Opinion about the map

Post » Wed Dec 02, 2015 2:33 pm

Swimming is faster whether using the sprint or not compare to FO3 and NV.

User avatar
x_JeNnY_x
 
Posts: 3493
Joined: Wed Jul 05, 2006 3:52 pm

Post » Wed Dec 02, 2015 7:34 pm


I guarantee if you add up all the total water it is closer to 40%.
User avatar
Sebrina Johnstone
 
Posts: 3456
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2006 12:58 pm

Post » Wed Dec 02, 2015 2:18 pm

Reminds me of Watch Dogs' Chicago map.

Is that weird?

User avatar
sas
 
Posts: 3435
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 8:40 am

Post » Wed Dec 02, 2015 10:20 am

not just stay underwater longer. but be able to breath underwater thats what the perk does.

First rank lets you breath underwater second rank makes you undetectable (stealthed) under water.

User avatar
Veronica Flores
 
Posts: 3308
Joined: Mon Sep 11, 2006 5:26 pm

Post » Wed Dec 02, 2015 7:05 am

Judging by the map I've seen they took care to frame the landmass for minimum water.

I honestly don't see any issue.

User avatar
Céline Rémy
 
Posts: 3443
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 12:45 am

Post » Wed Dec 02, 2015 1:14 pm

Ah man seriously?? This is gettin quite interesting!

User avatar
Jenna Fields
 
Posts: 3396
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 11:36 am

Post » Wed Dec 02, 2015 6:09 am

I'm honestly just hoping we get as big as possible and that's that. Fallouts have never had any trouble keeping us occupied for 100s or 1000s of hours and I don't doubt this will be the same. I'm sure there's more than a ton to do. I also don't really trust the videos as we can't determine running speed and etc. just hoping it's amazing and I'm sure Bethesda will deliver. Though I do have to say water has never made me as happy as land gameplay and if it's swimming and not boats or something else I will be a little more bummed.
User avatar
Angelina Mayo
 
Posts: 3427
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 4:58 am

Post » Wed Dec 02, 2015 8:55 pm

Even if it takes 12 minutes (sprinting?) to cross the map, diagonally....
One thing to keep in mind is that Bethesda has said they have put a lot of thought and effort into the vertical dimension of the commonwealth. This also says nothing of interiors and metros.

Even if it was the same size as F3, that's a huge amount of play space.
User avatar
aisha jamil
 
Posts: 3436
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 11:54 am

Post » Wed Dec 02, 2015 7:05 am

Even than it wouldn't be around 40 %...

User avatar
Samantha Mitchell
 
Posts: 3459
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2006 8:33 pm

Post » Wed Dec 02, 2015 7:38 am

I agree - World map size is one thing, but what about all of the interior areas. Is total map size the summation of the two? I think I'd rather a smaller map size with larger varied interiors than the opposite.

User avatar
SHAWNNA-KAY
 
Posts: 3444
Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2006 1:22 pm

Post » Wed Dec 02, 2015 9:19 am

i keep reading some other post outside the forum, and yeah they keep saying 40% bigger that Fallout 3

User avatar
lucy chadwick
 
Posts: 3412
Joined: Mon Jul 10, 2006 2:43 am

Post » Wed Dec 02, 2015 10:28 am

He runs from North-West to South-East, and along the way sees a lot. And that's just one possible line - imagine the stuff we didn't see. The North-Eastern part of the map wasn't even looked at, nor was the South-Western part. He actually purposefully didn't show the whole map. There's still a lot of mystery.

Besides, would you rather a modestly-sized map jam-packed with content, or a huge, gigantic b*stard of a map with bugger all to do? Like Phantom Pain - huge map, handful of locations, lots of running and panting in the desert, no real incentive to explore. Or Red Dead, with its gargantuan map and, like, 3 settlements - one of which was the length of a street.

To me, it looked from the video roughly the same size as NV, and if its packed with as much content as that game, I think I can deal with it :D
User avatar
Richus Dude
 
Posts: 3381
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2006 1:17 am

Post » Wed Dec 02, 2015 1:13 pm


I've been saying for quite awhile now that Aquaboy (previously we called it Marine Boy) was going to be a more important perk than we realized. I just figured that if FO4 was gonna be in Boston then it made sense that there would be lakes and the ocean and underwater monsters on the map. Oh and a Vault, too. Yes we will have an underwater vault! I toldja so naysayers... Heh

Five days left. Can't wait until I get my hands on a FO4 copy...
User avatar
*Chloe*
 
Posts: 3538
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2006 4:34 am

Post » Wed Dec 02, 2015 5:16 pm

reference please.

