Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Let's talk about map size

47 replies to this topic
OurJud
  • OurJud

    Gangsta

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 Sep 2013

#1

Posted A week ago

With the ever-growing popularity in open-world games, I'd like to get some feedback, opinions and facts about map size.

I don't profess to know much about what goes into developing an open-world map, but on the most basic of levels my understanding is that the engine/platform only needs to render what the player can see, at any given moment. Or to put it another way, those soaring mountains in the far off distance don't actually exist. Even if you made a b-line directly to them, what is rendered when you reach them, is not what you were seeing from a distance. The obvious question which then occurs to me (and maybe others) is why maps can't be of an infinite size?

No Man's Sky claimed to do something on this scale by supposedly using the Universe as its settings, with infinite planets to explore, but although I've not played the game, I doubt anyone's going to be fooled into believing anything other than the fact there's really only one planet, albeit with a different look each time.

 

So, I refer you to the question at the end of my first paragraph.

 

.


Cosmic Gypsy
  • Cosmic Gypsy

    It's time for a trip

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 26 Oct 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#2

Posted A week ago Edited by Cosmic Gypsy, A week ago.

Maps can't be infinite size for many reasons. If they went the procedural route, a giant map would be boring, go the designer route and a giant map takes a long long time to design and make good. Some games render everything in the world at once regardless of weather it's in your field of vision or not, good in some ways, for example nothing pops up in front of your face and if a car turns a corner and you catch up to it, it won't have just disappeared into the ether, downside of course is this method is seriously taxing.

 

Infinite maps is ridiculous though, not even the Earth is infinite, No Mans Sky is the closest thing you'll get to infinite map and that has a finite map also. It's procedurally generated, so that's how they got the size, but the planets are samey and the environment tacky and unbelievable.

 

Devs go for a balance of space and depth/gameplay to save time, money and to keep the player interested/focused on the game itself.

Another thing is, what's the point in designing a map so huge most people will never even see 90% of it anyway? Devs want their work to be appreciated and played, too large of a map would just be a waste. I heard the No Man's Sky devs actually sent virtual space probes into their virtual universe to visit planets and take screen shots of them, to send back to the devs because most planets were so boring or just plain stupid that they needed editing, of course, 99% of the planets will never be revisited by the devs or edited because they don't have the time or incentive.

  • OurJud, Vanto, Arrows to Athens and 1 other like this

Craig
  • Craig

    Biographer Seahorse

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Sep 2007
  • Canary-Islands
  • Best Writer 2011
    Time Traveller Of The Year 1984

#3

Posted A week ago

Believe it or not, the first game I thought of here was Minecraft. Despite its primitive graphics engine and fairly simplistic aesthetic, it has some impressive map generation tricks. Vertically, the game is 256 blocks tall, from 0 upwards. Horizontally however, the game spans 60,000 kilometres. By size, this makes the game's map world bigger than the planet of Neptune. I think it's as close as the game could get as infinite, because Minecraft isn't technically procedurally generated - it's a fixed seed, which generates textures in chunks. I think it sort of... makes it up as it goes along?

 

It's by far the biggest I know in that sense, but it might work differently with other games that handle pre-rendered content.

  • Dock and OurJud like this

OurJud
  • OurJud

    Gangsta

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 Sep 2013

#4

Posted A week ago Edited by OurJud, A week ago.

I suppose 'infinite' was a poor choice of word, and that I should have been asking, just how big can open-world, pre-rendered maps go with current gen graphics?
 

Believe it or not, the first game I thought of here was Minecraft. Despite its primitive graphics engine and fairly simplistic aesthetic, it has some impressive map generation tricks. Vertically, the game is 256 blocks tall, from 0 upwards. Horizontally however, the game spans 60,000 kilometres. By size, this makes the game's map world bigger than the planet of Neptune. I think it's as close as a game could get as infinite, because Minecraft isn't technically procedurally generated - it's a fixed seed, which generates textures in chunks.

It's by far the biggest I know, but it might work differently with other games that handle pre-rendered content.

I've no doubt those facts and figures are correct, but I don't think MC qualifies, for the reasons you gave regarding primitive graphics. I'm sure a game with graphics and details like those in GTAV and FC5 could not give us a map the size of Neptune.

