Why desert? Why country? Why sea?

[Jvmes]

I've been stalking these forums since 2004 but this is my first post. I'm unfamiliar with the search button so I apologise if this is an inappropriate topic.

 

Anyway, I was reading a topic entitled "I'd prefer a second city" and somebody replied to it along the lines of "Well, the ocean takes up too much space so obviously we can't have it." It got me thinking: Why not? What is Rockstar's plan here?

 

In GTA IV they went down the path of 'gritty realism' although they re-introduced the fun for The Ballad Of Gay Tony. One of the criticisms of that game was the banality of side-missions and the annoyance of 'realistic' relationships with other characters, the point being too much of the game outside missions was not only meaningless but boring. Where does the ocean fit into this new re-imagined GTA? For it to become a meaningful space that encourages return visits outside of mission time then surely the developers are going to have to delve into silliness on a level even Saints Row wouldn't dare venture to? How much time are bank robbers realistically going to spend under-water? Surely this is not an adequate use of time and space.

 

On a secondary note: What is the purpose of the countryside? Yes, we know, geographic diversity and gameplay variety. It is obviously easier to programme a highly engaging country-side area that meshes with the urban but what purpose does it serve? Countryside surely has no part in a game based on an urban locale if it doesn't bridge the gap between two? It means all roads lead back to Los Santos and that is a fact which will inevitably spoil immersion.

 

We know full well that Rockstar are not hiding Las Venturas or San Fierro. Los Santos is GTA V. GTA V is Los Santos. But is that a good thing? Do you think the game will suffer from the scope of the underwater environment, inevitably developed at the expense of the rest of the map?

[rare.steak]

Concrete jungle is no more entertaining than countryside. That's the trend in gaming. You don't see people complaining about the vast open spaces of landscape in RPGs. It's been essential to free roam and sandbox games since its inception.

 

You're under the illusion that the more urban areas there is the more it adds to the game than a natural landscape otherwise would. Maybe it's not an illusion and you simply prefer the former, anyway. Or, maybe you'd snap out of it.

 

My 2c.

[Inky]

I think some people are just over analyzing things too much. I, personally, have always been happy with the games that I've played from Rockstar and I have no doubts that this game will be amazing even if the local is just set in Los Santos. Sure, that only means one city. But surely that doesn't mean they won't make the city itself amazingly detailed, full of things to explore and discover.

[saintsrow]

I'm going to be snarky and say, "If you don't already understand, I can't explain it to you." I spend hours in RDR just riding around and doing little side missions, just because I like the place.

[Vanzant]

So you waited nine years to ask why Rockstar doesn't turn oceans into buildings instead?

 

I don't really think the waters that surround Los Santos will have that much for the player anyways.

 

 

[Killerdude]

I'd love to have even more country space, Especially in MP with high end Military vehicles, It could be the setting for some pretty amazing battles once impossible in a concrete jungle.

 

Imagine: You are in a large open field, fighting off hordes of cops with tanks and jeeps and what not all set up in perfect formation, Then, out of nowhere, friendly air support fries up the cops and you make your escape...

 

Could also work for a massive PVP battle, People on the ground fighting for control of strategic locations, whilst Jet pilots fight for air superiority, and at the same time, supporting ground movements.

 

Maybe even Off-road races and stuff, will be fun no matter what.

 

 

Oh boy, Have I got plans or what..

[Ben73]

Countryside surely has no part in a game based on an urban locale if it doesn't bridge the gap between two? It means all roads lead back to Los Santos and that is a fact which will inevitably spoil immersion.

 

 

I sort of agree with this. I want to cruise through the countryside and end up in a different city to where I started.

 

But I don't agree country side has no place in GTA. There is nothing about this game that suggests that it should all be based in the Urban environment.

It's not called City Theft Auto.

 

 

 

I think it would be ideal to have 1 Large city (Los Santos) and 1 city half it's size. Then have the country side/desert connecting the two with smaller towns in between.

Having a couple of rivers that we can explore would be great, but other than that I am not to worried about underwater exploration.

