Exactly. Most people don't talk about this. I think LS looks pretty, but that gets old quickly. The city is made up of "super-detailed" facades. If the actual city was super-detailed, we would see more interiors, better ped/police behavior, more activities. I know some of it is personal preference, but stuff like golf, tennis, and yoga don't really appeal to me when I decide to play a game like GTA.
No we wouldn't. I'm talking about exterior detail. You will see some unused interiors (mission-only), but just because you can't access them after that point, it doesn't mean that they are not present at all. It's up to the developer on whether they unlock them or not, but they are there. Yes, we have seen some high-detailed interiors not accessible after a certain mission, and that's unfortunate. However, that doesn't prove or show anything about "bad game design". In fact, it shows us that R* has created some super-detailed interiors this time, but for their own reasons decided to make them unavailable after missions. There's a strong possibility to see some of them unlocked after the SP DLC, so only time will tell.
Ped/police behaviour is a matter of AI design, not land/interior/exterior design. Same applies with yoga/tennis/golf. They are completely different departments.
R* should've focused on the aspects of LA that most people think about, especially from a criminal perspective. And I completely agree about the feeling of the hood in GTA V. The people look different, but their behavior is exactly the same as other peds across the city. You get too close, and they want to fight or shoot you. It's all up to the player. Nothing feels dangerous or random. Places actually felt dangerous in RDR.
They did. They re-created South Eastern Los Angeles the way it is now. Hood/crime activity is at all-time low
now, and that means you won't be clipped with a mini-mac everytime you cross the street with a "green" or "purple" shirt anymore, if you know what i mean. Places felt dangerous in RDR because the actual wild west was extremely dangerous
at the time.
@Tilemaxx, people complain about both, because neither was done properly. What I'm saying is R* should've developed GTA the same way they developed RDR. I couldn't swim or drive cars in RDR. I couldn't dive or fly planes in GTA IV. If you have limitations, focus on the most important aspects of your game. R* spread themselves too thin with GTA V and the entire game feels unfinished IMO.
People complain about the city, wilderness/wildlife, mechanics, GTAO, etc. You can say "people will always complain" and that's true, but the reality is there are real problems with almost every aspect of GTA V.
Didn't they deliver a vast city with highly detailed LS metropolis center (again, not the interior argument), some beautifully designed suburbs, the relatively dangerous S/E hoods (Ballas can still approach you and clip you if you are stationary inside a vehicle within their proximity), the beaches, the awesome North Hollywood/Mullholland area, the industrial outskirts, the mines, the underground, and all such? I think (not me, the vast majority of press and fan reviews), they did an outstanding job in game's design.
Are mountains and forests a bit
toned down in quality compared to the rest of the map? Yes they are. Was that necessary in order to provide a better and bigger recreation of IRL Los Angeles? Probably. Was the "downgrade" significant and game-breaking for the majority of players? Hell no.
In RDR they had to focus on a huge, empty area, with a few signs of human touch where they managed to use all of their resources to re-create the best countryside possible. They didn't have to focus on buildings, interiors, underground, vehicular activity, complex lighting, complex AI, fast texture streaming (you couldn't speed up to a distant part of the map because your fastest vehicle was.. the horse, the game's didn't have to immediately stream the distrant textures, resulting in less stress). RDR's engine was probably executing the half of workload comparing to what V's engine had to render all at once.
We are comparing two entire different worlds and ecosystems without knowing the core principles of game development, and that's totally unfair to R* North and the work they put into the game. Keep in mind that R* San Diego also did some extensive work on V, and that's unfair to them too. So, the claim that "R* San Diego did a better job than North in the design department", is the same unjustified and biased argument.