**** Official Fallout 4 Thread ****

Looks that way to me the thing is fallout 3 had loads of tunnels and extra places the map doesn't show it was very dense
 
How were they even compiled like that? Resolution? Time to traverse from end to end? Theoretical distance?

There's no way the Skyrim map was that big in comparison to the Fallout 3 map
 
Meh, the people moaning about the map size...

I'd rather have a medium sized map which is densely packed full of buildings to explore/people/mobs/quests/etc. than a huge map which is 50% "nothing".

The Fallout 3 map may be relatively small (compared with more modern games), but it feels big because you can't walk for more than 5 minutes without an encounter or finding a building/sewer/metro to explore, the Skyrim map may be physically bigger, but imo it felt a lot smaller because there are just huge open areas of "nothingness".

I'm not going to argue that the huge vistas and rolling plains in Skyrim didn't look lovely, and it suited the "frozen tundra" setting of the game, but in terms of actual "gameplay", huge empty areas don't really add anything (apart from making fast-travel more attractive ;))

FO4 is set in a city, so it stands to reason that the map should be more densely packed.
 
makemdan said:
Just checked the packaging and it seems my laptop won't play it. Its a core I7 running at 2.8ghz with 8gb ram and a 1 gb graphics card. Trouble is the card is GT525 and the minimum req is GTX550. I'm tempted to buy as I "hear" that there is a refund policy dependant on game time and time limit since sale but that's news to me. I thought my laptop spec gave me a bit of future proofing but maybe not. Don't want to buy a PS4 or XB1 so only solution would be to spec and build a desktop? Any thoughts?
Click to expand...

I think you will have to invest in a serious upgrade on what you have. The gt 525 was a low end gpu when it first came out. If it where me I would sell the laptop and look for a used gaming PC depending on your budget there are plenty about. Get something with a modern mid to upper range gpu though.
 
Agree with what others have said... the physical size of the map is meaningless when you don't know how populated it is. I've always really liked trying to play these games without using fast-travel, as it leads to so many more spontaneous encounters and just helps with the feel of the game (even more so in Skyrim with somthing like the survival mods that mean you can freeze to death from exposure etc... in some cases taking the long journey between two settlements could be as challenging and interesting as a quest on its own!)

(Having said that in Skyrim in particular did feel a bit like a chore at times because as someone above points out such huge areas of the map had so little to see and do in them...)
 
I wouldn't write the game off because of a small map. Yakuza 4 was set in a ridiculously small world compared to other open world titles, yet it's probably my favourite game of all time. It was chock-full of random encounters, side activities, restaurants/clubs to visit, stuff to discover etc.

It's about how you use the map, not how big it is.

I reckon Fallout 4 will be the same in this regard. And the graphics are pretty good as well.
 
I'm just wondering now we have seen more of the games graphics what do you think this means for the recommended spec?. I'm over the requirements so this is just out of curiosity.
To me it looks like the recommended spec should actually for once do a pretty good job at max settings 1080p
 
omnomnom said:
This is going to sound really stupid but...which maps in the above pictures are which ?

Does it go Skyrim at the back, Fallout 4 then the smaller one is Fallout 3 ?

:|
Click to expand...

ICEx21 said:
Not stupid at all man, I was wondering the same thing lol
Click to expand...

I've just fired up the Pipboy app and checked the map in demo mode. The FO4 map is the middle yellow one, so it's in between FO3 and Skyrim map sizes. More than ample.
 
Map size is fine if its that much bigger than FO3 (which had loads of underground areas, chambers, secrets, DLC locations not even on the main map etc etc).
 
I dont agree that a large map size is irrelevant unless it's densely packed with stuff to do.

For one, Skyrim *did* have that. Look at any map of it with all locations discovered. It's ridiculously packed.

Two, large areas add to the atmosphere and the 'feel' of the setting. When an open world map is small, it reduces my immersion somewhat in many cases. Because I feel that it is small. It creates more of a boxed-in feeling than a larger map does.

That said, I had no problems with the size of the FO3 or even New Vegas maps. They were 'big enough' for me, though definitely edging in on the smaller side of things.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom