The size of the map and the 'large objects' within it should be scaled down anyway as much as necessary to not be dull. Now and then I come across a mod that has locations of 'realistic size' (in various games) and they are just annoying since even walking across a single large and mostly empty room takes enough time to become a chore ~ I remember playing a mod once when it took me a realistic 10 minutes of simply walking around a realistic big church (or something). Then I removed the mod.

Theme park or not, I was personally happy enough with the way FO3 handled that... 'big' just doesn't work well enough in that kind of a game.

Okay, yeah, I see what you mean. All things being equal I'd be all for a greater variety of stuff. Fallout 3 takes places in what was once a highly metropolitan area, so the landscape is by default going to be chalk full of dessicated buildings. Rather than mountains and other geological features, which would give variety in another sort of game, taking place somewhere else. That really is all they're there for, though - window dressing. In the same way that the majority of the buildings in GTA 4 are there to serve the same purpose. I'd expect the next game to have a more varied palette of pre-made structures to place down - but for the foreseeable future there's always going to be some repetition in regards to that.

(ie, I don't disagree; but there's realistically only so much I can see being done about that...)

Again, I'm not too worried about that. These might be "real-life" locations - but unless we're talking about something like the Washington Monument or the Eifel Tower, the majority of the people buying this game (and the next one, wherever that takes place,) aren't going to have any idea what the "real" thing actually looks like. Like your lighthouse example - I wouldn't have had any idea that it looked any different from that in the game unless you'd pointed it out. And I honestly can't say that it bothers me that much, knowing that it's different in "reality."

In short - there's iconic key locations where the purpose is to see them rendered in the game, that everyone is going to instantly recognize by virtue of their popularity. (The White House, Washington Monument, etc.) But then there's other things where I think they get to have a lot more license. I mean, I frankly don't know how close to the real thing the in-game Smithsonian is - and I can't really say I care that much.

Sounds good. But so long as there's something to break up the monotony. Like I said - I don't want to have to feel like I need to make use of an autopilot button because the process of getting from place to another isn't interesting enough. There's only so much scenery I can see before it starts to become boring - and in general it's going to look the same once I get where I'm going anyway. If there's no (or little) chance of running into a random encounter, then there's got to be something there to take it's place.

I'm all for "bleak and desolate" as a concept - but I'm just not entirely sure how well that would work in a videogame. At least without going into the overmap method a la Fallout 1&2 - where you know most of the landscape is barren with nothing in it, but you're spared having to actually deal with just how boring an actual wasteland would be.

A wasteland is a desolate, barren and inhospitable place. It doesn't even have to be a desert; Antarctica is considered a "wasteland".



I don't see a point in including landmarks if you're going to completely disregard what they actually look like. If you change them completely then what's the point of including them in the first place?



I didn't say no combat encounters, but I'm honestly getting sick of running into bullet sponge Albino Radscorpions every few feet. Of course I think Fallout 4 should try to focus less on combat in general; I didn't really feel like I had a lot of options in how to deal with situations in Fallout 3.



An overland map method is the best course of action for Fallout in my opinion. It's the only way to get the wasteland concept across without boring the player to tears. Some people may hate it, but there's many advantages to a world map system that just aren't possible in a TES-like world while the advantages of a TES-like world are possible in a world map system. Imagine if you would a world map where all (or at the very least most) locations are roughly the size of Point Lookout in Fallout 3. Fallout 3 already has a similar system in place; the DLC all take place in separate regions that can't be walked to normally, and each with their own PipBoy map (let's ignore for a minute that Anchorage is a simulation and Mothership Zeta is an alien ship in space). The concept is already there; you only need a large scale map with a simulated travel system to link them together.

I think there's great potential for the "best of both worlds", and it would also help separate Fallout from The Elder Scrolls more and might actually help appease some of the more disgruntled fans.

Did my own test; ran the distance from alien crash site to tenpenny tower in as straight a line as possible. It took only 15 minutes. Running speed of app. 15 mph in winterized power armor. This makes distance from crash site to tower less than 4 miles. Total game area only 25 square miles. My best guestimate was WAY off.
Something's not right here. From the tops of the satellite relay stations in the far west it's less than 5 miles to the Washington monument. It should be easily visible, but it's not.
If we only get 25 square miles on 8 GBytes of data then 2 Bluerays could only provide 200 square miles, and a one terabyte hdd only about 3,000 square miles (about 55 miles on a side). That's still big, but I could run accross it in only 4 hours (my own time).
I'd still like to see perks earned only every 4 levels to aid in game balance. I'd also like to see more durable firearms. When I go to the shooting range I bring one Glock 45, not two. If guns wore out in real life as fast as they do in the game I'd need two, one to shoot, the other to cannibalize for parts to fix the one I was shooting. Please don't say background radiation makes weapons more brittle. Radiation that severe would be instantly lethal to any human.

