Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Map Size Thread

8,295 replies to this topic
ChillyPhilly
  • ChillyPhilly

    Rock 'n' roll stops the traffic.

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Nov 2007

#151

Posted 10 April 2013 - 01:13 PM

I'll politely repeat my question to geographers/mappers in here.

Can anyone work out the height of V's version of the US Bank Tower?

This will help us work out the size of Los Santos.

GKP
  • GKP

    Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Jan 2011

#152

Posted 10 April 2013 - 01:19 PM

Chilly , no reason to think its anything different than life sized. The empire state building was in IV (1.8 mile algonquin compared to the empire state in game).

The city is 2 miles across max, maybe 2.5 miles. Again, experience with IV and an analytical mind allows me to make a good guesstimate that Im happy with.

4 sq mile at the MOST. And I cant really see that. Its ok, but it should of been bigger.

Deffpony
  • Deffpony

    Stay Golden Ponyboy

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 08 Apr 2007
  • None

#153

Posted 10 April 2013 - 01:31 PM

Wow this thread has escalated. Let me interject.

First, none of us are expecting LS to be anywhere near the size of LA. LA is massive.

Second, the problem with determining the size of LS is that it is very topographically different than LC. It's not flat as it spreads into the hillside.

But from the screenshots, the city just simply appears small compared to the claim that it is the same size as LC. Yes, this is speculation, but speculation based upon what we have seen. I was really hoping that there would be suburbs the size of Alderney and the rest of downtown would be equivalent to the rest of LC.

Jonny04
  • Jonny04

    Playa

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2007

#154

Posted 10 April 2013 - 01:31 PM

QUOTE (ChillyPhilly @ Wednesday, Apr 10 2013, 13:13)
I'll politely repeat my question to geographers/mappers in here.

Can anyone work out the height of V's version of the US Bank Tower?

This will help us work out the size of Los Santos.

Sorry Chilly can't be sure, believe they worked it out in the mapping topic. To a fairly high degree of accuracy.

@GKP I also would like a bigger city sometime, guess I might not be this time, although I generally ain't too fussed on the overall size, I would be disappointed if it ain't bigger overall than what they claim i.e GTA V > GTA SA + RDR + IV

I do look forward to underwater exploration though, and the use of two jets. I'm pretty hyped for the game, I wish you well mate and if you wanna add me on Xbox its xxPH4NT0Mxx for some multiplayer a few months from now, I'm also on PS3 but not sure what name I'll be using for that.

To everyone else, hope you have a good day, and hope the map turns out slightly bigger in LS for you all.

Above
  • Above

    Gangsta

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 Jul 2006

#155

Posted 10 April 2013 - 01:36 PM

If LS is as big/small as the screens indicate, then there must be other cities in this game. Not San Fierro or Las Venturas but something like Alderney. Where else would these big highways go? I doubt they will just circle into the countryside.

Official General
  • Official General

    You gotta always carry heat in these Vice City streets

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2010

#156

Posted 10 April 2013 - 01:36 PM

QUOTE (deffpony @ Wednesday, Apr 10 2013, 13:31)
Wow this thread has escalated. Let me interject.

First, none of us are expecting LS to be anywhere near the size of LA. LA is massive.

Second, the problem with determining the size of LS is that it is very topographically different than LC. It's not flat as it spreads into the hillside.

But from the screenshots, the city just simply appears small compared to the claim that it is the same size as LC. Yes, this is speculation, but speculation based upon what we have seen. I was really hoping that there would be suburbs the size of Alderney and the rest of downtown would be equivalent to the rest of LC.

Well said, similar thoughts here icon14.gif

Thank you, I hope some of those with the opposing view on here with titanium-thick skulls will finally understand this and take this in.

Jonny04
  • Jonny04

    Playa

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2007

#157

Posted 10 April 2013 - 01:40 PM

QUOTE (Official General @ Wednesday, Apr 10 2013, 13:36)
QUOTE (deffpony @ Wednesday, Apr 10 2013, 13:31)
Wow this thread has escalated. Let me interject.

First, none of us are expecting LS to be anywhere near the size of LA. LA is massive.

Second, the problem with determining the size of LS is that it is very topographically different than LC. It's not flat as it spreads into the hillside.

