detail over map size?

[kgrogfefji82]

 

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.

 

Alright to start off, please go f*ck yourself

 

Secondly. It's not about believability, it's about creating an immersive world, all GTA's have had this, last generation GTA was by a long shot the most immersive, well designed and polished open world games, not much have changed since then, except this generation they can take it to another level. Adding "simple" stuff such as litter boxes, dumpsters, dirt on vehicles adds to the experience, it makes the world more immersive, it's not just about realism and people sure as f*ck aren't pretentious for appreciating the attention to detail, you're just an asshole that needs to get over yourself.

 

Not to mention that you're comparing an urban jungle to San Andreas, you're comparing two entirely different settings, how does that make ANY f*cking sense at all? Liberty City for what it was, was extremely well made, LC isn't the place where you have a huge country side and desert or whatever, that was San Andreas, apparently this is something that has gone over your head.

 

They're different. You don't eat an apple and then bitch about the fact that it doesn't taste like an orange. It's fine that you like SA more, and it's perfectly acceptable you prefer that style of map, but to bitch that LC wasn't like SA is f*cking retarded

 

And lastly you don't think V's gonna have both? It's gonna have great attention to detail in the city, and it's gonna have the big country side, with.. you guessed more attention to detail than the SA country side had, WHY? Because they can do that this generation. But maybe you'd like simpler ground textures that are repeated for miles with horrible draw distance and identical trees all over the place that pop up out of nowhere as you fly past them. It isn't a matter of detail OR dead space, because they can have great detail and huge open environments now.

 

When V comes out and if it happens to lack the huge open country side THEN come back here and bitch about it, what you're doing now is just being an asshole, we're not the pretentious ones, you are.

[gtahoss]

Ok, it is true that gta iv was far from toping gta sa. in size and interactivity, but it is an awsome looking city, but i was very disapointed that after finding the enterable russian club whit live shows,

that most of rest of the city had noting much else to offer in that regard, all fake store-bar-restaurant fronts.

you even loose the comedy club after you play the bogt add-on.

 

The original concept map for gta iv was much biger whit towns and countryside - montains outside of the city,

but that was changed to only the main city for reasons of making a more realistic LC, but it did not fully come out that way.

 

I still enjoyed the game very much and hope that gta v will have alot more enterable places and diferent types of vehicles and enviroments to play in.

 

I still dont see why they did not put a dodo - small float plain for us to fly in, if gta vc was big enough for one then gta iv was also big enough.

[Deffpony]

Although i agree with the OP point, I dont like the attitude behind it.

 

Yes, better textures, architecture, trash cluttered streets, and over all detail makes for a better environment. And yes, the lack of interactivity can make this environment feel empty. But that doesnt mean that having a huge less detailed open world is better than a dense more detailed open world.

 

Im confident that V will be as detailed as IV but with much more to do. And if it isnt then go buy skyrim.

 

[AceRay]

Laufus: I completely agree with everything you said there.

[Jesse92]

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.

 

Alright to start off, please go f*ck yourself

 

Secondly. It's not about believability, it's about creating an immersive world, all GTA's have had this, last generation GTA was by a long shot the most immersive, well designed and polished open world games, not much have changed since then, except this generation they can take it to another level. Adding "simple" stuff such as litter boxes, dumpsters, dirt on vehicles adds to the experience, it makes the world more immersive, it's not just about realism and people sure as f*ck aren't pretentious for appreciating the attention to detail, you're just an asshole that needs to get over yourself.

 

Not to mention that you're comparing an urban jungle to San Andreas, you're comparing two entirely different settings, how does that make ANY f*cking sense at all? Liberty City for what it was, was extremely well made, LC isn't the place where you have a huge country side and desert or whatever, that was San Andreas, apparently this is something that has gone over your head.

 

They're different. You don't eat an apple and then bitch about the fact that it doesn't taste like an orange. It's fine that you like SA more, and it's perfectly acceptable you prefer that style of map, but to bitch that LC wasn't like SA is f*cking retarded

 

And lastly you don't think V's gonna have both? It's gonna have great attention to detail in the city, and it's gonna have the big country side, with.. you guessed more attention to detail than the SA country side had, WHY? Because they can do that this generation. But maybe you'd like simpler ground textures that are repeated for miles with horrible draw distance and identical trees all over the place that pop up out of nowhere as you fly past them. It isn't a matter of detail OR dead space, because they can have great detail and huge open environments now.