Cosmic Gypsy
  • Cosmic Gypsy

    It's time for a trip

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 26 Oct 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#5

Posted A week ago Edited by Cosmic Gypsy, A week ago.

Stupidly big, check Just Cause or even Far Cry 2 on PS3.

Of course those games aren't jam packed full of dynamic objects, cities, civilians, traffic jams, transport networks, etc etc etc, it's just lots of empty space with nothing happening. 

I even remember True Crime: Streets of LA on PS2 having a massive map, bigger than GTA V, probably isn't actually bigger but that's how i remember it


OurJud
  • OurJud

    Gangsta

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 Sep 2013

#6

Posted A week ago Edited by OurJud, A week ago.

[...] or even Far Cry 2 on PS3.

Not played JC, but FC2's map was tiny in comparison with modern day open-world games :barf:


Cosmic Gypsy
  • Cosmic Gypsy

    It's time for a trip

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 26 Oct 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#7

Posted A week ago

dude its 50 square KM on last gen technology, pretty decent size even for today to be honest. 

  • OurJud likes this

uNi
  • uNi

    Feroci

  • Administrator
  • Joined: 14 May 2004
  • United-Kingdom
  • Best Official Gang 2014 [Feroci]

#8

Posted A week ago

The size itself is not a problem, keeping it interesting is. As mentioned NMS is huge but after visiting a couple of planets the "wow" turns into "meh...".
  • Tchuck, trip, Lock N' Stock and 2 others like this

OurJud
  • OurJud

    Gangsta

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 Sep 2013

#9

Posted A week ago

The size itself is not a problem, keeping it interesting is.

But this is what I don't understand. Size must be an issue to some extent, otherwise developers wouldn't boast the map in their upcoming game will be "Twice the size of [insert other open-world game here]"

And nor do I fully understand why keeping it interesting is a problem. If a map of a given size can be made interesting, why can't one twice the size be made interesting?

DOUGL4S1
  • DOUGL4S1

    Ghetto Star

  • Facade Corporation
  • Joined: 06 Dec 2016
  • Brazil

#10

Posted A week ago

The biggest world I can think of without going full procedurally generated is Kerbal Space Program, where you have 7 entire planets, plus their various moons, to explore. But then again, the game is about building rockets and going 10.000km/h in them, and even then you'll need to speed up time so you don't have to stare at a rocket floating around for 20 hours for your next manuever. A map the size of one of their planets would be very terrible if you need 30 hours to cross it with a car. Sure, you can have fast-travel, but that entirelly defeats the purpose of such a huge map.


GTA3Rockstar
  • GTA3Rockstar

    --------------------

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 15 Mar 2002
  • United-States
  • Lifetime Achievement Award
    April Fools Winner 2015

#11

Posted A week ago

No Man's Sky was my first thought.

 

18,446,744,073,709,551,616 possible planets...


OurJud
  • OurJud

    Gangsta

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 Sep 2013

#12

Posted A week ago Edited by OurJud, A week ago.

A map the size of one of their planets would be very terrible if you need 30 hours to cross it with a car. Sure, you can have fast-travel, but that entirelly defeats the purpose of such a huge map.

Maybe I'm trying too much, to relate an open-world game with reality, but that 30 hour (virtual) drive wouldn't have to be done in one sitting.

It seems to me, that people don't actually want huge open-worlds when gaming, despite getting all excited about the suggested map size of upcoming titles. They want to be able to access locations instantly, whereas I really like the idea of having to grind out distances, providing the means of travel is engaging. And by engaging I simply mean intuitive and that it 'feels' right. Sometimes I play GTAV, merely to drive about, because the driving in that game (at least to me) feels 'right'.

I think opinion is also probably divided between arcade junkies and role-players, with the latter being far more prepared to do the donkey work in an open-world environment.

My dream open-world game would encompass the whole of the UK, using data to map every street, road and motorway, with real-time distances. The idea of being able to hop in a virtual car, and be able to navigate from A to B because I know the area in real life, is oddly appealing.
 

No Man's Sky was my first thought.

18,446,744,073,709,551,616 possible planets...

