Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Map Size Thread

8,295 replies to this topic
wallis
  • wallis

    Snitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 Jun 2011

#121

Posted 10 April 2013 - 10:05 AM

QUOTE (GTAaLEX117 @ Wednesday, Apr 10 2013, 09:47)
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.

No one is saying they don't want countryside. We're talking about the size of the city being disappointing.

GTAaLEX117
  • GTAaLEX117

    Cynical Optimist

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Apr 2013

#122

Posted 10 April 2013 - 10:10 AM

QUOTE (wallis @ Wednesday, Apr 10 2013, 10:05)
QUOTE (GTAaLEX117 @ Wednesday, Apr 10 2013, 09:47)
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.

No one is saying they don't want countryside. We're talking about the size of the city being disappointing.

And I'm saying that they are trying to focus on both the city and the countryside, to make both of them equally polished and detailed. If they wanted a huge city, they would take more time to polish it, make unique buildings, add tons of detail, etc and the countryside area would suffer. It's a balancing act.

wallis
  • wallis

    Snitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 Jun 2011

#123

Posted 10 April 2013 - 10:12 AM

QUOTE (GTAaLEX117 @ Wednesday, Apr 10 2013, 09:53)
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?

I don't expect to achieve anything by complaint as you put it. I'm just having a robust debate about one aspect of this game. It doesn't have to be a r* arse kissing competition all the time. I'll buy the game and I'll love it. But I won't love everything about it. But until it comes out, speculation is all we have.

GTAaLEX117
  • GTAaLEX117

    Cynical Optimist

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Apr 2013

#124

Posted 10 April 2013 - 10:28 AM

QUOTE (wallis @ Wednesday, Apr 10 2013, 10:12)
QUOTE (GTAaLEX117 @ Wednesday, Apr 10 2013, 09:53)
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?

I don't expect to achieve anything by complaint as you put it. I'm just having a robust debate about one aspect of this game. It doesn't have to be a r* arse kissing competition all the time. I'll buy the game and I'll love it. But I won't love everything about it. But until it comes out, speculation is all we have.

You can't really have a decent debate when all we have is speculation. It's basically arguing who's speculation is better.

GKP
  • GKP

    Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Jan 2011

#125

Posted 10 April 2013 - 10:31 AM

I wouldn't say that Lex, we do have screenshots of the city from multiple angles and the US bank tower as method of assessing the size of areas. Don't know what more we could need other than the map.

When the game releases it will be clear , LS is certainly not large enough to get 'lost' in.

I think the below image is damning as it shows IV looking a fair bit larger than LS in V


http://i47.tinypic.com/343gm4i.png
http://i46.tinypic.com/9jot39.png

Marabunta Grande
  • Marabunta Grande

    Azul y Blanco

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Apr 2009
  • Philippines

#126

Posted 10 April 2013 - 10:37 AM

QUOTE (GKP @ Wednesday, Apr 10 2013, 17:55)
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.

Why won't you just create your own game w/c suits your needs, then?

GTAaLEX117
  • GTAaLEX117

    Cynical Optimist

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Apr 2013

#127

Posted 10 April 2013 - 11:07 AM

QUOTE (GKP @ Wednesday, Apr 10 2013, 10:31)
I wouldn't say that Lex, we do have screenshots of the city from multiple angles and the US bank tower as† method of assessing the size of areas. Don't know what more we could need other than the map.

When the game releases it will be clear , LS is certainly not large enough to get 'lost' in.

I think the below image is damning as it shows IV looking a fair bit larger than LS in V


http://i47.tinypic.com/343gm4i.png
http://i46.tinypic.com/9jot39.png

That picture proves nothing though. The city in LS stretches from the bottom of the hills directly under the observatory to the airport, and there's also quite a bit of area to the left near the vinewood sign, and to the right behind the golf course.
There's also the island that we haven't see yet. From the LC picture, you can really tell how much of the city is just water. If you compress the map, it would look MUCH smaller.
Comparing these again, I actually think the two cities are pretty close in terms of scale, and don't forget that the city WAS the entire map of GTA IV.

ALeSsAnDrO
  • ALeSsAnDrO

    Peon

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Sep 2002

#128

Posted 10 April 2013 - 11:11 AM

Well, apart from the healthy discussion going on, I think we can all agree by now that the city portion of the game will be probably 10% to 20% smaller than Liberty City. The screenshots show precisely that.
Obviously the devs went the countryside route, meaning, added a whole vast land of rural and desert area to explore, which is a lot easier to create than more urban parts.
So my prediction is that this GTA will be by far the one with more countryside to explore.
There's still the very slight chance that, until September, they might add more parts of LA. But that's very unlikely. By now they're polishing gameplay/mission elements.

