» Wed Dec 14, 2011 3:10 pm
Making larger cities would be problematic for several reasons.
1) That's more disc space for all that extra information and it's potentially larger save files because most of those people could be killed (something for the saves to remember) and they could be pickpocketed (more to keep track of).
2) More for the hardware to keep track of when in walled cities and when in or near open communities. It not only has to keep track of who is there, where they are, and what they are doing, but this also means far more for the hardware to render graphically.
3) If we expand the urban environments, both for cities and the villages, the map will end up being primarily urban environment with little countryside in between unless they then dramatically expand the overall world. This would again mean much more disc space and much more development time. While it would be nice for Skyrim to be thirty miles across from east to west and twenty miles from north to south, this isn't a realistic expectation and very few game worlds are of that sort of scale, at least not during the era of 3D gaming (not meaning "3D glasses with stuff popping out at you" but as in "not sprites".) I don't know how big Skyrim is in terms of miles, but Liberty City in GTA IV was something like two miles by two miles, or four square miles. I believe Red Dead Redemption and L.A. Noire were a bit bigger, but I don't believe they were several times bigger. My home town is roughly two miles by two miles, and it has a population of just over 6,000 (six thousand). Seriously, few games have enormous game worlds. Maybe World of Warcraft....
4) Bigger isn't always better. I remember when I used to make my own levels for Duke Nukem 3D and issues that I ran into with that. For one thing, I'm typically incapable of doing anything small, so my levels were always enormous and the first one I completed took me over an hour to get through, and I'm the one that made the friggin' thing. This was for a game where a player could rush through a level in under a few minutes and even a player taking their time, messing around, and thoroughly exploring would still finish a level in far less than an hour. While my enormous levels may have been neat for me, I couldn't help but suspect that others would feel that it was overkill.
Another big thing that came up, and an important one in game design, is that scaling things realistically makes for bad level design. If a player was to make a shopping mall level and have it the size of a real shopping mall, or an airport the size of a real airport, it would mainly be a big empty space that the player has to run through for great amounts of time. If cities in Skyrim were enormous, I'd end up entering one for the first time and find myself having spent the next five or ten hours simply exploring the city without having done much of anything interesting, and most of that city would likely add basically nothing to the game aside from just being generic filler. Having a hundred houses sounds neat until you go through all of them and find that 95% of them have absolutely no role of any kind in any quest and have absolutely nothing to do in them aside from perhaps looting all their dishes and cabbages. If I start a quest at one end of town, and it involves me going somewhere on the other side of town, it would be great if I didn't have to spend the next ten minutes running there; running through countless city blocks of filler.
In video games, sometimes less is more.