. . . Maybe someone mentioned it in the back and forth of the last few pages of shit flinging, but comparing the development and number of settlements of people between FO1/2 and FO3/4 is inherently flawed, and not due to the different developers, but due to an entirely different issue that it appears everyone has forgotten:
The scale of the maps. This isn't even a minor difference. Fallout 3's map isn't even 8500 sq miles, Fallout 4 covers around 9700 sq. miles. Fallout 1's map? Nearly 61,000 Sq miles. Fallout 2? Just over 126,000 Sq miles. This is REAL LIFE area, not "in game" map size.
So yeah, no duh would FO1 and FO2 have more development, more different locations, and see more rebuilding they're covering MASSIVELY more area than FO3 and FO4. To give a comparison, to cover a similar region size to FO2 while keeping DC roughly centered, FO3 would have covered an area from New York City to Norfolk Virginia.
Are we starting to understand why FO3/4 have less development and rebuilding yet? Complaining about the Capital Wasteland and Boston and its immediate environs being less rebuilt than ALL OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA is just... kinda ridiculous.
The scale of the maps. This isn't even a minor difference. Fallout 3's map isn't even 8500 sq miles, Fallout 4 covers around 9700 sq. miles. Fallout 1's map? Nearly 61,000 Sq miles. Fallout 2? Just over 126,000 Sq miles. This is REAL LIFE area, not "in game" map size.
So yeah, no duh would FO1 and FO2 have more development, more different locations, and see more rebuilding they're covering MASSIVELY more area than FO3 and FO4. To give a comparison, to cover a similar region size to FO2 while keeping DC roughly centered, FO3 would have covered an area from New York City to Norfolk Virginia.
Are we starting to understand why FO3/4 have less development and rebuilding yet? Complaining about the Capital Wasteland and Boston and its immediate environs being less rebuilt than ALL OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA is just... kinda ridiculous.