Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Map Size Thread

8,295 replies to this topic
GKP
  • GKP

    Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Jan 2011

#91

Posted 10 April 2013 - 08:07 AM

We HAVE seen 80-90 percent of the city .

LC in IV was NOT BIG. 3 sq miles of land is not big.

GTAaLEX117
  • GTAaLEX117

    Cynical Optimist

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Apr 2013

#92

Posted 10 April 2013 - 08:17 AM

QUOTE (GKP @ Wednesday, Apr 10 2013, 08:07)
We HAVE seen 80-90 percent of the city .

LC in IV was NOT BIG. 3 sq miles of land is not big.

Nice to know that you completely skipped all my point just to get to the parts that you can actually argue about.
Tell me again how we've seen the whole city when we don't even know how the ocean facing side of the city looks like? And please, no assumptions.

GKP
  • GKP

    Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Jan 2011

#93

Posted 10 April 2013 - 08:22 AM Edited by GKP, 10 April 2013 - 08:27 AM.

117 - you see the pic that choco quoted at the top of the page ?...the tallish 15 storey building at the right hand side of the pic and the golf course on others pics are to the extreme west of the city, bounded by more hills . This IS the city in its near entirety. It doesn't please me to point this out - Iv played the series since 98 and would one day like to see a more realistically sized city.

Dont forget - R* make a point in the GI article that LS is larger than LC from IV when including the hills and the houses on them. The actual dense , 'grid' streets are covering a smaller area than LC.

Why does this bother me so much ? It affects car chases, mission immersion, and general game lifespan. The countryside is full of empty land and trees. A military base and some windfarms - forests etc dont do anything for me, the city is at the end of the day where the banks are and subsequently the 'heists'. I want to go on a 10 minute plus chase through a city and not be in the country after 2 minutes of driving.

<Yang3
  • <Yang3

    ☆☆☆☆☆

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Apr 2009
  • Philippines

#94

Posted 10 April 2013 - 08:24 AM

To make it short, Los Santos will be roughly the same size of Liberty City ALONE(Algonquin, Broker-Dukes, Bohan).

GTAaLEX117
  • GTAaLEX117

    Cynical Optimist

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Apr 2013

#95

Posted 10 April 2013 - 08:30 AM

QUOTE (GKP @ Wednesday, Apr 10 2013, 08:22)
117 - you see the pic that choco quoted at the top of the page ?...the tallish 15 storey building at the right hand side of the pic and the golf course on others pics are to the extreme west of the city, bounded by more hills . This IS the city in its near entirety. It doesn't please me to point this out - Iv played the series since 98 and would one day like to see a more realistically sized city.

Dont forget - R* make a point in the GI article that LS is larger than LC from IV when including the hills and the houses on them. The actual dense , 'grid' streets are covering a smaller area than LC.

Why does this bother me so much ? It affects car chases, mission immersion, and general game lifespan. The countryside is full of empty land and trees. A military base and some windfarms - forests etc dont do anything for me, the city is at the end of the day where the banks are and subsequently the 'heists'. I want to go on a 10 minute plus chase through a city and not be in the country after 2 minutes of driving.

There's also a big chunk to the left that goes up to the Vinewood sign, there's also the area behind the golf course, there is also a big chunk behind the actual skyscrapers that we haven't seen, there's the airport and there's also Terminal Island. Long story short, we've yet to see most of it.
Would you like to read my points in the previous post or are you happy to just skip them and complain again on how evil R* is because it doesn't give you what you want?

GKP
  • GKP

    Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Jan 2011

#96

Posted 10 April 2013 - 08:35 AM Edited by GKP, 10 April 2013 - 08:39 AM.

a 'chunk' behind the skyscrapers ..the airport ...terminal island. Crumbs mate thats what they are..

LAX is 5 sq miles. We are getting a city only 2/3 the size of a real life airport. Thats a fact. Those parts you cant see cover a sq mile or less. Unless there is some spacetime warping in areas out of screenshot , mountains bound the area of the city. The part to the right of the golf course has been shown in other pics. Its a minor area. R* have not given us decent sized suburbs...can you argue with that ?

http://i1-news.softp....jpg?1353338689

This pic shows the area behind the downtown. Its only 10 -12 blocks to the supposedly far off docks. Tiny city - use your eyes !

