Huge maps and good graphics are NOT impossible...

[allhailkingryan]

In this post I will mainly be using Just Cause 2 as an example:

 

The map is 400sq miles in JC2. That is possible possible in GTA5. I know the map doesn't have the finesse and detail of GTA, but that is mainly down to development rather than tehnical limitations.

 

But if we have a big map, the graphics will suffer, won't they? Probably not. In JC2, the game looks better than GTA IV, and the draw distance is far greater than GTA.

 

What about the frame rate? This is a hard issue to comment on, as R* games tend to have sub-par framerates, as compared to other devs. In JC2, the frame rate is smooth. However, comparing GTA's frame rate to JC2 is irrelavent, as each dev uses different form of compression. And not to mention that GTA5 will be packed full of content that uses up RAM.

 

What about pop-in? Pop-in is a huge issue in GTA4 when going fast. In Just Cause 2, there is little pop in when flying at very high speeds, despite being loads of different textures and objects. Again, RAM and compression come into play aswell. So a difficult issue to debate.

 

Will GTA5 play at a native 1080P resolution? Probably only on PC. Unfortunately, current consoles aren't powerful enough to run games at 1080P (The only exceptions to this rule are non-graphic intensive games, such as Virtua tennis)

 

Please leave feedback on this. I will improve it if anyone has any suggestions.

 

This thread is ASSUMING that GTA5 will be on current gen consoles.

[AB0333]

Well, honestly, I have never thought about that. Good point.

Edited August 12, 2011 by AB0333

[mr quick]

-

Edited April 27, 2016 by Marwin

[Original Light]

Your right, and Just Cause 2 is a perfect example of why it is not impossible.

[Dymez]

I don't know.... because LA Noire wasn't so big of a map. No place in the game was interactive unless you had a mission for that building. Not many weapons. Not many clothes. Graphics were extraordinary and there were 95 drivable vehicles, but other than that; it doesn't seem like it would take up all the memory of a standard disc, right? Well, LA Noire was a 3 disc release for the XBox 360. A GTA game with a huge map is definitely possible but developers aren't going to print out 11.5 to 12 million of 3, 4 or 5 disc sets for one game at $60. But if it was a PS3 and PC only release? Sure!

[allhailkingryan]

I don't know.... because LA Noire wasn't so big of a map. No place in the game was interactive unless you had a mission for that building. Not many weapons. Not many clothes. Graphics were extraordinary and there were 95 drivable vehicles, but other than that; it doesn't seem like it would take up all the memory of a standard disc, right? Well, LA Noire was a 3 disc release for the XBox 360. A GTA game with a huge map is definitely possible but developers aren't going to print out 11.5 to 12 million of 3, 4 or 5 disc sets for one game at $60. But if it was a PS3 and PC only release? Sure!

LA noire wasn't meant to be the way that you suggested. It was never intended to be a 1940's GTA with lots of interaction.

 

You also have to think that LA Noire had 3 discs purely because of Motionscan.

[OchyGTA]

But surely, dialogue, side missions, mini games, customisation, good AI etc. would take up a lot of space. If you noticed, JC2 had non of these things done well in the game and to be honest, the graphics weren't great.

[Guest]

Audio takes up the most space. For example, in San Andreas, the Audio is 3.23GB while the rest is roughly 1.5GB. So, if game developers could find a way to compress audio more, then there will be more free space for everything. Land mass doesn't take much space either, it's the details. I think that a detailed game in a map as big as JC2 is possible but would take a lot of time.

[OchyGTA]

Audio takes up the most space. For example, in San Andreas, the Audio is 3.23GB while the rest is roughly 1.5GB. So, if game developers could find a way to compress audio more, then there will be more free space for everything. Land mass doesn't take much space either, it's the details. I think that a detailed game in a map as big as JC2 is possible but would take a lot of time.

So could that be what is taking so long perhaps? After all, we haven't seen a full GTA game since 2008 and it had been finished in 2007 so that is almost 4 years

[DS 17]

Your right, and Just Cause 2 is a perfect example of why it is not impossible.

I don t get your point? I think we all have seen that it IS possible with the example Just Cause 2. Of course you mean, that GTA has the features, but I have never had with my 2 GB Ram any popups or any graphic problems with JC2.

I remember that GTA was written for consoles first and then converted to the PC. So there might be the fault. Maybe the code of the conversing wasn t good. And even if you say GTA has these features like peds etc. (cities with peds have been in JC2, too) you have to compare the world of JC2 with GTA IV. The world of JC2 has much more work than Liberty City has to load. There are even different weather effects in JC2. That doesn t exist in IV. So I think it IS possible, that a GTA has a map size like JC2 with the details of JC2. And the details of the map in JC2 are brilliant. Never mind if you re in the jungle, the mountains or the desert. Everywhere you get the right fealing.

