Say it with me, "size is not equals to content". Besides, I thought that I have already pointed out that Bethesda took many a shortcut and made a lot of houses boarded up with crappy plywood that no one can break into, and sky scraqers only have a few levels and a few rooms?

If you make excuses for Bethesda, of course I'll call you out. Excuses are excuses.

Replies like these are hilarious. Anyone who can read will know that size of a map does not in any way, shape or form, refer to the "content" you are speaking of.

Doesn't make the map bigger

Then... what are we talking about? All I'm trying to say is that I don't care about the sheer scale of the world, or how the density makes it less "immersive" and that there's still way more to explore and discover in this game than in GTA or Just Cause or ARMA, boarded up buildings and all. And I think that's exactly what Bethesda intended. So we're on the same page that size =/= content, even though you just said size is important... what exactly is going on?

+1 op, I think every Bethesda game I have played could have benefited from a larger map.

In Morrowind it was the least annoying because the fog, the storms and the intricate paths, more importantly the slow character speed, plus the [censored]ton of interesting unique places made it feel much larger than it actually was.

In Oblivion the bowl shaped geography also helped a little, but in Skyrim, Fallout 4 and - especially - Fallout 3 I felt like the map could really benefit from at least 1.5 times the size. I do like having tons of content, but it doesn't necessarily has to be so condensed in a small map. I think GTA V size would be great for the next TES.

Read the OP's post.

The statement "size is important", and "size is not equals to the content that you speak of" are not mutually exclusive.

the map is 2.5 times the size of fallout 3, its not a small map, you can run across a lot of big maps pretty fast if you're unimpeded and fallout 4 doesn't wind you around mountain ranges like skyrim or new vegas so it may seem a smaller size but its not.

I've made my point that density is not something I care about, and probably not what Bethesda cares about. They absolutely could use procedural generation, add vehicles, and make the map completely huge. I just don't really see the point in it, especially since I like the theme park density.

I guess if it would be possible, everyone would which a real world size or bigger with 1st , 3rd person and top down view, all kinds of travel options like cars and planes and spaceships, every kind of weapon ever made, packet with quest and poi, to have areas to play rpg and shooter and medevil knight going full melee and building atlantis under the see and the moon reaching tower on the northpole while you can craft,farm,build,become ervything and anything you can think of. Yeah never gonna happen that way....

As much i like huge open world maps, they need to be filled with stuff to do and to explore. The one part says i wanna have more widespread settelments and therefore can better farm herbs and go hunt etc. others would like a ton more raiders and other stuff to kill, while the next one just want a huge free area to build the settelment of their dreams. Anykind of transportation was never really a part of the fallout series and hope it stays that way.

Only if they make a map in real skale to the real world, then i would say ok. But for now we have to live with the game as it is and if they make it bigger it more likly will become a random generatet world and not so nice build up as it is. And i bet that if this would happen, people would complain about that. There was never a game and never will be to make everyone happy without complaining about that or that feature. to make it more challening they could make the enemys strengh and ai more depending to the players lvl and certain areas to start allrdy with a way higher lvl enemy spawn so you have to lvl up.

I understand that sentiment.


But Boston really isn't the right environment for that imho. To me a heavily urbanized area like Boston should have something everywhere. People living on each other's doorsteps, competing for land and resources, with almost every corner claimed. I think that's what Bethesda tried to accomplish with this representation of Boston and I can't say I disagree.


Now, I do generally prefer spaced out environments. Where much of the world is just immersive eye candy. The Witcher 3 nailed such an environment this year imho.

The map seems big enough, atleast for what i prefer. Seeing as there are so many locations, marked and umarked i could've been abit bigger, but not by much.

The map size is fine. There's plenty content.


I just can't see how anyone could say it's particularly large or on par with other modern games a la Witcher 3 or JC3. It just isn't, but it's fine for what it is.

Hahaha NO...

Maps like GTA5 and Just Cause 2/3 may have 3x the map size but only someone who is truly ignorant will fail to see that those same maps are just "decorative" and cant be explored like Fallout 4's map can.

Fallout 4 (the base game) has MUCH to offer in exploration and discovery, maps like GTA5 and Just Cause 2/3 do not, its mostly just prop buildings.

I take Fallout 4's map over GTA5 any day.

Guess where would FO4's map fit in this picture http://i.imgur.com/0bThhDB.jpg

The Boston argument is a valid one. The city is not my problem. It's even not the size of the map. It's the feeling I got after visiting the GS and the lower south-east side of the map the first time at about lvl 25 that now all is marked and there could be nothing new. I would have appreciated that f.e. Virgil does not hide at the furthest end of the GS, that there would be something left to explore. Same at the other corners of the map.

