Zoom7000 Posted January 24, 2007 Share Posted January 24, 2007 I've just started playing GTA:SA again and recently played VC through. Maybe I didn't play it thoroughly enough, but I just found that city in SA and VC were a bit too big. Sure they were fun to explore, however, in terms of gameplay maybe they were too big in comparison to LC? I played GTA3 to 100% completion and knew LC like the back of my hand. However, I always seem to find myself having to consult the GPS radar when playing SA and VC. Did anyone else feel that the cities were too big? Or is it easier once you've done 100%? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjimino234 Posted January 24, 2007 Share Posted January 24, 2007 i agree there BIG SA is 4 times bigger than VC and 5 thimes bigger than LC but i don't think it's a bad thing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MMFF Posted January 24, 2007 Share Posted January 24, 2007 I am hopeing for GTA4 to be bigger than SA. Vice was small for me. If you play a lot, you can memorize any size. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin Posted January 24, 2007 Share Posted January 24, 2007 SA is too big for my liking, but it's all personal taste. I spent something like sixty hours on SA to finish the story-line missions and muck around in some spare time. I haven't played it since finishing it. Vice however is/was perfect for me. I love the game, and because of that I was able to learn its map, back-alleys, etc. - as you said - like the back of my hand. Same is probably true for you and III. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fear Factor Posted January 24, 2007 Share Posted January 24, 2007 SA is too big for my liking, but it's all personal taste. I spent something like sixty hours on SA to finish the story-line missions and muck around in some spare time. I haven't played it since finishing it. Vice however is/was perfect for me. I love the game, and because of that I was able to learn its map, back-alleys, etc. - as you said - like the back of my hand. Same is probably true for you and III. I 100% Agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rashon. Posted January 24, 2007 Share Posted January 24, 2007 I agree with Fuzzy Juzzy. San Andreas was overwhelmingly too big and I can't imagine how the topic starter believes Vice City's too big. Vice City was big, not as big as San Andreas, but it was the perfect size for a GTA game of this trilogy. Liberty City is way too small. I've heard Liberty City's half the size of Vice City and San Andreas is 3 times bigger than Vice City so San Andreas must be 6 Liberty Cities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fear Factor Posted January 24, 2007 Share Posted January 24, 2007 I agree with Fuzzy Juzzy. San Andreas was overwhelmingly too big and I can't imagine how the topic starter believes Vice City's too big. Vice City was big, not as big as San Andreas, but it was the perfect size for a GTA game of this trilogy. Liberty City is way too small. I've heard Liberty City's half the size of Vice City and San Andreas is 3 times bigger than Vice City so San Andreas must be 6 Liberty Cities. Lol. San Andreas and Vice City are two very different games according to the theme. Though, each game has it's own qualities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MMFF Posted January 24, 2007 Share Posted January 24, 2007 I think they were all good sized for their time. No one was saying Liberty was too small when it was new. Now people think it was too small because we have gotten used to bigger maps. As far as Vice goes, I didn't like that half of one island was a useless beach. That was a lot of dead space. I also think that Rockstar can't ever go smaller than they did before. People will be all negative about it. Probably say they got lazy if that happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fear Factor Posted January 24, 2007 Share Posted January 24, 2007 True... But I'm not like that... Whatever R* does, I'm fine with, because they've already given us the Best series in history. |-.Grand Theft Auto.-| Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vert Posted January 24, 2007 Share Posted January 24, 2007 san andreas being large is more realistic, the world is not a tiny place, even the fact you have to fly over seas to get to liberty, is realistic. gone are the days of invisible walls and barriers. it is a good time for gamers., aswell as the enphasise on aircraft who would want to fly a jet around a tiny island? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjimino234 Posted January 24, 2007 Share Posted January 24, 2007 I agree with vert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fear Factor Posted January 24, 2007 Share Posted January 24, 2007 Yeah, are very realistic, in fact, little things like going to gym, eating, water level rising, and other great things make it fun. Though, sometimes it does get annoying, but no matter what, SA has it's own qualities in it's own ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GTA_Loco Posted January 24, 2007 Share Posted January 24, 2007 Bigger is still better, both in terms of playing field and tasks to accomplish. Hopefully, that's what R* would everytime consider for their games, GTA or otherwise. Zoom, you were just somewhat overwhelmed by the size of SA and VC after having played GTA3. It's quite normal I think. But once you familiarize yourself to every single aspect of the games, place wise and the enormous amount of tasks you can do, you might even think that there weren't enough of them. It's fun in a way to experience in a game how much enormous are the things that you have to do to beat the game, inclusive of how big is the place where you have to move around to accomplish them. This experience can be made more exciting though if there'll be more control of and interaction to the environment like what SA offered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoom7000 Posted January 24, 2007 Author Share Posted January 24, 2007 I agree with Fuzzy Juzzy. San Andreas was overwhelmingly too big and I can't imagine how the topic starter believes Vice City's too big. Vice City was big, not as big as San Andreas, but it was the perfect size for a GTA game of this trilogy. Liberty City is way too small. I've heard Liberty City's half the size of Vice City and San Andreas is 3 times bigger than Vice City so San Andreas must be 6 Liberty Cities. I never said that Liberty City was a perfect size. Infact, I enjoyed GTA3 the most of all 3 games but I really wished that Liberty City was much bigger! What I didn't like about SA was the fact that sometimes you had to drive from one side of the map to another for a mission. Like VC though SA too had a lot of dead space. I really didn't like the mountainous regions and driving on those horrible roads in the "Wu Zi Mu" and "Farewell, My Love" missions! I guess the thing I liked about Liberty City was that there was not too much dead space. Still though, having said all that, SA and VC are still both very enjoyable games! