Why First Person Sucks for Fallout: A Unique Perspective

[DraQ]

This thread isn't dead yet. Why?


Anyway, it kind of slipped by me and it's full of fail, so I'll relieve my vitriol glands of some pressure:

At least I think it's unique. The main reason I've been hearing is that first person is bad because of tactical reasons. I.e. turned-based doesn't work well in it, and so it becomes more twitchy.

Wizardry 8.

Also you can't plan as well in first person

Humanity is doomed then.

VD's comment about playing chess in first-person comes to mind.

RPGs are not chess, chess don't have line of sight mechanics, Fallouts have always involved single controllable character, etc.

Now imagine a world map style game done in first person. I used to think it might be alright, but now I don't. If you really think about the areas in the first two games, they are actually quite small. If such a thing was presented in first-person, you would be running into invisible walls all over the place.

Settlements could easily be surrounded by exterior cells generated on the fly, as in Morrowind - no invisible walls. Settlements, or at least patches of interesting and meaningful terrain could be larger.
Also, first person, continuous game area, huge - Daggerfall.

So, since Bethesda was set on making a first-person game, they had to make it all continuous, and...well, I think most of you have seen the result. So that's why first person isn't good for Fallout.

Except they didn't have to, nor the result had to be what it was. In short - you described in great detail why objects heavier than air can't fly. Good job! - the rest is herp and derp.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

replying to old posts fuck yeah

Also you can't plan as well in first person - VD's comment about playing chess in first-person comes to mind.

you needed to plan in fallout? All I had to do during combat was to watch my health so I use stimpacks once in a while and pew pew at the other dudes. You don't even control your party members directly,just your guy; there's no planning at all (except "should I aim for the eyes or not")

Now imagine a world map style game done in first person. I used to think it might be alright, but now I don't. If you really think about the areas in the first two games, they are actually quite small. If such a thing was presented in first-person, you would be running into invisible walls all over the place.

Maybe they could put "fake" barriers. If you look through a cell, you see a blurred horizon, meaning it should take a lot of time to reach the other place. Only you have a quick fade out (or something less iritating) when you cross cells, and when it fades in you're in the other place. As in, the cells are right next to each other but you think you travelled a lot.Just like in the previous 2d iso games (you get out of town, go through a map, arrive at the other town).

Now that I read it, it's very confusing, but I can't find a better way to explain what I'm thinking about.

Maybe like this. I'm thinking about the exit grids of the previous games, only in 1st person you can see over them so they would have to fool you into seeing a large wasteland to cross.I think this would solve the "omg megaton has only 1 brahmin" complaints: show more brahmins and townsfolk "over" the exit grid, but like in the previous games, you skip less important parts of cities so you would only see that they're there, but not interact with them. Would give credibility to the NPC's claims of megaton being a big town and remove the need to actually make a huge ass town, which probably isn't going to happen anyway.

Exactly. If you are willing to accept the invisible walls and ridiculously abstracted world-map travel in Fallout, then there shouldn't be a big problem with incorporating those features into an FP game.



Personally, I don't see a one-sided advantage for the Fallout map style or the Fallout 3 style. The Fallout style is a fine way to abstract large landscapes in a way that the player can understand, but trekking across the FO3 landscape was a lot more fun than watching a little red dot move across the screen.

More or less this, except we still would have the actual travel instead of a red dot, and the world would still look big instead of a theme park (something I don't care that much about, but hey)

 

[spectre]

you needed to plan in fallout? All I had to do during combat was to watch my health so I use stimpacks once in a while and pew pew at the other dudes. You don't even control your party members directly,just your guy; there's no planning at all (except "should I aim for the eyes or not")

You have to plan which enemy to disable first, establish chokepoints (when fighting in buildings and corridors), move around if you or your pals have burst weapons. Even though you don't control your team it's good to check whom they'll attack (based on their settings, it's not rocket science).
Anyways, won't argue that fallout 1 & 2 is the pinnacle of tactics, but it's good to have a clear picture of who stands where. It's more visible when you need/want to keep certain guys alive, like when doing caravan runs.
You just won't get that kind of perspective in fpp.

Maybe they could put "fake" barriers. If you look through a cell, you see a blurred horizon, meaning it should take a lot of time to reach the other place. Only you have a quick fade out (or something less iritating) when you cross cells, and when it fades in you're in the other place. As in, the cells are right next to each other but you think you travelled a lot.Just like in the previous 2d iso games (you get out of town, go through a map, arrive at the other town).

