Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Is there anyone who thinks the city is too small?

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
58 replies to this topic
SmoothGetaway
  • SmoothGetaway

    I got respect for reality

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2011
  • None

#31

Posted 15 February 2014 - 09:23 PM

Lulz...

There's some people in this thread who are saying LS is a good size, but the same people were bitching up a storm because LS 'looked small' before release.

Mostly because downtown LA is small (you can count the skyscrapers on both hands) and they have no clue what urban sprawl is.

OT: I think its a good size but China town and the San Fernando Valley aka 'The valley' are noticeably absent. There's also not a whole lotta space between Santa Monica and Venice beaches but, it's not a huge deal :cool:

MonsterCockDude
  • MonsterCockDude

    Over 8 inches BPEL of meat.

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Aug 2013
  • None

#32

Posted 15 February 2014 - 09:31 PM

They should have added in a wider more residential area of Eastern LS, between El Burro Heights and Mirror Park.


They should have made the downtown area and the ghetto area bigger. They should have put a valley area to the north, then put Sandy Shores and the majority of Blaine County to the east, then have the map end at the North with some big mountain ranges.


darkwar854
  • darkwar854

    Ghetto Star

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 25 Aug 2012

#33

Posted 15 February 2014 - 09:36 PM

This may sound crazy, but I think the LS in GTA SA feels bigger.  But I know the new one is bigger.

  • Xcommunicated, theGTAking101 and pilscy like this

Official General
  • Official General

    You gotta always carry heat in these Vice City streets

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2010

#34

Posted 15 February 2014 - 09:52 PM

Lulz...

There's some people in this thread who are saying LS is a good size, but the same people were bitching up a storm because LS 'looked small' before release.

Mostly because downtown LA is small (you can count the skyscrapers on both hands) and they have no clue what urban sprawl is.

OT: I think its a good size but China town and the San Fernando Valley aka 'The valley' are noticeably absent. There's also not a whole lotta space between Santa Monica and Venice beaches but, it's not a huge deal :cool:

 

Lol at yourself.

 

Many people who thought LS initially looked small in the preview screenshots have long conceded they were kinda wrong and already admitted that it was bigger than they thought it would be (including myself). This was in the massive "LS looks kinda small thread".

 

Where were you bro ? You're a tad bit late to the party. 


SkyReaper2014
  • SkyReaper2014

    Paleto Bay Resident

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Sep 2012
  • United-States

#35

Posted 15 February 2014 - 10:32 PM

Love how people complain about too much countryside after all the people saying IV had too little  :lol: some people don't know what they want.

 

OT: I think LS size could be slightly larger, but I'm okay with it as it is now.


Xcommunicated
  • Xcommunicated

    OG

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 25 Sep 2002
  • United-States

#36

Posted 15 February 2014 - 11:04 PM

This may sound crazy, but I think the LS in GTA SA feels bigger.  But I know the new one is bigger.

To an extent, I have to agree.  I think it's simply that the old SA map actually captured much more diversity in its areas.  The trade off in V is far greater detail for what is included, but we get an overly condensed city that doesn't reflect upon a lot of its real life counterparts.  Although, we have to realize that there is not much point to developing more areas if they aren't going to be used in the story line, especially at this level of detail.

 

Same kinda goes for the countryside.  I'm glad it's incredibly vast, but some areas could have been fleshed out a little more, like the forest and Paleto Bay.

 

Having said that, it's still a great map and it was definitely fun to explore.

  • SingularSoul likes this

2281
  • 2281

  • Members
  • Joined: 01 Feb 2013
  • Canada

#37

Posted 15 February 2014 - 11:13 PM

I would have relocated Sandy Shores to where Paleto Bay is (therefore eliminating Paleto Bay) with endless desert to the north (remember, this map is "Southern San Andreas", there must be a "Northern San Andreas" and it would be silly if it's another island floating in the ocean). For those who suggest that the consoles can't handle endless desert, it doesn't have to be fancy. It can be just a endless field of sand. Fly out too far and you're vehicle blows up. 

 

I would have then added more city where Sandy Shores currently is to mirror locations such as Northridge, Van Nuys, Burbank, etc., all of which are behind the Hollywood Hills for those who are geographically stupid. I also think that's it stupid how Long Beach wasn't included in V but it was in SA (in the form of East Beach).