It's not the radiation, so much as the fact that we're dealing with relatively complicated machinery that's been left out exposed to the elements for what - 200 years? Just about any weapon you're wielding in a Fallout game would be the equivalent of someone today trying to fight a war with 200-year-old antique muskets. And not only that - but 200-year-old muskets that themselves had already been pieced together from other ancient, cannibalized parts. Even in the case of the Enclave and Brotherhood of Steel (who we can assume have some machine shops somewhere, and the capacity of making their own weaponry,) aren't exactly producing parts in the best circumstances, either.

In your example, the Glock 45 you take to the gun range probably isn't something you found lying in rubble one day, you probably don't trek around in the sand with it for days on end without adequate cleaning, etc.

In a game like MW2, or Halo or something - sure, weapon degredation probably wouldn't make too much sense. That gun you've picked off a dead soldier, while it might have seem some hard use, probably got regular service and cleaning; and probably isn't all that old. In the post-apocalypse, you probably don't even want to know what that Raider was doing with his rifle before you stripped it off his corpse - much less how he came to it.

That's a major theme of any good post-apocalyptic game - the whole point is that you're surviving like vultures on the rotting carcass of a once-great civilization. Nothing works, everything is falling apart - has been doing so for a couple hundred years. That which wasn't totally obliterated in the War, of course...

Lets not get obtuse here. The point is that wasteland, (OF ANY TYPE) is leagues and leagues of leagues and leagues of, well, wasteland.



And in miles of miles of wasteland, the only way to break it up is to use landmarks. If we didn't have recognizable landmarks, it would all be generic. The DC ruins would be the ruins of any city. Let's face it: I've never been to Klemoth or Redding, but I'm pretty sure those places were rendered correctly. San Francisco certainly wasn't. These games aren't supposed to be reflections of reality...they occur in an alternate universe. Trying to match locations in games to reality is, frankly, pointless.



I see very little benefit of overland map systems, except for out of character rapid transit, and you can do that, ala TES, without removing the seamless aspect of a fully rendered map. I see no benefit in creating a game as you suggest. I would much rather be able to walk across the entire game. Any "feature" removing that aspect is going to ahve to bring much more to the table then some false impression of distance.



I see no reason to separate Fallout from TES, especially if you want to link them with a feature that helps define Beth type sandbox games. I alos, frankly, don't feel the need to appease the more disgruntled fans in general, and I would suggest that the type of map, although it has been an issue, pales in comparison with the issues of turn based combat, dialogue, choices and consequences, and mechanics in general.

How about grater varieties in everything - enemies, settlements, people, landscape, politics, architecture, mindsets etc - without it feeling crammed in together in one tight package giving the compressed feeling of "let's just pile up everything cool in this one small place". Think about places like New Reno, Vault City, Modoc and NCR (for example), all pretty different from each other and offering different things... now think about all those places stuffed in a seamless map like Fallout 3's, all a few minute walk away from each other. I don't know about you, but to me that'd feel rather stupid (despite all the good things varied settlements could give) considering the setting.

I believe we already established that a while ago.



Fallout 2's San Francisco was a very small portion of the place, and it didn't have any landmarks to speak of. Thus comparing San Francisco to Fallout 3's rather shaky presentation of real life landmarks is silly. Now if I were complaining about the presence of places like Mama Dolce's, and that comic book place then your argument would be valid, but I'm not. I'm referring to recreations of real life landmarks. Fallout 1/2 had nothing of the sort.



Fast Travel is about as much a substitute for a world map as VATS is for turn based combat.



A better encounter system, a realistic time scale like in the first two games, an actual wasteland that gives off the impression of being a massive, intimidating and desolate place etc. There's a lot of benefits to a world map that just aren't possible in a single compressed world space.



Their opinions are just as important as yours or mine. How would you like it if someone else bought Fallout tomorrow, made Fallout 4 like the originals, and completely ignored the fact that you endlessly posted how you prefer "TES with guns" (for lack of a better description) on their forums? You probably wouldn't like that too much. It's generally a good idea to be empathetic; even if the other party tends to show a lack of empathy themselves.

Bethesda puts little to no effort into appeasing the disgruntled folks, so I can certainly understand why they're so irritated. They also raise many good points.



Oh I assure you the map is just as much an issue as the other topics they tend to raise.

Well, it had one - the Reno sign.