For me the problem lies in the Oblibian's engine. They focus on shit such as soil erosion et al, while back then in moorowind it was (imo) far more superior a times - for one, towns were part of the main map.

Speaking of artificial barriers, it would work if it supported procedurally generated terrain. You could simply put a bit of blank wasteland in between places, so it woul feel more right - not that every place is just minutes of jogging away. Not to mention you would have the option to fast travel (with the red dots and whatnot) or use your own feet and waste a few hours worth of time.
Same for map edges - just put an infinite desert there. Enough to discourage the player.

 

[King Crispy]

Speaking of artificial barriers, it would work if it supported procedurally generated terrain. You could simply put a bit of blank wasteland in between places, so it woul feel more right - not that every place is just minutes of jogging away. Not to mention you would have the option to fast travel (with the red dots and whatnot) or use your own feet and waste a few hours worth of time.
Same for map edges - just put an infinite desert there. Enough to discourage the player.

Yes. Take Fallout 3's entire map and stretch it to cover maybe 100 times its current size, keeping the number of encounters and inhabited locations the same, especially the city area (which felt right). Also keep it flat! I've never been to DC actually, but that sure is one hilly m-f'in landscape. Now you've got nothing but hours of desolate waste between settlements. You've also got the proper feeling of desparate loneliness a true nuclear wasteland should incite. This not only is possible using today's PC's but I think would actually decrease the frequency of detailed area loading, cutting down on that loading-induced gamelag.

Want to get to the next town easily and safely without actually having to walk there? Hire on with the next caravan, which is a fast-travel option (you instantly arrive there, without the benefit of finding any hidden locations in-between). Obviously, Morrowind had something similar to this and it was good. Throw in some interesting random encounters with raiders where you must defend your caravan, possibly earning some caps along the way.

Want to go in style? Save up your otherwise nearly useless caps to purchase a working vehicle. Motorcycles and cars were already designed for this game - how hard would it have been to make them more realistically detailed and ridable/drivable? Add in some storage, minus the detacheable trunk of course, and you've got a mini-mobile-home base, which is a major attraction to many CRPG's in my opinion. Now you can travel manually to the next town in a matter of maybe 15-20 minutes realtime instead of hours, and when you want to. Also throw in some breakdowns here and there, requiring spare parts and the repair skill, and you're talkin'. Plus, not to mention the necessity of obtaining enough actual fuel which should be quite rare and costly. The impetus of going through all this would be to discover those important and out-of-the-way locations that caravans simply won't go to. This could even partially justify the quest compass, for God's sake!

How cool would it be to have your own next-gen, first person Highwayman bumping along at about 30MPH or so, no problems in sight, when suddenly you hear the roar of a raider gang kicking up a duststorm as they persue you from behind on their own vehicles? Fucking Car Wars inspired vehicular combat could've been included, adding an entirely new, awesome game element. Car gets disabled? You and your companion get out and shoot those bastards up and take their gear and gas. So many possibilities.

I really don't know if Bethesda intended to include useable vehicles and a much, much larger map in initial design stages of Fallout 3, but I really do think they missed the boat (heh) when they went the whole crammed, walkable route instead. Pity.

Edited for a few extra thoughts.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

You have to plan which enemy to disable first, establish chokepoints (when fighting in buildings and corridors), move around if you or your pals have burst weapons. Even though you don't control your team it's good to check whom they'll attack (based on their settings, it's not rocket science).
Anyways, won't argue that fallout 1 & 2 is the pinnacle of tactics, but it's good to have a clear picture of who stands where. It's more visible when you need/want to keep certain guys alive, like when doing caravan runs.
You just won't get that kind of perspective in fpp.

Really? I think every thing you mentioned is achievable in first person (or third, as FO3 also does it). In the previous games, characters woud keep acting even if ouside your FOV (plus, there wasn't much you could do if your friends get in a pinch and you aren't right next to them - you can't control them or give orders from afar, so all you can do is pray)

Now you've got nothing but hours of desolate waste between settlements. You've also got the proper feeling of desparate loneliness a true nuclear wasteland should incite. This not only is possible using today's PC's but I think would actually decrease the frequency of detailed area loading, cutting down on that loading-induced gamelag.

