I am NOT hyped about under water exploration

[MajesticJazz]

I know that Rockstar is putting a lot of effort into the under-sea exploration, but to me it seems more like a gimmick. I mean, Rockstar (and the media) likes to continue talking about how GTA V is bigger than Red Dead Redemption (which really wasn't all THAT huge), San Andreas, and GTA IV. HOWEVER, a lot of this landmass will include the under water portion which is said to be really huge.....which also means that the actual land mass (surface) really won't be all that big in the manner that we think it will be because we aren't calculating the water portion.

 

I mean, when I get the game I will play around a bit with this under water portion, but I won't be spending much time on it. I understand that Rockstar (through the media) is trying to force-feed this feature to us because they put a lot of effort into it, but to me it just doesn't seem GTA to me. It seems more like some off-shot gimmick that Rockstar is doing just to show off what they can do and just how wild/wacky and non-GTA IV (aka serious) GTA V really is. To me GTA is cars, streets, and shootouts, not pretending to be a National Geographic photographer exploring the depths of the ocean.

 

Again, I believe we are ALL going to be in for a surprise at just how small the land portion really is when we get our hands on the game. I believe GTA V land will be just about 20%-25% bigger than that of GTA IV which will be a nice size, but when you compare that to how they hype it up to be, we are in for a huge surprise.

 

But yeah, am I the only one who is not hyped about this sea feature? Anyone else shares my concerns?

[brian.]

I'm interested in it but not hyped about it. I think it's cool that it will have more depth to it than san andreas, glad that many myths of san andreas have come true in GTA V like submarines and sharks and stuff, but I'm not stoked about it, no. I do think it will be cool if they do something like have you sink a ship, then later go retrieve something from it.

[JoshuaGraham]

I just see it as them putting in extra effort to full map underwater sections, nothing major or something to get over hyped about.

I think most people will be fully exploring every creves of the ocean once they've completed the game simply out of boredem unless they were really interested about the water in the first place

Edited May 8, 2013 by Aquatimez

[YoungChrist]

Originally I wasnt extremely hyped about it, but after the journalists talked about how vibrant and beautiful it was Im kind of interested.

 

I dont consider it a gimmick at all imho, but I can see what you're saying about using the ocean size as a way to skimp on making more buildings/city structures.

Personally I think it adds to the immersion of the game, because even if you never enter the ocean throughout your entire GTA V experience, youll always know that you could go there, makes the world feel more believable. I kind of felt with previous GTA's whenever you got to the water, I kinda got pushed out of the immersion because u can only swim above water.

[MajesticJazz]

I'm interested in it but not hyped about it. I think it's cool that it will have more depth to it than san andreas, glad that many myths of san andreas have come true in GTA V like submarines and sharks and stuff, but I'm not stoked about it, no. I do think it will be cool if they do something like have you sink a ship, then later go retrieve something from it.

I don't know, I think that my whole arguement is just that I feel that Rockstar is putting too much effort into something that really won't be used much.

 

I feel that they could have used that effort to add Las Venturas at least or either more to the actual land.

[Nemesis2252]

eh, i could take it or leave it. im more about driving and shootouts.

[boxmonster]

Yeah I'm not hyped about that either. Haven't like all video games taught us to hate being underwater?

[RipeDex]

Im not interested in strip clubs but they are there in the game, some people like it, others don't.

[customkingpimp]

Guess what, nobody cares, no need for a thread about this.

[MajesticJazz]

Im not interested in strip clubs but they are there in the game, some people like it, others don't.

Yes but strip clubs does not require all the effort that the under sea portion takes. I mean from the way the media talks about it, the underwater portion is like 40% the size of the land portion which has me concerned and kinda irked. Like I said above, that to me is a cop-out of making more cities like San Fierro and Las Venturas. I mean, if you think I am just complaining for no reason, I bet you that if people had the choice of having the underwater portion or having either San Fierro or Las Venturas added, I bet you a vast majority would want the city instead of sunken ships and pearls.

[jperkovic]

I like going underwatter, and if it is that detailed like they said im previews, that is going to be really great. I liked going underwater even in San Andreas when I was searching for those oysters. But I'm worried a little bit of how much detailed it will be.

