Now you're nitpicking. Typically load screens are dead times, with no user input, so that doesn't count. Same for the game over screen. Was referring to all times when you can move on it, so you'll know what's around and where to go, but it may actually be useful to be accessible during dialogs at times, now that you mention it. And that's quite an assumption about the combat system. If the encounters take place separately, in a typical JRPG style, or also in the style of TBS games generally, then accessing the map during them makes little sense, but if combat doesn't remove you from the regular environment, there may be times where you'd want to check the map while fighting, and you could have running battles too, as you advance or retreat.

Well, I`d rather like all in one: A compass, a minimap and a big map, all in the same game.
A compass alone is often leading to disorientation. I can`t say ecactly how often I was on the brink of despair in Skyrim, since the compass showed me the direction to the target, but in this direction was no way to find.
And let me throw another option into the discussion:
I love the way, how Saints Row the Third shows you the way to the selected target, it`s really good and rather intelligent.

Yes, sometimes I do feel like nitpicking a little.

Another time it doesn't make sense to access the map is on the title screen. Also, during character creation.

I prefer a huge meaningful world :)

Well, of course, that's the best of both worlds! XD
*If* I absolutely had to choose...

[deleted]

I'd worry that such a thing could get too overwhelming, both from a player perspective (keeping track of what's where, filtering out what is important to the player and what isn't) and from a developer perspective (you're going to need a lot of level design work to fill the world out meaningfully, and if there's text in those areas (like NPC dialog), someone needs to write all of that; if you want all of the dialog voice-acted, that's going to be expensive and take a while).

At this point, I think I'd rather have a few cheaper games, each smaller and manageable, than one monstrous game that takes years to make, is expensive, and could quite easily fail to make expectations when it finally does get released (after a last-minute delay), and could end up being cancelled before release.

a lot of military sim stuff usually offers both, not sure why i should even make a choice between the 2 since your both expected to carry map and compass ... its a bit like you need the one to find your way on the other .... aye ?! ;-)

Who's that player? What if all games where adapted to what the average active Candy Crush player finds overwhelming?
I understand the practicality / commercial viability from the developer and/or publisher's point of view - but I'm surprised that YOU are generalizing/underestimating players.

There comes a point where things can be too much for even the most experienced of players.

Nah, I don't thinks so. Try visiting a few hardcore RPG forums! ;-)

If checking such forums, one will inevitably run into mention of such TTRPGs as FATAL, which (aside from being NSFW and needing multiple trigger warnings) is so complex as to be unplayable. So, while this is a different sort of complexity (rule complexity rather than setting complexity), it is still an example of how, at a certain point, complexity gets too much to be manageable.

You also see this with software development; there's a lot of effort that goes into keeping the complexity of large programs manageable.

[deleted]

I'd definitely do without voice acting.
Don't want small games though, or some done quick. Better take your time and build and polish, and release when it's done.

This is off the topic of this thread though...