It wont be as large as LC with the water, its 90 seconds across at high speed in a car. Thats appalling and I dont care if anyone is bored of hearing it. Others DO agree with me.

Ferocious Banger
  • Ferocious Banger

    Big Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 May 2012
  • India

#97

Posted 10 April 2013 - 08:46 AM

QUOTE
Anyone notice how those who think the city is small give reasons and those who are happy just point to individual photos from ground level (which of course would make a 500 yard distance seem huge).


..And that's exactly what we want, right? I'm sure that most of us are not going to be counting the square miles while playing, unlike you. They have a knack of making the drives appear longer, by giving us roads that are not straightforward. That helps me get immersed. I felt that GTA IV's LC was huge. Real huge. There is going to be an obvious reduction in detail if Rockstar wanted to enlarge the city. Or, would you have waited another few years for a new Grand Theft Auto game - just for a larger city - while the next-gen cosoles would have become more prevalent?


Whilst I would have loved a bigger city, I am more than content with what we have now. This is the current gen, after all.

wallis
  • wallis

    Snitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 Jun 2011

#98

Posted 10 April 2013 - 08:47 AM

QUOTE (GTAaLEX117 @ Wednesday, Apr 10 2013, 08:30)
QUOTE (GKP @ Wednesday, Apr 10 2013, 08:22)
117 - you see the pic that choco quoted at the top of the page ?...the tallish 15 storey building at the right hand side of the pic and the golf course on others pics are to the extreme west of the city, bounded by more hills . This IS the city in its near entirety. It doesn't please me to point this out - Iv played the series since 98 and would one day like to see a more realistically sized city.

Dont forget - R* make a point in the GI article that LS is larger than LC from IV when including the hills and the houses on them. The actual dense , 'grid' streets are covering a smaller area than LC.

Why does this bother me so much ? It affects car chases, mission immersion, and general game lifespan. The countryside is full of empty land and trees. A military base and some windfarms - forests etc dont do anything for me, the city is at the end of the day where the banks are and subsequently the 'heists'. I want to go on a 10 minute plus chase through a city and not be in the country after 2 minutes of driving.

There's also a big chunk to the left that goes up to the Vinewood sign, there's also the area behind the golf course, there is also a big chunk behind the actual skyscrapers that we haven't seen, there's the airport and there's also Terminal Island. Long story short, we've yet to see most of it.
Would you like to read my points in the previous post or are you happy to just skip them and complain again on how evil R* is because it doesn't give you what you want?

I respect your opinion, but I don't think these areas hold much promise unless r* LS is disproportionate to the real LA. The main basin area is what we've seen in screens, and this area (observatory to the docks) makes up 70% of the city area. Check it on google maps. I can't image r* LS has huge suburbs over the hills that are bigger than the badin area.

GKP
  • GKP

    Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Jan 2011

#99

Posted 10 April 2013 - 08:48 AM

Ferocious. It could of been easily remedied by creating say 10 different housing models...repeating them over a several hundred sq block area ie sprawling suburbs. This would be neither memory instensive , take that long nor take ANYTHING away from R*s ability to create unique and interesting neighbourhoods. A refusal to create any 2 alike buildings leads to a highly compressed city.

Would anyone have anything against the above proposal ?...you cant because it would only have added to the game. LS In V is scaled as if SF and LV are in the game. THAT would of been a great reason why they created such a severely cut down city.

GTAaLEX117
  • GTAaLEX117

    Cynical Optimist

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Apr 2013

#100

Posted 10 April 2013 - 09:05 AM

QUOTE (wallis @ Wednesday, Apr 10 2013, 08:47)
QUOTE (GTAaLEX117 @ Wednesday, Apr 10 2013, 08:30)
QUOTE (GKP @ Wednesday, Apr 10 2013, 08:22)
117 - you see the pic that choco quoted at the top of the page ?...the tallish 15 storey building at the right hand side of the pic and the golf course on others pics are to the extreme west of the city, bounded by more hills . This IS the city in its near entirety. It doesn't please me to point this out - Iv played the series since 98 and would one day like to see a more realistically sized city.

