detail over map size?

[Slamman]

Travel is always a key to GTA gaming, it's a prerequisite of it, a fundamental element of how the game is as Open World, so yes, the environment should be amazing in breadth and scope

[ldee]

@deli2000

stop being a clown. series chat is a barren section of random chatter. ideas and discussion of gamespace pertains very much to V as we don't know how it's going to be like, and how we'd like it to be like.

 

now if you would stop uselessly going off topic in my topic and have an actual and relevant contribution. otherwise, hypocrite, your input is only idiocy in this thread.

[Slamman]

You people who love to flame each other over varied opinion are welcome to take it to PM, otherwise, respect is needed in any general forum group. ^^

[deli2000]

@deli2000

stop being a clown. series chat is a barren section of random chatter. ideas and discussion of gamespace pertains very much to V as we don't know how it's going to be like, and how we'd like it to be like.

 

now if you would stop uselessly going off topic in my topic and have an actual and relevant contribution. otherwise, hypocrite, your input is only idiocy in this thread.

Read my earlier post.

 

And stop Insulting people. I've done nothing to provoke you.

 

Map size isn't everything. If it was then fuel would be the greatest game ever. It's the detail that makes games special

[gtacritic]

You are SOOO right about current GTA.

 

GTA's current state of affairs is marginally disappointing. I've been a fan of the GTA franchise since I was in my pre-teens. I've played it enough times to see in common with you and what Zee has been saying all along.

 

Sometimes I wish I can do a Top Gear and just drive my SUV off road and into different obstacles. You can do more of that on Test Drive Unlimited than you can on GTA, which is a shame.

 

GTA needs to step it up but I feel they made some of us more disappointed when we discovered that not only is this game another bloody remake of a previous city but it's also marginally less appealing than the concept of a multi-city San Andreas. Why can't Rockstar just experiment is beyond me. They keep falling back to their good old comfort zone. I would've been less disappointed had RG announced a remake of all San Andreas cities but to be confined only to Los Santos and its 'surroundings' is extremely, extremely disappointing.

 

Gone are the beauties of true open world environments, where you can travel by any form of transport to any destination you wish on the statewide map. Gone are the nice off-road experiences and changes of perspective between busy city streets and small towns with lakeside views. It seems like the new 'Johnny Come Lately' types are accepting anything because they want to immediately fit in with the people. Any point you wan't to say about GTA has to be nice, otherwise expect mayhem. Despicable.

[jamieleng]

You people who love to flame each other over varied opinion are welcome to take it to PM, otherwise, respect is needed in any general forum group. ^^

The OP doesn't know the meaning of the word respect, if you don't agree with him he calls you a c*nt.

 

I still don't quite understand what this 'topic' is about. Apparently LC had too much detail & not enough countryside. So he basically had a problem with the NY inspired setting.

[Slamman]

It takes two to tango. When you start a thread, expect that some people will be adverse to your ideas, but that's why it's a forum, to gauge GTA fans' ideas on things

[bluesboyjr]

I still don't quite understand what this 'topic' is about. Apparently LC had too much detail & not enough countryside. So he basically had a problem with the NY inspired setting.

From what I can tell, the OP was trying to instigate a debate on which concept would be better for GTA V - a small detailed map, or a large open map. He was just firmly stating which side of the fence he was on.

 

I've seen worse topics.

[ldee]

@deli2000

i read that post and asked you to elaborate. but you still choose continually to be useless, and still even repeat it. as troublesome as you are to deal with, i'm kind enough to entertain you by reiterating my question.

 

fuel and IV is as moot a comparison as you are in this thread so far. compare it within GTA. IV and SA. what extra detail did IV have? apart from just detailed visuals? maybe something that improved gameplay? interactivity? this is pathetic feeling like i'm teaching you how to construct an argumentative. but like i said i'm bloody nice enough to prompt you here and there, and offer you a last chance to support your sh*t with even the smallest bit of substance.

[Slamman]

GTACritic just joined ...he is a Johnny Come lately! hahaha

Seriously, we know the intent was a smaller map with GTA IV, Sam Houser said it himself, but the idea still fell short. Most people would admit that I'm sure

[gtacritic]

GTA IV has no detail, unless - as Idee suggested - we're talking about garbage litter and people talking on their phones.

 

It had no details. Can you phone someone and scare him by threatening his life, for example? Can you even phone the show on the radio who ask you to call them? Can you enter most buildings?