[Racecarlock]

I've been stalking these forums since 2004 but this is my first post. I'm unfamiliar with the search button so I apologise if this is an inappropriate topic.

 

Anyway, I was reading a topic entitled "I'd prefer a second city" and somebody replied to it along the lines of "Well, the ocean takes up too much space so obviously we can't have it." It got me thinking: Why not? What is Rockstar's plan here?

 

In GTA IV they went down the path of 'gritty realism' although they re-introduced the fun for The Ballad Of Gay Tony. One of the criticisms of that game was the banality of side-missions and the annoyance of 'realistic' relationships with other characters, the point being too much of the game outside missions was not only meaningless but boring. Where does the ocean fit into this new re-imagined GTA? For it to become a meaningful space that encourages return visits outside of mission time then surely the developers are going to have to delve into silliness on a level even Saints Row wouldn't dare venture to? How much time are bank robbers realistically going to spend under-water? Surely this is not an adequate use of time and space.

 

On a secondary note: What is the purpose of the countryside? Yes, we know, geographic diversity and gameplay variety. It is obviously easier to programme a highly engaging country-side area that meshes with the urban but what purpose does it serve? Countryside surely has no part in a game based on an urban locale if it doesn't bridge the gap between two? It means all roads lead back to Los Santos and that is a fact which will inevitably spoil immersion.

 

We know full well that Rockstar are not hiding Las Venturas or San Fierro. Los Santos is GTA V. GTA V is Los Santos. But is that a good thing? Do you think the game will suffer from the scope of the underwater environment, inevitably developed at the expense of the rest of the map?

Why would a gangster be underwater? Because it's fun.

 

And seriously, underwater is now so unrealistic that even Saints Row wouldn't go there? Seriously? What, you've never seen scuba divers or submersibles?

 

As for the countryside, it's because a lot of real places do have countrysides.

 

I'm glad V is less serious than IV. It means I get to fly jets instead of playing darts with a relative on sunday. It means I get to dive in submarines rather than watch a comedy club performance that I could probably just watch on comedy central. Granted, darts and clubs may still be in the game, but now they're just an amusing side thing I can do inbetween jet flights and scuba dives. I like that.

 

Heavy Rain, Mafia II, and all similar games have their niche. Fact of the matter is that GTA has always been a series that balances fun and realism equally well, even if it took IV 2 DLC episodes to get it right for me.

 

I wonder what this logic would be like when applied to deciding where the real entertainment spots of a city would go. "Oh, no amusement parks here, roller coasters are meaningless drivel. No arcades either, shooting aliens and pinball isn't relevant to real people. Let's fill the whole place with opera houses and theaters and DMV buildings. And no superhero movies at those theaters! Superheros are not realistic. Instead let's have them play nothing but meaningful art films and instructional films on how to deal with the DMV. Nothing but citizen kane, gerry, naked lunch, and other art films at all those theaters. Because those are relevant to real people."

[GTAforthe21thcentury]

And your so sure there won't be a bunch of small towns how? Do you have so sort of inside source.

[Josh410]

What do you want?

 

Releasing spring 2018 with delays: GTA Los Kansas

[Jvmes]

Generally, people respond badly to anything bordering on criticism of the game AS IT HAS BEEN PRESENTED TO US.

 

Rockstar have stated that as much work has gone into the underwater world as it has on the ground.

 

No, I do not know that there will not be small towns but that wasn't my point. My point was about a second city.

 

I'm fine with countryside. I spent tonight watching Badlands, No Country For Old Men, Death Wish 2, and The Assassination of Jesse James. I don't need to be sold on the benefits of countryside.

 

I too spend hours riding around Red Dead Redemption but that doesn't translate to GTA V. We KNOW Los Santos exists (canon) in San Andreas and we KNOW that San Fierro and Las Venturas exist (canon) in San Andreas. It makes no sense to have a countryside spiral from a city without having another city. My point isn't "countryside will be boring" but that countryside - in storyline terms and in terms of justifying itself - make sense in a sandbox game without leading somewhere else.