 

 

[Dymez]

I don't know....  because LA Noire wasn't so big of a map.  No place in the game was interactive unless you had a mission for that building.  Not many weapons.  Not many clothes.  Graphics were extraordinary and there were 95 drivable vehicles, but other than that; it doesn't seem like it would take up all the memory of a standard disc, right?  Well, LA Noire was a 3 disc release for the XBox 360.  A GTA game with a huge map is definitely possible but developers aren't going to print out 11.5 to 12 million of 3, 4 or 5 disc sets for one game at $60.  But if it was a PS3 and PC only release?  Sure!

LA noire wasn't meant to be the way that you suggested. It was never intended to be a 1940's GTA with lots of interaction.

 

You also have to think that LA Noire had 3 discs purely because of Motionscan.

I didn't suggest it was supposed to be a 1940's version of GTA. I just said it didn't have hardly any of what GTA always had and will always have, and yet it still took up so much memory on a standard disc. All LA Noire and GTA had in common was being an open-world game. However, LA Noire was linear. What LA Noire lacked in interaction, GTA possesses in interaction... What LA Noire possesses in facial motion-scan, GTA lacks in. Not to mention LA Noire's projected time of play was 25-30 hours. GTA IV's projected time of play alone was over 50 hours. Dan Houser's comment of the next GTA having a 1000 page script suggests that the time of play will even be longer than that. I'm not saying it's impossible; they just won't do it.

[TellEmRye]

I'm not sure i'd like the map to be as big as Just Cause 2, but I would love a bigger map than Liberty City, so something inbetween would be perfect? That way R* don't have to improve the engine to much to compete with JC2, but still have a more improved city than IV's.

[XxDylmeisterxX]

Audio takes up the most space. For example, in San Andreas, the Audio is 3.23GB while the rest is roughly 1.5GB. So, if game developers could find a way to compress audio more, then there will be more free space for everything. Land mass doesn't take much space either, it's the details. I think that a detailed game in a map as big as JC2 is possible but would take a lot of time.

So could that be what is taking so long perhaps? After all, we haven't seen a full GTA game since 2008 and it had been finished in 2007 so that is almost 4 years

I hope that is the reason it's taking its time. I really want GTA V to be great with great graphics, gameplay and epic cheats. Hope that's not pushing my luck or anything lol but it's wat I'm hoping for.

[illspirit]

In this post I will mainly be using Just Cause 2 as an example:

 

The map is 400sq miles in JC2. That is possible possible in GTA5. I know the map doesn't have the finesse and detail of GTA, but that is mainly down to development rather than tehnical limitations.

 

But if we have a big map, the graphics will suffer, won't they? Probably not. In JC2, the game looks better than GTA IV, and the draw distance is far greater than GTA.

The map in Just Cause 2 (or 1 for that matter) largely consisted of open terrain and lots of instanced geometry though. It takes a lot less disk space and RAM to copy and paste a few tree and rock models a thousand times than it does to store and load unique geometry for every building in a city.

[Mr.Moffat]

Yes it possible, but JC" was mainly countryside, plus it's cities were empty and boring, gta always has a lot going on at one time, plus alot of people imo seem to neglect the amount of work that goes into making a gta city, look at gta4, lc is painstakingly detailed, every ally is prob more detailed and interesting than a city in jc2.

My 2 cents anyway

[gtafreak102]

It's either graphics or map size. That's my point. I would prefer map size. I always hated GTA IV's map size.

[The-San-Andreas-man]

It's because JC2's engine is good and can do all that. Sure the FPS isnt the greatest on consoles but the graphics are. If the RAGE engine was upgraded alot to do stuff like Avalanche's and Frostbite's engines could achieve, GTA5 could be big and detailed.

[abottig]

 

The map in Just Cause 2 (or 1 for that matter) largely consisted of open terrain and lots of instanced geometry though. It takes a lot less disk space and RAM to copy and paste a few tree and rock models a thousand times than it does to store and load unique geometry for every building in a city.

This^

 

JC2's graphics are sweet in the sky, but down low it's a different story.

[The-San-Andreas-man]

The map in Just Cause 2 (or 1 for that matter) largely consisted of open terrain and lots of instanced geometry though. It takes a lot less disk space and RAM to copy and paste a few tree and rock models a thousand times than it does to store and load unique geometry for every building in a city.

