GentlemanSquid Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 I hear a lot of rumours and pleas that people want more than Los Santos in GTAV. Well, this brings up a problem, a disk can only hold so much. If you had Los Santos, Las Venturas and San Fierro, then it would take up a lot of space on the disk meaning it would sacrifice some features. You can't have both with the current consoles. I would rather have just Los Santos and a lot of features. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The N. Bellic Man Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 Quality. But I don't know if the question is right if you mean do we prefer a bigger map or more features. More features and things things to do is the same thing as quantity. No? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GentlemanSquid Posted January 14, 2012 Author Share Posted January 14, 2012 I mean would you rather have a big map with little features - quantity, or would you rather have a reasonably sized map with a reasonable amount of features - quality. So it's in regards to the map not the features. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Algonquin Assassin Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 Defnitely quality. A RDR sized map (Perhaps a fraction bigger) is what I would like. Don't want some ridiculously large map as dead as a corpse aka JC2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gtatheory Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 both if possible Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy_Leppard Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 both if possible Greedy kid alert. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Pink Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 Quality over quantity or vice versa was never an issue in GTA. San Andreas was huge for the time but there was more features to keep you playing and playing. There was properties to buy in the more rural areas so they served as good save points to the places that has missions or girlfriends there. JC2, although beautiful was a big waste. I'd love a huge map but the there has to serve a purpose of more than just an environment. If there's missions there, houses to buy, maybe a bar or two, fine it's not wasted space. Yeah so, I want a huge f*ck off map, because I plan on playing GTA for a long time so I want to keep finding new spots forever! But, I don't wanted it totally empty with nothing to do in it. ＲＵＢＢΣＲ░Ｊ♢ＨＮＮＹ （スオッ） Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoringAdultWithAFatGirlfriend Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 I would much rather have a smaller map with a ton of detail packed into it than a large repetitive one. Having miles and miles of environment to explore becomes totally monotonous if there's nothing new or interesting to find. Exclusive textures for specific areas, highly diversified npc interaction, both are important to me to bringing the environment to life. If I hop over a wall into a backyard, I want to find stuff there. Not just a plain set of grass textures and a wall a thousand times over. To me, the size of the map isn't as important if you have to sacrifice the rewards for exploring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaWiesel Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 Quality, ofc. Nothing to add to this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STR33TDR1FT3R Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 I won't be voting either, I expect Rockstar to give us both this time round GTA San Andreas = Quantity GTA IV = Quality GTA V = Quantity, Quality Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Pink Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 I won't be voting either, I expect Rockstar to give us both this time round GTA San Andreas = Quantity GTA IV = Quality GTA V = Quantity, Quality I have to disagree with you there. For a game that came out nearly 8 years ago, San Andreas was quality too. Getting 100% in that game was extremely hard but awfully fun and rewarding. ＲＵＢＢΣＲ░Ｊ♢ＨＮＮＹ （スオッ） Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonBrody Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 quantity oc bcoz cod cums every year and is the best game in teh world and sells many so gta sucks it must cum evry yera Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STR33TDR1FT3R Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 I won't be voting either, I expect Rockstar to give us both this time round GTA San Andreas = Quantity GTA IV = Quality GTA V = Quantity, Quality I have to disagree with you there. For a game that came out nearly 8 years ago, San Andreas was quality too. Getting 100% in that game was extremely hard but awfully fun and rewarding. Don't get me wrong, back then, San Andreas was an amazing move in Gaming, but looking back now it just seems like Quantity seeing what can be done today. And from what can be done today, San Andreas moved from Quality to Quantity and GTA IV to Quality. The reason why I expect both is because GTA V seems like a mixture of SA and IV combined, which makes it Quantity and Quality. Or atleast I hope it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mostarda42 Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 Without console's limitation we could have both Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PreciousWall Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 (edited) of course i want quality Edited January 14, 2012 by darkdude Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reform Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 Often quantity is the source of quality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikkenugent Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 both if possible Greedy kid alert. Hey after a 4 year wait I can see where he's coming from. Ain't greed, if we gotta wait another 4+ years for VI then I'd want it all too lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tenpennyisplainevil Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 a perfect balance between both. i dont want a big ass landscape with almost no detail, but also not one street thats almost like real life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meezarawcks Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 I'll take quality with a dash of quantity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHARKEM Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Humzz Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 I'll take quality with a dash of quantity. Astagfrullah you need to quit weed! Haha just joking Anywayz, its quality for me. I'd rather V be like IV than SanAndreas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I like GTA and Saints Row Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 San Andreas had quality AND quantity. Granted the quality of many aspects of SA may have aged, but in its day it was a quality experience with tons of variety and content. GTA V will have quality and quantity. I have no doubts about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean5 Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 If the xbox didnt exist with its shi*tty disk size we could have both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zee Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 Why the f*ck do we have to choose one or the other? How about the lazy game companies actually give us something more than the bare minimum? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean5 Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 (edited) Why the f*ck do we have to choose one or the other? How about the lazy game companies actually give us something more than the bare minimum? How can they fit both on a disk thats 8.5 gb? (xbox360) Edited January 14, 2012 by Sean5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jokesminus Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 My god there are some seriously stupid people on these forums. How can you sit there and compare a PS2 game to a PS3 game SAN ANDREAS WAS ON PS2 not PS3 get it in your heads. San andreas was a really good game for 8 years ago it sold loads that speaks louder then a few people sitting there complaining about a area being dead and baron. It was on last gen get over it. I just cant people sit there and try and compare GTA V to GTA San Andreas saying it will be baron and filler are you stupid or just ignorant. GTA V is not a PS2 game for god sake was RDR filler was it baron it certainly didnt feel like that to me. We can and will expect to see that tech implemented in GTA V as well as the GTA IV graphics. Cmon some people actually think its gonna be like PS2 graphics and a large map how stupid are you. It never ceases to amaze me how dumb some people are. And as for disc size SO WHAT if you wanna own a XBOX 360 and are now realizing you might have to change disc to go from one area to the next. Thats your business. So you get GTA V and have to have 2 discs so what its no big deal I wouldnt care we all had a choice PS3 or XBOX 360 some went for XBOX and some went for PS3. As long as I get a really big long detailed game i wouldnt care how many times I had to change disc. After all RAGE did this change disc for the other side of the map and did it well. I would be more upset if GTA V was watered down to fit on one disc knowing full well PS3 could handle a whole updated San Andreas. Sorry if I went off on one then but people are seriously dumb comparing this to a PS2 game cmon quantity/quality BS. NEXT GEN RED DEAD, GTA IV and I personally think no one cares if they have 2 discs on XBOX there are many ways around that problem. And if your that lazy to change disc or feel that it ruins the game or its very 1990s to change disc then buy a PS3. I am in no way a PS3 FANBOY for your info I was a XBOX FANBOY untill RAGE. Disc swapping for going from one end to the other side of the map pish that does ruin the game esp on a game like GTA. There is only one way out of that buy a PS3. Big is always better sales speak louder then words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paperbackmummy Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 I voted for quality because ultimately that's more important. To me, Liberty City in IV felt HUGE - that was partly because it was so densely packed and vertical, but also because there was so much to see that it was overwhelming. It was only when I took to the skies in a helicopter that I realized how relatively small the city was. I have what I think is the perfect marriage between what gamers expect and what R* can reasonably provide: what if R* used the rule of two in this game? Two cities - Los Santos and