Dont forget - R* make a point in the GI article that LS is larger than LC from IV when including the hills and the houses on them. The actual dense , 'grid' streets are covering a smaller area than LC.

Why does this bother me so much ? It affects car chases, mission immersion, and general game lifespan. The countryside is full of empty land and trees. A military base and some windfarms - forests etc dont do anything for me, the city is at the end of the day where the banks are and subsequently the 'heists'. I want to go on a 10 minute plus chase through a city and not be in the country after 2 minutes of driving.

There's also a big chunk to the left that goes up to the Vinewood sign, there's also the area behind the golf course, there is also a big chunk behind the actual skyscrapers that we haven't seen, there's the airport and there's also Terminal Island. Long story short, we've yet to see most of it.
Would you like to read my points in the previous post or are you happy to just skip them and complain again on how evil R* is because it doesn't give you what you want?

I respect your opinion, but I don't think these areas hold much promise unless r* LS is disproportionate to the real LA. The main basin area is what we've seen in screens, and this area (observatory to the docks) makes up 70% of the city area. Check it on google maps. I can't image r* LS has huge suburbs over the hills that are bigger than the badin area.

I did check out L.A. on google earth and guess what? LS looks nothing like the real life L.A., the position of the Hollywood sign and the reservoir are all messed up. In reality, from that angle, there's a massive chunk of the city that extends from downtown to the coastline, so please don't give me the real life L.A. as an example.

Also GKP, do you really want a repetitive line of buildings just to make the drive long? That's pretty stupid. Quality > Quantity any day.

GKP
  • GKP

    Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Jan 2011

#101

Posted 10 April 2013 - 09:07 AM

no , just some respectable sized suburbs that would add a few minutes to driving in anyone direction. That is quality AND quantity.

wallis
  • wallis

    Snitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 Jun 2011

#102

Posted 10 April 2013 - 09:08 AM

QUOTE (GKP @ Wednesday, Apr 10 2013, 08:48)
Ferocious. It could of been easily remedied by creating say 10 different housing models...repeating them over a several hundred sq block area ie sprawling suburbs. This would be neither memory instensive , take that long nor take ANYTHING away from R*s ability to create unique and interesting neighbourhoods. A refusal to create any 2 alike buildings leads to a highly compressed city.

Would anyone have anything against the above proposal ?...you cant because it would only have added to the game. LS In V is scaled as if SF and LV are in the game. THAT would of been a great reason why they created such a severely cut down city.

Agreed. I have no problem with a few repeat buildings to add some realistic scale. But they shouldn't have to do this. They've had over five years to get this right.

GKP
  • GKP

    Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Jan 2011

#103

Posted 10 April 2013 - 09:10 AM

Exactly but mentioning this is blasphemy on here. R* really DO have a lot of people wrapped around their finger. Years and years to wait for a city we will be very familiar with in a few weeks of gameplay. confused.gif


wallis
  • wallis

    Snitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 Jun 2011

#104

Posted 10 April 2013 - 09:16 AM

QUOTE (GTAaLEX117 @ Wednesday, Apr 10 2013, 09:05)
QUOTE (wallis @ Wednesday, Apr 10 2013, 08:47)
QUOTE (GTAaLEX117 @ Wednesday, Apr 10 2013, 08:30)
QUOTE (GKP @ Wednesday, Apr 10 2013, 08:22)
117 - you see the pic that choco quoted at the top of the page ?...the tallish 15 storey building at the right hand side of the pic and the golf course on others pics are to the extreme west of the city, bounded by more hills . This IS the city in its near entirety. It doesn't please me to point this out - Iv played the series since 98 and would one day like to see a more realistically sized city.

Dont forget - R* make a point in the GI article that LS is larger than LC from IV when including the hills and the houses on them. The actual dense , 'grid' streets are covering a smaller area than LC.

Why does this bother me so much ? It affects car chases, mission immersion, and general game lifespan. The countryside is full of empty land and trees. A military base and some windfarms - forests etc dont do anything for me, the city is at the end of the day where the banks are and subsequently the 'heists'. I want to go on a 10 minute plus chase through a city and not be in the country after 2 minutes of driving.

