Online content is not content? Explain.

If you are that dissatisfied with these threads, suggestion: STOP READING and go back to your praise threads.

Complaining about other people's valid opinions on the game, just because you disagree, doesn't make said threads pointless.

No.

Did I say anything about "praise" only?

No. I said, VALID complaints and suggestions. To suppose that F4 is "Tiny" is really a rather vapid opinion that no-one with any sense can agree with. MY OPINION is that said threads are pointless whining and complaining that has no validity.

2.5 times larger? what is the source for these shocking numbers? To me they don't feel so much different.

online content is not content but being able to interact with tin cans is?

and GTA is a mindless shooter true. just like the new fallout 4 mindless shooter.

and i have stopped playing fallout. because my game does not work since the patch.

and if u dont like the gta map because u drive around try playing something other then a game called grand theft AUTO.

fallout 4 was a good game. but content wise it left many players feeling unfulfilled. seriously is that an arguement? its true. some liked it some didnt. but overall the game is lacking.

I love these maps with their pulled-out-of-the-ass arbitrary square miles/kilometers numbers. Skyrim is never 39 km^2 large, unless you redefine how long a km is.

I though the announcement said that F4's map was the equivalent of 34 sq miles?

Ye gods this generation of gamers is spoiled rotten.

FO4 is "tiny"? Seriously? I've got more than 150 hours of entertaining playtime into it so far and I haven't even completed the main story yet. If the worst thing you can find to say about it is "the map is smaller than Skyrim" then I think I can live with that.

And just by the way, if those buildings weren't all boarded up you'd probably be in here complaining how the interiors are all alike and there's not a unique quest in each one. Or was the dev team really supposed to model every single room in Boston and its surrounding suburbs while devising a quest associated with each address in the phone book?

I wouldn't complain. I'm just nosey that way.

True.


Though I loved Skyrim's map and it's setting. I am still loving F4's map and setting as well.

FO4's map size is perfectly fine. Content wise, if you feel there isn't enough it's because you're not looking hard enough. Two side quests in nick's office....if you bother to look for starters and not just blow through that part of the MQ never to return again.

maybe that is what it is supposed to represent compared to its real life counterpart but the distance from concord to boston is 20 - 25 miles depending on route and if you think this game does a good job of representing that then you are crazy.

matter of fact after looking at a map of boston you really get an idea as to how small this map really is.

Content wise there is a hell of lot to do, 150+ hours in and I've still to finish the main story....size wise, comparisons between GTA V and Fallout 4 make no sense as GTA V is primarily a vehicle based game, try walking from the far north of the map to the south, there is literally nothing to really interact with on 99% of the map if you don't include vehicles. For the record I felt GTA V was my favourite of the GTA games, not least because it was the first I played though to the end, but the only reason the map is larger is due to the vehicles and the ability to interact with the majority of the world is extremely limited since only a fraction of buildings are actually interactive (you cannot enter 99.9% of the buildings), only a fraction of the population are anything but targets to attack at random, the vast majority of interactions with the world are story based so actually exploring the world outside of the story becomes an empty experience. I'd recommend GTA V for its main story and side missions and the destructive fun, but any comparison between it and Fallout 4's world size are laughable when looking for comparisons.

Every major RPG isn't for everyone. I never even thought about buying GTA 5 - so what if it has some the best critic/user reviews and is a massive game. It's just not for me. Witcher 3 - everyone loves it right, not me I got 15 hrs in and was bored so I traded it in. I could care less about just cause 3.


I can see why people enjoy those games, very polished and tons of content. But when it comes to personal taste every game isn't for everyone.


I love fallout 4. I also loved Far Cry 4. Different games as just different.


OP says map is tiny, well compared to some titles that is true. I'd size is more important than density to someone then so be it.

I enjoyed the Witcher 3, but once I completed the story I've no interest in playing it a second time......poor levelling (guards who are vastly more powerful than the monsters that need a mutant specialist to fight), countless hours spent riding between parts of the map to find I'm to low a level, the damn boat and Skellige map (I gave up on the unnecessary treasure hunt since 99% of it was useless), set main character (never liked the guy), I enjoyed the game, but by the end I was glad to complete it and move on to other games.

