Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

How would you rate the map of GTA V?

282 replies to this topic

Poll: How would you rate the map of V? (343 member(s) have cast votes)

On a scale of 1-10, how would you rate it?

  1. 1 (Absolutely sh*tty) (11 votes [3.21%])

    Percentage of vote: 3.21%

  2. 2 (Awful) (2 votes [0.58%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.58%

  3. 3 (Poor) (6 votes [1.75%])

    Percentage of vote: 1.75%

  4. 4 (Below average) (17 votes [4.96%])

    Percentage of vote: 4.96%

  5. 5 (Average) (29 votes [8.45%])

    Percentage of vote: 8.45%

  6. 6 (Above average) (23 votes [6.71%])

    Percentage of vote: 6.71%

  7. 7 (Good map overall, despite some major flaws) (102 votes [29.74%])

    Percentage of vote: 29.74%

  8. 8 (Very good map with some minor flaws) (83 votes [24.20%])

    Percentage of vote: 24.20%

  9. 9 (An extremely well-crafted map) (46 votes [13.41%])

    Percentage of vote: 13.41%

  10. 10 (Just perfect, best map in the series) (24 votes [7.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 7.00%

Vote Guests cannot vote
.Vooodu.
  • .Vooodu.

    MasterDebater

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 Feb 2015
  • Canada

#31

Posted 17 February 2016 - 04:12 PM Edited by HulioG, 17 February 2016 - 04:13 PM.

 

 

Not being harsh, and being too kind, I'd rate the map 4/10. The map is just a let-down in every way for V... R* made such amazing maps for IV and SA, and the make this s**t the map for V. This map is pretty good for the gameplay of Online, but isn't for V. A really tiny city which is only appealing for like 10 minutes, a boring and unattractive countryside which is just copy and paste and roads everywhere; designed just for Online. San Andreas did the same San Andreas state, and that 2004 game's map is just a million times better than what V had to offer.

 

You need to lay of the sh*tty drugs and uncross your eyes if you think GTA SA looks better then GTA Vs map.

 

 

You need to lay off the sh*tty drugs and uncross your eyes if you think GTA V's map looks better than GTA SA's map.

 

 

 

SA looks like it was made in the damn stone age when compared to GTA V.   So how can you sit there and say SA is better...?   Not for nothing but  i would have to be stupidly high with my eyes crosses to even think about saying SA has a batter map.

 

WTF are you looking at exactly?

 

 

The level of detail in GTA V is a million times better in every aspect of the map.  From sand blowing around.. to leaves blowing around..to the sound,, the NPCS.  Everything as a whole is better.   The games map as a whole is a work of art.

  • Osho likes this

Fuzzknuckles
  • Fuzzknuckles

    Chronic Ape

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 10 Apr 2004
  • None

#32

Posted 17 February 2016 - 04:18 PM

Well that escalated quickly. This doesn't need to be a fight, it's just a few words on how you rate the map. There doesn't need to be any retribution against people that don't rate it as highly as you. 

  • josephene123 likes this

.Vooodu.
  • .Vooodu.

    MasterDebater

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 Feb 2015
  • Canada

#33

Posted 17 February 2016 - 04:32 PM

Well that escalated quickly. This doesn't need to be a fight

 

 

I can't help it... Im like Scrappy Doo.  And thats how i doooOO...lol

 

But i really can't understand how anyone can sit there and say.  Other GTA maps are better. It hurts my wee brain to see that...

 

 

Comparing GTA SA to GTA V is like comparing GTA 3 to GTA 4.  

 

Still tho.. It is what it is.  GTA V is the most detailed GTA map of all time and can easily be proven with side by side comparisons.    So my rule is, if someone has the balls to say otherwise then its my job to point out just how silly their comments are with my own silly comments.

  • Osho likes this

Pedinhuh
  • Pedinhuh

    Get down on it!

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Jun 2014
  • Brazil

#34

Posted 17 February 2016 - 04:35 PM

I will give it a 7/10.
Good map overall despite these major flaws:

-Layout;
-No Las Venturas or San fierro;
-Lack of a proper coastal highway like Big Sur.
  • CarlitoDorito likes this

ExTerminator
  • ExTerminator

    Heil Houser!

