Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Realistically, how large should the VI map be?

223 replies to this topic

Poll: How large should VI's map be realistically? (305 member(s) have cast votes)

How large should VI's map be realistically?

  1. Same as V (44 votes [14.43%])

    Percentage of vote: 14.43%

  2. Vx2 (114 votes [37.38%])

    Percentage of vote: 37.38%

  3. Vx3 (41 votes [13.44%])

    Percentage of vote: 13.44%

  4. Vx4 (23 votes [7.54%])

    Percentage of vote: 7.54%

  5. Vx5 (23 votes [7.54%])

    Percentage of vote: 7.54%

  6. Vx6 (4 votes [1.31%])

    Percentage of vote: 1.31%

  7. Vx7 (2 votes [0.66%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.66%

  8. Vx8 (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  9. Vx9 (2 votes [0.66%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.66%

  10. Vx10 or Larger (52 votes [17.05%])

    Percentage of vote: 17.05%

Vote Guests cannot vote
Jammsbro
  • Jammsbro

    Pogo 4 life

  • Members
  • Joined: 06 Dec 2014
  • Scotland

#1

Posted 16 August 2016 - 12:39 PM

I'm not talking about whether it's one large land mass or several islands or whatever but how large it should be.

 

When V came out if felt big for a last gen game, not huge but decent. But there are some gigantic maps out there and I don't think that bigger is alwys better. Rockstar did a very good job of filling SA with some excellent stuff (not matter how bland the overall map shape was) and even now I still find the odd thing I never knew about. I think if a map was too big we would lose a fair amount of this depth and detail.

 

In short, a map too small is restricting and a map too large is just empty space. We need a balance between size and content within the space.

 

So, using V map as a scale what, realistically ould you live to see size wise?

 

If you aren't sure you should check out the map making section for ideas.

 

http://gtaforums.com...-gta-mapmaking/

  • Purgen likes this

The7thOne
  • The7thOne

    ● ← Hole to another universe

  • Members
  • Joined: 04 May 2014
  • United-States

#2

Posted 16 August 2016 - 12:51 PM

V x2, but with minimal countryside. I'd love to see a return to a focus on city again, like IV, but with much more detail in the urban environments. The one thing that Liberty City lacked was proper suburban development. While there were several exceptions, there weren't any proper suburban neighborhoods to explore (besides Westdyke in Alderney). With GTAN's map, there would be plenty of space to stretch a city across V's size, but with that x2 left for countryside or other purposes. This would be the ideal compromise.

 

V's countryside was great, but the problem was it felt small. LS was too small and felt compacted. Having a greater focus on the city prevents that, but of course, there are compromises, which is why a V x2 sized map would work out well.

  • Beastly40, anthony, CartmanKusanagi and 8 others like this

Jammsbro
  • Jammsbro

    Pogo 4 life

  • Members
  • Joined: 06 Dec 2014
  • Scotland

#3

Posted 16 August 2016 - 01:58 PM

V x2, but with minimal countryside. I'd love to see a return to a focus on city again, like IV, but with much more detail in the urban environments. The one thing that Liberty City lacked was proper suburban development. While there were several exceptions, there weren't any proper suburban neighborhoods to explore (besides Westdyke in Alderney). With GTAN's map, there would be plenty of space to stretch a city across V's size, but with that x2 left for countryside or other purposes. This would be the ideal compromise.

 

V's countryside was great, but the problem was it felt small. LS was too small and felt compacted. Having a greater focus on the city prevents that, but of course, there are compromises, which is why a V x2 sized map would work out well.

That was my main problem with IV. City, city, endless city. It felt like I was driving around the same place for the whole game.

  • DvD463, Beastly40, EVOLUT7ON and 6 others like this

RogerWho
  • RogerWho

    "Life is... weird."

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Sep 2014
  • European-Union

#4

Posted 16 August 2016 - 02:57 PM

It's not the map size per se. The size of GTA V's map is fine, but it has problems which make it seem too small. Namely:

 

- half of it is a sea and a mountain, in other words, a complete waste.

- the highway circles around the whole map and everything on interest is place on or near it, so you can traverse the entire map in 5 minutes, making it feel small.

- related to that, the map seems to be built in one dimension.  You want something, you go from south to north or vice versa. There's little need to traverse in all directions.

- all the minor areas (apart form the city, sea and mountain) are small so they feel like token additions. I.e. there's an industrial section, woods and all that what a proper map like that should have, but they are all laughably small. Sandy Shores isn't even a village.

- low density of everything, wide roads, which just makes all seem surreal and empty.

