Jvmes Posted March 17, 2013 Author Share Posted March 17, 2013 "looping back to Los Santos" You're sort of right about the freeway returning but I don't mean it so literally. I am aware that GTA is not Snake and you don't randomly appear on the East of the map if you drop off the West. What I am saying is if we take San Andreas as the archtype (which we should) then Los Santos = 'x', San Fierro = 'y', Las Venturas = 'z' The point of the countryside was to provide a radical new landscape. To provide diversity and variety. To provide different opportunities. A different atmosphere. But the point was also to get us from 'x' to 'y' or from 'y' to 'z' or from 'z' to 'x' and so on. It is a transitional space, in short. One that is not essential to the story (which in the case of V we know is an ubran, capitalist tale based around heists and focused upon Los Santos). Now let's remove 'y' and 'z' from the equation. What is the point of that space in between? yes, it is interactive and immersible but if it only leads (or 'loops') back into Los Santos then what is its purpose? Is it as effective? In gameplay terms? In story-line terms? I hope you understand my point. It's sort of that you're on a 'road to nowhere' without a second urban centre, not necessarily a second city but a second urban centre. ALSO I just want to clarify that I am totally in favour of countryside but a single urban centre undermines the purpose and importance of that countryside space, which should be transitional. My gripe is what use we are going to get from the underwater space? I'm not sure there is longevity in it and believe it to be a little bit gimmicky. I favour it for a mission - as an enclosed linear environment - but in free roam? Surely a waste of space in such a game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Racecarlock Posted March 17, 2013 Share Posted March 17, 2013 "looping back to Los Santos" You're sort of right about the freeway returning but I don't mean it so literally. I am aware that GTA is not Snake and you don't randomly appear on the East of the map if you drop off the West. What I am saying is if we take San Andreas as the archtype (which we should) then Los Santos = 'x', San Fierro = 'y', Las Venturas = 'z' The point of the countryside was to provide a radical new landscape. To provide diversity and variety. To provide different opportunities. A different atmosphere. But the point was also to get us from 'x' to 'y' or from 'y' to 'z' or from 'z' to 'x' and so on. It is a transitional space, in short. One that is not essential to the story (which in the case of V we know is an ubran, capitalist tale based around heists and focused upon Los Santos). Now let's remove 'y' and 'z' from the equation. What is the point of that space in between? yes, it is interactive and immersible but if it only leads (or 'loops') back into Los Santos then what is its purpose? Is it as effective? In gameplay terms? In story-line terms? I hope you understand my point. It's sort of that you're on a 'road to nowhere' without a second urban centre, not necessarily a second city but a second urban centre. ALSO I just want to clarify that I am totally in favour of countryside but a single urban centre undermines the purpose and importance of that countryside space, which should be transitional. My gripe is what use we are going to get from the underwater space? I'm not sure there is longevity in it and believe it to be a little bit gimmicky. I favour it for a mission - as an enclosed linear environment - but in free roam? Surely a waste of space in such a game. Well, I guess a road leading nowhere except back to the city would be stupid. As for underwater, well, swimming is fun. I don't know what other excuses I can come up with. Swimming is fun. Even in virtual reality in my experience, swimming is fun. That's it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Valor Posted March 17, 2013 Share Posted March 17, 2013 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. Respectfully disagree. V's countryside is confirmed to be populated with "towns" and "villages,' so there will be multiple destinations and landmarks throughout the countryside that justify the roads from a logistical point of view. Also, why should a city surrounded by countryside floating in the middle of nowhere (V) make any less sense than a standalone city/state floating in the middle of nowhere (IV)? Seems arbitrary to me. I think you just have to look at the glass as half full and be happy that this game will be more than the sum of IV's urban/industrial cityscape and RDR's sprawling countryside. Underwater exploration with vehicles and diving equipment is a first for the series... it's going to be breathtaking. V is going to have the most stunningly diverse gameplay of any R* game ever largely thanks to the countryside and underwater environments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thestoneman420 Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 ALSO I just want to clarify that I am totally in favour of countryside but a single urban centre undermines the purpose and importance of that countryside space, which should be transitional. My gripe is what use we are going to get from the underwater space? I'm not sure there is longevity in it and believe it to be a little bit gimmicky. I favour it for a mission - as an enclosed linear environment - but in free roam? Surely a waste of space in such a game. 1. You don't know the map. It's not going to look like San Andreas' map so stop trying to compare the two. Maybe there is a substantial town outside of Los Santos that we haven't fully seen yet? Until we have ALL the info, I wouldn't be worrying too much about it. 2. Just stop. GTA games are made for a wide audience. I want to be able to swim underwater and escape the police (unlike in IV where the water was a death sentence). I want to swim past schools of fish and see a menacing shark swimming in the distance. The underwater world definitely won't be a 'gimmick', its there to ADD both gameplay and immersion. Hell, we don't even know how much water is going to be in the map! So no, not a waste of space. