Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

I think the 'one map' concept has to go..

7 replies to this topic
Nihilanth1982
  • Nihilanth1982

    Prankster

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Jun 2006

#1

Posted 2 weeks ago Edited by Nihilanth1982, 2 weeks ago.

i enjoy GTA but i think it needs to evolve. i like the idea of playing 3 characters in GTA5. but i think contraining everything on one big map is starting to get old now. liberty city felt really claustrophobic, samey and boring - i dont ever want to go back there again. vice city is just two islands with three bridges - basically nothing (miami was only good in the 1980s). san andreas (gta5 version) was better because it allowed for more varying environments. in gta san andreas they had 3 cities and multiple towns and country areas which was even better imo.

 

if the technology allows for it, and assuming load times aren't as bad, i think the whole one map idea has to be done away with, and for GTA to perhaps operate on more than one map, retaining the same level of detail - you can transport between maps by taking a flight or something. that way it'd allow for greater enironmental and cultural diversity and a more enriching experience. plus its a good way for GTA to go international as i am sure organised crime can take an international scale as well. theres nothing good about american insularity.

 

the idea came up when playing games like the last of us, tomb raider, and the uncharted series. it doesnt hurt their stories and i am sure it'd make GTA a richer experience on many accounts. there are forums asking which the next 'city' GTA should go to but i think such approach is old hat now and its time for it to evolve and go to the next level. it doesnt matter how big the single 'city' is, you'd eventually want a change in scene as well as different characters and an evolving story.

 

just a thought..


Travís.
  • Travís.

    Gangsta

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Feb 2013
  • Australia

#2

Posted 2 weeks ago

That sounds like an okay idea, but I wouldn't be that keen on having to remember multiple map layouts,

remembering where everything is on 1 map is hard enough.


Nihilanth1982
  • Nihilanth1982

    Prankster

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Jun 2006

#3

Posted 2 weeks ago Edited by Nihilanth1982, 2 weeks ago.

That sounds like an okay idea, but I wouldn't be that keen on having to remember multiple map layouts,

remembering where everything is on 1 map is hard enough.

maybe have 3 maps wouldnt be bad as a starting point. not asking for 100 lol. i am sure of the story is long, fun and engaging enough, we'd be soaked in the maps in time


universetwisters
  • universetwisters

    THAT'S NOT THE PROBLEM, WILLY!

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Feb 2011
  • United-States
  • Best Conversion 2016 [GTA: Underground] [Contribution]
    Best Workshop 2014
    Most Improved 2014
    Funniest Member 2014
    April Fools Winner 2015

#4

Posted 2 weeks ago

I think that kinda defeats the purpose of the game. Like of course it's main premise is about committing crime, but also about how the protagonist interacts with the crime within the city it takes place in. Look at IV for example, you start off low on the rung, working for the Russians and Jamacians as hired muscle. Then by the end of the game, you're practically a hitman/assassin who's been all over the city and worked with several different crime groups. Compare that to San Andreas, where for each city you're in you really only work with one group.

 

Not saying that's a bad way to write a game or anything, but personally I'd much rather have one city with multiple stories than multiple cities with one story for each.

  • Zello, Payne Killer and DimitriFaustin like this

Son of Zeus
  • Son of Zeus

    Still King

  • Members
  • Joined: 30 Jun 2014
  • Australia

#5

Posted 2 weeks ago

Three high quality maps is not possible as of now. They'd have to cut down on the detail...two smaller ones is possible.

So one big map like V or two smaller cities? Two could be interesting if they're detailed well enough. I really liked travelling from one city to another in SA.

DoomsdayFAN
  • DoomsdayFAN

    ICE

  • Members
  • Joined: 06 Oct 2012
  • Iceland

#6

Posted 2 weeks ago Edited by DoomsdayFAN, 2 weeks ago.

I'm all for a bigger map and more stuff to do and see and explore. I'd prefer multiple islands/land masses that are all super far apart but all apart of the same "map". Like you could take a boat between them but it would take several minutes (real time) to get there even at full speed (which would make taking a plane the best idea). Then each island should be at least the size of GTA V with tons and tons of stuff to do, but each land mass should be different. Like one island could be Liberty City, East Coast landscapes, and Vice City. Another island could be Los Santos, West Coast landscapes, and San Fierro. Another island could be more desert with Las Venturas as the main city. And a fourth island could represent more of midwest America, farmland, and small towns, etc. 

 

Either way, this is still my favorite proposed map that I would LOVE to see fully realized:

 

aDjKMmK_700b.jpg

  • ClaudeSpeed1911, Saganist, Payne Killer and 1 other like this

Nihilanth1982
  • Nihilanth1982

    Prankster

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Jun 2006

#7

Posted 2 weeks ago

the GTA world needs to break beyond the confines of liberty, vice and san andreas imho

  • Saganist and LincolnClay like this

DimitriFaustin
  • DimitriFaustin

    Megalopolis Megalomaniac

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Mar 2016
  • United-States

#8

Posted 2 weeks ago

Considering the game engine and top-down perspective at the time, I'd say for what it's worth that GTA 1 and (especially) 2 got the multiple locations in-game right.

Unless Rockstar makes a new HD game engine anytime soon (which they should have done for V rather than use an improved IV engine), it'd probably be better

to keep it at one major city and smaller towns scattered about for now.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users