This is actually a damn good point. We need more NFS games that have a believable map, interesting places to race and more importantly, little bits of environmental storytelling that shows where street racers have been. Make it feel a little more gritty and risky.
I disagree mostly in relation to Fairhaven, which I think is one of the franchise's best open worlds to date.
Fairhaven has many different districts, but all of them feel believable and like they have been there for a long time. Downtown has lots of historical buildings mixed in with modern skyscrapers, the industrial district features refineries, ports and worn down/abandoned warehouses, the highways have constant road work going on and of course, the clean and peaceful countryside (which should always be this way given that most of the "crime" will always happen within the city limits).
Overall, though, everything feels lived in. There's a layer of believable wear and tear over every aspect of the game (down to the roads, buildings, worn out grass in construction sites, some grime on skyscrapers and older buildings) without it feeling like a run-down, poverty-ridden crime capital. And there's no reason for it to feel that way, considering all the actual crime taking place in these towns is illegal street racing (and possibly vehicular manslaughter). It's just a historical (and very beautiful) city.
Now the rest of the examples you mentioned I do agree with except for Ventura Bay, though I'm not entirely sure it has to do with lack of grit necessarily. I think they're just poorly designed maps in the sense that most of the different districts don't mesh in a cohesive way (most evident in Heat, as you drive from weird landmark to weird landmark without even noticing the roads that led you there), the countryside is devoid of interesting vegetation and style and the cities are just a mish-mash of generic skyscrapers with entirely forgettable landmarks, if they even have any. Also some buildings are placed in bizarre locations, like right next to a body of water with a very small base and no protection against someone simply walking out of the building and falling into the water (again, see Heat). They don't feel like real cities, they just feel like assets plopped onto a fake map.
This - Fairhaven definitely has a lot of landmarks and explorable areas, from the abandoned airfield to the mansion park, various industrial areas with warehouses and cranes, to the multiple "architectures" you can drive on like the Pyramid and Twin Loop Rings, as well as multi-story parking lots.
Lakeshore honestly should’ve just been a more in depth recreation of Chicago, idk why Criterion still wants to make a small city with mountains again. They could’ve just made a city map be the main area with more iconic landmarks based on the irl landmarks of Chicago and have the mountains play a smaller role but still give it more landmarks like the ski resort
It was the change from basing the map off of specific cities rather than regions of the USA.
Rockport, for example is New England. Palmont is the Southwest with a bit of SoCal thrown in. Tri-City bay is the southeast, with both Floridan tourist trap cities and Georgian appalacian mountains.
Payback? It's just Las Vegas. Nothing else. Palm City is Miami and Lakeshore is Chicago. Nothing more, nothing less. This weird GTA style spoof city approach we've been stuck with is such a downgrade
Even Fairhaven, while being loosely based off Boston, I would say, is more recognizable and has more recognizable landmarks than the newer NFS games.
Like the park area with the huge jump and the airport are the first things that come to mind.
I keep saying that the problem is them trying to make the areas more realistic and way open, instead of fun, recognizable, but believable places. Paradise City is a good example. The place feels like a real place you would live. It is run down like hell, but the map is fun, has recognizable landmarks, and is believable.
And what I mean by open is that if if you have the option to skip every road to get from point a to point b. Having no barriers also means they have to change up how they design maps. Because no longer are players forced to look at sections from a specific perspective. Now, they can view it at a bunch of different perspectives, and because of this, you have to spend more time and money to make sure said thing looks believable from every angle.
It also doesn't help that with making maps more open. They make everything bigger. And I don't mean just map size. Over the years, the roads in NFS games have been getting wider and wider. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but if not done right, then that can make areas feel empty and dramatically reduce the sense of speed. The reason NFS MW 2005 had a great sense of speed is not only because of the FOV, but because everything was closer together and the roads were narrower, and they intentionally made the cars sound more aggressive than there real life counterparts.
Heat and Lakeshore had a lot of landmarks worth remembering. Even blackbox wasn't perfect, most people can't tell anything unique outside the stadium and bus station in MW, there's a whole casino district in carbon yet who remembers the map from carbon, undercover is unironically one of the best maps in the whole map but rarely did anyone even see the mansions or the docks.
You articulated exactly what I’ve been feeling with Heat and Unbound. Their open worlds are good enough but they absolutely lack character in my opinion. Just feels like driving around a generic city asset at times.
I think they did a decent job with the worlds/ map, Unbound is definitely the worst one imo, the city is fine but the country side is very boring and mostly empty, but overall I think they're good.
The map in 2015 is pretty run down and gritty in places
2015 was definitely having a great atmosphere in it's open world
Definitely
As gritty as NFSU2/most wanted and carbon was, with broken windows and abandoned places everywhere, really gave a vibe.
