Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

How do you like your cities?

13 replies to this topic
bengalboy_0701
  • bengalboy_0701

    Under Control

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Dec 2013
  • Bangladesh

#1

Posted 16 April 2014 - 12:23 PM

So this is something that, I guess many people have thought about, but I don't know if anybody has really properly discussed it (though there have been lots of topics regarding map size, I cannot really recall anybody who made one for cities only) so here I go - Exactly how do you think cities in the GTA Universe should be? Small but detailed? Or largely bland?
In other words, would you rather have something the size of Portland from GTA III (Just Portland), where every interior is enterable, every building is highly detailed and destructible, even, and where every NPC has a unique trait and the whole city interacts at once? Or would you want a whole city the size of San Andreas, with the same graphical detail of V, but with fewer interiors and invincible buildings?
However, with this gen (which is still called next-gen) of consoles, I think it is possible to have both of the above, but that's not what i'm talking about. Don't say both. NEVER say both. At least not here. Everyone wants both. But what i'm saying is select one of the above options given in terms of your preference. Suppose, you're cornered with a low budget and low-end consoles, leaving you to select one of the above choices for your city. What would you pick? The bigger the better? Or the sicker the better?

Niko Vercetti 112
  • Niko Vercetti 112

    That's, just, like, your opinion man

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Feb 2012

#2

Posted 16 April 2014 - 12:34 PM

I like the half way point. I like detail, but I don't think that it should take away from having a decent sized map and visa versa.

 

But some things that people want, like destructible buildings and every interior being accessible is utterly stupid. I mean, who in their right mind wants to walk into a travel agency or a 56 story building full of offices? Not me for sure. I am fine with the balance, like LC in IV.

  • Spadge007 and Blennerville like this

bengalboy_0701
  • bengalboy_0701

    Under Control

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Dec 2013
  • Bangladesh

#3

Posted 16 April 2014 - 01:05 PM

Wait a sec, I gotta rephrase this - did I say ALL or ALMOST EVERY?
I agree that nobody wants to walk in an office building, but I was talking about the other potential environments. All those shops, nothing to buy (or extort from). All those houses, nothing to steal (exception being SA). If every (sorry, almost every) building has a unique interior that are properly usable, it would be great. That's what I wanted to say.
Besides, the options were more like examples to the question in the last line. I even said detail and reasonable size was possible somewhere in the middle.
  • Joe Chip likes this

Mr.Killa
  • Mr.Killa

    They got money for war, but canīt feed the poor

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Feb 2013
  • Norway

#4

Posted 16 April 2014 - 03:49 PM

A map the size of Portland from GTA III would make 90 % people on here complain about it. And they´d  have a damn good reason for complaining to. I don´t understand the fascination with ultra-destructable enviroments? You want to tear the entire city to pieces? That´s just pointless.


killdrivetheftvehicle
  • killdrivetheftvehicle

    GTA Enthusiast

  • Members
  • Joined: 24 Aug 2010
  • Finland

#5

Posted 16 April 2014 - 05:00 PM

@OP: to answer your OP: ofcourse the first option.

 

But why are you asking this question? Everyone knows about the trade-off between interactability and city size. R* has said before, that they don't want to make the cities authentic-sized. Instead they opt for an authentic feel of the city.


bengalboy_0701
  • bengalboy_0701

    Under Control

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Dec 2013
  • Bangladesh

#6

Posted 16 April 2014 - 08:27 PM

I was just curious about what people want to see more, size or depth. I guess I messed up the examples I'd given, oh well.

Blennerville
  • Blennerville

    Punk-ass Bitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 12 Feb 2014
  • Ireland

#7

Posted 16 April 2014 - 11:39 PM Edited by Blennerville, 16 April 2014 - 11:45 PM.

In terms of entering buildings

 

- I certainly dont want to be able to enter all buildings or even 1/4 of them (safehouses have annoyed me since San Andreas - boring interior that are mandatory forced on you, its not as bad now that there are no load between entry/exit but it is still needless and boring - Michael spawning in bed takes 20 secs to get into the street and interact annoys the hell out of me. Safehouses have just always been a very clunky, slow and boring task since you were able to go to bed).

 

- I do want to be able to enter more buildings though, but just ones that there you would need a reason to enter or that are entertaining or you can steal from or mess about in, ones that have a specific purpose and that are not generic and boring. Not just a random row of houses, generic buildings.

 

- id like to be able to enter more small buildings like being able to enter all gas station shops, 7/11, fast food shops, some malls & shopping centers, grocery/hardware and DIY stores (could be identical interiors for all) stadiums, banks & jewelery stores, post offices, dog/horse/all kinda tracks, casinos, airports, golf clubs/rich people clubs/shooting clubs, discos/bars, gyms, hospitals, police station, fire station, army barracks, MAYBE a hotels or two (just lobby + another floor or two with just a few specific rooms open),  all important/famous landmark buildings like the Statue of Liberty, that tall building in LA (just one or 2 levels with just a few rooms) and be able to get to the roof of all tall buildings......etc.

Stuff like that and some houses and apartments that you can break into and rob like in San Andreas + being able to rob any place at any time.

 

 

In terms of city/map size and detail - I was dissapointed with all of GTA5's map really; I only really liked the desert and area around the lake with the farms, but it was too small. The size of the overall map was ok, but most of it was just pure padding area.

 

- Los Santos: as there was only one city I would have liked it to be twice the size it was, that would have been just about right ( - as it was a lot of stuff was missing/left out and it just felt small and lacking, a lot of the areas felt much better in San Andreas compared to 5.

- Countryside: Daw a line from the prison to the race track - I would have liked if all the area to the right of that line, from the port of Los Santos up as far as sandy shores lake, was desert with more wind turbines and those oil pumps. I would have liked if the remaining green areas wasnt so padded with hills - have some more farmland, wine/orange groves and the hills that remain should be more traversable and there should be some thing happening there i.e. not be dead zones.