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lioshenka Posted January 24, 2007 Share Posted January 24, 2007 vice city was small stupid town with straight roads. LC had great web of road in Shoreside vale, i still cant remember them. Sa Is too small, i memorized everything, but it took me 1 and a half year to do it. GTA3 maybe was smaller than vc (i doubt) but the planning was so great, that it increased the size. in VS there are only 2 islands (means you will explore them faster because they will be opened sooner). Sa is like a mixture, it is small, but the rural roads are quite complicated. And no way yo can say GTAs are too big. Not until now anyway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeanMcC Posted January 24, 2007 Share Posted January 24, 2007 The state of San Andreas was big enough for me. I love that you really have to travel to get to places in the game. Hell, it certainly justified including the Shamal and the Hydra in the game, didn't it? Vice City was too small IMO. GTA IV must be big too! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ottae Posted January 24, 2007 Share Posted January 24, 2007 I think the size of SA was fine, it all seemed more real to me. If you were exploring a new city, you'd need a map to get around and eventually, like real life, you'd find your way around. I don't like to feel contricted with the game and the bigger the better. It makes me feel like there's more to do, more to explore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FelipeVinhao Posted January 24, 2007 Share Posted January 24, 2007 Comparing Liberty to Vice, I always had the feeling that Liberty was bigger, because it has many alternative roads. Vice is narrow, and you're obligated to use the same roads all the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lioshenka Posted January 24, 2007 Share Posted January 24, 2007 Comparing Liberty to Vice, I always had the feeling that Liberty was bigger, because it has many alternative roads. Vice is narrow, and you're obligated to use the same roads all the time. thats right, but there isa GTA LC mod for vice with a map in it, so you can actually see that LC is slightly bigger than VC, and there are no open spaces like huge but useless beach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FelipeVinhao Posted January 24, 2007 Share Posted January 24, 2007 Comparing Liberty to Vice, I always had the feeling that Liberty was bigger, because it has many alternative roads. Vice is narrow, and you're obligated to use the same roads all the time. thats right, but there isa GTA LC mod for vice with a map in it, so you can actually see that LC is slightly bigger than VC, and there are no open spaces like huge but useless beach. Yes that's right, and one of the things I didn't like very much on Vice, although is a nice game overall. But San Andreas is my favorite GTA scenario. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rashon. Posted January 24, 2007 Share Posted January 24, 2007 (edited) Well, what would you expect? It's Vice City. There's supposed to be a beach. If there wasn't one, then it'd actually be weird for me. Vice City is bigger in landmass than Liberty City but there's a greater chance you'll get lost in Liberty City because you might think the roads lead someone when they actually lead somewhere else and it takes minutes to get back where you were. I hated that. San Andreas and Vice City was better to navigate in. If you play the game long enough, you'll memorize all or most of the roads you've been on. I think people assume Liberty City is bigger than Vice City is because the distance east to west of Liberty City is clearly bigger if you drive yourself but in Vice City, there's obviously a bigger distance from north to south. I mean, come on, the distance of Ocean Drive north to south is like the size of Portland north to south. Edit: Also why would Rockstar make their second major GTA (Vice City) with a city smaller than their previous one (GTA3)? Edited January 24, 2007 by rashon125 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lioshenka Posted January 24, 2007 Share Posted January 24, 2007 Edit: Also why would Rockstar make their second major GTA (Vice City) with a city smaller than their previous one (GTA3)? that' the question, mate! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manofpeace Posted January 24, 2007 Share Posted January 24, 2007 In my opinion, LC was kind of like the real New York. VC was undiniably easy to get through, and SA was perfectly challenging to find my way through farmland and streets alike. DRIVE CARFULLY TO SEE HOW HORRIBLE EVERYONE ELSE IS AT DRIVING!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graugboy Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 I found Vice City to be to small but san andreas was just right, if it's bigger in GTA 4, i will literally sh*t my pants!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brutuz Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 I've just started playing GTA:SA again and recently played VC through. Maybe I didn't play it thoroughly enough, but I just found that city in SA and VC were a bit too big. Sure they were fun to explore, however, in terms of gameplay maybe they were too big in comparison to LC? I played GTA3 to 100% completion and knew LC like the back of my hand. However, I always seem to find myself having to consult the GPS radar when playing SA and VC. Did anyone else feel that the cities were too big? Or is it easier once you've done 100%? VC and LC were around the same size, just so you know They were all good for me, I memorized all of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MMFF Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 If I went back now to SA or VC, I would be a little lost because I haven't played in a while. But I will always know liberty! Always! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fear Factor Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 San Andreas = Perfect Size. Vice City = A Bit Small. Liberty = Too Easy. PERIOD! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjimino234 Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 agree! but i wanted the desert to be bigger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fear Factor Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 Actually, I would prefer the City's over the forest's and desert's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoom7000 Posted January 26, 2007 Author Share Posted January 26, 2007 Yeah, another bonus that LC had as opposed to SA, in particular, was that you had 3 cities, no deserts, beaches or countryside, whereas with SA you had masses of countryside, much of which was either deadspace or useless mountains. Albeit it is more realistic, I'd rather have more fun exploring cities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now