I got it! The reason why New Vegas doesn't feel so post-apocalyptic as Fallout 3 is that it has so much stuff in it, but the world map is way too small. If they'd go back to the world map we had in the originals, the world wouldn't feel so populated and alive. Anyone agree?

Edit. Wrong forum, oops.

No, it's the lack of the green tinted desolate labyrinth-esque ruins.

New Vegas depicts a post-apocalyptic world that is on the road to recovery, the capital wasteland is much further behind in this regard.

Yes, but as someone in other thread, it starts to resemble 3rd world country simulator. I think the one reason why the Capital Wasteland felt so different was because it was so empty. It also doesn't feel right stumbling into settlements every second minute. So my answer is the old style world map.

Having lots of stuff in it or size of map wouldn't mean it would look more or less post apocalyptic. This part of the US wasn't hit by many nukes (ask House about it - he has the background to this) and this simply means the destructive fallout from the atomic attack in this area is magnitudes less when comparing it to the Capital Wasteland. The lack of nuclear hits in the Mojave gives it a headstart in the recovery process and it appears plenty of homes, communities, animal life and plantlife survived, whereas in Capital Wasteland the settlements look re-built and the enviornment is a dead grey with a scattering of mutated animals roaming around.

So put simply the Mojave doesn't look as post apocalyptic becasue it wasn't nuked as harshly as the Capital Wasteland.

But it's full of everything.

I don't know, man. Running into pockets of areas with very high radiation, seeing rusted cars, broken roads, ruined buildings, and raiders in Mad Max type armor gives any place, let alone New Vegas, a post-apocalyptic feel. Matter of fact, as soon as I wandered around the Mojave Wasteland, first time that came to mind:

"Ahh... feels like I'm playing Fallout 3 again. Except I'm on the West Coast now."

So anyway, even though there seems to be more areas to visit in a smaller map, it still is... you know... post-apocalyptic like. Most of the areas you run into anyway are all run down and stuff. Viper gangster camps, desolated farmlands, vaults, populated camps with unhappy people in it, abandoned camps, abandoned shacks. You know... post-apocalyptic kind of stuff.

Now if we're talking about the world map being small, then I definitely agree with you. But the world being less post-apocalyptic because of more areas condensed in a smaller map?

...I don't know, man.

Map node system?
Yes please.

But I like this open world I have no problem with it being "too small". I bet Fallout 4 will have a brand new and awesome engine so it can be made really big and beautiful and without annoying physics glitches and [censored]

I like the map node system for several reason but the biggest one is that: The world doesn't feel too cramped up.
Imagine New Vegas with 3 more towns the size of Vegas in it.
With this new sandbox map system, we get less locations (As in real towns, Klamath, Den, Junktown, Hub, Adytum, San Fransisco etc) and more useless crap (Oh.. Another dungeon...).
The one thing I love the most over all else in Fallout is the lore.
And don't get me wrong, you could have one room and detail it enough to cover more lore than entire San Fransisco.
But I feel like I want to see more of the world and it's people, see more unique communities and cultures.
Sandbox map just doesn't cut it for me.
Either it's too much of the same thing (Fallout 3: Yay more bombed buildings! New Vegas: Yay more NCR!) or it's cluttered with unique stuff which just makes the world feel like a themepark.

I just wished they would have filled the map like Fallout 3 only about 2/3 of the map is accessible where in fallout 3 about 80% was accessible.

Erm... The map doesn't actually matter, you know that right?
It's how big the actual "game-world" is that matters, not that one can go to the absolute end of the "map".