So there you have it, the rural GTA...

GTAaLEX117
  • GTAaLEX117

    Cynical Optimist

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Apr 2013

#129

Posted 10 April 2013 - 11:32 AM

QUOTE (ALeSsAnDrO @ Wednesday, Apr 10 2013, 11:11)
Well, apart from the healthy discussion going on, I think we can all agree by now that the city portion of the game will be probably 10% to 20% smaller than Liberty City. The screenshots show precisely that.
Obviously the devs went the countryside route, meaning, added a whole vast land of rural and desert area to explore, which is a lot easier to create than more urban parts.
So my prediction is that this GTA will be by far the one with more countryside to explore.
There's still the very slight chance that, until September, they might add more parts of LA. But that's very unlikely. By now they're polishing gameplay/mission elements.

So there you have it, the rural GTA...

I think that 10-20 % is probably represented by the rivers that divided the city.

AlienWillHeMonsta
  • AlienWillHeMonsta

    Prankster

  • Members
  • Joined: 22 Aug 2012

#130

Posted 10 April 2013 - 11:47 AM

QUOTE (GKP @ Wednesday, Apr 10 2013, 10:31)
I wouldn't say that Lex, we do have screenshots of the city from multiple angles and the US bank tower as method of assessing the size of areas. Don't know what more we could need other than the map.

When the game releases it will be clear , LS is certainly not large enough to get 'lost' in.

I think the below image is damning as it shows IV looking a fair bit larger than LS in V


The reason why I posted those two screen shots is because in the LC shot you can see everything from east to west. From the airport to Aldernely.
In the Los Santos shot you cant see every part of the city from east to west - there are still some parts of the city you cant see especially to the right of the picture.
Therefore Los Santos city can still be bigger in size compared with the whole of LC.

kesta195
  • kesta195

    L.S.P.D.

  • Members
  • Joined: 20 Jun 2011

#131

Posted 10 April 2013 - 12:10 PM

Does anyone know the approximate size of MC:LA with South Central DLC? If you are in the Santa Monica area in that game downtown actually looks quite far away, compared to this game.

AlienWillHeMonsta
  • AlienWillHeMonsta

    Prankster

  • Members
  • Joined: 22 Aug 2012

#132

Posted 10 April 2013 - 12:10 PM



In the above video the guy takes 4 minutes to drive from Alderney to the airport on the east side.
He even takes time to stop in case his car got scratched colgate.gif . So knock his time down to 3 mins.

There was a report that it took 15 minutes to drive from Los Santos to the country side. And that report
did not even state whether they reached the other side of the map or not.

GKP
  • GKP

    Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Jan 2011

#133

Posted 10 April 2013 - 12:16 PM

15 minutes...thats absolute bollocks. Look at downtown and the dam, its just over a mile away. It would not take more than 2 minute from downtown.

GTAaLEX117
  • GTAaLEX117

    Cynical Optimist

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Apr 2013

#134

Posted 10 April 2013 - 12:23 PM

QUOTE (GKP @ Wednesday, Apr 10 2013, 12:16)
15 minutes...thats absolute bollocks. Look at downtown and the dam, its just over a mile away. It would not take more than 2 minute from downtown.

Back to speculation again? You don't even know how long and windy the roads are, and I'm pretty sure he never even said anything about the reservoir just the countryside, which hasn't been well charted anyway.

GKP
  • GKP

    Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Jan 2011

#135

Posted 10 April 2013 - 12:26 PM

The countryside is just behind the Vinewood sign

Blazevski12
  • Blazevski12

    Hustler

  • Members
  • Joined: 01 Nov 2011

#136

Posted 10 April 2013 - 12:28 PM

Rokstar better don't make Los Santos to small, somebody is more interesed to see the city then the countryside dozingoff.gif .

GtaVComments
  • GtaVComments

    MUFC Champions 2012/13!!!

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Jan 2012

#137

Posted 10 April 2013 - 12:29 PM

QUOTE (AlienWillHeMonsta @ Tuesday, Apr 9 2013, 10:19)
Compare and contrast

http://assets1.ignim...kjpg-19d2fa.jpg

http://www.thebuzzme...ght-skyline.jpg

I tried to out together a rough comparison in terms of splitting the city in 3 like IV. Of course there would be more in the red and green areas however they are out of sight. The top and bottom of the blue area are perhaps not completely visible either. Make of it what you will. Bigger or smaller?

user posted image

Do these show btw?

