GTA: island or Mainland

[drscot]

The next game could be joined to the mainland by just having a freeway and a load of trees going for ever.

 

NOT MY IDEA!!

 

Just posting for a friend.

 

 

EDIT: typo in the question is ment to say Mainland

[SilentSeas]

I voted yes. I liked how the III era LC was connected to the outside world rather being a couple of islands in the middle of a vast ocean with nothing else in sight.

[Nova69_7]

Agreed O2fishera, according to RockStar, America is nothing more than a series of island cities thousands of miles apart from each other.

 

I think the idea of being able to go miles and miles away from the city should be restricted like it was in III and Vice. There's no need to go that far so there should be like an invisible restriction stopping you from straying too far away from the setting of the game. They could easily implement that idea over land so we could SEE the other land that isn't the city but not be able to access it. That could work I'm sure.

[RomanViking]

I'd prefer the connection to the outside world too.

 

They always do islands tho, so they can allow the player to go wherever.

 

 

I would really like a more traditional play area with some restrictions tho. For example, when you drive around London in The Getaway it's very immersive even if there are boundaries.

 

 

You can't get in a helicopter and fly freely, but as a result the game makers can make individual areas feel more real while you're there.

 

The illusion of being in a real city, Liberty City, is quickly broken when you fly overhead in a heli and see virtually no traffic below you.

 

 

Another example is when you speed down the street in Liberty City, and you often go awhile without seeing any traffic or people --- I think it's because the game has to load buildings and other stuff that's miles away.. While in The Getaway it's only loading what specific street you're on --- so the engine can render way more traffic.

 

 

 

 

In conclusion, I think that a more restrictive world would mean the developers could make your immediate surrounding more detailed, and with more vibrancy (traffic/pedestrians). The illusion of being in a city could be much more real, if they stopped trying to make it so pointlessly open.

 

 

GTA tries to render too many things on such a large scale, that you end up with desolate highways and horrible pop-up.

 

 

It's like Rockstar Games never learned any game development tricks, or the art of illusion. Rockstar just went all out and tried to make it completely real and complete, but the processing power doesn't exist for that... So GTA ends up with blurry graphics and 6-7 slow cars slugging down a massive highway interchange

[Lazy Squirrel PT]

Sure, but I wouldn't want to slam my helicopter into a magical invisible wall, so I don't see how they'll do that... But it doesn't really matter, when you're in LC you don't feel like you're in an isolated island hundreds of miles off the mainland, you feel like you're in a normal city. It's like San Andreas, I only ever remembered to look for the ocean about once or twice, and didn't really care too much about it.

[SilentSeas]

 

Agreed O2fishera, according to RockStar, America is nothing more than a series of island cities thousands of miles apart from each other.

 

I think the idea of being able to go miles and miles away from the city should be restricted like it was in III and Vice. There's no need to go that far so there should be like an invisible restriction stopping you from straying too far away from the setting of the game. They could easily implement that idea over land so we could SEE the other land that isn't the city but not be able to access it. That could work I'm sure.

I agree, it could be like on Assassin's Creed II where you can see the countryside for miles around but not have access to all of it.

 

@ Lazy Squirrel - I couldn't stand the fact the IV's LC was so iscolated but I do agree with about SA, but thats because of the sheer size of SA, it had proper inland whereas with IV's LC you were never far from the coast. But thats just my opinion.

Edited March 17, 2010 by 02fishera

[Nova69_7]

Sure, but I wouldn't want to slam my helicopter into a magical invisible wall, so I don't see how they'll do that... But it doesn't really matter, when you're in LC you don't feel like you're in an isolated island hundreds of miles off the mainland, you feel like you're in a normal city. It's like San Andreas, I only ever remembered to look for the ocean about once or twice, and didn't really care too much about it.

Well I wasn't thinking of an invisible wall as such because accidents like the one you've just described are bound to happen. I'm thinking more along the lines of your helicopter or boat automatically gets turned round back toward the city when you reach the boundary.

[drscot]

I voted yes. I liked how the III era LC was connected to the outside world rather being a couple of islands in the middle of a vast ocean with nothing else in sight.

agreed, although i think it would have to be better than shoreside vale, because the GTA 3 Canon's Liberty city map was two small

 

[Guanxi]

I remember the mysterious tunnel to upstate in GTA III/LCS and trying like hell to make it over the shoreside vale hill to the hidden ghost street from the intro cutscene with an upside down flying tank.

 

Ever since R* introduced interiors located within blue hell they seem to have given up all pretence of the gta cities being connected to the real world. The mainland connection was awesome in GTA III because it gave you the illusion that there was something cool to find beyond the game's boundaries. The other island in Vice City was also called mainland but that was just a misnomer.

