My recollection of Fallout 1 was that the random map encounters WERE on static maps that were always the same. There was the open area with the odd pile of bones or tires, the narrow gully with rock walls on either sides, the other flat open area with no discernible features, the ruined walls urban area... what else? I don't remember any interesting or varied terrain in any world-map encounters. Maybe I'm mis-remembering...

If you are going to do the conversion and be snarky about it, at least try to make it close to accurate. A meter is 100cm, a foot is 30cm. So thats about 3.3 feet per meter, or about 16.5 feet. (rule of thumb is multiply by 3, not 2)

Now on topic. Yeah I can understand how it sometimes feels too dense. I felt the same way with skyrim but there has to be a trade off. On one hand I love being able to see something new every second "oo a piece of candy" situation, and i also like having it seem like I am trekking through the mountians. But sadly computer technology isnt up to speed yet with it, and I doubt games will ever go that way. But damn, would it be nice.

As always, I would advocate multiple sandbox locations spread out geographically, with classic map travel between them. Because I like sandboxes, but not extreme compression. And the feeling of travelling for days in the wastes is excited. Won't happen though. Unless Obsidian gets another game and Bethesda let's them, but probably not.

It most certainly is not.

It is though.

-In Fallout 1/2, the map was mostly empty desert, so they abstracted your travel through it via a map.

-In Fallout 3/NV, the map isnt mostly an empty desert, so they had no need to absract it via a map, and thus, you simply walk through it manually as your normal means of travel.

Fallout 1/2's map = Fallout3/Nv's normal gameworld.

One thing I always liked about FO3 was the sense of desolation the world gave me. Partly because I know the area (east coast, DC) and the game and world often imparted a sense of melancholy. Guess one mans interpretation of "dense" does not apply to everyone. Or at least not me. I know! Differing opinions on the internet. Go figure.

I remember some games from 1998, 1999, 2000 very fondly. But I love me some modern era games.

They didn't need to abstract it [only] because everything was just over the next hill. The whole gameworld fit in a small area where nothing was more than a few miles away ~from anything else. In Fallout it was almost a two week walk across mountains and salt flats to get to the Brotherhood bunker from Vault 13. And the terrain mattered; it affected the travel speed of the PC.

FO3 did a good job of this when not near any settlements.


The post was describing a better system than Fallout's; (which used several static maps to depict the terrain underfoot when an encounter happened during travel). http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj125/Gizmojunk/FO1_map_Behavior_zpsa30410f2.gif
Fallout 2 ~inexplicably lost this feature; (probably due to negligence I think). All the non-scripted maps were the same IRRC.

And as stated already, thats becuase California is mostly desert, with lots of literally empty space between locales IRL. On the other hand, the east coast is not the same, and far more clustered, with stuff quite often just being over the next hill, IRL.

Both are done to be accurate portrails of hw they are IRL.

I don't see why you think both should have the same kind of empty enviorment in-game when they dont IRL. It doesn't make sense.

Its a vastly better series in its current form IMO.

How about you stick with f3/nv and we get a better fallout.

I totally I agree, have said that myself, there is no desert anymore, no feeling of traveling. gamesas games seems very idiot proof and childish compared to first games, and I am just talking about the atmosphere of the game, every one is so civil, polite and helpful, except some raiders but it really dosn't feel like post apocalyptic world, it is more like some western movie, with out horses.

Basically, I don't know how passionate Bethesda is about their work, maybe they just want money.
Anyway to sum in up, there is what I think is missing.

Fallout game should have, a traveling map and many small maps for cities and random encounters, like in first games. I mean one average map is just not working for such game.

And, no more quantity over quality. It is better to have lots of almost empty spaces, random generated encounters and then some very rich detailed village/city locations.

In first fallouts, cities build by some vault people, looked actually futuristic, AS THEY SHOULD, because they exist in future. Bethesda cities look like present time Detroit.

Drop repetitive quests, better make a shorter game with real quests, or make just a few but really epic quests, so that people would have to think instead of just shooting thru it.

I mean for me, first fallout games always were the examples of truly interesting quests. Compared to them, fallout 3 got nothing, it fails on making quests interesting, not only because of quantity oriented writing but also because of leaking scenery.

I doubt fallout 4 will be any different, but I hope it will, and that new dialogue system seems to be promising.

if u want a game like Fallout 1 or 2 u need to buy Wastland 2.

I know u miss the old fallout but they have move to a new age of game, those old game are good if u are a fan, but most ppl dont like it bc u actually feel the game have less, most of those game depend alot on what user use as imagination. (limitations of the time about graphics).

if u remember on older fallout games LA was represent by 3-4 small maps that actually dont represent a big city as LA was. on Fallout 3 DC was preatty well represent, and still fell small for a big city.

Im really glad fallout how move from the old days, i dont say is better, but for a universe so deep and rich is better to see it from first view that from a flying perspective.

You do realize that BGS will continue to make Fallout games for the foreseeable future? What you want is never going to happen. I'm just being a realist. I'm not trying to upset you.