 

When V comes out and if it happens to lack the huge open country side THEN come back here and bitch about it, what you're doing now is just being an asshole, we're not the pretentious ones, you are.

This guy makes sense.

[Black Sunshine]

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.

 

Alright to start off, please go f*ck yourself

 

Secondly. It's not about believability, it's about creating an immersive world, all GTA's have had this, last generation GTA was by a long shot the most immersive, well designed and polished open world games, not much have changed since then, except this generation they can take it to another level. Adding "simple" stuff such as litter boxes, dumpsters, dirt on vehicles adds to the experience, it makes the world more immersive, it's not just about realism and people sure as f*ck aren't pretentious for appreciating the attention to detail, you're just an asshole that needs to get over yourself.

 

Not to mention that you're comparing an urban jungle to San Andreas, you're comparing two entirely different settings, how does that make ANY f*cking sense at all? Liberty City for what it was, was extremely well made, LC isn't the place where you have a huge country side and desert or whatever, that was San Andreas, apparently this is something that has gone over your head.

 

They're different. You don't eat an apple and then bitch about the fact that it doesn't taste like an orange. It's fine that you like SA more, and it's perfectly acceptable you prefer that style of map, but to bitch that LC wasn't like SA is f*cking retarded

 

And lastly you don't think V's gonna have both? It's gonna have great attention to detail in the city, and it's gonna have the big country side, with.. you guessed more attention to detail than the SA country side had, WHY? Because they can do that this generation. But maybe you'd like simpler ground textures that are repeated for miles with horrible draw distance and identical trees all over the place that pop up out of nowhere as you fly past them. It isn't a matter of detail OR dead space, because they can have great detail and huge open environments now.

 

When V comes out and if it happens to lack the huge open country side THEN come back here and bitch about it, what you're doing now is just being an asshole, we're not the pretentious ones, you are.

This guy makes sense.

Owned. Just. Owned.

 

I personally think that V will just be a mixture of detail AND map size, with them equally being incredible. It's gonna be epic.

[Gouranga Dan]

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.

I couldn't agree more. That's why we're ditching Los Santos completely, V is just going to be set in one gigantic empty box. 1000+ cubic miles of nothing.

[interpolfan11]

I'm pretty sure the point of GTA V is to provide us with a healthy blend of IV and SA. In other words, it will probably offer the realism of IV and the map layout/content-rich nature of SA.

 

Of course, I'd prefer a concrete jungle to a barren wasteland.

[Jeeebuuus]

I'm pretty sure the point of GTA V is to provide us with a healthy blend of IV and SA. In other words, it will probably offer the realism of IV and the map layout/content-rich nature of SA.

 

Of course, I'd prefer a concrete jungle to a barren wasteland.

This sums it all up.

[fgcarva1]

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

Actually, me and a lot of friends love Alderney because of it's architecture. It's one of those things that allows me to still have fun with LC in IV. People look at buildings as dull environments, I look for places to parkour around them, IV had the best places for that since buildings were so close. I enjoy looking at the New Englad-esque architecture of Westdyke and the detail that is put into each of the houses.

 

I guess SA is for the younger audience like the OP and many of the posters in the V section (it's usually why most kids join GTAF). People who want to ram trucks into each other in the desert and don't appreciate R*'s efforts on building a great setting like LC. Hell, LC has such a great NY vibe into it... Everywhere in the city really. I hope they continue with this in V but add the coutryside environment because I love walking around the woods and taking panoramic flights with a small plane around those areas.

[Jeeebuuus]

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

Actually, me and a lot of friends love Alderney because of it's architecture. It's one of those things that allows me to still have fun with LC in IV. People look at buildings as dull environments, I look for places to parkour around them, IV had the best places for that since buildings were so close. I enjoy looking at the New Englad-esque architecture of Westdyke and the detail that is put into each of the houses.

 

I guess SA is for the younger audience like the OP and many of the posters in the V section (it's usually why most kids join GTAF). People who want to ram trucks into each other in the desert and don't appreciate R*'s efforts on building a great setting like LC. Hell, LC has such a great NY vibe into it... Everywhere in the city really. I hope they continue with this in V but add the coutryside environment because I love walking around the woods and taking panoramic flights with a small plane around those areas.

This guy know how to appreciate IV and does an excellent job explaining why. IV was not something easy to make and if you have an eye and imagination, you can see the amount of love put into it.

