Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Countryside Could Have Been Better

25 replies to this topic
TheDust
  • TheDust

    Peon

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 26 Aug 2010

#1

Posted 30 October 2013 - 12:32 PM

I have to say the countryside was a tad bit underwhelming. I was hoping for a nice dense forest or somewhere where I feel like I'm really in the countryside. You never really feel lost in the countryside, you always feel close to a main road or a town or Los Santos. It kind of sucks in that regard.

 

I do however love the mountains (despite them being bare) and the map size was great. The singular island wasn't the greatest idea, and the way the countryside was implemented could have been a little better.

 

What do you guys think?

  • adomingo and MediApino like this

mariana_dm1989
  • mariana_dm1989

    Mari

  • Members
  • Joined: 12 Jul 2013

#2

Posted 30 October 2013 - 12:50 PM Edited by mariana_dm1989, 30 October 2013 - 12:51 PM.

Agree 100%. I really wanted some creepy big forest. Surely they could have easily cut one of the mountains and given us a forest. Paleto forest is nice, but too small and too close to civilization/roads. As for the mountains, they are a bit dull. The least dull one is mount gordo in my opinion. I'm quite disappointed with Chiliad. It was so much more epic on previous San Andreas.

  • TheDust likes this

dave4242
  • dave4242

    Punk-ass Bitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 15 Aug 2013
  • None

#3

Posted 30 October 2013 - 12:50 PM

I disagree. The countryside couldnt of been any better unless the game shipped with a new console with more RAM. Also I think if the world was split into two islands the two cities would have to either be a quarter of the size of ls or bland as sh*t.

The low quality of certain textures in the countryside tell you all you need to know about how much of the current gen consoles this game uses, ie, 100%
  • TheDust likes this

TheDust
  • TheDust

    Peon

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 26 Aug 2010

#4

Posted 30 October 2013 - 12:51 PM

I disagree. The countryside couldnt of been any better unless the game shipped with a new console with more RAM. Also I think if the world was split into two islands the two cities would have to either be a quarter of the size of ls or bland as sh*t.

The low quality of certain textures in the countryside tell you all you need to know about how much of the current gen consoles this game uses, ie, 100%

 

Well I think for a game praising the countryside, they should have made some sacrifices somewhere to give us a creepy forest to explore at night and in the daytime.

 

GTA VI will be interesting to say the least.


V 9 L U K 3 4 V
  • V 9 L U K 3 4 V

    v 9 L u k E 4 V

  • Members
  • Joined: 23 Jan 2012

#5

Posted 30 October 2013 - 12:57 PM

Due to the size of the game I think it was hard to put more forest in because apparently trees take up a sh*t load of data which I find hard to believe but trust me when I say this the the next gen gta will be unbelievable
  • TheDust likes this

dave4242
  • dave4242

    Punk-ass Bitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 15 Aug 2013
  • None

#6

Posted 30 October 2013 - 01:01 PM

I think the sacrifices would be greater than you think. No one understands just how much memory things like trees take up. Essentially it is an object with sh*tloads of jagged lines that are big enough to need to be rendered in at great distance. If you want a dense forrest big enough to get lost in, that looks good and doesnt look low quality and out of place, then the underwater areas, mount chilliad and a quarter of the city has to go.

DaWiesel
  • DaWiesel

    Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Sep 2011
  • Portugal

#7

Posted 30 October 2013 - 01:06 PM

I actually feel pretty isolated from civilization at the river between Mount Josiah and Chiliad or behind Mount Gordo.


Tashan
  • Tashan

    Li'l G Loc

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 22 Sep 2010

#8

Posted 30 October 2013 - 01:07 PM

Everything could still be better if you just wait for the game to come on PC

TheDust
  • TheDust

    Peon

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 26 Aug 2010

#9

Posted 30 October 2013 - 01:07 PM

I think the sacrifices would be greater than you think. No one understands just how much memory things like trees take up. Essentially it is an object with sh*tloads of jagged lines that are big enough to need to be rendered in at great distance. If you want a dense forrest big enough to get lost in, that looks good and doesnt look low quality and out of place, then the underwater areas, mount chilliad and a quarter of the city has to go.