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Mar 2015
  • Iraq

#35

Posted 17 February 2016 - 04:42 PM

 

 

 

Not being harsh, and being too kind, I'd rate the map 4/10. The map is just a let-down in every way for V... R* made such amazing maps for IV and SA, and the make this s**t the map for V. This map is pretty good for the gameplay of Online, but isn't for V. A really tiny city which is only appealing for like 10 minutes, a boring and unattractive countryside which is just copy and paste and roads everywhere; designed just for Online. San Andreas did the same San Andreas state, and that 2004 game's map is just a million times better than what V had to offer.

 

You need to lay of the sh*tty drugs and uncross your eyes if you think GTA SA looks better then GTA Vs map.

 

 

You need to lay off the sh*tty drugs and uncross your eyes if you think GTA V's map looks better than GTA SA's map.

 

 

 

SA looks like it was made in the damn stone age when compared to GTA V.   So how can you sit there and say SA is better...?   Not for nothing but  i would have to be stupidly high with my eyes crosses to even think about saying SA has a batter map.

 

WTF are you looking at exactly?

 

 

The level of detail in GTA V is a million times better in every aspect of the map.  From sand blowing around.. to leaves blowing around..to the sound,, the NPCS.  Everything as a whole is better.   The games map as a whole is a work of art.

 

 

I wasn't talking about the graphics... I was talking about the layout, structure, roads, design and buildings, and not details like sand and grass blowing around. As a map, I enjoyed SA's more than V's.

  • Official General, josephene123, Deadreaver and 1 other like this

LittleWeasel
  • LittleWeasel

    Ban this account, please.

  • Members
  • Joined: 21 Jan 2016
  • Argentina

#36

Posted 17 February 2016 - 04:53 PM

It felt pretty nice to me, it requires only some minor improvements for convenience. 

 

8/10


.Vooodu.
  • .Vooodu.

    MasterDebater

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 Feb 2015
  • Canada

#37

Posted 17 February 2016 - 04:55 PM

 

 

 

 

Not being harsh, and being too kind, I'd rate the map 4/10. The map is just a let-down in every way for V... R* made such amazing maps for IV and SA, and the make this s**t the map for V. This map is pretty good for the gameplay of Online, but isn't for V. A really tiny city which is only appealing for like 10 minutes, a boring and unattractive countryside which is just copy and paste and roads everywhere; designed just for Online. San Andreas did the same San Andreas state, and that 2004 game's map is just a million times better than what V had to offer.

 

You need to lay of the sh*tty drugs and uncross your eyes if you think GTA SA looks better then GTA Vs map.

 

 

You need to lay off the sh*tty drugs and uncross your eyes if you think GTA V's map looks better than GTA SA's map.

 

 

 

SA looks like it was made in the damn stone age when compared to GTA V.   So how can you sit there and say SA is better...?   Not for nothing but  i would have to be stupidly high with my eyes crosses to even think about saying SA has a batter map.

 

WTF are you looking at exactly?

 

 

The level of detail in GTA V is a million times better in every aspect of the map.  From sand blowing around.. to leaves blowing around..to the sound,, the NPCS.  Everything as a whole is better.   The games map as a whole is a work of art.

 

 

I wasn't talking about the graphics... I was talking about the layout, structure, roads, design and buildings, and not details like sand and grass blowing around. As a map, I enjoyed SA's more than V's.

 

 

 

Graphics make the map...  and things like sand and grass blowing add to it as a whole.

 

 

Face it... this.

 

 

 

Is simply not on the same level of detail as this..  

 

 

 

 

Pretty much... GTA Vs map is the KING of all maps ever made in the GTA series.  And pretty much rules over any other game ever made in terms of open world, detail and design.  Nothing comes close to it.  

  • ChiroVette likes this

Fuzzknuckles
  • Fuzzknuckles

    Chronic Ape

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 10 Apr 2004
  • None

#38

Posted 17 February 2016 - 04:57 PM

But i really can't understand how anyone can sit there and say.  Other GTA maps are better.

