Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Should they have stuck to Los Santos?

36 replies to this topic
Charles Phipps
  • Charles Phipps

    Mark Chump

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Nov 2011

#1

Posted 15 January 2014 - 01:54 PM

A thought I had. I think the game would have been tighter if they'd removed Blaine County from the game. The majority of the action takes place in Los Santos anyway and there's really not that much point to the gigantic desert above. I think they could have moved everything, up to and including Trevor's meth labs and Trailer parks into the city itself.

 

It would have cut down significantly on the boring driving times and made things all closer together.

They might have been able to develop the buildings too.

What do you think?


Fluttershy Pony
  • Fluttershy Pony

    Yay.

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Sep 2010

#2

Posted 15 January 2014 - 01:59 PM

I think the countryside is great, it brings out an atmosphere that you can't get in a city. Besides, a bigger map means more to do and explore.

 

If they focused more on single player than online, then the map would be a lot better, the city lacks anything to do in it, there's hardly any interaction, and no interiors. For me, Liberty City feels more realistic.

  • lizardman563, stjimmy3, codename_duchess and 2 others like this

Niko Vercetti 112
  • Niko Vercetti 112

    That's, just, like, your opinion man

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Feb 2012

#3

Posted 15 January 2014 - 02:06 PM

To be honest I don't think a California setting with no countryside could work as well as say New York or Florida does. Mountain ranges and deserts are what California is known for afterall.

Maybe if they had of added in another city like San Diego the countryside would have seemed a hell of a lot more useful.
  • lizardman563 and stjimmy3 like this

SideburnGuru
  • SideburnGuru

    He'll be a god to them.

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 Aug 2013
  • United-States

#4

Posted 15 January 2014 - 02:23 PM

Yeah, I figure another city out there would've made perfect sense.

I do have some valued moments at the top of Mt.Chillad with some friends. We set bounties on eachother and wait for some guy in a buzzard to attack. It gets fun.


visionist
  • visionist

    Eat A Peach For Hours

  • Members
  • Joined: 06 Dec 2007

#5

Posted 15 January 2014 - 02:34 PM

If it meant Los Santos was massive, with all the LA landmarks and areas that are currently missing, with more detail, more to do and of course, lots of interactive interiors and buyable properties, then, maybe...


BlackAce23
  • BlackAce23

    Just DO It

  • Members
  • Joined: 21 Dec 2013
  • United-States

#6

Posted 15 January 2014 - 08:05 PM

I think it should have been las venturas instead of blaine county i know that both games are set in two different universes but they still could've made something that was more interactive blaine county feels so empty especially online with no animals and few npc's.

Blood-Is-in-Diamond
  • Blood-Is-in-Diamond

    Happy 1st Birthday GTA V

  • Members
  • Joined: 21 Dec 2013
  • None

#7

Posted 15 January 2014 - 08:10 PM Edited by Blood-Is-in-Diamond, 15 January 2014 - 08:10 PM.

@ up
i dont think Las Venturas is in San Andreas in the HD Era,i think if it was to be re-imagined it would be in the so called"Robada(Nevada)"but San Fierro is definitely in Northern San Andreas,seeing the HD Era are putting the locations correctly.

lizardman563
  • lizardman563

    Give your free will a chance, you've got to want to succeed.

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2009
  • None

#8

Posted 15 January 2014 - 08:15 PM

I love the countryside, particularly the desert. 

 

I think they should have done Las Venturas if you ask me. Sin city is where it's at. Los Santos is, like the real LA, very superficial. I find it boring sometimes, though i'm not complaining. I think they did a fine job with the location and map. 


Detective Phelps
  • Detective Phelps

    فلسطين

  • Members
  • Joined: 27 Jul 2013
  • Palestine
  • Helpfulness Award [GTA V section - Reporting]

#9

Posted 15 January 2014 - 08:17 PM

@ up
i dont think Las Venturas is in San Andreas in the HD Era,i think if it was to be re-imagined it would be in the so called"Robada(Nevada)"but San Fierro is definitely in Northern San Andreas,seeing the HD Era are putting the locations correctly.

You mean tierra robada. :p

Anyway, V is only set in southern San Andreas, so it is safe to assume that SF is in the north of the state. As for LV, I'm not sure if it is in SA or not.