Yes, but it wouldn't make for a fun game. The previous ones would be a complete chore if you had to manually walk through nothingness (ever had a random encounter in the middle of the desert with some Mantises you kill on one turn, thus making you click for two minutes to get to the exit?), instead of watching the clock go at 88 mph

 

[King Crispy]

Yes, but it wouldn't make for a fun game. The previous ones would be a complete chore if you had to manually walk through nothingness (ever had a random encounter in the middle of the desert with some Mantises you kill on one turn, thus making you click for two minutes to get to the exit?), instead of watching the clock go at 88 mph

If by the previous ones you mean the previous Fallouts then yes, they did suffer this common turn-based problem. Fallout 3 doesn't suffer from it at all and, with the exception of a limited few fast creatures, it's quite easy to avoid all combat in the open simply by running away.

Avoiding (pedestrian) combat in a fast vehicle would be even easier. But then again, it'd be a lot more fun to just run over that radscorpion. :twisted: (lots of rewards for saving up for that decked out vehicle = satisfaction, draw to keep playing & advancing)

 

[Norfleet]

Avoiding (pedestrian) combat in a fast vehicle would be even easier. But then again, it'd be a lot more fun to just run over that radscorpion. :twisted: (lots of rewards for saving up for that decked out vehicle = satisfaction, draw to keep playing & advancing)

More games outside of GTA need road waffles.

 

[spectre]

Really? I think every thing you mentioned is achievable in first person (or third, as FO3 also does it). In the previous games, characters woud keep acting even if ouside your FOV (plus, there wasn't much you could do if your friends get in a pinch and you aren't right next to them - you can't control them or give orders from afar, so all you can do is pray)

Achievable =/= optimal. I dare you to try and make out a typical Fallout 2 NCR Rangers vs. mutants or Caravan vs. Raiders battle in fpp. (15-20 npcs in encounter... oh wait, Fallout 3 cannot handle such mind boggling amounts of actors = clusterfuck at best) When you do, go back to isometric and tell me it's not more efficient.

As to the second bit, if you put yourself in a retarded situation like this, that's your problem. That's what "Stay Close" and "Attack Closest" commands are for. You choose not to use the tactical depth the game allows (shallow as it may be), again that's your problem.

Yes, but it wouldn't make for a fun game. The previous ones would be a complete chore if you had to manually walk through nothingness

Ah, but wouldn't it be the ultimate larp then, for retarded nex gen fags? Anyways, a bit of adjustable time compression would solve it. Let's say, 8x or something, dropping to normal speed when near a random encounter. Cue music changes in between and you have yourself a winrar.

 

[Emotional Vampire]

At least I think it's unique. The main reason I've been hearing is that first person is bad because of tactical reasons. I.e. turned-based doesn't work well in it, and so it becomes more twitchy.

Wizardry 8.

Try to recreate, let's see, the fight with Metzger in Wizardry. It will be shit. Why it will be shit? Because you won't know what the fuck is going on and what's around you 90% of the time.

 

[Trash]

Do you know what alot of first-person games with adventuring over long distances have done?

They allow you to scale time and distance down. You pull a slider ahead, and then every step takes you much further and causes time to pass more quickly.

Can you name a few of those games?

 

[Trash]

Speaking of artificial barriers, it would work if it supported procedurally generated terrain. You could simply put a bit of blank wasteland in between places, so it woul feel more right - not that every place is just minutes of jogging away. Not to mention you would have the option to fast travel (with the red dots and whatnot) or use your own feet and waste a few hours worth of time.
Same for map edges - just put an infinite desert there. Enough to discourage the player.

Yes. Take Fallout 3's entire map and stretch it to cover maybe 100 times its current size, keeping the number of encounters and inhabited locations the same, especially the city area (which felt right). Also keep it flat! I've never been to DC actually, but that sure is one hilly m-f'in landscape. Now you've got nothing but hours of desolate waste between settlements. You've also got the proper feeling of desparate loneliness a true nuclear wasteland should incite. This not only is possible using today's PC's but I think would actually decrease the frequency of detailed area loading, cutting down on that loading-induced gamelag.

Want to get to the next town easily and safely without actually having to walk there? Hire on with the next caravan, which is a fast-travel option (you instantly arrive there, without the benefit of finding any hidden locations in-between). Obviously, Morrowind had something similar to this and it was good. Throw in some interesting random encounters with raiders where you must defend your caravan, possibly earning some caps along the way.