 

I'm more of a city kind of guy as you can see, but I've noticed that many people feel the same way. In GTAO I find that most people hang out in LS than BC.

  • CCarvalho224 likes this

SmoothGetaway
  • SmoothGetaway

    I got respect for reality

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2011
  • None

#38

Posted 16 February 2014 - 01:18 AM Edited by SmoothGetaway, 16 February 2014 - 05:02 AM.

@Official General:

Nice job dropping dimes on yourself :cool: Notice I didn't name names? Last I checked that's called tact.

Also, there's no statute of limitations on making fun of people for being that wrong. Trust me, I'll bring it up again when the same exact threads pop up for GTAVI. Relax, it was all in fun.

Plus it's a ton of fun being right.

Oh, and being right all along makes me late to the party? Haha! Whatever you say bro.

killahmatic
  • killahmatic

    JB

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2008
  • None

#39

Posted 16 February 2014 - 01:31 AM Edited by killahmatic, 16 February 2014 - 01:33 AM.

I'm happy with the size of Los Santos. Had city been extended to the east, taking place of the palomino highlands , it might have been perfect, but honestly, I have no problem with the way it is. 

 

Sure, its unrealistically small, but thats true for every GTA. It would have to be at least the size of the entire island to be realistic. I personally am more than OK with the current size.


Choco Taco
  • Choco Taco

    .

  • Members
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011

#40

Posted 16 February 2014 - 01:50 AM

I would have preferred a smaller Los Santos and a second city to travel to.  When I played San Andreas, I never felt like the cities were too small.  


boxmonster
  • boxmonster

    Disinformation Agent

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2008
  • None
  • Contribution Award [Mapping Los Santos]

#41

Posted 16 February 2014 - 02:14 AM

 

The city map is a good size, but it could have been designed and laid out in a much better way. Firstly, the roads were too wide. Narrower roads could have meant more buildings and more space for other structures. Secondly, there was not enough balance in residential areas - there were not enough general working-class districts or middle-class suburbs, it was mostly just ghettos and very wealthy neighborhoods. The city could have been spread out across the map a bit more too. 
 
Having said all that, I do think Rockstar could and should have made Los Santos much bigger than it is, especially seeing how there is so much countryside and desert.

roads are like that in LA tho. We are really famous for our wide Freeways and Streets! Also the only thing needed was make that eastern part of the map extended into ocean a bit for some middle class OC. :D

 

I think he meant that the the lanes are wider than they should be, not that there are too much lanes but that's a common trend among racing games so you don't have to worry about traffic.


mastershake616
  • mastershake616

    The Wolf of BAWSAQ

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 Sep 2013

#42

Posted 16 February 2014 - 02:41 AM

vinewood.jpg

 

Do you think your diapers might be too small?


thatGuyyy
  • thatGuyyy

    Punk-ass Bitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 22 Jan 2014

#43

Posted 16 February 2014 - 04:46 AM Edited by thatGuyyy, 16 February 2014 - 04:47 AM.

I did feel it was abit too small, especially when you compare it to how big the desert area was. Liberty City was about the same size but it felt bigger because it was much more dense, it had alot more buildings and the roads were much narrower, so it took alot longer to travel around. In LS, the roads are much wider and the city is more spread out so its easier to go top speed through the entire map within a couple minutes, which makes the city seem smaller than it is. LA is much larger than NYC in terms of area, so LS should have been significantly bigger than LC.

 

The ghettos in LS were also disappointing, they were extremely small and not very well done. In SA, half of LS was a ghetto, which made it feel like a real crime ridden city. The lack of proper residential areas in V is also an issue with me, everything felt too "hollywood" and flashy. LA is much more than that


Miamivicecity
  • Miamivicecity

    Get Love Fisted

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2007
  • Australia
  • Best Member In An Official Group 2012

#44

Posted 16 February 2014 - 04:51 AM

The city size is fine IMO. That's not my issue with LS. My issue with LS is it feels like a movie set and everywhere lacks personality and character.

Hell I'd say Sandy Shores despite its small size feels more lively than LS does.

Official General
  • Official General

    You gotta always carry heat in these Vice City streets

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2010

#45

Posted 16 February 2014 - 05:18 AM Edited by Official General, 16 February 2014 - 05:19 AM.

Love how people complain about too much countryside after all the people saying IV had too little  :lol: some people don't know what they want.