The countryside is excellent, and R* made a good decision to include it.
  • lizardman563 likes this

Tacymist
  • Tacymist

    Onward towards the light

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 01 Jul 2013
  • United-States

#10

Posted 15 January 2014 - 08:19 PM

I don't find the time it takes to get around boring since I do enjoy taking road trips out to Blaine County. The ambiance out there is a great contrast to the hustle and bustle of Los Santos. So I don't want things to be tighter, a condensed map simply doesn't appeal to me.

  • lizardman563 and Lucchese like this

Dope_0110
  • Dope_0110

    Gangsta

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 May 2013

#11

Posted 15 January 2014 - 08:20 PM

Nope.. everyone cried for countryside when we realized IV was nothing but concrete and they did the right thing to include it. There's simply too much in this game for current gen consoles to handle. They can't run a city full of interiors without loading screens and such. Some more, yeah... but don't think cutting the countryside would make the whole city interactive.


lizardman563
  • lizardman563

    Give your free will a chance, you've got to want to succeed.

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2009
  • None

#12

Posted 15 January 2014 - 08:20 PM

I don't find the time it takes to get around boring since I do enjoy taking road trips out to Blaine County. The ambiance out there is a great contrast to the hustle and bustle of Los Santos. So I don't want things to be tighter, a condensed map simply doesn't appeal to me.

 

Agreed. That's what I love about SA and V. They have a nice contrast between condensed, bustling city landscape and peaceful countryside. I find it very relaxing after constant police chases, gang shootouts, and bank robberies to take a trip to Blaine County at night. 

  • Tacymist and Beanee like this

killahmatic
  • killahmatic

    JB

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2008
  • None

#13

Posted 15 January 2014 - 08:41 PM

I think the game would have been tighter if they'd removed Blaine County from the game. The majority of the action takes place in Los Santos anyway and there's really not that much point to the gigantic desert above.

 

It would have cut down significantly on the boring driving times and made things all closer together.

 

Nope. That's ridiculous. 90% of the people were complaining that IV needed more freedom, more open space to roam. Thats what this game gave us. I personally didn't want to be trapped in a city again.

 

I spend the majority of my time in Blaine County. I full enjoy the nice long highways, and the drive times aren't bad at all. When I get tired of Blaine County, I head into the city, when I get tired of the city, I head back out to the desert or mountains. 

  • dyz, SmoothGetaway, Lucchese and 2 others like this

Yolo Swaggins
  • Yolo Swaggins

    Nachos?!

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Mar 2008
  • United-States

#14

Posted 15 January 2014 - 08:46 PM

No. I enjoy the countryside. The city is okay but there isn't much to do and the framerate tends to drop in certain areas.


Black & White
  • Black & White

    Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 22 Nov 2013
  • United-States

#15

Posted 15 January 2014 - 08:53 PM

No, not really. I just think Rockstar should of added more activities into Blaine County. Blaine County became boring quite fast but I still occasionally enjoy visiting and driving through Blaine County. Nice and quiet. Not alot of dickheads with tanks up there.


SmoothGetaway
  • SmoothGetaway

    I got respect for reality

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2011
  • None

#16

Posted 15 January 2014 - 09:12 PM

Nope, I don't want a more condensed anything when it's GTA. Give me as much as possible.

The desolate spots on the map are a stark contrast to Los Santos, and having them is a part of what makes the city feel like a city.
  • Lucchese and IveGotNoValues like this

Zodape
  • Zodape

    Brilliant Gentleman

  • Members
  • Joined: 20 Jun 2013
  • Argentina

#17

Posted 15 January 2014 - 09:19 PM

They should have dumped the city and leave us only the country side.

 

GTA: Redneck Nightmare


Official General
  • Official General

    You gotta always carry heat in these Vice City streets

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2010

#18

Posted 15 January 2014 - 09:30 PM Edited by Official General, 15 January 2014 - 09:32 PM.

I agree with you OP, to some extent. A great deal of GTA V's map went to waste. If they had provided more things to do and see in the non-city areas, then it might not have been so bad. 

 

I think the wilderness and countryside area is great to have, but it should have been scaled down to a smaller size, and Los Santos should have been a bit bigger, more spread out, more detailed, with more interiors, and more vibrancy happening in the streets. 

