map not as big as it seems

Post » Mon Nov 10, 2008 1:03 am

Is it just me or does it seem like a large chunk of the map is blocked. I mean the map looks really big, but something like 20% seems blocked off, and there are A LOT of places where it forces you to take a single narrow path to get somewhere. Meaning I don't have a choice between a shorter, more dangerous route and a longer safer one. It just seems to add to making the map feel a bit smaller.

I wouldn't mind it if I knew those sections would be opened with the addition of new DLC, but the trend seems to be making it some random place that then takes you through a load screen to a new off the map area. -- many of the FO3 DLC adds were like that, and dead money was as well. But it just seems a bit of a screw to put up a map where about 20% you can never get to, and another 15% you can only get to toward the end of the game.
User avatar
Emily Rose
 
Posts: 3482
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 5:56 pm

Post » Sun Nov 09, 2008 10:08 pm

It's not cut off.
There's nothing there.
Oblivions map wasn't like Fallout 3's either.
Just cause we can't explore out to the very edge of the square map doesn't mean that areas were cut off or anything.
User avatar
Jay Baby
 
Posts: 3369
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 12:43 pm

Post » Mon Nov 10, 2008 8:26 am

Untill all DLC is launched.
Or they decide that no new expansions are coming.
The limit on what can be made public by a release on press blackouts and contracts.

We have no clue as to what if anything they plan / planned / are planning to do with that area.

So patience.
User avatar
Jon O
 
Posts: 3270
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2007 9:48 pm

Post » Mon Nov 10, 2008 2:18 am

It's not cut off.
There's nothing there.
Oblivions map wasn't like Fallout 3's either.
Just cause we can't explore out to the very edge of the square map doesn't mean that areas were cut off or anything.



That entire area to the west? There is no in game way, outside of console commands to get through the gate or over the mountains, it is absolutely cut off. And I know it's empty, because why bother to put something in an area you don't plan on giving anyone access to. But this is hardly a matter of not being able to go to the edge of the square, it's an area that takes up about a 4 or 5 square horizontal area on a map that extends maybe 18 squares horizontal. The last half of a square is one thing, but when it's an area several squares across in some parts that's hardly a little thing. That area alone represents probably 15-20% of the map.
User avatar
megan gleeson
 
Posts: 3493
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 2:01 pm

Post » Mon Nov 10, 2008 8:23 am

That entire area to the west? There is no in game way, outside of console commands to get through the gate or over the mountains, it is absolutely cut off. And I know it's empty, because why bother to put something in an area you don't plan on giving anyone access to. But this is hardly a matter of not being able to go to the edge of the square, it's an area that takes up about a 4 or 5 square horizontal area on a map that extends maybe 18 squares horizontal. The last half of a square is one thing, but when it's an area several squares across in some parts that's hardly a little thing. That area alone represents probably 15-20% of the map.

Perhaps they should have blacked out the areas you couldn't get too, but the map is still taller than it is wide and equals a similar size to the Capitol Wasteland. I was slightly disappointed when I found out the entire map wasn't open, but I got over it quickly.
User avatar
Amy Cooper
 
Posts: 3400
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 2:38 am

Post » Sun Nov 09, 2008 8:59 pm

I find the playable area of the Map to be quite sufficient for playing the game.
User avatar
RUby DIaz
 
Posts: 3383
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2006 8:18 am

Post » Sun Nov 09, 2008 8:45 pm

I find the playable area of the Map to be quite sufficient for playing the game.

As do I. I mean, if you take the explorer perk, dear God, the map becomes nothing but landmarks :laugh:
User avatar
Amelia Pritchard
 
Posts: 3445
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 2:40 am

Post » Mon Nov 10, 2008 11:19 am

It does'nt matter, FO3 was'nt as big as it seemed.
User avatar
Nina Mccormick
 
Posts: 3507
Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2006 5:38 pm

Post » Mon Nov 10, 2008 2:41 am

It does'nt matter, FO3 was'nt as big as it seemed.

Really? I thought they were both pretty big maps. :confused:
User avatar
Gavin Roberts
 
Posts: 3335
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 8:14 pm

Post » Mon Nov 10, 2008 7:50 am

the map is still big, granted. But just having it there and not being able to go is a bit frustrating. It seems like it's there simply for those on the PC to use to create different mods and add what they want, but I would have prefered I think, that they simply stretch out the map and make things a little father apart. My complaint isn't that there aren't enough things with markers to explore, but simply why not use that area and spread things out a bit so everything isn't clumped into the middle third of the map. I wouldn't even care if it all even remained vacant, if it added distance between things and made it seem a little more spread out, that would be enough.

