Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Were multiple cities not possible?

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
145 replies to this topic
Ash_735
  • Ash_735

    1 627 826 3789

  • Feroci Racing
  • Joined: 15 Nov 2005
  • None
  • Most Knowledgeable [GTA] 2013
    Best Map 2013 "ViceCityStories PC Edition"

#31

Posted 18 June 2014 - 03:36 PM

Nothing to do with consoles power (Map land is a streaming asset after all), especially since there's many games with bigger maps out there, what's holding it back is something much more human, ...development time, Rockstar have a quality standard for their designs, it took them this long to just do one city, the countryside and small ass desert, imagine how long it would take them to even add a second city.
  • Official General, buzzbass, kj2022 and 1 other like this

Official General
  • Official General

    You gotta always carry heat in these Vice City streets

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2010

#32

Posted 18 June 2014 - 04:00 PM Edited by Official General, 18 June 2014 - 04:01 PM.

Nothing to do with consoles power (Map land is a streaming asset after all), especially since there's many games with bigger maps out there, what's holding it back is something much more human, ...development time, Rockstar have a quality standard for their designs, it took them this long to just do one city, the countryside and small ass desert, imagine how long it would take them to even add a second city.

 

I'm inclined to agree with this. I'm mean look at Far Cry 3 - that game had a HUGE map with all kinds of stuff going in it. Yeah I know it's an FPS and a different kinda game, but for a free-roam open world game, comparisons can still be made. I too reckon they just took much time to concentrate on making one city and even then they still missed out many things and got important stuff wrong.


Fuzzknuckles
  • Fuzzknuckles

    Chronic Ape

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 10 Apr 2004
  • None

#33

Posted 18 June 2014 - 04:01 PM

We seem to be forgetting the possibility that they just didn't want to do more than one city

  • Taki Owaki and TJtheS2000fan like this

ArchKnight
  • ArchKnight

    Dodge Chargerô

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 Jul 2013
  • United-Kingdom

#34

Posted 18 June 2014 - 04:06 PM

Multiple cities would have been surely possible. I think there are simple reasons why Rockstar avoided it, one being focus on making a denser approach to Los Santos and the Countryside area and another being the game engine, which would have been to huge with the remake if it were to include the entire San Andreas state in HD.

kj2022
  • kj2022

    Gangsta

  • Members
  • Joined: 27 Aug 2011

#35

Posted 18 June 2014 - 04:12 PM

They could most certainly do a realistically scaled map featuring every GTA City and the city from Manhunt and Bullworth, but the problem is money. No map is too big for a console, if they find a way to store it, more discs, it'll run. Maps are streamed, not loaded all at once. 

  • latigreblue and YOU ARE ANGERY like this

YOU ARE ANGERY
  • YOU ARE ANGERY

    I'm back lel

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 15 Jun 2014
  • United-Kingdom

#36

Posted 18 June 2014 - 04:14 PM Edited by YOU ARE ANGERY, 18 June 2014 - 04:14 PM.

Rockstar want to focus more on a 10/10 with gameplay and graphics. The PS3/360 couldn't handle three large cities with the graphics GTA V has. The game is already too big for some player's systems.

 

The current gen will allow Rockstar to expand if they want. San Andreas wasn't on the same level graphically as Vice City or GTA 3, but Rockstar made up for it with the amazing gameplay and storyline.

 

How big the map is has nothing to do whatsoever with performance. Things are rendered in only when you can see them, and get more detail as you get closer.


Bucky914
  • Bucky914

    Street Cat

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Feb 2011
  • None

#37

Posted 18 June 2014 - 04:21 PM

 

Rockstar want to focus more on a 10/10 with gameplay and graphics. The PS3/360 couldn't handle three large cities with the graphics GTA V has. The game is already too big for some player's systems.

 

The current gen will allow Rockstar to expand if they want. San Andreas wasn't on the same level graphically as Vice City or GTA 3, but Rockstar made up for it with the amazing gameplay and storyline.

 

How big the map is has nothing to do whatsoever with performance. Things are rendered in only when you can see them, and get more detail as you get closer.

 

 

Except it totally does. You need memory for the map. Games like Minecraft and Skyrim don't run well on most PCs because of their large map. 


Fuzzknuckles
  • Fuzzknuckles

    Chronic Ape

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 10 Apr 2004
  • None

#38

Posted 18 June 2014 - 04:24 PM Edited by Fuzzknuckles, 18 June 2014 - 04:24 PM.

They could most certainly do a realistically scaled map featuring every GTA City and the city from Manhunt and Bullworth, but the problem is money. No map is too big for a console, if they find a way to store it, more discs, it'll run. Maps are streamed, not loaded all at once. 

