Skip to content
Azriel wrote:It would be cool if they did introduce some mixed transportation technology, like steam powered trains connecting two hubs(a fun fast travel system), but the trains are run by criminals/slaves(who die from work exhuastion and replaced) and are policed by robot guards. You know, crazy retro future stuff that fallout missed out on.
PancreaticDefect wrote:In my opinion the Great Lakes region would make a good setting. People would naturally migrate toward the freshwater resources of the region. There would be dozens of settlements around whats left of the lakes and it would also solve the transportation issue with lake ferries and riverboats carrying people and goods all over the region. Chicago and Detroit could be a dangerous irradiated ruins for higher level parties with the smaller communities on the many lakes and rivers in between progressively more difficult as you travel toward the remains of the big cities. I know Fallout Tactics took place in the Great Lakes region but that doesn't make it any less reasonable as a setting. Hell, they could just model a post apocalyptic Detroit on the current state of the city and people would believe it.
gool wrote:Really, no. The opposite, in fact. A small, highly detailed region is much better than big for big's sake.
Drool wrote:Hope there's nothing important going on. LA to DC is about 2600 miles. At an average walking speed of 2.8 miles per hour, and 12 hours of walking per day, it'll only take 77 days or so to make the walk.
Of course, that's just a straight jaunt down I90. For all of North America... well... covering 9,540,000 square miles is a bit of a task. Not only is it a huge amount of work just to populate that much territory in a game, but the task of adventuring across it is, well, a little absurd. Bethesda's Arena covers an entire continent and is frequently considered to have breadth but very little depth and it "only" covered 2.3 million square miles of randomly generated continent. Daggerfall, generally regarded as being freaking enormous, was only about 161,000 square miles.
To be blunt, having a game cover an entire continent is simply too big. Too big to code, too big to write for, and far, far too big to play in.
Edit: Skyrim looks to be about 16 square miles, for comparison.
I disagree. I believe that Wasteland can easily portray all of the Post Apocalyptic changes to North America, even the world on a grand scale. Remember this is a top down isometric view. You can easily zoom out to a world view Map and Travel then zoom in to a close scale tactical map for Cities, Towns, Special points of interest and for encounters. This is not a first Person game where you have to plot the location of every rock and tree. When you look at epic stories such as the Lord of the Rings, The fellowship just didn't walk around the Shire.
Bob wrote:I think focus should be on a highly detailed region (wherever they choose for that to be). As they get more money and have time they should expand the map as much as possible while retaining detail.
jurbanek wrote:Bob wrote:I think focus should be on a highly detailed region (wherever they choose for that to be). As they get more money and have time they should expand the map as much as possible while retaining detail.
How large and how detailed of an area are you thinking we should have?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest