I know the size Skyrim can get at full potential in of itself, but as stated just because something can do it, doesn't mean it should. I highly doubt the stability of Skyrim if it was at such a size, in conjunction with the bugs in an engine of which if I recall correctly is no longer supported by the company that designed it.

We're just taking marketing claims at face value now are we?

Here's a thought: Maybe what they're saying isn't true.

Not literally, I explained that the development time for a task takes longer. If the time was faster then that means that you can develop more with the same same initial budget

To me "dead space" can be a good thing. One thing I really would have enjoyed in Skyrim would have been a truely large forest area devoid of any roads or known paths. Just a beautiful place to explore, maybe hunt, possibly run into a monster or two but mostly just to enjoy. You can't go more than a short distance in Skyrims wooded areas without running into a major road and that kind of spoils the feeling of wildness that I was really hoping would exist somewhere in the game world. They did such a wonderful job with the look of the forests it seems a shame that there couldn't be more of it.

When you role play there is no dead space. There is a world to explore. Just because some place isn't quest related or full of action doesn't automatically make it pointless. Everyone finds there own place in these games. A good many of us just enjoy walking through the forest taking in the scenery. It is the beauty of having such a large game world to play around in. It also creates "zones" for modders to utilize on the PC version.

As far as GTA 5 goes, I can't wait to play it but I have my doubts as to the reported size of the game world. I really have a difficult time believeing they have made it large enough on the current console to swallow up all the games that were mentioned. It would have to be absolutely monstrous to do that. If it is that big I will be extremely happy but if it's not I certainly won't be disappointed because I'm really not expecting it to be.

Because Skyrim's data system is actually very compact. The actual "data", that is quests, characters, locations, objects etc (NOT including the physical resources like meshes of course) is only 243MB in size. It's the voice files, meshes, textures and sounds that eat up space, but even then the BSA archives are really well compressed.

The GTA series is a lot bigger map size wise because it's more generic. The cars are generic, and apart from a few select people with select, specific cutscenes, people are just generic clones that react when you hit them. Apart from quest progress, there's nothing really that changes in the world. Plus, real life cities are a lot easier to plan than fantasy worlds, being much more grid like and regimented.

It is, this is gameinformer and rockstar we are talking about they wouldnt lie about something that big. Both very reputable companies gameinformer who are linked to gamestop and have a very well established website, and rockstar need I say more lol.

They are introducing an underwater aspect with scuba diving so that will also contribute to the space.

Second this. I don't think you can compare Skyrim and a Rockstar game. They are wholly different styles. I personally feel Skyrim is a more detailed game but that's just my opinion.

You guys are making the mistake of taking this as a Why can't Skyrim be like GTA.



its not...its just talking about the Map size, myself, maybe 4skyrim and others are NOT expecting a super wtf bbq massive map that takes 2 days in realtime to traverse.

We say this but...Why?
It's not like they're gonna see this and go "You're right! Recall the game! Let's gut this [censored]!"

It took them 5 years to come out with another TES since OB. I feel like the map in Skyrim, for a single player game, is huge in scope already. To double the map would add a ton more combat considering that they hand placed every item in Skyrim already.

lol funny but true