But from the screenshots, the city just simply appears small compared to the claim that it is the same size as LC. Yes, this is speculation, but speculation based upon what we have seen. I was really hoping that there would be suburbs the size of Alderney and the rest of downtown would be equivalent to the rest of LC.

Well said, similar thoughts here icon14.gif

Thank you, I hope some of those with the opposing view on here with titanium-thick skulls will finally understand this and take this in.

icon14.gif

Would be good yeah, lets just hope its in. There is a major possibility they ain't showed us it all yet, I'm kind of tempted to go back and map out what we were shown of IV in screenshots on a map before release, and try convert it to a % of the whole map shown, I think we would all be pleasantly surprised. We all know R* hold back information on all aspects of the game, this includes detailed views of the map.

Thanks

GTAaLEX117
  • GTAaLEX117

    Cynical Optimist

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Apr 2013

#158

Posted 10 April 2013 - 01:41 PM

QUOTE (Official General @ Wednesday, Apr 10 2013, 12:55)

@ 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.

-Perhaps it was the bland, uniform gray lighting, but most neighborhoods looked the same to me. Compare LC to LS in SA. Now that city had a lot of diversity from the ghetto, to downtown, to suburban areas, rich hillside manors, and just about everything you can imagine.
-Secondly, I didn't say it's not possible to make a large city, I said it's impossible to make both a city as large as you want AND a huge, expansive countryside.
-They don't have the time and money to make both. To make a city as huge as you want plus an expansive countryside they'd probably need a few extra years and a lot more money. It's not bs, it's reality.
-The real sprawl can only be seen from the street level, not in the air.
-One of the main complaints GTA IV has had, besides the outlandish vehicles and missions, was the lack of anything besides the urban jungle. It's actually very well justified. I've been playing in a city for the last 5 years with GTA IV, now I want some countryside as well. I'm sure the majority feels the same.


GKP
  • GKP

    Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Jan 2011

#159

Posted 10 April 2013 - 01:44 PM

Johnny it was different with IV though. We knew that it would take an island form.

What we DO know about LS iv V is that the hills contain the city limits. Convievably LS is very long and narrow , I just cant see it though.


JonRenemy
  • JonRenemy

    Greater Than Great

  • Members
  • Joined: 22 Apr 2008

#160

Posted 10 April 2013 - 01:47 PM

QUOTE (Choco Taco @ Wednesday, Apr 10 2013, 06:13)
QUOTE (JonRenemy @ Tuesday, Apr 9 2013, 18:18)
user posted image

I removed the barrel distortion which gives us a much clearer view overall of just how FAR away this photo is being taken from, and just how MASSIVE the city still feels even after you take that into consideration.

Why did you stretch the bottom ends out instead of pushing the top ends in?

What I actually did was correct the overall perspective and then fill in the corner gaps. I thought it would confuse people more if the sides were screwy. This gives the illusion of overall size.

Deffpony
  • Deffpony

    Stay Golden Ponyboy

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 08 Apr 2007
  • None

#161

Posted 10 April 2013 - 01:55 PM

If you look at the mapping LS thread you can clearly use the size of the airport in proportion to the rest of the city to show how small the city is.

GKP
  • GKP

    Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Jan 2011

#162

Posted 10 April 2013 - 01:58 PM Edited by GKP, 10 April 2013 - 02:10 PM.

Deff - well I got sh*t for mentioning that kind of point in that thread which is full of fanboys.

Fact - LAX is far bigger than LS in V. If R* cant even make a city the size of an airport - how are we supposed to consider it 'sprawling'...a word that R* use themselves.
I am being fairly generous with LS being 3 miles across (which it isnt)]

user posted image

Official General
  • Official General

    You gotta always carry heat in these Vice City streets

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2010

#163

Posted 10 April 2013 - 02:09 PM Edited by Official General, 10 April 2013 - 02:15 PM.

QUOTE (GTAaLEX117 @ Wednesday, Apr 10 2013, 13:41)
-Perhaps it was the bland, uniform gray lighting, but most neighborhoods looked the same to me. Compare LC to LS in SA. Now that city had a lot of diversity from the ghetto, to downtown, to suburban areas, rich hillside manors, and just about everything you can imagine.
-Secondly, I didn't say it's not possible to make a large city, I said it's impossible to make both a city as large as you want AND a huge, expansive countryside.
-They don't have the time and money to make both. To make a city as huge as you want plus an expansive countryside they'd probably need a few extra years and a lot more money. It's not bs, it's reality.
-The real sprawl can only be seen from the street level, not in the air.
-One of the main complaints GTA IV has had, besides the outlandish vehicles and missions, was the lack of anything besides the urban jungle. It's actually very well justified. I've been playing in a city for the last 5 years with GTA IV, now I want some countryside as well. I'm sure the majority feels the same.