 

The underwater areas aren't really my cup of tea, but I'm sure there are people who enjoy that sh*t. Oh well I get your point though, it just wouldn't be able to happen with these consoles.


dave4242
  • dave4242

    Punk-ass Bitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 15 Aug 2013
  • None

#10

Posted 30 October 2013 - 01:08 PM

Also because of the way games render and illude you, you could not just move all the trees that are in the game to the same place, because that would put you well over the RAM threshold and you would get about 10 fps and be risking a crash (which is something r* are known in the industry for never doing).
  • TheDust likes this

dave4242
  • dave4242

    Punk-ass Bitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 15 Aug 2013
  • None

#11

Posted 30 October 2013 - 01:13 PM

Everything could still be better if you just wait for the game to come on PC


What alot of people fail to realise however, is that the game was developed for consoles with their thresholds in mind. So unless a pc version was developed in tandem, the extra RAM in a PC will make no difference, because the game has not been designed to take advantage of it in any way.

Argon
  • Argon

    Street Cat

  • Members
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2013

#12

Posted 30 October 2013 - 02:34 PM

I think it's fine the way it is, but I was expecting a bit more (perhaps foolish). I don't like that there are mountains on every side near the coastline, and the most boring mountain for me is definitely Mt. Josiah. There's just nothing on top of it, its only purpose is to 'hide' Fort Zancudo and to create the northern steep river valley. I would have loved it if that whole mountain was replaced with a forest area, perhaps extending the Paleto Forest region all the way to Fort Zancudo. Josiah just feels like a retarded brother of Chilliad. And to be honest, I think the placement of Chilliad isn't that great either.. It definitely does its job to appear massive, but it kinda keeps me from going to the northern side. I also think it's too steep, resulting in only 2 or 3 clearly intended pathways. And to add my last complaint, the Alamo Sea is too big. I liked it at first, but it feels too empty and there are no people on the water. So yeah to summarize, LS is awesome, the Vinewood Hills are awesome, the Sandyshores region is sweet, but it seems that the further away from the city (south-to-north), the less interesting the map is to me.

 

It's still a great game though!


Argon
  • Argon

    Street Cat

  • Members
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2013

#13

Posted 30 October 2013 - 02:44 PM

 

I think the sacrifices would be greater than you think. No one understands just how much memory things like trees take up. Essentially it is an object with sh*tloads of jagged lines that are big enough to need to be rendered in at great distance. If you want a dense forrest big enough to get lost in, that looks good and doesnt look low quality and out of place, then the underwater areas, mount chilliad and a quarter of the city has to go.

 

The underwater areas aren't really my cup of tea, but I'm sure there are people who enjoy that sh*t. Oh well I get your point though, it just wouldn't be able to happen with these consoles.

 

I don't think you understand. The underwater area is not interfering with the normal world, it would've been very stupid if areas below the surface are actually already loaded in the memory when you're cruising a coastal road. It's most likely a low-texture version, with no fish and plants. Just the occasional rock. Although Chilliad might be the central (visible) point of the game, it has almost no objects and I think it's safe to assume that we're viewing a low-version of it from afar, disguised by fog/smog/blur. The city is most likely not rendered at all when you're passed the Vinewood Hills, what you see from high up are just some blocks that represent a few buildings. They do a great job at night, but if you investigate the lights, you'll see that it just a texture/pattern, there's no movement of vehicles. So what I'm trying to say is that they have quit a few tricks to disguise the world. It's definitely not loaded completely, and I don't think that you can say 'If you want more trees, a part of the city has to go'. It's just that if they want to show you many trees in an area, they will have to dial back some features at that time (in that local area, not the amount of data on the harddrive).


Sting4S
  • Sting4S

    High Roller

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Jun 2013
  • None

#14

Posted 30 October 2013 - 02:47 PM

Agree 100%. I really wanted some creepy big forest. Surely they could have easily cut one of the mountains and given us a forest. Paleto forest is nice, but too small and too close to civilization/roads. As for the mountains, they are a bit dull. The least dull one is mount gordo in my opinion. I'm quite disappointed with Chiliad. It was so much more epic on previous San Andreas.