And it would be completely senseless to do so. Too many cities, too much travel. Not to mention the detail would be compromised and the idea of so many large cities in such a small area doesn't make sense - unless they made a city the size of an actual city, which is what this would pretty much be. 

 

So... back to square 1. 


kj2022
  • kj2022

    Gangsta

  • Members
  • Joined: 27 Aug 2011

#39

Posted 18 June 2014 - 04:25 PM Edited by kj2022, 18 June 2014 - 04:26 PM.

Minecraft doesn't run well because it's built in bloody Java. Of course the games gonna run like sh*t. Skyrim doesn't run well, because even the console version was f*cking garbage for bugs.

 

^ I know, I'd rather have one city per map, and have the quality R* have built in IV and V than a game with every city ever in it where you spend 40 minutes getting to a mission. A map that large is just not needed in a video game.


Bucky914
  • Bucky914

    Street Cat

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Feb 2011
  • None

#40

Posted 18 June 2014 - 04:28 PM

Minecraft doesn't run well because it's built in bloody Java.

It runs fine for me until the map gets too stretched. I don't have a gaming PC, either.


kj2022
  • kj2022

    Gangsta

  • Members
  • Joined: 27 Aug 2011

#41

Posted 18 June 2014 - 04:30 PM

 

Minecraft doesn't run well because it's built in bloody Java.

It runs fine for me until the map gets too stretched. I don't have a gaming PC, either.

 

 

I don't either, and I run Tekkit, but it's still not gonna run that well built in Java.


Bucky914
  • Bucky914

    Street Cat

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Feb 2011
  • None

#42

Posted 18 June 2014 - 04:34 PM

 

 

Minecraft doesn't run well because it's built in bloody Java.

It runs fine for me until the map gets too stretched. I don't have a gaming PC, either.

 

 

I don't either, and I run Tekkit, but it's still not gonna run that well built in Java.

 

Yes, we all know that Notch isn't a good progammer.


BreakdownFace
  • BreakdownFace

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 May 2014
  • United-Kingdom

#43

Posted 18 June 2014 - 04:39 PM

I just want some variety. Could make 2 smaller cities that are vastly different (i.e. Los Santos and Las Venturas) than 1 city where it all feels familiar.

  • Choco Taco likes this

lunaticz0r
  • lunaticz0r

    Crazy Dutch Drugs

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 May 2010
  • None

#44

Posted 18 June 2014 - 04:59 PM Edited by lunaticz0r, 18 June 2014 - 05:00 PM.

 

Ever heard of graphics?

That's what frustrates me most. PS2/Xbox were the last consoles that didn't require a massive chunk of the budget to be spent on graphics which means gameplay gets cut down, I wish technology peaked at those consoles so games could grow without more years and even more hundreds of millions of the budget spent on how it looks.

 

 

so you actua;lly KNOW the awnser....but because you think its not fair you complain? :/

HD vs SD, check out the details on textures, 3D car models, details in terrain the different types of houses the beautiful water with (not everywhere of course) sea life, wildlife on land and even birds that you can freaking hunt down.....

that is not even all, try riding from north to south, see how long it takes. or walk! See how ''small'' it is and how they should add 2 more island like this one....you'd be walking for literately HOURS on ed to get somewhere!


Elvis_Mazur
  • Elvis_Mazur

    Nothing Inspiring to Write

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Jan 2014

#45

Posted 18 June 2014 - 07:32 PM

- More expensive production;

- Increased development time;
- Probably a 4 disc game on the Xbox 360.

Financially, I don't think it was worth it.

  • Bucky914 likes this

FranklinDeRoosevelt
  • FranklinDeRoosevelt

    32nd President of Los Santos

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Aug 2013

#46

Posted 18 June 2014 - 07:38 PM Edited by FranklinDeRoosevelt, 18 June 2014 - 07:39 PM.

The only way they can do it is if once the game is released, they decide to create another city or whatever the map consists of and develop it for a while, and then release it as a DLC, which is most likely going to happen for online, because they clearly said it is going to be an unlimited project.

 

As for the main game, single player, we might have to wait till GTA VI to see what they decide, if they choose Vice City as the location, then it'd be good to keep the city a decent size but with FULL details and maybe a detailed countryside. But if they are going to do multiple cities, how are they going to come up with a different location when they have done so many locations for a particular game/games? You have to remember they base their cities of real life locations, it's infinitely harder to make up their own one.

  • lunaticz0r and Trevorphilipjfry like this

WalterS_LV
  • WalterS_LV

    One ticket to LS please

  • Members
  • Joined: 12 May 2013
  • Latvia

#47

Posted 18 June 2014 - 08:31 PM

There are many different reasons why it is like it is. One being look at the difference between the two, the graphics are heavily improved, the map/models use way more polygons than SA did. Textures are higher resolution. + look at the weak consoles. They only have 512 mb of RAM and some really old components. If there would be multiple cities then it would be either as a DLC for PS4/XB1/PC platforms or in GTA6. The time it takes to create the map is also much greater than it was in SA. It`s really a no-brainer to see why there is only 1,1 cities in GTA5. 0,1 being North Yankton. 

