Big or Small

[LateForTheSky]

While we all love IV's large city with fully operating public transport and different types of neighbourhood, would you not rather compremise and have a small city with more in it? Example, all the shops in LC were just images put on to a big block. Would it not be more fun if all the buildings were actual buildings? Driving a sports car through the front doors of tesco with lots of smashing glass and alarms could be fun. Also the buildings could be more interactive. I'd like to free run across rooftops with a kick ass control system. What about buying furnature in a store for ur safehouse? What about extortion? What about robbing somewhere at night? Of course this doesn't just apply to shops, residential areas could be the same. Along side our fantastic transport system, we could have sewers that you could drive in Italian Job style. If this could be achieved then I think GTA will become more real. Even in big LC, you don't feel free with all those locked doors.

Some may argue that we will lose our different types of neighbourhood, especially those who liked San Andreas with its country scape and city life but all I'm suggesting is that we condense it. City and county could be divided by a mile of water to make it seem more real. Aslong as the city becomes more detailed and interactive.

[Sckarface]

Yes i agree, having a big city doesn't mean anything if you don't have nothing to do in it. A small city with a LOT of interiors will be much better and fun to explore.

[General Goose]

Meh. Why not both?

 

Anyway, I don't think that there will be a point in having every building explorable. Most sure, but with current technology I'm sure very sure we'll be having both. I prefer more variety in the neighbourhoods, more places to have shootouts, more places to have car chases. So, I'd say big. The maps of III and VC to me felt too small.

[LateForTheSky]

Meh. Why not both?

 

Anyway, I don't think that there will be a point in having every building explorable. Most sure, but with current technology I'm sure very sure we'll be having both. I prefer more variety in the neighbourhoods, more places to have shootouts, more places to have car chases. So, I'd say big. The maps of III and VC to me felt too small.

I can see ur point but current tech doesn't allow for this and in IV with all the different types of area. It still got boring/

[G#O$TR!D3R - 133457]

Meh. Why not both?

 

Anyway, I don't think that there will be a point in having every building explorable. Most sure, but with current technology I'm sure very sure we'll be having both. I prefer more variety in the neighbourhoods, more places to have shootouts, more places to have car chases. So, I'd say big. The maps of III and VC to me felt too small.

I can see ur point but current tech doesn't allow for this and in IV with all the different types of area. It still got boring/

Clearly, you've haven't played through mgs4.

[LateForTheSky]

Meh. Why not both?

 

Anyway, I don't think that there will be a point in having every building explorable. Most sure, but with current technology I'm sure very sure we'll be having both. I prefer more variety in the neighbourhoods, more places to have shootouts, more places to have car chases. So, I'd say big. The maps of III and VC to me felt too small.

I can see ur point but current tech doesn't allow for this and in IV with all the different types of area. It still got boring/

Clearly, you've haven't played through mgs4.

If its so easy then why haven't rockstar done it when they made IV?

[RandomFishPerson]

I prefer big.

 

thinking about it san andreas was my favorite game and it had the biggest map.

also a big map gives the excuse for planes and i missed them in IV

[The_Mario_Man]

Meh. Why not both?

 

Anyway, I don't think that there will be a point in having every building explorable. Most sure, but with current technology I'm sure very sure we'll be having both. I prefer more variety in the neighbourhoods, more places to have shootouts, more places to have car chases. So, I'd say big. The maps of III and VC to me felt too small.

I can see ur point but current tech doesn't allow for this and in IV with all the different types of area. It still got boring/

Clearly, you've haven't played through mgs4.

GTA and Metal Gear Solid are entirely different games. In MGS the game still has to load when you enter a new area. On top of that, none of those areas are very large.

 

In GTA, there's an entire city that they need keep flowing at a smooth pace.

[Aussiedesperado]

why not have abit of both. If u have EVERY building enterable then they will have to make them all look the same. Also if u had everything enterable then it would loose its 'wow' appeal pretty quickly. I think the map should be bigger, but there should be WAY more enterable buildings. And i love the idea of the furniture. Mabey being able to customise ur safe house to what every u want and put everything where ever u want. Now people might say "its not the sims". Well mabey they can ignore the feature and have the borring old default furniture.

[Ryder 556]

My friend likes it big. She told me so.