In an effort to keep posts from getting so fragmented, i selected this portion of your post for response, considering that it basically all boils down to this anyway.

Clearly, Beth creates games in a way that some folks like, and others dislike. Can't please everyone is an obvious conclusion. I like Beth games in general, and I like the way they tend to be constructed. I like big rendered maps that I can explore. I like loose dialogue so I can maintain my perception of how my character would behave. I like game mechanics that allow me to make bigger than life characters, and in thet, I like to max several skills as the game progresses. I like minimalist stories so that, again, I can run my character with more freedom than story heavy games can provide.

Also clearly, there is a camp of RPG players who enjoy features that are, in several cases, diametrically opposed to my own. That's fine. There are games out there, many more than the the sandbox games that I like, to cater to those folks. To that end, I tend to resist attempts to change a Beth game into a Bioware, or Obsidian, or BIS, or any number of developers games that cater to the story games.

Again, I don't care what other people want. Dragon Age is a pretty darn good game, complete with many of the features that the traditional Fallout crowd claims they want. Further, I don't begrudge their wanting what they want. Frankly, however, they are not likely to get it here, from this company, and they should be aware that there are many of us here who will defend our desires as much as they do theirs.

Like it or not, the Fallout Franchise belongs to Beth. They will continue to make the sort of sandbox games they have always made. That's the way it's going to be, and no amount of argujent, rational or not, is likely to change that. To all accounts, Fallout 3 was a financial success, just as Oblivion was. There is clearly a sufficient number of us for Beth to cater TO US. So, again, why should we care about what fans of other types of games want? They bring up good points...points that can be used, at least to some degree, to improve the future games, but under no circumstances would wqe support a FUNDAMENTAL SHIFT in game design, the likes of which many of you wish to see. It's too bad, that many of you had to suffer such a shift from Fallout 2 to Fallout 3, but frankly, your loss was our gain.

The gun wear topic; all my characters train to 100 percent repair skill. When they finish repairing a weapon, the game says it's at 100 percent. It will not allow any repairs past this point. See below.

I don't know what the problem is with this forum, but about 75 percent of what I type gets tossed. If I try to edit a post like the one above, the edited version gets trashed.
What I'm trying (once again) to say is that all my characters train to 100 percent in repair skill. When they are done the game reports the weapon as being at 100 percent performance. It does NOT say that the gun's at 30 percent of full power, but that's as good as it can get.
Modern firearms, packed in cosmoline, and stored in a dry area, can be uncrated after centuries of storage, cleaned, and fired as if they were brand new. Millions of these weapons, stored in thousands of locations, are spread across the US. At least a million could be expected to survive a nuclear war. Since the population of the US could be expected to decline dramatically after a nuke fight, there should be at least one "like new" weapon per survivor. Guns--made mostly of high strength steel--are much more durable than people.
As an example look at civil war reenactors. Many of them fire weapons that were actually used in the civil war. The weapons function as well now as they did then.

Yeah, there probably were a lot of very well-maintained firearms surviving after the war; and like you said, even crated up in conditions that would ensure their quality for pretty much as long as it would matter. 200 years after the War, however - how many of these pristine crates of valuable firearms are likely to have remained unopened or unharrassed? The early survivors were probably very thankful that they'd thought ahead and stockpiled all that stuff - by the time frame of Fallout 3, however, that's sort of a different matter. There's been 200 years of people being very thankful to find a stockpile of weapons kept in pristine condition.

Most of the weapons I come across in (all of) the Fallout games are what I've stripped from my most recent opponents, or bought (presumably) used from a Merchant. Even the stuff that I find in crates or lockers - there's no telling how they came to be there, or even that they'd been stored there since before the War. (When I'm ransacking an abondoned house, it's often unclear whether or not I'm the first one to have been there for 200 years, or if that skeleton is only a couple of years old.)

Maybe there should be "like new" weapons available to find in a Fallout game, though. I think that could be a fairly interesting gameplay proposition. Sort of the PA equivalent of an enchanted sword - they would be highly prized valuables with unique characteristics. Significantly slower (or altogether halted) item degredation could be one of any variables added onto a unique weapon of that sort. But I'd imagine they'd be rather rare - a good reward for a quest or an especially tough dungeon. The stuff I'm dragging out of corpse's hands or finding discarded on the side of the road, however - it doesn't matter how good a gunsmith I am - that things only ever going to work so well.

And lastly, not to cop out with a MacGuffin; but it's still true - Fallout isn't about "here's what would realistically happen after a specific series of events." It's about setting a tone and basing intriquing gameplay on those stylistic concepts. It only has to be internally consistent with it's own reality - there's never been any responsibility of the part of the game itself to be overly concerned with "realism." Fallout portrays a gritty world, a desperate one, a pretty bleak desolation - but let's not get that confused with a "realistic" game, because that's never been the intention of the series.