But by all accounts, they're all just variations of each other. This isn't open-world to me.
  • Mister Pink likes this

uNi
  • uNi

    Feroci

  • Administrator
  • Joined: 14 May 2004
  • United-Kingdom
  • Best Official Gang 2014 [Feroci]

#13

Posted A week ago

The size itself is not a problem, keeping it interesting is.

But this is what I don't understand. Size must be an issue to some extent, otherwise developers wouldn't boast the map in their upcoming game will be "Twice the size of [insert other open-world game here]"

And nor do I fully understand why keeping it interesting is a problem. If a map of a given size can be made interesting, why can't one twice the size be made interesting?

Well it's kind of like, there was X 3d modelers making the GTAV map, they had Y time for it and in that time they payed Z money.

RedDagger
  • RedDagger

    Crash test dummy

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 24 Oct 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Best Ledby 2017
    Best Poster in Gaming 2017
    Best Topic 2017 [Microtransactions]
    Most Helpful Member 2017
    Most Helpful GTA Member 2017
    Campaign Poster Winner 2017
    Best Certified Crew 2017 [The Daily Globe]
    Next DLC Thread Page 4000 Winner
    Next DLC Thread Page 3000 Winner
    Best Ledby 2016
    Most Helpful 2016
    Quotable Notable Post of the Year 2016 ["sup"]
    Best Crew 2016 [The Daily Globe]
    Most Desperate Campaign Poster 2016
    Draw Contest Grand Prize 2016
    Most Desperate Campaign Poster 2015
    April Fools Winner 2015
    Best General Topic 2015 [GTAForums Newbie Guide 2.0]
    Helpfulness Award

#14

Posted A week ago

Size is restricted purely by development resources, i.e. how many modellers/texturers/environment artists etc. you have, and how repetitive you're fine the map being. If you don't mind obvious repetition over larger scales, then a procedurally generated map can be infinite in size; if you want it all to have been designed and placed, it gets restricted a lot more. Disk space would also be a limitation depending on how many assets you're wanting/how many times they'd be reused, along with how the terrain would be created, but development resources are easily an earlier bottleneck if you're smart about it.

Also, map size is relative to the type of game you're making - racing games don't require the detail of on-foot games, and flying games require even less than street racing games. A flying simulator can get a ridiculous map size with a sufficient level of detail for normal play, for example. Measuring map size purely by a real-world comparable measurement doesn't really mean anything when comparing between genres for that reason, so in the most general sense it depends entirely on how far you're willing to stretch the definition of map size.

Normally however, map comparisons are left to grounded games, so it's no surprise in this instance that it's usually racing/driving games (or games with those elements) that boast the larger map sizes. Currently Fuel and The Crew are at the top for this at around 5000 square miles each, although I don't know how much procedural generation each one uses. You can probably use those as an estimate for how large maps can really be before things get silly.

But this is what I don't understand. Size must be an issue to some extent, otherwise developers wouldn't boast the map in their upcoming game will be "Twice the size of [insert other open-world game here]"

Advertising. Size, on its own, is really meaningless, for the reasons given above. Giving map size like that is purely for advertising.

And nor do I fully understand why keeping it interesting is a problem. If a map of a given size can be made interesting, why can't one twice the size be made interesting?

As uni said, there's a finite amount of development resources. That's pretty much the hard bottleneck.
  • Tchuck, Jason, Dock and 1 other like this

DOUGL4S1
  • DOUGL4S1

    Ghetto Star

  • Facade Corporation
  • Joined: 06 Dec 2016
  • Brazil

#15

Posted A week ago Edited by DOUGL4S1, A week ago.

 

A map the size of one of their planets would be very terrible if you need 30 hours to cross it with a car. Sure, you can have fast-travel, but that entirelly defeats the purpose of such a huge map.

Maybe I'm trying too much, to relate an open-world game with reality, but that 30 hour (virtual) drive wouldn't have to be done in one sitting.

It seems to me, that people don't actually want huge open-worlds when gaming, despite getting all excited about the suggested map size of upcoming titles. They want to be able to access locations instantly, whereas I really like the idea of having to grind out distances, providing the means of travel is engaging. And by engaging I simply mean intuitive and that it 'feels' right. Sometimes I play GTAV, merely to drive about, because the driving in that game (at least to me) feels 'right'.