 

Alternatively, I would have liked another major city city at least, like a fictional San Diego - I would even say that they should have added Las Venturas too. Like another 3 city system from San Andreas, but with a fictional San Diego replacing San Fierro. 


AnDReJ98
  • AnDReJ98

    Gangsta

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Oct 2011
  • Serbia

#19

Posted 15 January 2014 - 10:40 PM Edited by AnDReJ98, 15 January 2014 - 10:40 PM.

^ Then, people would say R* did poor job with countryside. They should focus on both equal, countryside and city. Your idea about 2 cities is great, it worked good in San Andreas, thought San Fierro was poor done, Las Venturas and Los Santos were done excellent. But online ruined everything in V. I hope they get back mostly on singleplayer for next game.

  • dyz and Lucchese like this

latigreblue
  • latigreblue

    Mark Chump

  • Members
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2012

#20

Posted 16 January 2014 - 01:28 AM

I thought San Fierro was the best city.


Official General
  • Official General

    You gotta always carry heat in these Vice City streets

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2010

#21

Posted 16 January 2014 - 01:42 AM

^ Then, people would say R* did poor job with countryside. They should focus on both equal, countryside and city. Your idea about 2 cities is great, it worked good in San Andreas, thought San Fierro was poor done, Las Venturas and Los Santos were done excellent. But online ruined everything in V. I hope they get back mostly on singleplayer for next game.

 

I said they should still keep the countryside, but just think it was too much in GTA V. It was like 65 percent country and 35 percent city. I don't even think it was 50/50. It should have been like San Andreas's map but more detailed with better graphics. 


Lucchese
  • Lucchese

    Cynical Prick

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Jun 2012

#22

Posted 16 January 2014 - 02:07 AM

 

I think the game would have been tighter if they'd removed Blaine County from the game. The majority of the action takes place in Los Santos anyway and there's really not that much point to the gigantic desert above.

 

It would have cut down significantly on the boring driving times and made things all closer together.

 

Nope. That's ridiculous. 90% of the people were complaining that IV needed more freedom, more open space to roam. Thats what this game gave us. I personally didn't want to be trapped in a city again.

 

I spend the majority of my time in Blaine County. I full enjoy the nice long highways, and the drive times aren't bad at all. When I get tired of Blaine County, I head into the city, when I get tired of the city, I head back out to the desert or mountains. 

 

Exactly this.  :^:

 

The fundamental principle and foundation of GTA is its open world gameplay. Its success is what has led to all the copycat titles, and the map size is always requested to be bigger and bigger each time. Some people consider the GTA series to be a crime game above all else; I consider it principally to be an action-adventure game above all else. I have to say wanting a smaller map certainly puts you in the minority of the fanbase OP. I think the reason it was accepted by most with IV was because it was a new gen game. As for the city : countryside ratio - I think it was perfect. Having the city the same in size as the countryside wouldn't feel right at all. Hell, Chilliad covers nearly the same area as LS!


 

^ Then, people would say R* did poor job with countryside. They should focus on both equal, countryside and city. Your idea about 2 cities is great, it worked good in San Andreas, thought San Fierro was poor done, Las Venturas and Los Santos were done excellent. But online ruined everything in V. I hope they get back mostly on singleplayer for next game.

 

I said they should still keep the countryside, but just think it was too much in GTA V. It was like 65 percent country and 35 percent city. I don't even think it was 50/50. It should have been like San Andreas's map but more detailed with better graphics. 

 

Again, you claim your expectations are realistic, yet think these prehistoric machines could handle an hd map like that?


Official General
  • Official General

    You gotta always carry heat in these Vice City streets

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2010

#23

Posted 16 January 2014 - 02:09 AM Edited by Official General, 16 January 2014 - 02:18 AM.

@ Lucchese

 

I see no reason why not. I don't believe the PS3 cannot handle that. The 360 may take 3 discs for that, then yeah so be it. No point going into this too much, it's just my ideal vision of how they should have done it. 

 

But I personally think it could have been done. 


Niko Vercetti 112
  • Niko Vercetti 112

    That's, just, like, your opinion man

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Feb 2012

#24

Posted 16 January 2014 - 02:13 AM Edited by Niko Vercetti 112, 16 January 2014 - 02:43 AM.

