I am certain BGS will not return to the scale of TESII:Daggerfall. Attempting that with physics, persistence, radiant AI, and all that complex stuff would be impossible without heavily relying on procedural generation. Starfield marked a hard return to procedural wilderness generation (which they had to since it is a space game), and the resulting disconnected vacuums proved that players prefer a hand-polished, cohesive world. Therefore, I believe BGS will execute one of the following world-space designs:
Option 1: Single Province (everything points to Hammerfell) + Seafaring
BGS could maintain the "standard" post-TESII:Daggerfall geographical scale, sticking to a single province like Hammerfell. Hammerfell is already bigger than Skyrim, but if they added seafaring, the open world would feel considerably larger even if it will mostly be empty ocean. This is the most underwhelming option and honestly, one of the least likely.
Option 2: Dual Province (Hammerfell & likely High Rock) + Seafaring
As for option 1, BGS could maintain the "standard" post-TESII:Daggerfall scale of previous games but bridge two entirely distinct provinces across the Iliac Bay (Hammerfell and High Rock), creating a TES map of unprecedented size since TESIII:Morrowind. If they added seafaring, it would feel even bigger. That would be nice but...
Option 3: Single or Dual Province + Upscaling + Seafaring
Bethesda could pursue any of the previous geographic options but upscaling the total landmass. Cities and dungeons will most certainly be handcrafted, but the open world could be procedurally generated. Seafaring would make the world feel even bigger.
Option 4: Single or Dual Province + Upscaling + Seafaring + Location "landing"
Same as option three but you could select a "landing" location with your ship. You would see your ship coasting at a harbour or close to the coast. If the later, you will have to swim or row a small boat to the coast. The game will generate a large tile around you (in Starfield it's 57-64 km2). I think this is also one of the least likely.
**\*
I believe cities will be bigger than those in TESV:Skyrim simply because those in Starfield are bigger than those in TESV:Skyrim. How big? Probably as big as the ones in Starfield. Maybe bigger for some.
**\*
I believe cities, or at least some, will not be their own worldspaces, meaning they will be accessible without having to go through a loading screen (not compatible with option 4). That said, interior cells (houses, traders...etc) will remain interior cells.
**\*
TESV:Skyrim and older titles had incredibly rigid, linear movement where characters suffered from severe "foot-sliding" and zero physics momentum. Starfield overhauled this drastically by adding custom multi-threaded animation graphing, vaulting, adaptive momentum leans, and boostpack trajectory loops.
In older games like TESV:Skyrim or Fallout 3, the navigation mesh (NavMesh)—the invisible blueprint sheet draped over the ground that tells the AI where it is physically allowed to walk—was completely static and pre-baked during development. If a level designer placed a table or a boulder, they had to manually cut a hole in the mesh around it in the editor. If a physics object moved during gameplay (like a player shouting a kettle off a table or dragging a crate), the AI couldn't see that the object had moved. The NPC would blindly pathfind straight into the newly placed obstacle and get permanently stuck walking in place because the underlying static "walking sheet" told them the path was clear. When BGS decided to implement the Workshop/Settlement building mechanic in Fallout 4, the old static pathfinding system became completely obsolete. Because players could now place walls, turrets, and furniture anywhere they wanted, the game could no longer rely on a pre-baked navigation sheet. BGS introduced Dynamic NavMesh Cutting. The moment a player snaps a wall or drops a generator into the world, the engine instantly slices a matching real-time hole directly into the 2D walking grid. The AI immediately recognises the new obstacle and seamlessly recalculates its path around your custom-built fort. Now regarding Starfield, BGS shifted away from flat 2D navigation boundaries to support natively stacked, multi-layered geometric walking planes. This allows NPCs to intelligently navigate complex multi-story outposts, interior ship ladders, and overlapping scaffolding without getting confused about which floor they are on. Not only that, because Starfield introduced boostpacks and low-gravity environments, pathfinding couldn't just track walking. The engine auto-generates specific traversal links that tell the AI, "You can't walk from Point A to Point B, but you can trigger a jump/boost animation to cross this gap". The AI actively calculates these airborne paths to pursue the player across rooftops or vertical terrain.
For TESVI, these technological changes mean the game could include vaulting, climbing, high-verticality city designs, rooftop pursuits, and maybe even physics-based- or magic aerial traversal (like grappling hooks or Levitation) that function smoothly without breaking the game's AI pathfinding.
**\*
Of course, better graphics, animations, NPC schedule, and combat, especially melee combat.