Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Smaller map with more useful parts or Bigger map with more useless parts?

9 replies to this topic

Poll: Map size vs. Map content (22 member(s) have cast votes)

Would you rather have a larger, but less detailed map or a smaller, but more detailed map?

  1. A larger map (Larger than V's San Andreas) with less details (4 votes [18.18%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 18.18%

  2. A smaller map (About the size of IV's Liberty City) with more details (7 votes [31.82%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 31.82%

  3. A balance (Slightly smaller than V) with moderate amount of details (11 votes [50.00%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 50.00%

Vote Guests cannot vote
DOUGL4S1
  • DOUGL4S1

    Ghetto Star

  • Facade Corporation
  • Joined: 06 Dec 2016
  • Brazil

#1

Posted 2 weeks ago Edited by DOUGL4S1, 2 weeks ago.

Don't know if there's a topic for this already, so mods, feel free to move or lock this discussion.

 

Lurking around YouTube, I recently found a video talking about a game called Deus Ex: Mankind Divided, specially about its open-world design that seem to go on the opposite way game worlds are heading. That game's world is smaller, taking place in just a few blocks of Prague, but the world seems so detailed and every inch of the map seems carefully crafted, while we have games with huge worlds, but most of it just feels empty and useless.

 

Then I went to this section, I realized that people always want more in terms of map size and in map content, they want more enterable buildings on a map 3x larger than GTA V's, but this not only might not be possible on current hardware, but will make a problem that was already present in GTA V even bigger: parts of the map will be practically useless in terms of missions and story. This creates a problem since most of the game will be spent travelling, which can make a boring map even more boring.

 

Let's take the classic comparasion: GTA IV's Liberty City vs. GTA V's Los Santos. Sure, Los Santos is more detailed, but it had more development time, came when Rockstar had more employees, it was remastered twice and still it is often criticized for its largely useless mountain areas and lack of enterable places, while Liberty City was made in about half of the time, a percentage of the budget, has only been changed in EFLC and is still considered one of the best GTA maps because of its ambientation and usage, similar story with other, even smaller maps like Vice City. Most of the times you won't need to drive half of the map to get somewhere, and even if you do, it won't take you 15 minutes.

 

My question is: Would you sacrifice map size for ambientation and environmental detail? In other words, would you rather drive 2 minutes through a well-crafted and very detailed map or 20 minutes through a map that is not as detailed? Or would you like a healthy balance?


Jdogg4089
  • Jdogg4089

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 09 Aug 2017
  • United-States

#2

Posted 2 weeks ago

I want a san andreas styled map. The map felt the best to no. Like a remastered map to the size of the one that was supposed to be on GTA 5. It needs to be released on ps5 on Xbox GT so we can get good graphics and framerate an4xsaa because current console graphics have a lot of aa. I'd love it to have 1080p 60fps, which I know will be possible if the ps5 doubles the power of the PS4 pro like it more than doubled power of PS4.
  • Lioshenka and Am Shaegar like this

Am Shaegar
  • Am Shaegar

    Chartered Accountant

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Aug 2017
  • None

#3

Posted 2 weeks ago

hmm.. ? ! ?

You can have detailed maps that are big, and still able to notice a lot of useful content in them.

Comparing DX with JC3, and then bringing V into it, makes little sense to me. All three games maps have a different purpose to serve, which decides their style of gameplay to provide details, content and everything else needed to make the map "useful". Since DX world mostly consists of shooting, stealth, etc and no pedestrians walking around, or driving number if cars, etc., the developers will focus on crafting a world that suits the melds the setting and the theme.
Same goes for JC3. It doesn't need interiors, or a living breathing vibe, more than a playground to cause mayhem.

Rockstar's open world's in GTA are different. There's a LOT of things to consider here, from thorough reasearch of the city, the lives of the citizens, to every other detail that goes into making the game world feel alive and believable. DX and JC3 don't even come close to what goes into making GTA maps.

