Fallout 3 world smaller than Oblivion's

By Robert Purchese Published 15 February, 2008

Up to half the size, apparently.

Bethesda mouth Pete Hines has said Fallout 3 will have a much smaller game world than Oblivion - around 50 to 80 per cent of its size.

"The world is much smaller than Oblivion, but packed with stuff to do. We've never bothered to walk across the world, but it's between 50 to 80 per cent of the size of Oblivion," Hines told Gameplayer.

"One thing we did well in Oblivion was the relative distance between you and things to do in the world. Drop a ball on the map and there's stuff to do within a certain distance. A world of endless space and meaningless walking is just not fun."

It reinforces what he told Eurogamer last August - that Fallout 3 will be much more freeform than Oblivion and will revolve around good/evil choices, with nine to 12 different endings to suit various play styles.

He also revealed that the main quest will be about 20 hours long, with 20 hours of side-quests and a yet-to-be-determined amount of hours for miscellaneous quests. Unlike Oblivion, you will have to play through at least a couple of times to unlock all the Achievements, too .

Fallout 3 is a post-apocalyptic role-playing game that sees you exploring a world devastated by nuclear bombs and strange scientists.

Among its boasts are fancy graphics and a combat system where you queue up a string of attacks rather than standing there swinging your sword aimlessly for five minutes.

Pop over to our interview to hear more, or just head straight to the gamepage for shots and videos.

Picture of Robert.

About Robert Purchese

Bertie is Eurogamer's Senior Staff Writer. When he's not hunting down news stories he's often found playing with his kids or gabbling about fantasy games and strange online worlds.

Read more articles from Robert by visiting the Robert Purchese archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (45) Latest comment 4 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • Darren #1 4 years ago

    Sounds great... Oblivion is my favourite game of all-time so I cannot wait to play Fallout 3 from the same developers.

  • LetsGo #2 4 years ago

    Sounds like what Fable was meant to be....


    cool!

  • kestral #3 4 years ago

    Jeremy Kyle mode:
    Size doesn't matter if there's enough to do it doesn't matter how large physically it is.
    right?
    right!
    Fallout 3 ladies and gentlemen on the jeremy kyle show.

  • kestral #4 4 years ago

    Also:
    @ Among its boasts are fancy graphics and a combat system where you queue up a string of attacks rather than standing there swinging your sword aimlessly for five minutes.

    Instead you'll qeue a series of attacks for 10 seconds then go and get a cuppa! Loving it.
    Edited by 1 at 15/02/08 @ 11:05

  • Mr_Brown #5 4 years ago

    Looks interesting...never played a Gallout game before. Would I enjoy this if I liked Oblvion?

  • MBar #6 4 years ago

    50 to 80% ...

    Well, I suppose it's good that he's at least being accurate about it ...

  • magicpanda #7 4 years ago

    The Fallout Ubernerds will be here shortly. Leave while you can.

  • Roamer #8 4 years ago

    Oblivion was great, with only two major faults, almost dealbreakers - a 1st person perspective (stupid for a roleplaying game) and an idiotic levelling system wherein you didn't become more powerful because every creature in the game levelled with you.

    Fallout 3 should be good, although I'm still disappointed with the choice of perspective and the lack of a true turn-based combat system. I don't know why developers are abandoning the turn-based games, I quite like the measured approach those games require - both stratety games and roleplaying games.

  • UncleLou #9 4 years ago

    Oblivion was great, with only two major faults, almost dealbreakers - a 1st person perspective (stupid for a roleplaying game)

    I loved the FPS perspective, particularly the melee combat, while a bit simple, was quite impressive.


    As for Fallout 3, I hope there are nonetheless some desolate deserts to cross!

    A world of endless space and meaningless walking is just not fun."


    Wrong, it can help the atmosphere a lot, especially in a post-apocalyptic world.
    Edited by 1 at 15/02/08 @ 11:15

  • Tonka #10 4 years ago

    If this is news my real name is Jõse Marracas

  • nickthegun #11 4 years ago

    Are these going to be KoTOR good/evil choices or Bioshock good/evil choices?

