detail over map size?

[ldee]

Ok, I just want you guys to clear this up, those that keep saying how you'd like to have a game space with more attention to detail? Is it simply visually appealing as a graphics whore when you see the simplest sh*t like litter, boxes, dumpsters, dirt on vehicles, walls and such?

 

Maybe it's just that these are the GTA newfags that started on IV. You keep going on about how you appreciate IV's "believable" (seriously? "believable"? wtfupretentiousdipsh*ts) environment and stuff like that.

 

And then there's this other argument about SA's "dead space". Just what the f*ck? It's better to have more space like in San Andreas, than it would be to have the same kind of space, except blocked by clusterf*cks of buildings, which are, in your context, dead obstacles, then, am I not right? Logically speaking, there's X amount of space in SA. You are free to roam around X. Now in IV, X is now taken by a god damn building. And what purpose does the building serve? Well it's helps make up part of the city for one, two, it takes up space and you cannot access and/or enter it.

 

So basically in IV, most, and that's probably at least 50% of the landmass are inaccessible thanks to your precious buildings that you can interact with in no way. The remaining spaces are sidewalks and roads... haha, just fantastic. Personally it's more pleasant to drive on and off road in SA's countrysides taking in the open, unobstructed distant views than to admire your f*cking apartment and office buildings in IV, all up close and personal. That with my PS2 back in '04 with my 15" squarish TV, than to IV in 2011 with Icenhancer (possibly the most photorealistic sh*t out there) on my jacked up rig that includes a 25" monitor.

 

Subjective or not, I made my point. Now for those who care, it's your turn to make sense of your will to compromise a larger map for more "attention to detail". You've got to be kidding.

[-Bruce-]

Tell me this, wtf are you gonna do with all that space? Just drive around? Citys offer much more then "dead space".

[GRINCH ASS BITCH]

*slow clap*

 

I agree with just about everything that you've said (seriously). I had brought up something similar in another thread; IV's city was nice and all, but its actual level of interactiveness was severely overhyped prior to the game's release. A few of my friends and I had talked about how GTA:IV was "all surface, no substance," whereas San Andreas was the complete opposite. I'm not going to get into another big discussion about it, but it definitely didn't live up to my expectations.

 

@-Bruce-

 

What exactly did GTA:IV's city offer that wasn't offered by San Andreas' "dead space"? Bars? Clubs? After that what else was there to do besides drive around? That is where San Andreas' "dead space" excelled at providing replay value (in my opinion).

Edited December 4, 2011 by GRINCH ASS BITCH

[ldee]

Tell me this, wtf are you gonna do with all that space? Just drive around? Citys offer much more then "dead space".

Thanks for a very valid point mate. With the hundreds (or whatever) of buildings in IV, you must have been really impressed with the five or six Burger Shot joints that you can eat your virtual fatty patties at that simulates what you do in real life. Such game-gamer sentiments are so unique to IV that it was a brilliant "offering" to you.

[Meezarawcks]

Wow really this again? I really find it pointless debating for either game. They both had there merits. SA was great and so was IV.

[jamieleng]

What on earth are you babbling about? We all know V will have a city larger & more detailed than IV's LC. The trailer also showed deserts, forests, beaches, mountains, vineyards all in under a minute. Basically it contains everything people thought was missing in IV, there is no reason for anyone to complain about that aspect of the game. Unless you are VC nut who desperately wants swampland, which is the only thing Florida has that California doesn't (I think).

 

So the point is, what the hell is your point?

[sonnyBlack]

Tell me this, wtf are you gonna do with all that space? Just drive around?

For the most part, yeah. I loved off roading in SA, driving at top speed over hills in a sandking or sanchez, off cliffs and off of Mt Chiliad. It was just fun to do, you were far less constricted in the countryside than you were in the city. I had more freedom to have more fun.

 

There just wasn't enough room for that in IV to make it as fun as it was in SA.

 

[deli2000]

Tell me this, wtf are you gonna do with all that space? Just drive around? Citys offer much more then "dead space".

Thanks for a very valid point mate. With the hundreds (or whatever) of buildings in IV, you must have been really impressed with the five or six Burger Shot joints that you can eat your virtual fatty patties at that simulates what you do in real life. Such game-gamer sentiments are so unique to IV that it was a brilliant "offering" to you.

Better than driving around in the middle of nowhere for hours.

 

"OMG SO MUCH REPLAY VALUE!!!!1!!!"

 

IV had more interactive stuff in. Say what you want about the story. Atmosphere is what it exceled in. And what SA ( a very good game in it's own right) was lacking.

