamlessly connected with the wild, would have been perfect imo.Yeah, I kind of feel the same. The burned-down section was kind of neat, but the game definitely could've gone without it.

Assassin_M
01-20-2013, 01:10 AM
Small, fleshed, lively, highly detailed map....