FO4

[Jim Cojones]

Fallout 1: South California.
Fallout 2: North California, south Oregon and west Nevada.
Van Buren: East Nevada, Colorado, Utah, New Mexico and Arizona.
Fallout 3 = Downtown Washington DC and the surrounding desert. WTF?

It will be horribly boring to go from Boneyard to the Glow by foot. Bethesda isn't interested in making any other RPG than open-world FPP sandbox game so relatively small and crowded world is the only thing which we can expect from their game.

It should be obvious that developer's preferences are much more important than some bullshit like postapocalyptic feeling of desolated world.

 

[Herr Mike]

The previous games felt less desolate than Fallout 3, considering you never actually walked through the wasteland. You just made a straight red line to wherever you wanted to go. Quite an abstraction. If you did stop, it was because something was attacking you. Otherwise you just jumped from settlement to settlement.

You just didn't get an idea of the scale of things like you did in FO3. I'm not saying they should have done it differently in the previous games, as it worked fine. I'm not sure what they could have done differently given the limitations of the technology.

Anyway, the actual wasteland is far better represented in FO3 if you ask me, since it is actually represented.

 

[rcorporon]

Anyway, the actual wasteland is far better represented in FO3 if you ask me, since it is actually represented.

I'll take the "red line" rather than having cities within spitting distance of each other.

Fo3 is much, much too crowded, and destroys any sense of believability.

 

[Public]

The previous games felt less desolate than Fallout 3, considering you never actually walked through the wasteland.

Fallout wasn't meant to be a Walking on the Wasteland Simulator. You would have to spent hours to go from, for example, Vault City to Gecko, and days would have passed for a trip to New Reno.

Fallout 3's map is of the size of a playground, and in FO1 & 2 the map was a proper "World Map".

Bethesda made few steps backwards.

 

[Herr Mike]

Whatever. It feels like the wasteland to me.

 

[Fade]

The previous games felt less desolate than Fallout 3, considering you never actually walked through the wasteland. You just made a straight red line to wherever you wanted to go. Quite an abstraction. If you did stop, it was because something was attacking you. Otherwise you just jumped from settlement to settlement.

You just didn't get an idea of the scale of things like you did in FO3. I'm not saying they should have done it differently in the previous games, as it worked fine. I'm not sure what they could have done differently given the limitations of the technology.

Anyway, the actual wasteland is far better represented in FO3 if you ask me, since it is actually represented.

All games are an abstraction. It's just a question of how much of one & in what way.

Would spending 120 hours of playtime going from town to town be fun? The answer for most people is "No" so developers use the map to represent that time. You could walk from end to end of Arcanum, but I don't know of anyone who found it fun to do so.

With your message it looks the illusion that Fallout 1 is trying to create of a huge world failed. For most of us Fallout 3 failed because all of the content wasn't far to walk to.

Is the wasteland better represented? I'd say no due to how close everything feels and that clashes with the idea that most of Fallout is empty. That is a personal opinion so who knows in 10 years time it could change.


Something I've been wondering about is:

Does Fallout 3 have more or less Content than Fallout 1?

I don't mean the illusion that the both were trying to create, but if you stack all of the unique parts we can play with does Fallout 3 have more of them?

 

[Crni Vuk]

Wait Beth is capable of learning things!?!?
This is new to me.

Yeah, from playing F3. They improved a lot since Oblivion.

Yes cause they had a aceptable great artwork in front of them.

Let some usual person draw a few hundret times the work or concept art of Michelangelo or Da Vinci and tell me they did not "learned" something in the process (even though they still did not learned how to do work in the same quality as like Da Vinci). I think you know what I mean.