 

OT: I think LS size could be slightly larger, but I'm okay with it as it is now.

 

People like you keep saying this stuff, but why do you keep overlooking the very possible fact that many people complaining about no countryside in GTA IV are more than likely not the same people complaining that GTA V has too much countryside ? Did that simple thought ever occur to you ?

 

Obviously not. 

 

I for for one think that V has way too much countryside and wilderness that went to waste, and I was completely fine with IV having no countryside/wilderness, because a NYC-based setting like IV's did not need any of that. What have you got to say about that ? 

 

 

@Official General:

Nice job dropping dimes on yourself :cool: Notice I didn't name names? Last I checked that's called tact.

Also, there's no statute of limitations on making fun of people for being that wrong. Trust me, I'll bring it up again when the same exact threads pop up for GTAVI. Relax, it was all in fun.

Plus it's a ton of fun being right.

Oh, and being right all along makes me late to the party? Haha! Whatever you say bro.

 

I'm happy to name myself, I'm hiding from nobody and I don't care about tact in this case. I'm relaxed too. I'm just pointing out that the city map size doubters had long conceded that LS was big enough, even before the game came out. I personally don't see the fun in being 'right' in a debate that was over and finished a very long time ago. 

 

But hey, if claiming glory very late in the game still gives you a great thrill, then all the better for you. 


Ferocious Banger
  • Ferocious Banger

    Big Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 May 2012
  • India

#46

Posted 16 February 2014 - 05:38 AM

I'm sure what GKP ( anybody remembers  him here? ) would say, and I'm totally going to be in favour of it.

  • Lucchese likes this

Osho
  • Osho

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Nov 2012
  • None

#47

Posted 16 February 2014 - 05:46 AM

I'd definitely say that the map is bigger, but not properly thought out, in terms of forest areas, desert part and how small city feels compared to over 50% of space, for me that's far less detailed, and not much developed, in feel, variety and scope.

But, I disagree that LC is better than LS, no ways, LS is done extraordinarily well. The city in any GTA (except Vice City) has never been so beautiful as GTA V. But, what it lacks, makes up for in details and realism and gives me no reason to look over the remaining minor quibbles.
  • iiGh0STt likes this

SmoothGetaway
  • SmoothGetaway

    I got respect for reality

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2011
  • None

#48

Posted 16 February 2014 - 08:57 AM Edited by SmoothGetaway, 16 February 2014 - 09:24 AM.

The city size is fine IMO. That's not my issue with LS. My issue with LS is it feels like a movie set and everywhere lacks personality and character.
Hell I'd say Sandy Shores despite its small size feels more lively than LS does.

You're high right now aren't you? :cool:

Only a person under the influence would say that Sandy Shores is more bustling than LS...

Right?

Right.

@Official General

Being right never gets old (no matter what time of day it is) bc a win is a win all day long even if you don't like it. Thought you UK soccer fans would understand that, being that soccer is a game for people that accept ties as wins.

Deal with it bro! :cool:

ChrisFley
  • ChrisFley

    Everything in moderation, including moderation.

  • Members
  • Joined: 04 Nov 2013
  • United-Kingdom

#49

Posted 16 February 2014 - 10:15 AM

What I hate is Downtown Los Santo is freaking small with big roads but with only 6-7 towers. Even Los Santos in GTA SA felt bigger.


iiGh0STt
  • iiGh0STt

    Gangsta

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2013
  • Ukraine

#50

Posted 16 February 2014 - 10:41 AM

It's only because you know the map by heart now.

In the army, they trained me to be able to draw a map by memory. So it's pretty easy for me to do in games. I can remember my first time playing trying to look at the map through the pause menu and use my army tactics to my advantage.... it did not work. horrible 2d mapping, no elevation, overlaps, etc etc... pretty crappy for how far they have came with the rest of the game. mapping should be a huge issue and way more informative and realistic than it is in GTA V.

as I learned the map, it got so much easier and I knew all the right turns, hideouts, faster routes, stuff like that. I have not played in months and can still pick up a controller at my friends and instantly know that map. and ever since I played through 100%, and explored as much as I cared to, the map seemed to shrink.

So, it's not that the map is small, you just know every nook and cranny of it. The city itself is huge, and probably the most advanced city in gaming thus far, with so much random realistic stuff always going on.


