I think the countryside is fine, but I wish they traded in one of the mountains (perhaps Mount Josiah) for a mid-size city.
Should they have stuck to Los Santos?
Posted 16 January 2014 - 11:45 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.
You nicely elaborated more on what I was saying before. The whole countryside and wilderness looks beautiful, but I just think it was wasted and under-utilized.
I'm not a hater of anything. I would appreciate if you stopped calling me a GTA V hater. Just because I criticize it, it don't mean I actually hate it, because I don't. I do personally think a HD SA map could have been achieved without too much countryside/wilderness, and narrower roads. The roads in LS were way to huge. If rockstar had just scaled back on certain things, it could have been done.
- MiamiViceCity likes this
Posted 16 January 2014 - 12:08 PM
they should have started with the original los santos outline form san andreas and made it bigger and add desert towns and and actual forest
- Official General likes this
Posted 16 January 2014 - 01:29 PM
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.
Why are people always thinking that more content in a game = harder for the console to handle? The limit in amount of textures, models etc is only limited by the size of the disc, and since the PS3 has Bluray, it's virtually unlimited. The old hardware argument is true, and it prevents the PS3 (and 360) from loading/showing too much stuff at the same time. HOWEVER, having 2 cities at far distances does not decrease framerate or anything. You guys do realise that V is just a very clever trick at showing you sealed-off areas, which appear to seamlessly 'blend' when going through them? If you're at the top of chilliad, (or even at the windmills) you can see LS. I hope it's pretty obvious that you're not looking at the real LS. Those are not high-textured buildings, and there are DEFINITELY not pedestrians and cars moving. Try it with a helicopter. If you fly above LS, you get to a certain height where cars and peds dissapear, and all they show you is 'lights'. Try to focus on these lights; You'll see that they are just moving squares doing the same pad over a highway, creating the illusion that there's a crowded city filled with traffic beneath you. But there isn't. Clever tricks, but eventually (as do all openworld games), there is only a limited 'neighborhood' surrounding the player which is loaded. Not just building textures (because it's clear from the famous 'pop-ups' that there are different textures for different distances), but basically every core system in V only get's loaded and shown in your near surroundings. They do a great job at it, but it doesn't limit them from adding another city at the other side of the state. When you're at the top of the Maze Bank Tower, you'd see a 'cardbox version' of (let's say) Las Venturas, and when you slowly get near it, it loads up better textures, mission markers, and eventually traffic.
So yeah, basically, the only limit these consoles have is physical space on the game disc (which is a downer for those 360 folks) and the amount of detail/systems which can be calculated at the same time/screen. It has nothing to do with the size of the map, nor if it's 'empty' countryside or crowded cities. V's map is only shown in details in your vicinity, while the rest of it get's replaced by clever (and sometimes less clever) placeholders. These load dynamically, without loading screens.
Posted 16 January 2014 - 02:48 PM
@ OP... Naa, the city is fun, but so is the countryside... try flying along at 120-130 mph in the city for more than a block or two... never mind careening along at full speed and riding up a berm or small hill to catch some uber air while waving hello to the passing birdies... or drive some junker off a high cliff and try and bail out and parachute safely without splating on the rocks below.
Boring drives with yakking companions... maybe, but there is loads of fun to be had.
- Beanee likes this
Posted 16 January 2014 - 05:12 PM Edited by Beanee, 16 January 2014 - 05:12 PM.
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:
I think the map is great as it is now in GTA V, but I definitely agree with this; I think they should've maybe included a smaller knit community or even town around the top of the map,
just to break up that area. I never find myself in the top-left of the map as there is hardly anything to do there.
I love the countryside in this game and I kinda disagree with the OP: I think driving out to Blaine County is enjoyable, if not for the beautiful sights and sounds, but for
the sheer fun of flying down a highway in a fast car. I think Blaine county is great and I'd love for a desert-like area in the next GTA installment, but as i said above, another
little town to buy properties, a few side missions, as well as secrets and what not would make this game that little bit better. The only thing we need to bear in mind with this
outing is the extensive underwater world.
Posted 16 January 2014 - 06:52 PM
No way. Sandy Shores is my second favorite spot in the game.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users