I think opinion is also probably divided between arcade junkies and role-players, with the latter being far more prepared to do the donkey work in an open-world environment.

My dream open-world game would encompass the whole of the UK, using data to map every street, road and motorway, with real-time distances. The idea of being able to hop in a virtual car, and be able to navigate from A to B because I know the area in real life, is oddly appealing.

Sure, I like to drive around maps when I'm bored, one of my favorite games is ETS2, but sometimes I like to take it slow. I love walking around GTA IV's Liberty City, because the world just feels so detailed and alive, even tho it isn't anywhere close to the largest worlds out there, and I already walked across the entire Just Cause 2 map (took me about 2 hours and a half), but most of it was very repetitive. Apart from the little village here and there, the entire experience was just go from being surrounded by jungle for 20 minutes, being surrounded by snow for an hour, being surrounded by jungle again for 20 minutes, being surrounded by desert for 30 minutes and jungle again for 20 minutes. Very few interesting things, and they were very far apart, so that part of the world wasn't meant to be explored, it was meant to be seen from a plane.

  • Mister Pink and OurJud like this

ClaudeSpeed1911
  • ClaudeSpeed1911

    J.E.C.

  • Members
  • Joined: 21 Oct 2012
  • Palestine

#16

Posted A week ago


Dock
  • Dock

    Sure Shot

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 21 Jan 2012
  • India

#17

Posted A week ago

FUEL came to mind almost immediately when I read the title. It may be void of life or activities (more or less) but boy is it beautiful.

  • OurJud likes this

Mister Pink
  • Mister Pink

    Cyberpink 2018

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 03 Nov 2004
  • None
  • Best Poster in Music 2017
    Best Poster [Music] 2016
    Best Poster [Music] 2015
    Best Poster [Music] 2014
    Most Knowledgeable [Music] 2013
    Best Contributor [Music] 2012

#18

Posted A week ago Edited by Mister Pink, A week ago.

(Sorry OP, I'm not trying to answer your question, I'm just babbling on about my opinions on maps :p)

 

I love traversing large maps. Sometimes, I just want to cruise in my car, driving a normal speed, taking in the sights, listening to the radio. I find that sh*t relaxing. I also love the sense of scale and size. Like when I'm "settled" in one section of map and missions are local then I need to go to another city or destination, the first time I go there, I'll take the long, arduous journey there for the same of realism and feel small in a big map/universe. 

 

Unfortunately, the massive maps lack detail like a IV's Liberty City or Watch Dogs 2's San Francisco can offer. My dream is to have the large scale map like Just Cause 2's with the detail of a Deus Ex map or the detail of a Watch Dog's map. At least two cities, separated by large and mountains land mass, diverse environments from desert to lush green and wooded mountains with lakes and rivers with little towns contrasted with a Watch-Dogs size city, large skyscrapers, full of people, cars, and things moving. That might not happen for a time yet but I think we're getting closer. 

 

For me, city-size like Los Santos in V or Liberty City in IV is the perfect size. I don't think cities need to go any bigger than them, really. Maybe it's because my city is small, but I think in the context of a video game, Los Santos, San Fran in WD2 or Liberty in IV is sizable enough that it encompasses everything a city should have in a game. Also walking across it will take quite some time and frankly would a little boring at the current size of cities and I don't think making them better will add much more value. Perhaps a little bigger to appear more realistic. But traveling from one side of the city is just OK at the current sizes. If the cities remain this size for the next few titles in GTA or Watch Dogs, I'll be happy. Just make the cities more detailed, more explorable, more enterable sewers, buildings, malls etc etc. 

 

Although I love a huge map, I miss the detail. So playing Watch Dogs 2, the map isn't massive but it doesn't feel small. There's always something going on. It's highly detailed. 

  • Xcommunicated, Algonquin Assassin, Lock N' Stock and 2 others like this

Am Shaegar
  • Am Shaegar

    Chartered Accountant

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Aug 2017
  • None

#19

Posted A week ago

You can eat only as much food as your stomach can hold. Similarly, an open world map can expand only as much as the time and money allow. Even repetition has a limit, and involves time in doing that as well. It doesn't make sense to spend so much energy in focusing on the maps with infinite size, than making an impressively detailed, and addictively fun maps, like SA, VC and 3D era maps, in general, are still so much fun to spend time in playing.