 

In contrast, IV had pretty much only one kind of environment, but it was rich even if the map was smaller. SA had 3 major cities where it actually made sense to use a airplane to travel from one to another, and still had place for a dozen of small settlements and a desert which actually felt like a desert (reminded me of RDR).

 

Sleeping Dogs' Hong Kong  - same as GTA IV; only one type of environment, but felt like a huge city. Sleeping Dogs' Chicago: the same, and still had some countryside and more variety to boot.

 

And all these games supposedly have smaller maps than GTA V.

 

So if another game has the same philosophy and density as V, I'd say it would need at least 3x size to have the same sense of a real urban area full of people than some other games have.

  • Mister Pink, -Anti-, GTA_fear and 25 others like this

ChoosyCircle
  • ChoosyCircle

    Leader of Task Force 523

  • Members
  • Joined: 12 Mar 2016
  • Jersey

#5

Posted 16 August 2016 - 03:04 PM

V x2, but with minimal countryside. I'd love to see a return to a focus on city again, like IV, but with much more detail in the urban environments. The one thing that Liberty City lacked was proper suburban development. While there were several exceptions, there weren't any proper suburban neighborhoods to explore (besides Westdyke in Alderney). With GTAN's map, there would be plenty of space to stretch a city across V's size, but with that x2 left for countryside or other purposes. This would be the ideal compromise.
 
V's countryside was great, but the problem was it felt small. LS was too small and felt compacted. Having a greater focus on the city prevents that, but of course, there are compromises, which is why a V x2 sized map would work out well.

That was my main problem with IV. City, city, endless city. It felt like I was driving around the same place for the whole game.

Originally IV was going to have countryside but R* scrapped that idea

EABetteBalterZen
  • EABetteBalterZen

    GTA: Online; my 2nd. home!

  • Members
  • Joined: 28 Aug 2014
  • Denmark

#6

Posted 16 August 2016 - 03:22 PM Edited by EABetteBalterZen, 16 August 2016 - 03:24 PM.

I voted x5 the size but to be honest, I don't think a video game map can be too big. We just need the right topspeed of vehicles (and/or fast travel). Top cars going 400 kmh, jets going around 1000kmh - if we had these speeds a map 5x the size of V would be amazing. 

  • GTKING1st, theGTAking101 and ten-a-penny like this

Michael
  • Michael

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Apr 2016
  • None

#7

Posted 16 August 2016 - 03:40 PM Edited by Bleached, 16 August 2016 - 05:50 PM.

It depends on which location, but we do need the GTA San Andreas map feeling back. Driving for hours and feeling like you didn't see everything yet. :p
  • Mister Pink, Beastly40, RedDagger and 9 others like this

Achlys
  • Achlys

    I Can Tell You're Curious, It's Written On Your Lips

  • Members
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2014
  • Mexico

#8

Posted 16 August 2016 - 06:44 PM

Twice the size of GTA V's map, for GTA VI and any GTA after it...The size of the map doesn't much to me, GTA IV's map is much smaller, and I still have fun playing it...


pulpfriction
  • pulpfriction

    Player Hater

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 04 Jul 2016
  • United-States

#9

Posted 16 August 2016 - 07:37 PM

I had no map issues so even a little bigger would be ok with me.


Gtaman_92
  • Gtaman_92

    Token black guy.

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

#10

Posted 16 August 2016 - 11:21 PM Edited by Gtaman_92, 17 August 2016 - 01:23 AM.

It depends honestly. If countrysides are included again then it should definitely be x2 the size of V's map.


jpm1
  • jpm1

    Vice city citizen

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Sep 2005
  • European-Union

#11

Posted 17 August 2016 - 12:36 AM Edited by jpm1, 17 August 2016 - 09:47 PM.

fun is not about size, but about the lack of landmarks. you can have a map like IV with no landmarks and have the feeling you're discovering something at each start even after years of playing, and you can have maps like V that are technically bigger, but because of its landmarks (mountains, lake..) wiil give you the feeling after 20h of playing that there's nothing more to discover. give us a Vice city map with swamps and corail reefs with no landmarks with V size, and i'll bet my hand that people with keep playing it 20 years after its release. what i've just said is the reason why i stopped playing V, and why i am still playing IV even years after having purchased it. voted x2


Pilotmonkey
  • Pilotmonkey

    Hollow

  • Members
  • Joined: 12 Mar 2012
  • Bosnia-and-Herzegovina

#12

Posted 17 August 2016 - 12:43 AM Edited by RedDagger, 17 August 2016 - 02:08 PM. merged