I'd definitely say that the map is bigger, but not properly thought out, in terms of forest areas, desert part and how small city feels compared to over 50% of space, for me that's far less detailed, and not much developed, in feel, variety and scope.

But, I disagree that LC is better than LS, no ways, LS is done extraordinarily well. The city in any GTA (except Vice City) has never been so beautiful as GTA V. But, what it lacks, makes up for in details and realism and gives me no reason to look over the remaining minor quibbles.

yup. details like buses and bus stops, trolleys, trains, planes etc etc... very realistic in those aspects of city life.


SmoothGetaway
  • SmoothGetaway

    I got respect for reality

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2011
  • None

#51

Posted 16 February 2014 - 11:51 AM Edited by SmoothGetaway, 16 February 2014 - 01:09 PM.

What I hate is Downtown Los Santo is freaking small with big roads but with only 6-7 towers. Even Los Santos in GTA SA felt bigger.

Nope, nostalgia and sh*tty draw distance don't add up to what you said being right.

Just saying something doesn't make it true...name that quote mofos!

@iiGhosTt

I totally hear ya on military path finding skills being useless in GTA...however I gotta ask, did your military outlook help in shoot outs? Because it did for me! Thanks for your service to your country btw, whichever one it may be.

Only we know...
  • Lucchese likes this

Lucchese
  • Lucchese

    Cynical Prick

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Jun 2012

#52

Posted 16 February 2014 - 12:15 PM

I'm sure what GKP ( anybody remembers  him here? ) would say, and I'm totally going to be in favour of it.

F*ck me...I totally forgot about that guy!! Does anybody know if GKP is still active around this place? Him and that massive 'Los Santos Size' thread was hilariously great fun; so many memories! 

 

Definitely should've won the 'Thread of the Year' award instead of that 'whinging-about-the-story' topic that eventually collected the accolade...


Jack0711
  • Jack0711

    Bugstar Employee

  • Members
  • Joined: 30 Aug 2012

#53

Posted 16 February 2014 - 12:17 PM

Problem for me is that LA is so spread out and LS is so compact compared to this. But yeah I think the city is big enough, just wish Downtown was just a little bit bigger than it is.


SmoothGetaway
  • SmoothGetaway

    I got respect for reality

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2011
  • None

#54

Posted 16 February 2014 - 12:28 PM Edited by SmoothGetaway, 16 February 2014 - 12:32 PM.

@Jack0711

Yeah but if you really know SoCal you'd know this isn't even remotely possible. The sheer amount of land that spans from LA to the valley, to San Pedro is huge.

It's not happening, at least not without next gen tech, unlimited man hours, and someone who knows what the f*ck is up, aka me.

Lol.

Elvis_Mazur
  • Elvis_Mazur

    Nothing Inspiring to Write

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Jan 2014

#55

Posted 16 February 2014 - 01:23 PM

When I first saw the map I thought it was small, but after playing for a while I noticed how big it is.


ViceCityStalker
  • ViceCityStalker

    Balls Deep Inside Candy Suxxx

  • Members
  • Joined: 24 Nov 2013
  • South-Africa

#56

Posted 16 February 2014 - 01:45 PM

It`s not the size that matters but the magic in the pencil.


Phoenix_Poop
  • Phoenix_Poop

    Player hater or hater player, or what?

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Oct 2013
  • Sweden

#57

Posted 16 February 2014 - 02:08 PM

This may sound crazy, but I think the LS in GTA SA feels bigger.  But I know the new one is bigger.

I actually agree with you, the LS in San Andreas felt a bit bigger actually. And it was more worth it in free roam than the way LS is in GTA V


WorldWideFM
  • WorldWideFM

    Trick

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Nov 2012
  • None

#58

Posted 16 February 2014 - 02:30 PM

The city feels enormous to me. I think one thing to remember is that there are no rivers, so not having to cross a bridge to get anywhere could theoretically give the illusion of the map feeling smaller since you can take a more direct route, and also, the cars are faster - yet despite these, LS still feels larger to me than LC ever did. I'm really happy with it actually, I can just cruise around that city listening to the radio all day, something that I can't do with LC. 


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

#59

Posted 16 February 2014 - 08:55 PM

vinewood.jpg

 

Do you think your diapers might be too small?

dude nobody likes sarcasm but your just being a dick! 





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users