8,295 replies to this topic

[Kifflom112]

QUOTE (CTCCoco @ Wednesday, Apr 10 2013, 09:29)

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.

You cannot be serious.

[GTAfan786]

Why are idiotic haters hating rockstar for nothing before the game has even come out? The logic is how would we be able to get a MASSIVE city with HUGE countrysides, deserts and other areas without fitting it into the game properly? Use your head. Besides, the whole map is bigger than IV, RDR and SA put together with room to spare so that is big enough. Also LS is more active and vast than LC so thats a big improvement there.

[GKP]

is it though ?

If its bigger than LC its curious that it doesnt give that impression.

[Marabunta Grande]

QUOTE (GAYaLexA @ His mom's house, Feb 30 2011, 00:00)

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

Bare in mind that it's also Rockstar's first open world game in RAGE.
I also got to admit that the City felt dead because of the lack of activity among the peds. Hove beach, as a run down neighborhood, should have had shootouts among the cops and gangs at night. But because of the "mannequin-esque" AI, nothing dangerous happened.

I'm sure Rockstar will improve this time around in GTA V, with the improved AI.

QUOTE (GayKidProtesting @ His mom's house, Feb 30 2011, 00:00)

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

Tell me, how does a big city improve gameplay? We're having a big map already

[GTAaLEX117]

QUOTE (Official General @ Wednesday, Apr 10 2013, 14:36)

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....   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 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.

How about, stop complaining because it's not going to fix anything? Does that sound more reasonable? It's OK to express your point of view, but don't do like GKP does and just spam the forums, replying to every comment with "This city is so small! R* you have disappointed me!"

It does sound like you're treating this like a conspiracy. Why would R* not build to do a bigger city if they could? To annoy people, right? Because they are lazy? Because they are better of lying? Or because they can't? Because the current technology doesn't allow them? Because they have a time limit? Because they want to make a game that addresses the complaints that GTA IV received?

[Deffpony]

QUOTE (DODI3OG @ Wednesday, Apr 10 2013, 09:28)

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.

Listen, we are having a discussion, no need to call anyone names.

First, the point some of us are trying to make is that from what we have seen LS looks small. Not even considering any sort of reference, it just seems small to be the "sprawling" recreation of LA that Dan Houser stated we would experience.

Other people have been using the comment about LS being close in size to LC as an argument that it is not small. Our rebuttal is that LS looks significantly smaller than the entire IV map, assuming that they meant Alderny included.

If they did not mean LC plus Alderny, which you have stated, than all that does is further confirm that the city is small. 2/3 the size of GTA IV map and its supposed to represent all of LA seems off doesnt it.

And then if you think about it in proportion to the rest of the map, it makes the city seem REALLY small. Lets do the math really quick with both referenced scenarios.

V's map= IV+SA+RDR(plus some) LS=All of LC including Alderny(roughly)

That means the country side is the size of RDR+SA, which would make the city a fairly tiny portion of the overall map.

V's map= IV=SA=RDR(plus some) LS=LC not including Alderny

That means the countryside is the size of RDR+SA+Alderny, which makes the city that much smaller a portion of the map.

Now its understandable that the countryside will be much larger than the city, and that there will be small towns and such. But the fact of the matter is, there is only one city in V, and it should be significantly sized.

@GKP: I really think its unfair to compare LS to the real LA, LA is the largest city in the country and to expect anything closely related in size is just unrealistic. However, comparing the size of LA to the size of NY is good justification that LS should be significantly larger than LC, not roughly equal.

As far as the claim that a large sized city is not probably due to time and resource constraints, that is not really a valid argument. First of all, money isnt as significant an aspect as you would think. Rockstar isnt a kickstarter company. They have the funds to create the game they wish. And in terms of time, Rockstar has never let "time" affect the way the develop games, hence a 5+ year development time of V.

[Official General]

QUOTE (GTAfan786 @ Wednesday, Apr 10 2013, 14:39)

Also LS is more active and vast than LC so thats a big improvement there.

Really ?? That's strange, because the images of LS sure does not show this so far.

@ GTAaLEX117

I have not gone on and on about how Rockstar have disappointed me. I've always maintained that I will have to ultimately wait and see how big LS will be in GTA V when it comes out. I'm discussing of what I can see so far and how it looks to me, in other words, the latest progress. That is clearly not my final judgement, how hard is that to understand ??

In reference to your question about Rockstar, I don't know what Rockstar are trying to do or achieve, and I'm not here to answer that. All I can say is that right now, LS just don't look big enough in those images, and it has left me quite concerned. It's a simple as that, if you read into it more, then that is your problem and not mine.

[kesta195]

Something I would like to point out:



First of all, this screen is NOT North to South, is is (roughly) North to South West. Even with this, we are not seeing the entirety of West LS, therefore this shows a fraction of East and North East LS, if we are to assume that East LS = West LS (which it does, from what we can see from the few shots we have of East LS, possibly even bigger.)

The Gerald Desmond Bridge (visible in this screen between two skyscrapers in East Downtown) is roughly the most south-central point of the map. The observatory to this bridge is the North-South span of the city. Is it so ridiculous to say that this distance is maybe 3 miles? Keep in mind that this mountain is very tall (check trailer 2 when Jimmy is hanging off the boat).