  • muscleblade #12 4 years ago

    Good news. Oblivion was a shore.

  • Zomoniac #13 4 years ago

    Since Oblivion's big problem was it was far too big, with vast areas of nothing but tedium, I fail to see how reducing the size can be a bad thing.

  • Eraysor #14 4 years ago

    This game will eat my face.

  • UncleLou #15 4 years ago

    Well, I had by far the most fun in Oblivion when I wasn't doing any quests or following the main story, but just wandering about, killing mobs and stumbling upon dungeons, using the landscape as a sandbox. I don't need something important to do at every corner.

  • Xerx3s #16 4 years ago

    Oblivion was already quite small and Fallout has cars. Doesn't bode well.

  • jack_klugman #17 4 years ago

    The notion of "freeform" meaning multiple endings and the requirement to play a game several times to unlock all its content is not my idea of glorious fun. Give me a BioShock or even a Grand Theft Auto over this type of approach any day. I find the breadth of choice stressful, rather than liberating. That said, Fallout 3 is looking very promissing. I imagine I'll enjoy it, just less than I would like.

  • Katsumoto #18 4 years ago

    Why don't they just do what they did in Fallout 1 or 2, and have a giant world map to walk across (from an uber zoomed out perspective), with random encounters etc until you find a town/settlement/other thing. They've already said all the towns are self-contained, a la Oblivion, so I don't see why they can't.

    It's hardly going to convey the uber-desolation of a post-apocalyptic America if there is someone handing out quests every 10 metres and you can only explore central DC.

    Hopefully when they say half of Oblivion they do mean just in terms of the explorable areas, and there will be some sort of world map equivalent.

    edit: Bethesda do all claim to be hardcore Fallout fans, so i'm hoping they really mean it when they say theyre not just making "Oblivion with guns". I hope (as much as I liked Oblivion) that the fact they made Oblivion as well is just a coincidence, rather than a defining factor in any way.

    edit2: By that, btw, I don't mean i'm one of those fans who is angry that it's 1st person and real time, etc. I'm sure it will work well. I just don't want them to lose the fundamentals of what Fallout is about.
    Edited by 2 at 15/02/08 @ 11:28

  • miiiguel #19 4 years ago

    Does size realy matter ?

  • Darren #20 4 years ago

    @Roamer - I felt that the first-person mode in Oblivion worked far better than any third-person one because it put ME into the game such that I was completely immersed in the game world and surely that's what a real role-playing experience should be all about?

  • Andy247 #21 4 years ago

    Oblivion was great, with only two major faults, almost dealbreakers - a 1st person perspective (stupid for a roleplaying game) and an idiotic levelling system wherein you didn't become more powerful because every creature in the game levelled with you.

    I disagree with these comments, all the great RPG games, even going back to Eye of the Beholder etc. have a first person perspective. A third person perspective better suits an action orientated game in my opinion, not an RPG.
    Also, the creatures only level up with you to a certain point, around level 20 if memory serves, maybe even sooner, and then they stop.

    Oblivion has been one of the standout games of the last few years, taking a genre that was quite tired and breathing new life into it. Although if it's even partly responsible for inspiring Two Worlds then it's not all good!

  • UncleLou #22 4 years ago

    The notion of "freeform" meaning multiple endings and the requirement to play a game several times to unlock all its content is not my idea of glorious fun. Give me a BioShock or even a Grand Theft Auto over this type of approach any day.

    Not really a valid criticism, as you're criticising the genre for what it does best when it's done right. Excuse my brashness, but I'd prefer if people with your genre preferences would rather shut up as you're endangering an anyhow rare species of games with suggestions of further simplification and less choice. ;)

  • Metalfish #23 4 years ago

    The creature leveling thing was a bit lame, they should have just avoided introducing the really powerful creatures until you've leveled up a few times so you know how the game works.