The could use if for DLC and I hope they do, but as I said my fear there is that the trend seems to be toward making content that leads you off the map through a load screen. It always seems to be something vaguely attached to the story, but nothing that really adds to the map as it is. I just really hope this time they use that area, since it's there. Otherwise it would just sit there as a give away to people creating mods on the PC, and that would be a bit of a disapointment.
User avatar
Brian Newman
 
Posts: 3466
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2007 3:36 pm

Post » Mon Nov 10, 2008 5:23 am

Really? I thought they were both pretty big maps. :confused:


They are both huge maps, but FO3 is as large as New Vegas in size.
User avatar
Robert DeLarosa
 
Posts: 3415
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 3:43 pm

Post » Sun Nov 09, 2008 11:00 pm

hmm, it seems to me that the entirety of NV is equal to like... half of FO3...

at least it feels like it
User avatar
Heather M
 
Posts: 3487
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 5:40 am

Post » Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:39 am

Wait I was wrong, NV's map is longer, and F3's was wider.
User avatar
Anna Beattie
 
Posts: 3512
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 4:59 am

Post » Sun Nov 09, 2008 9:19 pm

I think the visual of the map isn't a good representation of playable space. i.e. not to scale. It looks like that such a big area left undone but its just drawn that way. You know like how Greenland looks so bigger than it is on a globe but its just distorted from being on a sphere shaped map. Even Cyrodiil's map wasn't a representation of playable space. The parts you could go to there only covers at most half of the map.
User avatar
Lynne Hinton
 
Posts: 3388
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 4:24 am

Post » Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:59 am

Wait I was wrong, NV's map is longer, and F3's was wider.


how many total squares though? Even if they are equal, or if NV is slightly larger, there are a lot of areas that are blocked off. So just measuring the squares even, is a bit deceptive. That was my only real point with this: I know there is a tendency to block off say the last half of the squares along the edge, but I just can't understand why they would block off and not use so much of the map.
User avatar
Kim Bradley
 
Posts: 3427
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 6:00 am

Post » Sun Nov 09, 2008 10:38 pm

I do find it fun going back and forth on the small map and opening up new routes without fast travel.
More and more I find new spawns and fresh groups encountering new ones when I do this at old familiar places.

It does get a little repetative though going from A to, ( and back again ) after the twelth time, especially if you run and gun from the start to NV.

One point that makes it seem smaller to me.
Is that you wish more areas had more life to them, it's true there is already much much more to do.
It just seems less to me, because you just want to get involved more and poke about more.
User avatar
Nice one
 
Posts: 3473
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2007 5:30 am

Post » Mon Nov 10, 2008 2:15 am

hmm, it seems to me that the entirety of NV is equal to like... half of FO3...

at least it feels like it


It's actually bigger. I think it's the emptiness that made the FO3 map to seem bigger.
User avatar
Kat Stewart
 
Posts: 3355
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 12:30 am

Post » Sun Nov 09, 2008 10:48 pm

It's actually bigger. I think it's the emptiness that made the FO3 map to seem bigger.



It does actually make it seem bigger, oddly that's why I like the emptiness. Having more empty space, where there is more of a travel between places, just makes it seem bigger even if there is just less to see. And it's a wasteland, there should be a lot of empty space.

As far as just the number of squares though, I don't think it's that much bigger, if at all. Map size it seems, for whatever reason, has hit a sealing with a lot of games, and FO3, NV, etc. seem to keep it around the max. Which is really frustrating, because I've been waiting for a game that really increases the map size to something impossible to miss. And again, it doesn't even have to be jam packed with stuff, just spreading stuff out so there are more empty areas and more travel time between major areas would be nice.
User avatar
Anthony Diaz
 
Posts: 3474
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2007 11:24 pm

Post » Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:15 am

how many total squares though? Even if they are equal, or if NV is slightly larger, there are a lot of areas that are blocked off. So just measuring the squares even, is a bit deceptive. That was my only real point with this: I know there is a tendency to block off say the last half of the squares along the edge, but I just can't understand why they would block off and not use so much of the map.


I believe it was around 54 squares.
User avatar
Isabell Hoffmann
 
Posts: 3463
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 11:34 pm


Return to Fallout: New Vegas