GTAaLEX117
  • GTAaLEX117

    Cynical Optimist

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Apr 2013

#138

Posted 10 April 2013 - 12:31 PM

QUOTE (GKP @ Wednesday, Apr 10 2013, 12:26)
The countryside is just behind the Vinewood sign

The countryside almost encircles the city from what we've seen.

llllI1llllI1
  • llllI1llllI1

    Ghetto Star

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 Apr 2011

#139

Posted 10 April 2013 - 12:33 PM

Stop trying to measure buildings and start thinking about when you're actually running around, or driving.

http://i928.photobuc...y-Frame/390.png

http://i928.photobuc...y-Frame/152.png

The other side of this...

https://sphotos-b.xx...346808301_o.jpg

Is this..

https://sphotos-b.xx...163572801_o.jpg

It MIGHT be smaller, but it is going to feel huge just like R* did with SA.

GTAaLEX117
  • GTAaLEX117

    Cynical Optimist

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Apr 2013

#140

Posted 10 April 2013 - 12:36 PM

QUOTE (GtaVComments @ Wednesday, Apr 10 2013, 12:29)
I tried to out together a rough comparison in terms of splitting the city in 3 like IV. Of course there would be more in the red and green areas however they are out of sight. The top and bottom of the blue area are perhaps not completely visible either. Make of it what you will. Bigger or smaller?

user posted image

Do these show btw?

The red portion extends to the left and down, all the way to the Vinewood sign. The blue area also includes the airport and an island that we haven't seen. The green area also probably has a chunk behind the golf course.
I think we can safely say there's a lot more to the city than what we've seen so far.

ALeSsAnDrO
  • ALeSsAnDrO

    Peon

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Sep 2002

#141

Posted 10 April 2013 - 12:44 PM

The Liberty City area expands beyond the last bridge (something you can confirm by opening the in-game map). The LS area ends with the bridge.
So yes, although there may be some hidden area to the right of the LS pic, I still think, as a whole, it's smaller than Liberty.

Which is a shame really, especially when mediocre games like True Crime did so much justice to the real size of the city (on a PS2)

GtaVComments
  • GtaVComments

    MUFC Champions 2012/13!!!

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Jan 2012

#142

Posted 10 April 2013 - 12:46 PM

Just to add to that last image...

user posted image

user posted image


Red XIII
  • Red XIII

    the middle of nowhere, the centre of everywhere.

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 07 Nov 2012
  • None

#143

Posted 10 April 2013 - 12:48 PM

The city looks awesome, the city alone is comparable to the whole map of gtaiv so why complain?


You cant say it takes 2 minutes to get from one side to the other, your just pulling random numbers out. We have only seen the city from far away or aerial shots so we cant really see how big it is until we actually play it. Obviously its never going to be as big as you want it to be, GKP. It looks like its going to be the biggest city in the gta history that is not separated by 2 or 3 islands, that alone is probably going to make it feel a lot bigger.


Sef
  • Sef

    Proud to be Dutch

  • Members
  • Joined: 23 Jan 2013

#144

Posted 10 April 2013 - 12:48 PM

QUOTE (Dick Valor @ Tuesday, Apr 9 2013, 07:45)
QUOTE (Fail_At_GTA @ Tuesday, Apr 9 2013, 05:17)
Los Santos was confirmed to be just a tiny bit smaller than Liberty City.  You can view the Mapping Los Santos thread which confirms it even more.

/thread

\thread

Who says we've seen all of Los Santos? monocle.gif

Totally agree.
Wait until the official gameplay, then we can talk.

GTAaLEX117
  • GTAaLEX117

    Cynical Optimist

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Apr 2013

#145

Posted 10 April 2013 - 12:52 PM

QUOTE (ALeSsAnDrO @ Wednesday, Apr 10 2013, 12:44)
The Liberty City area expands beyond the last bridge (something you can confirm by opening the in-game map). The LS area ends with the bridge.
So yes, although there may be some hidden area to the right of the LS pic, I still think, as a whole, it's smaller than Liberty.

Which is a shame really, especially when mediocre games like True Crime did so much justice to the real size of the city (on a PS2)

I'm fairly sure the bridge is actually connected to an Island.
Regarding true crime, I'm sure R* can make a city that's as detailed as SA's San Fierro and have it stretch 20 times the size of Liberty City...but who would want that? I don't want a big, lifeless baron city.