Also, how many players are going to invest so much time in exploring these infinite sized maps?
Maybe for 1, or 2 open world maps, and even that depends on what the map has to offer. If it's mostly empty with hary anything interesting in them, then what's the point in having so much wasted space?
  • Mister Pink and OurJud like this

Tchuck
  • Tchuck

    Grey Gaming

  • Feroci
  • Joined: 20 Dec 2002
  • Japan

#20

Posted A week ago

Why can't they be of infinite size? It isn't really the size of data, because we can as you say stream them, load them on the fly, and an engine purposefully built for this could keep you going on for years. 

 

There's no limitation in regards of "can't".

The limitation comes in the form of "should".

 

As others have mentioned, an infinitely long but boring map would be boring. You'd grow tired of essentially seeing similar things pop up, no sense of history about the world, no sense of permanence. We humans like to think our actions matter, and like to see some indication that we can change the world. In minecraft, we can do that by building up our little corner and all. If you simply go exploring from end to end, you'll get lost, make a new base, build out this corner of the world, get bored etc. Minecraft gets by with its simple graphics, so it's easy for you to fill in the narrative gaps with your own little stories.

 

But with a higher fidelity world, the same doesn't work. You'd eventually run out of random events, or run out of meaning for those events, or rewards, and it just wouldn't feel the same. 

 

In short, we can do an infinite world, but it would be a very empty/procedural one without any feeling of history or permanence.

  • Mister Pink and OurJud like this

DOUGL4S1
  • DOUGL4S1

    Ghetto Star

  • Facade Corporation
  • Joined: 06 Dec 2016
  • Brazil

#21

Posted A week ago

Why can't they be of infinite size? It isn't really the size of data, because we can as you say stream them, load them on the fly, and an engine purposefully built for this could keep you going on for years. 

 

There's no limitation in regards of "can't".

The limitation comes in the form of "should".

 

As others have mentioned, an infinitely long but boring map would be boring. You'd grow tired of essentially seeing similar things pop up, no sense of history about the world, no sense of permanence. We humans like to think our actions matter, and like to see some indication that we can change the world. In minecraft, we can do that by building up our little corner and all. If you simply go exploring from end to end, you'll get lost, make a new base, build out this corner of the world, get bored etc. Minecraft gets by with its simple graphics, so it's easy for you to fill in the narrative gaps with your own little stories.

 

But with a higher fidelity world, the same doesn't work. You'd eventually run out of random events, or run out of meaning for those events, or rewards, and it just wouldn't feel the same. 

 

In short, we can do an infinite world, but it would be a very empty/procedural one without any feeling of history or permanence.

Pretty much this. Taking your Minecraft example, if Minecraft had a single world, the game would be much much more boring and it would have little to no replay value. People would be quick to map out every structure and every biome, maybe even ore occurances, so the game wouldn't be about randomness and making grander, more beautiful or more useful structures, it would be this weird grind of stuff. Half of the fun of Minecraft for me was to just create new worlds and explore and find cool places to build. This would be hard on a game where people love to share their builds like Minecraft.

  • Tchuck and OurJud like this

Lock N' Stock
  • Lock N' Stock

    "I don't fit in anywhere!"

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Dec 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#22

Posted A week ago

Size matters to me, but also how diverse and detailed the map is. You could have the largest map in a video game to date, but if all of it looks the same, there's really nothing worth exploring in it.

  • OurJud and Arrows to Athens like this

OurJud
  • OurJud

    Gangsta

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 Sep 2013

#23

Posted A week ago Edited by OurJud, A week ago.

I suppose another way to look at why massive maps may not be what people actually want, is to look at the average life for a given individual. Unless you're a nomad or a drifter, we don't aimlessly wander around our cities and wilds. We get up, go do our thing for the day, then return home and stay there until tomorrow when we do the same thing all over again. In other words, the way we tear around our virtual worlds doesn't reflect real life, so it's easy to get bored.