 

Is there a shopping mall you can enter? Can you enter the airport? The mayor's office? A university? A library?

 

What's interactive and detailed about GTA IV, apart from superficial visuals?

 

I'm in agreement with Idee. I'd rather have the countryside where I can test my SUVs and just mess about than a so-called detailed city that isn't even detailed to begin with.

[pdbq]

Best topic ever, agree with everything.

[Slamman]

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.

I like the realism, since no other game but Rockstar series (RDR and GTA!!) offer it to such an extent, and it should be believable in that it has that realism. Most of you argue without knowing the Houser's stance on the game series, What they want in GTA is ultimately what you're going to get, and they still pull off a heckuva game, There's not even an ounce of doubt in my mind.

 

Like all things, there's room for balance, and room to improve it

[ldee]

gtacritic sums up IV's pretentious claims of quality in detail well.

 

the best thing you could do with the detail was run up an apartment building to its rooftop and snipe at people. mildly entertaining, but nothing compared to the mayhem you could expect to cause in a current-gen SA with R*'s current-gen game engines. remember police SUVs rolling off cliffs in chiliad back in GTASA? now port it to current gen.

[Slamman]

The counter argument is that it had to be completed, so it fell short in how good it could have been. I believe they just had a deadline to meet, that's again, the ultimate realism of the REAL WORLD and GTA's creative time line

[deli2000]

@deli2000

i read that post and asked you to elaborate. but you still choose continually to be useless, and still even repeat it. as troublesome as you are to deal with, i'm kind enough to entertain you by reiterating my question.

 

fuel and IV is as moot a comparison as you are in this thread so far. compare it within GTA. IV and SA. what extra detail did IV have? apart from just detailed visuals? maybe something that improved gameplay? interactivity? this is pathetic feeling like i'm teaching you how to construct an argumentative. but like i said i'm bloody nice enough to prompt you here and there, and offer you a last chance to support your sh*t with even the smallest bit of substance.

Fine.

 

I've tried to explain to you why IN MY OPINION i think IV has a better atmosphere. I respect your opinion, you clearly don't respect mine.

 

GTA 4 did something SA didn't do. Create a living breathing city. 4 had better conversations between NPC's. It had a much similar resemblance to NYC. It had more activities to do. For people like you these may mean nothing. and that's perfectly fine. But for someone like me. Little things like the TV channels or advertisements on billboards, or The Resemblance of the airport, or Star Junction. those things show that R* has put their heart and soul into the game. It's hard to put into words. let me put it like this.

Vice City had the best atmosphere in the series because it captured the essence of the 1980's. GTA IV did the same with modern New York. IN MY f*ckING OPINION!

 

(waits for Idees comment calling me a c*nt)

[ElSalvo]

So I'm guessing that this thread has collapsed into a SA vs IV yelling match?

 

[gtacritic]

gtacritic sums up IV's pretentious claims of quality in detail well.

 

the best thing you could do with the detail was run up an apartment building to its rooftop and snipe at people. mildly entertaining, but nothing compared to the mayhem you could expect to cause in a current-gen SA with R*'s current-gen game engines. remember police SUVs rolling off cliffs in chiliad back in GTASA? now port it to current gen.

Lool, exactly Idee. Come to think of it, speaking of GTA IV's so-called detail, it didn't even have buses for crying out loud. How can it be so detailed and realistic if Rockstar missed out on bus transportation?

[ElSalvo]

gtacritic sums up IV's pretentious claims of quality in detail well.

 

the best thing you could do with the detail was run up an apartment building to its rooftop and snipe at people. mildly entertaining, but nothing compared to the mayhem you could expect to cause in a current-gen SA with R*'s current-gen game engines. remember police SUVs rolling off cliffs in chiliad back in GTASA? now port it to current gen.

Lool, exactly Idee. Come to think of it, speaking of GTA IV's so-called detail, it didn't even have buses for crying out loud. How can it be so detailed and realistic if Rockstar missed out on bus transportation?

I agree. f*cking Rockstar idiots. How dare they leave out, quite possibly, the defining feature of any sandbox game, buses. Assholes.

 

I CAN DO BETTER WITH MY EYES CLOSED LOL!!!one11!!1

 

Shut the f*ck up.

