I hope FO4 is around the size of GTA 5 or the Witcher 3. Even if it's just twice the size of Skyrim that's barely bigger than Red Dead Redemption

bigger the better pls

That's far too large for a game where the main way to get around is to walk.

If fallout 4 was a game that encompasses multiple cities like Boston and another major one in the area, along with having vehicles, I'd see it being that big but wanting that size from a game where they won't do ground vehicles is unrealistic.

Bigger than skyrim is probably pushing their comfort zones on size, and we had horses/carriages in skyrim to make it smaller.

That article's completely wrong, using presumptive information compiled by the YouTube account The Pre-War Hub, who estimated that Vault 111 would be situated in Watertown (they did the anolysis straight after the initial reveal trailer).

We now know that was wrong, despite their impressive research and hard work. The Sole Survivor comes across a location (where they meet Preston Garvey) that is specifically listed as Concord, which is an area in Boston far more west than Watertown. On top of that, Bethesda will mess with the scaling so it's difficult to come up with any figure of size right now. Also, Todd Howard has definitely not commented on the size of the Fallout 4 map in relation to Skyrim - many people misheard him actually talk about his team size in one of the interviews, NOT the size of the game.

Amazing work compiling all the gameplay/interview links by the way, but I think it'd be good if that shoddy article by Inquisitr was taken down.

Ya just a time sink for how long to traverse from top to bottom would be good. Like Fo3 is about 14 min running fairly straight line.

Anybody know what skyrim is?

Thats not how game development works, for example they could have had a settlement in as a placeholder and someone decides to populate it, for a hypothetical example *

http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Arlington_Memorial_bridgeGiven its location it may very well have started out as for example a Brotherhood "observation post " but may have been converted to a raider base because reasons, He takes the rout past that way not mapyng any attention and suddenly hes being shot and hey this was not here last time!

* no im not saying this was what happend, just useing it as an example

Bigger is better. I'll be a happy explorer, main quest be damned.

Where did you hear that?

it would mean that it could be something like 9 x 12 kms ...

I heard Witcher is 3.5 times bigger than Skyrim ... so its good to hear that ... but its official?

I just loved leaving the vault in Fallout and wandering in one direction until I came across a building/enemy /other. In my first play of Fallout 3 I actually wandered West which was a BAD IDEA and died soon after, but it was just the ability to do that which was great. As long as Fallout 4 gives me something comparable im all over it.

Has any mention been made of the Karma system? i dont want a dude sitting outside my house who makes me feel better when I give him purified water.

51 to 35 minute speed runs on youtube.

The map on this article is very wrong. Concord was confirmed as ingame location

gamesas's RPGs had a trend of downsizing that ended with Morrowind. The largest TES game as far as worldspace goes is in fact Arena, which is infinite (the game will continue to generate terrain endlessly if you walk, making fast travel a necessity). Daggerfall was finite, just immense. Granted, both of those games featured pretty boring wilderness; a lot of empty space with the occasional town or dungeon. However, given the limitations at the time, it was pretty impressive.

Quantity =/= quality.

The world is bigger, good, it should be. Maybe now everything won't have to be scaled down so ridiculously.

But finding new stuff constantly? I don't like that. Sounds just like PR talk.

Cause that new stuff? Might just be the equivalent of finding a new draughr dungeon in Skyrim.

Next they'll go "we have 500 locations in game" and I'll cringe.

You mean mapmarker in every corner like New Vegas? Yeah thats a unfair method and to laugh about gladly Bethesda avoided that nonsens in their previous games.

NV and Skyrim were both at fault.

NV because it had too many map markers for things not worth map markets.

And Skyrim because it tried to actually put a dungeon at each of its map markers.

I'd rather there only be like 20 proper dungeons and for all of them to be well designed than to have 200 dungeons that are copy pasta's of one another.

And I'd rather there only be 50 map markers than trying to squeeze in a map marker for a freaking rock. (Seriously, NV has a map marker for a rock)

This is also true of Morrowind.

Their "...most massive and ambitious gameworld..." will, imho, be twice the size of Skyrim at least. Throw in the inevitable DLCs, a poosible quest generator, perhaps random spawning of enemy NPCs (the latter is a guess) to increase replayability, and let's just say that fans of the genre won't be screaming for news on Fallout 5 for years to come. I could also mention a possible "Fallout New Vegas 2", but thats TBD. In any event, Bethesda will deliver, and Fallout 4 will satisfy the overwhelming majority.

Nice try.. actually are map markers put on dungeons not the other way around. But I agree in contrary to Fallout 3 felt Skyrims dungeons horrible repetetive. Sorry draugr as main monster and the same assets all over again is boring.

I don't know. To be honest, I thought Fallout 3 and New Vegas needed more caves and abandoned buildings (especially outside D.C.) to explore. It kind of felt like each internal location was almost "one of a kind". Which sounds good in theory, but the player had no way of experiencing the awesomeness of, say, the Super-Duper Mart after they'd cleared it out for the first time.

And if they put in a bunch of repetitive cave systems throughout the map and place a marker on each of them? Fine by me. I'll gobble them all up greedily. The more the merrier, I say. Obviously, if that means sacrificing more important aspects of the world and gameplay, then maybe I'd change my opinion. But if you handed the two options to me on a plate I'd take the one where the world is overpopulated with little interiors to explore.

I completely agree. I want more experiences like the Super Duper Mart, or the trapped convenience store. There was a mod for FO3 called "DC Interiors" that added a lot of rich detail to DC, with unique shops and environmental storytelling.

And like you, I loved Skyrim's dungeons. I have 700+ hours in Skyrim and I'm still finding new things. (I also liked how the Dawnguard DLC didn't add just add a new world space, but sprinkled new locations and dungeons throughout the main map.) If FO4 is bigger and packed with more stuff, I'm going to be in Heaven.

DC Interiors is great. And I agree - I'd rather have a bunch of procedurally generated dungeons to explore than not have them at all, especially if we're not giving much of anything up to get them.

Interior mods are the best. I hate boarded up buildings because logically it wouldn't happen. One who is going to board them up and two after the war they'll be broken into by the survivors of the war.

I especially liked the buildings in the DC wasteland that had no doors. I guess the Vault-Tec salesmen really pissed them off!

Fallout 3 had a lot of illogical things that dealt with buildings and roads. Being the type who pays attention to details, even minor ones like this, drove me nuts. Roads that dead end into a house, buildings with no doors, buildings boarded up, a catwalk that leads to no door to the other building, etc.

The key word I dislike is "dense", can't help but think of the starwars prequels and the redlettermedia review.

"Onscreen everything is so dense using the greenscreen we can add so much"

Something along the lines is what the director said.