User avatar
BRIANNA
 
Posts: 3438
Joined: Thu Jan 11, 2007 7:51 pm

Post » Wed Dec 02, 2015 10:16 am


Reference on what? The perk? We can't show that on here, it's a leaked video. Some guy in vidme was showing rhe entire perk chart and their maxed powers.
User avatar
Georgia Fullalove
 
Posts: 3390
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2006 11:48 pm

Post » Wed Dec 02, 2015 4:50 pm

BlackDust said - "It's like going from the east coast of the US to the west coast. Everything in the middle is just hundreds of miles of flat, featureless land with no trees and no topography of any kind. It would be more fun if the middle part of country was cut out and the travel time between coasts was reduced to about twelve minutes."

Harry: "I expected the Rockies to be more rockier than this...

Lloyd: "I was thinking the same thing. That John Denver's full of [censored], man."

User avatar
quinnnn
 
Posts: 3503
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 1:11 pm

Post » Wed Dec 02, 2015 7:51 am

its about 2.5 times bigger than the fallout 3 map and the guy that ran across the map, yeah i watched it but it was more running down the left side, it wasn't corner to corner exactly, close but not a direct straight route from corner to corner, he missed the entire city

User avatar
Karl harris
 
Posts: 3423
Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 3:17 pm

Post » Wed Dec 02, 2015 9:24 am


Nah it's much smaller than 2.5 times the size of Fallout 3. It'll be quite bigger, but if it's around Skyrim's size it won't be that much bigger at all.

My perfect map size would be Oblivion or larger. Oblivion just really works in terms of size for me, whereas Fallout 3, New Vegas and Skyrim felt too small. It didn't feel like there was much to them in terms of size and I couldn't properly immerse myself. Oblivion or larger would feel like a huge, immersive world for me. When I picture Skyrim I imagine Solitude and Riften being really close together, despite them being quite far apart, and Fallout New Vegas felt tiny for some reason, despite being about the same size. When I imagine Oblivion it feels huge and I can imagine myself wandering the place without worrying about barriers.
User avatar
Breautiful
 
Posts: 3539
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 6:51 am

Post » Wed Dec 02, 2015 3:10 pm

Oblivion has the same playable space as Fo3 and Skyrim. 14-16 square miles.

User avatar
louise tagg
 
Posts: 3394
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 8:32 am

Post » Wed Dec 02, 2015 9:56 pm


Skyrim and Fallout 3 were both approximately 14 square miles. I hear differing thoughts on Oblivion's. People seem to place it anywhere between 16 and 22 square miles. All I know is that it's Bethesda's biggest game since Daggerfall. And it definitely felt bigger than Skyrim. I think Bethesda felt that Oblivion was too big so they scaled it down and kept a similar size for Skyrim and Fallout 3, which is sad because I think Oblivion was the perfect size, or perhaps larger.
User avatar
El Goose
 
Posts: 3368
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2007 12:02 am

Post » Wed Dec 02, 2015 7:06 am

-Skyrim was 14 square miles
-Fallout 3 was 16
-Oblivion was 16ish, with the number vayring by a few .1s depending on who you ask. Its TOTAL area was 22 square miles, but that included all the land in the surrounding provinces Bethesda modeled even though you couldn't reach it, since you needed something to see when you hit the invisible wall.

User avatar
candice keenan
 
Posts: 3510
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 10:43 pm

Post » Wed Dec 02, 2015 7:27 am


Sounds about right. I'd say that Fallout 3 is smaller than Oblivion, though. Maybe it's just because it felt empty. Fallout 4 seems to have handled the wasteland look better, though, with more interesting landscapes. An issue with Skyrim for me may be how it was designed, with unclimbable mountains jotted around the centre and sides. Hopefully Fallout 4 won't have that problem either. I'm just happy we're not sticking to the green hue everywhere anymore because, while it was atmospheric and I loved it, I grew tired of it. Not as tired as I feel of Skyrim's rather grey and depressing textures, but still tired. Vibrant is always nice.

Sorry, went off topic there.
User avatar
Sian Ennis
 
Posts: 3362
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 11:46 am

Post » Wed Dec 02, 2015 9:12 am

you can look at the overlay, fallout 4 has 729 squares and fallout 3 is 289, do the math, i'm confident in the size, its about 37 sq miles, the map is about the same size of skyrim however 50% of skyrims map was unplayable area, the mountains took up a huge footprint, but we'll know for sure soon.

User avatar
roxxii lenaghan
 
Posts: 3388
Joined: Wed Jul 05, 2006 11:53 am

Post » Wed Dec 02, 2015 4:30 pm

Its not about how big the map is, its about what makes up the map. You can have a big map with nothing much to to do in it and you can have a small map with a lot to do.

I would rather have a small map that contains a lot of stuff rather than a big map that contains a lot of empty space.

User avatar
Setal Vara
 
Posts: 3390
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 1:24 pm

Post » Wed Dec 02, 2015 10:05 pm

It's not just the density; playing in a small area delimited by invisible walls will make it feel like a Battlefield map, rather than an expansive world.

User avatar
Lawrence Armijo
 
Posts: 3446
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 7:12 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Fallout 4