It's really quite simple, that's what they feel. 

 

All of the maps are flawed, San An in particular, as it's so... square in so many ways. But if he likes it, that's cool. I think the V map beats all the others hands down, but I don't really care if someone else prefers another. I just don't want them to tell me I'm wrong for liking one or another. 

  • ChiroVette, Scaglietti, Android and 4 others like this

Gtaman_92
  • Gtaman_92

    Token black guy.

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Apr 2011
  • United-States

#39

Posted 17 February 2016 - 05:44 PM

8/10. The only problem I have with the map is that it could of been a little more bigger and contained at least one medium sized city such as San Diego. Other then that the map is very well crafted.

  • ChiroVette likes this

Sonny3787
  • Sonny3787

    Prankster

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 Oct 2010
  • None

#40

Posted 17 February 2016 - 06:18 PM

Sorry for the offtopic, but this is the best SA driver I've ever seen on YouTube!  :^:  :^:  :^:


Scaglietti
  • Scaglietti

    Italia

  • Facade
  • Joined: 25 Jun 2013
  • Italy
  • Best Poster [Vehicles] 2016

#41

Posted 17 February 2016 - 06:58 PM Edited by Scaglietti, 17 February 2016 - 07:07 PM.

All of this is opinion. My opinion. I'm saying that so that I don't have to constantly repeat "to me" or "imo" out the ass. Good? It's gonna have to be. :^:

6/10 - Let's see, the map. It is most definitely above average, especially when speaking in terms of detail and diversity. It's a class leader in that regard.

But I've experienced much better and by far more immersive map layouts especially when it comes to the look and feel of rural areas and rural terrain, and even small towns. I'll sum up my qualms by simply stating that I'd like to do a lot of deleting, replacing and rearranging. Los Santos itself isn't really the problem. Although I'd like a vaster East Los Santos and a few more modern residential areas to replicate that signature Southern California suburbia and a lot more places to enter, I have to say that Blaine County is the problem. The overall layout is the problem.

When it comes to the level of detail, Blaine County continues to impress to this day. There is certainly a lot to look at. But photo taking is the funnest activity to take part in out in the country. I like to drive, a lot. I'm a gearhead and so a capable car and scenic tarmac go hand in hand with me and if the tarmac is good enough, I can play for hours. Blaine County was a pleasure to drive through during the first several weeks of playing, but I found out that that was mainly because it was all new to me.

You see, after a few more weeks or so, I sort of limited myself to driving in the city, mainly staying on the Great Ocean Highway whenever I ventured out into the countryside. And then eventually I stopped taking trips out to Blaine County altogether, only doing so every so often. Why? In short, it got boring. Again, the attention to detail was/is beautiful but beauty only gets you so far. I struggled to find reasons to visit Paleto or Sandy Shores or even go out for a scenic drive. Paleto is a decent drive whether you take the ocean highway or the interstate but when you get there, what are you supposed to do? Maybe take a photo, drive on a couple of roads or maybe some trails, then leave? I know I always want to leave more than I want to stay otherwise I'll get bored. Sandy Shores? Again, picture then leave. Maybe boat around that oversized lake for a little while before crashing it onto a bank out of boredom. I've tried to make it fun, believe me. I'm a huge roleplayer. I'll take a pickup truck towing a speedboat behind it out to Alamo and try to have some weekend fun but it's just so dull and unrewarding and when I come back, my truck is gone so. Would be worth it if there were things to find other than just pure eye candy.

Just, there are no exciting reasons to want to go out and visit the small towns or "attractions" across Blaine County. Okay. There are a few cool sites like the waterfalls in Banham that I never get tired of visiting. But stuff like that is few and far in between. In most cases, I'll go somewhere or do something and experience it then not care and not want to bother with experiencing again. Hell, a lot of areas and activities just feel like eye candy and have nothing to offer other than to give the game quantity or pretty graphics.