Why do so many people bash Mount Gordo? Its actually the most interesting. Its the only significant mountain that truly feels isolated, its the greenest, has a lot of really sharp and steep trails with lots of cool rocks, it is bordering the ocean -- which actually creates beautiful scenery and the drop is steep -- there is a ghost, there are multiple natural streams, the trails are the best I've seen compared to anywhere else in the game, and I don't know. The eastern coast of the map is just gorgeous and part of that is because of Gordo.

ShadowDog94
  • ShadowDog94

    Gaming since '94

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Nov 2012
  • Ireland

#15

Posted 30 October 2013 - 03:36 PM Edited by ShadowDog94, 30 October 2013 - 03:37 PM.

I agree, a lot of the countryside is just bland and boring, especially the mountains. They just feel so empty. I really would've liked a dense forest, one that you can truly feel lost in, but there aren't really any proper forests, just a few trees scattered about. It also wouldn't have hurt to have a second city somwhere, no matter how many people hated that idea. San Andreas actually feels like it has a bigger map to me, cuz it has more variety.


vince91
  • vince91

    the pube in your orange juice

  • Members
  • Joined: 06 Jan 2013

#16

Posted 30 October 2013 - 03:47 PM

i like it as it is, but they should have cut off the highway somewhere south of sandy shores and use small roads only on the northern part.. everything just feels surrounded by highway now


DadofGhost
  • DadofGhost

    Crackhead

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Oct 2013

#17

Posted 30 October 2013 - 04:03 PM

It seems to me that if R* had created a forest it'd be nothing more than a green leafy version of the city.  Since you can't run down a tree no matter how large your vehicle is it would force everyone to stay on the designated trails which would generate it's own round of bitching.  Granted an on foot shootout scenario set in a forest would be interesting in the short term but would grow old since it's basically already being done using the existing landscape.

 

My $.02, YMMV.


Universal-Shot
  • Universal-Shot

    Snitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 27 Sep 2013

#18

Posted 30 October 2013 - 04:07 PM

I have to say the countryside was a tad bit underwhelming. I was hoping for a nice dense forest or somewhere where I feel like I'm really in the countryside. You never really feel lost in the countryside, you always feel close to a main road or a town or Los Santos. It kind of sucks in that regard.

 

I do however love the mountains (despite them being bare) and the map size was great. The singular island wasn't the greatest idea, and the way the countryside was implemented could have been a little better.

 

What do you guys think?

 

Yeah overall the map isnt that big but I would be alot happier if the countryside was between two cities. 


AtomicPunk
  • AtomicPunk

    I'm your huckleberry

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Mar 2012

#19

Posted 30 October 2013 - 04:22 PM

The countryside sucks. Bad design. The desert isn't that good either and it's in the wrong location. There's not really any country communities. There aren't any rental cabins in dense mountain forests. Many things are wrong with this game.


dave4242
  • dave4242

    Punk-ass Bitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 15 Aug 2013
  • None

#20

Posted 30 October 2013 - 04:23 PM


 


I think the sacrifices would be greater than you think. No one understands just how much memory things like trees take up. Essentially it is an object with sh*tloads of jagged lines that are big enough to need to be rendered in at great distance. If you want a dense forrest big enough to get lost in, that looks good and doesnt look low quality and out of place, then the underwater areas, mount chilliad and a quarter of the city has to go.

 
The underwater areas aren't really my cup of tea, but I'm sure there are people who enjoy that sh*t. Oh well I get your point though, it just wouldn't be able to happen with these consoles.
 
I don't think you understand. The underwater area is not interfering with the normal world, it would've been very stupid if areas below the surface are actually already loaded in the memory when you're cruising a coastal road. It's most likely a low-texture version, with no fish and plants. Just the occasional rock. Although Chilliad might be the central (visible) point of the game, it has almost no objects and I think it's safe to assume that we're viewing a low-version of it from afar, disguised by fog/smog/blur. The city is most likely not rendered at all when you're passed the Vinewood Hills, what you see from high up are just some blocks that represent a few buildings. They do a great job at night, but if you investigate the lights, you'll see that it just a texture/pattern, there's no movement of vehicles. So what I'm trying to say is that they have quit a few tricks to disguise the world. It's definitely not loaded completely, and I don't think that you can say 'If you want more trees, a part of the city has to go'. It's just that if they want to show you many trees in an area, they will have to dial back some features at that time (in that local area, not the amount of data on the harddrive).

