Fallout 4 - Opinion: Bigger Not Always Better

A Polygon op-ed argues that Fallout 4 is a good example of why bigger isn't always better.

...If added open-world space comes at the expense of full artistic potential, each new location banged out without the extra little flourishes that makes it special, it may not be worth it.

As a genre, open-world titles, from Destiny all the way back to Grand Theft Auto, have long suffered from technological restraint, resulting in some overuse of techniques like procedural generation, empty buildings and modular level design. Each of these development strategies and tools have their place, and employing them is an art form, but you can feel when they've been stretched a bit thin.

In an exploration-based game like Fallout, the loss is felt the most. I want every area I approach in the Fallout universe to be a Pandora's Box of danger and mystery, each with its own story to tell. That key series element has already been tampered by heavy enemy re-spawns, repeating side quests and the constant grind of collecting scrap and parts, which arguably contributes more to the generic feel of many areas than the art kit. The solitude of methodic exploration that first drew me to the series is gone, and the feel of Fallout 3 and New Vegas lost. It's a casualty of efficiency.

If Fallout 4 were just a bit smaller, but in return offered the mystique and addictive allure of Fallout: New Vegas with each and every location, this would be easier to handle. Size is important of course, I'm mostly arguing for a slight course correction in the other direction to even things out.

Can taking a step forward technically be a step backward artistically? Sometimes, yes. While simplified development tools facilitate more efficient open-world games design, a sandbox game is only as strong as its environments. In the case of Bethesda and open-world games, I wish they'd be a little worse at their job.