 

The way I see multiple cities being implemented in GTA5 is only for PS4/XB1/PC and they would be North Yankton or Liberty City. Maybe, just maybe we could see Los Venturas or San Fierro after a year or two, though I highly doubt it as the instead of creating a DLC map for GTA5, I think the time will be spent on creating even bigger map for GTA6.


bish0p2004
  • bish0p2004

    Mack Pimp

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Jul 2013

#48

Posted 18 June 2014 - 08:49 PM

Personally, I think 3 cities is a bogus idea. I like that Rockstar focused on one city. However, as Officer General mentioned, they still missed the mark by making the game boring once you complete the story.

All this detail and nothing to really do except go on rampages...and even then that's not as fun with the pinpoint accurate police.
  • Trevorphilipjfry likes this

Bucky914
  • Bucky914

    Street Cat

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Feb 2011
  • None

#49

Posted 18 June 2014 - 09:12 PM

Personally, I think 3 cities is a bogus idea. I like that Rockstar focused on one city. However, as Officer General mentioned, they still missed the mark by making the game boring once you complete the story.

All this detail and nothing to really do except go on rampages...and even then that's not as fun with the pinpoint accurate police.

 

 I enjoy playing V after the story a lot more than IV. I love buying/modding cars, exploring, and using my imagination just like when I was twelve when I was playing GTA III and Vice City over ten years ago. You can really got lost in it if you have an imagination.

  • archiebunker likes this

VanillaIce
  • VanillaIce

    Cole Phelps FanBoy

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 23 May 2014
  • United-States

#50

Posted 18 June 2014 - 09:22 PM

but all 3 Cities in San Andreas where all Bland i would take 1 Great Location Over 3 Bland.


archiebunker
  • archiebunker

    Working Class Hero

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Apr 2007

#51

Posted 18 June 2014 - 09:24 PM Edited by archiebunker, 18 June 2014 - 09:26 PM.

Next time I'd like for them to stick to one city but cover like three different eras during the plot so we see that city (and the PC[s] and supporting characters) change over the years. So you get an experience similar to playing the III-era games in chronological order.


TheMasterfocker
  • TheMasterfocker

    Public Enemy #1

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Jul 2012
  • United-States

#52

Posted 18 June 2014 - 09:25 PM

that they just didn't want to do more than one city

That's exactly it. Putting the level of detail R* puts in into multiple cities would take a really f*cking long time.

 

I don't see us getting multiple cities again unless they're small and/or the game's been in development for a long f*cking time. Like, a decade.

  • Fuzzknuckles and kj2022 like this

Bucky914
  • Bucky914

    Street Cat

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Feb 2011
  • None

#53

Posted 18 June 2014 - 09:25 PM

but all 3 Cities in San Andreas where all Bland i would take 1 Great Location Over 3 Bland.

 

I think you mean: San Andreas' three cities were bland. I would rather have one great city over three bland cities.

 

To which I respond: You must not have experienced San Andreas in 2004.


BlackNoise
  • BlackNoise

    Ghetto Star

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Nov 2011
  • None

#54

Posted 18 June 2014 - 09:34 PM

Okay, so GTA 5 is set in Los Santos, this is the PS3/Xbox 360 we're talking about, vastly more powerful consoles than the PS2/Xbox, yet they can only fit 1 city onto the disc. You can make the "detail" argument all you want, but the fact that San Andreas had 3 cities, desert and countryside, not to mention everything else like putting on weight/muscle, jetpacks, etc. were not possible on a next gen console? It's what always frustrated me about console generations since PS2, loads of features get stripped away, yet it's a more powerful console yet should be able of more instead of taking it away.

As an artist, this type of statement annoys me, but it shouldn't because people just don't get it. Let me give you a personal example. Right now I'm working on a model for a project I'm doing. I'm currently sculpting the shoes. If this was SA level detail, I would sculpt the shape of the shoes and slap on a texture. I could do that in about 5 minutes. I've been working on these stupid shoes for 3 days and it will probably take me another few before I finish. 

 

The reason why, is because SD shoes look sh*tty in HD. Ask Franklin when he wears his unfinished skate shoes. I have to sculpt the stupid stitching. Every single bit of detail that you see on an actual shoe, I have to make as an physical object to some degree. This is what the HD era brings to artists.