To me, large maps are only fun in the beginning, when exploring for the first time, everything is new and exciting, however, over time a large map may start to become a nuisance, depending on transportation. If it's another Large metropolitan area, Taxis would be nice again, best way to traverse a big city, metro lines/ trains, ferries, trolleys. Half of these things could only be considered if the map was large enough to do so. So I would love a HUGE urban map, (5X the size of IV's) only if we get all those transportation options, otherwise i'd have to drive alot, and sometimes you just dont wanna drive for 30 minutes
 

On an Urban scale. 5X the size of IV at most, only if we're given many transportation options. (Metro/Train,Ferry,Trolley,Taxi,Roman's Uber Service) 
So, to kind contain the excitement in exploring the whole map at once, R* would lock islands. Then with V, everything was free from the get go. I thought it was cool, but many people would try to explore the whole map at once, kinda taking the excitment away. But if a free to explore map was very big, you'd always be discovering new areas, and there would be alot more to explore in a map. for a long time you'd be able to discover something new each time you played

GamesBoy316
  • GamesBoy316

    Grove Street

  • Members
  • Joined: 12 Jul 2014
  • United-States

#13

Posted 17 August 2016 - 01:10 AM

I think they should make the map 2x bigger, but I hope they add more detail to it. For example, if they add a forest, make the forest big and try to make the player feel like they're lost. The forest in GTA V is small and it didn't help that the freeway was right there along with railroad tracks.

  • Beastly40, GTKING1st, CartmanKusanagi and 2 others like this

gtakid44
  • gtakid44

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 Aug 2016
  • United-States

#14

Posted 17 August 2016 - 08:15 AM

As big as the current and next gen consoles can hold the space required to run a large game like that

Son of Zeus
  • Son of Zeus

    Still King

  • Members
  • Joined: 30 Jun 2014
  • Australia

#15

Posted 17 August 2016 - 08:34 AM

The map size of V is big enough, the problem lies in the layout...because of which it doesn't feel as massive as SA did. The pointless mountains take up a lot of area, the roads are too wide and look empty. Forest doesn't feel secluded because it has roads going through it.

I would be okay if the next map is the same size as V, but with a tricky layout which makes it feel much bigger: lots of curvy little roads looping around, forested areas not near highways, small towns like they were in SA...that sort of thing. V×2 would be good too but bigger than that would be too big IMO.
  • Mister Pink, Beastly40, CartmanKusanagi and 4 others like this

Darth Absentis
  • Darth Absentis

    Probably not your father

  • Members
  • Joined: 09 Aug 2014
  • Belgium

#16

Posted 17 August 2016 - 01:40 PM Edited by goldadderXD, 17 August 2016 - 01:42 PM.

overall i think map size is just one thing

it shoud be diverse and good quality wise

 

gta5, the only gta i ever played to be honest, had the mountains right i think, along with the city landscape in general

 

besides that it lacked in several things:

 

-not nearly enough enteriors were made

-i could have done with less desert

-the train should actually have some stations and there should have been villages around the track were the train passed

-there should have been way more islands with atleast some helipads on it and small boat docks and spawns

-it had been fun if there were actual working elevators inside buildings besides there at the construction site

-not nearly enough woodland

-again, the mountains in itself and the city were fine, there just was way to much void in between

-also most people blame the desert area...and though thats kinda right, the most waste of space is all the hill land between vinewood hills and sandy shores

 

there shoud have been more stuff on those hills itself like abandoned farms(with interiors), more mineshafts....and the area could have been overall 3 times smaller if they just had stuffed it with trees, rocks, low bushes and small abandoned constructions

 

also maybe i am to overglorifying the mountains in general to...there could have been some caves with maybe some minecarts in it

 

further, like said before by many...i agree, the desert area between the most central train track on the map and los alomos sea...though that tiny inviroment is kinda unique(small uneven rocky desert area), overall it is just not really interesting

 

i really think overall they could have made the map 50 % smalller and they still could have fitted the overall urban area, the sandy shores trailer/house park, the inland sea, paleto bay, the prison, millitary base,...and such in it, while still have loads of place to add caves, minecarts trees, small buildings, interiors and all that stuff that would actually be fun to play with/would make the inviroment overall more an experience

 

have to note again though, most people who claim they have seen everything there is on that map are technicaly lying/already forgot a lot already ;)

 

 

edit: the game really could have used less deep sea to....jeezes, what an overkill

and really, if the next instalment is gonna have that much aircraft, it should have more/bigger islands with more to it


Mr. Fartenhate
  • Mr. Fartenhate

    please read m,y bad fanfiction

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2013
  • Australia
  • Best Closet Furry 2016

#17

Posted 17 August 2016 - 02:11 PM

As long as it's dense, has a lot of content, and feels atmospheric/realistic/etc., I don't mind the size.

