I'm wondering if it's the biggest Fallout map.. Skyrim map is much bigger though.

I'm pretty sure it was confirmed it is the same size of Skyrim.

Looks smaller than FO3 and Skyrim. "Bigger than Skyrim" was because Skyrim had a lot of unplayable mountain areas. So as long as FO4's water area is playable then maybe it's bigger.

Lots of map threads aren't there.

On the best evidence I can see, FO4 is 'about' the same size as Skyrim.

Double the size of FO3

OR the same size as FO3 AND FO-NV combined.

There is also density and verticality to consider.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/87106516/3compared.png

its 30 sq miles of playable area compared to 15 sq miles of skyrim, skyrims physical map is mostly huge mountain ranges, the skyrim world isn't as big as you think, those mountains take up half the map, west of markarth, south of falkreath, north of riften, in between all the holds etc, behind riverwood, skyrims map funnels you around the mountains for the most part and the borders are unplayable, it actually half the playable area of fallout 4 even though it looks about the same size, in fallout 4 its all playable and even though 1/3 is water its still more land area by a large margin and the water area has docks, piers, islands, its not dead space, settlements are on the water, the entire map is traversabile and its 2.5 times bigger than fallout 3, fallout 3 is 289 grid squares and fallout 4 is 729 grid squares, do the math

Just from looking at the map though, this is a vast improvement over any game thus far. Boston is way more central it appears than DC was (since the city is right smack in the middle). The city is a gigantic mountain too in a way that you will have to go around (but thankfully there is a ton more depth in it than the Skyrim mountains).

Yeah, when you have a lot of mountains and hills you can do a lot of neat things with landscaping to make the world feel bigger. It's why morrowind sometimes feels massive when in reality, if you'd just run up that hill instead of following the road, you'd see that you weren't very far away from your destination. Landscaping makes a huge difference and unfortunately Boston and it's surrounding area are only slightly hilly.. I'm sure they've done a fantastic job though.. one thing Bethesda has definitely always been good at is landscaping.

I have no idea... but...at first glance... When you look at how thick the roads are on fallout maps and resize both maps to match the thickness... then F4 map seems a lot smaller. Also, there is no way that we can fit as many icons there as we see on the right map. But, you know, dont know before actually playing it.

Supposedly there are over 300 locations to discover on f4 map. f3 only had like 174 or something.

According to Bethesda it is the same size as Skyrim, however and alas no mountains

According to users its about double the size of FO3

Fo3 had 163 marked locations with dozens of unmarked.

I'm really liking the map though, and it amuses me where Vault 111 is in relation to the rest of the map, it's basically where Ravenrock was in FO3.

Yeah, its really interesting they would choose Vault 111 on that part of the map. I figured it would be more near a side or somethin like in FO3

Yeah in FO3 it was clear they built it purposely near civilization but vault 111 in the trailers and stuff looks like it was put out in the middle of nowhere for its protection or something. And kinda reminds me of vault 112 which makes me wonder if they're sister/cousin vaults given what happened with both?

Do we really need another thread on this? Search next time...

Let's use one of the existing threads about the map size:

http://www.gamesas.com/topic/1543226-fallout-4-map-too-small/