Map Size of future GTAs

[Andreas]

A lot of people expect that future games of the GTA franchise will have huge maps in the scale of GTA V and perhaps even bigger because next-generations consoles allegedly can handle bigger maps. As some of you might know, that statement is not true because theoretically even current generations consoles, so XBox 360 and PlayStation 3, could handle much bigger maps. The problem is not the hardware but the details of the games that improve with each year even if we are talking about the same console generation, the details that significantly improve with each new generation, the development that need more and more time as details improve, and finally the development costs that rise up. Rockstar Games is well known as a videogame developer that puts much effort into their games and they have a certain standard when it comes to details. The next-generations consoles are around the corner and the next Grand Theft Auto after GTA V will obviously release for the new consoles. If we look from one console generation to the next then we see that the maps become bigger. Just to point out how the map sizes rised up:

• GTA III: 3 square miles
• GTA Vice City: 3.9 square miles
• GTA San Andreas: 13.9 square miles
• GTA IV: 6.25 square miles
• GTA V: bigger than San Andreas, IV and RDR including interiors, the underwater world and 'room to spare' which would be bigger than 25 square miles and so twice as big as GTA San Andreas.

My question now is, do you think that a lot of people have way too high expectations? Do you think that it's reasonable to expect such big maps and if yes, does it add anything useful to the gameplay or could this be even risky in your opinion? What do you expect in the future from Rockstar Games and the GTA series? Discuss!

Edited January 18, 2013 by Carl CJ Johnsons Brother Brian

[Ferocious Banger]

Good topic!

 

Anyways,

 

" do you think that a lot of people have way too high expectations"

 

Yes

 

" Do you think that it's reasonable to expect such big maps and if yes, does it add anything useful to the gameplay or could this be even risky in your opinion"

 

I don't know man. With Square Enix, for example, it is reasonable to expect, for they're not very fond of giving a "lived in feel" to their game-world ie, they don't have the OCD-like obsession with details that Rockstar games seem to possess. So I expect a map that is just half the size of GTAV, but with even more attention to detail given than now. But let's see what they can do with the next-gen of consoles.

 

As for your second question, if Rockstar feel what they're doing is right, then I would too. I'm saying this because, they are masters at creating a game-world

[Irrational]

V won't be as big as everyone think, anyway.

 

I doubt that their future maps will be more detailed, but I am sure that they will be much smaller.

[Matty]

As the hardware in consoles and in general improve, the potential for maps to have a huge level of detail and be bigger will increase, and the amount of creative freedom that Rockstar will have will also increase. Given the fact that GTA IV's map is smaller than GTA San Andreas's map (but also more detailed, as you said; which would mean that the map land area would have to be smaller to handle the extra details), I think that map sizes of future GTA games will be more of a case-by-case basis on what Rockstar choose to do when it comes to the creation of maps and whether the type of storyline that they are going for requires the need for an absolutely huge map - as is the case with GTA: San Andreas as the story covers the whole state reasonably well; or a smaller, more compact and detailed map, as is the case with GTA IV - even though it is still incredibly big. Rockstar's future direction will not necessarily be because of hardware, in my opinion.

 

A big map also suits the direction that GTA V is going in, in my opinion. I would think that the map would be smaller if there was only one protagonist but because there are three protagonists, there is a necessity for a larger map to give a sense of distance between the three characters, particularly when you are not playing as the two, but also to give them a sense of closeness as the story or the game in general requires it.

 

As for your questions - yes, I do feel that people have too high of expectations when it comes to GTA. This is evident with the release of GTA IV and the number of people that complained about it because of the fact that it didn't allow the player to do "as much as they could do in GTA: San Andreas" (not that this was the case - it is just that most of the stuff in GTA IV was hidden somewhat too well) and after the release of GTA: San Andreas, many people constantly expecting future releases to be at the same level or to top it (which GTA IV did do, in my opinion).

 

The second question I somewhat answered in my first paragraph - as hardware improves, peoples expectations increase. I do think a big map isn't necessarily always a good thing though and it can be very risky. For example, if you have a map size that is too big, you begin to get the feeling that the developers focused too much on one area, leaving the others feeling rushed. I kind of got this impression playing through GTA: San Andreas (note that I said the storyline of GTA San Andreas covers the full-size of the map reasonably well) with Los Santos clearly having the most focus and detail, while the other areas were very rushed when it came to storytelling.