Want to go in style? Save up your otherwise nearly useless caps to purchase a working vehicle. Motorcycles and cars were already designed for this game - how hard would it have been to make them more realistically detailed and ridable/drivable? Add in some storage, minus the detacheable trunk of course, and you've got a mini-mobile-home base, which is a major attraction to many CRPG's in my opinion. Now you can travel manually to the next town in a matter of maybe 15-20 minutes realtime instead of hours, and when you want to. Also throw in some breakdowns here and there, requiring spare parts and the repair skill, and you're talkin'. Plus, not to mention the necessity of obtaining enough actual fuel which should be quite rare and costly. The impetus of going through all this would be to discover those important and out-of-the-way locations that caravans simply won't go to. This could even partially justify the quest compass, for God's sake!

How cool would it be to have your own next-gen, first person Highwayman bumping along at about 30MPH or so, no problems in sight, when suddenly you hear the roar of a raider gang kicking up a duststorm as they persue you from behind on their own vehicles? Fucking Car Wars inspired vehicular combat could've been included, adding an entirely new, awesome game element. Car gets disabled? You and your companion get out and shoot those bastards up and take their gear and gas. So many possibilities.

I really don't know if Bethesda intended to include useable vehicles and a much, much larger map in initial design stages of Fallout 3, but I really do think they missed the boat (heh) when they went the whole crammed, walkable route instead. Pity.

Edited for a few extra thoughts.

This. Include vehicles, name it autoduel 2 and it would have been great.

 

[JarlFrank]

Speaking of artificial barriers, it would work if it supported procedurally generated terrain. You could simply put a bit of blank wasteland in between places, so it woul feel more right - not that every place is just minutes of jogging away. Not to mention you would have the option to fast travel (with the red dots and whatnot) or use your own feet and waste a few hours worth of time.
Same for map edges - just put an infinite desert there. Enough to discourage the player.

Yes. Take Fallout 3's entire map and stretch it to cover maybe 100 times its current size, keeping the number of encounters and inhabited locations the same, especially the city area (which felt right). Also keep it flat! I've never been to DC actually, but that sure is one hilly m-f'in landscape. Now you've got nothing but hours of desolate waste between settlements. You've also got the proper feeling of desparate loneliness a true nuclear wasteland should incite. This not only is possible using today's PC's but I think would actually decrease the frequency of detailed area loading, cutting down on that loading-induced gamelag.

Want to get to the next town easily and safely without actually having to walk there? Hire on with the next caravan, which is a fast-travel option (you instantly arrive there, without the benefit of finding any hidden locations in-between). Obviously, Morrowind had something similar to this and it was good. Throw in some interesting random encounters with raiders where you must defend your caravan, possibly earning some caps along the way.

Want to go in style? Save up your otherwise nearly useless caps to purchase a working vehicle. Motorcycles and cars were already designed for this game - how hard would it have been to make them more realistically detailed and ridable/drivable? Add in some storage, minus the detacheable trunk of course, and you've got a mini-mobile-home base, which is a major attraction to many CRPG's in my opinion. Now you can travel manually to the next town in a matter of maybe 15-20 minutes realtime instead of hours, and when you want to. Also throw in some breakdowns here and there, requiring spare parts and the repair skill, and you're talkin'. Plus, not to mention the necessity of obtaining enough actual fuel which should be quite rare and costly. The impetus of going through all this would be to discover those important and out-of-the-way locations that caravans simply won't go to. This could even partially justify the quest compass, for God's sake!

How cool would it be to have your own next-gen, first person Highwayman bumping along at about 30MPH or so, no problems in sight, when suddenly you hear the roar of a raider gang kicking up a duststorm as they persue you from behind on their own vehicles? Fucking Car Wars inspired vehicular combat could've been included, adding an entirely new, awesome game element. Car gets disabled? You and your companion get out and shoot those bastards up and take their gear and gas. So many possibilities.

I really don't know if Bethesda intended to include useable vehicles and a much, much larger map in initial design stages of Fallout 3, but I really do think they missed the boat (heh) when they went the whole crammed, walkable route instead. Pity.

Edited for a few extra thoughts.

This sounds pretty darn awesome. That's what a good postapoc nextgen RPG could be like, with a cool Mad Max vibe going on.

 

[denizsi]

No. Only certain tiles allow you to travel. Sometimes the edge of the screen is just an invisible wall that you can't move or see beyond.