This^

 

JC2's graphics are sweet in the sky, but down low it's a different story.

Actually, even looking at stuff like roads, trees, and other things, they are very detailed and have high quality textures, down low things look still amazing, and the correct amount of motion blur, the amazing water, the awesome view distance, and the awesome depth of field make it better.

[CryptReaperDorian]

The map in Just Cause 2 (or 1 for that matter) largely consisted of open terrain and lots of instanced geometry though. It takes a lot less disk space and RAM to copy and paste a few tree and rock models a thousand times than it does to store and load unique geometry for every building in a city.

This^

 

JC2's graphics are sweet in the sky, but down low it's a different story.

Whatever you guys say, but a hollow building with no interior isn't much different than open terrain. GTA IV was made almost completely of shades of brown and gray. I think the excuse of "GTA IV having a lot of detail" is a very poor excuse. I'm quite sure the real reason that GTA IV pushed the consoles was due to the game engine (RAGE isn't close to being the best game engine out there) along with the amount of audio and media. Compared to other sandbox games, GTA usually has much more audio, other media, and cutscenes. Having about 200 songs, commercials, and a huge amount of dialogue really does add up.

[The Aztek]

Graphic and model LODs are great for trying to fit a lot of stuff in an area. Maps can be huge (the earlier GTAs solved this by setting other islands with very low LODs and having to load to each), etc etc. Halo has pretty good graphics, but from across the map you arent worrying about whether or not you can see the sparks on an explosion, right? Right. If you where to increase the efficiency of the objects and how they load, how they look at certain distances, you can gradually make the map larger without overloading the system. You could have a VERY low LOD and very low bitmap LOD for a great distance, you could set up points for each object to load greater and greater LOD's with shortened distances, while objects getting further and further away decrease them, etc etc. Game companies already do this kind of stuff. Making it more efficient would call to making larger maps.

 

Same kinds of things can be done to cars, people, AI even.

 

(LODs are lower quality models for distances where you couldnt tell the difference between the normal and the LOD).

[coin-god]

 

The map in Just Cause 2 (or 1 for that matter) largely consisted of open terrain and lots of instanced geometry though. It takes a lot less disk space and RAM to copy and paste a few tree and rock models a thousand times than it does to store and load unique geometry for every building in a city.

This^

 

JC2's graphics are sweet in the sky, but down low it's a different story.

Whatever you guys say, but a hollow building with no interior isn't much different than open terrain. GTA IV was made almost completely of shades of brown and gray. I think the excuse of "GTA IV having a lot of detail" is a very poor excuse. I'm quite sure the real reason that GTA IV pushed the consoles was due to the game engine (RAGE isn't close to being the best game engine out there) along with the amount of audio and media. Compared to other sandbox games, GTA usually has much more audio, other media, and cutscenes. Having about 200 songs, commercials, and a huge amount of dialogue really does add up.

A terrain is allways easier to process than a bunch of medium poly objects. A terrain is divided in few draw calls. A hhighly detailed map like LC has too many draw calls. More drawcalls = More RAM/CPU time = More lag.

 

It's tht simple. And you allways neeed more textures for a detailed map.

[Chinatown Wars]

Just to let you know jc2 was only 4.8GB of space. Xbox disks can hold 11 and ps3... Well, I don't know. You could theoretically add a little more detail to jc2s map without destroying performance. I can't recall one time that jc2s framerate dropped.

[allhailkingryan]

Graphic and model LODs are great for trying to fit a lot of stuff in an area. Maps can be huge (the earlier GTAs solved this by setting other islands with very low LODs and having to load to each), etc etc. Halo has pretty good graphics, but from across the map you arent worrying about whether or not you can see the sparks on an explosion, right? Right. If you where to increase the efficiency of the objects and how they load, how they look at certain distances, you can gradually make the map larger without overloading the system. You could have a VERY low LOD and very low bitmap LOD for a great distance, you could set up points for each object to load greater and greater LOD's with shortened distances, while objects getting further and further away decrease them, etc etc. Game companies already do this kind of stuff. Making it more efficient would call to making larger maps.

 

Same kinds of things can be done to cars, people, AI even.

 

(LODs are lower quality models for distances where you couldnt tell the difference between the normal and the LOD).

The only problem is in some game it's noticeable. Like in JC2, if you reach a certain height, tarmac runways suddenly turn to dirt runways.

[Nah Tso Gud]

I'd take LC over Panau any day... Grappling around the map I too often find myself asking "what's the point of this area ..really?" The forests are too dense to actually do anything in, so it just seems like its there strictly for the sake of appearance, namely from the sky.. the deserts are actually fun because you can take jumps with the ATV or dirtbikes etc.. I know its fitting for the environment but they could've toned down the "wasted space" a bit.