[Andreas]

 

V won't be as big as everyone think, anyway.

 

I doubt that their future maps will be more detailed, but I am sure that they will be much smaller.

Let me think. You think that GTA V will not as big as a lot of people assume because it was said that GTA V will be as big as GTA San Andreas, GTA IV and Red Dead Redemption combined including interiors, the underwater world and 'room to spare', and the majority don't consider things like interiors and so on, right? If that is the case, then you have to assume that San Andreas has an underwater world, and each of these three games have interiors. In the end, this would have only a little or even no impact in the size of the map. It is very unlikely in my opinion, that GTA V will have such a great ammount of interiors and such a vast underwater environment that this would have an impact of several square miles of the overall map size excluding interiors and so on. Your last sentence is ambiguous since 'details of maps' can have two meanings; the detail of how much the map look like a real city/town/area that the map and so the game is supposed to represent and then, there are the details like high resolution textures, high-poly models, et cetera. If you mean the latter one then I do not agree because there is much room for improvements and graphical effects will not be the only thing that will improve on the new consoles besides Full HD which will be the standard, and 4K-resolutions [ultra-HD] that will be supported.

 

 

Rockstar's future direction will not necessarily be because of hardware, in my opinion.

That is very true and that is the point I wanted to make. The mapsize of games are not limited by the hardware because there is almost no limit on the current generations of consoles. XBox 360 and PlayStation 3 can handle big maps, and proof are games like Just Cause 2, True Crime: Streets of LA (although TC:LA is not a current-gen game), and so on. The details in this case are not that much of a problem either because you can limit the draw distance and the LOD which would solve major performance issues. It is more like an economical decision, what the game is about and what makes actually sense.

 

 

A big map also suits the direction that GTA V is going in, in my opinion. I would think that the map would be smaller if there was only one protagonist but because there are three protagonists, there is a necessity for a larger map to give a sense of distance between the three characters, particularly when you are not playing as the two, but also to give them a sense of closeness as the story or the game in general requires it.

I like it how Rockstar Games do things. Michael who lives in Rockford Hills, Trevor who lives in Blaine County and Franklin who lives in South Los Santos. I like it how each protagonist lives in a different area of the map and this surely contributes to the replay value of the game since it makes everyone eager to play as another protagonists after you have finished the majority of missions with a certain protagonist and you are about to finally finish the storyline.

 

 

As for your questions - yes, I do feel that people have too high of expectations when it comes to GTA. This is evident with the release of GTA IV and the number of people that complained about it because of the fact that it didn't allow the player to do "as much as they could do in GTA: San Andreas" (not that this was the case - it is just that most of the stuff in GTA IV was hidden somewhat too well) and after the release of GTA: San Andreas, many people constantly expecting future releases to be at the same level or to top it (which GTA IV did do, in my opinion).

GTA IV was Rockstars first openworld game in HD with the Rockstar Advanced Game Engine on the then new X360 and PS3. The quantity of the content was not the focus but more the storyline and the gameworld. Rockstar took about 100,000 photos from New York to recreate that city in GTA IV as Liberty City. It is stated in some recent news that Rockstar took 250,000 photos from South California just to recreate that area in GTA V! That tells us how incredible the effort is to recreate a real life city or area in a game when quality a priority is.

[Dragonjack]

What interested me the most is about the next Grand Theft Auto game which is going to be a big step up for Rockstar North, apparently those guys are working on some kind of new game engine possibly? Give it a good read if you want that is and I reckon the PC users might even consider getting new hardware for there very own. On-topic: I mean, the next Grand Theft Auto game will definitely be even huge! I can imagine Rockstar North making all three cites such as; Liberty City, Vice City, San Andreas. Bloody right now honestly.