[Jeeebuuus]

I like the "dead space" in SA and I like the realistic but useless buildings in IV. V will encorporate both aspects and that is why it will be the best.

[Humzz]

IV was based in New York that's why for f*cks sake!

[ldee]

Better than driving around in the middle of nowhere for hours.

 

"OMG SO MUCH REPLAY VALUE!!!!1!!!"

 

IV had more interactive stuff in. Say what you want about the story. Atmosphere is what it exceled in. And what SA ( a very good game in it's own right) was lacking.

Typical pretentious c*nt. Explain what you mean by "atmosphere" and elaborate on "interactive stuff". Now try and prove me wrong that you have a lesser mind.

 

SA's 3 territories all had different themes of their own. Even the smaller towns in between the major cities had their own bit of flavour. Initially arriving at SF from Angel Pine or wherever made LS felt like it was in another county. Now that's some believable sh*t, and that's quality via quantity. Simply performing stunts and massacres even in small towns in SA was a lot more entertaining than how you could interact with anything, if at all, in IV. Going to strip clubs for virtual boobs with countable polygons? Maybe if you washed your face that'll get rid of those pimples, cut off your fast food habits, you'd actually get girlfriends and find those ingame strip clubs pretty damn redundant for your hormones. If they're good for anything it's killing people and making money by any means.

 

 

What on earth are you babbling about? We all know V will have a city larger & more detailed than IV's LC. The trailer also showed deserts, forests, beaches, mountains, vineyards all in under a minute. Basically it contains everything people thought was missing in IV, there is no reason for anyone to complain about that aspect of the game. Unless you are VC nut who desperately wants swampland, which is the only thing Florida has that California doesn't (I think).

 

So the point is, what the hell is your point?

Perhaps gain comprehension before attempting a reply, turd. My point was made clear and if you're incapable of getting it, it's too bad. I'm not condescending much further to your dwarfish standards. Your point is completely irrelevant and useless here, but thank you.

[coin-god]

I like how Idee completly attacks everyone that disagrees with his views.

[Zee]

AMEN!!!

 

Im not just gonna give the OP. A , im baking him a whole damn cake! *gives the op a giant wreath saying 'Thank You' *

 

I was pissed when they announced V would only be in Los Santos because IV-era cities suck! Theyre totally lifeless and barren! If its only ONE city 75% of the buildings should be enterable. Bottom line. No excuses, No more Toy Towns. If they want crappy, unenterable buildings ATLEAST have multiple cities! Thank you, OP, for saying what needed to be said.

 

OP, as someone who has been on this board since 2002, dont be discouraged by these johnny-come-lately IV era fanboys. They dont know sh*t. Keep your head up.

Edited December 4, 2011 by Zee

[J-B]

I'm not sure why you seem to think that inclusions of areas that aren't city will mean that there will be a lack of detail. That's assuming that this rambling was meant to be directed at V.

[ldee]

 

I like how Idee completly attacks everyone that disagrees with his views.

I do so with actual and valid points tho.

 

and most of these guys aren't even coherent, which merits insult to how they even try to post.

 

 

I'm not sure why you seem to think that inclusions of areas that aren't city will mean that there will be a lack of detail. That's assuming that this rambling was meant to be directed at V.

ok, i guess i'll have to say that this was meant to people who keep going on about how detail equals quality and sh*t like that. not relevant to the content of V, but just to address how this argument of detail, gamespace, etc, and how the aspects actually make the quality of the game overall.

Edited December 4, 2011 by ldee

[Knife]

I do so with actual and valid points tho.

I think you do, it's just a shame you set the tone of this thread so negatively. If this turns into a flame war I'll have to lock it.

[deli2000]

Better than driving around in the middle of nowhere for hours.

 

"OMG SO MUCH REPLAY VALUE!!!!1!!!"

 

IV had more interactive stuff in. Say what you want about the story. Atmosphere is what it exceled in. And what SA ( a very good game in it's own right) was lacking.

Typical pretentious c*nt. Explain what you mean by "atmosphere" and elaborate on "interactive stuff". Now try and prove me wrong that you have a lesser mind.

 

SA's 3 territories all had different themes of their own. Even the smaller towns in between the major cities had their own bit of flavour. Initially arriving at SF from Angel Pine or wherever made LS felt like it was in another county. Now that's some believable sh*t, and that's quality via quantity. Simply performing stunts and massacres even in small towns in SA was a lot more entertaining than how you could interact with anything, if at all, in IV. Going to strip clubs for virtual boobs with countable polygons? Maybe if you washed your face that'll get rid of those pimples, cut off your fast food habits, you'd actually get girlfriends and find those ingame strip clubs pretty damn redundant for your hormones. If they're good for anything it's killing people and making money by any means.