What you say is true, the game is visually loaded in staged areas around the player, for example there is a 'circle' around the player at any time in which the world is fully loaded, and a larger 'circle' around that at which the world is partially loaded, and so on.

However, you cannot simply forget about an area of the map that the player isnt close to, because you cant just flush out large chunks of data from the RAM and replace it as the player moves around the world, because the game is to complex and would crash. Kind ofike in basic programming where a variable takes up the same ammount of memory once it is defined, because it always holds at least a default value.

Appleshampoo
  • Appleshampoo

    Square Civilian

  • Members
  • Joined: 14 Sep 2013

#21

Posted 30 October 2013 - 04:26 PM

I  concur. A dense forest with bears would have been sick. One day I was walking down a mountain in my own little world and a mountain lion starts to come at me from out of nowhere and I pulled out my shotgun and blew a hole in it. Was awesome. Imagine walking through a dense forest and you hear a bear growl and the ground around you shakes a lil bit or something. Idk if it's due to lack of tech, laziness or a DLC package later, but they definitely could have done a lot more in the countryside.


Xaynt
  • Xaynt

    Hell awaits.

  • Members
  • Joined: 01 Jan 2012
  • None

#22

Posted 30 October 2013 - 04:35 PM

I just thought they could have made interactions with the brush better.  It is improved.  At least some of the brush and bushes will have an animation to brush aside if you bump into it.  But there should at least be a little bit of a bump when you run over a big bush, and more impact animation on the flora.


LeRocket
  • LeRocket

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 01 Oct 2013

#23

Posted 30 October 2013 - 05:30 PM

The countryside sucks. Bad design. The desert isn't that good either and it's in the wrong location. There's not really any country communities. There aren't any rental cabins in dense mountain forests. Many things are wrong with this game.

 The countryside, deserts, and mountains are the best thing about this game.  The game is not "wrong" just because you don't know how to use it.   You suck at playing and commenting.


Leafy Hollow
  • Leafy Hollow

    Chief Marketing Officer for Trevor Phillip's Interprise

  • Members
  • Joined: 24 May 2013

#24

Posted 30 October 2013 - 05:30 PM

Was hoping for some Redwoods and sh*t as well. :cry:


AtomicPunk
  • AtomicPunk

    I'm your huckleberry

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Mar 2012

#25

Posted 30 October 2013 - 05:41 PM



 



The countryside sucks. Bad design. The desert isn't that good either and it's in the wrong location. There's not really any country communities. There aren't any rental cabins in dense mountain forests. Many things are wrong with this game.

 The countryside, deserts, and mountains are the best thing about this game.  The game is not "wrong" just because you don't know how to use it.   You suck at playing and commenting.

 

It's just laid out wrong or not true enough. No dense forests or anything that is correct. I live in the country, I know how it supposed to be. I've been to the desert. I know how it suppoesed to be. I've lived in L.A.. I know how it is. I think R* went in too arrogant or just hired the wrong dev'[s to help them and it messed up their vision. I suck at life, but I play GTA V & comment like an angel;)


TheDust
  • TheDust

    Peon

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 26 Aug 2010

#26

Posted 30 October 2013 - 11:35 PM

 



 



The countryside sucks. Bad design. The desert isn't that good either and it's in the wrong location. There's not really any country communities. There aren't any rental cabins in dense mountain forests. Many things are wrong with this game.

 The countryside, deserts, and mountains are the best thing about this game.  The game is not "wrong" just because you don't know how to use it.   You suck at playing and commenting.

 

It's just laid out wrong or not true enough. No dense forests or anything that is correct. I live in the country, I know how it supposed to be. I've been to the desert. I know how it suppoesed to be. I've lived in L.A.. I know how it is. I think R* went in too arrogant or just hired the wrong dev'[s to help them and it messed up their vision. I suck at life, but I play GTA V & comment like an angel;)

 

 

Man you bitch a sh*t ton dude, no offense but I see you bitching all the f*cking time.

 

Even so I agree that I didn't like the countryside in that way, but oh well doesn't make it a bad game.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users