* No. I personally believe you just did not pay that much attention to the environment within the game. It seems from what you are saying that to you everything in GTA IV's LC was just concrete block after block, and you made no distinctions between areas. If have you ever been to NYC before, you would know that LC in IV pretty much got the different boroughs right, and you would not be saying LC looks all the same.

* Sorry I still disagree, judging from their previous works this generation, I'm very sure Rockstar are more than capable of making a very large, detailed city with expansive countryside. You are just making a baseless assumption that they can't because of limited time and finances, and unless you work for them, what makes you so sure that you know of this ? I'm assuming you don't work for Rockstar, so why you are making excuses for them and defending them to death, I don't know.

* Again, no. My eyes see what they see, and from what is shown in the aerial screenshots of the Los Santos in GTA V, that IS the real sprawl, at least a good part of it. If anything, the real sprawl of the city is best viewed from the air, I don't understand your strange logic. Anyway, your theory is stupid. My eyes see what they see, others see the same thing, from the aerial view LS don't look very big, stop making yourself look silly with your ridiculous, apologist theories.

* I don't know why you included the last part. I never once said that I did not want any countryside in V. I definitely want countryside, wilderness, mountains and coastal environments in V, I want it all. But the thing is, I also want LS to be a very large, realistic re-creation of LA-style city to go with it. Rockstar have claimed that V has all of these things, but on the LS part, I just can't see it.....yet.

And IV did not need countryside, it was a primarily concrete big city-based game, I don't understand those complaints. Countryside in IV would have been nice, but it did not need it. LS (SA) is set in the right environment for that countryside to be included.

DS 17
  • DS 17

    om nom nom

  • Members
  • Joined: 06 Sep 2008
  • Germany

#164

Posted 10 April 2013 - 02:12 PM

QUOTE (GKP @ Wednesday, Apr 10 2013, 14:58)
Deff - well I got sh*t for mentioning that kind of point in that thread which is full of fanboys.

Fact - LAX is far bigger than LS in V. If R* cant even make a city the size of an airport - how are we supposed to consider it 'sprawling'...a word that R* use themselves.

*image*

You are so damn right. If R* excuses the size of the city because of the detail they want to create, this is nothing than a shame.
Today it's possible to create whole cities within some hours with automated programs (and these created cities and suburbs are really detailed! Just look for a video of e. g. CityEngine) and when they decided to recreate Los Angeles they should have been sure to create a SPRAWLING city like real LA and not a bad copy of a hicktown with a few reisdents.

AlienWillHeMonsta
  • AlienWillHeMonsta

    Prankster

  • Members
  • Joined: 22 Aug 2012

#165

Posted 10 April 2013 - 02:14 PM

QUOTE (GKP @ Wednesday, Apr 10 2013, 13:44)
Johnny it was different with IV though. We knew that it would take an island form.

What we DO know about LS iv V is that the hills contain the city limits. Convievably LS is very long and narrow , I just cant see it though.

The part about the hills is news to me. Can you provide us with the proof?

GKP
  • GKP

    Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Jan 2011

#166

Posted 10 April 2013 - 02:17 PM

DS17 - before the naysayers come here, NO we dont expect R* to create a bland auto gen city, but a mixture of their unique take on things and an actual metropolis sized city. For years we have let game devs off the hook because of either tech constraints or the time to develop a city. Luxoflux used satelite data to VERY quickly develop an accurate LA.

'Their not trying to recreate it !!!!..'


Well maybe they should ! because their 'vision' sucks ass. A 3.5 sq mile city is fit for 20,000 people. Not 9-10 million.

Alien, look at the screenshot. Its bounded by the Vinewood hills to the North...you think LS is going to be sausage shaped !? It will be roughly spheroid or rectangular and so the scale is set by the docks to observatory distance. Not to mention there are hills to the left of the pic on the same screen.

<Yang3
  • <Yang3

    ☆☆☆☆☆

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Apr 2009
  • Philippines

#167

Posted 10 April 2013 - 02:22 PM Edited by DODI3OG, 10 April 2013 - 02:26 PM.

