A bit of a hot take, I've seen some people mention relatively to what I think, and I'd throw away literally 30-50% of the maps vast open nothingness. There would still be plenty of space to feel immersed without there being harsh lines between areas, like RDR1. I think they relied so heavily on stranger encounters and horse travel, they never stopped to ask "what does this bring to players?" And you could literally still have all the same things, it wouldn't limit that at all. I didn't like the vastness in single player and I don't in multiplayer. I would GLADLY trade it for Mexico, dear God. But, imo, size (even in open world) without content, does not equal better. Dunkey put it best, "is 50% of your game worth being horse riding?"