[D-man7]

As people have said both games are great

 

but the only annoying things I find with GTA4 is that when I boot it up now(after completed all main + side missions) there are only these things to do

 

1.explore the city = I love the city but I have seen it so many times

2.play,pool,bowling darts and get drunk = these are pretty good, but to me they feel tacked on and not an integral part of the city

3.blow stuff + ppl away = again, gets repetitive

 

 

You could say every game get repetitive, but the things GTA4 didnt have and SA did was more stuff to do after the missions which for me gave it more replay value

 

E.G - gambling

customisation

could buy more properties

the countryside was more fun to drive on

more interesting vehicles - planes,monster trucks,tanks

The RPG elements

 

while these things added replay value they also made the whole experince more dynamic and fleshed out

 

GTA4 did alot of things way better then SA, but it would have been perfect if it included the things I mentioned SA had

 

on a side note RDR did this very well, so many things to do in that game that never end.

Edited December 5, 2011 by D-man7

[ldee]

 

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.

fine example of a pointless flame with no message to get across except you're getting all angry at me for petty reasons. so cute. move along now

 

 

Alright to start off, please go f*ck yourself

 

Secondly. It's not about believability, it's about creating an immersive world, all GTA's have had this, last generation GTA was by a long shot the most immersive, well designed and polished open world games, not much have changed since then, except this generation they can take it to another level. Adding "simple" stuff such as litter boxes, dumpsters, dirt on vehicles adds to the experience, it makes the world more immersive, it's not just about realism and people sure as f*ck aren't pretentious for appreciating the attention to detail, you're just an asshole that needs to get over yourself.

 

Not to mention that you're comparing an urban jungle to San Andreas, you're comparing two entirely different settings, how does that make ANY f*cking sense at all?  Liberty City for what it was, was extremely well made, LC isn't the place where you have a huge country side and desert or whatever, that was San Andreas, apparently this is something that has gone over your head.

 

They're different. You don't eat an apple and then bitch about the fact that it doesn't taste like an orange. It's fine that you like SA more, and it's perfectly acceptable you prefer that style of map, but to bitch that LC wasn't like SA is f*cking retarded

 

And lastly you don't think V's gonna have both? It's gonna have great attention to detail in the city, and it's gonna have the big country side, with.. you guessed more attention to detail than the SA country side had, WHY? Because they can do that this generation. But maybe you'd like simpler ground textures that are repeated for miles with horrible draw distance and identical trees all over the place that pop up out of nowhere as you fly past them. It isn't a matter of detail OR dead space, because they can have great detail and huge open environments now.

 

When V comes out and if it happens to lack the huge open country side THEN come back here and bitch about it, what you're doing now is just being an asshole, we're not the pretentious ones, you are.

you might want to pay closer attention to my point before rambling into the distance. while comparisons of IV and SA are relevant, it's not the topic here. there are plenty of people who bawl about how they'd prefer detail over space, detail over space, and i say otherwise. i'm asking why one is better than the other. in a nutshell to you it's detail vs space, geddit? and this is regardless how well R*'s design can balance both, because we don't f*cking know that design about V yet now do we?

 

now i'm definitely one for balance, and i want and expect to see a good amount of detail in the game, but on the intended and original topic on which is better; open space beats concrete jungle any day. and open space doesn't even pertain only to rural areas. even larger interiors like a properly made airport, or the exterior of it, a large shopping mall, even recreational places like parks and beaches we can see in V's LS will give so much variety and a far better experience than which New York limited IV to. still, i do not bash IV, it was R*'s first sandbox on current-gen back in 2008 and although it didn't suit many GTA players' tastes (and mine, not at all) they still did a top-notch job with their direction.

[mubd]

Personally, I like the countryside more than the city. You can do so much more than in a city with lots of cars.

 

The problem with the OP's statement that there should be loads of countryside is...if every GTA from now on was 90% countryside and 10% city (assuming a map as large as San Andreas), it would get REALLY boring. I'm sure a similar thread will come in the future from someone who's loved GTA V, but hates GTA VIce city because it's mostly a damn realistic, fine looking city.

 

I also liked GTA 4. Of course, the OP should call me a pretentious douchebag for my personal opinion, but I enjoyed it because the city was good to play around in. Can you drive a car into a crowd of people (with Euphoria physics) on the sidewalk in San Andreas? Nup. I can't wait for the gameplay aspects of GTA 4 to be transfused to 5, because I did like the openness of San Andreas, but looking back, the graphics, physics and gameplay were really terrible. OK, yes, I'm also a pretentious douchebag because I like good graphics.

 

Essentially, GTA 4 was a showcase of what the new system was capable of. Now, GTA 5 is going to improve on that dramatically. I have no doubt that it will top San Andreas and IV in their strong aspects.