Official General
  • Official General

    I'm from Broker, LC, we always carry heat around here.

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2010
  • None

#146

Posted 10 April 2013 - 12:55 PM

QUOTE (wallis @ Wednesday, Apr 10 2013, 09:36)
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.

This icon14.gif

@ GTAaLEX117

Firstly, I wanna say that you are talking PURE BULLSH*T about Liberty City in GTA IV. How the f**k can you say LC in IV "was boring to travel across because it looked the same everywhere" ?? No way, that is total rubbish. LC was definitely not boring, it was one of the exciting and enthralling open-world cities to explore in a video game. Each borough in LC had it's own distinct look, layout, character, feel and identity, just like the 5 boroughs have in the real-life New York City. Broker looked nothing like Dukes, Bohan looked nothing like Dukes and Algonquin looked nothing like any of the other 3 islands. Alderney looked like totally different place. If you really think that about LC, then I will assume you did not play IV properly or fully appreciate the detailed, vastness and landscape variety seen in LC. If you did, you'd not say such nonsense.

I'm sorry but I very much agree with that wallis guy. A big city can definitely work for this generation of gaming. If LC in IV (also an 8-year old game) can be made to be very big, then why cannot Los Santos ?? I just do not believe that the current level of console technology is not advanced enough for LS to be a bigger city than it looks in the latest GTA V screenshots. After 5 years of making this game, they surely have had more than enough time to make LS in V very big in size and detailed as it deserves to be, especially when we consider how huge the whole map will be as Rockstar have already stated. Your talk of money limitations is pure rubbish - Rockstar have lots of money to spend on this game, GTA V's budget is rumored to run into serious millions of dollars to make, and I think it may even cost more than GTA IV, which cost $100 million to make. And anyway it won't cost Rockstar that much just add more buildings and space into a lone city within the game, don't be so silly. Rockstar did say they wanted to re-create that huge urban LA-style sprawl in GTA V, and lets face it, those screenshots do not exactly show that. I can't even see any proper suburban area in those shots, I see nothing but some houses clustered among the hills surrounding the downtown area. To add to this, downtown LA has quite a lot of skyscrapers on it's skyline, but the downtown section of LS in those screenshots appears to have just a handful, which is a far from realistic re-creation of LA itself. Bro, I'm only going by what I see, I'm not criticizing just for the sake of it, it's hard to ignore what the eyes can see. And from what I see regarding the size and realistic look of LS in V, I am personally a bit underwhelmed, I expected better than what is shown so far.

Speaking of fans, I clearly remember when V was first announced and confirmed to only have one main city being LS, many people on here were upset it's only gonna be one city after all, and not also San Fierro and Las Venturas. Many people wanted 3 cities again like in San Andreas, but there were also many people who argued against that and their most stated reason for preferring just one city in V would be much better, was because Rockstar would have more time and resources to concentrate on making just one city so that could create a very detailed, HUGE city of LS that would be more interesting and amazing to explore. Now this is not looking like it is case, some of these same guys preferring one city are now saying, "but LS don't need to be too big, it don't need all that extra space and detail, bla bla". They cannot make their minds up. All I'm saying is if Rockstar are not doing multiple cities and are only gonna give us just one city in a huge whole map, they should least compensate for this by giving us one, very detailed huge city in size - the main complaint here is that the images don't show us that this is the case, hence why there is significant discontent. We gotta wait and see, I'll concede to that, but Rockstar better just make some major improvements and progress to win me over.

Believe me, I actually hope I'm wrong and LS turns out to be massive, but I cannot hide the fact that I'm concerned about this.

Jonny04
  • Jonny04

    Playa

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2007

#147

Posted 10 April 2013 - 12:58 PM Edited by Jonny04, 10 April 2013 - 01:05 PM.

SO let's get this straight to all the moaners.

You say that GTA IV's map was pretty big, took quite a while to get around in car etc, lots of different roads and things to navigate, means can take 10-15 minutes to get from one extreme of Alderney to Broker.

You say you are bored of having a big city and want more diversity, more countryside.

You then say a city that is confirmed to be give or take 10% bigger or smaller than LC is in someway disappointing, but at the same time you're getting countryside thats at least 3 times bigger than LS/LC as well as having the City??

What the f*ck pleases you people?? Remember you don't have to buy this game, but some of you should go do a Honours degree in Games Software Development so you can make your own f*cking game.