There should have been a lot more minor roads going through the countryside (as it is a lot of area is cutt off and is in no mans land)  and the countryside should be used more for stuff. Again a lot of the genn areas in SA felt better than in GTA5.

 

Thats what I want.


universetwisters
  • universetwisters

    VOLKSWAFFEN

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Feb 2011
  • United-States

#8

Posted 17 April 2014 - 12:26 AM

I'm not a big fan of them trying to recreate real life cities. Look at Los Santos in V. They try to make it an accurate representation, but where the flip friggin hell is the suburban sprawl? The big ghettos? Liberty City is a bit more forgivable since you can imagine there's more suburbs past the games boundaries, but nah. You can't really do that in V.


That being said, I'm more of a small town guy. If they're pulled off correctly, it can be done. It's a bit logical too, seeing as smaller commercial area = more interactive businesses. And don't give me sh*t that "hurr small townz r booring". It all depends on where it is in the country. Mexican/Canadian border? You get your smuggling crimes. Mountains? Moonshining. Midwest? Meth. Use your imagination/research and you got yourself a game.

gtamann123
  • gtamann123

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Jun 2008
  • United-States

#9

Posted 17 April 2014 - 12:29 AM

Exactly what universe said. A good GTA set in a rural area with a collevtion of small towns would be heavenly if done right. Like if the map was a county in appalachia with a few small towns and one mid sized town but no big city. I dont knownif I could really see it working in a full sized game but as DLC I could see it as a real possibility.

I<3GTAV
  • I<3GTAV

    I LOVE GARY PAYTON NO ONE UNDERSTANDS

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Nov 2012
  • United-States

#10

Posted 17 April 2014 - 01:06 AM

I think they got it just right in IV, a nicely sized city with many many details and interiors that are needed and a few extra on top of that.


Spadge007
  • Spadge007

    Low-rider

  • Members
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2013
  • United-Kingdom

#11

Posted 20 April 2014 - 04:18 PM

I like the half way point. I like detail, but I don't think that it should take away from having a decent sized map and visa versa.

 

But some things that people want, like destructible buildings and every interior being accessible is utterly stupid. I mean, who in their right mind wants to walk into a travel agency or a 56 story building full of offices? Not me for sure. I am fine with the balance, like LC in IV.

+1


Joe Chip
  • Joe Chip

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Jun 2010
  • Antarctica

#12

Posted 20 April 2014 - 04:57 PM Edited by Joe Chip, 20 April 2014 - 04:58 PM.

I liked big maps for a while, but I'm kinda iffy on them after playing V. Something between the size of Vice City and IV's Liberty City (minus Alderney) seems like it would be ideal if they want to go to the depth of detail I want in my ideal GTA city. Alderney itself was amazing with the level of detail put into outside things and the variety from neighborhood to neighborhood. If they could do something like Alderney but take all the good features and extend them then I think that'd be my favorite GTA city ever. Alderney gets bonus points for the Plumber's Skyway, which is the best sort of highway they could use in a videogame. The thing was completely straightforward and didn't have any junctions, it was just a big circuit built around key points in the city, and that makes it a lot less confusing than most highway systems in GTA games.

 

I also really like the idea of adding more interiors. Maybe not every single shop, but it'd be nice to be able to walk into at least 40% of the businesses that would only consist of a cash register and some displays anyway. They oughta find a way to reuse the same interiors like in San Andreas and have you be able to walk into them like you're able to in IV. They might've done that with the Tw@t cafes and hospitals, but I doubt it since they didn't use them much.

  • Vice City criminal likes this

UrbanAdventuring
  • UrbanAdventuring

    Crackhead

  • Members
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2014
  • United-States

#13

Posted 23 April 2014 - 09:56 AM Edited by UrbanAdventuring, 23 April 2014 - 09:59 AM.

I would like to see more houses in the game.  Not only to live in, but for robbery like in San Andreas.  (people who say GTA V is soo much better than SA seem to forget stuff like this).  It would be cool to have a random house be a drug dealer's compound or some gun collector's house.  Enter at your own risk.   Maybe this is controversial, but so is running around and shooting peds.  It's GTA.  All that stuff should be in it.

 

I would like some more enterable buildings.  They can be copied ones like San Andreas, or Godfather I for all I care, I just want to go inside.  I liked it in the 3D era when every city had a stadium or arena in which to do special events.   Other buildings I would like to enter are: airport terminals, police stations, FIB and other agency buildings (stock them with good loot too), court houses, fire stations, hospitals, clubs, casinos, hotels (rent a room too),  and public gathering places like convention centers, stadiums, and theaters. 

 

I don't really care about city size as much as variety of buildings and settings.   San Andreas was pretty good about packing in a lot of variety in a fairly small area. 

  • Blennerville likes this

killdrivetheftvehicle
  • killdrivetheftvehicle

    GTA Enthusiast

  • Members
  • Joined: 24 Aug 2010
  • Finland

#14

Posted 25 April 2014 - 09:46 AM

I'm not a big fan of them trying to recreate real life cities. Look at Los Santos in V. They try to make it an accurate representation, but where the flip friggin hell is the suburban sprawl? The big ghettos? Liberty City is a bit more forgivable since you can imagine there's more suburbs past the games boundaries, but nah. You can't really do that in V.

How do you figure that they aimed for accurate representation? R* never said that. You should understand, that gta is about satire on the popular culture of America: Films, tv and music mainly. So where does it say they have to make it "accurate"?

 

I was just curious about what people want to see more, size or depth. I guess I messed up the examples I'd given, oh well.

Ok, then I would say they should have more size and more depth in the same proportions as before.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users