 

 

By "detail" and "atmosphere" I mean you get the feel that you actually are in a city. and not in a blank space with some buildings attached. If you've been to NYC there is a certain atmosphere, replicated in GTA 4. the sprit of LA isn't fully captured by san andreas, due to the lack of technology at the time.

 

If you don't know that Interactive stuff means places you go to or interact with. Then i seriously don't know what to say.

 

Also, don't call me a c*nt because i don't agree with you. It makes you look immature. You do have some good points, but IN MY OPINION I feel that IV has a better atmosphere

 

 

[jamieleng]

Better than driving around in the middle of nowhere for hours.

 

"OMG SO MUCH REPLAY VALUE!!!!1!!!"

 

IV had more interactive stuff in. Say what you want about the story. Atmosphere is what it exceled in. And what SA ( a very good game in it's own right) was lacking.

Typical pretentious c*nt. Explain what you mean by "atmosphere" and elaborate on "interactive stuff". Now try and prove me wrong that you have a lesser mind.

 

SA's 3 territories all had different themes of their own. Even the smaller towns in between the major cities had their own bit of flavour. Initially arriving at SF from Angel Pine or wherever made LS felt like it was in another county. Now that's some believable sh*t, and that's quality via quantity. Simply performing stunts and massacres even in small towns in SA was a lot more entertaining than how you could interact with anything, if at all, in IV. Going to strip clubs for virtual boobs with countable polygons? Maybe if you washed your face that'll get rid of those pimples, cut off your fast food habits, you'd actually get girlfriends and find those ingame strip clubs pretty damn redundant for your hormones. If they're good for anything it's killing people and making money by any means.

 

 

What on earth are you babbling about? We all know V will have a city larger & more detailed than IV's LC. The trailer also showed deserts, forests, beaches, mountains, vineyards all in under a minute. Basically it contains everything people thought was missing in IV, there is no reason for anyone to complain about that aspect of the game. Unless you are VC nut who desperately wants swampland, which is the only thing Florida has that California doesn't (I think).

 

So the point is, what the hell is your point?

Perhaps gain comprehension before attempting a reply, turd. My point was made clear and if you're incapable of getting it, it's too bad. I'm not condescending much further to your dwarfish standards. Your point is completely irrelevant and useless here, but thank you.

You're moaning about IV's Liberty City in GTA V's forum, so actually it's your point that's invalid here. GTA IV Forums> that way, now f*ck off.

[ldee]

 

I do so with actual and valid points tho.

I think you do, it's just a shame you set the tone of this thread so negatively. If this turns into a flame war I'll have to lock it.

no problem, as long as the intention is met. i am fully flame tolerant, but people who aren't so and can't validate with any opposing arguments but still adamantly and stupidly oppose will probably, ultimately lead to getting this locked.

 

edit: see what i mean? look at jamieleng's post above me. this discussion is relevant to any gta, past present or future for that matter. now you're going off topic and whining like a pussy at me. you fall flat lad.

Edited December 4, 2011 by ldee

[Zee]

Better than driving around in the middle of nowhere for hours.

 

"OMG SO MUCH REPLAY VALUE!!!!1!!!"

 

IV had more interactive stuff in. Say what you want about the story. Atmosphere is what it exceled in. And what SA ( a very good game in it's own right) was lacking.

Typical pretentious c*nt. Explain what you mean by "atmosphere" and elaborate on "interactive stuff". Now try and prove me wrong that you have a lesser mind.

 

SA's 3 territories all had different themes of their own. Even the smaller towns in between the major cities had their own bit of flavour. Initially arriving at SF from Angel Pine or wherever made LS felt like it was in another county. Now that's some believable sh*t, and that's quality via quantity. Simply performing stunts and massacres even in small towns in SA was a lot more entertaining than how you could interact with anything, if at all, in IV. Going to strip clubs for virtual boobs with countable polygons? Maybe if you washed your face that'll get rid of those pimples, cut off your fast food habits, you'd actually get girlfriends and find those ingame strip clubs pretty damn redundant for your hormones. If they're good for anything it's killing people and making money by any means.

