Magnification and field of view are rivals. An increase of one has a corresponding decrease of the other within the same scope mechanism and same objective lens equation.
E.g., have you ever wondered why binoculars are generally given magnification multiplier/objective lens diameter relationships that are a base-5 equation? 7 x 35mm, 8 x 40/42 mm, 10 x 50mm? The explanation is that the human eye's pupil can only admit a "light pencil" of about 5mm on average. The light pencil transmitted through these binos is the ideal/best possible potential for light transmission in a given illumination situation through that magnifying medium. Light transmission is as critical as magnification for target resolution at distance. You cheat yourself out of resolution potential with over-magnification in a scope lacking the objective lens diameter to draw in all possible light. THIS is why FBI Sniper Schools recommend the Leupold Vari-X 3.5x-10x X 50mm rifle scopes for agencies to equip their marksman rifles with--enough magnification for body shots to 300 meters (or more) at full mag without loss of light transmission. Magnification matters, surely--but so does field of view, and light transmission & image resolution does too. NO FREE LUNCH. And that shrinking light pencil? It doesn't shrink in linear fashion--it shrinks geometrically. Remember that area of circle calc--3.1416 x radius/squared.
Choose your glassware wisely. I have a dozen scopes in service, about 1/3 of my rifles wear glasses. One is 6 x 18 x 50mm, and it spends most of its life between 8x and 10x. 2 are 4 x 12 x 50mm, one is a fixed 12 x 50. The rest are 3 x 9 x 40, 2 x 7 x 33, one each 1 x 4 x 20 and fixed 4 x 20. Some are Leups, some Redfield and Burris, and two old Weavers. My biases are STRONGLY toward field of view and brightness.