 

The cities are about equivalent to SAs judging by detail... Maybe a bit better, but that's the main drawback IMO if were just talking about the map.. The size of the map is pretty damn impressive, especially with the varied environments.. bit it is actually too big for my liking.. I suppose "Quality over quantity" pretty much sums it up.

[The Aztek]

Graphic and model LODs are great for trying to fit a lot of stuff in an area.  Maps can be huge (the earlier GTAs solved this by setting other islands with very low LODs and having to load to each), etc etc.  Halo has pretty good graphics, but from across the map you arent worrying about whether or not you can see the sparks on an explosion, right?  Right.  If you where to increase the efficiency of the objects and how they load, how they look at certain distances, you can gradually make the map larger without overloading the system.  You could have a VERY low LOD and very low bitmap LOD for a great distance, you could set up points for each object to load greater and greater LOD's with shortened distances, while objects getting further and further away decrease them, etc etc.  Game companies already do this kind of stuff.  Making it more efficient would call to making larger maps.

 

Same kinds of things can be done to cars, people, AI even.

 

(LODs are lower quality models for distances where you couldnt tell the difference between the normal and the LOD).

The only problem is in some game it's noticeable. Like in JC2, if you reach a certain height, tarmac runways suddenly turn to dirt runways.

LOD problem, Im guessing. Quality can be concerned with trying to lessen the quality at the same time.

[Algonquin Assassin]

It's either graphics or map size. That's my point. I would prefer map size. I always hated GTA IV's map size.

What was wrong with GTA IV's map size?

 

Having played/owned JC2 although its map size is impressive I don't think I would like that big of a map for GTA. Honestly I still have a blast playing VC which by today's standards is pretty small.

 

IMHO GTA doesn't need an enormous map. It's not Far Cry, or Oblivion.

 

 

[tranceking26]

OP great points. Maybe they will take some ideas from just cause, seeing as it's almost a rival

 

Who needs 1080p anyway, I'm happy playing my 360 on 720p on my 19" TV

[Hurrikane]

It's either graphics or map size. That's my point. I would prefer map size. I always hated GTA IV's map size.

What was wrong with GTA IV's map size?

 

Having played/owned JC2 although its map size is impressive I don't think I would like that big of a map for GTA. Honestly I still have a blast playing VC which by today's standards is pretty small.

 

IMHO GTA doesn't need an enormous map. It's not Far Cry, or Oblivion.

This guy is correct, and what is with all the big is better, like i have stated in the past, would you guys not want a map the size of IV with tons and tons of more NPC's and busy streets, alley ways, and etc etc, instead of empty areas, wow we could get country side with nothing to do, if the streets of liberty were busier with NPC interactions by there houses, stores etc, it would have been much better. I dont need a 200 sq mile zone, that is a waste. Give me people coming out of the house, going in, people broken down on the highway with towtrucks picking up the cars, 16 wheelers on the highway, flatbeds picking up cars, police interacting with drug dealers, or police going to houses to investigate. Give me the real deal not some empty times square where we can't even use the tow truck to pick up cars and drive them away, or a 16 wheeler where we cant even hook it up to the trailer.

[OchyGTA]

It's either graphics or map size. That's my point. I would prefer map size. I always hated GTA IV's map size.

What was wrong with GTA IV's map size?

 

Having played/owned JC2 although its map size is impressive I don't think I would like that big of a map for GTA. Honestly I still have a blast playing VC which by today's standards is pretty small.

 

IMHO GTA doesn't need an enormous map. It's not Far Cry, or Oblivion.

This guy is correct, and what is with all the big is better, like i have stated in the past, would you guys not want a map the size of IV with tons and tons of more NPC's and busy streets, alley ways, and etc etc, instead of empty areas, wow we could get country side with nothing to do, if the streets of liberty were busier with NPC interactions by there houses, stores etc, it would have been much better. I dont need a 200 sq mile zone, that is a waste. Give me people coming out of the house, going in, people broken down on the highway with towtrucks picking up the cars, 16 wheelers on the highway, flatbeds picking up cars, police interacting with drug dealers, or police going to houses to investigate. Give me the real deal not some empty times square where we can't even use the tow truck to pick up cars and drive them away, or a 16 wheeler where we cant even hook it up to the trailer.

I would much prefer that over a big map size, to be honest, I didn't mind LC being that small. I don't think they should have included Alderney though and thus could have expanded on Algonquin and Broker (which was not done justice)