Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Shady Creeks, Back O' Beyond, Flint County

39 replies to this topic
Drake1212
  • Drake1212

    Street Cat

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 Feb 2008

#31

Posted 05 December 2013 - 09:15 AM

Are people seriously talking about getting lost in SA? that map was so cramped that there was no way to get lost. The only place where you could atleast "pretend" to get lost was those swampy woords near Mt. Chiliad. Face it - the only reason you thought those places were scary was due to the draw distance and nostalgia.
 

I'm not saying you can get lost in V's map - you can't, but in return we got that awesome draw distance which makes flying so neat.
Creating huge empty forests/deserts just isn't worth it in a game. They would take a lot of disc space (especially a forest) and with no roads going though them, it would be a pain in the ass for the gamer if they broke down in the middle of it.

  • Fuzzknuckles and ReekyAlex like this

Mathew4296
  • Mathew4296

    Road Warrior

  • Members
  • Joined: 30 Oct 2013
  • Australia

#32

Posted 05 December 2013 - 11:00 AM Edited by Mathew4296, 05 December 2013 - 11:10 AM.

The fact that SA had 3 cities and 3 countryside areas, even though SA's entire map would fit in V's Los Santos, did make the map feel really big plus the low draw distance. I think that if V had 3 cities and countryside areas and lower draw distance, it would feel much bigger even if it was the same size as the current map .The fact that you were confined to one city at the start and slowly unlock the other two, that would make it feel bigger too.

 

Also on a slightly off-topic note, is it just me or did anyone feel that the PS2 version of SA look better than the PC version? I know PC has better graphics and all, but I think that SA just looked weird on the PC. The PS2 had a much warmer, more authentic visual feel whereas the PC just looked sterilized and bland. It (from memory) lacked that orange tinge that SA had, especially in Los Santos. For me, that orange tinge added atmosphere.


MAKAVELlil
  • MAKAVELlil

    Square Civilian

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 28 Nov 2013

#33

Posted 05 December 2013 - 03:03 PM Edited by MAKAVELlil, 05 December 2013 - 03:04 PM.

In GTA V The Place Where The Submarine Is Feels SOOOO f*ckING CREEPY AND SCARY

DaRkL3AD3R
  • DaRkL3AD3R

    Gangsta

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 May 2013

#34

Posted 05 December 2013 - 07:04 PM

Now THAT'S creepy. It looks tiny!

 

Yep it is tiny, but SA nostalgia kiddies will scream that it was the biggest map Rockstar made to date.

 

Oh how powerful draw distance can affect the mind. Especially when the mind is a pubescent teenager's.


pentaxian
  • pentaxian

    Punk-ass Bitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 16 Apr 2013

#35

Posted 05 December 2013 - 07:32 PM

I'm not a SA fanboy, but SA's forest is waaay more intimidating and creepier than V's, even if in V there are those mountain cats that one-hit kill you.

Yea that's true.

 

This topic is interesting, and I never realized that yea, it is hard to get lost.

 

Credit to OP for bringing up something that was kind of on my mind in terms of criticizing this map, but I couldn't quite place it.  

 

I feel like the scale of chilliad in V is a little off too, further ruining the experience.  idk, just another gripe i have about this game that was supposed to blow IV out of the water.


Cutter De Blanc
  • Cutter De Blanc

    The Killer Hills Killer

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Nov 2011
  • Unknown

#36

Posted 05 December 2013 - 09:32 PM

Chilead is just weird. It has an odd very unnatural looking placement at the edge of the map. It's like a block or two distance from the foot of the mountain to the ocean on the north side. 

 

The only place I sometimes feel lost is the desert, but then I just spin the camera until I see the giant mountain and I'm not lost anymore.

 

I don't know why, but I've learned the layout of the map already and can find most places without a waypoint. Compared to GTA IV where I still can't find my way out of south Alderney without 10 minutes of attempting to drive north.


Tilemaxx
  • Tilemaxx

    I Run This Town

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Jun 2008
  • None

#37

Posted 05 December 2013 - 10:03 PM

 

Also on a slightly off-topic note, is it just me or did anyone feel that the PS2 version of SA look better than the PC version? I know PC has better graphics and all, but I think that SA just looked weird on the PC. The PS2 had a much warmer, more authentic visual feel whereas the PC just looked sterilized and bland. It (from memory) lacked that orange tinge that SA had, especially in Los Santos. For me, that orange tinge added atmosphere.

 

I'm getting that feeling only in PS2 version. SA PC has already a much bigger draw distance and clearer textures you can see from far away (they also removed plenty effects from PC ver). It takes away all the atmosphere.


Deadly Target
  • Deadly Target

    Rat

  • Members
  • Joined: 12 Apr 2010

#38

Posted 05 December 2013 - 11:06 PM

That's just an illusion. First, the feeling of "isolation", SA had very little draw distance which gave the impression of being huge. Second, there are plenty of areas in GTA like the 2nd photo you posted.

In fact, would you still feel creepy if you realised that:

That's just an illusion. Real life also has very little draw distance which gives the impression of being huge. In fact, would you still feel creepy if you realised that:

933_earth_tiny.jpg

Mintal
  • Mintal

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 04 Dec 2013

#39

Posted 06 December 2013 - 06:15 PM

 

Now THAT'S creepy. It looks tiny!

 

Yep it is tiny, but SA nostalgia kiddies will scream that it was the biggest map Rockstar made to date.

 

Oh how powerful draw distance can affect the mind. Especially when the mind is a pubescent teenager's.

 

Can you only think black and white? Not everyone who prefers GTA SA's map over V's is a "SA nostalgia kiddie" or a "pubescent teenager", and not everyone believes that SA's map IS bigger. Of course it is NOT. It's tiny compared to V.

 

But it matters to me how you FEEL while playing. And I love R*'s tricks they used to make us think that SA is freakin massive. Those places like Shady Creeks made ... no, they still make me feel lost when I'm playing. R* did a good job on that, and it is not only the poor draw distance. It is the whole style of the countryside. V's is way too recognizable, in SA I still find things I've never seen, because the countryside was way more... complex and it had more variety + hidden things. That doesn't mean I hate V's map. It's still beautiful and well done, but.. I expected something different. Not something bigger, but something with more variety and places to get lost.

 

But that's just my opinion, do you call me a SA fanboy now?

 

I know you weren't specifically talking to me, but: Did you even read my first post when I made this topic? No? I wasn't talking about SA being huge or so. I was talking about the PLACES I miss. Like Shady Creeks, Flint County and Back O' Beyond. I never said that I get lost in SA because it IS bigger. It is NOT. ;)


Skizzo45
  • Skizzo45

    The American

  • Members
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2013
  • None

#40

Posted 06 December 2013 - 08:44 PM

Even Just Cause 1 had a better wilderness. I still remember how hyped everyone got because of the ''amazing wilderness'' when in fact is just too half-assed in terms of pure and untouched wilderness, and on top of all, they cut most of the trees from some areas. And stop with the ''console limitation'' bullsh*t cause that's just a sorry-ass excuse. 





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users