SA and VC Too Big?

[Benjimino234]

well r* did the country side and desert to split the three cities better than just putting the ocean in

[FelipeVinhao]

 

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.

Vice, once it's Miami, must have beaches. The problem is that was a pain in the ass having beaches and having no beach activities, like swimming, jetskis... let's say thay corrected what was wrong releasing GTAVCS.

 

 

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.

Well, I kinda memorized SA. I just check the radar if I need to go somewhere in the countryside. But LS, SF and LV were very clear.

[Lioshenka]

 

I hardly remembered GTA3 road, thanks to both that the map wasn’t present and that the road web was complicated and interesting to drive around. GTA VC was IMHO crap, huge and useless beach with nothing to do on it, lots of water everywhere and no back yards to explore stuff. Again, huge lawn next to sunshine autos with no grass on it. SA was good. Though I did not explore cities, I still know quite well how to get anywhere in LS – because I ve been many times on verdant bluffs and therefore remembered the roads, I loved SF and know it very well too, LV is boring and not interesting, I still remember where I need to go, but I did not memorize fences and stuff, though I know the direction. Desert seems too small after 1.5 yrs playing, same do the woods. But at first glance they were great, and all those small rural town are great and those sandy roads in panopticon and in desert look so realistic. Basically, I know any place in Sa… But sometimes find some details I did not know about. I know VC and it makes me sick. I don’t know LC and that’s why I think its great.

 

[Rashon.]

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.

Liberty City had 3 islands, not cities. The 3 islands make up Liberty City. San Andreas had 3 cities which made up the state/county of San Andreas.

 

@˸øåíüêà: So you're saying you like Liberty City better just because you barely know the roads?

[Stene]

SA needed more forest and desert. There was just too many roads around. No actual forest, some trees + roads everywhere. There was no place where you were able to see only forest, there was always road somewhere.

 

Desert was also kinda like it, and there should've been more desert, there was just Area 69 and cliffs with ROADS and villages around.

 

 

[MMFF]

SA needed more forest and desert. There was just too many roads around. No actual forest, some trees + roads everywhere. There was no place where you were able to see only forest, there was always road somewhere.

 

Desert was also kinda like it, and there should've been more desert, there was just Area 69 and cliffs with ROADS and villages around.

I see what you are saying, but the roads were good so you wouldn't get lost. There was always a road. Of coarse why not just open the map and head towards a road, but I wouldn't mind what you are saying.

[Tommy's right-hand man]

San Andreas: Sucks

 

Vice City: Badass

 

Liberty City: Still Cool

[monkeyman237]

For me, the bigger the better.

 

I've been playing SA for a long time now and I could tell where I am from most places (except the impossible, lol).

 

If the game is bigger it means that there is much more places to explore, kinda like when you go on holiday. You can never run out of places to see and things to do.

 

Hell, I wouldn't mind is GTA:IV was a whole world to explore, and you could go to China, USA, UK, Africa, even Antartica.

 

Or even get a space shuttle and go to the moon. That would be cool. Playing SA for the first time was amazing, I could actually lose myself in the game. But now imagine if you could get that same buzz every time you play the game, finding new places to explore every time.

 

I really liked III, VC and SA in their own ways. But now I couldn't imagine going back to small size again. Not after my new expectation of GTA:IV.

 

[Fear Factor]

Exactlyyyyyyy.....

 

I know the map pretty well, and the roads pretty well, but no so much, I don't really explore alot.

 

But yeah, There should have been a forest just by itself, Or desert by itself, then you can do drifts and do glitches and other cool stuff and you won't have to worry about things around you.

 

San Andreas = Awesome

Vice City = Awesome

Liberty City = Awesome

 

Period.

[Rashon.]

SA needed more forest and desert. There was just too many roads around. No actual forest, some trees + roads everywhere. There was no place where you were able to see only forest, there was always road somewhere.

 

Desert was also kinda like it, and there should've been more desert, there was just Area 69 and cliffs with ROADS and villages around.