Most of you IDIOTS include Alderney among your calculations.
Haven't you even found out yourself that Liberty City is different from Alderney State?

When Rockstar said Liberty City, it's definitely Algonquin, Broker-Dukes, Bohan and Liberty Island. Right now, we can't really say LS is bigger than LC because we don't have enough proof.

LS may be bigger than LC, but it won't be 50% bigger as you've expected.
As Rockstar have said, LS is ROUGHLY the same size as LC.
So that brings us to the conclusion that LS may be a BIT BIGGER or A BIT SMALLER than LC.

Also, GKP, if you won't stop flaming GTA V and other people for their ideas, then you have to leave the forums.

Who said the city will be 3.5 miles big?

GKP
  • GKP

    Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Jan 2011

#168

Posted 10 April 2013 - 02:25 PM

Um were not 'idiots'

Virtually all of us included Alderney as part of LC city. To suggest its as big as LC WITHOUT Alderney means were getting a


2 SQUARE MILE LS CITY


But of course, many people are happy with that.

<Yang3
  • <Yang3

    ☆☆☆☆☆

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Apr 2009
  • Philippines

#169

Posted 10 April 2013 - 02:28 PM

QUOTE (GKP @ Wednesday, Apr 10 2013, 22:25)
Um were not 'idiots'

Virtually all of us included Alderney as part of LC city. To suggest its as big as LC WITHOUT Alderney means were getting a


2 SQUARE MILE LS CITY


But of course, many people are happy with that.

You and your friends are idiots I'm talking about.

Games have different measurements. Even a Mountain in Far Cry 3 can be as big as 1/4 of LS.

Or a road in Call of Duty can be as wide as an entire Street.
Get to it, the in-game measurement of the game could be 3-3.5 sq miles, but outside, it'll seem bigger.

CTCCoco
  • CTCCoco

    Homie

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 23 Nov 2008

#170

Posted 10 April 2013 - 02:29 PM

GTA IV map sucked as hell. All the same things all the time.

"OMG BUT THE CITY IS ALIVE", yeaaa everything is the f*cking same ! There is no a f*cking forest or nothing else, the map is so small that a plane is non-sense and the bugs, lack of features destroy it all.

Damn you can't even explore because in 5 minutes you know all the map.

AlienWillHeMonsta
  • AlienWillHeMonsta

    Prankster

  • Members
  • Joined: 22 Aug 2012

#171

Posted 10 April 2013 - 02:29 PM

QUOTE (GKP @ Wednesday, Apr 10 2013, 14:17)
Alien, look at the screenshot. Its bounded by the Vinewood hills to the North...you think LS is going to be sausage shaped !? It will be roughly spheroid or rectangular and so the scale is set by the docks to observatory distance. Not to mention there are hills to the left of the pic on the same screen.


So which airport are the military aircraft coming from?

Official General
  • Official General

    You gotta always carry heat in these Vice City streets

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2010

#172

Posted 10 April 2013 - 02:32 PM Edited by Official General, 10 April 2013 - 02:35 PM.

QUOTE (DODI3OG @ Wednesday, Apr 10 2013, 14:22)
Most of you IDIOTS include Alderney among your calculations.
Haven't you even found out yourself that Liberty City is different from Alderney State?

When Rockstar said Liberty City, it's definitely Algonquin, Broker-Dukes, Bohan and Liberty Island. Right now, we can't really say LS is bigger than LC because we don't have enough proof.

LS may be bigger than LC, but it won't be 50% bigger as you've expected.
As Rockstar have said, LS is ROUGHLY the same size as LC.
So that brings us to the conclusion that LS may be a BIT BIGGER or A BIT SMALLER than LC.

You just waded right into this discussion, and surprise, suprise you got everything wrong. No one even said anything like what you have just mentioned.

* I'm sure ost people meant LC only, not Alderney. In fact most never actually specified. Even if they did mean Alderney too, that is insignificant to the main issue.

* Nobody thought LS was gonna be '50% bigger' than LC, I don't know where you got that from.

* Everybody agrees that Rockstar officially said LS alone would be the same size as LC, no one said otherwise. Some us are saying, looking at the images, right now LS even looks smaller than LC, let alone bigger.

