Jump to content

Newb Question: What was the biggest map so far?


Recommended Posts

SA's map without question is the biggest with GTA IV's in 2nd, but there's always been debate over GTA III's LC, and VC.

 

Alot of people think LC in GTA III is bigger, because it has 3 main islands instead of 2 like in VC, but I reckon the smaller islands in VC like Starfish Island, Prawn Island, and Leaf Links get overlooked.

 

 

 

Narcis_speed6
San Andreas has allot of empty space, in IV everything is covered by some details.
Finn 7 five 11

In sheer size SA is the largest, but IV is obviously much more detailed, so if it came down to content within the map IV would be the largest.

 

then it is III or vice city, i would go for GTA III personally.

 

you decide:

Vice City - http://www.thegtaplace.com/images/vicecity...ce-city-map.png

 

III - http://faqsmedia.ign.com/faqs/image/mdean7...ap_20060102.jpg

 

BY the way, does it really matter? couldn't you have worked this out on your own? Have you even played GTA?

 

In sheer size SA is the largest, but IV is obviously much more detailed, so if it came down to content within the map IV would be the largest.

 

then it is III or vice city, i would go for GTA III personally.

 

you decide:

Vice City - http://www.thegtaplace.com/images/vicecity...ce-city-map.png

 

III - http://faqsmedia.ign.com/faqs/image/mdean7...ap_20060102.jpg

 

BY the way, does it really matter? couldn't you have worked this out on your own? Have you even played GTA?

I'm still going with VC.

 

IMO GTA III's LC gives off the impression that it's bigger, because the islands are fatter whereas VC's are narrow.

 

I reckon if Downtown was a separate island to the dock/airport area the general mass of VC would be much clearer.

 

If Staunton Island, and Portland were just one island I don't believe it would be that much bigger than VC's east island in physical mass. Shoreside Vale is tiny. So yeah I've always believed VC is the bigger map (If only slightly) despite only having 2 main islands instead of 3.

Edited by Miamivicecity
The Lolwut Pear
San Andreas has allot of empty space, in IV everything is covered by some details.

Exactly.

I always got lost in the plain empty space of the desert because there were no landmarks I could look out for.

Long Haired Freaky Guy
Well yeah in size SA beats all of them.

 

But if you are talking about the attention to detail then Red Dead Redemption beats all the other GTA games out there.

 

Honestly details are waaaay more important than size.

FFS, what the f*ck does RDR have to do with GTA? Seriously, it's boring now, a company release two games and suddenly they get compared to hell.

 

And yeah, IV had the least empty space, but it was filled with building after building after building....I'd rather have open, varied space then the same thing covering the whole map.

SA was obviously the biggest. But in terms of detail vs. space, I think detail is very important, and SA failed numerous times in this aspect. However, I do want to see some open, unoccupied space somewhere. I don't like being packed into a city, and the open feeling in SA was, IMO, very enjoyable. We can still have space and detail, right?

Long Haired Freaky Guy
We can still have space and detail, right?

Yeah.. but more detail than space is preferable to a lot of people.

And that's where scenery comes in. Open space doesn't neccesarily mean having nothing there, just means not packed with buildings or the same thing all over. SA had deserts with Motels and that dotted around it, and forests everywhere, yet you would still class them as open space.

CryptReaperDorian
We can still have space and detail, right?

Yeah.. but more detail than space is preferable to a lot of people.

And that's where scenery comes in. Open space doesn't neccesarily mean having nothing there, just means not packed with buildings or the same thing all over. SA had deserts with Motels and that dotted around it, and forests everywhere, yet you would still class them as open space.

I'd say I agree with this. Open space doesn't always mean wasted space. I'd say having too many buildings causes wasted space. If some of buildings were removed in GTA IV, then we would have plenty more spaces to drive and such. The countryside and desert in GTA SA didn't waste space as they allowed for less constraints to the player.

 

Also, people should stop confusing detail with graphics. GTA SA was full of detail. Does anybody remember the sign on top of the Gant Bridge (Golden Gate Bridge)? That's a detail! Variation in colors, not graphics, also determines detail. GTA SA was full of different colors, but GTA IV was basically gray and brown. I wouldn't call GTA SA or GTA IV any more detailed than each other.

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • 0 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 0 Guests

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.