 

Better visuals = more work(a lot more)

 

AKA

 

Ugly people(visuals) don't look as bad with beer goggles(SD)? I think that works... :whuh:


carlosvillarreal
  • carlosvillarreal

    Crackhead

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Aug 2013

#55

Posted 18 June 2014 - 09:51 PM

check this idea 
It would be nice if las venturas and san fierro were expansion packs with missions two or one new island where the only way to go is by plane .or a bridge 


bish0p2004
  • bish0p2004

    Mack Pimp

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Jul 2013

#56

Posted 18 June 2014 - 10:18 PM


Personally, I think 3 cities is a bogus idea. I like that Rockstar focused on one city. However, as Officer General mentioned, they still missed the mark by making the game boring once you complete the story.

All this detail and nothing to really do except go on rampages...and even then that's not as fun with the pinpoint accurate police.

 
 I enjoy playing V after the story a lot more than IV. I love buying/modding cars, exploring, and using my imagination just like when I was twelve when I was playing GTA III and Vice City over ten years ago. You can really got lost in it if you have an imagination.

While I do enjoy V much more than IV, R* still didn't go as far as I had hoped they would (improved A.I., improved free roam activities, etc) this generation.

As for the imagination thing, well unfortunately that's not for me when playing games (I save creativity for my other hobbies). I'd rather just have better features in the game. As of now, I go on rampages, run from the cops, die, rinse and repeat.

You would think after SA and RDR, R* would be masters at creating a terrific free roam, packed with fun and repeatable side activities.

Official General
  • Official General

    You gotta always carry heat in these Vice City streets

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2010

#57

Posted 18 June 2014 - 11:32 PM

 

I enjoy playing V after the story a lot more than IV. I love buying/modding cars, exploring, and using my imagination just like when I was twelve when I was playing GTA III and Vice City over ten years ago. You can really got lost in it if you have an imagination.


As for the imagination thing, well unfortunately that's not for me when playing games (I save creativity for my other hobbies). I'd rather just have better features in the game. As of now, I go on rampages, run from the cops, die, rinse and repeat.

You would think after SA and RDR, R* would be masters at creating a terrific free roam, packed with fun and repeatable side activities.

 

 

@ bish0p2004

 

I totally agree with you here. I sometimes like to use my imagination in GTA and roleplay. However it's all well and good saying, "use your imagination", but when you don't have enough decent features in a free roam game, there is not really much left to the imagination to be used in the first place. GTA V does not even provide me with enough decent features and content to use my imagination to have fun outside of the story. To be honest the game just needs much better features and content, this imagination excuse aint cutting it for me.


NYC PATROL
  • NYC PATROL

    "Patrolling and Observing Forums Since 2005"

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Jan 2008
  • United-States

#58

Posted 19 June 2014 - 01:26 AM Edited by NYC PATROL, 19 June 2014 - 02:08 AM.

Kinda going off topic but not really...I think we will see at the least 2 cities in the next GTA. They can't make the map smaller than V, people will go nuts. So in that respect R* has themselves in a corner. But they always push anyways to be ambitious as possible with each game.

 

V was super ambitious for the PS3/360. It's amazing the damn game didn't have fps drops like IV. And yeah time is limited. 2 big cities in V would have meant another year of dev time at the least.

  • Blood-Is-in-Diamond likes this

AlasClarin
  • AlasClarin

    Mack Pimp

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Aug 2013

#59

Posted 19 June 2014 - 01:56 AM

I'm sure it was possible, but it was probably a case of 'we've already done that, let's try making a really dense city that's more detailed'.

 

Multiple cities worked once, but when we have much more detail, it would stretch too thin. Personally, I think the size of LS is about right - if we had more cities, it would have had to be smaller, which would have made it feel strange in the context of the HD era - LC was big, so making LS and the other cities smaller would have felt wrong. It would have looked wrong. And LV and SF were already horrible in SA, so why bother watering them down again? 

 

tl;dr - Let's stop talking about this. 

It wasn't with these level of detail and graphics on PS3 / Xbox 360. On PC it was possible years ago... damn you consoles.


Ash_735
  • Ash_735

    1 627 826 3789

  • Feroci Racing
  • Joined: 15 Nov 2005
  • None
  • Most Knowledgeable [GTA] 2013
    Best Map 2013 "ViceCityStories PC Edition"

#60

Posted 19 June 2014 - 02:02 AM

It wasn't with these level of detail and graphics on PS3 / Xbox 360. On PC it was possible years ago... damn you consoles.


It has NOTHING to do with the consoles power, if it did, how do you explain other games with LARGER worlds than GTA? It's a development issue, back in 2004, Rockstar rushed San Fiero and parts of Las Venturas, and it certainly shows now, where as now, Rockstar consider they have a standard to deliver with their cit designs, again, it took them this long to just do Los Santos and the surrounding area in a quality they were satisfied with, imagine how much longer it would have taken if they decided to throw on an extra city or two.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users