Adding a world map system to Fallout 4 would hardly be a major change. Fallout 3's DLC was split into nodes that had to be accessed via means other than walking straight to them from the Capital Wasteland as it is, so the possibility is already there. A world map system could bring many benefits and new possibilities to the game; if you don't like the idea then fine, but don't expect me to stop supporting it.

As I recall FO2 occurred about 20 to 30 years before the events described in FO3. There was no problem with firearms degradation in FO2. This is a new "theme" introduced by Bethesda, and it's an annoying problem I'd like to see them remove. I notice you completely ignored my main point--the game doesn't tell you the weapon you've repaired to 100 percent is actually repaired to only 100 percent of 30 percent of its best possible condition. It just says the gun's repaired to 100 percent. Taking the game at its word, a weapon at 100 percent condition should not disintegrate under use as fast as the game suggests.
Finally, is it just me, or does everyone else notice that 200 years after World War III in FO3 we still have working nuclear power plants supplying electricity to most of the wasteland, that we also have light bulbs that are still working, that Enclave vertibirds are still flying? Last I researched it the best life you can expect from a light bulb is maybe 10 years. Which do you believe is harder to produce, a new light bulb or a new rifle? You need an assembly line for both, but the gun doesn't require the production of an enclosed volume with a perfect vacuum that a standard light bulb does. With a gun you work with steel, while a lightbulb requires you to fabricate tungsten. There's a reason guns were built before light bulbs; they're easier to make. Ditto a nuke power plant. These things have to be "refueled" every couple of decades. Enriching uranium is most definitely harder than building a brand new rifle.

I can't be bothered to read every thread made about this, so I'll just put in my 2 cents, regardless if it's been said or not.

In my opinion, I would like to see more customization options for weapons. For instance, the ability to put a scope on any weapon. If you can go all Mcguyver with tin cans and crutches, you should at least be able to duct tape a sniper rifle scope onto another gun.

I got into the game Borderlands a while back after my girlfriend bought it. I've already played through the game 2 times completely and still have interest in playing it. The fact that weapon attributes are so random and come in many different combination makes it a bit more interesting, as I can always be sure to eventually find something fun to play with.

One option could tie in with how weapons and armor were repaired in FO3, in which you use parts from similar weapons to fix them up. It would be fun if you could take the properties of certain weapons you find and combine the two weapons in a way you like.

I'm perfectly happy to agree to disagree on this. Again, I think you might be asking for a greater focus on "realism" than was ever the intention of the series.

I'm still not understanding your point about "100% repaired is only 30%."

I also thought I'd come up with a bit of a compromise - that certain unique weapons be available that could be classified as "like new," and that didn't suffer from (or recieved much slower) degredation. Or another one I'd add is the possibility of some perks that could also affect that variable.

But I find the item degredation to be a rather compelling gameplay addition with Fallout 3. There's a number of things I disagree with in this game, but that's not one of them. Like I said - this is the end of the world we're talking about - I find it makes sense gameplay-wise and fits the themes of the game.

At the very least the repair system needs a serious overhaul; it's very irritating how you can't repair the T-51b power armor yourself without another set (which of course there isn't one), and merchants can't repair it up to 100%. Another issue: if merchants can repair the armor without a version of it themselves then why can't you?

I have no problem with a equipment degeneration system (well there was System Shock 2), but the one we have now isn't that good. A character with 100% repair can't fix up a T-51b or gauss rifle without another one, but a merchant with less repair skill can? Even if that weren't the case it should be possible to repair every piece of equipment in the game.

1. Fallout is now Bethesda's series. It will be like TES series(which Bethesda fans like).

2. For those who want Bethesda to make Fallout 4 like Fallout 1 and 2, are you telling me that production of an Elder Scrolls game will be delayed for a game that is in a style that I(and many Bethesda fans) don't even like?

This is Bethesda, and they make their games in a unique style, one that isn't like every other RPG out there. Fallout 1 and 2 were not nearly as big or as based on freedom at Fallout 3 is. Bethesda makes big, open games that allow complete freedom, and that is what many Bethesda fans like.

It's also interesting to point out that beth fans like to keep games as close to the original product as possible too. I don't see why making the next fallout game in it's original style would be a bad thing. I welcome it.

