I'd say that Washington's city took up a good eighth of the map. How much of the map should the city in Fallout 4 take up? Personally, I hope for just as much, if the map is much bigger. I enjoy the city more, but it should be big enough if the map size increases. We don't want too much of either.

I'm just the opposite. I enjoy exteriors in these games more than cities. But I agree that it shouldn't be too lopsided.

What I really hope is that the game world is significantly larger this time. Both Fallout 3 and New Vegas felt way too small to me.

If the city is actually open this time (no load screens or large piles of rubble) then I don't care either way. But if its going to be another DC ruin scenario I say the less city the better.

Prefer a map that's dense with content, with few open spaces of actual emptiness.

This. I generally prefer the wasteland to the city but I do hope it's balanced.

It really depends on the dungeon design variety. I like exploring ruined buildings, but FO3 kind of had too much of the same. What I really did like about this game tho' was that it wasn't chock full of natural caves. I really liked raiding the solitary buildings, even if they were not extensive. FO-NV had about the right balance of things.

I would like to see a greater variety of climes and environment than the previous games though. Even if it's a nuked world, I doubt everything would be monotone and barely above death... All in all the exterior world should logistically have the most surprises, buildings, subways, they tend to be engineered a certain way.. I bet most players spend time in a large building, then are happy to wander the wastes for a break also, just to escape that clautrophobic sensation...

Since it looks like Boston is a functioning city, it should be fairly extensive. Possibly walled.

In Fallout 3, the DC ruins wasn't a functioning city, just a couple of small enclaves inside the region. Unfortunately, it was only accessible by a couple of restricted avenues, like the subways. There was Megaton, Rivet City, and Tenpenny Tower as the only "cities" in the place. A half dozen or so places outside those there that people referenced as communities that were basically two-to-four houses and a handful of people. Wasn't very believable to me.

I want actual communities outside Boston. Logical, populated communities outside the city. Farm communities, fenced camps, and merchant waystations, all with multiple families and individuals. Make the place feel alive, regardless of the irradiated wastelands. The trailer seemed to show a vibrant Boston, which should indicate a similarly vibrant surrounding territory.

I wonder. It struck me that they may actually make the wasteland less vibrant than the city to provide a harsh contrast. I tend to hope you are right though.

I bet they have some kind of formula to dictate how much wasteland to urban area there should be. I thought F3 did well as far as the waste to DC metro ratio, but many of the settlements out in the wastes could have had more to them.

I agree. With DC being a prime target for a nuke, it made sense. But with 200 years, I'd figure settlements to be a bit more populace. Hopefully, with Boston being a less important target, the settlements will be more vibrant and populated. Doesn't have to be chock full, as I love running into random raider and Talon merc patrols. guess we'll see.

I think it could be nice, if they still keep that continuous gameworld concept (which i am really not fond of), to have a gameworld made entirelly of city landscape or entirelly of countryside. Transition between city-scape and country-scape are rarelly well done. Also, more actual settlements sure, and bigger settlement with a lot of well written people that actually provide many quests, many of those that could be done within the settlement itself.