There's also a big chunk to the left that goes up to the Vinewood sign, there's also the area behind the golf course, there is also a big chunk behind the actual skyscrapers that we haven't seen, there's the airport and there's also Terminal Island. Long story short, we've yet to see most of it.
Would you like to read my points in the previous post or are you happy to just skip them and complain again on how evil R* is because it doesn't give you what you want?

I respect your opinion, but I don't think these areas hold much promise unless r* LS is disproportionate to the real LA. The main basin area is what we've seen in screens, and this area (observatory to the docks) makes up 70% of the city area. Check it on google maps. I can't image r* LS has huge suburbs over the hills that are bigger than the badin area.

I did check out L.A. on google earth and guess what? LS looks nothing like the real life L.A., the position of the Hollywood sign and the reservoir are all messed up. In reality, from that angle, there's a massive chunk of the city that extends from downtown to the coastline, so please don't give me the real life L.A. as an example.

Also GKP, do you really want a repetitive line of buildings just to make the drive long? That's pretty stupid. Quality > Quantity any day.

But real life LA is what this LS is based off. And you just hit the nail on the head. This version looks nothing like real life LA. R* said they wanted to do a more accurate rendition, and do LS justice this time around. But with no south central sprawl, it's hardly going to feel like LA.

JuventusFC
  • JuventusFC

    Vincere non importante, ma l'unica cosa che conta

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 05 Nov 2011

#105

Posted 10 April 2013 - 09:18 AM

Do we know how long the city highways are? they seem fairly short compared to IV.

GTAaLEX117
  • GTAaLEX117

    Cynical Optimist

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Apr 2013

#106

Posted 10 April 2013 - 09:19 AM

QUOTE (GKP @ Wednesday, Apr 10 2013, 09:07)
no , just some respectable sized suburbs that would add a few minutes to driving in anyone direction. That is quality AND quantity.

No, copy pasting buildings is not quality, I'm sorry to disappoint you there.

Btw, they had five years to get the actual map done, not the city. I fell like I'm just going in a loop. If you don't understand arguments regarding...
-console limitations
-time limitations
-money limitations
-what they actually wanted to build
-what the majority of the fanbase wants
...Then I'm just wasting my time with you. Complain all you want, it's not like you'll actually achieve anything other than pissing everybody off.

GKP
  • GKP

    Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Jan 2011

#107

Posted 10 April 2013 - 09:20 AM Edited by GKP, 10 April 2013 - 09:25 AM.

Preaching to the choir over wallis....R* say one thing and act another way. LA is not just a conglomeration of landmarks. The size of the city is what is most overwhelming. I have visited LA for 2 days as part of a trip to Vegas. I stayed in the LAX Hilton and had a great view of planes landing on one side and downtown 12 miles away the other side.

LA is incomprehensibly large to those who have not seen it. They should just have called V - GTA beach town because thats all they have recreated with a tiny CBD and a beach so close.

117 , we both have valid points. R* did want to create a more countryside focused world true. This has 'eaten' into LS. I am and a few others here are not happy with that when we could of had our cake AND eat it with some easily added suburbs.

GTAaLEX117
  • GTAaLEX117

    Cynical Optimist

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Apr 2013

#108

Posted 10 April 2013 - 09:24 AM

QUOTE (JuventusFC @ Wednesday, Apr 10 2013, 09:18)
Do we know how long the city highways are? they seem fairly short compared to IV.

The main highway is 8 lanes wide, the one parallel with the skyscrapers. It extends to the bridges behind and splits into a 4 lane one. We can assume they are pretty long and wide....no pun intended.

GTAaLEX117
  • GTAaLEX117

    Cynical Optimist

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Apr 2013

#109

Posted 10 April 2013 - 09:31 AM

QUOTE (GKP @ Wednesday, Apr 10 2013, 09:20)
117 , we both have valid points. R* did want to create a more countryside focused world true. This has 'eaten' into LS. I am and a few others here are not happy with that when we could of had our cake AND eat it with some easily added suburbs.

And what do you accomplish if you complain? Do you think R* will see your posts and say "hey, we have a potential customer that's not pleased, we better scrap the whole thing and make a render of the whole L.A. area because that's what he wants".
The only thing you really achieve by complaining is annoying everybody in here. Just wait until the darn thing is released or until we get more info on it and then decide if you're going to buy it or not.