San Diego (Los Puerta?). This would be good because San Diego is a new town for them to reinvent and would please gamers who don't merely want to see a rehashing of San Andreas cities. Two areas of countryside - forest and desert. We already know there will be both from what we've seen in the trailer. Two small towns - one in each countryside. Two major natural landmarks - Mt. Chiliad for the forest and maybe a dam, gorge or canyon for the desert. Then maybe some smaller points of interest sprinkled throughout, like mines, caves, rivers and lakes, etc. Maybe even an island off the coast of Los Santos, a rich vacation getaway for the Vinewood stars. Think of the level of detail if San Andreas could've been condensed into two great cities instead of three relatively plain ones. (I'm probably biased, though, because I hated Las Venturas and the whole chapter that took place there.) Think about it: You could be anywhere in the game and know that you could travel to another area that is completely different from the one you're in, and being on the opposite side of the map it would be quite a travel in terms of size. This would give us the sense of scale and difference of environment that made San Andreas such an immersive and impressive world. And I think it would allow R* the ability to make a map that feels huge but is still small enough for them to pack in a great amount of detail, thus making it feel even bigger. Lots to see, lots to do. It would be the perfect blend of quantity and quality. There would be two major airports (maybe a third in the desert?), which would only make sense if airplanes are coming back as they seem to be. I feel like my idea solves all the problems we have as fans. I imagine the PS3 is way more powerful than the PS2 but I don't know by what margin. So I think we could have the graphics, details and map size. We could have our cake and eat it too. What do you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mostarda42 Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 I didn't voted because my PC could handle both. Those lame consoles (both Xbox360 and PS3). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jokesminus Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 But this is the problem GTA III world is dead in the GTA IV world there is no reference to Shoreside Vale or any other location in GTA III in GTA IV. But there are references to SF/LV, Vice City in GTA IV these are the locations we will see again if there are new locations they will likely be implemented in GTA V secretly or announced as a new location. Seeing these other San Andreas locations outside of GTA V is impossible heres why. If it has taken 4 years to create just Los Santos and surrounding hills and countryside then it will take another 4 years to for each of those other cities. Equaling about 8 years thats 12 years before we see a Vice City again its easier to create them and put them in GTA V so they can move onto Vice City. R* have been very reluctant to try new locations in GTA otherwise they would have done a 3D GTA London by now. So we can either wipe out SF/LV completely or except they may be in GTA V. They are refrenced alot in GTA IV and the DLCS so they exist in the GTA IV HD WORLD they cant be swept away and wont be. Otherwise R* would have said they are dead but they have not so far. GTA has only ever consisted of San Andreas, Vice City, Liberty City they are very good areas. Seeing SF/LV as DLC is out of the question as well R* already said they are keeping there DLCS smaller and cheaper from $20-$10. Its impossible to think they could create these cities as DLC it would take 4 years per DLC and would cost alot more then $10 to make. Also a 7.8gb download is alot to ask from people esp those with low hard drives and without internet access. So they could put them on a disc you would end up having to change disc anyways so why not put them in GTA V. With 2 discs on XBOX ends up being the same new places are very much out of the question R* have been very reluctant to try this maybe as addition to the three cities already in San Andreas but not on its own. But in the end there are only references to SF/LV Los Santos, Vice City and Liberty City. Those are the cities we will be seeing or we will never see again. To do spin offs I.E GTA V SF/LV we would be waiting a long time to see Vice city and for each of those cities in there own games. I do not see R* keep going back to San Andreas to create different parts of San Andreas and I also dont see fans being happy with seeing San Andreas for the next 8 years. Plus it would end up going into next gen they exist in the GTA IV HD WORLD so they have to be done and I dont think fans would be happy with paying $180 and waiting another 8 years for three games that completes the San Andreas state we all saw on the PS2. Saying we wont see SF/LV is like saying we wont ever see Vice City again. So what would you prefer the whole San Andreas in GTA V and have R* move on to Vice City. Or have them do 3 games before Vice City taking $180 and 8 years to create and a 12 year wait for Vice City. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonBrody Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 If GTA is not going to be annualized anytime soon I'll stick with COD for the rest of my life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now