i'll admit i have not played both but i would have to say andreas, 5 looks like a city with a bunch of country side, while san andreas had 3 cities, both of which look very different from eachother plus desert and countryside, what i mean is that there is more variety
which gta had the better map? san andreas or v
Posted 26 October 2013 - 07:17 PM
Definitely V as this map is simply more logical, full of details and nice to drive around. SA map was big, but that's pretty much everything that can be said about it.
Posted 26 October 2013 - 09:17 PM
GTA V by far in my opinion - As Tycek says, its full of details while SA's rendition was pretty lifeless in the countryside and had quite small cities to be fair.
- Lock n' Stock and Don Fraser like this
Posted 26 October 2013 - 11:33 PM
Posted 26 October 2013 - 11:47 PM
V had a much better map. I'd rather have one realistic city as opposed to three bland cities.
- Lock n' Stock likes this
Posted 27 October 2013 - 12:53 AM
Posted 27 October 2013 - 02:55 AM
Technically, GTA V map of course. Even though GTA San Andreas includes deserts, countryside, and three different cities, nothing can be compared of GTA V's realistic design with a gigantic city as compared to the condensed three cities wherein they're just too small as compared to Los Santos today.
Posted 27 October 2013 - 05:21 PM
It's way more realistic and similar to California while SA wasn't really California-ish.
It had Las Vegas and Sierra Nevada while they aren't in CA. SA map was like GTA1's maps, which had rectangular shapes and even the shape of map wasn't realistic.
However, V's map lacked of Whetstone, Red County and San Fierro. San Fierro is really underrated, because R* did a poor job on that. They made it little while San Francisco is an awesome big city.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users