Shadowlands will fail based on this alone

[Nfinitii]

wow. gamepedia. com/Shadowlands#/media/File:BlizzCon_2019_-_Shadowlands_map . jpg

These zones look way too SMALL and they have the same layout as previous 2 expansions.
Is it that hard for them to come up with sizable zones like they used to do back in the day?

I don't need to know anything else about this xpac, that picture alone killed the whole vibe/hype for me.

Another doomsayer. We know nothing about the expansion.

[barrsftw]

if the zones are not connected it just doesnt feel the same, I dont care how large each individual one is.

That's the point. Shadowlands isn't the same as Azeroth.

[Lolites]

Already creating back away points for yourself, are you?

i dont need to, we have LITERALLY no information ffs... we know number of zones and their coastline (which can actualy change in the meantime), HOW can you tell if zone is good from that?! please enlighten me as you seem to be clairvoyant... or at least tell me, what else than number of zones we know from that map?

[legendaryusername]

If great gameplay for you comes down to how large a zone / zones are then really whats the point..

[nuclear12346]

I'm amazed that people still eat up the literal dung being served by Blizzard these days. It doesn't matter what valid points you make against Shadowlands because there are contrarians ready and waiting to argue against you even if they have no clue what they are talking about. Based on history alone we know this will likely be the least effort expansion in the history of the game. Based on all of their current failures we know they are trending down in quality and not up.

"Overall the team is happy with how corruption turned out."

You people are so delusional its sad. All that will remain in Shadowlands are whales that were going to buy the game no matter what because they are hopelessly addicted.

[MrLachyG]

Shame though since none of them have given me my fortune or lottery numbers from the future yet.

fuckin selfish bastards

[FelPlague]

Here's a direct link to the image itself, if you feel a bit lazy.
Embedded image in the collapse below.

Spoiler: 

As to being on topic:
Considering we have no information whatsoever how it'll play out, we have no idea as to what exactly we'll get on release and further on.
I mean, just recently (depend on ones perception of time) we got Mechagon and Naz'jatar.
While Mechagon could be arguably small, Naz'jatar on ground is large.

Edit: This one speaks for itself.

Yeah idk how someone sees the full scale zones and goes "they are too small!" those zones could be as big as northrend each, we don't know yet.

- - - Updated - - -

if the zones are not connected it just doesnt feel the same, I dont care how large each individual one is.

so first it was they are too small, now that people pointed out we dont know their size its "size does not matter, they are disconnected!"

- - - Updated - - -

connect the new zones, make them larger, have LESS god damn mountains

... we dontk now how big they are, or how many mountains there are dude...

- - - Updated - - -

Isn't Pandaria bigger than Northrend?

[Bwgmon]

It doesn't matter what valid points you make against Shadowlands because there are contrarians ready and waiting to argue against you even if they have no clue what they are talking about.

Your argument might have more impact if it weren't being used in the defense of someone who is literally judging an entire expansion based on their perceived size of a map presented at Blizzcon. The least you could do is wait for some datamining before screeching from the mountaintops, so you have some actual information to back up the vitriol.

[FelPlague]

it doesn't look like it, but you should be correct.

nope, northerend is larger by far.

[Biomega]

Who gives a shit about how big the zones are? It's about what you DO there.

WotLK was massive - and what did we have there? One entire zone that was basically superfluous (Crystalsong Forest) and two zones that were enormous but didn't actually involve questing to match their size (Icecrown and Storm Peaks), and of course one zone that was an outdoor PvP zone (Wintergrasp).

Same with other expansions, zones like Hellfire Peninsula in TBC were huge but all that meant was you spending forever walking from one quest hub to the next. Do you really want to go back to design like that?

[Chickat]

I would most def take that than...voldun for example. These theme park zones are horrible in my opinion it doesn't feel like a world it feels like.. well...a theme park.

Like for example when you are in voldun and chasing these notes trying to find the quest npc you read how she is walking for days on end lost in this massive desert and I'm just looking around like damn it's like a little sandbox I can easily see end to end how this npc trying to claim she got lost here?

Volduun is bigger than tanaris. It seems small because of the increased view distance.

[Divada]

I would certainly prefer grander more epic zones. Having small 'play areas' sandwiched by water and mountains makes me feel really claustrophobic. I know folk want compact, easy to navigate zones so they can rush through to cap and raids/M+ but some of us still enjoy exploration/immersion. I'm sure if Blizz made some effort they could create an easy, efficient questing path with minimal travel for the rushers and then have a full epic landscape around it for folk that enjoy going off the beaten path.