However, I don't quite understand why people keep making the point that a massive world with nothing to do would be boring. Of course it would be boring, but my point is why does it have to be boring in the first place? Sure, there's the resources, cost and time to consider on a development level, but theoretically I don't see why a map five times the size of another, can't provide the same level of interest.

I think it also depends on the game's theme. I'd be perfectly content with a massive map, even with little to do, if the setting was of the post-apocalyptic survival variety. I love the idea of a DayZ type game, with a wilderness the size of (let's say) FC Primal, and a city the size of GTAV. You live out in the wilds for safety reasons, and commute to the city to scrounge and gather supplies.
  • Lock N' Stock likes this

El Diablo
  • El Diablo

    "The Devil" ™

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars
  • April Fools Loser 2015

#24

Posted A week ago

'space' maps like Kerbal and No Man's Sky don't really count :pp

Minecraft takes the cake, after traditional games like FUEL or Elder Scrolls.

 

  • OurJud likes this

OurJud
  • OurJud

    Gangsta

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 Sep 2013

#25

Posted A week ago Edited by OurJud, A week ago.

Interesting video @El Diablo, but I'd like to know how much of Minecraft's size is down to the fact it's made up entirely of blocks.

I'm sure if a 'world' as detailed and alive as GTAV could have had a map this big, it would have been done by now. Unless - as others have said - the restrictions are purely down to resources.

trip
  • trip

    ~

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 10 Oct 2007
  • United-States
  • Contribution Award [GTAF]
    Contribution Award [Gen Chat]
    Contribution Award [GTAF Census]
    Doggo-Chop Winner 2016

#26

Posted A week ago

Depends on what you call an open world game.
Randomly generated landscapes(like no man's sky) or hand designed environments.

For me a map size where the game is hand designed can never be too big...even if you never visit 90% of it. But if you did explore it would be there for you thus adding to the immersion.
  • OurJud likes this

OurJud
  • OurJud

    Gangsta

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 Sep 2013

#27

Posted A week ago Edited by OurJud, A week ago.

For me a map size where the game is hand designed can never be too big...even if you never visit 90% of it. But if you did explore it would be there for you thus adding to the immersion.

That's pretty much my take on it. There's no rule to say the whole of a map has to be explored, if you're the type of player who likes to keep things a little more confined.

Also, I think by open-world, my personal preference is for the hand-designed, rather than randomly generated. I think it's important for a true open-world game to be consistent with its landmarks and locations, otherwise we could never familiarise ourselves with the environment.
  • trip likes this

Arrows to Athens
  • Arrows to Athens

    Far, far away...

  • Members
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2014
  • England

#28

Posted A week ago Edited by Arrows to Athens, A week ago.

I've always thought the Burnout Paradise map was small. It seems as if it's almost the same size as Los Santos (not including Blaine County, of course).

 

snakeeysfriex_rightdevil77_burnout_parad

 

353c51-Map01.png

  • Lock N' Stock and OurJud like this

Lock N' Stock
  • Lock N' Stock

    "I don't fit in anywhere!"

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Dec 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#29

Posted A week ago Edited by Lock N' Stock, A week ago.

One map I thought was particularly disappointing in regards to it's size was Steelport in Saints Row: The Third, which barely felt bigger than Liberty City in GTA III.

 

2874487-steelport.png

 

The design I thought wasn't too bad. It was an interesting (if not generic) caricature of an industrial/rust-belt city, but still a far-cry from that brilliant artwork they made. Stilwater felt more diverse and inspired.

 

53346-city-skyscraper-Steelport-Saints_R

  • OurJud likes this

deadx23
  • deadx23

    Big Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2014
  • United-States
  • Next DLC Thread Page 3000 Winner

#30

Posted A week ago Edited by deadx23, 6 days ago.

Infinite is unnecessary but 100 systems Is good :p, there's a good balance between procedural generation and hand crafted content. [In development]

Ark corp



If you watch this video chris Roberts explains the content they want to add to the map.
Hurston



Edit:And to add;
all that you can see in map or space you can visit there is no backdrop background, no faking even in buildings it's physical space you enter is in place and no teleporting to a closed room.this isn't just open world, it's open Galaxy :p




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users