 

I actually really hope for an endless desert/grasslands on the north, east and south sides of the map, with an endless freeway as well.

Edited December 5, 2011 by mubd

[ElSalvo]

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.

fine example of a pointless flame with no message to get across except you're getting all angry at me for petty reasons. so cute. move along now

 

 

Alright to start off, please go f*ck yourself

 

Secondly. It's not about believability, it's about creating an immersive world, all GTA's have had this, last generation GTA was by a long shot the most immersive, well designed and polished open world games, not much have changed since then, except this generation they can take it to another level. Adding "simple" stuff such as litter boxes, dumpsters, dirt on vehicles adds to the experience, it makes the world more immersive, it's not just about realism and people sure as f*ck aren't pretentious for appreciating the attention to detail, you're just an asshole that needs to get over yourself.

 

Not to mention that you're comparing an urban jungle to San Andreas, you're comparing two entirely different settings, how does that make ANY f*cking sense at all?  Liberty City for what it was, was extremely well made, LC isn't the place where you have a huge country side and desert or whatever, that was San Andreas, apparently this is something that has gone over your head.

 

They're different. You don't eat an apple and then bitch about the fact that it doesn't taste like an orange. It's fine that you like SA more, and it's perfectly acceptable you prefer that style of map, but to bitch that LC wasn't like SA is f*cking retarded

 

And lastly you don't think V's gonna have both? It's gonna have great attention to detail in the city, and it's gonna have the big country side, with.. you guessed more attention to detail than the SA country side had, WHY? Because they can do that this generation. But maybe you'd like simpler ground textures that are repeated for miles with horrible draw distance and identical trees all over the place that pop up out of nowhere as you fly past them. It isn't a matter of detail OR dead space, because they can have great detail and huge open environments now.

 

When V comes out and if it happens to lack the huge open country side THEN come back here and bitch about it, what you're doing now is just being an asshole, we're not the pretentious ones, you are.

you might want to pay closer attention to my point before rambling into the distance. while comparisons of IV and SA are relevant, it's not the topic here. there are plenty of people who bawl about how they'd prefer detail over space, detail over space, and i say otherwise. i'm asking why one is better than the other. in a nutshell to you it's detail vs space, geddit? and this is regardless how well R*'s design can balance both, because we don't f*cking know that design about V yet now do we?

 

now i'm definitely one for balance, and i want and expect to see a good amount of detail in the game, but on the intended and original topic on which is better; open space beats concrete jungle any day. and open space doesn't even pertain only to rural areas. even larger interiors like a properly made airport, or the exterior of it, a large shopping mall, even recreational places like parks and beaches we can see in V's LS will give so much variety and a far better experience than which New York limited IV to. still, i do not bash IV, it was R*'s first sandbox on current-gen back in 2008 and although it didn't suit many GTA players' tastes (and mine, not at all) they still did a top-notch job with their direction.

I'm guessing you really like Just Cause 2 then? As far as "open space" is concerned, that takes the cake.

[mubd]

Just Cause 2's map is awesome. I wasn't too impressed with the car handling though. I just used the grapplehook and parachute most of the time.

[GTAWithStyle]

GtaIV's Liberty City was a perfect city wtf are you talking about? who cares if you can't enter all the buildings? those buildings were awesome anyway. I can't wait for another huge city with lots of unenterable buildings aswell as all the open countryside and desert.

[Algonquin Assassin]

 

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.

You've got to be kidding. You barely posted before GTA IV came out. Infact I've probably contributed more to this forum in the last 4 years than you have in 9. Your join date doesn't mean sh*t. Take this from someone who's been playing this series since 1998 while you were still learning times tables and playing with crayons little boy.

 

Anyway I don't know why people complain about the "Concrete Jungle" in GTA IV. No one had a problem with concrete jungles before SA. I quite like SA's map, but GTA IV's IMO was very well done for a singular city.

 

I can see GTA V atleast offering the best of both worlds with a greatly detailed city and open space for people who like that sort of thing. I don't really have a bias towards either. I enjoyed GTA IV's LC so much I didn't care if it didn't have countryside, or whatnot, but it wouldn't have bothered me at all if it did. Why would I?

 

Sometimes I think some people who bash GTA IV for being a "Concrete Jungle" are hypocritical, because I'm sure they didn't mind roaming the streets of LC and VC pre-SA. So I don't know what has changed.