Lastly, look at the size of the GD Bridge in the shot above. It looks absolutely tiny. Then look at it in the screen below:



This bridge is massive. Imagine standing on the side of the road. It would dwarf you. So what I'm really trying to get across is this: stop using the observatory shot to represent the city size, because it does not not show the whole city, not even close, and a lot of you are not appreciating just how far away the distant land marks are.

[GKP]

Kesta , that distant bridge is 3 miles away max. Check out similar long distance comparisions on the mapping thread. I have seen across IV on the PC ...as distance of 2.5 miles and distances are comparable.

[kesta195]

QUOTE (GKP @ Wednesday, Apr 10 2013, 14:57)

Kesta , that distant bridge is 3 miles away max. Check out similar long distance comparisions on the mapping thread. I have seen across IV on the PC ...as distance of 2.5 miles and distances are comparable.

So say it is 3 miles away. N-S is roughly equal to W-E in this game. That's 3 miles across and 3 miles long. 9sq miles. That's probably a bit too big tbh. Make it 2 miles away.

[Kifflom112]

QUOTE (GKP @ Wednesday, Apr 10 2013, 09:57)

Kesta , that distant bridge is 3 miles away max. Check out similar long distance comparisions on the mapping thread. I have seen across IV on the PC ...as distance of 2.5 miles and distances are comparable.

How do you know it's three miles maximum? Have you actually played the game, you know, actually got in a car and drove from the observatory, to the bridge, checking the milage before and after the trip?

No, so until you do, you don't really know.

[kesta195]

QUOTE (Kifflom112 @ Wednesday, Apr 10 2013, 15:02)

QUOTE (GKP @ Wednesday, Apr 10 2013, 09:57) Kesta , that distant bridge is 3 miles away max. Check out similar long distance comparisions on the mapping thread. I have seen across IV on the PC ...as distance of 2.5 miles and distances are comparable. How do you know it's three miles maximum? Have you actually played the game, you know, actually got in a car and drove from the observatory, to the bridge, checking the milage before and after the trip? No, so until you do, you don't really know.

In his defense I was the one that ESTIMATED that is was about 3 miles away.

[GKP]

No your probably right it could even be 3 miles away. The city is oddly shaped though. Thats an extreme measurement of the cities extremities. The beach for example is very close.

EDIT - actually its a little under 2. Look on google earth. Go to LA, move the camera POV 2 miles away . There is your answer. Yes focal length comes into play but the pic of the Desmond Bridge looks to be a 'natural' 50mm focal view.

[AlienWillHeMonsta]

QUOTE (GKP @ Wednesday, Apr 10 2013, 14:34)

Alien, the military base in the country.

You mean the military base that we have not seen yet? You mean the part or parts of the map we have not seen?

[kesta195]

QUOTE (GKP @ Wednesday, Apr 10 2013, 15:04)

No your probably right it could even be 3 miles away. The city is oddly shaped though. Thats an extreme measurement of the cities extremities. The beach for example is very close.

The beach is very long and seems to curl towards downtown. I'd say near the supposed malibu area (see trailer 2 - bike speeding away from explosion at night) downtown could be as far as 2 miles away, whereas in the Venice area near the airport, it only looks to be about 1 mile.

[GKP]

Alien - yeah, one presume there will be a base in the countryside. Whats your problem with that.

[AlienWillHeMonsta]

QUOTE (kesta195 @ Wednesday, Apr 10 2013, 15:03)

QUOTE (Kifflom112 @ Wednesday, Apr 10 2013, 15:02) QUOTE (GKP @ Wednesday, Apr 10 2013, 09:57) Kesta , that distant bridge is 3 miles away max. Check out similar long distance comparisions on the mapping thread. I have seen across IV on the PC ...as distance of 2.5 miles and distances are comparable. How do you know it's three miles maximum? Have you actually played the game, you know, actually got in a car and drove from the observatory, to the bridge, checking the milage before and after the trip? No, so until you do, you don't really know. In his defense I was the one that ESTIMATED that is was about 3 miles away.

Isn't the draw distance suppose to be greater in this game compared with IV?

[GKP]

Alien, the draw distance was variable on the PC.

[kesta195]

QUOTE (AlienWillHeMonsta @ Wednesday, Apr 10 2013, 15:07)

QUOTE (kesta195 @ Wednesday, Apr 10 2013, 15:03) QUOTE (Kifflom112 @ Wednesday, Apr 10 2013, 15:02) QUOTE (GKP @ Wednesday, Apr 10 2013, 09:57) Kesta , that distant bridge is 3 miles away max. Check out similar long distance comparisions on the mapping thread. I have seen across IV on the PC ...as distance of 2.5 miles and distances are comparable. How do you know it's three miles maximum? Have you actually played the game, you know, actually got in a car and drove from the observatory, to the bridge, checking the milage before and after the trip? No, so until you do, you don't really know. In his defense I was the one that ESTIMATED that is was about 3 miles away. Isn't the draw distance suppose to be greater in this game compared with IV?