    I'm looking forward to this, but I don't think oblivion was too big, if you were stupid enough to pick up everything you saw and crawl along the map in full heavy armor with no athletic ability, then perhaps it did feel too big....

  • AHiFi #24 4 years ago

    This is news? I read this a couple of months back in the Official 360 mag...=/

  • UncleLou #25 4 years ago

    This thread is as good as anyone to show that being a dev must be a nightmare. :p

    Some people want an isometric game, some a first-person or third-person game, some want turn-based combat, some want real-time combat, some want bigger maps, some want smaller maps, some want it to be fairly non-linear with lots of choice, some want a more linear game...

  • Tonka #26 4 years ago

    I just want news to be news.

  • Olemak #27 4 years ago

    I'm playing Oblivion right now, just got the GOTY edition for PS3, and that includes all the expansions. That entails that there is a LOT of stuff going on, a lot of content to play around with. If Fallout 3 will be anything like it, there'll be plenty to do. Don't matter if the world is slightly smaller, the Oblivion world map seems a bit overwhelming to me; can't see myself exploring all of it even though I'll certainly pay a visit to all the cities. Probably own a house in each city too.

    Fallout 3 needs cars, of course, and some nice stretches of road to drive on. Shouldn't be hard to do, as they already did horses well in Oblivion and that's basically the same thing. Vehicular combat would be cool, though. A bit of Mad Max road warrior action.

    But what's this whining about first person perspective in Oblivion? You press a button (the "R3 button" on the PS3) and presto, the camera switches from 1st person to 3rd person. If that is one of two objections against the game, then, well...

    As for the leveling thing: yes, I see that. Then again, it keeps the challenge level even, and it does allow the player to do whatever he or she wants in any order. So it takes away some player feeling of awsomeness in some areas (and a lot of the feeling of inadequacy in other areas) , but it adds a lot of freedom, while keeping the game challenging at all times.

    Ot the other hand, it is pretty easy to "cheat" in this game, there's a lot of stuff the player can do to totally screw up the balance and just waltz through pretty much any quest or dungeon, so I don't really agree on this objection. I like Oblivion a LOT more than Morrowind, which totally bored me to death. Absolutely a defensible 10/10, even by todays standards - the game is after all more than 2 years old now. If Fallout 3 will be even more evolved, then it will blow me away.

    The "smaller than Oblivion" does not bother me at all. The "even better and cooler than Oblivion" part is a little bit scary, tho.
    Edited by 1 at 15/02/08 @ 11:56

  • Katsumoto #28 4 years ago

    They can do whatever they want with it, providing i) You can star in a porn film ii) You can sell your wife into slavery and iii) there's a world map! The three most important elements to carry over from the last game, surely.

  • UncleLou #29 4 years ago

    Heh. :-)

    I seriously doubt there'll be a worldmap - I agree that it would probably help a lot in conveying a sense of vastness, more so than stumbling upon another village or town every 2 minutes, but it just doesn't sound like Bethesda at all. And I bet they'd get shot down for not delivering a seamless world.

  • Katsumoto #30 4 years ago

    I fear you're right. I do hope they have some way of getting around it, though. I don't want to be able to cross Virginia in an hour!

  • jack_klugman #31 4 years ago

    UncleLou - Not a criticism, just personal taste. Obviously.

  • The_Aardvark #32 4 years ago

    Here's hoping that they ditch scaling enemies in favour of a world that opens up to you a bit at a time

  • Turambar #33 4 years ago

    Well as long as the "lots to do" doesn't amount to the same "lots to do" in Oblivion i.e a bunch of boring shite (Oblivion gates i'm looking at you).

  • ParanoidZombie #34 4 years ago

    If oblivion is "utter shite" or "boring shite", well I'll gladly eat "shite" for the rest of my gaming days.
    50% of oblivion's cyrodiil = shivering isles, right? I hope F3's world will be closer to 80%, then, because SI felt kinda smallish to me (the size was right for an expansion pack, though).

