Map screen or one big world?

[Jrecee]

What do you prefer? A game like mario world where you have a map screen that you stop at between stages, or a game like super metroid where it's all just one big interconnected level.

[puke_face]

I prefer the map screen. It really depends on weather or not they include a map printed map, as I like those best. Like Morrowind, GTA etc. The one big interconnected universe maps get confusing after looking at them for a while.

[sevin0seven]

i actually like them both.

[Dakinggamer87]

i actually like them both.

Yeah, same for me!!

[the7k]

I know that, from a developer's standpoint, a map screen is a lot easier than having one huge interconnected world. It means you can develop World 1 and World 2 completely separately, instead of having to worry about continuity and making them seamlessly transition into one another.

As a player, I like the convenience of a map screen, instead of having to travel everywhere without shortcuts. If they use shortcuts, however (like the Flute in Zelda 3), then I'm fine with it.

[thecommontask]

Agreed on the both idea. I love Castlevania maps after stage completions but I also love big world maps like FFVII and looking for those hidden areas or fining out how to get there or that you need a Gold Chocobo to get to that island - cool stuff.

I think the DS having the ability to display a world map on the upper screen while gameplay on the bottom is pretty awesome.

[MrPopo]

It really depends on the game. Having a map screen generally seems to increase the sense of scale of the game, while having a single interconnected world tends to help the immersion. A map screen a la most RPGs turns the world into a series of points of interest with some travel time inbetween that represets the rest of the world. When it's all seamless I find I get a better sense of actually exploring a place, but since every piece is important the world will never be as big. To use the RPG example again, the world of FFXII felt much smaller than the traditional FF world.

[Jrecee]

I'm making a platform game (sort of a mario/sonic mix) and am trying to decide how to go about laying out the levels.

I don't want to go with the straight shot level 1-20 like sonic does because I don't really think that pushes the player to explore. If the player is good or has gotten the pattern for beating the game down, why bother wandering around to find a 1up or shield when you really don't need it to win anyway.

I like the idea of multiple paths through the game so you can finish it more than once but it won't be the same experience. I guess I like how in mario world you can see a level but aren't sure how to get to it.

[the7k]

I like the idea of multiple paths through the game so you can finish it more than once but it won't be the same experience. I guess I like how in mario world you can see a level but aren't sure how to get to it.

While multiple paths are great, they can be a huge hassle. If you think about it, you are essentially multiplying the amount of work you have to do - and it's work that most players won't even experience. I originally was going to have multiple paths in a game, but when I came to this realization, I decided against it.

It really ticks me off that branching paths aren't done more in retail games, but that's because they have huge budgets and many people working on the title. For projects that consist of one man living in a basement while working a job, I'd think it's perfect acceptable that he would focus on one great linear experience as opposed to a multitude of lesser experiences.

[J T]

My favorite are games like Persona 4, where you can run around and backtrack through the world if you want, but at any point you can pull up your map and click exactly where you want to go and you are there- no extra walking required.