* Whose us ? Look at your dumb final comment. THAT IS JUST OUR POINT YOU IDIOT. We have been saying all along from our conclusion that LS may be a bit smaller than LC, hence why were are discussing this and that WE ARE NOT PLEASED ABOUT IT, if that is the case.

Look read the posts properly, before joining in and making such judgement on those involved and calling them idiots. Because you got everything wrong, and on top of it all, now you just look and sound extremely stupid indeed.

kesta195
  • kesta195

    L.S.P.D.

  • Members
  • Joined: 20 Jun 2011

#173

Posted 10 April 2013 - 02:32 PM

QUOTE (GKP @ Wednesday, Apr 10 2013, 14:25)
SIZE=14]
2 SQUARE MILE LS CITY [/SIZE]

But of course, many people are happy with that.

Anyone with half a brain and a working pair of eyes can tell that LS is bigger than 2sq miles. The frequently shown observatory shot shows maybe 50-60% of the city, based on the area we have seen West and East of this area. A sensible estimate would be that the city is about 2.5 x 2 miles, which is obviously 5sq miles. Even at that size it is not as big as R* claims. When R* said 'Liberty City' they most likely included Alderney, because the majority of GTAIV players probably didn't even know they were separate. In addition, most players see GTAIV as one city, therefore they want to know how this 'single city' compares to the single city in V.

GKP
  • GKP

    Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Jan 2011

#174

Posted 10 April 2013 - 02:34 PM

Alien, the military base in the country.


Actually General - I thought alderney is included . You are aware that ALL the land area of IV is 3.2 sq miles

Without Alderney.... bored.gif thats a small ass city.

True Kesta - I think that LS WILL be around 3.5 sq miles - it just took me by surpise that Alderney may not have been included.

<Yang3
  • <Yang3

    ☆☆☆☆☆

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Apr 2009
  • Philippines

#175

Posted 10 April 2013 - 02:35 PM Edited by DODI3OG, 10 April 2013 - 02:37 PM.

QUOTE (CTGay @ His mom's house, Feb 30 2011, 00:00)
GTA IV map sucked as hell. All the same things all the time.

"OMG BUT THE CITY IS ALIVE", yeaaa everything is the f*cking same ! There is no a f*cking forest or nothing else, the map is so small that a plane is non-sense and the bugs, lack of features destroy it all.

IMO, the neighborhoods had different feels. Hove Beach had a different feel from Chinatown.

Rockstar did the game realistically.
So, let's say, Rockstar makes a city with a real-life scale with a countryside.
Wouldn't you get tired of it? Someone asks you for a favor but the objective's 69 miles away from you.

You travel to each neighborhood but you got tired of the "repetitive scenery" w/c is 2 squared km. large?

Also, CTDumbass, don't include GTA 4's flaws just to get your argument right. Kiddo.

CTCCoco
  • CTCCoco

    Homie

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 23 Nov 2008

#176

Posted 10 April 2013 - 02:35 PM

QUOTE (kesta195 @ Wednesday, Apr 10 2013, 14:32)
QUOTE (GKP @ Wednesday, Apr 10 2013, 14:25)
SIZE=14]
2 SQUARE MILE LS CITY [/SIZE]

But of course, many people are happy with that.

Anyone with half a brain and a working pair of eyes can tell that LS is bigger than 2sq miles. The frequently shown observatory shot shows maybe 50-60% of the city, based on the area we have seen West and East of this area. A sensible estimate would be that the city is about 2.5 x 2 miles, which is obviously 5sq miles. Even at that size it is not as big as R* claims. When R* said 'Liberty City' they most likely included Alderney, because the majority of GTAIV players probably didn't even know they were separate. In addition, most players see GTAIV as one city, therefore they want to know how this 'single city' compares to the single city in V.

GTA IV supporters logic: put a small city district and a 20 miles bridge which directs to another small district -> OMG THE CITY IS 30 SQ MILES IT'S MUCH BIGGER THAN LS !

GTAaLEX117
  • GTAaLEX117

    Cynical Optimist

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Apr 2013

#177

Posted 10 April 2013 - 02:36 PM

QUOTE (Official General @ Wednesday, Apr 10 2013, 14:09)
* No. I personally believe you just did not pay that much attention to the environment within the game. It seems from what you are saying that to you everything in GTA IV's LC was just concrete block after block, and you made no distinctions between areas. If have you ever been to NYC before, you would know that LC in IV pretty much got the different boroughs right, and you would not be saying LC looks all the same.