Yeah, for console, they said the distance has improved from 1.5km in IV to 'many, many miles' in V. Therefore the LS vs LC city size pics are somewhat obsolete, especially when the LC pic is at night. Seriously, what are people thinking?

[GTAaLEX117]

@Kesta Here's a picture that's even further away from the bridge. You can make out the skyscrapers in the distances. You can't even see the mountains. I think it gives you a pretty good idea how big the city actually is:

[Official General]

QUOTE (deffpony @ Wednesday, Apr 10 2013, 14:48)

Now its understandable that the countryside will be much larger than the city, and that there will be small towns and such. But the fact of the matter is, there is only one city in V, and it should be significantly sized. As far as the claim that a large sized city is not probably due to time and resource constraints, that is not really a valid argument. First of all, money isnt as significant an aspect as you would think. Rockstar isnt a kickstarter company. They have the funds to create the game they wish. And in terms of time, Rockstar has never let "time" affect the way the develop games, hence a 5+ year development time of V.

Totally agreed

I've also been saying the same thing throughout this discussion.

As for the money and time limitation excuses for Rockstar, I've already stated the same reasons you did to explain that they are both not an issue to Rockstar at all. But try telling GTAalex117 - I already explained this to him, but he seems to have a very thick skull and problem absorbing logical reasoning like this.

[GKP]

Kesta - they are not obsolete becuase the very limits off the draw distance have not been tested in most pics.


You can also physically see the buildings in the LS shots and you can judge it from memory having flown over IV so many times.

[kesta195]

QUOTE (GKP @ Wednesday, Apr 10 2013, 15:13)

Kesta - they are not obsolete becuase the very limits off the draw distance have not been tested in most pics. You can also physically see the buildings in the LS shots and you can judge it from memory having flown over IV so many times.

Still not a justified comparison. An LC picture taken at midday, at a higher angle to get the skyscrapers out of the way would be much more fair and useful.

[AlienWillHeMonsta]

QUOTE (GKP @ Wednesday, Apr 10 2013, 15:07)

Alien - yeah, one presume there will be a base in the countryside. Whats your problem with that.

The problem is I dont understand where you're coming from with this.

You think Los Santos is small and yet from what we've seen its size comparable to all of LC including the water that separates the islands. And yet you're not complaining about the size of LC. You pick on certain comments from R* knowing they're not achievable ON ANY FORMAT and see that as a failure, despite not seeing the whole of Los Santos or the map.

[GKP]

Kesta...we already have such a shot

http://www.rockstarg.../screenshot/351

See - the bridge is not that far away.

Alien, no not including the water of LC. Just the land. Look at the parachute shot and think of driving time. Thats how I estimate distance. Not a long drive is it ?

[bakerach]

Just ignore GKP, he/she is having a tough time with spatial reasoning when it comes to putting together in his/her head what we've seen of LS so far in trailers/screenshots. Further provocation will not convince this person of how massive LS is and how awesome GTA V will be, it will just provide troll bait.

[ALeSsAnDrO]

At most, LS with be the same size of LC. It's safe to say by now that it can't be any larger than Liberty.
There's no way in hell we are missing some great part of the city in the screenshots. Whatever it is we are missing, it's not a significant portion.
Again, this game will have far more countryside than urban area.

Doesn't exactly do justice to the whole sprawling urban area mentioned by Houser. I wonder how many console generations will take before we finally see a huge urban open world.

[kesta195]

QUOTE (GKP @ Wednesday, Apr 10 2013, 15:16)

Kesta...we already have such a shot http://www.rockstarg.../screenshot/351 See - the bridge is not that far away.

That's not the Gerald Desmond Bridge, it's the Vincent Thomas bridge. The area the pic is facing is the distance from downtown to the airport, roughly.

[AlienWillHeMonsta]

QUOTE (Official General @ Wednesday, Apr 10 2013, 15:12)

QUOTE (deffpony @ Wednesday, Apr 10 2013, 14:48) Now its understandable that the countryside will be much larger than the city, and that there will be small towns and such. But the fact of the matter is, there is only one city in V, and it should be significantly sized. As far as the claim that a large sized city is not probably due to time and resource constraints, that is not really a valid argument. First of all, money isnt as significant an aspect as you would think. Rockstar isnt a kickstarter company. They have the funds to create the game they wish. And in terms of time, Rockstar has never let "time" affect the way the develop games, hence a 5+ year development time of V. Totally agreed I've also been saying the same thing throughout this discussion. As for the money and time limitation excuses for Rockstar, I've already stated the same reasons you did to explain that they are both not an issue to Rockstar at all. But try telling GTAalex117 - I already explained this to him, but he seems to have a very thick skull and problem absorbing logical reasoning like this.

There it is again. What exactly are you guys expecting in terms of modelling a city?

Now fit that on a 8 year old console with 512mb to spare. It fact show us a modern sandbox game that FULLY
renders an entire city with no load times.

[Red XIII]

LOL 5 whole pages of the 3 same people saying how small los santos is, give it up now, its getting boring. seriously funny that you guys are wasting your own time.

Official General stop insulting people. You get so defensive for no reason. At least GKP doesn't insult anyone.