[fsfserre2]

And MoP had actually both, quality and quantity. Legion was garbage, only the artefacts and suramar saved it. And Suramar was a real big city. And that actually means: QUANTITY!

So no, your last sentence is not true at all. Sorry, but this crap always flies around like a big pile of cow dung and never disappear. Because it's simply not true.

QUANTITY IS IMPORTANT, and it's at least as important as quality. If you say quality > quantity, it's stupid, because it needs to be in balance. Look at really good games: they had simply both: GTA 5 for example has a lot of quality, but also a lot of quantity. There were parts of the worlds you never visit in any quest at all, but they were there. Quality is important yes, but quantity is also important. Having a world where there is quality content and nothing else makes this a bad game. Because it doesn't feel like a world. When every bit of the content need to have some kind of connection to each other, it doesn't feel real. Quantity is an important factor, making a world big, not only for the sake of more content, but also simply because of the size alone. Having corners that doesn't have any quests, and still are visually unique and maybe is just useful for grinding makes it not quality-content, but it makes the content BETTER.

And yes, having 4 zones, not connected to each other is a BAD DECISION. The last time blizzard did this was in Cataclysm, and it was a DISASTER. And it will happen again. It don't feel like a connected world, and this will backlash.

So no, please stop with the Quality > Quantity. In fact, here is a better formula to make a good game: Quality + Quantity = Good game. Both needs to be high and in balance.

You worded my points better than I ever could, quoting because ppl need to see this

[SirCowdog]

Your argument might have more impact if it weren't being used in the defense of someone who is literally judging an entire expansion based on their perceived size of a map presented at Blizzcon. The least you could do is wait for some datamining before screeching from the mountaintops, so you have some actual information to back up the vitriol.

Just want to add that often times what's show on a map at Blizzcon also isn't fully delivered, either. Fahralon and Fal'Dranath, for example.

The point being(as many others have rightly pointed out) that no player knows what these zones will contain. Could be more, could be less, than what's show at Blizzcon. For all we know Blizzard could have each zone filled out with vertical areas that take full advantage of flying, or deep underground zones, or portals, to double or triple the landmass.

Making assumptions at this point is just stupid.

[dewd]

the fuck cares about mapsizes besides people who consider wqs endgame content. good class gameplay, raids and dungeons is what 95% of dev work should go into

[arandomuser]

what percent of a zone do you actually use?
, maybe smaller but more impactful zones will be good for the game.

[discofleshpot]

I want for nothing else but for Shadlowlands to exite me! I'm waiting for 1 single thing to make me exicted for WoW again because I miss Wow. I miss it so much.

[Yem]

I mean, scale looks okay. Nothing unusual to be honest

[Kathranis]

Yeah idk how someone sees the full scale zones and goes "they are too small!" those zones could be as big as northrend each, we don't know yet.

- - - Updated - - -



so first it was they are too small, now that people pointed out we dont know their size its "size does not matter, they are disconnected!"

- - - Updated - - -



... we dontk now how big they are, or how many mountains there are dude...

- - - Updated - - -

That system of measuring doesn't really mean much, though. It's not just the size of zones in pixels that matters, but how that space is used. Pandaria may be technically smaller, but with the way zones were designed it feels gigantic. And Outland was very large but a lot of that space was poorly utilized, huge swaths of Hellfire for example are essentially empty.

I think one of the best examples of this is Eastern Plaguelands, if you quest through the Cataclysm version properly at low level with only a ground mount, doing the whole stagecoach progression. The way that zone and its quests are structured makes it feel huge, even though it probably has far less traversable area than Western Plaguelands, which feels comparatively small because it's just a bunch of flat, open quest hubs.

I mean, let's be honest, despite each only being three zones, Zandalar and Kul Tiras actually have a pretty tremendous sense of scale and a solid variety in biomes represented. Compare the sense of scale in Nazmir to, say, Swamp of Sorrows, or Vol'dun to Tanaris.

[Muajin76]

wow. gamepedia. com/Shadowlands#/media/File:BlizzCon_2019_-_Shadowlands_map . jpg

These zones look way too SMALL and they have the same layout as previous 2 expansions.
Is it that hard for them to come up with sizable zones like they used to do back in the day?

I don't need to know anything else about this xpac, that picture alone killed the whole vibe/hype for me.

Hey OP. Way to be a Debbie the downer!

You never know man..you might even love shadowlands. I find it hard that people are already saying it's going to be a fail-pac based on what they are seeing/reading so far.