I prefer SA (2004) map size. It wasn't too big, nor too small. It wasn't just a bland, boring concrete jungle either, but had so much variety, plus large amounts of content with player agency to an unprecedented degree.
  • Lioshenka likes this

DOUGL4S1
  • DOUGL4S1

    Ghetto Star

  • Facade Corporation
  • Joined: 06 Dec 2016
  • Brazil

#4

Posted 2 weeks ago

hmm.. ? ! ?

You can have detailed maps that are big, and still able to notice a lot of useful content in them.

Comparing DX with JC3, and then bringing V into it, makes little sense to me. All three games maps have a different purpose to serve, which decides their style of gameplay to provide details, content and everything else needed to make the map "useful". Since DX world mostly consists of shooting, stealth, etc and no pedestrians walking around, or driving number if cars, etc., the developers will focus on crafting a world that suits the melds the setting and the theme.
Same goes for JC3. It doesn't need interiors, or a living breathing vibe, more than a playground to cause mayhem.

Rockstar's open world's in GTA are different. There's a LOT of things to consider here, from thorough reasearch of the city, the lives of the citizens, to every other detail that goes into making the game world feel alive and believable. DX and JC3 don't even come close to what goes into making GTA maps.

I prefer SA (2004) map size. It wasn't too big, nor too small. It wasn't just a bland, boring concrete jungle either, but had so much variety, plus large amounts of content with player agency to an unprecedented degree.

Sorry if OP is a bit confusing.

 

This thread should've been to prove that you don't need a huge map for a GTA game. People in here say they want maps over 4x larger than GTA V, which I don't think it's necessary, as parts of it would be neglected. I only brought up those games as examples, not to prove GTA maps are different than JC3's for this and that. More like GTA doesn't need a map the size of JC3's as it wouldn't be needed, so I'd rather have a compact map where resources are focused on detail and gameplay.


Journey_95
  • Journey_95

    Gangsta

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 Jul 2012
  • None

#5

Posted 2 weeks ago Edited by Journey_95, 2 weeks ago.

Would definitely prefer the GTA IV way, quality over quantity. The city was bigger and felt more alive than GTA V's LS which was too small and the countryside was way too big and just kind of useless. SA's approach wasn't good either, only LS was memorable. 

  • Algonquin Assassin likes this

Gummy 
  • Gummy 

    F*ck thyself

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Dec 2012
  • United-Kingdom

#6

Posted 2 weeks ago

Prawn Island size with an absurd amount of details please. 

  • Lioshenka, jaljax and DOUGL4S1 like this

Aquamaniac
  • Aquamaniac

    Crackhead

  • Members
  • Joined: 30 Nov 2017
  • Germany

#7

Posted A week ago

Bigger is better, it is kind of pointless cruising around when the map is too small or only metropolitan area, after I played through IV I totally lost any interest in the game, V I play over and over again or just cruising around.

 

The countryside in V is not useless, it adds to the general scenery.

 

I think the game should have both, a large city that really feels like a metropolitan area and a huge countryside, with villages in between.

  • killdrivetheftvehicle, CGFforLife and Am Shaegar like this

killdrivetheftvehicle
  • killdrivetheftvehicle

    GTA Enthusiast

  • Members
  • Joined: 24 Aug 2010
  • Finland

#8

Posted A week ago

I don't beleive that making a game as detailed as V, only bigger is impossible. And GTA is a driving game, you just need to have a big map. Deus ex is just an on-foot game, so making the map huge would make it unbareable if there would be no way to travel faster. I don't like JC3, because it's just feels so stupid and unrealistic to me. And remember: What's the point of having planes, if you just fly around in circles without a destination? I love planes and flying, and carjacking and driving on windy roads. You just have to have a huge map for that. San Andreas is a good game, however HD size would render it bigger than V.


Gettin up
  • Gettin up

    Thug

  • Members
  • Joined: 23 Aug 2011
  • Finland

#9

Posted 14 hours ago

Bigger map with more useful parts.

  • killdrivetheftvehicle likes this

Algonquin Assassin
  • Algonquin Assassin

    We're all looking for that special someone

  • Members
  • 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

#10

Posted 13 hours ago

GTA IV has a good sized map packed with plenty of detail so I wouldn't mind a similar sized map again (If it's a metro area). I don't want a huge map with parts that are barely utilised and/or give very little incentive to explore.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users