 

Some people get really wound up. The inclusion of the under-water world - for all the space it will take up - isn't essential. Yes, city for city's sake is weak (True Crime LA demonstrates this) but so is countryside that lacks purpose. Remember that in Red Dead countryside DID lead to other 'cities' seeing as Blackwater was only marginally bigger than even the smallest of the major settlements.

 

And to the smart individual who pointed out that submarines and scuba suits exist: we know. The point is that do these elements fit in with the story? Well, yes, they can. Quite easily but in videogame terms how far do you take them without compromising immersion?

[JaggySnake]

It will be a change. I'm sick of games being set in cities. Just gets boring. I think Rockstar has got it perfect with V. There's still a city but in comparison to the rest of the map it's just a small part. We get the best of the city life but if we want we can just take a ride out into the countryside. Redemption is such a beautiful game so it's gonna look amazing in V.

 

 

[Finn 7 five 11]

I don't think underwater will be nearly as detailed as some think, besides which, it wouldn't take up much space at all in terms of bytes. San Andreas had basic diving, I would say this would be a slightly upgraded version of that, not being able to go underwater is a little lame.

 

There will probably be a few missions where you blow up boats and need to dive down to find the money or the chest or prove the body, something like that.

 

As for countryside, I enjoy it more than the city.

[redx165]

I've been stalking these forums since 2004 but this is my first post. I'm unfamiliar with the search button so I apologise if this is an inappropriate topic.

 

Anyway, I was reading a topic entitled "I'd prefer a second city" and somebody replied to it along the lines of "Well, the ocean takes up too much space so obviously we can't have it." It got me thinking: Why not? What is Rockstar's plan here?

 

In GTA IV they went down the path of 'gritty realism' although they re-introduced the fun for The Ballad Of Gay Tony. One of the criticisms of that game was the banality of side-missions and the annoyance of 'realistic' relationships with other characters, the point being too much of the game outside missions was not only meaningless but boring. Where does the ocean fit into this new re-imagined GTA? For it to become a meaningful space that encourages return visits outside of mission time then surely the developers are going to have to delve into silliness on a level even Saints Row wouldn't dare venture to? How much time are bank robbers realistically going to spend under-water? Surely this is not an adequate use of time and space.

 

On a secondary note: What is the purpose of the countryside? Yes, we know, geographic diversity and gameplay variety. It is obviously easier to programme a highly engaging country-side area that meshes with the urban but what purpose does it serve? Countryside surely has no part in a game based on an urban locale if it doesn't bridge the gap between two? It means all roads lead back to Los Santos and that is a fact which will inevitably spoil immersion.

 

We know full well that Rockstar are not hiding Las Venturas or San Fierro. Los Santos is GTA V. GTA V is Los Santos. But is that a good thing? Do you think the game will suffer from the scope of the underwater environment, inevitably developed at the expense of the rest of the map?

As long as Los Santos is as big as Liberty City then I'm good. I just want a good country side. I been waiting for one for about 9 years.

[Racecarlock]

Generally, people respond badly to anything bordering on criticism of the game AS IT HAS BEEN PRESENTED TO US.

 

Rockstar have stated that as much work has gone into the underwater world as it has on the ground.

 

No, I do not know that there will not be small towns but that wasn't my point. My point was about a second city.

 

I'm fine with countryside. I spent tonight watching Badlands, No Country For Old Men, Death Wish 2, and The Assassination of Jesse James. I don't need to be sold on the benefits of countryside.

 

I too spend hours riding around Red Dead Redemption but that doesn't translate to GTA V. We KNOW Los Santos exists (canon) in San Andreas and we KNOW that San Fierro and Las Venturas exist (canon) in San Andreas. It makes no sense to have a countryside spiral from a city without having another city. My point isn't "countryside will be boring" but that countryside - in storyline terms and in terms of justifying itself - make sense in a sandbox game without leading somewhere else.

 

Some people get really wound up. The inclusion of the under-water world - for all the space it will take up - isn't essential. Yes, city for city's sake is weak (True Crime LA demonstrates this) but so is countryside that lacks purpose. Remember that in Red Dead countryside DID lead to other 'cities' seeing as Blackwater was only marginally bigger than even the smallest of the major settlements.

