What games benefit from having smaller worlds/settings/maps?

[StaceyPowers]

What are some games (especially open world games) where the setting or maps are relatively small, and this turns out to be a benefit to the game, not a drawback?

 

[HowHammerYou]

Having a worldspace that's no larger than it needs to be is always beneficial to an open-world game. In fact, it's probably the single most important aspect of game design within that genre. Two great examples of this are Fallout: New Vegas and The Outer Worlds. New Vegas' map is tiny by today's standards, but it's absolutely packed with points of interest (nearly 400 if I remember right). You can't walk for 2 minutes in any given direction without finding something new to explore. The Outer Worlds leverages smaller worldspaces to allow the player to visit multiple worlds, and even multiple biomes on certain worlds, which really cuts down on the repetitiveness the genre has become infamous for. There's also the fact that limiting worldspace size also allows for better visuals in areas such as facial detail, since it frees up resources that would otherwise be used to render a bunch of unnecessary trees and rocks in the background.

[Empire]

Personally I like the traveling and exploring. If there are dungeons in sight of dungeons I wonder how the citizens even live there with so many monsters around. And sometimes the journey is half the fun. It all depends on the world and the mechanics.

You reminded me of the dungeons in AC 2, and also from Brotherhood and a couple of others. They were memorable, big and very distinctive in their theme. It was also nice that each had a piece of the best armour in the game, plus some other goodies. It's a shame they stopped doing them.

[Kyng]

I think the earlier Batman: Arkham games benefited from this. 

Arkham Asylum had quite a small world, but it didn't feel too small. Arkham City expanded on this, and felt like it hit the sweet spot. Arkham Origins began to feel too large - and while I haven't touched Arkham Knight, it was larger still.

[Demon_skeith]

I enjoy exploring, but not too much, need a certain balance and not go too large. If you make things too big, then you just got lots of empty space going to waste.

[Justin11]

I enjoy straight gameplay and I like to know where I'm going from the beginning even for an adventure game so with a smaller world you could get around much faster.

Edited November 1, 2022 by Justin11

[Kane99]

If it's more of a linear game, it would benefit having a much smaller world. Especially if a games world doesn't have anything else to do, then there's really no point. 

Otherwise it depends on the game. If it's open world, it should have more to do otherwise it will feel empty. So doing what Rockstar does with GTA and rdr to make it feel more alive and real. And it makes sense to then have a bigger world. 

Bigger games need exploration and characters scattered everywhere. 

Smaller games can benefit skipping the world or putting it in a small town or city. 

[Justin11]

1 hour ago, Kane99 said:

Otherwise it depends on the game. If it's open world, it should have more to do otherwise it will feel empty. So doing what Rockstar does with GTA and rdr to make it feel more alive and real. And it makes sense to then have a bigger world. 

Having  specific land area  and nothing too chaotic is better, as you progress in the game you get to explore other areas but where you are at the moment is well designed putting only the landmarks that is relevant to that stage or level or area of the game.

[Scorpion]

"Journey" and "Firewatch" have smaller maps that enhance immersion and storytelling. Their compact worlds encourage exploration and create unforgettable experiences.