Edited December 5, 2011 by Miamivicecity

[mediocore]

SA was nice and all but you'd drive for miles and there would be no interaction. You could come to a little country side town and no doors would open, you'd see about 3 pedestrians.

 

That is what is meant by dead space.

 

and about the believability, it might have something to do with the fact that you could jump over a bus in SA and there were jetpacks.

[Linki]

 

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.

You've got to be kidding. You barely posted before GTA IV came out. Infact I've probably contributed more to this forum in the last 4 years than you have in 9. Your join date doesn't mean sh*t. Take this from someone who's been playing this series since1998 while you were still learning times tables and playing with crayons little boy.

 

Anyway I don't know why people complain about the "Concrete Jungle" in GTA IV. No one had a problem with concrete jungles before SA. I quite like SA's map, but GTA IV's IMO was very well done for a singular city.

 

I can see GTA V atleast offering the best of both worlds with a greatly detailed city and open space for people who like that sort of thing. I don't really have a bias towards either. I enjoyed GTA IV's LC so much I didn't care if it didn't have countryside, or whatnot, but it wouldn't have bothered me at all if it did. Why would I?

 

Sometimes I think some people who bash GTA IV for being a "Concrete Jungle" are hypocritical, because I'm sure they didn't mind roaming the streets of LC and VC pre-SA. So I don't know what has changed.

Hahaha nice one. And yes, it seems like to them everything before SA is irrelevant.

 

And honestly, playing in IV's LC is a lot more entertaining than SA. LC is made for GTA antics whilst simultaneously feeling like NYC. The way the world is designed, like how a steep road leads to a curved intersection causing you to drift frantically. It's hard to explain, but it just feels like everything was made for a reason.

 

SA had it's own high points, namely the countryside, but IV's map is on another level.

[Talakua]

This latest installment is going to have both wide open countryside and the highly detailed urbanscapes that we were introduced to in IV. Everybody wins, so wtf are people moaning about? The days of having to sacrifice map size for detail or vice versa are long gone in the video game developing world, consoles and computers today are more than capable of handling both. Rockstar have already stated that this will be the biggest game they have ever made.

[Viperman]

The original poster needs to learn grammar and the use of capital letters before trying to force his opinions into everyone.

Play Gta3, then SA. Afterwards play IV. This topic is, at that point rendered useless. Nothing more than an attempt to try establish his intellegence and bu his own fault, his stupidity.

[ScullDog]

This^^^

[Zee]

 

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.

You've got to be kidding. You barely posted before GTA IV came out. Infact I've probably contributed more to this forum in the last 4 years than you have in 9. Your join date doesn't mean sh*t. Take this from someone who's been playing this series since 1998 while you were still learning times tables and playing with crayons little boy.

 

Anyway I don't know why people complain about the "Concrete Jungle" in GTA IV. No one had a problem with concrete jungles before SA. I quite like SA's map, but GTA IV's IMO was very well done for a singular city.

 

I can see GTA V atleast offering the best of both worlds with a greatly detailed city and open space for people who like that sort of thing. I don't really have a bias towards either. I enjoyed GTA IV's LC so much I didn't care if it didn't have countryside, or whatnot, but it wouldn't have bothered me at all if it did. Why would I?

 

Sometimes I think some people who bash GTA IV for being a "Concrete Jungle" are hypocritical, because I'm sure they didn't mind roaming the streets of LC and VC pre-SA. So I don't know what has changed.

*cackles, snorts* LOL, you seem really angry when you typed this. Actually, Ive been playing since the first GTA as well. You should really check you facts before flaming someone like that, you come off poorly. Cant we find some kind of middleground? Vice City is my favorite too ya know.

 

SO FAR, i havnt really heard any good arguments other than "op is daft." He brings up valid points. Have any of the IV fanboy even BEEN to NYC? i have lived there and let me tell you its got alot more than 3 or 4 enterable buildings total. Iv is not a living breathing city. Its more like a theme park. All an illusion.

Edited December 5, 2011 by Zee

[GRINCH ASS BITCH]

The original poster needs to learn grammar

Quoted for irony.

[Eternal Moonshine]

OP's got a point. R* obviously came to the same conclusion

[jynxy]

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.

You've got to be kidding. You barely posted before GTA IV came out. Infact I've probably contributed more to this forum in the last 4 years than you have in 9. Your join date doesn't mean sh*t. Take this from someone who's been playing this series since 1998 while you were still learning times tables and playing with crayons little boy.

 

Anyway I don't know why people complain about the "Concrete Jungle" in GTA IV. No one had a problem with concrete jungles before SA. I quite like SA's map, but GTA IV's IMO was very well done for a singular city.

