By that logic, you diminish the realism of the game. The world theoretically is different every time you step out between settlements, instead of a defined world. It's like playing Diablo. And while I love that series and have no qualms with its dungeon/act world generator, I wouldn't want a similar mechanism back in Fallout. That has always been my least favorite part of the series, given that I played the originals post F3. And not everyone values the same aspects of the game world, but a fully-rendered post-apocalyptic world which has boundaries and definite landscape is high up on my list in enjoying modern Fallout games.

I think Bethesda should do this then.

When you come outside a map node circle, the interesting stuff starts to fade, it gets more and more like a true wasteland - open spaces, sand, almost completly gone roads, a few chimneys here and there, and a car wreck and some junk sticking out of the sand, some dead trees... but mostly it's nothing. Then people who like sandbox can walk the five miles to the nearest settlement, or just "fast travel". Heck, there was a map node system in Fallout 3 and NV. You clicked on a place and you teleported there! Although it may just have been 400 metres away, and you couldn't be arsed to walk there since you've already "discovered the way there", but you still want sandbox so...

Keep it sandbox, but make it map node aswell, so the world map can be 50 times bigger, covering a whole state, and the playable (=interesting) areas will be just as much, or more, than in 3 and NV, and the "space inbetween" would be 90% randomly generated wasteland, and of course sometimes ruins of towns.... which could actually be a small node, to keep things interesting. Like the small nodes in F1 and F2 aswell.

The realism of the game? How is everything in the gameworld (including camps full of dangerous enemies) being practically right on top of each other more realistic than the chance that if you somehow managed to take the exact same path between settlements (which would be impressive) and have an amazing memory for random terrain types (it wouldn't just randomly generate a mountain in terrain designated as a flat desert for instance) a cactus might be in a different location or there's a small ridge that wasn't there before?

If different dungeons would anger you, again, assuming you manage to walk down the exact same path then just axe the dungeons. Or have dungeons lock in place although I'd imagine that would cause a fair share of issues.

EDIT: SavageBeatings has even better idea where the dungeons would just be small map nodes like the permanent locations in F1 and 2 like the Cafe of Broken Dreams, Guardian of Eternity and your car if it breaks down. Extra rewards for those who want to go exploring.

The less thing that I want on a game is realism

Obviously it's not completely real, but the post-war world isn't inherently magical or ever-shifting, though Bethesda magicka might make it seem other wise :flamethrower:

All jokes aside, I like realish games that allow you to play in another world, where "real" as defined by that world is something tangible. Despite their numerous flaws in canon and/or gameplay mechanics, I think the Bethesda/Obsidian games have accomplished the real world feel of their Fallout worlds.

The problem, at least for me, is that Bethesda ruined the "real" quality with the laundry list of things that don't add up. Fallout 3 didn't strike mas "real" in the believability of the game universe as the first two and New Vegas did. I just can't see what went on in F3 happening.

This

Why not? I still don't get it? How is having say 4-5 sandbox maps the size of say, the FO3 DLC's give you LESS to explore? You'd have plenty of "open space" to explore in the areas around the settlements. Plus if you want to go the procedural route you can even have little "dungeon" area (like you often see in the originals) that you can got to fight some random critters and perhaps find some loot.

Just gonna drop this off here: http://img708.imageshack.us/img708/4297/falloutmap.jpg

This would be perfect.

and that is from a game a decade old. I would love to see a modern node-based Fallout world, wait a sec, Van Buren, it was going to covere entire states, states, plural.

You are getting that picture wrong. It's supposed to show how they could do a compromise between a big sandbox map and map nodes.

(exactly oh ones who worship the older games, compromise if you want it to be like the old games, but, you better hope interplay wins that court case then, otherwise better get use to seeing Bethesda before Obsidian's name come up in the opening credits like in FO:NV, cause like it or not, it will not change, regardless of how much we complain, or nit pick, or wish for the old days.)

I think their should be comprimise as you sau but calling them 'Oldtimers' or 'Dinosuars' isn't necessary, unless you're joking, then just ignore the last statement...

I map node system might work if it's not like how I am imagining it... I'm imagining a map with a major location, then you open your Pip-Boy and travel to the next major location, little to no wasteland in between... If that's it please don't make it so! Please Bethseda!

(I can see that Sebor, but that is like the Fast travel system that we got right now, and to be honest, i like that, because logically in order to travel to someplace quickly, you need to know the way there, and be able to get there in a way that is safe that will have no encounters, thus fast travel. Either way, i can see either one, and i am willing to compromise on that.

and as an addendum, the fellows above my original post refer to themselves as the "Old Timer or Dinosaur" Club for their wanting to stick to traditional and old school Fallout ways, but i edited my post out of respect as this is your thread.)

I guess us old-timers are dumb about a series that we know better than you brilliant Fallout fans. I think I'll go back to Fallout 1, you know the one that started Fallout.

Explain me why we should get used to it?

What if Bethesda do something that you dont like?

You re gonna complain too

but its too late for that because Bethesda said that its gonna be done


Old timer?

Yeah

Proud of it

(At least i can grow up, and grow with the series, and appreciate FO, FO2, FO3, and FO:NV as a whole, Not bitterly complain in endless forums about how the current games should be like the old games. Thanks for the brilliant compliment btw.) :goodjob:

Eh, this has gone on too long. This thread has been pretty mean-spirited for some time now, I don't hold out much hope of it getting any better - engaging lock.

I am going to throw you an extreme example of how you are acting.

You meet a person, you become best friends, you hang out for years, one day he suddenly becomes http://www.nefariousfilms.com/Images/Monsters/tarman.jpg and begins to kill your family, he tells you that he could change back if he wanted to, but this is the way he is now, that he has grown, and you should grow up.

Sorry it's okay. I had no idea, you can leave it. This is meant to be everybodies' thread.


Edit: Please Modirators, can you give this thread a little bit of time to improve? I now it can, that was my goal from the beginning.

Please?

(out of respect for the fact that Sebor is a very good Thread spinner, and that Mako made a point, i will holster my weapons if everyone else will.)

*Puts his P98 Winchester Plasma Rifle away*

*reluctantly moves his hand away from the Curling 13 virus bomb in Johns re-breather filter in his helmet*


I don't see how FPS is "more evolved" then TB in anyway....they had FP perspective for pretty much as long as they have TB iso perspectives. All it is, is a style choice. One that no one is will to try to even see if it will be popular again. *shrugs* Why can't we fight for features we want just like the people that scream for "play after the ending", and "more Micheal Bay explosions, and FPS action fest!" people that you conveniently leave out, or don't call them names.

Does COD count as evolved FPS?

Because if is that then I preffer to stay in the past