Look, I love the countryside. I live in Texas. The Hill Country is less than 20 miles away from where I'm sitting. Taking drives out to Kerrville is fun. Fredericksburg, Bandera. Visiting the lake is fun. Exploring trails is fun. Some areas are so beautiful that you just want to sit there and relax for hours enjoying the views. The roads are fun to drive on and very scenic. But most of all, it feels distant and secluded and timeless. It feels so far from the city as soon as you exit the metro. Blaine County never feels secluded. The only areas that feel even remotely secluded are Mount Gordo, Palomino and a few more stretches of the east coast that sadly has little to offer other than a rather tedious hike.

My problem centers around this. The mountains are all pushed out towards the edges of the map, the center is relatively flat and simple. The roads are for the most part straight and boring. There's a huge lack of fun canyon roads and secluded four lane passes and even freeways. California has a plethora of fun and engaging mountain roads, oh god do no get me started. It's so fast, if you've got a sports car and want to drive for hours on end on winding switchbacks then you are set. Not in Blaine County. Everything is easy to navigate. Simplistic. Artificial. Dull. Manmade structures are also everywhere. Trees? Okay Southern California lacks in that department but myriads of little mountain ranges, rolling hills, dry brush vegetation and canyons make up for that and supply a distinct, barren and secluded look and feel. Blaine County lacks 95% of that. Which is why I absolutely am never reminded that Blaine County is their take on Southern California. They are remarkably dissimilar. And Paleto is supposed to be a taste of Central/Northern California, maybe even Big Sur, but that cheesy little forest it has simply doesn't cut it. It needs an expansion, or should not exist at all. And Mount Chiliad could not have been positioned worse or more awkward to look at. It's the layout that almost ruins it for me. The lack of seclusion, placement of everything. It's such a dull layout. And of course I have my pet peeves. There's a lot of very slow moving traffic and overtaking them gets tedious especially during roleplaying. The fact that the Great Ocean Highway is only two lanes and not four is offputting because once again the traffic moves too slow and I'm not keen on swerving all over the place.

The atmosphere? Eh. I have to use my imagination a little more than I'd like to. Mainly to make myself feel like I'm not near any sort of big city and that I'm in the countryside. That Southern California country vibe? Totally absent. The environment often feels nice but kind of lacking in personality. It could be anything.

Of course I still play V. I still drive a lot and all of that. You kind of accept everything for what it is but never forget about what it could be. Every map could be better. Oh of course. But many have the capability wowing you and being timeless that they rarely even remind you of that fact. Perhaps my perception of the map is affected by other things. Such as the driving mechanics which although I still enjoy, still can't quite get into them and find them lacking too much in depth and feel to enjoy. Maybe it is that, because as I've said in the past, I drive like 80% of the time. The layout of a lot means a lot to me. And as ridiculous as it sounds, I thought Burnout Paradise had a far more enticing and engaging and interesting countryside layout. Honest.
  • Efreet, Official General, PhillBellic and 12 others like this

Tycek
  • Tycek

    Being a bastard works.

  • The Yardies
  • Joined: 20 Jul 2009
  • Poland

#42

Posted 17 February 2016 - 08:02 PM

I guess I would give it a 7/10 and I consider the map as one of the strongest points of V.

 

It's decently sized, with a lot of cool little details and few nice places. Sure it could have better layout (too many mountains), but apart from that I don't have any problems with it.


ClaudeSpeed1911
  • ClaudeSpeed1911

    J.E.C.

  • Members
  • Joined: 21 Oct 2012
  • Palestine

#43

Posted 17 February 2016 - 08:03 PM

6/10 for me

 

My main problem with the map is that its just too compressed. What I mean by that is that many area's are smaller than the should be, where are the middle class neighborhoods and why does the city looks like its only for the rich with a small ghetto area? They could have made it bigger.

 

The country side also feel the same. Mountains everywhere with a few unique places like Sandy Shores and the small park that is Paleto Forest. I want it to feel lonely when driving outside the city, the cars driving all the time is what makes it feel very populated.