Do not worry, my swedish friend. Future Fallouts will be developed on a much much better engine, and therefore much better and bigger worlds (hopefully) and really, the "cramped-ness" doesn't bother me that much, there are many locations that in real-life are located quite a bit from eachother but in the game, there's a little road and desert inbetween, and... I like to walk between all the settlements, if the distances were realistically far inbetween no one would be arsed to travel without a vehicle, or we would have what you suggest - you walk out of the borders of a settlement, and you get up the worldmap on which you can travel to other settlements, but not to anything inbetween. I try to ignore the short distances between real-life locations, thinking this is just a game and a completly different world than the one we live in (except for, eh, the whole thing I've just been talking about - real life location)

But meh I guess they could incorporate vehicles/mounts if they made the distances between settlements x5 as big, with of course less to scavenge and explore, so you'd just be driving/riding through a desert, enjoying the post-apoc scenery rather than getting a closer look at it, opening some metal boxes and just discover pre-war food, scrap metal and the occassional bottle cap. ;P

Or... node system.

Needs MOAR node system! :bonk:

what's map node? is that like borderlands or something?

if not, i think they could make the next game like borderlands, each area, even the large outdoorsy areas, are made separated by points and stuff... idk if it is better than what we have in fonv now, but it seems like it would be.

I enjoy the feel of FO New Vegas. If by Originals you mean FO1 and FO2 then yes things would be spaced out more. Settlements would be many days and hundreds of miles apart with nothing but wasteland in between. Can't be done with todays games. If it was done for FO3 then there would be what 2 people for every 400 miles or something like that.

They could always just ditch the whole sandbox aspect and have map grids so that once we enter a town we get our select area to walk around in and when we leave that area we automatically pop up in the world map free to travel. (Like the old games.)
I mean, that could be done right? :vaultboy:

I guess it could but not that many would go for it. Maybe FO4 will alow for much bigger maps.

Like Mount & Blade, but with better graphics, not riding around on a horse with your entire army and taking place in a wasteland without funny knightly music?

In my opinion that system is antiquated and obsolete...

Would you rather stare at a red dot floating on a gray background, or just travel yourself and shoot stuff on the way..? :S

I'd rather play my game than watch a dot move.

I give you props for nostalgia though.

I wouldn't be surprised if it can be done and although that's the style of Fallout I personally would prefer, I expect that those who love the sandbox gaming style to have a hairy fit and go verbally berserk if Fallout went back to it's Map Node origins. Aka I 'must' be able to walk over the hills and explore in person or it breaks their immersion.

@ OmegaDS. The Map Node system is basically islands of content where you can wander your way to via a map, which has 'indiana jones' style travelling (with the dotted lines showing his progress on a map). Whilst travelling in the 'Map Mode' you would have chances of random encounters or even (if your luck was high or low enough) special encounters, you could even decide to change your destination mid journey by selecting/clicking another part of the map and would then start heading that way. The Map when you first started only showed the Village you start in and another 'town' you had been told how to get to, the rest of the locations are undiscovered and thus don't show up on the map. You can 'discover' some/most locations by passing by them so they are within your character radius of view while travelling, other locations you have to be told how to find them.
You can also 'stop' anywhere on the map and have a 'generic' (for the type of terrain you are currently in) location which was usually empty of foes and or loot.

Watch the red dot.
I don't play Fallout for shooting stuff on the side of the road.
Tons of other games where I can do that.


*sigh*
I guess I can only hope for a spin-off like Tactics II or maybe Obsidians next Fallout game. (If there's going to be another Obsidian Fallout game (Which I really hope there will be.))

Well, you don't have to shoot them. And if you get ambushed, well, you get ambushed in Fallout too, only the battlefield is flat an is nothing but sand.

Yup.
But I still like the node system more.

But we could skip the whole watch-a-dot-move-across-a-2D-map-between-green-circles-and-occassionally-the-dot-turns-into-a-lightning thing, we could be a bit more modern than that. Like I said, Mount & Blade travel system but of course with much better graphics, and adapted to the Fallout world and the function it needs. So it could still be a wasteland over a few states, with realistic distances taking several days to travel between settlements, and sometimes you get ambushed by raiders or some faction patrol, and sometimes you find something that might be worth investigate, like some holdout in a mountain pass or something.

Edit: and then when we get to places, we control our character like we do in F3 and F:NV, but with much much better graphics and improved engine, less bugs and better physics... because it's on a new engine, right Beth?