GKP
  • GKP

    Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Jan 2011

#110

Posted 10 April 2013 - 09:33 AM

Lex - if R* lets say were to bring us a real shocker ie...the world wont be freeroam but you will have some freedom associated with older GTA's..would that have upset you ?...you would probably write on these forums how could R* have done this and that....others would agree and no it would not change anything.


I appreciate I have BANGED on about this issue. It just pisses me off that for all the time since GTAIV we have yet another smallish city. Small in my eyes, and a few others here.

wallis
  • wallis

    Snitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 Jun 2011

#111

Posted 10 April 2013 - 09:36 AM

QUOTE (GTAaLEX117 @ Wednesday, Apr 10 2013, 09:19)
QUOTE (GKP @ Wednesday, Apr 10 2013, 09:07)
no , just some respectable sized suburbs that would add a few minutes to driving in anyone direction. That is quality AND quantity.

No, copy pasting buildings is not quality, I'm sorry to disappoint you there.

Btw, they had five years to get the actual map done, not the city. I fell like I'm just going in a loop. If you don't understand arguments regarding...
-console limitations
-time limitations
-money limitations
-what they actually wanted to build
-what the majority of the fanbase wants
...Then I'm just wasting my time with you. Complain all you want, it's not like you'll actually achieve anything other than pissing everybody off.

Console limitations? If true crime can add 240 sq miles on a ps2 I'm sure r*could create a few suburbs around this city.
Time? How much do they need? They've had over five. Please.
Money? I'm sure they'll make more than a healthy profit, and could afford to invest a little more for a decent lone city.
What they wanted? They said it would be a city that done LS justice. That's why they did LS again.
Fanbase? Most people on here seem to want a large city, but not at the expense of an interesting city. It's a balance. But it should be alot larger than LC.
If you feel you're wasting your time or getting pissed off, then it's probably better if you ignore this thread and the comments that upset you. That's what I do.

GTAaLEX117
  • GTAaLEX117

    Cynical Optimist

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Apr 2013

#112

Posted 10 April 2013 - 09:39 AM

QUOTE (GKP @ Wednesday, Apr 10 2013, 09:33)
Lex - if R* lets say were to bring us a real shocker ie...the world wont be freeroam but you will have some freedom associated with older GTA's..would that have upset you ?...you would probably write on these forums how could R* have done this and that....others would agree and no it would not change anything.


I appreciate I have BANGED on about this issue. It just pisses me off that for all the time since GTAIV we have yet another smallish city. Small in my eyes, and a few others here.

Well that's just it, they haven't released a shocker, quite the contrary they said the city and map will be huge. IGN and GI also said that. You are not believing them and are simply making assumptions based on a few photos, when the game may or may not have changed since they were released.
If they would do something that would make me not want the game anymore, I wouldn't even be on this forum anymore.

GKP
  • GKP

    Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Jan 2011

#113

Posted 10 April 2013 - 09:42 AM

Lex - a 'huge' city would give a 'huge' impression in photos. Do you think it will honestly take longer than 2 minutes in a car (highway speed) to cross LS? , cripes if going at top speed - top speed limited to 100mph ish in IV due to the engine) we will cross the city in 90 seconds. WTF ! - I am NOT happy with that and I dont give a rats ass how many ppl I upset here saying this.

GTAaLEX117
  • GTAaLEX117

    Cynical Optimist

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Apr 2013

#114

Posted 10 April 2013 - 09:47 AM

QUOTE (wallis @ Wednesday, Apr 10 2013, 09:36)
QUOTE (GTAaLEX117 @ Wednesday, Apr 10 2013, 09:19)
QUOTE (GKP @ Wednesday, Apr 10 2013, 09:07)
no , just some respectable sized suburbs that would add a few minutes to driving in anyone direction. That is quality AND quantity.

No, copy pasting buildings is not quality, I'm sorry to disappoint you there.

Btw, they had five years to get the actual map done, not the city. I fell like I'm just going in a loop. If you don't understand arguments regarding...
-console limitations
-time limitations
-money limitations
-what they actually wanted to build
-what the majority of the fanbase wants
...Then I'm just wasting my time with you. Complain all you want, it's not like you'll actually achieve anything other than pissing everybody off.

