ChiroVette I think it's clear you disagree with anyone who has kind of criticism with GTAV, you go as far as including me as a V hater despite me saying it was a let down.
I think it's clear that you are creating a Straw Man argument, by characterizing my disagreement with you as conflating you with "V haters" and further misrepresenting my position on V, trying to fictionalize my posts as disagreeing with ALL criticisms of V. when clearly that isn't the case.
This seems to be a tactic you are employing of justifying your position rather than actually taking the time to defend it, as if your accusations somehow repudiate my assertions.
Moreover, subliminally accusing me of basically being a "blind fanboy," while leaving those exact words out to equivocate, also does nothing to rebuff my position.
Stated another way, I have plenty of criticisms of V, I just don't agree with the ones I responded in your post.
As for your words about Liberty City,I know it's small, but it still did a better job of trying to be accurate compared to Los Santos, hell they even go out of their way to state in game that there's more to Liberty City, we just don't see it such as the long island place (name escapes me right now) east of Dukes.
Really? So basically the game saying the map is too small and weak is enough for you to give them a pass on it? I disagree that it did a better job of fictionalizing NY City.
First off, the detail in V's map is better, as are the graphics. Which, while one would expect from a game released 5 years later, is still, nonetheless a factor in evaluating the two maps side by side, in comparison and contrast. Second, as someone who LOVES both real life cities as I do NY and Los Angeles, I can tell you that you are falling victim to a misconception here. Even though I love LA, let's be honest, it has no Empire State Building; it has no Chrysler Building or Central Park or Broadway or the Theater District or even the Brooklyn or Manhattan Bridges.
I am sorry to any LA residents here, but while it is a beautiful city, it simply DOES NOT have the kinds of storied landmarks of the Big Apple to easily render to make the city as recognizable.
The Manhattan Skyline is easily one of the most famous visual landmarks in the world, and while LA is a wonderful city, it has NOTHING that is so obviously recognized.
Yes, there is the Hollywood Sign, and that is stunning, in real life as it is the game. But lol, what the Convention Center? Who cares? Other than gamers dreaming of going to E3 and convention goers, who gives a crap if a game properly renders that building? You think anyone but perhaps a garter of ONE percent of the world's population would even be able to pick that building out of a randomly chosen group of 20 similar buildings?
Yet I bet that if you show 100 people from all over the world a picture of the Empire State Building, the Brooklyn Bridge, that ANY of them would not only be able to pick them out of similar buildings but would be able to name them without help. NY City is like Landmark Central, it really is.
The people who built my city unintentionally made it very easy for Rockstar
to create a fictionalized version in a game. Just add in the Brooklyn and Manhattan Bridges, the colorful, angular Neon-filled Broadway cutting through a Theater District, Central Park, and throw in the Chrysler Building and Met Life, and away we go! Make it shaped like an oblong island, and you have Manhattan, easy peasy!
LA is a city that does NOT have the recognizable features of Manhattan. This takes nothing away from the beauty and history of the city. Not every city can be Manhattan.
Yet, Rockstar still did a beautiful job with the famous sign, the ghettos of South Central, the stunning beaches with the amusement park, which, by the way is a famous LA landmark. They added in a beautiful rendering of Hollywood, the outlying suburbs, the desert. I thought the other representations you mentioned were fine, by the way. I really like the way V handles the Joshua Tree and Cathedral City, but clearly that is a matter of taste. So we can agree to disagree.
It isn't that I disagree with ALL criticisms of V, I just find yours to be....well, let's just say a bit of a stretch.
You mention III's rendition of Liberty City, well the step up from GTA3 to GTA4 is what I was also expecting of Los Santos compared to GTA SA, and they didn't deliver, I think that's the simplest way I can break it down.
Okay, first of all, that is a faulty comparison. The reason why is that while I absolutely LOVE GTA III to this very day, it was the very first 3D Era GTA game. After that, they had VC, and yes, San Andreas, to really flesh out what that engine could do. They were also MUCH LESS experienced at making sandbox games in 1999 to 2000, while III was being created than they were by the time development for SA started.
So the HUGE LEAP one would expect from the LC of III to the LC of IV cannot be compared to the leap we got from SA to V. If for no other reason than the devs and Housers were already really experienced by the time they created SA. The point is that V still delivers as a huge upgrade from SA, though it is understandable that IV would seem like even more of an upgrade from III, since III was so primitive, even compared to SA.
Here is where your logic fails, as far as I am concerned. You are making the wrong comparison in my opinion
. If you really want to be fair, it would be a far more accurate comparison to look at IV's map compared to the last PS2-exclusive GTA game, which is San Andreas. While they fictionalize different cities, that is making it too easy for you to try and pull the wool over our eyes by comparing IV to a game that started development at the end of the last millennium on a PS2 that had not even been released yet, while bashing V's map for not being upgraded enough
from San Andreas, even though it was plenty upgraded in all the most important ways.
I will agree with you in one area, from a previous post you made. I think that had Rockstar created DLC like they intended, this would be a completely different conversation we are having. Had they added in more missions, maybe even selling us more real estate in the form of San Fierro, Las Venturras, huge, green forests like Red County and the Back-O-Beyond, it would be even better.
But to try and sell the lack of DLC as a reason why you think the map of V sucks or is mediocre, is fallacious. And NOT because you are criticizing V. As I said, I have plenty of criticisms of V. I just don't agree with yours.
Edit: I see you changed the wording to not call me a V hater, I didn't see that edit when I posted.
What are you talking about? I never called you a V hater in that post. I may have referred to V haters, but not once did I accuse you of being one, and certainly did not edit such an accusation out.