OT: I wouldn't mind if things were spread out to accommodate vehicle travel. I've been watching a lot of game play footage of Mad Max and the game looks absolutely incredible. I think there is a lot BGS could learn from spreading out their environments rather than keeping everything so concentrated. Arguably, the east coast of the US is rather compact and tiny, but if they were to move to the mid west or south, there's a lot more space and things are farther spread out.

I don't see that happening TBH. Theres still plenty of big citites in the west, midwest, and south, one can base a Fallout 3/NV style game on.

Seattle, Chicago, Miami, New Orleans, Houston, St Louis, Nashville, Cincinnati.

All that spread out stuff would just be done as DLC.

yeah on Fallout 3 visiting the Pit was nice and that was a whole city.

IRL, after 200 years and atom war, you would not even find most of those cities, they would be leveled to the ground. Go watch a movie called the day after tomorrow, then imagine, there is radioactive sand instead of snow.

in IRL ppl at the 50s didnt have the Tech to have atomic cars. sooo welll

IRL there wouldn't be, but Fallout is not IRL.

Fallout is based on the 50's perception of the future, and the effects of atomic war, which often portrayed vast cities, still standing, though crumbling, long after the war, and long after humans had stopped maintaining them.

u are right, lol IRL ppl dont become ghouls after become irradiate, they will horrible die from cancer.

I never understood who so many people seem to think RPG = clunky terrible combat.

Or large empty meaningless areas make for good map design. Increasing the amount of time a player walks between areas does not add anything to the game.



O my... Did you just try to use the day after tomorrow as a realistic movie.

bc ppl are stuck on the past, i agree with u, large empty meaningless areas just stress the player more that making it feel real.

I played it, it was very average kind of, didn't feel like fallout. Visually, it did look somewhat similar to fallout sometimes, but it was all just gray stuff, nothing really worth mentioning.

But yah, I know, gaming community has changed, now that every idiot know how to use pc. But Bethesda still try to resist the dumbification of their games, that is why I like them. Like how we had new hardcoe mode in Fallout Vegas, that was nice.

I'm pretty sure, if you took all the maps you actually stepped foot in in fallout 1 and 2 and stuck them all together.. you'd end up with a minuscule map size in comparison to today's games.

With today's games it's all about designing terrain so that you don't actually notice how close everything really is to each other.. whereas in past games they simply used the illusion of traveling across a barren wasteland to give you that same feeling. Beth does such a great job with their maps and terrain that they can make it feel like a much larger area than it really is. It's all about landscaping.

It's still amazing to me how small the map of Morrowind is. Yet with the winding paths and hills blocking your view, the meandering nature of the game and the evil fog of war. The game world didn't feel small at all. I got completely turned around and lost many a time in Morrowind... In fact, that's the fun of the 3d world. You can get lost. You don't get lost in Fallout 1 or 2.. You know exactly where you're supposed to go.

The Commonwealth/Boston Wasteland map is going to be a incredibly denser than either F3, FONV, Skyrim, or Witcher 3.

DC was nearly totally destroyed by nuclear bombs and has yet to recover.

Las Vegas is mostly surrounded by desert and wilderness (Nevada ranks 42 in population density).

Skyrim was mostly wilderness and the Witcher 3 consist of medieval country side, wilderness, a few towns, and only one real city.

Per Wiki:

As of 2014, Massachusetts was estimated to be the third most densely populated U.S. state, with 839.4 people per square mile.

As of 2013, Nevada ranks 42 in population density and has 24.8 people per square mile

In 2010 Boston was estimated to have 617,594 residents (a density of 12,200 persons/sq mile).

Just for comparison, in 2010 Las Vegas had nearly the same population but had a population density of 4,222.5/sq mi or one third of Boston's.

And unlike Washington DC, it was mostly missed by the IBCMs.

For the last two, Medieval France tops the list, with a 14th-century density upwards of 100 people/sq. mile thanks to a lot of arable land.

Skyrim and the lands of Witcher 3 would only have been a fraction of that density.

So I expect the Fallout map to be about the size of the Skyrim map, but to be incredibly denser just because even if you leave out the 600 thousand Bostonians, the surrounding area had about ten to twenty times the population of any of the other maps.

Plus there is the increased verticallity thanks to the access to the power armor jumpjets and an oncall Vertibird.

I actually somewhat sympathize with what you're saying. Some sparse, isolated areas would be quite refreshing and relaxing form time-to-time in the game. Like with almost anything moderation is key, if the entire map is just super dense it comes to feel unnatural in a way. Who knows, maybe we'll get some of it in the world of Fallout 4 (which is apparently very large), although given the setting I would say it's unlikely.

Being stuck out in a desert (would/could there be deserts near Boston given the events?) or perhaps grasslands as a radiation storm looms in the distance could also be quite an experience, I feel.

Can you be more specific about the screenshot you're talking about? Perhaps even a link? Anyways, if Skyrim is any indication (being the studio's last project), Fallout 4 will have a ton of variety in its environments. And It's huge. So we can expect plenty of wide open areas as well as really dense areas. Look at Fallout 3-- wide open desert areas where there's sometimes nothing around--- but then--- very dense inner city areas with clutter piled upon clutter, almost claustrophobic.