And, somehow, that is a bad thing?

trekking across the FO3 landscape was a lot more fun than watching a little red dot move across the screen.

They are different things. What Fallout had in travelling, FO3 doesn't and.. well, it's not really a case of vice versa either. Fallout successfully pulls random encounters, special encounters, abstraction of time and great distances.

What's with the obsession with continuous interface, anyway? Why is it bad when your "main view" of game switches to something different? This is one of my biggest problems with "modern" games. They take dumbed down shit mechanics and slap next-gen on it, and people actually buy into the rationale. How long until they get rid of stat and inventory screens entirely and replace it with some dysfunctional gimmick?

Speaking of artificial barriers, it would work if it supported procedurally generated terrain. You could simply put a bit of blank wasteland in between places, so it woul feel more right - not that every place is just minutes of jogging away. Not to mention you would have the option to fast travel (with the red dots and whatnot) or use your own feet and waste a few hours worth of time.
Same for map edges - just put an infinite desert there. Enough to discourage the player.

Yes. Take Fallout 3's entire map and stretch it to cover maybe 100 times its current size, keeping the number of encounters and inhabited locations the same, especially the city area (which felt right). Also keep it flat! I've never been to DC actually, but that sure is one hilly m-f'in landscape. Now you've got nothing but hours of desolate waste between settlements. You've also got the proper feeling of desparate loneliness a true nuclear wasteland should incite. This not only is possible using today's PC's but I think would actually decrease the frequency of detailed area loading, cutting down on that loading-induced gamelag.

Want to get to the next town easily and safely without actually having to walk there? Hire on with the next caravan, which is a fast-travel option (you instantly arrive there, without the benefit of finding any hidden locations in-between). Obviously, Morrowind had something similar to this and it was good. Throw in some interesting random encounters with raiders where you must defend your caravan, possibly earning some caps along the way.

Want to go in style? Save up your otherwise nearly useless caps to purchase a working vehicle. Motorcycles and cars were already designed for this game - how hard would it have been to make them more realistically detailed and ridable/drivable? Add in some storage, minus the detacheable trunk of course, and you've got a mini-mobile-home base, which is a major attraction to many CRPG's in my opinion. Now you can travel manually to the next town in a matter of maybe 15-20 minutes realtime instead of hours, and when you want to. Also throw in some breakdowns here and there, requiring spare parts and the repair skill, and you're talkin'. Plus, not to mention the necessity of obtaining enough actual fuel which should be quite rare and costly. The impetus of going through all this would be to discover those important and out-of-the-way locations that caravans simply won't go to. This could even partially justify the quest compass, for God's sake!

How cool would it be to have your own next-gen, first person Highwayman bumping along at about 30MPH or so, no problems in sight, when suddenly you hear the roar of a raider gang kicking up a duststorm as they persue you from behind on their own vehicles? Fucking Car Wars inspired vehicular combat could've been included, adding an entirely new, awesome game element. Car gets disabled? You and your companion get out and shoot those bastards up and take their gear and gas. So many possibilities.

I really don't know if Bethesda intended to include useable vehicles and a much, much larger map in initial design stages of Fallout 3, but I really do think they missed the boat (heh) when they went the whole crammed, walkable route instead. Pity.

Edited for a few extra thoughts.

This sounds pretty darn awesome. That's what a good postapoc nextgen RPG could be like, with a cool Mad Max vibe going on.

The best part is that none of that would be new. Each element, either separately or some of them together, has been done before, but they no longer are made because developers are lazy fucking morons devoid of vision and a balanced sense of game design.

 

[spectre]

Again, the idiotic run towards whatever is deemed next-gen is to blame.
Problem is, each developer has it's own sense of what is good design (and won't back down an inch). Worse yet, when retards who produce shit dumbed down design (read that again aloud, shit dumbed down design, it's goddamn muzak) manage to sell them, they are put forwards as the pinnacle of game design. Sigh.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

Achievable =/= optimal. I dare you to try and make out a typical Fallout 2 NCR Rangers vs. mutants or Caravan vs. Raiders battle in fpp. (15-20 npcs in encounter... oh wait, Fallout 3 cannot handle such mind boggling amounts of actors = clusterfuck at best) When you do, go back to isometric and tell me it's not more efficient.

I'm not talking about FO3 tech limitations. I'm talking about how I don't see a problem with the same encounter in first person.