 

And to the smart individual who pointed out that submarines and scuba suits exist: we know. The point is that do these elements fit in with the story? Well, yes, they can. Quite easily but in videogame terms how far do you take them without compromising immersion?

I think the countryside would be great for big stunts and setting things on fire.

 

As for underwater, well, I don't really need it to serve the story. I just want to go swimming. I mean, I do live near a real swimming pool, but I don't have instant and unlimited access to it because it's part of a fitness center that charges per use and closes after a certain time, so it's nice to have a game where I can at least pretend to do it.

[Forzum]

Just look at IV we had 3 big city's and yet there is barley anything to do, we need some countrysides, I need it a lot at least, I'm not the guy that goes on kill rampages etc, I'm more of a guy that drives around and exploring places & stuff, and with a huge countryside that will be lots of fun. For me, city's are often boring. When it come's to underwater tho I'm not that excited tho it's awesome that underwater will have a huge role in V.

[Jvmes]

It's the underwater space I have a problem with. I'm all for countryside and desert as long as it doesn't all lead back to Los Santos.

[Andreas]

 

As long as Los Santos is as big as Liberty City then I'm good. I just want a good country side. I been waiting for one for about 9 years.

The overall size of Los Santos will be certainly bigger than Liberty City from what we know so far. Liberty City in GTA IV was around 6.25 square miles big and I wonder if it will be bigger than L.A. Noire - the map of that game is around 8 square miles big.

 

 

It's the underwater space I have a problem with. I'm all for countryside and desert as long as it doesn't all lead back to Los Santos.

The whole map of GTA V will be as big as GTA IV, San Andreas, and Red Dead Redemption combined, including interiors and 'room to spare' according to Game Informer. Another source stated that the map is as big as 5 times Red Dead Redemption or around 3.5 times if we do not include the underwater environment. You decide if that's too much space or not. The underwater world will very likely play an interesting role in the game as there are sub-marines and perhaps, it's not only storyline-line related. It's definitely something new, something that Rockstar hasn't done yet in any of their games so who knows, it might add more to the gameplay than we could imagine right now.

Edited March 17, 2013 by Carl CJ Johnsons Brother Brian

[kesta195]

What makes countryside so much more pointless than city? The fact that there are less people around? I for one will be spending just as much time admiring the beauty of the wilderness than I will tearing down the streets of LS. Although I agree about the ocean floor. Still curious to see how much time I will actually spend down there.

[BillGates]

It will be a change. I'm sick of games being set in cities. Just gets boring. I think Rockstar has got it perfect with V. There's still a city but in comparison to the rest of the map it's just a small part. We get the best of the city life but if we want we can just take a ride out into the countryside. Redemption is such a beautiful game so it's gonna look amazing in V.

I agree.

[vince91]

the open environment like the countryside and desert allow a playing style that's not possible in an urban setting.. big stretches to build up speed without having to dodge traffic, winding roads trough the hills are more suited for racing than a downtown street, bigger jumps are possible by using geographical things like mountains, desert dunes, ...

 

you can go offroading instead of sticking to the roads all the time, or set yourself on an abandoned gas stations roof and see every cop coming from far away. it's more fun to explore than endless rows of buidings... driving your hard earned treasury to some desolate forest feels more real than parking it in a garage box 1 block from a police station, yar?

 

i'm glad they brought back this 'not an adequate use of time and space' as you call it. but i agree on the underwater stuff.. i fear after seeing it once, there won't be a point to go back there because there is likely nothing to do but sight seeing

Edited March 17, 2013 by vince91

[AtomicPunk]

Spoil immersion? You don't know what you're talking about.

 

Having everything ADDS REALISM. Why shouldn't we be able to leave the city of Los Santos and ease out into the country, into little towns. Or into the desert. That's how it is in real life, so why not? Who wants to be stuck in a city like we were in IV? Not me. I want the diversity. I need the diversity. I'd much rather have a country GTA than a city one, but that's my opinion. I want something more real. I wanna be able to recognise places, like Wal-Mart, or mini strip malls, gas stations--the closer it is to real life the better and more immersive it will be.