[Vice Beach]

Apparently Idee didn't have any enough privacy in Liberty City to pleasure himself to maps of games with huge, vacate, boring landscapes without a spec of life and then got really mad about it and came on to these forums to yell at people for thinking different than him. Then he tried to make himself seem like he was smarter then everyone. But in the end he is just a moron. A stupid, narrow-minded gaywad. And yes, I called you a gaywad. Now please exit the forums accordingly, I think you may have some splooge to clean off of your SA game disc.

[gtacritic]

gtacritic sums up IV's pretentious claims of quality in detail well.

 

the best thing you could do with the detail was run up an apartment building to its rooftop and snipe at people. mildly entertaining, but nothing compared to the mayhem you could expect to cause in a current-gen SA with R*'s current-gen game engines. remember police SUVs rolling off cliffs in chiliad back in GTASA? now port it to current gen.

Lool, exactly Idee. Come to think of it, speaking of GTA IV's so-called detail, it didn't even have buses for crying out loud. How can it be so detailed and realistic if Rockstar missed out on bus transportation?

I agree. f*cking Rockstar idiots. How dare they leave out, quite possibly, the defining feature of any sandbox game, buses. Assholes.

 

I CAN DO BETTER WITH MY EYES CLOSED LOL!!!one11!!1

 

Shut the f*ck up.

Oh you sure showed me, ElSalvo. You really put me in my place, which is right... here -->

 

I was making a point for those who said GTA IV had this extraordinary detail, which somehow is an excuse to make up for zero breathing space.

[deli2000]

Apparently Idee didn't have any enough privacy in Liberty City to pleasure himself to maps of games with huge, vacate, boring landscapes without a spec of life and then got really mad about it and came on to these forums to yell at people for thinking different than him. Then he tried to make himself seem like he was smarter then everyone. But in the end he is just a moron. A stupid, narrow-minded gaywad. And yes, I called you a gaywad. Now please exit the forums accordingly, I think you may have some splooge to clean off of your SA game disc.

I know idee was acting immature. But come on, responses like that aren't going to help.

[suicidehummer]

LOL, troll much? No need to argue. I loved the space of SA but I also love the detail of IV. That's why V will be the best game ever.

 

[agentfox]

I definitely want SIZE, and scope of locations. I mean, who really cared about the architecture of ALDERNEY for crying out loud.

[llpalm08]

gtacritic sums up IV's pretentious claims of quality in detail well.

 

the best thing you could do with the detail was run up an apartment building to its rooftop and snipe at people. mildly entertaining, but nothing compared to the mayhem you could expect to cause in a current-gen SA with R*'s current-gen game engines. remember police SUVs rolling off cliffs in chiliad back in GTASA? now port it to current gen.

Lool, exactly Idee. Come to think of it, speaking of GTA IV's so-called detail, it didn't even have buses for crying out loud. How can it be so detailed and realistic if Rockstar missed out on bus transportation?

I agree. f*cking Rockstar idiots. How dare they leave out, quite possibly, the defining feature of any sandbox game, buses. Assholes.

 

I CAN DO BETTER WITH MY EYES CLOSED LOL!!!one11!!1

 

Shut the f*ck up.

Oh you sure showed me, ElSalvo. You really put me in my place, which is right... here -->

 

I was making a point for those who said GTA IV had this extraordinary detail, which somehow is an excuse to make up for zero breathing space.

IV did have busses on, or are you talking about having bus routes that you can take trips on.

 

 

Anyway...

I prefer IV to SA simply because of the cars physics and damage but if that was on the SA map even with SA's graphics but with the GTA IV loading time and on the 360 I would play that more than IV because of the free space to roam around in in whatever vehicles I want while listening to Rod Stewart and Eddie Money on Kdst, and then roaming back into the city to zoom around and jump over ramps while listening to Guns N Roses and Rage against the machine, then going to the airport and flying to Venturas where I zoom up and down the strip while listening to Lazlow.

[Slamman]

Details need to be in the game, large or small map, doesn't matter. YOU DON'T skimp on the details. Anywho, I can't believe the arguments getting so heated, Accept that not everyone feels the same, it's such in life.

 

YES, there WERE busses, in Starjunction, only need to wander in that direction. Didn't have the variety that GTA III had, but again, it did take time to not only build the engine and hone the art of PS3 programming for it, but to make the basic game and everything in it

Edited December 4, 2011 by Slamman

[Triple Penetration]

I love offroad stuff more than motorways and streets in real life, but only because I can't drive fast on roads.

