tomomi1922 Posted January 18, 2016 Author Share Posted January 18, 2016 It true GTA v is bigger, but fallout 4 is more detailed.It doesn't matter how big the map is, it what in it. Sadly, fallout 4 doesn't have that many quests. True, if you count building to building, Fallout 4 probably has more content. I mean, probably more raiders inside. GTA5 you can't just go into any building. Probably 1 building for every 10 or 20 to allow you to go in with something going on side (or even just for a quest duration). I haven't played GTA5 that much, mainly because such a game is not my style: a lot of random violence and crazy driving that always end up with the police surrounding you. I tried all the mini games I could find, not that appealing. But still, for a modern city feel, I felt very adequate in that game. Free roaming around in my motorcycle (I find motorcyle much easier to drive without wrecking) as if I really can do that in real life. I often put a mental note NOT to play GTA 5 before I head out. Otherwise I may decide to run a red light and cut through the islands... because that is perfectly legal in GTA 5. But psychology wise, it does feel somewhat limiting if the map is small. Dragon Age Origins is all about questing with so many locations (even the game is not an open world model), and I felt fine. Their zones feel adequate. Dragon Age 2 consists 99% in Kirkwark city (and its surrounding). The game may have just as many zones as the first game, but I already feel I am being confined into just this city. One of the reason I didn't like that game too much. Fallout 4 does seem to have more "content per feet" like in downtown Boston with all the house to house urban combat. That I love. But for the rest of the map, if I haven't complained about it is "too far to get to that place"... then the map feels small. I realize gamers will complain about everything, but there is good complaint and bad complaint. The good complaint is when we feel it's too far to walk, but deep down we feel excited to have such a big world. That complaint I don't mind having. When I first started FO NV I had such complaint, the world there felt A LOT farther between places that gave me this immersive wasteland feel. Personally I never liked Fallout franchise at the first place. Exploring ruins and big meadows, fighting dragons, cool. Venturing into modern city to do special ops, sure. But exploring a dead city full of rubles and trash ... Can't be too appealing. But since I was done with Mass Effect, I gave it a try, and fell in love. The settlement building is great, almost like Sims 3, but the game is not as broken as Sims 3 (take 10-30 minutes to load, crash and corrupt save is a daily thing, nothing to be alarmed about). All the ENB helps a ton. If not for FO4, I would have gone back to Skyrim. But now, with FO4, I spent an entire month and barely got to Glowing Sea. So much modding to do, haha. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainPatch Posted January 18, 2016 Share Posted January 18, 2016 Boston, on the other hand, IS the map of the game. So it is really apple and orange to compare one Skyrim's city to Boston. Like LA for example, people say LA is huge, but in reality it is a combination of a dozen cities all connected to each other. You can keep driving and driving and never get out to the suburb. In terms of city proper, Boston is actually bigger than LA: 4,497 square km to 4,320 square km. http://www.citymayors.com/statistics/largest-cities-area-125.html But in RL, the population of LA is nearly 3 times greater than the population of Boston. When you start to factor in the satellite communities that ring major cities to make what constitutes the Metro area, the area covered in HUGE. Washington DC is several slots down the list, comprising just 2,996 square km. Still, all three cities are, in fact, in the top _11_ largest cities in the world. (WDC being #11.) If you want to compare apples to apples, then compare FO3's Metro Washington DC to FO4's Metro Boston. The feel that I get is that the population of Boston is > the population of Washington DC. As for a building count, it feels to be about the same for both cities to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyDungas Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 I would have made Boston take up the entire map instead of shoehorning in Concord, Lexington and Salem tbh. Save the nature stuff for a western MA dlc where the wilderness could actually be cool and not just patches of trees separating roads and what not Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boombro Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 Please no, that will make the contact even more shallow.Bigger maps are hardly good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainPatch Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 I would have made Boston take up the entire map instead of shoehorning in Concord, Lexington and Salem tbh. Save the nature stuff for a western MA dlc where the wilderness could actually be cool and not just patches of trees separating roads and what notCommunity-wise, I think they wanted to have distinct zones for "rural lifestyle", "suburbs lifestyle," and "urban lifestyle" in both games. Compare the areas around Concord and Megaton. Then compare the areas around Bethesda and Bunker Hill. Then lastly compare downtown DC with downtown Boston. The tighter people are jammed in next to each other, the more friction is evident. We wouldn't be able to see that differentiation as well if the rural areas were deleted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomomi1922 Posted January 20, 2016 Author Share Posted January 20, 2016 Please no, that will make the contact even more shallow.Bigger maps are hardly good. I am not advocating having miles and miles of emptiness, but the vastness feel of the map really tune the players' psychology that they are indeed in a real world of wasteland, distancing from the thought of "this is a mere sandbox". The emptiness is to enhance the content. If every inch of the map is filled with content, it will be quite suffocating and claustrophobic. So, less is more. And for FO4 ... a bigger map doesn't hurt anyone. More room for future content and further selling the players that they are in the "waste land". Remember watching Walking Dead? What makes it immersive is the vast landscape that our beloved characters have to march through, with "goodies" far and few in between. And the "between" is just full of "wasteland" of broken cars, trash, and occasional pockets of zombies (but not constant fighting non-stop with every inch of the land). That is how to make one immersive wasteland = the loneliness of a destroyed world. In advertisement, sometimes the clients complain "why so many empty area?" (called white space) that we pay top dollars for the entire billboard/magazine page and all you have in there is about 20% of content with 80% blank? So the advertising agency replies "try filling the entire page will content, you will never get this message across the consumers". Below is an example: http://www.graphic-design.com/DTG/Design/headlines/think_small.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boombro Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 We want bigger maps for content. Not less. You also have subways, underwater, and multi leveled buildings. Fo4 has emptiness. A lot of it. It doesn't work with beth style at all as we all can see in the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainPatch Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 Given that subsequent generations apparently have done ZERO reconstruction or clean up, what is missing is not so much the space between communities and residences, but rather an incredible amount of rubble and ruins. Nature -- especially a Nature adversely affected by lethal levels of radiation -- would only do so much to obscure rubble and ruins. Erosion, corrosion, deterioration, might wear down more organic building materials like wood. But stone, brickwork, steel, iron, etc. would most likely still be evident, at least in our ability to recognize, "That there was man-made." Personally, I feel that the size of the map places a lot of intolerant "neighbors" up against each other. For example, having Raiders on one block and Supermutants on the very next block that would have resulted in the eradication of one group or the other in less than a week. The only ways that you can reduce that kind of friction is by either seriously reducing the population, or else by putting a lot of distance between opposing groups = Bigger Map. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JuJooGuppy Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 FO4 isnt so much lacking in size to me, its just lacking in meaty side quests this time. I loved the main story overall compared to 3 and skyrims, but the side quests are nowhere near on par with previous bethesda titles. Skyrim has entire guilds w/ storylines... the type of thing this game shouldve had. Being evil and joining a raider gang and helping them rise instead of the minutemen, or joining the gunners, or maybe some secret society, or perhaps a "dark brotherhood" of the wasteland. etc. More side quests :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boombro Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 , but the side quests are nowhere near on par with previous bethesda titles. I'm sure some side quests of fo4 are better than Skyrim side quests. Like Sliver and SS quests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts