Read the rest of the thread I already admitted to being wrong.

I did, I was just making another point?

Wait, 11-12 minutes? And people are saying that's the same size as Skyrim? Wasn't there a video showing a guy going from the northwest corner of Skyrim to the Southeast corner taking him a little over 30 minutes? Because if so, that's 1/3 the time it took to cross Skyrim. Even with the lack of mountains and more open space in Fallout 4, that time difference is quite staggering (also the guy in Skyrim had speed shouts which made him move considerably faster even, something Fallout won't have), and even if it has more content, it seems that if it had any more quests or stuff to do in Skyrim and put it in a map roughly less than 1/3 the size of Skyrim (I'm going on the time difference of the overworld crossing, not other underground locations, vertical locations, and water since I have no idea how Bethesda is going to implement those) it might be a little too condensed for me. I like games with a lot of stuff to do, but if you have a lot of things to do in a relatively small area, it just starts to feel like a garbled mess to me. You need some substantial "filler" room, but not as much as let's say Red Dead Redemption.

The difference no one seems to be saying... Skyrim had tons of giant dungeons to explore as did oblivion. Fallout 3 and NV... Not so much. Unless fallout 4 has tons of verticality(like they state) and underwater Exploration it will be less area to actually explore. They need tunnels, more vaults, underwater, a bunch of skyscraqers, ect.

The good news is dlcs always add playable areas and I am willing to bet one will be large.

I also hope another spin off like NV is made... I doubt it but I pray!

WTF u speaking about Fallout 3 have huge metro tunnels, NV suffer bc of that same problem but have cave and some metros.

Fallout 4 not only have metro system that one of the leak shows, building are what dungeons are on Skyrim. Bc when u enter some of the inside end underground. Plus Vault..

Plus u cant compare both game again they are different, How horrible will feel if u enter a dragon lair on Fallout. dont make sense to have one.

By the way the map is 30-40% water. I hope there is a Waterworld type town (for those old enough to remember the movie). This would make the water on the right side of the map make sense.

Yes there were some metros, underground elements ect but nothing as exciting as the elder scrolls dungeons in my opinion or as large. Some of the oblivion and skyrim dungeons took multiple hours to explore fully...

I think we would have seen the landmass on the map if that were the case. Just looks like empty water to me.

In the movie it wasn't any actual land.. It was a bunch of floating barges supporting the mini town

A redundant one, but okay.

simply going from one side to the other doesn't determine playable area, the phyiscal size from north to south etc is about the same but skyrim had a lot of mountains that took up probably half the playable area and FO4 doesn't have that issue, the playable area in FO4 is about 35 sq miles, thats over double skyrim and yeah some of its water but skyrim has water and surrounding area that totally unaccessible so the playing area in skyrim is way less even though the map itself is about the same size.

Sofar i feel like it might be just big enought, especialy if there are no large mountains that block your path like in skyrim. So yeah maybe it is only 12 min sprinting from one corner to another, as long as what you find along the way is interesting and plentifull (unlike FNV map, which in my opinion felt like a NASCAR racetrack instead of a large map filled with interesting locations.) then i am fine with its size.

The nasty problem here is that while you can make it bigger, you still need content to flesh this out with. Look at GTA V map size vs what actualy gets used. While you have missions that force you all over the map, most of the time (like 75%) you spend in the big city area. If you look at the online part, that actualy changes to 90% of the time, since most players never leave the city at all when playing it. Now check the ratio in that game, it could easily be 1/3 of that map is the city, so that means 2/3 of the map in GTA V is barely used.

If bethesda actualy uses a maps full range to bring us quests and things to discover, then i rather have a slightly smaller map, then a huge empty one.

i agree, i do however believe the playable area is over twice of skyrims area, skyrim had ocean also and tons of huge mountains that were a huge footprint all over the map so even though skyrim was a huge map less than half is playable area, the base of those mountains take up a lot of space, and in FO4 thats not the case, prob a third is water but its still a lot of land area and overall huge size, the running across the map the guy did, well he was sprinting most of the way and going pretty fast, nothing in the way, he didn't stop and it wasn't from corner to corner exaxctly it was a bit more kinda top left corner to more of a straight down the left side then kinda curving toward the middle near the bottom, you can cover a lot of ground sprinting and not stopping in most maps

WHAT? only the Underground Dwarft one but that wasnt as much as a dungeons as a new section of the map. Each real dungeon on skyrim take around 20m to fully explore.