 

 

What on earth are you babbling about? We all know V will have a city larger & more detailed than IV's LC. The trailer also showed deserts, forests, beaches, mountains, vineyards all in under a minute. Basically it contains everything people thought was missing in IV, there is no reason for anyone to complain about that aspect of the game. Unless you are VC nut who desperately wants swampland, which is the only thing Florida has that California doesn't (I think).

 

So the point is, what the hell is your point?

Perhaps gain comprehension before attempting a reply, turd. My point was made clear and if you're incapable of getting it, it's too bad. I'm not condescending much further to your dwarfish standards. Your point is completely irrelevant and useless here, but thank you.

You're moaning about IV's Liberty City in GTA V's forum, so actually it's your point that's invalid here. GTA IV Forums> that way, now f*ck off.

Ladies and Gentlemen, this is the forum equivalent of plugging your ears and going LALALALAI CANT HEAR YOU EVERYTHING IS O.K. LALALA

 

Guess what? GTA4 precluded V, so it is infact very important to the discussion of this game, to ignore the shortcomings of IV in regards to ths game is very important so we can see where we came from, or we are doomed to repeat history.

[deli2000]

 

AMEN!!!

 

Im not just gonna give the OP. A  , im baking him a whole damn cake! *gives the op a giant wreath saying 'Thank You' *

 

I was pissed when they announced V would only be in Los Santos because IV-era cities suck! Theyre totally lifeless and barren! If its only ONE  city 75% of the buildings should be enterable. Bottom line. No excuses, No more Toy Towns. If they want crappy, unenterable buildings ATLEAST have multiple cities! Thank you, OP, for saying what needed to be said.

 

OP, as someone who has been on this board since 2002, dont be discouraged by these johnny-come-lately IV era fanboys. They dont know sh*t. Keep your head up.

OK, there is so much wrong with this so i'm just going to break it down

 

 

I was pissed when they announced V would only be in Los Santos because IV-era cities suck! Theyre totally lifeless and barren

 

No, they were nowhere near lifeless, if you actually played the game you would know that. IV sucked in many areas, but not that

 

 

I was pissed when they announced V would only be in Los Santos

 

Los Santos AND Surrounding Areas. You have no idea how the map is going to look like

 

 

as someone who has been on this board since 2002

 

Totally Irrelevant

 

 

johnny-come-lately IV era fanboys. They dont know sh*t.

 

Actually Vice City is my favorite GTA game. And just because we have different opinions than you do doesn't mean we're stupid. Get your head out your arse

 

 

[bluesboyjr]

I think what everyone should be able to agree on is that there should be a balance. As much as I love GTA IV, I don't see how adding the Carraways or some other less built up area would have detracted from the game. I think GTA SA reached a good balance in terms of area covered, but I personally found the game's cities to be rather bland - more "dead" than the "dead space" of the countryside. For the city area to be as detailed as IV, and the game's open spaces to be as vast yet beautiful as Red Dead Redemprions, would be damn near perfect IMO. And, from the scenes shown in the trailer, I don't think we should need to worry.

[J-B]

 

ok, i guess i'll have to say that this was meant to people who keep going on about how detail equals quality and sh*t like that. not relevant to the content of V, but just to address how this argument of detail, gamespace, etc, and how the aspects actually make the quality of the game overall.

Ok then. I agree detail doesn't equal quality. I've never really liked comparing IV's map to SA's. Obviously SA's has more interesting areas being based on three major iconic cities and the environments in between them. I think a more fair comparison is to the III era LC because they were both meant to be based on NY. IV's map was a decent representation of NY and it's surrounding areas and was far better than it's III era predecessor. IV's map achieved it's goal of a concrete jungle. SA was unique map wise and I bet the only comparable map to it will be V's.

[jamieleng]

Better than driving around in the middle of nowhere for hours.

 

"OMG SO MUCH REPLAY VALUE!!!!1!!!"

 

IV had more interactive stuff in. Say what you want about the story. Atmosphere is what it exceled in. And what SA ( a very good game in it's own right) was lacking.

Typical pretentious c*nt. Explain what you mean by "atmosphere" and elaborate on "interactive stuff". Now try and prove me wrong that you have a lesser mind.

 

SA's 3 territories all had different themes of their own. Even the smaller towns in between the major cities had their own bit of flavour. Initially arriving at SF from Angel Pine or wherever made LS felt like it was in another county. Now that's some believable sh*t, and that's quality via quantity. Simply performing stunts and massacres even in small towns in SA was a lot more entertaining than how you could interact with anything, if at all, in IV. Going to strip clubs for virtual boobs with countable polygons? Maybe if you washed your face that'll get rid of those pimples, cut off your fast food habits, you'd actually get girlfriends and find those ingame strip clubs pretty damn redundant for your hormones. If they're good for anything it's killing people and making money by any means.

