Do you really want Fallout 4 to be even bigger in scale than New Vegas or Skyrim? Most people I know who played Fallout 3 and New Vegas never actually managed to explore every location in the games, such was the scale. I did manage to get to every location on F3 eventually, but it felt a bit repetitive by the end.........Just how big do people really want it?

I'd rather want multiple maps, say a dozen, each the size of The Pitt, or 3 maps 50% the size of Fallout 3's with a city like New Vegas (in size) in each.
But if I can't have multiple maps then I want the map to be 200% the size of Fallout 3's but with locations more spread out, it is a wasteland after all.

(I want bigger towns and cities and we can't have that if there is only one map the size of Fallout 3/Skyrim)

As to the locations, did you search for them all in one playthrough?
Cause I didn't. In all games I explore a certain amount of locations in each playthrough and I always have multiple playthroughs.

The scale should be bigger, not necessarily the actual size of the playable area(s). Fallout and Fallout 2 together covered almost (if not more) one quarter of the country - and while still smaller in actual playable scale, they had heaps and mounts more of variety and interesting locales than both NV and FO3 combined.

So basically, what Gabe said about multiple maps.

Map node system combined with world map will make Fallout once again cover whole states, not just one city and the small area around it.

I would rather have a map that is dense with content than a large map that is sparse with content, even if the total content is more in the latter example. The maps for FO3 and FO:NV were big enough to support the game content. The density of the locations was just about right.

If they take their time with the game and end up putting it on the next gen. console, then I would hope for a large scale map, however like CCNA stated it must be dense with content. Which I think they can manage if they take a couple years, but the map isn't all i'm worried about them actually working on...

You don't mind places being scaled down then?
Cause that's a big issue for me, sure it's more accessible to learn and quickly wander to the more important places as the fodder isn't there or is scaled down extremeley.
But even so it just looks ridiculous when a "city" is a dozen houses and a "town" is 4 houses and a cow.
That's my major issue with one big map, you can't have civilized places that have a nice "somewhat" realistic size to them.

dude, therer are tons of "cities" in F1 and 2 that arent really much more than this.

tehre are a few places that are like 3 maps big.

but for the most part, they arent all that big.

Big enough girth to stretch the uaginal walls but not to cause severe damage ohh wait.... I see what you did there .

Same size as fo3 thank you.

You forget that in Fallout and Fallout 2 most of the NPC's are "stereotypes" and and the cities/towns are abstractions of what they're depicting (the perspective supports this since you aren't thrown down there to witness all of it first hand). NCR, for example, is a city of thousands of people in Fallout 2 - this is told to you in the game - but the abstraction only shows you what's relevant for the gameplay and narration. It isn't that easy to do when you're running in first person perspective to a town like NCR and are told that its population is 4000 people (yet you only have 10 houses and 15 NPC's) - it's less believable and even distracting since you are experiencing it first hand right at the spot.

If, however, you'd arrive at NCR of 4000 people in first person, and were given a portion of it to play around in with a "vistapoint" of sorts from where you'd see the lively city expand towards the horizon (and the desert in the other direction), you'd get a higher sense of scale even if majority of the city wasn't allowed for you. That's what I was expecting when I first heard Fallout 3 was going for first person perspective -- having the nodes as they were, but replacing the abstraction (due to the perspective change) with unreachable vista presentation -- not places like Megaton or Arefu; and that's how I'd want the future games to be done if and when the FP perspective is held onto.

Bigger doesn't mean populated or filled with buildings or people....

Maybe a little bigger than 3 would be cool, but still one map. I like the feeling of covering real distance. It's awesome to see something way off in the distance, and wonder what's over there. Breaking things down just doesn't give the same feel. And I also want plenty of open desolate areas. The only thing that make large maps sometimes annoying, is having the same hostiles respawn in the same spots. Take that away and big maps are great. Basically, I want it to virtually be like real life. Compressed of course.

I would rather have the maps the way they are now but with more locations

How would the map node system work? Wouldn't the game have to be isometric again?

No, you could just have map squares that you travel to (like nodes) and have there be LOD around them to give the illusion of a continuous landscape. Then, when you reach the border area, it would automatically take you to the node map screen.

. All this really says is that there are limitations for both plqystyles though. Depicting huge cities with thousands just isn't able to be done.

I do like the idea of fpp using nodes creating cities that are similar to the pit, but they still aren't going to be cokpletely realistic in their representatiojs, resources are needed for other things.

Except that the setting calls for a large map with sparse content. I would prefer the large [sparse] map, paired with an altered game design that facilitates travel between the major locations. Instead of being quite so TES-like, I'd want it more like a first person Arcanum, with respect to travel.

And it's not like we couldn't have a gigantic world, just look at Just Cause 2.
Sure it's gameworld is mostly filled with copy paste stuff and has very limited gameplay mechanics.
But still, the point is that a gigantic world to make realistic distance between things is very much possible.
AND to have fully scaled places.

Yes, yes it is. But more important than the size, is the depth.

Not so much the varying terrain and all that, which was awesome, but the size of the towns.

Cannot wait to get some real sized towns thrown in with the tiny, dying settlements.

Skyrim had a good sized map, and places were spaced out enough so I'd be happy to have Skyrim's map size in Fallout so long as it wasn't mindless terrain crawling... a metro system underground like in Fallout 3 would be good as well and add extra space/things to do.

No i'm happy with the size and i rather want that the time they spend to polish the game rather than making it bigger so it's less bugs, more factions etc BUT i do not want a smaller game either.

In a fight, always. If you're traveling, you're an idiot.

Oh I thought you meant weapons. Yes I think a bigger map is better. But if it is bigger, that means more locations, which means a cluttered pip-boy. So I think the f4 world should be way bigger but be able to view the map in parts or sections.

The 10X10 mi. map works great. With all of the advances that Skyrim made, Fallout 4 could be as absolutely amazing as Fallout 3 was back in the day.

A world similar in size to Skyrim is good enough.
That is a major problem I have with Skyrim.