What you seem to forget is they probably started designing V in 2009 after the DLC was fully finished. You also forget that there is a 50 hour storyline, many different features/mini games being implemented, small towns, underwater world, the biggest vehicle set ever seen in a GTA game, wildlife, a brand new revolutionary multiplayer experience. YET a f*cking City that is the same size as Liberty City is not progress, what about all the new interiors, there are bound to be more than IV.

So okay go enjoy GTA SA on the Rage engine, because remember Los Santos in that game is REALLY huge.

I'm not a kid, and I buy games if I like them, so please don't bother calling me a fanboy, this is a 60 dollar game that is way better value than any other game available, take COD, FIFA, all the EA trash games that are brought out annually. They offer f*ck all innovation, but yet we still have a bunch of immature people who contradict themselves by demanding a city that is bigger than LC (it's actually the same size) but at the same time thought IV was pretty big map for a City.

Good day and peace to all of you, just hope you enjoy the game if you buy it in the end.

GKP
  • GKP

    Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Jan 2011

#148

Posted 10 April 2013 - 01:04 PM Edited by GKP, 10 April 2013 - 01:07 PM.

Unfortuntely there are too many apologists Official for many to take your msg to heart. We WILL have to eat whatever R* serve up . Ultimately why do R* want to make their life difficult. If LS in V as it stands is 'good enough' well then its sufficient for the majority. Some people cant stand to hear complaints about a series they love. Im somewhat indifferent as my hype for V is about 5/10.

LS is small for a city thats supposed to represent LA. LC could just about pull off manhatten and brooklyn , NJ as they are relatively close to each other.

Compressing the beach to downtown distance by a factor of 24 ! is a bit much too stomach (12 miles in real life).

I dont particularly care about the countryside, it will be nice to have dont geet me wrong, but the city is where the life and crimes take place.

Considering the LA is known for its sprawl , it SHOULD of been represented...it should of left us slightly aghast at the sheer size of the place. The screenshots so far do not exactly bowl you over do they ?

Jonny04
  • Jonny04

    Playa

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2007

#149

Posted 10 April 2013 - 01:09 PM

QUOTE (GKP @ Wednesday, Apr 10 2013, 13:04)
Unfortuntely there are too many apologists Official for many to take your msg to heart. We WILL have to eat whatever R* serve up . Ultimately why do R* want to make their life difficult. If LS in V as it stands is 'good enough' well then its sufficient for the majority. Some people cant stand to hear complaints about a series they love. Im somewhat indifferent as my hype for V is about 5/10.

LS is small for a city thats supposed to represent LA. LC could just about pull off manhatten and brooklyn , NJ as they are relatively close to each other.

Compressing the beach to downtown distance by a factor of 24 ! is a bit much too stomach (12 miles in real life).

I dont particularly care about the countryside, it will be nice to have dont geet me wrong, but the city is where the life and crimes take place.

Casual gamers are a breed of scum I hate, take Call of Duty look how that turned out due to casual gamers.

Splinter Cell a series I truly liked, became sh*t from Double Agent onwards, I can only pray that they don't f*ck up Blacklist, they have come out and said Spies v Mercs is back.

These are two examples of games like COD2 (dare I say COD4) and Chaos Theory that got f*cked up.

ON the other hand I believe Rockstar are the last developer standing that have stayed trued to their roots, they desire perfection, I truly enjoy all of the games they've put out, I can see you are upset on the City thing so I'll not get into a war of words on a forum, all I can say is GKP I hope you are wrong and you end up enjoying a bigger than imagined Los Santos.

If not please still enjoy the game as its surely too small a problem to overlook the whole game??


GKP
  • GKP

    Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Jan 2011

#150

Posted 10 April 2013 - 01:13 PM Edited by GKP, 10 April 2013 - 01:15 PM.

Yeah I will enjoy the rest of the game. I have been annoying recently , its just that I feel slightly cheated with LS city considering what it could of been. If someone could remake True Crime with decent phyics Id be over the moon. To be able to go for a 15 / 20 minute drive on a highway , through a giant city with lots of traffic - would be great. Some might get bored of that but it would add greatly to immersion.

You could have fast travel options if you want but think of the chases, the LA car chases that go on for hours around neighbourhoods is an infamous part of the landscape...where the f do we drive to in V , the country all the time ? Jesus.

I mean you DO know that from the edge of the city , downtown is no more than a minute away ...how do I know this...experience of the distances in IV. You could be 2/3 the way up algonquin and get down to the battery park area in a minute. What would REALLY piss me off is if R* f*ck with the grid system that LA is known for and add lots of curved roads to try and falsely extend distances.

Of course they use the same trick the god awful barrel view , wide angle POV.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users