 

 

What on earth are you babbling about? We all know V will have a city larger & more detailed than IV's LC. The trailer also showed deserts, forests, beaches, mountains, vineyards all in under a minute. Basically it contains everything people thought was missing in IV, there is no reason for anyone to complain about that aspect of the game. Unless you are VC nut who desperately wants swampland, which is the only thing Florida has that California doesn't (I think).

 

So the point is, what the hell is your point?

Perhaps gain comprehension before attempting a reply, turd. My point was made clear and if you're incapable of getting it, it's too bad. I'm not condescending much further to your dwarfish standards. Your point is completely irrelevant and useless here, but thank you.

You're moaning about IV's Liberty City in GTA V's forum, so actually it's your point that's invalid here. GTA IV Forums> that way, now f*ck off.

Ladies and Gentlemen, this is the forum equivalent of plugging your ears and going LALALALAI CANT HEAR YOU EVERYTHING IS O.K. LALALA

 

Guess what? GTA4 precluded V, so it is infact very important to the discussion of this game, to ignore the shortcomings of IV in regards to ths game is very important so we can see where we came from, or we are doomed to repeat history.

And judging by the trailer, R* really has listened to the criticisms regarding GTA IV's map that was 95% concrete jungle. I just don't see what the OP's complaining about.

[ldee]

And judging by the trailer, R* really has listened to the criticisms regarding GTA IV's map that was 95% concrete jungle. I just don't see what the OP's complaining about.

honestly you are being very dim.

 

hint: it has nothing to do with the IV's LC, it's already released; been there done that. it's a f*cking discussion.

 

well that's not really a hint anymore. you just made me stoop so low.

[deli2000]

And judging by the trailer, R* really has listened to the criticisms regarding GTA IV's map that was 95% concrete jungle. I just don't see what the OP's complaining about.

honestly you are being very dim.

 

hint: it has nothing to do with the IV's LC, it's already released; been there done that. it's a f*cking discussion.

 

well that's not really a hint anymore. you just made me stoop so low.

Why did you post this in the V section?

[ldee]

 

And judging by the trailer, R* really has listened to the criticisms regarding GTA IV's map that was 95% concrete jungle. I just don't see what the OP's complaining about.

honestly you are being very dim.

 

hint: it has nothing to do with the IV's LC, it's already released; been there done that. it's a f*cking discussion.

 

well that's not really a hint anymore. you just made me stoop so low.

Why did you post this in the V section?

do you want to be like jamieleng as well?

 

so this discussion is not relevant to V?

 

i didn't know V is going to be a platform game. or have R* announced it will compete with Dance Evolution as the next big music/rhythm franchise?? please enlighten me because i must have missed R*'s tweet as mine is flooded with a lot of other sh*t

[SchizNitz]

Quality > Quantity

[deli2000]

And judging by the trailer, R* really has listened to the criticisms regarding GTA IV's map that was 95% concrete jungle. I just don't see what the OP's complaining about.

honestly you are being very dim.

 

hint: it has nothing to do with the IV's LC, it's already released; been there done that. it's a f*cking discussion.

 

well that's not really a hint anymore. you just made me stoop so low.

Why did you post this in the V section?

do you want to be like jamieleng as well?

 

so this discussion is not relevant to V?

 

i didn't know V is going to be a platform game. or have R* announced it will compete with Dance Evolution as the next big music/rhythm franchise?? please enlighten me because i must have missed R*'s tweet as mine is flooded with a lot of other sh*t

GTA V section is for GTA V related discussion. otherwise it goes in series chat. Also, your point makes no logical sense. You do know V won't be a dancing game because it's GTA, however you DON'T KNOW how the map is going to look like I didn't want to start and argument with you. I was just pointing the obvious. Why post this in the V section?

[Zee]

I think what everyone should be able to agree on is that there should be a balance. As much as I love GTA IV, I don't see how adding the Carraways or some other less built up area would have detracted from the game. I think GTA SA reached a good balance in terms of area covered, but I personally found the game's cities to be rather bland - more "dead" than the "dead space" of the countryside. For the city area to be as detailed as IV, and the game's open spaces to be as vast yet beautiful as Red Dead Redemprions, would be damn near perfect IMO. And, from the scenes shown in the trailer, I don't think we should need to worry.

Having lived on eastern LI for some time i would have loved to have seen The Carraways