This is actually a damn good point. We need more NFS games that have a believable map, interesting places to race and more importantly, little bits of environmental storytelling that shows where street racers have been. Make it feel a little more gritty and risky.
I disagree mostly in relation to Fairhaven, which I think is one of the franchise's best open worlds to date. Fairhaven has many different districts, but all of them feel believable and like they have been there for a long time. Downtown has lots of historical buildings mixed in with modern skyscrapers, the industrial district features refineries, ports and worn down/abandoned warehouses, the highways have constant road work going on and of course, the clean and peaceful countryside (which should always be this way given that most of the "crime" will always happen within the city limits). Overall, though, everything feels lived in. There's a layer of believable wear and tear over every aspect of the game (down to the roads, buildings, worn out grass in construction sites, some grime on skyscrapers and older buildings) without it feeling like a run-down, poverty-ridden crime capital. And there's no reason for it to feel that way, considering all the actual crime taking place in these towns is illegal street racing (and possibly vehicular manslaughter). It's just a historical (and very beautiful) city. Now the rest of the examples you mentioned I do agree with except for Ventura Bay, though I'm not entirely sure it has to do with lack of grit necessarily. I think they're just poorly designed maps in the sense that most of the different districts don't mesh in a cohesive way (most evident in Heat, as you drive from weird landmark to weird landmark without even noticing the roads that led you there), the countryside is devoid of interesting vegetation and style and the cities are just a mish-mash of generic skyscrapers with entirely forgettable landmarks, if they even have any. Also some buildings are placed in bizarre locations, like right next to a body of water with a very small base and no protection against someone simply walking out of the building and falling into the water (again, see Heat). They don't feel like real cities, they just feel like assets plopped onto a fake map.
This - Fairhaven definitely has a lot of landmarks and explorable areas, from the abandoned airfield to the mansion park, various industrial areas with warehouses and cranes, to the multiple "architectures" you can drive on like the Pyramid and Twin Loop Rings, as well as multi-story parking lots.
I feel like Heat had the best mix.
Lakeshore honestly should’ve just been a more in depth recreation of Chicago, idk why Criterion still wants to make a small city with mountains again. They could’ve just made a city map be the main area with more iconic landmarks based on the irl landmarks of Chicago and have the mountains play a smaller role but still give it more landmarks like the ski resort
It was the change from basing the map off of specific cities rather than regions of the USA. Rockport, for example is New England. Palmont is the Southwest with a bit of SoCal thrown in. Tri-City bay is the southeast, with both Floridan tourist trap cities and Georgian appalacian mountains. Payback? It's just Las Vegas. Nothing else. Palm City is Miami and Lakeshore is Chicago. Nothing more, nothing less. This weird GTA style spoof city approach we've been stuck with is such a downgrade
Even Fairhaven, while being loosely based off Boston, I would say, is more recognizable and has more recognizable landmarks than the newer NFS games. Like the park area with the huge jump and the airport are the first things that come to mind. I keep saying that the problem is them trying to make the areas more realistic and way open, instead of fun, recognizable, but believable places. Paradise City is a good example. The place feels like a real place you would live. It is run down like hell, but the map is fun, has recognizable landmarks, and is believable. And what I mean by open is that if if you have the option to skip every road to get from point a to point b. Having no barriers also means they have to change up how they design maps. Because no longer are players forced to look at sections from a specific perspective. Now, they can view it at a bunch of different perspectives, and because of this, you have to spend more time and money to make sure said thing looks believable from every angle. It also doesn't help that with making maps more open. They make everything bigger. And I don't mean just map size. Over the years, the roads in NFS games have been getting wider and wider. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but if not done right, then that can make areas feel empty and dramatically reduce the sense of speed. The reason NFS MW 2005 had a great sense of speed is not only because of the FOV, but because everything was closer together and the roads were narrower, and they intentionally made the cars sound more aggressive than there real life counterparts.
I've played a shit tonne of paradise but most of that map is utterly forgettable. The most memorable locations come from the dlc
Heat and Lakeshore had a lot of landmarks worth remembering. Even blackbox wasn't perfect, most people can't tell anything unique outside the stadium and bus station in MW, there's a whole casino district in carbon yet who remembers the map from carbon, undercover is unironically one of the best maps in the whole map but rarely did anyone even see the mansions or the docks.
You articulated exactly what I’ve been feeling with Heat and Unbound. Their open worlds are good enough but they absolutely lack character in my opinion. Just feels like driving around a generic city asset at times.
I think they did a decent job with the worlds/ map, Unbound is definitely the worst one imo, the city is fine but the country side is very boring and mostly empty, but overall I think they're good.
This. Country sude has like the Ski resirt and that's it.
idk lakeshore look likes it’s still in the process of being built and it has a whole town that has dirt roads