I'm getting kind of sick of the "current gen consoles can't handle a second city arguement". Yes they could have easily added a second city by removing some of the current countryside and putting in a smaller city. Hell, I would have accepted another city even if it was the size of Broker/Dukes from IV.
  • Official General likes this

Official General
  • Official General

    You gotta always carry heat in these Vice City streets

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2010

#25

Posted 16 January 2014 - 02:20 AM

I'm getting kind of sick of the "current gen consoles can't handle a second city arguement". Yes they could have easily added a second city by removing some of the current countryside and putting in a smaller city. Hell, I would have accepted anotccher city even if it was the size of Broker/Dukes from IV.

 

This exactly  :^:

 

I just don't buy that theory that current-gen consoles couldn't handle another city. Like I said before, if the countryside had been scaled down, I'm very sure a smaller, second city could have been created. 


SonOfLiberty
  • SonOfLiberty

    Godfather

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2007
  • Australia
  • Best Member in an Official Group 2012

#26

Posted 16 January 2014 - 02:29 AM

I don't mind countryside being in the game. It's just too empty to justify its size IMO. People can say what they like about LC being a concrete jungle, making players feel trapped in etc, but there's not a whole lot of the map that goes to waste in the story. Most of the action in GTA V's countryside occurs in and around Sandy Shores.

 

There's a prison and a dam that play no part in the story at all and are just there for looks. We don't even get mission contacts north of Sandy Shores and the mountain ranges take up an awful lot of space and are quite uninteresting really. Plus the map itself looks weird having a city squashed at the bottom and everything else is countryside.

 

It looks like a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle.

  • Cicero The Great likes this

Lucchese
  • Lucchese

    Cynical Prick

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Jun 2012

#27

Posted 16 January 2014 - 02:35 AM Edited by Lucchese, 16 January 2014 - 02:36 AM.

I'm getting kind of sick of the "current gen consoles can't handle a second city arguement". Yes they could have easily added a second city by removing some of the current countryside and putting in a smaller city. Hell, I would have accepted anotccher city even if it was the size of Broker/Dukes from IV.

I'm not denying a second smaller city could have possibly replaced one of the many large mountains. However, our resident hater Official General is claiming he'd want an hd SA. Are you seriously telling me the 360/PS3 could handle three huge detailed cities to the scale of V's LS, while having a large enough countryside/desert to make each city feel far apart from each other?

 

I'm no gaming dev, but I seriously doubt it.


Cicero The Great
  • Cicero The Great

    Only We can use majestic plural, deal with it

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 Oct 2013

#28

Posted 16 January 2014 - 03:03 AM

I don't mind countryside being in the game. It's just too empty to justify its size IMO. People can say what they like about LC being a concrete jungle, making players feel trapped in etc, but there's not a whole lot of the map that goes to waste in the story. Most of the action in GTA V's countryside occurs in and around Sandy Shores.
 
There's a prison and a dam that play no part in the story at all and are just there for looks. We don't even get mission contacts north of Sandy Shores and the mountain ranges take up an awful lot of space and are quite uninteresting really. Plus the map itself looks weird having a city squashed at the bottom and everything else is countryside.
 
It looks like a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle.


Exactly
Just imagine a medium sized city on the North, or something unique to do in Paleto, Chumash etc. with all properties enterable

Instead we have a ghost town as a city and a bland and empty countryside in a streamlined map
This is probably the most simplified GTA of all times


What a wasted potential
  • SonOfLiberty likes this

Josh410
  • Josh410

    Li'l G Loc

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2012
  • None

#29

Posted 16 January 2014 - 03:25 AM

I wouldn't have minded San Diego (small) because it would add a better variety of drug missions and stuff. Idk I feel like the countryside almost overpowers the city. I thought sandy shores and plateo bay would have more to do, but there is like 3 interiors in each. Almost no point. They needed to recreate back o beyond and that area. That would have been cool. But of course a price tag comes along, console limitations

Choco Taco
  • Choco Taco

    .

  • Members
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011

#30

Posted 16 January 2014 - 04:53 AM

They should have trimmed off some of the countryside and made Paleto a little bigger with a small airport and some more activities there.  That would have given you a reason to travel up there and would have also made purchasing private jets make sense.  What's the point of buying a Luxor for 1.5 million dollars when there isn't a proper destination for it?

 

It should have been something like the map on the right:

 

AIBRPRM.jpg

  • lizardman563 and krashr like this




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users