That was my main problem with IV. City, city, endless city. It felt like I was driving around the same place for the whole game.

my head hurts
  • GTA_fear, GTKING1st and The Deadite like this

RandompedestrianfromLC
  • RandompedestrianfromLC

    Liberty City

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2015
  • None

#18

Posted 17 August 2016 - 02:49 PM

Same size as V. I rather take well detailed city map than huge map without nothing to do. IV's map is my favorite though. It would be nice to see Liberty city in size of V's map. 

 

Liberty city and surrounding areas or maybe baltimore, boston or philadelphia and surrounding areas. I think its better to have only one big city, so it haves massive amount of details. 2 big citys would have no problems though, since IV had LC and Alderney. 


RedDagger
  • RedDagger

    Crash test dummy

  • GTA Series Staff
  • Joined: 24 Oct 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Best Ledby 2016
    Most Helpful 2016
    Quotable Notable Post of the Year 2016 ["sup"]
    Best Crew 2016 [The Daily Globe]
    Most Desperate Campaign Poster 2016
    Draw Contest Grand Prize 2016
    Most Desperate Campaign Poster 2015
    April Fools Winner 2015
    Best General Topic 2015 [GTAForums Newbie Guide 2.0]
    Helpfulness Award

#19

Posted 17 August 2016 - 03:21 PM

Just as a comparison, Just Cause 2/3 are 13 times bigger than GTA V, and The Crew is 63 times bigger.

Personally I'd prefer as large as possible, I'm kinda a sucker for large maps. It'd be nice if they were able to have large expanses of low-detailed stuff like desert, plains, salt flats or something - in JC2 and The Crew they're pretty nice to drive through, seeing stuff on the horizon slowly growing bigger as you drive towards it. It's not the most important thing for me, but it'd be cool.
  • Beastly40, vnus_dmlo, ten-a-penny and 5 others like this

Vikki_Suicide
  • Vikki_Suicide

    Mark Chump

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 11 Aug 2016
  • United-Kingdom

#20

Posted 17 August 2016 - 03:25 PM Edited by Vikki_Suicide, 17 August 2016 - 03:25 PM.

I've voted for 3 times the size however twice really would be fine.  It's how they [R*] try to say it's a city yet you can swing through LS in minutes.  If it was realistic you should be looking at 20-30 minutes just to get through downtown.  Problem is, as GTA maps historically are small compared to other titles, we always complain, the day they're finally on par with the likes of Just Cause, we'll probably complain they're too vast! :lol:

  • GTKING1st and RogerWho like this

GTA6oclock
  • GTA6oclock

    Crackhead

  • Members
  • Joined: 15 Sep 2014
  • United-States

#21

Posted 17 August 2016 - 06:04 PM

Depends on location. If it's just something like Vice City then matching V's map size would be great. If it's multiple cities like SF and LV then it needs to be considerably larger than V. I'd be fine with 2x.

  • CartmanKusanagi likes this

Jammsbro
  • Jammsbro

    Pogo 4 life

  • Members
  • Joined: 06 Dec 2014
  • Scotland

#22

Posted 17 August 2016 - 06:34 PM

The amount of mountains in V were an issue for me. While they look great and rockstar modelled them on actual geology, they weren't fun to move across and eventually just became barriers. Raised ground in the next one should be completely traversable. Can't tell you the amount of times I have been stuck on mountains in V.

 

Also, the desert area was tiny, they could have made that a huge area with hidden stuff in there. I would even have had the sutff in there off-map so that you had to find your way around using landmarks or memory.

  • Beastly40, PhillBellic, ten-a-penny and 6 others like this

Fishers Fritz
  • Fishers Fritz

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Apr 2015
  • Germany

#23

Posted 17 August 2016 - 06:46 PM Edited by Fishers Fritz, 17 August 2016 - 08:49 PM.

Sorry, but the answer options are garbage. Why is there no option for a smaller map? And 10 times bigger? That's highly unrealistic. GTA V has a really large map for today's standards. I think the map in GTA VI will only be 3/4 as big as GTA V is. The only problem of V's map was that the sizes of city and landscape were too unbalanced. If you consider that GTA 6 probably will be even more complex regarding gameplay, a smaller map would be a good compromise. Another reason for a smaller map in GTA 6 is, that every second GTA game (since III) had a smaller map than it's predecessor: GTA VC was (a bit) smaller than III, SA was bigger than VC, IV was smaller than SA and V is bigger than IV. 