* Sorry I still disagree, judging from their previous works this generation, I'm very sure Rockstar are more than capable of making a very large, detailed city with expansive countryside. You are just making a baseless assumption that they can't because of limited time and finances, and unless you work for them, what makes you so sure that you know of this ? I'm assuming you don't work for Rockstar, so why you are making excuses for them and defending them to death, I don't know.

* Again, no. My eyes see what they see, and from what is shown in the aerial screenshots of the Los Santos in GTA V, that IS the real sprawl, at least a good part of it. If anything, the real sprawl of the city is best viewed from the air, I don't understand your strange logic. Anyway, your theory is stupid. My eyes see what they see, others see the same thing, from the aerial view LS don't look very big, stop making yourself look silly with your ridiculous, apologist theories.

* I don't know why you included the last part. I never once said that I did not want any countryside in V. I definitely want countryside, wilderness, mountains and coastal environments in V, I want it all. But the thing is, I also want LS to be a very large, realistic re-creation of LA-style city to go with it. Rockstar have claimed that V has all of these things, but on the LS part, I just can't see it.....yet.

And IV did not need countryside, it was a primarily concrete big city-based game, I don't understand those complaints. Countryside in IV would have been nice, but it did not need it. LS (SA) is set in the right environment for that countryside to be included.

-Compared to LS in SA, LC was incredibly bland. It barely had any real diversity.

-Judging by what work? Tell me another game that's as big as the whole map in GTA V AND as detailed. I don' think you can. Everybody knows the current console generation is incredibly outdated, this is pretty much fact. It's just common sense that they cannot build a city as big as some of you want while retaining a huge, detailed and diverse countryside. I also like how you assume this is all one big conspiracy or lie, that they are just evil and don't want to make what you want. Go learn more about the current console technology and then talk.

-Sprawl refers more to pedestrian density, car density, and the general feel of the city, something you can't see from the air. You can only see the scale.

-That's just it, you want everything but you don't realize that they simply can't do that in an time period of a few years.

Yes, IV did not need countryside. It didn't need over the top vehicles or weapons. It didn't need diverse side missions. It didn't need missions variety either.
But the game was still incredibly criticized for lacking them. Ask people why they think SA was much better than IV.

So can you people just stop complaining? They are trying to make a game that the majority will like, of course there will be people who will be disappointed, they cannot please everybody.

Official General
  • Official General

    You gotta always carry heat in these Vice City streets

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2010

#178

Posted 10 April 2013 - 02:36 PM Edited by Official General, 10 April 2013 - 02:47 PM.

QUOTE (GKP @ Wednesday, Apr 10 2013, 14:34)
Alien, the military base in the country.


Actually General - I thought alderney is included . You are aware that ALL the land area of IV is 3.2 sq miles

Without Alderney.... bored.gif   thats a small ass city.

Nah I think that LC alone is still quite big. To me Alderney was just another smaller city compared to LC.

@ GTAaLEX117

LC in IV was bland ? Okay, now I have no reason to value your credibility as a GTA critic after what you just said. icon13.gif icon13.gif

Stop complaining because you say so ? Sorry, the answer is NO. It's forum and I will complain about this where I feel fit. Don't ask me again, or your plea will fall on deaf ears.

And I'm not taking this so seriously like it's an evil conspiracy, it's you saying that rubbish. I'm simply expressing my thoughts on GTA V, don't be so dramatic and exaggerate things.

GKP
  • GKP

    Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Jan 2011

#179

Posted 10 April 2013 - 02:37 PM

But Dodi , for a 18 rated game surely R* have to assume that its content is for adults with a degree of patience.

Life sized IS to far and too big (at least for a lot of people) SO instead you compromise. Not obliterate any resemblance to a city by creating the city in the screenshots.

Irrational
  • Irrational

    Federação das Américas

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2011
  • Brazil

#180

Posted 10 April 2013 - 02:38 PM

QUOTE (kesta195 @ Wednesday, Apr 10 2013, 14:32)
[...] The frequently shown observatory shot shows maybe 50-60% of the city, based on the area we have seen West and East of this area.[...]

No, it shows around 90% of the map.

It just doesn't show the extreme east or west to make people like you believe that the map is bigger than it really is.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users