Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

City vs countryside- How should it be handled in GTA VI?

54 replies to this topic
Gettin up
  • Gettin up

    Hustler

  • Members
  • Joined: 23 Aug 2011
  • Finland

#31

Posted 24 February 2018 - 06:09 AM

More city, less countryside.

  • Algonquin Assassin, Journey_95, TheOneLibertonian and 2 others like this

jpm1
  • jpm1

    Vice city citizen

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

#32

Posted 4 weeks ago Edited by jpm1, 4 weeks ago.

for me a big countryside is important. not because of the stuntjumps (even if they can be cool), but for relaxation. i want a small shack in a swamp, where i could just sit, watch around and relax. i want, i need this. and about the city, the city in solo is pretty much cool. i mean it doesn't have to blush in front of LC. GTAO, for obvious hardware restrictions has been spoiled of a lot of details. but in solo, the city isn't bad at all. if you contemplate LS from a plane, you can see that the city is pretty huge


.Smaher.
  • .Smaher.

    Mr. Triangle Man

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Sep 2015
  • United-States

#33

Posted 2 weeks ago

I’d love more than one city + countryside.
  • theGTAking101 likes this

Johnny Spaz
  • Johnny Spaz

    Rat

  • Members
  • Joined: 28 Nov 2013
  • None

#34

Posted 2 weeks ago Edited by Johnny Spaz, 2 weeks ago.

I'd rather them skip countryside and just go full head on with the city, unless they do the countryside like in San Andreas, where you can actually get lost in the forests, and with the eerie Back o Beyond feel added into it, if not, then don't bother.
  • Lioshenka, Algonquin Assassin, ColePhelps and 2 others like this

TheGeneralZarbin
  • TheGeneralZarbin

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 2 weeks ago
  • Scotland

#35

Posted 2 weeks ago

For me they have to get a better balance between both the countryside and the city or cities. V was a good game overall i think but the map design didnt have the right level of balance. 

 

I hope the same as others that they look and learn from when they got it spot on in the past with San Andreas.

  • theGTAking101 likes this

Algonquin Assassin
  • Algonquin Assassin

    We're all looking for that special someone

  • Sheriff
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2007
  • Australia
  • Best Moderator 2017
    Most Obsessive Name Changer 2016 (My unofficial GTAF annual award)
    Biggest Fanboy 2013, 2014, 2015
    Best Poster [GTA] 2014
    Best Member in the OGA 2012

#36

Posted 2 weeks ago Edited by Algonquin Assassin, 2 weeks ago.

Basically every open world nowadays is dominated by countryside it's become tiresome. I miss 100% city focussed maps like GTA III, GTA IV, LA Noire etc.

 

Countryside's so boring and uninteresting to me no matter how pretty it looks. In San Andreas it was ok as it served as a thoroughfare to get from city to city, but if I'm honest I never spent hours exploring as looking at the same trees and empty fields wore pretty thin.

 

It's one of the reasons I don't like doing the countryside missions and GTA V's is poorly designed feeling like it's there for the sake of it. So yeah. Give me a concrete jungle thanks.

  • Official General and theGTAking101 like this

Sinner!
  • Sinner!

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 2 weeks ago
  • Algeria

#37

Posted 2 weeks ago Edited by Sinner!, 2 weeks ago.

After playing Far Cry 5 I wouldn't mind if there was no rural location included, don't get me wrong it's beautiful & fun to explore for a period but the novelty wears off a lot quicker than a more vibrant City location.

  • Algonquin Assassin likes this

Tao Cheng
  • Tao Cheng

    Man I'm fuuuucked up!

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 May 2014
  • China

#38

Posted 2 weeks ago

10% city 50% beaches 130% swamp. You must shoot 500 small 1x1 pixelated mosquitoes (no autoaim) that fly in inconsistent flow as a form of hidden packages to save Vice City from a virus disease.


MDNA
  • MDNA

    Trick

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 Apr 2013
  • Netherlands

#39

Posted 2 weeks ago

I'd rather have it somewhat like San Andreas;

at least two big cities, a big desert area, a rural area and a mountainous area.
That'd be great fun. I'd love some big lakes or rivers as well.

 

As for the cities, I'd love one to be very vibrant and busy, like Las Venturas, and one a bit more laidback.

  • Lioshenka and theGTAking101 like this

zuckmeslow
  • zuckmeslow

    SLEEPING DOGS IS BETTER THAN GTA V

  • Members
  • Joined: 15 May 2013
  • None
  • April Fools Winner 2015

#40

Posted 2 weeks ago

it depends. if the game takes place in liberty city then i would love for it to be 80% city with a small amount of open grass/ small towns to the north in the area that is the hudson valley. if it takes place in las venturas then i wouldnt mind a big city in the middle surrounded by a huge desert. 