 

The lack of interiors is also a problem. They should have had diners, motels bars in every town and a few dinners and motels in the middle of nowhere. This would help with the fact that you are outside the city and would provide more roleplaying elements.

 

Map should have had another smaller city or something, driving in circles gets old and breaks the immersion. 

 

 

The map is not bad and its one of the best maps compared to other games, its just dissapointing to me after the viraty of SA (which also had flaws but it made the map feel biger and more immersive than V). 

  • CartmanKusanagi, theGTAking101, Android and 3 others like this

Whyohwhy
  • Whyohwhy

    Crackhead

  • Members
  • Joined: 27 Jan 2016
  • United-Kingdom

#44

Posted 17 February 2016 - 08:59 PM

Of course I still play V. I still drive a lot and all of that. You kind of accept everything for what it is but never forget about what it could be. Every map could be better. Oh of course. But many have the capability wowing you and being timeless that they rarely even remind you of that fact. Perhaps my perception of the map is affected by other things. Such as the driving mechanics which although I still enjoy, still can't quite get into them and find them lacking too much in depth and feel to enjoy. Maybe it is that, because as I've said in the past, I drive like 80% of the time. The layout of a lot means a lot to me. And as ridiculous as it sounds, I thought Burnout Paradise had a far more enticing and engaging and interesting countryside layout. Honest.

 

Maybe thats because Burnout Paradise kicks all sorts of ass and has possibly the best driving in any game. I agree with you that the layout of the roads in burnout paradise around the mountains/countryside were top notch compared to 5's but the map is a lot more restricted than 5's. Apart from a few shortcuts, you can't actually drive ON the countryside or on the mountains like you can in 5; you're pretty much forced to stay on the roads and thats a big plus point for 5 imo. Dirving first person on a bati 801 over the countryside is almost as fun as driving in Burnout Paradise. I say almost because no game is as fun as BP. 

 

And maybe Its because there's quite a lot of stuff in Blaine County that's still kinda new to me (still on like 80% completion of story mode and only played online for a couple of hours) that I havent got tired of driving there like you have but I dont see that happening anytime soon. ATM I'm loving it and from what I've seen there's plenty of stuff to do there in GTAO (missions/races) so I'm looking forward to exploring it more.

 

I'd be interested to see which other open world maps you would say have better layout for driving...?


DaWiesel
  • DaWiesel

    Soldier

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Sep 2011
  • Portugal

#45

Posted 17 February 2016 - 09:15 PM

Seriously? I give it a 10 out of 10, not because it's perfect but because it's the best map in the series without a doubt for me. V's map does not need to be perfect to be better than the other GTA maps.

It's the most detailed and most diverse map in the series yet, Southern San Andreas is simply mind blowing. Each town has it's own unique vibe, Grapeseed as the agricultural centre of Southern San Andreas, Chumash as the town for the rich and wealthy who prefer to live outside of the big city, Sandy Shores as a rundown town full of drug addicts and rednecks and Paleto Bay as that nice, quaint coast-side town far away from LS and then of course Los Santos, with it's gangs in South and East Los Santos, the hipsters in Mirror Park, the stars in Vinewood and Vinewood Hills, the beaches of Del Perro and Vespucci, the shopping malls in Rockford Hills, the skyscrapers in Pillbox Hill, etc.

Places like Raton Canyon and Mount Gordo that make you feel like you're in the middle of nowhere, the long roads of the Senora Desert or the scenic byways in Banham Canyon and Tongva Valley, the majestic Mount Chiliad and the big Alamo Sea right next to it... and this are just some of the reasons why I think that V's map is the best. R* did an amazing job in capturing the Southern California vibe. It's not perfect, East Los Santos could have had more residential area and Mount Josiah should have been smaller but those minor flaws do not change the fact that it's the best map in the series for me, so I have to vote 10.

  • ChiroVette, Scaglietti, Misunderstood and 2 others like this

Pink Pineapple
  • Pink Pineapple

    ________________________________________________________________

  • Members
  • Joined: 09 Feb 2016
  • None

#46

Posted 17 February 2016 - 09:47 PM

7/10

 

Pros

 

• It's big

 

• It looks good

 

• Good variety (city, countryside, ocean)

 

 

Cons

 

• Not enough interiors

 

• Poor layout in countryside

     - The crater

     - The highway on the east side of the map should have had winding turns through hills instead of making it a circle around the map.

