- Primary Subject: Open-World Map Design Philosophy
- Key Update: An analysis of why the "bigger is better" trend in sequels, like Batman: Arkham Knight and Spider-Man 2, often leads to "icon fatigue" and wasted resources.
- Status: Confirmed (Trend Analysis)
- Last Verified: February 2, 2026
- Quick Answer: Large maps fail without density. Success depends on "points of interest" and fun traversal (like web-swinging or driving) rather than literal square mileage or markers.
Does map size matter in video games? To an extent, of course it does. But not in the way that you think. As someone who grew up enjoying the compact and beautiful world of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, it can be polarizing to look at the state of video game maps right now. Thanks in part to growing hardware capabilities, it seems every open-world game sequel is doubling the size of its maps and calling it innovation.
It happened with the Batman Arkham Series, Insomniac’s Spider-Man, and basically every Rockstar game since then. It was impressive the first few times, but I think it’s gotten to the point where we need to remind developers that it isn’t a map-measuring contest. Otherwise, Grand Theft Auto 6 may come up with a map the size of Daggerfall.
Points of Interest
I believe open-world video game maps aren’t meant to be large in the literal sense. Open-world maps are supposed to feel large because they’re dense with points of interest. One series that instantly comes to mind is Fallout, which is ironic considering you’re literally supposed to be running through a wasteland.
From Fallout 3 onwards, the maps have consistently been interesting without being obscenely large. Bethesda map designers have done this by strategically placing points of interest within view of one another, giving players the feeling of proximity between map locations.
One of the biggest gripes I’ve heard about my beloved Fallout New Vegas (remake soon, please) is that the Mojave Desert isn’t exactly the most entertaining place to be in. If you weren’t fast-travelling along the deserted highways, you’d be met with a few hours of empty deserts and abandoned buildings.
The catch was that every major point of interest could still be seen by the player. I remember walking around the New Vegas map and looking at the glorious and bright New Vegas structure in the night. Keeping that point of interest in view made the journey seem much more interesting, and the map bigger than it actually seemed.
Icon Fatigue
Putting in points of interest for video games can be a double-edged sword, depending on the type of icons you dot through the map. Batman: Arkham City was a perfect game; the combat was smooth, the story was tight, and the map felt just right. While Arkham Asylum felt too small and contained, Arkham City introduced a larger world where you could soar the skies, beating bad guys and collecting Riddler trophies as you get from point A to point B.
Sadly, Rocksteady focused on this positive feedback and decided to inflate the map size of Arkham Knight, which includes more collectibles, more random challenges, and tons of unnecessary encounters.
At some point through my playthrough of Arkham Knight, I just started to feel exhausted because of all these icons and collectibles staring me down every time I opened the map. The only reason I can think of for the developers wanting this obscene amount of collectibles and mini-challenges is that they needed to somehow fill in the gigantic map that they had produced.
Thinking from the developer’s point of view, I believe that the map size philosophy of bigger equals better is writing itself into a corner. But I also believe there is a better solution to large maps than just map bloat.
Traversal
Grand Theft Auto V’s map is huge, but you don’t hear anyone complaining or moaning about it, do you? The reason why GTA V’s huge map is enjoyable isn’t because of the numerous points of interest (even though there are many), but because the folks over at Rockstar put a lot of emphasis on traversal.
Driving from one end of the map to the other doesn’t feel bad when getting there isn’t a complete slog. Insomniac’s Spider-Man 2 knows this as well, introducing new movement mechanics on top of the larger map in the sequel. Too bad the story isn’t all that it was cracked up to be.
The folks over at Rocksteady were also privy to the fact that traversal is important to larger maps, which is exactly why they introduced the Batmobile for Arkham Knight. Sadly, that too wasn’t as polished as it should've been.
Making maps larger just for the sake of it is a game design philosophy that used to entice gamers, but now that video game maps have gotten so large, it’s becoming a detriment to the developers. I can only hope that, moving forward, video games decide to downsize their maps to an overall enjoyable experience. Because we definitely do not need the extra $100 million budget and hours of crunch time just for a larger, emptier section of the map.
For more like this, stick with us here at Gfinityesports.com, the best website for gaming features and opinions.