  • Algonquin Assassin and Zello like this

Mr_Rager
  • Mr_Rager

    Last Breath

  • Members
  • Joined: 14 Jul 2015
  • None

#41

Posted A week ago

Just make it feel distant from the other cities. MAFIA did this beautifully. Going into the countryside in that game feels like a journey.
  • Lioshenka, Algonquin Assassin, theGTAking101 and 3 others like this

TheOneLibertonian
  • TheOneLibertonian

    Only those who die get closure, the living do not.

  • Members
  • Joined: 24 Mar 2013
  • Philippines

#42

Posted A week ago Edited by TheOneLibertonian, A week ago.

The city is the biggest party piece in all of the GTA's. I'd be very disappointed if GTA would have a map dominated with a countryside again. A giant metropolis will always be more interesting than a rural town or countryside.

  • Algonquin Assassin, Official General and Zello like this

Official General
  • Official General

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

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2010
  • None

#43

Posted A week ago Edited by Official General, A week ago.

Basically every open world nowadays is dominated by countryside it's become tiresome. I miss 100% city focussed maps like GTA III, GTA IV, LA Noire etc.

 

Countryside's so boring and uninteresting to me no matter how pretty it looks. In San Andreas it was ok as it served as a thoroughfare to get from city to city, but if I'm honest I never spent hours exploring as looking at the same trees and empty fields wore pretty thin.

 

It's one of the reasons I don't like doing the countryside missions and GTA V's is poorly designed feeling like it's there for the sake of it. So yeah. Give me a concrete jungle thanks.

 

I agree to some extent. Continuous exploration of the countryside is very nice at first because you're surveying new vast swathes of uncharted territories and landscape and it's just general fun to explore. But the novelty wears off very quick, and it does very soon get a bit boring - especially if there is not much to do within the countryside, with V being the most classical example. I'd very much rather prefer much more city than countryside, and I aint gonna lie, I had much more fun exploring Liberty City in IV than I did with Los Santos in V, simple because LC was pure big city environment, which for me made it much more vibrant and interesting to explore. I just find city environments much more fun and interesting than countryside in general. 

 

Having said that though, I still would rather some countryside at least. I would still like to see enough variety for the option of travelling from city to countryside/small towns.  San Andreas did that combination best for me, and what I liked about it still had a number of things to do - you could do the oil tanker missions, the trucking missions, gamble in the betting shop, chase the courier and more. 

 

But for V, as beautifully detailed as it looked, a lot of it was a colossal waste in my eyes - I'd rather have seen a much bigger LS, and with more interiors. 

  • Lioshenka, Algonquin Assassin, TheOneLibertonian and 1 other like this

Algonquin Assassin
  • Algonquin Assassin

    We're all looking for that special someone

  • Sheriff
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2007
  • Australia
  • Best Moderator 2017
    Most Obsessive Name Changer 2016 (My unofficial GTAF annual award)
    Biggest Fanboy 2013, 2014, 2015
    Best Poster [GTA] 2014
    Best Member in the OGA 2012

#44

Posted A week ago Edited by Algonquin Assassin, A week ago.

I agree to some extent. Continuous exploration of the countryside is very nice at first because you're surveying new vast swathes of uncharted territories and landscape and it's just general fun to explore. But the novelty wears off very quick, and it does very soon get a bit boring - especially if there is not much to do within the countryside, with V being the most classical example. I'd very much rather prefer much more city than countryside, and I aint gonna lie, I had much more fun exploring Liberty City in IV than I did with Los Santos in V, simple because LC was pure big city environment, which for me made it much more vibrant and interesting to explore. I just find city environments much more fun and interesting than countryside in general. 

 

Having said that though, I still would rather some countryside at least. I would still like to see enough variety for the option of travelling from city to countryside/small towns.  San Andreas did that combination best for me, and what I liked about it still had a number of things to do - you could do the oil tanker missions, the trucking missions, gamble in the betting shop, chase the courier and more. 

 

But for V, as beautifully detailed as it looked, a lot of it was a colossal waste in my eyes - I'd rather have seen a much bigger LS, and with more interiors. 

 

 

I will say one thing though if GTA VI does have countryside I hope it encapsulates the feeling of isolation as good as San Andreas did. In GTA V the countryside often feels a bit too populated. In San Andreas the lack of wildlife actually made it feel more disconnected from civilisation which isn't a bad thing. It just added more atmosphere and creepyness to it.

 

With GTA V no matter where you are on the map you never truly feel alone. San Andreas done a great job in that respect even if the map's not as big. Clever design processes and placement went a long way.