     - The towns should have been divided better. Sandy Shores, Stab City, and Grapeseed all feel like 1 spread-out town. 

     - There should have been more land north of Chiliad.

 

• Poor balance

     - City needed bigger suburbs

     - Too many mountains

     - "Forest" is too small

 

• Paleto Bay should have been a little bigger and had an airport.

  • Official General, CartmanKusanagi, PhillBellic and 4 others like this

DangerZ0neX
  • DangerZ0neX

    It's K-Logg, dammit!

  • Members
  • Joined: 09 Feb 2016
  • Saudi-Arabia
  • Ban Roulette Winner 2016

#47

Posted 17 February 2016 - 11:40 PM

It's a definite 7 from me, it is the most well-detailed GTA yet but there's not enough diversity and the mountains just get in the way sometimes, the others really hit the description of the center of the map feeling like a "crater".

The towns should've been bigger along with bigger forests and deserts, I can NEVER feel I'm alone in the wild in this game except if I'm in the mountain range on the east side of the map because there is NOTHING there to do or explore that even NPCs stay away from it.

Opening up bars and our own businesses to us, the OWNERS, and see what we got going in there and let us improve the profits by improving the business, not force us to help out with crappy side missions just to end up losing ALL weekly profit over dumb flyers not being littered around.

ChiroVette
  • ChiroVette

    Gangsta

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 May 2003
  • None

#48

Posted 17 February 2016 - 11:47 PM

 


Maybe thats because Burnout Paradise kicks all sorts of ass and has possibly the best driving in any game. I agree with you that the layout of the roads in burnout paradise around the mountains/countryside were top notch compared to 5's but the map is a lot more restricted than 5's. Apart from a few shortcuts, you can't actually drive ON the countryside or on the mountains like you can in 5; you're pretty much forced to stay on the roads and thats a big plus point for 5 imo. Dirving first person on a bati 801 over the countryside is almost as fun as driving in Burnout Paradise. I say almost because no game is as fun as BP. 

 

 

Nobody is a bigger Paradise fan than me. I spent more time in freeburn rooms and ranked races than I would ever care to admit in that game. Unbelievable driving, and Stunt Runs were some of the best times I ever had in gaming. But, yeah, as scenic and beautiful as the map are, particularly Silverlake and White Mountain, it is an incredibly restricted map. You can't go ANYWHERE off the main roads in any place but Big Surf Island really. And one thing I always hated about Paradise were the "dead areas" where if you land there, even on all 4 wheels, perfectly, you were penalized with a crash that would end a Stunt Run immediately after the two minute beginning.

  • Scaglietti and Whyohwhy like this

Scaglietti
  • Scaglietti

    Italia

  • Facade
  • Joined: 25 Jun 2013
  • Italy
  • Best Poster [Vehicles] 2016

#49

Posted 18 February 2016 - 12:11 AM

 

 


Maybe thats because Burnout Paradise kicks all sorts of ass and has possibly the best driving in any game. I agree with you that the layout of the roads in burnout paradise around the mountains/countryside were top notch compared to 5's but the map is a lot more restricted than 5's. Apart from a few shortcuts, you can't actually drive ON the countryside or on the mountains like you can in 5; you're pretty much forced to stay on the roads and thats a big plus point for 5 imo. Dirving first person on a bati 801 over the countryside is almost as fun as driving in Burnout Paradise. I say almost because no game is as fun as BP. 

 

 

Nobody is a bigger Paradise fan than me. I spent more time in freeburn rooms and ranked races than I would ever care to admit in that game. Unbelievable driving, and Stunt Runs were some of the best times I ever had in gaming. But, yeah, as scenic and beautiful as the map are, particularly Silverlake and White Mountain, it is an incredibly restricted map. You can't go ANYWHERE off the main roads in any place but Big Surf Island really. And one thing I always hated about Paradise were the "dead areas" where if you land there, even on all 4 wheels, perfectly, you were penalized with a crash that would end a Stunt Run immediately after the two minute beginning.