 

In the country, the possibility of rivers and lakes alone gets me excited. Then there's the farms and communities, small town police, etc.,etc.,. We should be able to have it all. I never heard anyone ever say that China town needs to be left out, so why leave out the country? Country is better anyways, IMO. In real life, I've lived in all the above.

[JordantheJew13]

 

And your so sure there won't be a bunch of small towns how? Do you have so sort of inside source.

 

We do have small towns. These obviously aren't in the city of Los Santos:

 

 

This one could possibly be on the very outskirts of LS, but it sure looks like a small town to me:

 

This could also be a small town, or across the Sea or whatever it is:

 

This store could be part of a small town:

 

And there looks to be some sort of small settlement in the distance:

 

Then if you go to 0:26 in Trailer 2; that obviously isn't Los Santos, it's probably a small town in the middle of the desert.

 

Unless you know for sure and have actually played the game and have experienced the fact that there are absolutely no small towns or anything other than barren land where there's absolutely nothing to do everywhere BUT in the heart of Los Santos itself, you shouldn't make assumptions.

[TheIllaDopest]

how bout, why not?

[FiendishDog]

I think a city that's half the size of LS would've been nice, because I don't like the idea of having major highways that just kind of circle the map and lead back to LS.

[Jvmes]

Spoil immersion? You don't know what you're talking about.

 

Having everything ADDS REALISM. Why shouldn't we be able to leave the city of Los Santos and ease out into the country, into little towns. Or into the desert. That's how it is in real life, so why not? Who wants to be stuck in a city like we were in IV? Not me. I want the diversity. I need the diversity. I'd much rather have a country GTA than a city one, but that's my opinion.

 

 

You seem to think I am opposed to countryside. GTA needs countryside. It is the underwater space I am opposed to, if it is as substantial as the previews are stating.

 

My issue with the countryside is that in real life countryside doesn't just end. In the modern world it links cities. More importantly in GTA UNIVERSE San Andreas we KNOW there are other cities LINKED BY LAND. Countryside should not just lead back to Los Santos.

 

 

[Jvmes]

And your so sure there won't be a bunch of small towns how? Do you have so sort of inside source.

 

We do have small towns. These obviously aren't in the city of Los Santos:

 

 

This one could possibly be on the very outskirts of LS, but it sure looks like a small town to me:

 

This could also be a small town, or across the Sea or whatever it is:

 

This store could be part of a small town:

 

And there looks to be some sort of small settlement in the distance:

 

Then if you go to 0:26 in Trailer 2; that obviously isn't Los Santos, it's probably a small town in the middle of the desert.

 

Unless you know for sure and have actually played the game and have experienced the fact that there are absolutely no small towns or anything other than barren land where there's absolutely nothing to do everywhere BUT in the heart of Los Santos itself, you shouldn't make assumptions.

Who said there are no small towns? Not me. Not in the OP not in any subsequent posts.

 

What I said was the purpose of the countryside and the immersion of being within the state of San Andreas (which we are lead to believe me are in) COULD be spoiled if the countryside and desert simply loops back into Los Santos. In my opinion it is more purposeful if it exists BETWEEN two urban centres just like in San Andreas. Try play that game pretending that San Fierro and Las Venturas don't exist - that map will make a little less sense and will give you a little less reason to travel out of the city.

 

And someone will say "Hey, the city isn't the only place things happen" TRUE but it is where the game is focused. Otherwise why all the "Where will it be set next?" topics and why no 100% rural GTA?

[biotch69]

There might be a second city. Not another huge Los Santos, and certainly not a LV or SF. But there could be a second city that is smaller than LS but bigger than the small towns in the countryside.

 

I wouldn't be surprised to see a Medium sized city that all the highways lead too. After all, IV was Liberty City, but it also had a section of Alderney which is a different state all together.

 

I understand your worry about the highways leading back to LS, that does seem annoying, but I wouldn't rule out any possibility of those highways going SOMEWHERE (After all, those highway signs have to say something) until the game is released and we can find out ourselves. Rockstar isn't going to spoil something like that, they are masters at hiding what they want to remain hidden and are always full of surprises like this.