  • GitSomE_UK #35 4 years ago

    /giddy

  • mkreku #36 4 years ago

    "A world of endless space and meaningless walking is just not fun."

    Please don't try to tell me what I think is fun or not, you Elder Scrolls-franchise destroyer you. I happen to LOVE exploring stuff even if it happens to have no relevance what-so-ever to the main story. Imagine that!

    I've been trying to keep a positive mind about Fallout 3, but it's getting ridiculously hard.. Everything this guy says annoys me!

  • john_silence #37 4 years ago

    Yes but, my friends, fear has a name: Gamebryo. The engine that brought us men who looked like deformed donkeys and women whose faces mimicked strangely-shapped carrots.
    I'm sure Bethesda will nail the map/environment part of the game well, as they've done ever since Arena. But I fear the general graphical sloppiness of their engine and the prospect of interactions with more donkeys and carrots (and rounded courgettes - let's not forget the orcs).
    Based on such a "human" cast, imagine what the mutants' faces will be like!

  • Xerx3s #38 4 years ago

    "Does size realy matter ? "

    Trust me, it does.

    "Please don't try to tell me what I think is fun or not, you Elder Scrolls-franchise destroyer you. I happen to LOVE exploring stuff even if it happens to have no relevance what-so-ever to the main story. Imagine that! "

    +1 The reason that I'm still playing Oblivion today is just because I cruise about the landscape a bit, find a random dungeon or quest and keep me busy with that. The 'no goal/strings attached' gameplay is very relaxing.

    john_silence: The ES series has always been known for two things. 1) totally free gameplay with worlds unlike others. 2) Completely shitty engines that crash every 5 seconds. The ES may be far from perfect but I will take it with all it's flaws over most other RPG's any day of the week.

  • john_silence #39 4 years ago

    @Xerx3s: I would have totally agreed with you a few years ago, when the memory of the dozens of days I'd spent blithely exploring Arena was still fresh in my mind (ah, the sunsets over the countryside, and the music that never got old - so 1994).
    But Morrowind felt a bit cramped and generic. It stroke a weird balance between a world where there's something to do around every corner and one where you can just roam about aimlessly for the fun of it. Neither worked very well.
    And Oblivion is a game whose gameplay itself managed to be damaged by the graphics, because an RPG about exploration and interaction that fails so utterly at depicting distant landscapes AND characters had a tough time maintaining the immersion.
    Having played through the story-centric Vampire: Bloodlines, and a good bit of The Witcher, which is more exploratory, I'm not so confident about Bethesda as a developer anymore. Fallout feels so mature and special that I have trouble reconciling myself with the idea that it will be handled by the same people who put out the generic fantasy world of Oblivion.
    Go go donkeys though.

  • Tomo #40 4 years ago

    My mild OCD approves of this news.

  • Roamer #41 4 years ago

    @Darren: Surely the point of an RPG must be to take on the role of someone else. I.e. playing a role...? Besides, I like to... er.. play dress-up with my character - I think it's cool to have that powerful new armor visually represented while playing. In fact, in the original Fallout I kept the leather jacket for the look even though I had better armor in my inventory.

    Who said that all great role-playing games are in 1st person? Can't be bothered sifting though the thread again, but that's just crazy talk.

  • Lutz #42 4 years ago

    Note to people saying Oblivion was FPS... it was also 3rd person... ?

    Assuming you're playing on 360, press the right analgue stick down. (Might be left, but I'm sure it's the right one)

  • DoKtoR #43 4 years ago

    I didn't think a post-apocalyptic world would be anything but mostly empty space?

    Shouldn't it be set in a world that's a radioactive wasteland, ala Mad Max?

  • Lemming81 #44 4 years ago

    Although I did get bored of Oblivion, everyone here arguing about the first-person perspective knew it was just one option right? You could zoom out to third-person at will.

    And the levelling system was cack, but a mod fixed that for me no problem.

    But then...I have a PC, which is apparently a dying format :p

  • kangarootoo #45 4 years ago

    @Roamer

    You know Oblivion had a 3rd person mode option, right?