  • Lioshenka, Official General and TheOneLibertonian like this

Official General
  • Official General

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

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2010
  • None

#45

Posted A week ago

I agree to some extent. Continuous exploration of the countryside is very nice at first because you're surveying new vast swathes of uncharted territories and landscape and it's just general fun to explore. But the novelty wears off very quick, and it does very soon get a bit boring - especially if there is not much to do within the countryside, with V being the most classical example. I'd very much rather prefer much more city than countryside, and I aint gonna lie, I had much more fun exploring Liberty City in IV than I did with Los Santos in V, simple because LC was pure big city environment, which for me made it much more vibrant and interesting to explore. I just find city environments much more fun and interesting than countryside in general. 
 
Having said that though, I still would rather some countryside at least. I would still like to see enough variety for the option of travelling from city to countryside/small towns.  San Andreas did that combination best for me, and what I liked about it still had a number of things to do - you could do the oil tanker missions, the trucking missions, gamble in the betting shop, chase the courier and more. 
 
But for V, as beautifully detailed as it looked, a lot of it was a colossal waste in my eyes - I'd rather have seen a much bigger LS, and with more interiors.

 
I will say one thing though if GTA VI does have countryside I hope it encapsulates the feeling of isolation as good as San Andreas did. In GTA V the countryside often feels a bit too populated. In San Andreas the lack of wildlife actually made it feel more disconnected from civilisation which isn't a bad thing. It just added more atmosphere and creepyness to it.
 
With GTA V no matter where you are on the map you never truly feel alone. San Andreas done a great job in that respect even if the map's not as big. Clever design processes and placement went a long way.

I really wished IV had some countryside. Not in sense of farmland and remote wilderness, but enough to distinguish it from city areas complete with a handful of small towns, similar the suburban towns in the heavily wooded areas seen in real life New Jersey and upstate New York.
  • Algonquin Assassin likes this

TheHolyNZF
  • TheHolyNZF

    Thug

  • Members
  • Joined: 22 Jan 2017
  • GoSquared

#46

Posted A week ago Edited by TheHolyNZF, A week ago.

Simple; make it unpredictable and active. It should be teeming with dangerous animals and rural gangs running wild. Some parts of it could be totally lawless as well as having no phone signal preventing unwanted interference. They could throw in some weirdos roaming around in the woods at night and abandoned ghost towns with hidden secrets to find. It should be a very different place at night to day, but that should really go for the city as well.

Basically give the country some character instead of being just a waste of memory in order to tick off the big map box.

 

Thank you.

 

Size does not matter if it's junk anyways.

 

I want for the next GTA:

 

  • a couple of cities
  • multiple islands
  • some big lakes
  • Beaches, both cliff and sand
  • Huge desert / wastelands
  • Multple different forest and swamp biomes
  • Fields
  • Interiors and interactions in each and every different zone ; a reason for everything to exist.
  • Eateries from hot Dog carts to Ice Cream vans to cafes to high-end restaurants.
  • Friend activities from GTA IV - now with Online revolution, these could for the first time ever make sense.
  • Highways,  and efficient and semi-realistic aircraft, to sort-of fast travel.

Just the tip of the iceberg.  Most of all, I want GTA to take a little break (2013-2023?) to allow for new ideas and competition arise to rise the expectations

  • Lioshenka likes this

Catskill
  • Catskill

    The artist formerly known as UAL

  • Members
  • Joined: A week ago
  • United-Kingdom

#47

Posted A week ago

I think having the option is cool. I see what some people mean about they're tired of countryside/rural areas as it's been done so much but to me it just adds variety. 

 

San Andreas by far made the best use out of having countryside, as we used it to get from one city to another. Hopefully in the next GTA we'll see multiple cities which would make a countryside/rural/desert/mountainous area have a purpose. The rural part of GTA V was utilised horrendously which has probably put a lot of people off. 

  • Official General likes this

Algonquin Assassin
  • Algonquin Assassin

    We're all looking for that special someone

  • Sheriff
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2007
  • Australia
  • Best Moderator 2017
    Most Obsessive Name Changer 2016 (My unofficial GTAF annual award)
    Biggest Fanboy 2013, 2014, 2015
    Best Poster [GTA] 2014
    Best Member in the OGA 2012

#48

Posted A week ago

 

 

I agree to some extent. Continuous exploration of the countryside is very nice at first because you're surveying new vast swathes of uncharted territories and landscape and it's just general fun to explore. But the novelty wears off very quick, and it does very soon get a bit boring - especially if there is not much to do within the countryside, with V being the most classical example. I'd very much rather prefer much more city than countryside, and I aint gonna lie, I had much more fun exploring Liberty City in IV than I did with Los Santos in V, simple because LC was pure big city environment, which for me made it much more vibrant and interesting to explore. I just find city environments much more fun and interesting than countryside in general. 
 
