xXxKillaHDxXx
First time out of the vault

I think that the future fallout games should have a larger map size. The bigger the better 

Well, witcher 3 is different setting, vertically stretched map would cause lots of questions.even witcher 3 is one of it
I want to fight a Thresher Maw in a Vertibird, because that would be COOL and BADASS. Yep.They're already as wide as an ocean and as deep as a puddle. Bigger map isn't necessarily better, unless they bring in vehicles and allow us to stunt-jump over legendary ghoul tapeworms.
I think that the future fallout games should have a larger map size. The bigger the emptier.![]()
I wonder what it would be like if the game map was basically a cube with points of interest more-or-less evenly distributed in 3d. I guess to do that the game would pretty much have to take place in a very large and dense urban environment with lots of tall buildings covering the map. And the map footprint would have to be relatively small in order to keep the general game depth at a decent level.what i want is having verticality and dense content per area ratio. having massive map but is single panoramic and empity is over done by lot of open world game. even witcher 3 is one of it
So like the classic Fallout games?I think that the future fallout games should have a larger map size. The bigger the better![]()
Yeah I know that in older games we can't really explore all of the map, but with the random encounters and random maps for those it simulates it quite well for the time.In game units, FO3 is a whopping 4.41 square miles and NV is 4.08 square miles.
In real life FO3 covers about 520 square miles, NV covers 3,720 square miles, FO1 covers around 60,917 square miles and Fallout 2 covers roughly 126,055 square miles.
i would be honored to present you;I wonder what it would be like if the game map was basically a cube with points of interest more-or-less evenly distributed in 3d. I guess to do that the game would pretty much have to take place in a very large and dense urban environment with lots of tall buildings covering the map. And the map footprint would have to be relatively small in order to keep the general game depth at a decent level.
i would be honored to present you;
DOOM and Deus Ex mankind divided map
that two games have damn fully ultilization of what make 3d engine is 3d. you could ask member around here about the Doom Map
as for deus ex MD
starting from 7:22
The terrain (to some degree) and (some) dungeons were procedurally generated, yes.Wasnt daggerfall randomly generated though? I dont care for tons of area that is empty. A world map ala fo1/2/t is far superior to me
I'd say it's a stilistic choice and works towards immersion. The world doesn't feel very dangerous when for example the supermarket that's within spitting distance of you is still unlooted, and that it's the task of the player to do this "dangerous travel". When everything is within a ten minute walk it's just a very small world, and it feels a lot less believable. The point of a really large map is to really get the feeling of isolation, harsh travel and nuclear depopulation.I say what's the point of having a bigger map if you can't bother putting in lots of content(in Bethesda's case)? Only reason to have a bigger map is to boast about how much bigger it is then other game's maps. If I had to choose between a big empty lifeless map or a smaller filled to the limit with content map I would choose the later.
I understand that but the wasteland isn't going to be dangerous fore- nevermind it's Bethesdian Fallout. I don't like how empty and devoid of life it is. Dangerous enemies? Better believe it. Lacking humans? That's ridiculous there's only tens of people left to populate it. When the world is so empty besides these theme park places it just becomes dull and boring. I know people will disagree with me but I'm just sick of these walking/hiking simulators with added pew pew.I'd say it's a stilistic choice and works towards immersion. The world doesn't feel very dangerous when for example the supermarket that's within spitting distance of you is still unlooted, and that it's the task of the player to do this "dangerous travel". When everything is within a ten minute walk it's just a very small world, and it feels a lot less believable. The point of a really large map is to really get the feeling of isolation, harsh travel and nuclear depopulation.
I mean, it's not necessary, but it would be something different. I'm kinda tired of Bethesda-style ubercluttered maps the size of a theme park.
My point is just that if we're gonna have first person perspective we might as well try to get as close to the originals as possible, and make classic map travel a necessity rather than just an amenity, specifically to make it NOT a hiking simulator. Make the map HUGE and wandering around aimlessly will be boring even to the most hardcore RPG hiker.I understand that but the wasteland isn't going to be dangerous fore- nevermind it's Bethesdian Fallout. I don't like how empty and devoid of life it is. Dangerous enemies? Better believe it. Lacking humans? That's ridiculous there's only tens of people left to populate it. When the world is so empty besides these theme park places it just becomes dull and boring. I know people will disagree with me but I'm just sick of these walking/hiking simulators with added pew pew.