 

Does chasing guys in deserts after looking them up in police database sound as thrilling as would be doing that on streets (or ridiculously, MORE fun?). In desert you would go straight, and the one who escapes can't be cornered or crashed in side of the car when he turns, because he won't turn. In multiplayer it's even more fun to check who has best skills in evasion, and everytime in crappier vehicle. And doing that in a city with a lot of obstacles and traffic, both stale and oncoming requires you to do something that touches up the name of this game fully. Grand Theft Auto.

 

I wish IV involved more missions with running on rooftops, but you still can do that, riding a fast bike from one high building to another or just climbing and jumping on rooftops can be done anywhere, anytime. In SA, when I was near Tierra Robadas, on the hilly dead end of a desert road, just next to girlfriend Barbara (a cop) and sherman dam were ruins, not very big building remains. You know what I did on them?

 

Climbed and jumped while running. However, I was disappointed by seeing this and few places in LS were only ones in which I could do parkour. And I'm more of a shooter guy.

 

And because of that, I remember looking for bigfoot, shooting accidentally and I had a wanted level. Cops never came, but they could not hear me too, and I did not kill any big foots, because they did not exist. In all other 3D GTAs I had much fun by doing drivebys to anything and anybody I saw. With same thrilling evasions mentioned before. In SA I just went straight in desert and lost them. In IV it was amazingly hard to lose 6-star wanted level even with cop radar addition. In SA escapes were and are a Joke.

 

I don't find it senseful, if you can't see how the huge airports in III, VC and IV weren't good enough for you. Not to mention the beach of VC, hills of III, coasts, both beach-like and hilly (better than SA's forest, in which I couldn't do throphy truck-like time trials) in IV, particularly in Broker and Alderney (whole west coast of alderney and areas around the prison and abandoned mansion).

 

BTW, if the fact of V having all landscape types SA had not affectioning your decision to put in this subforum and still saying this is about all games of GTA and STILL NOT BELONGING IN GTA SERIES CHAT, PLEASE PULL YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASSHOLE, OP.

[Darrel]

Awful topic

 

 

This topic starter and the people agreeing with him are totally overlooking the things that Gta IV did extremely well. Congratulations

 

And anyone who agrees with zee.. well, that says it all.

[jamieleng]

gtacritic sums up IV's pretentious claims of quality in detail well.

 

the best thing you could do with the detail was run up an apartment building to its rooftop and snipe at people. mildly entertaining, but nothing compared to the mayhem you could expect to cause in a current-gen SA with R*'s current-gen game engines. remember police SUVs rolling off cliffs in chiliad back in GTASA? now port it to current gen.

Lool, exactly Idee. Come to think of it, speaking of GTA IV's so-called detail, it didn't even have buses for crying out loud. How can it be so detailed and realistic if Rockstar missed out on bus transportation?

IV had a bus, it just didn't have bus drivers & bus routes. Who the f*ck wants to be driven round on a bus, stopping every 30 secs to let people on & off. You had taxi cabs if you wanted to fast travel.

[DS 17]

GTA IV has no detail, unless - as Idee suggested - we're talking about garbage litter and people talking on their phones.

 

It had no details. Can you phone someone and scare him by threatening his life, for example? Can you even phone the show on the radio who ask you to call them? Can you enter most buildings?

 

Is there a shopping mall you can enter? Can you enter the airport? The mayor's office? A university? A library?

 

What's interactive and detailed about GTA IV, apart from superficial visuals?

 

I'm in agreement with Idee. I'd rather have the countryside where I can test my SUVs and just mess about than a so-called detailed city that isn't even detailed to begin with.

I absolutely agree with Idee and the other countryside fans. I loved driving around in the countryside of San Andreas and I missed that feature in IV a lot. Many other players did that, too, maybe that s why a lot of ppl - including me - haven't played IV since completing the missions. I just got bored in the city and hasn't known what to do.

Sure it was a great city and it was fun to shoot the tourist helis down in South Algonquin, but there was really no interaction or enough space like a countryside. I mean, there was nearly no interaction in SA, too, but there was the possibilty of free roam. The one thing will be included in V, let s hope for the second, too. Hopefully they will add the Heavy Rain thing like choosing the answers and questions how the character will interact to a NPC.