Apparently, it took a player only 11 minutes to go from one end of the map to the other. That really svcks. Are you worried about the map in Fallout 4? Fallout 4 being the latest game by Bethesda, it should be their biggest map yet. Skyrim's map size was huge and the game is older than Fallout 4. Fallout 4 should be bigger than Skyrim. You agree? The positive thing about the map is that it's very dense, meaning that there will be a lot of stuff to do within the map, the downside it the map it rather small.

This is the same time it takes in Skyrim if you no-clip the mountains. Trust me, the map is huge.

Thankfully not so.

Double the size of Fallout 3.

About the same size as Skyrim but with greater playable land mass and density.

No need to be worried.

It's asshats who post videos like that who svck, not the ability to sprint across a map, honestly.

Whether it's as big as Skyrim, or as big as Fallout 3's map, I'm going to enjoy the HELL out of this game.

I don't think it took anywhere near 11minutes to cross fallout 3's map. Sounds much bigger to me

It should come nowhere near as Bethesda's biggest map. They said Skyrim's size was the sweet spot.

fallout 4 is 729 grid squares and fallout 3 is 289 so its 2.5 times the area of fallout 3 and compared to skyrim its actually twice the playable area, skyrim is bordered by mountains that give the illusion of being more area but its half the playable area as fallout 4, the mountains in skyrim are throughout the map and the footprint they make takes up over half the physical space, you're more or less funneled in between the mountain ranges so its deceptive but not actually more area its far less and in any of the maps at fallout 4 sprinting speed you can get across the map fast, prob in about 9 minutes or less in fallout 3 as long as their is no obstacles, level, etc..the guy was running very fast and he was also playing in God mode, he got shot a couple times and never took any damage and in the water he didn't get any radiation so thats important to note, he also didn't run corner to corner it was more top left corner kinda straight down so that speed run isn't a good measure of the map area even though it seems small its far from it.

Fo4 is more than large enough.

I wanted Todd to go bigger than Skyrim, 11 minutes to run across the map I've read, not very impressive

it is bigger, it has over twice the playable area, skyrims map is bordered by mountains and has mountains throughout the map and its not as much area as you think, its about 15 square miles of area compared to over 30 sq miles for fallout 4, that map run is a little bit deceiving, he was running very fast most of the time and 11 plus minutes of that across more or less flat area its easy to cover a lot of ground like that.

I would of been fine if it took your Player Character (PC) at least 20 minutes or 30 minutes to get across the video game world map of Fallout 4.

The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim it takes 18 minutes? To get across the video game world map because of the mountains.

The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt on the main land where Novigrad and Velen are it takes 20 minutes. The Skellige Islands probably take long, no idea as I have not fully tried that on the Skellige Islands.

The running across flat land might be true.

But even without the mountains of The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim it seems small.

I 'ran' it yesterday.

Raven Rock to Tenpenny Tower.

10.5 minutes.

Naturally I didn't have the facility to sprint in FO3.

More generally, you don't hear people complaining that the Witcher III map is too small.

This evening I ran and swam (including some sprinting) as Geralt from the Niflgardian Camp to Novigrad's temple District in (topically) 11 minutes.

After doing so more testing and finding Geralt shares Fallout 3's 5.7 metres/second jogging speed,

I've been able to compare the estimated Fallout 4 map and Witcher III's Velen/Novigrad maps to scale:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/87106516/fo4_tw3.png

Actually, displaying the Witcher III map upside down shows how much the two maps have in common,

including the proportion of water.

People thought the Witcher III Velen/Novigrad map was huge (and much of it is swamp and woodlands)

the density of Fallout 4 with a larger city mass than Novigrad will be quite a thing.

I was certainly concerned initially at reports of a small map,

which I'm now satisfied is utter twaddle...

For me at least it's a matter of quality over quantity. I'd prefer a smaller map with more to explore, interact with, etc. than a huge map with not much too it.

How do you know one of the cities Diamond City? Will be larger than Novigrad from The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt in Fallout 4? Novigrad is actually pretty big.

We don't even know yet exactly 100% how big Diamond City is in Fallout 4.

Too small for what? Why do you equate bigger with better? The raw size has nothing to do with how much content the game has, which is what Todd has said every single time he gets asked about map size.

Thankyou.
You sprint roughly 1.5-2x the speed you jog.

If you can jog FO3 in 11 min and sprint FO4 in 11 it means the map is atleast 2 x as large.

My concern is that it will be too dense. I felt that in fo3 areas in the center middle to the east of the map were way too dense. There was too many enemies overlaping each other.

Sprinting may not be quite that fast, but it's not far off.

Yes, I think FO4 is double FO3 (or the same size as FO3 + FO-NV).

I'm certainly not disrespecting The Witcher III, I really like that game,

But a Witcher III Velen/Novigrad map I can run top to bottom in 11 minutes

And an Ard Skellig map I can run across in 6 minutes

cannot be 'huge'

When a Fallout 4 map that can be sprinted across in the same time, be considered 'small'.

well you are in a city nomsayin?

Sometimes something that only takes eleven minutes can be really fun.

Nope, I'm not concerned. The map is fine to me, I'm going to enjoy every one of those 11 minutes. I rather traverse a land full of people, beasts, and buildings in 11 minutes than a land that has almost nothing in it but dirt and trees for 30.

well, just tested this myself. with run toggled on, was able to make if from Canterbury commons to past vault 87 in roughly 10 minutes. so i guess if you run and sprint at the same speed, then the map in 4 would be about 10% larger. if you truly sprint at 2X running speed, then it would be considerably larger.

but its not smaller, its got about as much playable area as the witcher....fallout 4 is not a small map, its 2.5 times the size of fallout 3 it has twice the playable area as skyrim....you're gonna find out when you play it, that guy ran at mostly fast sprinting speed without any major obstacles, in god mode, and didn't run corner to corner either and so it may made it seem small, but you can run across skyrim in the same time more or less at that sprinting speed if nothing was in the way and skyrim has half the playable area, its spread out but over half of the map is unaccesable to the player and simplty out of bounds, its not part of the game world

its 2.5 times bigger than fallout 3 not 10% bigger 250% bigger and you can cover 2 square grids in fallout 3 in about a minute at fallout 4 sprinting speed and also that run you did wasn't exactly straight an unimpeded, from cantebury commons to vault 87 isn't same run as going down that left side of fallout 4 which is very level and hardly anything other than a few buildings is in the way, and in fallout 3 you don't run fast, you kind of jog slow, sprinting in fallout 4 is twice as fast easily, and he did sprint most of the way and the sprinting speed is pretty fast actually. the real test would be to just jog the distance in fallout 4 and not sprint to compare that to fallout 3 and then the time is gonna like 23 minutes.