Due to discussions in recent threads, I'm curious how many folks would prefer it if the Fallout series went back to some kind of node-based world experience, like in FO1 and 2- where all the action occurrs in smaller, defined locations and traveling between them is something you don't experience firsthand? (other than dropping out of it sometimes for random encounters like in the originals, of course)

And how many would prefer that it stick with the current open-world style of FO3 and FONV, where you can walk pretty much anywhere you choose and don't even have to use fast-travel if you choose not to?

We've done this before, and open world will win, this is the Bethesda forums, after all, most of the people here were introduced through TES.

Open world.

How about a mix of both?!

Unfair poll.Me (like many more I'm guessing) didn't play FO1, or FO2.

That's what we've been suggesting, a node based map with HH-sized sandbox nodes, but people see "node" and automatically assume wanting to throw out sandbox completely.

Open world. I don't dislike the node system, quite the opposite, but I prefer open world when push comes to shove.

A mix of both, an option at the beginning. Node based or open world. That way the only people who will whine are the people who can't accept something they don't like but can avoid using being in the game.

Not forcing you to vote

If you don't have enough knowledge of the older node-based style to make a comparison, feel free to abstain if you like.

Um, how exactly would they do that? That's like having to make two different games in one.

This sounds like the perfect way to do it, and I would love to see that implemented in the next game.

Why should we go back to 1-2 fallout style maps the engine couldn't handle what it can in todays world.

It could be done like Daggerfall, where it is essentially a node-based world with randomly-generated open world in between nodes.

I don't think anyone actually walked anywhere in Daggerfall though, hehe.

I am curious what people see as the advantage in a node-based world though, since we've sort of moved past it technologically. Do you like it due to the sense of a larger world it creates?

That's exactly what we have been suggesting, because it lets have the sandboxes people like, a very very large world, and the devs don't have to fill gaps inbetween places with filler content, they can take their time on individual nodes, like time spent on DLC maps, but there would still be randomly generated terrain for random encounters, and Bethesda could speck the map all over with special encounter locations like cave systems or bunkers or raider bases to please TES fans with combat and explorative dungeon crawling, and having outdoorsman skill would allow people who dont like that to avoid them.


Actually, no they cant, the 1-2 Fallout style maps could cover entire states, Tactics covered several states, the "today's world engine" cant even handle an entire city without scaling it down horrendously.

Nodes for me. They allow for much more varied and concentrated content to be plausibly implemented without sacrificing other elements.

There is no mix of both, there is either a sandbox or a nodemap. The size of the nodes is, I believe, the key element here. A nodemap doesn't mean "no/less exploration" or "less content" -- a well implemented nodesystem can adhere to both parties (whereas I think a sandbox can't so well -- or at least as well -- due to the size-content ratio).

I wish it would go back to node based, I mean I like open world and all, but node based means larger world maps, and generally more to do.

but most people will vote open world out of bias because they have not played Fallout 1 or 2 :sadvaultboy:

This
I agree wholeheartedly, but some people will say we are biased because we played FO 1&2.

Well if you had it like assassins creed there would be a very large area. Hell you could probably cover 3 states just by using that.

You see I am not biased because I have played them all (in fact I played Fallout 3 first), except BoS, but that doesn't count so who cares.

Yeah, I like this whole large nodes to explore idea a lot. I would love to be able to explore a couple of vastly different locations spread apart by the node system.

If they properly do it, it would probably be the best game ever.

If they could do something like Rockstar does with its maps it could be cool. To go to a map nodes system I d need 3 nodes as big as fo nv.

I d like it because it covers more ground, but the world would not be as overwhelming as fo3. fo3 reminded me of DC. I felt like I was there. Map nodes in its old school form would take that feeling away.

Bethesda seems very good at making incredable open worlds. I think it is best if they stay with that. Unless the new engine can handle 2 or 3 fo nv sized nodes. Which would be a tall glass to order.

I feel exactly the opposite, I really don't like the whole single sandbox world because everything is horrendously scaled down, DC is tiny and "isolated" settlements are seriously only less than a minute away.

Setting your standards a tad high I see.

You know what they say about the greedy...

With a node system spanning a state or more, having 4-5 vaults in a game would be more plausible rather than just thrown in a small area for fanservice. If that keeps up we will be running out of vaults.

Your greedy?

This is how I feel as well, although I would say there there actually can be both.

The node system would be for traveling between locations, while the sandbox part would be for while you're in one of them. I'm sure some folks would complain that that's not really sandboxing, but then you can't please all the people all of the time.

Perhaps the single biggest benefit of node-system travel is the ability to have endless opportunities for random encounters during one's journeys while not clogging up the fixed locations in the process. You wouldn't be able to walk directly from location to location, but a node system allows for truly massive world maps with tons of locations, so you wouldn't really miss much in the exchange.