 

The source about a new engine developing by Rockstar North http://www.vg247.com/2012/12/11/rockstar-n...en-tech-report/

[Andreas]

Well, the meaning of 'new engine' is ambigious in this case. GTA V uses a new engine as well. All titles from Rockstar Games use the same engine, namely the Rockstar Advanced Game Engine, or in short; RAGE. Each Rockstar title gets its own customized engine and all games use the same base but the engine of each game is customized and optimized in another way. In this case, the meaning of 'new engine' is obviously an entire new engine so a new base. The article from vg247 says anything new since I already knew it before. Anyway Rockstar is here, as always, very vague so it doesn't necessarily mean that they develope a new engine, it only means that they work with current and next-generations consoles. Personally, I think that Rockstar proved that RAGE has a lot of capabilities and I think that they only make a lot of additions to the engine for games that are going to release for the new consoles instead of creating a whole new engine from scratch or whatever. But that is only what I think and I could be wrong. We will see it. Agent could be the first next-generation title of Rockstar although if the game ever releases, then it's most likely a Sony exclusive game as the game was supposed to be a PlayStation 3 exclusive game that should have been released in 2010 but the release actually never happened.

Edited January 16, 2013 by Carl CJ Johnsons Brother Brian

[LiveApk25]

I don't want it to be more than GTA V then it would get Boring to drive

[Irrational]

What I meant to say is, that general estimation that the GTA V map will be as big as GTA IV, GTA SA, and RDR2 combined is nothing but a blatant lie, and they're just doing that for marketing purposes.

 

By detailed I actually meant that "living, breathing city" statement, that has been another blatant lie from the Housers since 2000.

[epicluca]

I guess it'll be slightly smaller than SA, but with loads of interiors to make up for it.

[Andreas]

 

What I meant to say is, that general estimation that the GTA V map will be as big as GTA IV, GTA SA, and RDR2 combined is nothing but a blatant lie, and they're just doing that for marketing purposes.

What mapsize are you expecting in GTA V? Also why do you think that they would lie? It depends on what Rockstar exactly means with "bigger than San Andreas, GTA IV and Red Dead Redemption together". If they mean the exploreable area of RDR alone with GTA SA and GTA IV together including the water then the map would be around 25-30 square miles big. If Rockstar Games only means the land area itself then the GTA V map would be a bit more than 20 square miles big. I do not think that Rockstar actually lied. How do you come to that conclusion? You are pretty much the first person on the forum who thinks that Rockstar's lying.

 

 

By detailed I actually meant that "living, breathing city" statement, that has been another blatant lie from the Housers since 2000.

It depends on what you understand under 'living, breathing city'. I think that most games from Rockstar seem to be more alive compared to other games and the city life is better represented in GTA than in other games like Just Cause 2 but that is just my opinion.

[Anzand17]

What I meant to say is, that general estimation that the GTA V map will be as big as GTA IV, GTA SA, and RDR2 combined is nothing but a blatant lie, and they're just doing that for marketing purposes.

What mapsize are you expecting in GTA V? Also why do you think that they would lie? It depends on what Rockstar exactly means with "bigger than San Andreas, GTA IV and Red Dead Redemption together". If they mean the exploreable area of RDR alone with GTA SA and GTA IV together including the water then the map would be around 25-30 square miles big. If Rockstar Games only means the land area itself then the GTA V map would be a bit more than 20 square miles big. I do not think that Rockstar actually lied. How do you come to that conclusion? You are pretty much the first person on the forum who thinks that Rockstar's lying.

 

 

By detailed I actually meant that "living, breathing city" statement, that has been another blatant lie from the Housers since 2000.

It depends on what you understand under 'living, breathing city'. I think that most games from Rockstar seem to be more alive compared to other games and the city life is better represented in GTA than in other games like Just Cause 2 but that is just my opinion.

I agree

 

[22ka]

Hmm how big will futre gtas be?

 

Well I remeber some where that Sam( or was it Dan) Houser said that they definatly want to make their game worlds bigger infact they would like to combine San Andreas, Liberty City and Vice City all in one game. Now I expect this at the end of the next consoles(gta 6) given how much power they will have.

 

Now I'm not ure but I think they will also do one of all of North america at some point(gta 7 on ps5) then all of america and eventually the whole world(gta 10 on ps 8 or 10).

 

Will it be worth it? Hell yeah. Imagin doing missions all over a huge map will all the cities of gta(LC, VC and SA(forget bout the whole world that's just my idea). The things they could add would be great.

 

They already tried starting this on RDR(america and mexico.