Bethesda fans have been exclusively TES fans until recently. TES series is being delayed for the Fallout series, but at least in its current form, Bethesda's Fallout series is enjoyable for TES fans. Bethesda's Fallout series is separate from the original series, and Bethesda makes their games in their style, not some other company's style. Ever since Fallout 3 was released, all Bethesda fans get to hear is "Bethesda doesn't know how to make games and Fallout 3 isn't any good because it's not like Fallout 1 and 2." This is Bethesda's territory, and asking for the game to be like Fallout 1 and 2 from Bethesda is not only ridiculous, but it is likely to upset many of Bethesda's fans. If those people hate Fallout 3 so much, then why do they play it? Why come on to the Bethesda forums just to show your anger?

I have a gewher 98, Erfurt 1918, so it's about 90 years old, and apparently not reworked since then. Although in excellent shootable condition, there is some use marks on the stock, and there are some rust pitting on some of the non action metal parts. This is a bolt action service rifle, 100% wood or metal. There has been a bit of torque on the stock (I like to think someone grabbed it by the barrel and swung it like a club, or maybe broke their fall with it, etc) so that it is not as accurate as it was originally, but it is still serviceable.

I have an M1 carbine, made by Inland in 1943, purchased by my father and given me for a present. A real war vet with signs of usage, but flawless operation. Again, a !00% wood/steel weapon.

Now, these two weapons, if correctly stored, might survive to serve well in a Fallout world, and with reasonable maintenance, could last quite a long time. Compare that to a modern weapon like an AR15, with it's plastic stock and forearm, fragile gas tube, unsupported barrel. It is fundementally easy to trash an M16 in combat, and although the action is simple, high tolerances require substantial maintenance and cleaning. it is, therefore, improbable that a weapons such as that would survive usage in a Fallout world for long. AK style weapons might serve better. The kind of firearms found in a FO world would likely be bolt actions, break open shotguns, simple blowback style submachinge guns...STEN and M3 styles, which could be manufactured at home and are very easy to maintain/repair. Any weapons with plastic stocks likely wouldn't survive. Weapons with complicated actions, weapons with high rates of fire (burned out barrels) and any weapons requiring strong springs, small parts, gas tubes/rings wouldn't likely last long. Weapons requiring LINKED BELTS wouldn't last long simpley because of alck of links, which, although easily fabricated, need to be fabricated with precision. In fact, any weapon using re3cuvled GAS PRESSURE would likely not be useful, du to deterioration of ammo supplies and the inprecision of home manufactured ammunition.

One must also consider that simple maintenance supplies...brushes and patches, and especially OIL might be hard to come by.

Again, this would be a realistic approach, and not necessarily useful in a game, which is supposed to be fun.

Well, here I go again, after the forum for some obscure reason deleted yet another of my posts. Your point nu clear day, was, I believe, that even a 100% repair skill couldn't repair a gun to near 100% of its original power. The 30% figure I just plucked out of the air.
As I type this (for the second time) I have just exited the game in the middle of the Mothership Zeta add-on. Guess what, the disintegrator I took off a dead alien is already suffering a performance penalty, and I haven't even fired it a hundred times. What the game is saying is that weapons produced by a race capable of intersteller flight will deteriorate just as quickly as 200 year old Earth weapons. This is clearly ridiculous. If you enjoy it as a feature, fine. I will even agree that armor will degrade very quickly from bullets, beams, and explosives. But Bethesda is making a mistake with firearms decay. It's an irritating mistake, not quite as white knuckling as their great leap backwards in assigning movement and fighting controls to the keyboard instead of the mouse (which has been with us for over 20 years now). If FO4 has the same mistakes I will still buy it, because I believe it's a great game. I will just grit my teeth and try to smile as I take eight .32 calibre hunting rifles, freshly looted, produce one fully functional weapon, then watch it degrade to 75 percent after 50 shots.

Eh what? The original have equal to more freedom in choices and quest line compare to Fallout 3. Fallout 3 is definitely not bigger compare to Fallout 2 in space and content. Did ya even try the first two?


Ummm Bethesda uses many ideas from the past games and integrated into Fallout 3. Just because this is "Bethesda's territory" doesn't mean there should not be criticism to the subject for the matter. And its like the subject of Oblivion; many people were not amuse of what Bethesda did to Oblivion, but it does not mean that they hated the game. Not to mention like Oblivion, Fallout 3 is made to sale to a more casual group of gamers as well.

If you're going to spend the time to get the rights to own an IP then you should make it in the style of the originial games, not ES v1.2. Otherwise theres no point in making it if you're just going to make it like all your other games. If they don't want to do that then they should give it to another company that actually wants to see the series made in the style that made fallout 1 and 2 unique.

You would probably complain if a company like square enix brought ES and made it into a linear jrpg with an androgynous male lead.