 

I was also totally blown away by the viewpoints in AC2 thinking how it felt so much more natural than just being surrounded by a sea of endless water. I imagine R* could implement a similar system keeping flying vehicle/physics intact without having to resort to glass walls - simply whereby the 3D panoramic moves further outwards the closer you get towards it - periodically transporting you back several paces within the blink of an eye every so often without you even noticing.

[SilentSeas]

I was also totally blown away by the viewpoints in AC2 thinking how it felt so much more natural than just being surrounded by a sea of endless water. I imagine R* could implement a similar system keeping flying vehicle/physics intact without having to resort to glass walls - simply whereby the 3D panoramic moves further outwards the closer you get towards it - periodically transporting you back several paces within the blink of an eye every so often without you even noticing.

I like your idea, its much better than an endless ocean plus if the next location is half as beautiful as those in ACII, I'd be ecstatic.

[SammiiDoogles]

I'd prefer the connection to the outside world too.

 

They always do islands tho, so they can allow the player to go wherever.

 

 

I would really like a more traditional play area with some restrictions tho. For example, when you drive around London in The Getaway it's very immersive even if there are boundaries.

 

 

You can't get in a helicopter and fly freely, but as a result the game makers can make individual areas feel more real while you're there.

 

The illusion of being in a real city, Liberty City, is quickly broken when you fly overhead in a heli and see virtually no traffic below you.

 

 

Another example is when you speed down the street in Liberty City, and you often go awhile without seeing any traffic or people --- I think it's because the game has to load buildings and other stuff that's miles away.. While in The Getaway it's only loading what specific street you're on --- so the engine can render way more traffic.

 

 

 

 

In conclusion, I think that a more restrictive world would mean the developers could make your immediate surrounding more detailed, and with more vibrancy (traffic/pedestrians). The illusion of being in a city could be much more real, if they stopped trying to make it so pointlessly open.

 

 

GTA tries to render too many things on such a large scale, that you end up with desolate highways and horrible pop-up.

 

 

It's like Rockstar Games never learned any game development tricks, or the art of illusion. Rockstar just went all out and tried to make it completely real and complete, but the processing power doesn't exist for that... So GTA ends up with blurry graphics and 6-7 slow cars slugging down a massive highway interchange

You raise some good points, except IV which you're refferring to is the first GTA on a "next gen" console with a totally new engine. I'm sure they could have spent more time splitting things up so theres none of the stuff you mentioned, but we'd get it a lot later - I'm sure it will improve with future installments.

[Nova69_7]

I remember the mysterious tunnel to upstate in GTA III/LCS and trying like hell to make it over the shoreside vale hill to the hidden ghost street from the intro cutscene with an upside down flying tank.

Hahaha!!! Good Times!

 

I tried making it over that damn hill for ages myself - in the clipped-winged plane from the Airport! (forget what it was called - was it the sparrow or something?) Alas I never did manage it.

 

Assassin's Creed The original totally blew me away with the scenery and how the desert seemed to go on for ever - it was epic and beautiful! As for Assassin's Creed 2 well...

 

I would love for RockStar to implement some sort of similar scenery in the next GTA. Island cities in the middle of the ocean just seem silly after a bit.

[dunbrine47]

I'd go for some sort of mainland illusion. Seriously LC in IV looks OK when you are on the ground, but go somewhere high like base jumping and you see how shrived it is with water surrounding it.

[Algonquin Assassin]

I'm not really for, or against. In GTA IV it didn't feel like the city was an island, because of the depth it had. I would only be reminded every time I looked at the map, or fly above the city.

 

The Assassin's Creed games have seemed to have pull off the "mainland" feeling the best though. If something like that was added I wouldn't mind.

[krashdown]

I think it should still be an island but there should also be a little bit of country side, if it was joined it will just become too complicated with excuses why we cannot go past a certain point

Edited March 19, 2010 by krashdown

[Cheat]

I'm not gonna vote on this, but hell yeah I'm going to post.

 

It could be difficult for R*, I mean it could turn out like a Kirke mansion without the wardrobe, but if it would be made well enough (like forest created the way IV's ocean) I'd prefer that.

Just imagine a DLC which would replace the trees with a city! That would be awesome.

You kinda get tired of the idea in IV having an endless ocean right west to New Jersey.

 

But to the actual question, I don't mind if it's an island or mainland, just that it bases on the city. I mean if it's based on Madagascar then it shall be an island but if it takes place on Sipery then it's mainland. Of course.