 

Oh yeah. I poured hours into that game until my fat PS3 died in 2010. Never really bothered to play after that. The map was very restricted but you tend to just accept that in a racing game. The reason I made the comparison was because it captured a countryside vibe perfectly in my opinion. I'd like to see more of it. It was damn near perfect.


Official General
  • Official General

    I'm from Broker, LC, we always carry heat around here.

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2010
  • None

#50

Posted 18 February 2016 - 12:42 AM Edited by Official General, 20 February 2016 - 04:48 PM.

6.5

I see it as nicely created map with major flaws.

I enjoyed SA's map much more and I think it was better, that gets a 10 for me. VC and IV's map both get 9's.
  • Scaglietti, Deadreaver, The Green Sabre and 1 other like this

ChiroVette
  • ChiroVette

    Gangsta

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 May 2003
  • None

#51

Posted 18 February 2016 - 12:50 AM Edited by ChiroVette, 18 February 2016 - 12:50 AM.

 

 

 


Maybe thats because Burnout Paradise kicks all sorts of ass and has possibly the best driving in any game. I agree with you that the layout of the roads in burnout paradise around the mountains/countryside were top notch compared to 5's but the map is a lot more restricted than 5's. Apart from a few shortcuts, you can't actually drive ON the countryside or on the mountains like you can in 5; you're pretty much forced to stay on the roads and thats a big plus point for 5 imo. Dirving first person on a bati 801 over the countryside is almost as fun as driving in Burnout Paradise. I say almost because no game is as fun as BP. 

 

 

Nobody is a bigger Paradise fan than me. I spent more time in freeburn rooms and ranked races than I would ever care to admit in that game. Unbelievable driving, and Stunt Runs were some of the best times I ever had in gaming. But, yeah, as scenic and beautiful as the map are, particularly Silverlake and White Mountain, it is an incredibly restricted map. You can't go ANYWHERE off the main roads in any place but Big Surf Island really. And one thing I always hated about Paradise were the "dead areas" where if you land there, even on all 4 wheels, perfectly, you were penalized with a crash that would end a Stunt Run immediately after the two minute beginning.

 

Oh yeah. I poured hours into that game until my fat PS3 died in 2010. Never really bothered to play after that. The map was very restricted but you tend to just accept that in a racing game. The reason I made the comparison was because it captured a countryside vibe perfectly in my opinion. I'd like to see more of it. It was damn near perfect.

 

 

 

I had a group of friends in Paradise and we all met up in Freeburn rooms every freaking day after work, before work, during work (though without mics lol) and just burned so many hours.

 

At one point, me and my buddy Dan would go into ranked rooms and both of us ended up getting into the top ten, worldwide with the races. I so wish that Criterion would make a true sequel to Paradise, not that NFS crap they tried to sell us.

 

My Stunt run high (not a speed run, but genuine stunting) was over 2 BILLION. I think that run took me over two hours! lol


LazyGator
  • LazyGator

    Peon

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Jun 2012

#52

Posted 18 February 2016 - 01:18 AM

Say what you will about GTA V, but Los Santos is a pretty damn accurate compressed recreation of Los Angeles. Feels like you're actually in freaking California now that I love.


Shadowfennekin
  • Shadowfennekin

    Proud Saints Row and Pokemon Fanboy

  • Members
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#53

Posted 18 February 2016 - 04:42 AM

I give it an 8.

It's good but the severe lack of interiors killed the score

  • Official General likes this

ULPaperContact
  • ULPaperContact

    Proti všem tyranům, pro boha a zemi

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Nov 2015
  • United-States

#54

Posted 18 February 2016 - 04:57 AM

5.

 

 The map had some horribly textured areas, lots of unused space, got rid of San Fierro and Las Venturas, heavy lack of interiors for such a huge map, and the map was rather unbalanced in its areas (desert right next to vibrant forest? It's like a line separates the two without an in-between!).


