could someone measure the map size??

[Damian Ramirez]

im finding it way too big , something between RDR2 and ER size

[Meslamtaey]

its a medium map size. Not big, not small.
Lot of dungeons, hidden bosses and on NG++ i still found something new :)
If you run only story, its small.
if you make one decision in the game, the map will expand even more by some parts in the sea

[CEPHY]

There isn't any official number, but the estimate is around 30 square miles, or 77 square kilometers.

Reasoning being that the estimated size of the first game is around 50%-60% of Skyrim (about 37 square kilometers), and DD2 is confirmed to be around 4 times larger than the first game.

According to google, anyway.

[ffrotty]

Originally posted by Damian Ramirez:

im finding it way too big , something between RDR2 and ER size

the size is misleading because ....

on one hand what looks like it should be vast space is really a bunch of rings around inaccessible mountains

but on the other hand a lot of the walkable area has verticality and there are tons of caves/dungeons of varying sizes.

if you use movespeed/stam/stay light it isn't horrendous to go from the two farthest points in the game. i'd say that probably waterfall cave (not dropping down but going back through) to the endgame spot is the longest walk (all the way east, then all the way west, then south, then back all the way east, then south more... it'd be what? 30mins of walking?

[Netsa]

The "4x size" thing was from a statement before the game came out, iirc, I don't know if the size has been measured. There's also the large zone of water which can't be traversed, and what ffrotty said about the mountains which also can't be traversed. If you think what we have is too big, you would hate Tears of the Kingdom.

[Nedbrytar-Yngve]

the world size is fine imo, although I actually wouldnt mind some open fields because its all way too intricately modeled.

[Damian Ramirez]

Originally posted by Netsa:

The "4x size" thing was from a statement before the game came out, iirc, I don't know if the size has been measured. There's also the large zone of water which can't be traversed, and what ffrotty said about the mountains which also can't be traversed. If you think what we have is too big, you would hate Tears of the Kingdom.

to me , its more like 7x , only counting the terrain KM. But if you add the caves it would be much more,

[Damian Ramirez]

Originally posted by ffrotty:

Originally posted by Damian Ramirez:

im finding it way too big , something between RDR2 and ER size

the size is misleading because ....

on one hand what looks like it should be vast space is really a bunch of rings around inaccessible mountains

but on the other hand a lot of the walkable area has verticality and there are tons of caves/dungeons of varying sizes.

if you use movespeed/stam/stay light it isn't horrendous to go from the two farthest points in the game. i'd say that probably waterfall cave (not dropping down but going back through) to the endgame spot is the longest walk (all the way east, then all the way west, then south, then back all the way east, then south more... it'd be what? 30mins of walking?

yes i know , platforming make me feel like this map its too big. Its weird because i didn't had this feeling with games like The witcher 3 , RDR2 or Elden ring.
I just entered batthal , and seeing that land of mass made me feel like it will take me another 60 hours , only on exploration.
im not complaining btw, but looking at the map it doesnt look that big lol

[Netsa]

I'm pretty sure Battahl is smaller than Vermund. I could be wrong, though.

[Damian Ramirez]

Originally posted by Netsa:

I'm pretty sure Battahl is smaller than Vermund. I could be wrong, though.

i would say vermund is 4x , battahl 2x , and the south island would be the size of DDDA.