Every game design has a budget - of both time and money. Of course, someone could make a "perfect" game if they had unlimited time or money, but this is an area that Beth decided to compromise in favor of something else.

If you are on the PC and play around with console at all, you'll find that the game's timescale is set to 1:30. That is one second in real time is 30 seconds in game time. So while it may only take You the player two or three minutes to walk between Sanctuary and Concord, it takes your toon an hour or 90 minutes of game time.

Which announcement? The only official announcement I know of is Todd Howards vague "It's about the same size as Skyrim".

I made some calculations based on the assumption that the player character has about the same size as an average real-life human http://www.gamesas.com/topic/1568342-fallout-4-map-size-anolysis/, and came to the conclusion that FO4's map is about 9 km^2 (including the ocean).

for you the witcher nailed it, i don't like outdoor/wilderness areas in games too much, i prefer urban settings, packed, dense i like that feeling, and games like bio shock, crysis, deus ex etc where you're in tight areas and you have to sneak around, be alert, look everywhere, so not everyone wants some big spread out wildnerness area, a lot of games feature the midevil/fantasy big open space type maps, NV was like that, very sparse and wide open, so i like fallout 4 its perfect, the veritcality, the dense urban setting, i think bethesda nailed it, there's not any big open world games featuring a urban setting like fallout 4, GTA doesn't count since its more of a driving game with buildings you can't go in for the most part and the city is just more for asthetics and not tactical gameplay/combat.

I have to agree with the OP but not for the same reason. To me the biggest detraction from this worlds potential to immerse you in itself is heading over to a settlement and less than a 100 meters is a raider settlement, or mutant encampment. The Slog and Finch Farm suffer from this considerably, so does Taffington Boathouse, and many others. If the map where elongated it would have helped considerably in avoiding this weirdness of settlers freakishly settling near people who want to rip them to shreds.

That being said the detraction is not game breaking, just a little annoying when looking out of your settlement and you can see raider bases just down the road. This game is immense and content to potentially last hundreds of hours.

I rarely use fast travel and generally speaking I even walk most of the time, yes I walk most of the time I only jog when combat starts or the character thinks there might be danger. I do not use running (cost of AP) unless the character has to high tail it out. I usually have to have the character rest for an hour before they can move on and usually have to drink and maybe have a small snack afterwards. The slower movement allows me to find loot and some of the small things that Bethesda likes to add to the game world. I only use fast travel but it is usually more for if a companion glitches or an escort mission glitches (this is for all the Bethesda Games that has Fast Travel). I like that Fast Travel is there for those that like to use it.

There's a starship game called Elite: Dangerous. It's map is the Milky Way Galaxy.

All of it. 1:1 scale. The entire player base has explored less than 1% of it.

I guess we have a winner, folks.

Never thought I'd see a thread about GTA on a Fallout board go on for 3 pages already.

Haven't played GTA V, but GTA IV's Liberty City, even if small, was dense for what it was. There's building and variety everywhere, collectibles in all the nooks and cranny's, stunt jumps to find, etc. I can only imagine Los Santos to top that.

Just Cause shouldn't even deserve a mention lol.

I haven't even made it to half-way of Fallout 4's map yet, but visually I can already tell it's small. Whether it's packed or not, I can't make my decision on it yet. Just because it's dense full of content, doesn't mean it's meaningful finding junk and the same loot everywhere as you go along. I guess I'll see.

I think comparing the Fallout 4 map to GTA is incredibly misguided. Sure in GTA you can drive around for ages and the map is a decent size. You can't however stumble upon a random building and get sidetracked exploring inside for an hour or more. You can't pick up items, you cannot talk or 'interact' with any of the (unnamed) NPCs, You cannot loot items off anyone you kill. In fact there is a great deal of things you can do in Fallout that you don't get anywhere else.

You should be grateful, smaller map was obviously made for people who can be a bit short-sighted