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chukkles Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 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. We still don't know that this isn't the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Darko Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 As for underwater, well, swimming is fun. I don't know what other excuses I can come up with. Swimming is fun. Even in virtual reality in my experience, swimming is fun. That's it. Well usually swimming feels really slow and boring in games. But they can make it fun, and it seems like they have: being able to dive in a SCUBA suit, wildlife to contend with, destinations and easter eggs under the water to give stuff to explore, and of course we have bathyspheres and possibly other submersibles to explore the underwater world with greater speed and maneuverability. I notice that people often just think of the coastal waters of Los Santos. But I'm actually much more interested in what's in the Alamo Sea. It just adds fun and dimension to the world, and I'm quite certain that they will make great use of it. That said, I don't think it's actually going to be a huge deal. The fact that they've gone out of their way to model everything underwater up to a certain extent tells me that they're not half-assing it like they did in GTA: SA, but I don't think that they've made as big a deal out of it as the fans have. The underwater portions of the map are things that, if they had not been there, the land portion of the map would not have replaced them. It's not like they're the reason why there aren't multiple cities. I do think that this game has lots of destinations to offer. The highway may loop back to Los Santos eventually, for instance (I mean, it did anyways in SA, it just went through other cities first), but not before taking us to other places. Small towns, maybe even some big towns, places to explore, places to be. Countryside isn't dead space. There will be lots of content outside of Los Santos that won't be available in Los Santos. Personally, I like the new focus and scale. It sets it apart from GTA: SA and allows them to put more focus in the world and the game. It's larger than SA but represents a smaller area, which means that the scale is more believable, and as much as I liked going from city to city in GTA: SA, it just wouldn't feel believable here. Even if the map is twice the size of SA, the cities would be three to four times bigger than their previous iterations because of our expectations, so the scale would be even more off than before, but now with realistic graphics that make it less easy to accept. But I know that's not what this thread is really about. All I can say in direct response to the question in mind is to repeat this: the surrounding areas are not dead space. They will be a destination in themselves, rather than a bridge to elsewhere. Trust me on this; RDR proved that R* can get this right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh410 Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 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. And about 4 of those miles in IV were water Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nic_23 Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 R*'s take on New York in IV was obviously all city because that's what New York is all about but i think R* wanted to add some country to the game and mountains because that is what surrounds LA and it will be interesting, i suppose from the size of LA they could have made one big city but we want something more open. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeafMetal Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 There's going to be smaller cities in there. But, honestly, I would much rather prefer another big city to a huge countryside/detailed ocean. I would have thought it was a given, tbh. Oh well. We'll have to wait and see how it turns out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LotusRIP Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 OP, stop talking bullsh*t, anybody who played San Andreas will know that most of our time was spent screwing around in the countryside and desert... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nic_23 Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 OP, stop talking bullsh*t, anybody who played San Andreas will know that most of our time was spent screwing around in the countryside and desert... I totally agree i spent all my time in the country side, the city was boring to me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gran Feft Orto Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 I think you need to realise that the point of a countryside isn't just to serve as a route to another city. People visit the countryside because it's a nice place to be, with lots of towns, villages, attractions, and activities to participate in. Then they often will simply return home (in this case head back to Los Santos). In terms of gameplay, the coutryside is going to be fantastic, just like in San Andreas. I think multiplayer racing was one of the highlights of IV, and can't wait to see this translated to the diverse landscapes of V. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rare.steak Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 OP, stop talking bullsh*t, anybody who played San Andreas will know that most of our time was spent screwing around in the countryside and desert... I totally agree i spent all my time in the country side, the city was boring to me These posts from typical GTA fans speak a lot for themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigbleezy Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 OP, stop talking bullsh*t, anybody who played San Andreas will know that most of our time was spent screwing around in the countryside and desert... Speak for yourself. I hated the country side in San Andreas. The desert was pretty boring too. You see a few easter eggs and take a few jumps and then that's it. I spent as little time as I could in both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jvmes Posted March 18, 2013 Author Share Posted March 18, 2013 OP, stop talking bullsh*t, anybody who played San Andreas will know that most of our time was spent screwing around in the countryside and desert... I appreciate your constructive input to the discussion. Well done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-Malo94 Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 I hate feeling like I'm in an island city floating in the middle of nowhere. I can't imagine any downsides of having different environments to explore. They already said LS will be roughly the same size ass LC. Thats enough for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killahmatic Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 On a secondary note: What is the purpose of the countryside? what purpose does it serve? If you've played San Andreas, you know the purpose. It adds to the quality of the game. It makes for a better experience. It adds unique missions and vehicles that wouldn't make sense without it. If you keep a game entirely in the city, it greatly limits what can be done. 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