Osho
  • Osho

    High Roller

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 03 Nov 2012
  • None

#55

Posted 18 February 2016 - 06:11 AM

One thing I'd want to credit V is for getting rid of going through the copy and paste 'islands' with the concrete jungles around, and replacing them with loads more variety now, to look around and explore in the world without getting bored. The feeling of exploring around the countryside to feel the "isolation" that was in SA, also returns back in V. I wished the map never had deserts, otherwise its a great map, bigger and the best one, in the HD era.

hulkhogan1
  • hulkhogan1

    Trick

  • Members
  • Joined: 15 Apr 2013

#56

Posted 18 February 2016 - 06:48 AM

I'd probably be comfortable giving it an 8.5 or a 9. It's not quite perfect, but it offers nearly everything I could want out of an open world game like this. There are only a few things holding it back from me giving it a 10. One of the main ones being not having North Yankton accessible outside of a couple missions, as I kind of feel like they teased us by not giving us a properly explorable snowy area. At the very least, they could have added snow to the top of Mt. Chiliad to add to the immersion and really make it feel like you're high up (yeah, there is a snow cheat but it's not really the same as having fallen snow already on the ground).

 

Other than that, a bit of an extension of East Los Santos would have been nice. Overall though I feel like they really nailed the atmosphere of Southern California, especially in the beach areas in West Los Santos. Santa Monica Pier is one of my favorite places in real life, and I feel that they really did it justice in this game. The mountain roads that take you from Vinewood Hills out to Blaine County I feel are under appreciated and offer a really nice transition from city to countryside. Yeah, certain areas of the countryside like the desert and the forest could have been better if they were larger, but personally I feel that the overall atmosphere is more important than size, and in that respect they did a good job with those areas. I also really enjoy the feeling of seclusion when in places like Raton Canyon, and Grapeseed to a lesser extent. In general, I like how each of the towns in the game feel different and unique from each other.

 

I'm sure I could go on and on but basically my feelings of this map is that while there are certain things that could have made the map even better, the things they did a good job with were really well done, which outweighs any negative feelings I might have towards it. It's definitely my favorite video game map I've ever played, though I may be a bit biased because I grew up in Southern California so this is essentially the map I've always wanted out of a GTA game.

  • ChiroVette, Fuzzknuckles and Misunderstood like this

--Vega--
  • --Vega--

    Gangsta

  • Members
  • Joined: 16 Aug 2005
  • United-States

#57

Posted 18 February 2016 - 05:59 PM

6. It looks really good, but the game actually more feels like an outdoors wilderness game, considering like 70% of the map is countryside/mountains/desert. Should've been way more focus on the city region and/or way more stuff to do in the mountains/wild.

 

 

I didn't care much for the map to be honest. Feels lacking of something.


theGTAking101
  • theGTAking101

    Get out of my sight, or I'll kill you.

  • Members
  • Joined: 22 Mar 2013
  • Canada

#58

Posted 18 February 2016 - 08:23 PM

7. Like everyone else said, everything is too cramped together. You can be in the city, then 1 minute later you're in the desert. Forest is also way to small.

  • Official General, CartmanKusanagi and Deadreaver like this

Raj Brunner
  • Raj Brunner

    "There is no knowledge that is not power"

  • Members
  • Joined: 01 Oct 2015
  • United-States

#59

Posted 18 February 2016 - 09:07 PM

8/10. It's a very detailed replica of LA and it's surrounding nature. However, the mountains are little too big and the desert is too small.


Whyohwhy
  • Whyohwhy

    Crackhead

  • Members
  • Joined: 27 Jan 2016
  • United-Kingdom

#60

Posted 18 February 2016 - 09:23 PM

I don't get people's fascination with interiors; a few (working) food stands should have been in 5 but what could you do in past GTA interiors that was so fun that people miss them so? I think Rockstar need to add at least a couple of interiors that have naked pics of Niko and CJ for people to jack off to lmao. Just kidding (f*ck you).

  • Frito-Man and shadowoperative like this




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users