As to the second bit, if you put yourself in a retarded situation like this, that's your problem. That's what "Stay Close" and "Attack Closest" commands are for. You choose not to use the tactical depth the game allows (shallow as it may be), again that's your problem.

Sure that's a shitty situation to put myself in, but then that means the only tactic you use in isometric fallout is stick close to friends (so you can heal them if needed), but don't walk in front of the guys with burst weapons (if you have anyone with burst weapons. If not, just lump everyone together). Oh, and aim for the eyes. End of tactics. Then again, my point was that the same happens in first person view (companions get too far away = dead) , because I don't agree with the topic title, not that one is better than the other.

They are different things. What Fallout had in travelling, FO3 doesn't and.. well, it's not really a case of vice versa either. Fallout successfully pulls random encounters, special encounters, abstraction of time and great distances.

FO3 also pulls encounters well. You're walking around, and then you find stuff. Not different from the iso games at all. The iso games are better at abstraction of time and great distances, though (but they use a dot moving around the worldmap for that, which isn't really a fun thing to do, even if it's efficient).

What's with the obsession with continuous interface, anyway? Why is it bad when your "main view" of game switches to something different? This is one of my biggest problems with "modern" games. They take dumbed down shit mechanics and slap next-gen on it, and people actually buy into the rationale. How long until they get rid of stat and inventory screens entirely and replace it with some dysfunctional gimmick?

it's not that it's bad, but if you think a dot moving around the screen is more fun than actually walking through the gameworld, you could have as much fun by watching a fly buzzing around in circles. Then again, the problem is that for the "walking to X" gig to work (i.e, be fun), the gameworld must be a themepark, with places close to each other.

I do like Crispy's idea of vehicles to cover the great distances, though. Most of the terrain would be void of content, though, and we would have the "walking 15 minutes thorugh nothingness" problem again.

How I see it:

Abstract travel: efficient and represents time and distance well, but red dot bores me to tears.

Actual travel: fun, but unless a godlike developer creates a huge landmass filled with content, game must be a themepark because no one wants to slog though empty desert for hours.

What we're trying to do her is to find a way to mix both of these concepts. The vehicles idea was the coolest until now. Btw, since Oblivion included horses, then transportation in FO3 wouldn't fuck up the game, I believe. Just make a motorcycle or something, reskin the horse if needed.

 

[denizsi]

It has been psuedoscientifically proven that first person perspective is an inferior view point compared to every other view point and blindness.

 

[spectre]

I'm not talking about FO3 tech limitations. I'm talking about how I don't see a problem with the same encounter in first person.

Me neither. That was a side remark about the shitiness of the engine. See EV's post about Metzger for more insight.

[quote="denizsi']It has been psuedoscientifically proven that first person perspective is an inferior view point compared to every other view point and blindness.[/quote]
It's actually quite simple. Fpp belongs in shooters (which may have tactical elements but usually need minimap and small squad size to work) and horrors, basically when the perspective gives more "immershun" (and war games and horrors depend on this).
Iso is for whenever you need to get a rough idea about who stands where to make tactical decisions. Most rpgs have pretences for tactical combat, so this should apply to them.
It should be noted that neither is inferior, we should know their limitations though. And iso is just as capable of producing immersion (in the good sense), and deliver quality presentation. It is when some dumbfuck (cf. Fallout 3 marketing babble) claims that camera angle determines enigne complexity (or worse, when someone won't take the risk of designing an iso game because they don't feel competent enough - cf same babble), a line is crossed.

 

[Wyrmlord]

Do you know what alot of first-person games with adventuring over long distances have done?

They allow you to scale time and distance down. You pull a slider ahead, and then every step takes you much further and causes time to pass more quickly.

Can you name a few of those games?

BaK.

You can do it from the options menu.

Scaling of time and distance was also automatically done by the game in World Of Xeen between moving from outdoor areas to indoor ones.

 

[denizsi]

It should be noted that neither is inferior

Are you rejecting pseudoscience?

 

[spectre]

I do. This node of the hivemind is rebellious. Now, take me to the tree.

 

[Arcanoix]

For fuck's sake

 

[Krraloth]

I do like Crispy's idea of vehicles to cover the great distances, though. Most of the terrain would be void of content, though, and we would have the "walking 15 minutes thorugh nothingness" problem again.

I think...what about an actual flag that checks if the player is going for speed (e.g. inside a veichle) and spawns/stages events accordingly (veichled raiders/mutants) and then everything reverts back when you're back on foot?