I didn't like the countryside. There's enough countryside and there's a lot of desert but probably not enough.

[Fear Factor]

Yeah, But in the desert there were stuff like trees and rocks in the way, threre should be one without anything except for sand and that's it.

 

But i like three 3 cities better anyway. I hate the countryside.

[segvirion]

Hell, I wouldn't mind is GTA:IV was a whole world to explore, and you could go to China, USA, UK, Africa, even Antartica. (...) But now imagine if you could get that same buzz every time you play the game, finding new places to explore every time.

 

 

Considering the fact that San Andreas raised the bar for how big an open environment can be, it's only natural that we get something as big as SA (or bigger yet) in GTA IV.

 

But I see some technical difficulties in implementing something that big (a whole country, for instance - let's not forget that SA was merely a state). Therefore, R* could offer episodic content in GTA IV for the players. Kind of like mini-expansion packs with new scenarios and missions, but something that would blend seamlessly with the original content. The only limitation would be how much free space you'd have in your hard disk...

[GTA_Loco]

 

Therefore, R* could offer episodic content in GTA IV for the players. Kind of like mini-expansion packs with new scenarios and missions, but something that would blend seamlessly with the original content.

Somehow I have the feeling that GTAIV might be something like that. Hopefully, just hopefully, it would be like that.

 

I remember MYST(?)and RIVEN having four cds to complete the whole game. Kind of cool to venture that much long in a game although those two games were kind of just still images with few and limited control and explorability.

[HolyGrenadeFrenzy]

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%?

I am afraid of your logic because it could shrink future games . Going backward is a terrible idea. Yes, it is larger than other games but too Big? NO. I after playing it for several years hope with the new Tech stuff that the future games will become even larger and eventually games may interlink and that would mean the rest of a country or even world would be needed to play interstated hustle with a group or on a ship or truck transport 4 or more vehicles across country or even to other countries as a in between game for the other games.......Damn It we have to stop at the planetary level for probrably at least a hundred years but eventually.. .

 

Get the picture. Tooo Big...YOU must be kidding!

 

Yes it does get easier and besides the extra space and Easter Eggs and even the Glitches is often what makes it fun......Just avoid the Basketball Glitch and stuff and you will be fine.

[Fear Factor]

Just avoid the Basketball Glitch and stuff and you will be fine.

Which basketball glitch ?

 

The one when you save at Madd Dogg's Mansion and the balls dissapear ?

[allegro man]

I think the bigger the better, i've memorised sa and now its not big enough, hopefully gta4 will be double sa lol

[HolyGrenadeFrenzy]

Just avoid the Basketball Glitch and stuff and you will be fine.

Which basketball glitch ?

 

The one when you save at Madd Dogg's Mansion and the balls dissapear ?

yep! That's the one WE HATE!

[-/TNT\-]

Just avoid the Basketball Glitch and stuff and you will be fine.

Which basketball glitch ?

 

The one when you save at Madd Dogg's Mansion and the balls dissapear ?

yep! That's the one WE HATE!

There is a fix for it though, so no sweat.

[Fear Factor]

Oh, Ok...

 

So what's the fix ?

 

I accidently saved at his Mansion!

[HolyGrenadeFrenzy]

In here and I don't remember how many pages in http://www.gtaforums.com/index.php?showtopic=159320

[Smallo]

i know my way around off by heart for every single gta. Excluding Gta1 and Gta2. its not that hard.

[gamergirl011]

I feel that VC was just the right size while SA was huge.

 

I however feel like the only one that prefers LS to be such a huge map because then i never get tired of it. I'm actually at the point where you can drop me anywhere in that map and I'll find my way back to wherever I need to go.

[soldier203]

sa felt a little bit too much but i really enjoyed the big map. vc in the other hand felt great, maybe a little bit too small but still great.

[ATK]

LC was small and so was VC.(VC was about 2x larger than LC with alot of beach taking space.) SA was extremely huge with alot of sort of usles space in the Badlands and desert. But I still have slight problems remembering certain roads throughout all of the cites.