Console limitations? If true crime can add 240 sq miles on a ps2 I'm sure r*could create a few suburbs around this city.
Time? How much do they need? They've had over five. Please.
Money? I'm sure they'll make more than a healthy profit, and could afford to invest a little more for a decent lone city.
What they wanted? They said it would be a city that done LS justice. That's why they did LS again.
Fanbase? Most people on here seem to want a large city, but not at the expense of an interesting city. It's a balance. But it should be alot larger than LC.
If you feel you're wasting your time or getting pissed off, then it's probably better if you ignore this thread and the comments that upset you. That's what I do.

-Does true crime have an expansive countryside areas? Does the level of detail on a ps2 game even compare with what R8 is trying to achieve now? Basically you want a big, unpolished and undetailed city right?
-They have limited time to build both a large city AND a huge countryside, they can't only focus on the city.
-Same as the above.
-No, they wanted a game that would have both city and countryside, they never intended for a single, huge city. You wanted that, not R*.
-The majority of the fanbase wants countryside, I'm sure everybody is sick and tired of one big city after GTA IV was released. Just read through these comments again and tell me how many people here want only a large city? Three or four. How many people want a large map with a huge countryside? Too many to count.

GKP
  • GKP

    Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Jan 2011

#115

Posted 10 April 2013 - 09:51 AM

I tell you though Lex, True Crime really felt like LA, The downtown area was HUGE and had loads more real life landmarks than V.

I know V are not trying to recreate LA ' EXACTLY ' as so many people keep mentioning but you still have to recreate a city with at least looks like LA, compressing the beach to downtown area which is 12 miles in real life down to approx half a mile is destroying any resemblence to the real thing.

Los Santos.
  • Los Santos.

    Square Civilian

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 Oct 2012

#116

Posted 10 April 2013 - 09:53 AM Edited by Los Santos., 10 April 2013 - 09:56 AM.

I hope they make the highway roads realistic. They were awful in GTA 4.

GTAaLEX117
  • GTAaLEX117

    Cynical Optimist

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Apr 2013

#117

Posted 10 April 2013 - 09:53 AM

QUOTE (GKP @ Wednesday, Apr 10 2013, 09:42)
Lex - a 'huge' city would give a 'huge' impression in photos. Do you think it will honestly take longer than 2 minutes in a car (highway speed) to cross LS? , cripes if going at top speed - top speed limited to 100mph ish in IV due to the engine) we will cross the city in 90 seconds. WTF ! - I am NOT happy with that and I dont give a rats ass how many ppl I upset here saying this.

No, I don't know, and I hate to speculate. Traveling through the city depends on many things, including traffic. You are making a big deal out of this and all you have is assumptions. This is the 200th time I ask but, what do you actually achieve by getting angry and complaining? Just go outside, drive a car through L.A. and then come back here and play an actual game with limitations, not a driving simulator. Or I don't know, play an actual simulator?

GKP
  • GKP

    Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Jan 2011

#118

Posted 10 April 2013 - 09:55 AM

Lex 'traffic' on the highway will never really limit your speed in V much, they CANNOT recreate LA traffic on highways. It would run at 5 fps.

I achieve nothing. Other than whiling the hours away at work - where am i right now.

GTAaLEX117
  • GTAaLEX117

    Cynical Optimist

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Apr 2013

#119

Posted 10 April 2013 - 09:58 AM

QUOTE (GKP @ Wednesday, Apr 10 2013, 09:55)
Lex 'traffic' on the highway will never really limit your speed in V much, they CANNOT recreate LA traffic on highways. It would run at 5 fps.

I achieve nothing. Other than whiling the hours away at work - where am i right now.

Actually it does limit it. When you have 20 cars on screen and you're trying not to smash your car or flip over, you need to slow down. From what they've shown, the traffic is even denser in V.
Well I'm sure you can find something more constructive to do, right?

GKP
  • GKP

    Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Jan 2011

#120

Posted 10 April 2013 - 10:00 AM

Possibly. I dont think I can show my disdain in any clearer fashion .




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users