 

I can see GTA V atleast offering the best of both worlds with a greatly detailed city and open space for people who like that sort of thing. I don't really have a bias towards either. I enjoyed GTA IV's LC so much I didn't care if it didn't have countryside, or whatnot, but it wouldn't have bothered me at all if it did. Why would I?

 

Sometimes I think some people who bash GTA IV for being a "Concrete Jungle" are hypocritical, because I'm sure they didn't mind roaming the streets of LC and VC pre-SA. So I don't know what has changed.

*cackles, snorts* LOL, you seem really angry when you typed this. Actually, Ive been playing since the first GTA as well. You should really check you facts before flaming someone like that, you come off poorly. Cant we find some kind of middleground? Vice City is my favorite too ya know.

 

SO FAR, i havnt really heard any good arguments other than "op is daft." He brings up valid points. Have any of the IV fanboy even BEEN to NYC? i have lived there and let me tell you its got alot more than 3 or 4 enterable buildings total. Iv is not a living breathing city. Its more like a theme park. All an illusion.

Yeah, like you enter the buildings.... We are sick of "specialists" like yourself. "I have lived blah blah blah" - for a person who hasn't lived in NY the game is awesome. And believe me R* wasn't aiming on NYC residents only. Keep your opinion for yourself or e-mail R* ;-)

[Algonquin Assassin]

 

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.

You've got to be kidding. You barely posted before GTA IV came out. Infact I've probably contributed more to this forum in the last 4 years than you have in 9. Your join date doesn't mean sh*t. Take this from someone who's been playing this series since 1998 while you were still learning times tables and playing with crayons little boy.

 

Anyway I don't know why people complain about the "Concrete Jungle" in GTA IV. No one had a problem with concrete jungles before SA. I quite like SA's map, but GTA IV's IMO was very well done for a singular city.

 

I can see GTA V atleast offering the best of both worlds with a greatly detailed city and open space for people who like that sort of thing. I don't really have a bias towards either. I enjoyed GTA IV's LC so much I didn't care if it didn't have countryside, or whatnot, but it wouldn't have bothered me at all if it did. Why would I?

 

Sometimes I think some people who bash GTA IV for being a "Concrete Jungle" are hypocritical, because I'm sure they didn't mind roaming the streets of LC and VC pre-SA. So I don't know what has changed.

*cackles, snorts* LOL, you seem really angry when you typed this. Actually, Ive been playing since the first GTA as well. You should really check you facts before flaming someone like that, you come off poorly. Cant we find some kind of middleground? Vice City is my favorite too ya know.

 

SO FAR, i havnt really heard any good arguments other than "op is daft." He brings up valid points. Have any of the IV fanboy even BEEN to NYC? i have lived there and let me tell you its got alot more than 3 or 4 enterable buildings total. Iv is not a living breathing city. Its more like a theme park. All an illusion.

Are you forgetting that it's a video game? It's not NYC crammed on a disc. Sounds to me you think people compare it to the real NYC which they don't. Like it or not it was still a commendable effort compared to previous GTA cities. Seems GTA III era fanboys can't see that however.

Edited December 5, 2011 by Miamivicecity

[jamieleng]

After 4 years of driving in IV's LC, I still enjoy smashing through a load of trash cans/cardboard boxes etc. In fact I make sure I hit at least a few during every car chase, because it adds a more cinematic feel & is still satisfying to do.

 

The funny thing is, V's LS will probably have more street clutter than the real thing, maybe not in Vinewood. Then again everything is exaggerated to some extent in the world of GTA.

 

I'm also still seeing new things in IV. The other day I saw a postman collecting mail from those blue post boxes, I'm sure I never saw that before.

[J-B]

 

Iv is not a living breathing city. Its more like a theme park. All an illusion.

And compared to it's predecessors it's more than an illusion. In the old games people never actually flagged down taxis , talked on cell phones , bought food from vendors , walked into enter able buildings(they were just pre spawned in one when you entered and stood around saying the same 5 lines repeatedly) , and worked at construction sites. The meaningless zombies that filled the streets in the III era just walked around and almost never interacted with their environment besides an occasional exchange of non contextual phrases with another ped. It maybe an illusion but it's far better than any ped behavior we've seen in any other GTA. Before you respond calling me an IV fanboy , I've been playing GTA since 2000 when I first got GTA 1 and have been playing them for the last 11 years.

Edited December 5, 2011 by J-B