 

 

Now. Back on topic. I want a big map in GTA V. Not as Big as JC1's map(about 3 times bigger then JC2's map) but something like RDR or JC2. And everything available in RDR. Hunting, gathering herbs to sell to doctors, a sick ass MP, only with more then 16 people, how bout 64?

 

Also I want a destructible environment type thing. Say RFG style, but the buildings get repaired over time. Like you see a work crew building up small buildings like houses and such for about a week. If it's a sky scrapper then not only will destroying it level a whole city block or two but there would be a massive reconstruction process with cranes lasting about 30-40 days in game time. That would just satisfy me. Oh and about the controversies surrounding this kind of idea

 

 

“Games, in general, throughout history have been violent,” said Lund. “Even Chess is a violent game about war you could say, right? Games are a chance to try stuff that you’re not trying in real life, and without having to face the consequences. Every game is like that so that’s nothing new.

 

“I’m not an expert in psychology, but I do think that some of these opinions come from an outside crowd that’s not really used to dealing with games, they just watch it and think ‘Oh, it’s got to be affecting people’. I do think our target audience knows the difference between real life and games”.

 

Furthermore, Lund believes that Kane & Lynch isn’t even as violent as other franchises. “What’s interesting is that it shows a lot less than a game like Gears of War, which is probably the most bloody game and brutal game I’ve ever seen,” he said.

 

“I mean you’re knee deep in blood and gore and nobody seems to notice.”

 

http://www.thatvideogameblog.com/2010/04/0...nch-2-director/

[LateForTheSky]

why not have abit of both. If u have EVERY building enterable then they will have to make them all look the same. Also if u had everything enterable then it would loose its 'wow' appeal pretty quickly. I think the map should be bigger, but there should be WAY more enterable buildings. And i love the idea of the furniture. Mabey being able to customise ur safe house to what every u want and put everything where ever u want. Now people might say "its not the sims". Well mabey they can ignore the feature and have the borring old default furniture.

I completely agree, I dont know why people want to limit things. "It's not neccessary" its not neccessary to travel liberty city by helicopter but i bet they do it. As for the sims thing, the sims is the number one best selling PC game of all time, the formula works. So if it works and can be implemented into GTA then I think it only adds to the gaming experience. As for all the interiors being the same, why not let the player edit the interior of stores. The Sims 3 has a whole neighbourhood of custom houses and building working along side hundreds of playable characters. So it can't be that difficault.

[Matty]

 

Meh. Why not both?

 

Anyway, I don't think that there will be a point in having every building explorable. Most sure, but with current technology I'm sure very sure we'll be having both. I prefer more variety in the neighbourhoods, more places to have shootouts, more places to have car chases. So, I'd say big. The maps of III and VC to me felt too small.

I can see ur point but current tech doesn't allow for this and in IV with all the different types of area. It still got boring/

Clearly, you've haven't played through mgs4.

If its so easy then why haven't rockstar done it when they made IV?

Well, for starters; the people who made Metal Gear Solid 4 are Japanese and we all know that the Japanese are somewhat ahead as far as technology is concerned . Also, a game like Metal Gear Solid 4 has considerably smaller area sizes, so it would be far easier for them to design the scenery and such. A game like GTA IV has a huge area, and to have scenery that is as detailed as Metal Gear Solid 4's ain't gonna happen. At least not yet.

 

As far as map size in the next GTA is concerned, I'd much prefer a big map like GTA IV's as that is really what GTA is about. Having a small map, regardless of how much there is to do people will get bored of it very quick as they'd always be seeing the same scenery over and over again.

Edited April 4, 2010 by DTUMan

[Hove Beach]

Yes i agree, having a big city doesn't mean anything if you don't have nothing to do in it. A small city with a LOT of interiors will be much better and fun to explore.

I partually agree,since I think the size makes it feel like a city, if you could've entered every single building in IV algonquin would've been less than have the size probably!! And Algonquin was already kind of small...

 

Sure I'm disappointed that you couldn't enter more buildings, but size goes first no doubt, because otherwise it's not a living city.

 

 

[Algonquin Assassin]

I've said this before, but if there was a map the size of Vice City with every building having its own unique interior I wouldn't mind it.

 

It's not the size that counts, it's how you use it.

 

In saying that R* should take a page out of JC2's book. Now there's an enormous map with plenty of detail, and variety in the environments.

Edited April 4, 2010 by Miamivicecity