It's too big when the developers are unable to fill it with enough interesting things to do and discover to keep my attention. But there's no absolute size I'd automatically consider too big, as it also depends on things like traversal. If you ride through the map on a mech going 400km/h, it can be much larger and more spread out than if I have to traverse the entire map on foot.

To summarize this thread: It's not the size of the map, it's how you use it

The Witcher 3 and Elden ring were massive, and I enjoyed them because the world's were beautiful, non repetitive, and dense with unique material.

It's about how much time is spent between points of interest. The size doesn't matter.

It’s not about the size, but more about density of meaningful content. I like Elden Ring because every nook and cranny feels worth exploring. It’s the game that dares to hide optional areas behind optional areas, all with their own unique enemies and bosses.

On the other hand, taking Elden Ring as an example again, the mini dungeons were too repetitive. The first time visiting a catacomb is exciting, but it turns into quite a chore after the third time and onwards. You’ve already seen it all. Same thing with the dragon battles.

I think Elden Ring overall strikes a good balance with amount of surprises per square meter.

It's not a question of the world being too big or too small, it's the density of interesting things. A giant world with very little worth doing doesn't accomplish much, but similarly a small world where you're absolutely tripping over things that feel like you shouldn't skip them will also feel claustrophobic.

Additionally, the traversal system can help a LOT here. Even a world that has a lot of wide open dead space can feel good if the process of crossing that space is itself fun. Dune: Awakening comes to mind here, where there are large spans of open desert that you need to cross, but ripping across the dunes on my sandbike was so much fun I didn't mind the dead ground.

It can never be too big, but it’s a problem if it’s a big city with nothing to do (Cyberpunk).

Morrowind

I say density, though Elite Dangerous puts a spin on how large the map should be.

In Elite Dangerous, most of the galaxy is unexplored. The Bubble (human inhabited area) is fully explored, which steadily dwindles as you go to about 1k ly outside the Bubble. Out there, you're basically on your own.

When you explore and map unexplored areas, you actually get some money depending on the quality of your finds. If you find some Earth-like planets, for instance, you can get a lot of money from exploring. There is also an inexhaustible supply of systems to explore, so there's no need to worry about running out.

More than bigger, I want more accessible interior spaces. Like cyberpunk, but you can go into other people's living spaces

Echoing what others have said: size doesn't really matter until it's notably empty with nothing of interest to justify it.

But also, Assassin's Creed Valhalla.

Was that 30GB RAM Harry Potter game real or were my friends messing with me? 'Cause my answer would be that.

I think that all comes down to how the travel, visual appeal, and POIs are handled. As well as a personal interest in the gameplay loop. The following are my general opinions on a few games for why I think they do or do not work.

Daggerfall would be way too big, because the POIs are few and far between and there is no visual interest between, but it worked because it had fast travel.

Each of the successive TES games had more visual interest to them and wel spaced POIs and I spent a lot of time walking on first playthroughs without fast traveling anywhere.

Similarly No Man's Sky could seem too big at first blush, but if you like the gameplay loop it's infinitely fascinating. For anyone wanting to move further in it's also helpful that there are gates to help make large jumps, without them being a requirement to enjoy things.

Cyberpunk 2077 was very visually interesting and had a ton of POIs and was fun to traverse on foot and in a vehicle. I thought the size was fantastic on my first two playthroughs. The third time the badlands areas got a little frustrating though.

Stalker and Stalker 2, are very fun to traverse by foot for me despite being very large. They are visually very interesting, especially 2. There are plenty of things you can stumble on and explore. In fact on my first playthrough of Stalker 2, I didn't even realize it had a fast travel option for over 60 hours because I didn't feel the need to look for one to use. Loved the huge size of those.

WoW was horribly oversized, as are many MMOs. WoW was(and imo still is despite many upgrades since I played, just not a fan of toony looking games) completely uninteresting visually, had no "on the way" POIs and had no motivation to look around. Long travel was a chore on top of a burdensome gameplay loop. I hated WoWs size. It felt big just because it would take people longer to play. I can't express how fucking boring it was to me. And exploring had zero reward. I remember wandering into the water and swimming for like 30 minites to get behind some massive tree or something (all I remember was it was a brown gradient that's how dull the visuals were) and I get behind it and there was fuckall. That was the last time I played I think. More brown gradient and uninteresting light blue water gradient stretched off into a foggy white gradient. Fucking hated WoW but especially its size. MMOs like that are the equivalent of having a rail shooter that's more train ride simulator than shooter. It works for other people, I just couldn't stand it.

Outward is a fantastic game but it's world feels a little too big sometimes. I don't really enjoy wandering it that much even though I enjoyed the game on the whole. Just felt I got to the point of sprinting from one objective to the next because I was tired of traversing the map.

So it's really game dependant imo. If they nail some key aspects, size doesn't seem to matter.

Basically, how much of the world is interesting/fun.

For example, Fallout 3 doesn't do a great job of this, as much of the world is baren with no story or gameplay. Half of the world feels like it could be cut out without much loss. The Yakuza games on the other hand, have smaller worlds but they feel massive and fun because there's always something to do moments away.

The work-around is to make travel fun, so the "empty-space" is just more gameplay. The Just Cause games are the perfect example of this. All the movement mechanics are quick and satisfying, from the grapple and parachute, to the driving, to the OP wingsuit.

Depends on the mood I’m in.

Zelda BotW is a giant map and mostly chill game that I have tons of fun just taking my time exploring.

Far Cry 3 has me going around murdering folks and clearing camps non-stop at a pretty good pace.

Far Cry 4 was way too much pew pew and it bored me.

Nothing much new to say, just reiteration. A big or huge or gigantic map is fine, so long as it's populated by meaningful content.

Really wish Forspoken had been more populated. It's a huge world, and combat/abilty wise it's a great pure-mage action game, which I really really loved about it, that's not a very common thing. But my god, the world is so empty despite being so big, and most side objectives are just collectothons. There's some more difficult endgame content, but no real reason to grind up for it.

There is no open world that is too big. They can only be too small.

However, the quality of an open world is not predicated on the size of the open world, but rather what is actually in it.

And this doesn't mean that open worlds must be drowning in content, as the quality of the content itself also matters, and certain worlds that are large and empty can still be interesting due to its traversal being good, or the sandbox nature of a large empty world.

Some of the worst examples of open worlds are the kind that are just filled with isolated little fetch quests; busywork that's all marked on the map with no element of organic exploration. Or the kinds of open worlds where nothing actually happens "organically" without the player starting it.

The best kinds of open worlds are the ones that emphasise exploration and/or have background systems governing the world in some way (i.e. factions that interact with each other without the explicit involvement of the player).

I’m of the mindset that it can never be too big, as long as it has some life to it. I don’t mind games taking a long time to finish. And I don’t mind if the grind is in the traveling. It’s cathartic in a way.

It's never too big. That's why I'm pumped for The Wayward Realms (from the creators of Daggerfall, easily the largest world of its time).