Having said that though, I still would rather some countryside at least. I would still like to see enough variety for the option of travelling from city to countryside/small towns.  San Andreas did that combination best for me, and what I liked about it still had a number of things to do - you could do the oil tanker missions, the trucking missions, gamble in the betting shop, chase the courier and more. 
 
But for V, as beautifully detailed as it looked, a lot of it was a colossal waste in my eyes - I'd rather have seen a much bigger LS, and with more interiors.

 
I will say one thing though if GTA VI does have countryside I hope it encapsulates the feeling of isolation as good as San Andreas did. In GTA V the countryside often feels a bit too populated. In San Andreas the lack of wildlife actually made it feel more disconnected from civilisation which isn't a bad thing. It just added more atmosphere and creepyness to it.
 
With GTA V no matter where you are on the map you never truly feel alone. San Andreas done a great job in that respect even if the map's not as big. Clever design processes and placement went a long way.

I really wished IV had some countryside. Not in sense of farmland and remote wilderness, but enough to distinguish it from city areas complete with a handful of small towns, similar the suburban towns in the heavily wooded areas seen in real life New Jersey and upstate New York.

 

Despite what I say about countryside being boring and uniteresting I wouldn't have been upset with some in GTA IV. I just prefer cities and have the best memories of them.

 

Maybe we might see Liberty State, The Carraways etc in the future.

  • Official General likes this

DirtCheap
  • DirtCheap

    Cheapskate

  • Members
  • Joined: 15 Dec 2017
  • Antarctica

#49

Posted A week ago

I am actually wondering what a countryside in the State of Liberty would have looked like.


Catskill
  • Catskill

    The artist formerly known as UAL

  • Members
  • Joined: A week ago
  • United-Kingdom

#50

Posted A week ago Edited by Catskill, A week ago.

I am actually wondering what a countryside in the State of Liberty would have looked like.

 

Probably similar to Chilliad state wilderness/Paleto Bay


Hmmm nice bike
  • Hmmm nice bike

    No, my bike!

  • The Yardies
  • Joined: 28 Oct 2006
  • United-States

#51

Posted A week ago Edited by Hmmm nice bike, A week ago.

I am actually wondering what a countryside in the State of Liberty would have looked like.

I think it'd depend on which way they'd want to expand the map to include other parts of the state. If they wanted to go east and connect it to Dukes, then we'd have random suburbs and small towns with fields, small forests and farms inbetween, and then the Carraways (based on the Hamptons) located at the far-end of it. All based on Long Island, or "East Island" as it's probably referred to in the game (the area based on Long Island City in Queens is called "East Island City"). Upstate Liberty, which would connect to Bohan, would also have small towns, farms and forests, but with more mountains. A Niagara Falls replica at the far end of that map would be awesome, too!

  • Official General likes this

ColePhelps
  • ColePhelps

    Phelps Badge 1-2-4-7

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2012
  • Canada

#52

Posted 6 days ago

San Andreas did it the best for me, driving from Los Santos to SF felt like a trip and a half whichever way you took it and you always felt away from civilization other than the small towns in between. 

V the countryside felt like a waste of space, the prison, cannibal camp, mt chiliad, paleto and the rest of the mountains were just practically useless.. would have rather had a larger city with enterable interiors

  • Lioshenka, Official General, Emmi and 1 other like this

.Smaher.
  • .Smaher.

    Mr. Triangle Man

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Sep 2015
  • United-States

#53

Posted 6 days ago

Its not a waste if there was a town at the top of the map. Not a city, but if theres something there at all, then it cant be a waste.

ColePhelps
  • ColePhelps

    Phelps Badge 1-2-4-7

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2012
  • Canada

#54

Posted 6 days ago

There was literally 1 mission in paleto and nothing else, waste of space as far as i'm concerned 

  • Lioshenka and Official General like this

Hmmm nice bike
  • Hmmm nice bike

    No, my bike!

  • The Yardies
  • Joined: 28 Oct 2006
  • United-States

#55

Posted 6 days ago Edited by Hmmm nice bike, 6 days ago.

It also felt like there was no real reason to even venture out there. The countryside felt kind of half-assed. And even though SA's countryside was smaller, you felt way more isolated and it felt like it took longer to get places. In V, you're always near civilization no matter what. There's always random houses, warehouses, stores, roads passing through, etc.

 

I also think the placement of the desert was beyond weird. It's a small desert that happens to be surrounded by non-desert mountains and grasslands? In real life, the area that Sandy Shores is based on is located southeast of Los Angeles. In fact, it's much closer to San Diego than LA. Along the coastline is where you get lush vegetation and stuff like that, and then east when you get closer to Arizona is the desert.

  • Lioshenka, ColePhelps and Catskill like this




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users