I prefer to stay in certain areas of a map for a longer time, doing my quests and knowing there are other main areas to go to. When you get in Fallout a quest early by settlers or else that sends you all over the map without any real need and against logic (why are they not bothered by the supermutants near them?) for the stupid killing of four people, than going back, the magic of the map is lost for me. I always see the marked spot on the map and think, ok, been there. It's partly a fault of the fast travel system that quest designers think too global.

Whereas I never fast travel and I feel like I'm traveling considerable distances. I know the witcher's map is larger but perception wise I'm just not feeling ti.

Omg Skyrim has been dwarfed! Release the kraken asap, release the mighty Daggerfall map!

I don't have the actual comparison picture, but I'm sure if I just said "Daggerfall is bigger than the entire landmass of Great Britain" people would get the idea. All of those maps would be a dot on Daggerfall's map.

And, coming from someone who loves Daggerfall, the map is terrible. Thousands of square miles consisting solely of procedurally generated 2D trees and rocks. It certainly doesn't lack for content; thousands of different dungeons and towns you can live in and do quests from. Of course, they're all procedurally generated and everything eventually feels the same after a few hours. That's the most extreme example on the opposite side of the spectrum from Bethesda's modern RPGs, though... and it's still a ton of fun. There's a reason I never shut up about it. (it's totally free to download if anyone's curious... >.>)

I love playing Daggerfall, but I'm glad that Fallout 4 has its current map and not a map like Daggerfall. Daggerfall's map was huge, but even with a horse, it wasn't interesting at all to explore because you could keep walking in a direction for real time hours and not come across anything except perhaps a random encounter if lucky.

A city atmosphere needs to feel dense and not like exploring some fantasy world with little villages everywhere and long, wolf-filled roads to get there. As much as I enjoy Skyrim, the "cities" were horrible as cities go. Even Solitude was just a few buildings, a couple small castles, and a smattering of NPCs. Fallout 4 doesn't have as much of this sort of problem, so it may be that TES 6 will be able to do cities properly to the point where they actually feel populated.

I wouldn't complain if Fallout 4's map was expanded, but I'm nowhere near exploring all of it even after playing about 200 hours, and that's with fast travel. If I had decided not to use fast travel, there would be much, much more undiscovered. I'm glad Boston is more like a city and not appearing as some little village in the wilderness with a population of five.

And I have made the point that it is obviously important to others because this topic keeps coming up.

No, it cannot be whatever because it is a video game. There's this thing called suspension of disbelief. It does not work anymore when what we expect as real and what the game presents us as real is too much apart. Give the player figure (which at least I expect to behave like a real human being) lightning speed while running, then immersion is broken for the player. You also cannot introduce vehicles without careful consideration (horses are considered exctinct, cars/motorcycles require clutter free roads, flying vehicles are considered rare, so they cannot be used as everyday means of transportation).

Horses are extinct in Fallout 4 (generally introducing vehicles in any form needs requires a different level design approach, flying vehicles work better, but are considered rare and expensive in the Fallout world, so they also)

a week ago i would have defended this game but since i have an unplayable game since the patch this game svcks.

seriously, people who consider moving tin cans around as content are [censored]. and someone said that gta is not as immersive. gta 5 has and has had its down sides but every npc has actions and dialogue and abilities to interact with the player. plus gta online has free content every few months. plus rockstar editor ( i dont even have to say more)

the problem here is that the game was downsized to make room for settlement building. fact.

GTA didn't have any new single player content since release... online features are not content

and GTA's map feels way smaller, than the one in Skyrim and all Fallouts because there are vehicles... you can drive around the whole map in like 5 minutes, which is simply not possible in Bethesda's/Obsidian's games

there are also no interactions with anyone in GTA apart from the side quests and the main story... you can't just go to your wife and talk to her

that said... I absolutely loved every second of GTA V <3

but to compare it with Fallout 4 contentwise... no way

Actually the settlement building was Bethesda's "axe feature" (one Bethesda manager admitted that in an interview). An axe feature is a feature for which not much time is spend (this would explain why the settlement building feels unfinished), for which not much sacrifices are made in regards to other features, and which is the first to get axed (hence the name) when the game cannot be delivered in time.

If people are that dissatisfied with F4, suggestion: STOP PLAYING and go back to your braindead shooters like GTA.

So friggin' tired of these pointless threads.

If you have a complaint or a suggestion that's useful, we're more than happy to hear and discuss it and Beth loves the suggestions (DLC's, GECK, etc...), but, these pointless threads comparing games that have nothing in common with this one are boring.