  • Money&Powder likes this

Pedinhuh
  • Pedinhuh

    Wanna play with me on PS4? Add me: rph_brasil

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Jun 2014
  • Brazil

#24

Posted 17 August 2016 - 07:13 PM

Three times the landmass of V, it should be enough for Las Venturas and San Fierro, plus an actual decent countryside AND desert.
Hopefully they put a stop with their mountains fetish.

  • PhillBellic and Jammsbro like this

jpm1
  • jpm1

    Vice city citizen

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Sep 2005
  • European-Union

#25

Posted 17 August 2016 - 09:56 PM

i don't want to get lost into the kilometers, i want to get lost into details

  • GTKING1st and RogerWho like this

Maibatsu545
  • Maibatsu545

    veritas vos liberabit

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Feb 2014
  • United-States

#26

Posted 18 August 2016 - 01:13 AM

If its vice city id be perfectly happy with miami, with the bahamas to the south (like scarface) and with countryside/swamps to the north (helping methhead hillbillys feed bodies to the alligators and whatnot)
  • jpm1, Official General, Beastly40 and 2 others like this

Maibatsu545
  • Maibatsu545

    veritas vos liberabit

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Feb 2014
  • United-States

#27

Posted 18 August 2016 - 01:19 AM

The amount of mountains in V were an issue for me. While they look great and rockstar modelled them on actual geology, they weren't fun to move across and eventually just became barriers. Raised ground in the next one should be completely traversable. Can't tell you the amount of times I have been stuck on mountains in V.
 
Also, the desert area was tiny, they could have made that a huge area with hidden stuff in there. I would even have had the sutff in there off-map so that you had to find your way around using landmarks or memory.


I agree so much. The mountains look great in GTAV, but when you try to climb them the character ragdolls at the slightest incline and flops down unrealistically. It's maddening. Why the f*ck cant they walk up a small incline? I understand if the chacter is dunk but it happens EVERY TIME. It's so damn annoying. I've actually died at full health because the stupid character model flops over and rolls down the hill caught in a ragdoll loop until my health is gone. That is so f*cking bad! It's a total immersion killer. Also, since the player cant climb them it makes the mountains usesless wastes of space. May as well have modelled a gigantic slippery turd pile instead, thats how bad the mountains are in GTAV.
  • PhillBellic, Zello, Cluckin' Bell and 1 other like this

PhillBellic
  • PhillBellic

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Jul 2012
  • Australia
  • Ban Roulette Winner 2016

#28

Posted 18 August 2016 - 01:57 AM

Realistically, I'd like a Map 4x larger than V's Map. However, I'd also not want that extra space taken up by Mountains which in my view restricted exploration of the Map.

  • GTKING1st and Cluckin' Bell like this

Thegrandtheftmaster
  • Thegrandtheftmaster

    Bikers Unite

  • Members
  • Joined: 04 May 2016
  • United-States

#29

Posted 18 August 2016 - 02:52 AM

Just as a comparison, Just Cause 2/3 are 13 times bigger than GTA V, and The Crew is 63 times bigger.

Personally I'd prefer as large as possible, I'm kinda a sucker for large maps. It'd be nice if they were able to have large expanses of low-detailed stuff like desert, plains, salt flats or something - in JC2 and The Crew they're pretty nice to drive through, seeing stuff on the horizon slowly growing bigger as you drive towards it. It's not the most important thing for me, but it'd be cool.

Well the thing is though is that in the crew there wasn't that much to do besides racing and exploring. You can't run over peds access buildings shoot guns steal vehicles and just do what everyone does in gta. Look I don't really care that the crew has a larger map, because when you really think of it the crew is about racing. Just like the la norie map was bigger then los santos noone really complained though. In La norie when you were done with the game there really wasn't a lot to do after that. They made los santos on the interesting parts of Los angeles LA norie was suppose to be a replica of some of los angeles in the 50's. 

 

So to be honest I don't think people really care that the crew has a bigger map then gta 5. Besides that game is dead anyways.

  • PwnageSoldier likes this

ExTerminator
  • ExTerminator

    Heil Houser!

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Mar 2015
  • South-Ossetia

#30

Posted 18 August 2016 - 03:17 AM

3 times larger than V. 

 

I just want a map with a major focus on a metropolitan area of a city, and then suburbs surrounding it with some medium density industrial areas scattered around.  The remaining space can be filled with a gigantic forest (talking about real forests, not the one in V) or some marshlands or even a desert where the criminals hang out.

 

Basically a large city with it's suburbs, and some countryside for those who want it. 





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users