|QUOTE (InternetKillTV @ Monday, Apr 22 2013, 20:26)|
| And finally Red Dead was an recreation made to be as accurate as possible. The world of V is fictionalised. Los Angeles may be bordered by more land but it doesn't mean Los Santos is. Same for every other GTA city |
Well that goes for RDR's world as well. RDR's world is completely fictionalized, it's a fictional state that's based on the general American Southwest geography but otherwise not based on any specific location. So I don't really get the whole "recreation made to be as accurate as possible" thing. It's even more fictionalized than GTA V is.
But there's different needs for each game. RDR's world wouldn't feel right as an island, because there needs to be a sense of endless expanse in a western. After all, you never see the ocean in a western. And without planes or helicopters, it's easier to control the borders without having to have obvious invisible walls.
GTA on the other hand requires a sense of 'completeness'. So even though the real location it's based on isn't an island, you want to create a sense of true freedom of movement, that the player can go anywhere they can see. This is why R* hasn't done invisible walls since GTA III, and that game didn't technically have any controllable flying vehicles, so the player wasn't supposed to come across said invisible walls. So you have two choices: endless ocean on all sides, or endless ocean on one side and endless land on the other. I don't really see the latter happening, as endless procedurally-generating terrain isn't really R*s thing, either.
Most likely they'll create an illusion of land continuing with the use of hills on the eastern border, then a fictional coast behind them.