Also, what people are tending to leave out is that for as many mountains as Skyrim had, FO3 had just as much rubble. I mean seriously, only like 1/4 of DC was actually playable, the rest was entire streets of nothing but impassible rubble, and even the metros they put you in to cross those entire mountains were heavily destroyed and restricted themselves, with entire tunnels being blocked off. And not to mention Boston is much bigger and densely packed than DC.

I recall dungeons in oblivion and skyrim taking me much longer than 20 minutes. I suppose the difficulty played on, the depth of exploration, and tactics factor in though so it varies.

The interiors of both games could be rather large in the medium to big sized dungeons.

i agree bob, fallout 3 had tons of rubble and skyrim did have a big spread out area but it was kinda an illusion because of mountains, you were kinda funneled around, it was still a big map but the space of the total physical map was way bigger than the playable area.

thats true, however fallout 3's dungeons were pretty big, not as big as skyrim but there were a lot of very large buildings like the roosovelt academy, chryslus building, red racer factory, capitol building etc, you could get lost in those places, especially the first couple playthrus

@alizarin327

I can't quote you cause the laptop I'm using to type this svcks but you yourself bring up some very good points on how the map will be spread out and more condensed, and if the water portion of the map is playable too then I'm sure the playable size compared to Skyrim while actually be very big by comparison. But I mean you also have to count in Balckreach for Skyrim (that thing added a whole lot of crap to the map size)

Tactics cool play a factor i normaly play a heavy Warrior/healr mage so i end charging to battle not sneaking much, i play the other way around on Fallout =P.

But is hard to compare both game dungeons vs building exploration.

Still F4 map it look big even with 1/3 of the map been water.

The thing about skyrim's map, is that i never felt it was small, despite the whole mountain and ocean thing. This is mostly due to the curving roads and such making a walk from say Riften to Solitude still a rather long walk. When i started playing skyrim again a few days ago, i decided to walk from Whiterun to Riften, it took me atleast an hour despite myself saying i woudnt get distracted when i initialy set out. Naturaly, i got side tracked, sneaking and killing my way throught some bandits, a dragon and some side quests. Its these little things that make a essentialy small map (in playable map space that is) feel bigger then they actualy are.

I personaly liked Skyrim's map, despite still finding it small at times, and i do hope to get that same feeling with Fallout 4's map, that it simply guides me from one distraction to another, making a essentialy 10min walk into a 1 hour journey.

Look I really think y'all have nothin to worry about here. Remember, this map is most likely gonna be high density and properly utilized.

Now look at GTA V, so much of Blaine County empty with no interiors, zero interactivity, and nothing to do after the story, just remember what a waste of a town Paleto Bay was!

I dont have any doubt that FO4 will certainly bring this entire idea of a 10min walk = 1hr journey to life. Plus there is so much to do and so many settlements to build.

I had forgotten about that place. Man how I wished that heist was so much more then it was. Such a boring bank heist.

I have had dreams there was a single player rpg that included every single part of tamriel in the TES series. I also have had a dream that in the next fallout you could visit 10 cities in the US.... I hated waking up to find out that wasn't the case.

I think the map will be plenty big. Would I love it to be double or triple the size to give me hundreds more hours of gameplay? HELL YEAH! That is unrealistic though.

The game and map should be great. As I have said I just hope the really use water well.

Am I the only one who noticed, during the video showing the walk from one end of the map to the other, that not a single random encounter, or any sort of emergent gameplay, occurred? There didn't seem to be that much to look at either (though obviously he was going in a straight line so take that with a grain of salt).

Are random encounters still in the game?