[Racecarlock]

And your so sure there won't be a bunch of small towns how? Do you have so sort of inside source.

 

We do have small towns. These obviously aren't in the city of Los Santos:

 

 

This one could possibly be on the very outskirts of LS, but it sure looks like a small town to me:

 

This could also be a small town, or across the Sea or whatever it is:

 

This store could be part of a small town:

 

And there looks to be some sort of small settlement in the distance:

 

Then if you go to 0:26 in Trailer 2; that obviously isn't Los Santos, it's probably a small town in the middle of the desert.

 

Unless you know for sure and have actually played the game and have experienced the fact that there are absolutely no small towns or anything other than barren land where there's absolutely nothing to do everywhere BUT in the heart of Los Santos itself, you shouldn't make assumptions.

Who said there are no small towns? Not me. Not in the OP not in any subsequent posts.

 

What I said was the purpose of the countryside and the immersion of being within the state of San Andreas (which we are lead to believe me are in) COULD be spoiled if the countryside and desert simply loops back into Los Santos. In my opinion it is more purposeful if it exists BETWEEN two urban centres just like in San Andreas. Try play that game pretending that San Fierro and Las Venturas don't exist - that map will make a little less sense and will give you a little less reason to travel out of the city.

 

And someone will say "Hey, the city isn't the only place things happen" TRUE but it is where the game is focused. Otherwise why all the "Where will it be set next?" topics and why no 100% rural GTA?

What do you mean by that exactly? Looping back in to LS? Like, what would that look like? Is it like in mario bros (NOT Super mario bros) where you go off one edge of the screen and come out of the other? Do you mean street placement? Please explain.

[biotch69]

And your so sure there won't be a bunch of small towns how? Do you have so sort of inside source.

 

We do have small towns. These obviously aren't in the city of Los Santos:

 

http://media.gtanet.com/gallery/gta-5-screenshots/641.jpg

 

This one could possibly be on the very outskirts of LS, but it sure looks like a small town to me:

http://media.gtanet.com/gallery/gta-5-screenshots/1.jpg

 

This could also be a small town, or across the Sea or whatever it is:

http://media.gtanet.com/gallery/gta-5-screenshots/25.jpg

 

This store could be part of a small town:

http://media.gtanet.com/gallery/gta-5-screenshots/16.jpg

 

And there looks to be some sort of small settlement in the distance:

http://media.gtanet.com/gallery/gta-5-screenshots/2.jpg

 

Then if you go to 0:26 in Trailer 2; that obviously isn't Los Santos, it's probably a small town in the middle of the desert.

 

Unless you know for sure and have actually played the game and have experienced the fact that there are absolutely no small towns or anything other than barren land where there's absolutely nothing to do everywhere BUT in the heart of Los Santos itself, you shouldn't make assumptions.

Who said there are no small towns? Not me. Not in the OP not in any subsequent posts.

 

What I said was the purpose of the countryside and the immersion of being within the state of San Andreas (which we are lead to believe me are in) COULD be spoiled if the countryside and desert simply loops back into Los Santos. In my opinion it is more purposeful if it exists BETWEEN two urban centres just like in San Andreas. Try play that game pretending that San Fierro and Las Venturas don't exist - that map will make a little less sense and will give you a little less reason to travel out of the city.

 

And someone will say "Hey, the city isn't the only place things happen" TRUE but it is where the game is focused. Otherwise why all the "Where will it be set next?" topics and why no 100% rural GTA?

What do you mean by that exactly? Looping back in to LS? Like, what would that look like? Is it like in mario bros (NOT Super mario bros) where you go off one edge of the screen and come out of the other? Do you mean street placement? Please explain.

He means that you would get on the freeway in Los Santos, start driving on it. You would eventually leave the city and enter the countryside. If you don't exit the freeway, and just stay driving on it in the direction you were going, the freeway would take you through and around the countryside and then you would enter Los Santos again. One big circle.