[killahmatic]

 

Again, I believe we are ALL going to be in for a surprise at just how small the land portion really is when we get our hands on the game.

You can tell just from photos that the map is bigger than any previous GTA game. That alone should be enough to shut people up. Its the largest map a GTA game has ever had, and people still whine about the size of it...

 

Also, 20%-25% bigger doesn't make any sense. From the photos you can tell the city is only bit smaller than all of Liberty City & Alderney combined. Which you also need to keep in mind that IV looked bigger because the city was on separate islands, separated by water, whereas the city of LS is all together.

Then you have the mountain, which will clearly take up a good chunk of land.. You have the desert which is seemingly a decent size...and that still leaves farmland and forest, and of course the hills area where Michael lives.

 

As for underwater exploration, I don't really care either way. Not a lot of action can happen underwater, but it does give added freedom to the game.

Edited May 8, 2013 by killahmatic

[USAPatriot]

It's great to go under water and all, but just like the boats, I am not going to do it much. But it will be nice to hide under water if you need too. It will add some depth to the gameplay. [rimshot]

[Miss Darko]

R* isn't doing the other cities not because of the presence of underwater portions, but because they wanted to focus on one city to do it justice. If they hadn't done the underwater portions, it would not have been replaced by more land or more cities.

[MajesticJazz]

Again, I believe we are ALL going to be in for a surprise at just how small the land portion really is when we get our hands on the game.

You can tell just from photos that the map is bigger than any previous GTA game. That alone should be enough to shut people up. Its the largest map a GTA game has ever had, and people still whine about the size of it...

 

 

As for underwater exploration, I don't really care either way. Not a lot of action can happen underwater, but it does give added freedom to the game.

Your post just explains why I (and others) are concerned about how much detail Rockstar put into this. Yes, this will be cool to go underwater, but people really won't care for it that much. GTA has always been about exploring the land, driving fast cars, shooting people etc, not putting on flippers and discovering lost treasure.

 

Rockstar said that they just wanted to focus on one city but yet they go ahead and essentially make a city-sized portion of the game under water which doesn't make since. So does this mean that Rockstar canned the idea of San Fierro/Venturas for the under water portion?

 

Again though, people back it now but when they play it, they would eventually wish that more land mass should have been the concern and not sunken ships, sharks, and starfish....

[gtafiend47]

Isn't it 3.5x the size of RDR and 5x bigger when adding the water in the mix?

 

Still much bigger.

[I Luke]

Every GTA to date, I've never been a fan of water. Pretty much If I go in from a stunt or however it maybe, I usually just drown myself.

 

You're not on your own about not wanting undersea. The time I spend under there will be the bare minimum and yes, I do believe the space and detail could be spent else where.

 

 

[LotusRIP]

Damn. There's only so many things we can do in the city. You want the countryside to go to waste? It's just an extra thing to do non-city relatedwhich is great... Better to have explorable waters than just the usual wasted space with water to fill it in.

[killahmatic]

 

Again, I believe we are ALL going to be in for a surprise at just how small the land portion really is when we get our hands on the game.

You can tell just from photos that the map is bigger than any previous GTA game. That alone should be enough to shut people up. Its the largest map a GTA game has ever had, and people still whine about the size of it...

 

 

As for underwater exploration, I don't really care either way. Not a lot of action can happen underwater, but it does give added freedom to the game.

Your post just explains why I (and others) are concerned about how much detail Rockstar put into this. Yes, this will be cool to go underwater, but people really won't care for it that much. GTA has always been about exploring the land, driving fast cars, shooting people etc, not putting on flippers and discovering lost treasure.

 

Again though, people back it now but when they play it, they would eventually wish that more land mass should have been the concern and not sunken ships, sharks, and starfish....

San Andreas had an underwater world too. Less detailed, of course, but it did exist, so you cant say that GTA is only about exploring the land, and not water.

The details and textures that will be underwater will take up much less space than that of added land. It wont take away from the game.

 

 

and again, the map is still the largest map in GTA history, so stop whining.

 

 

Also, we can explore air too.

[MajesticJazz]

Isn't it 3.5x the size of RDR and 5x bigger when adding the water in the mix?

 

Still much bigger.

Incorrect, it is 3x the size (or 3.5x) of Red Dead Redemption WITH the underwater being included. And from the previews, the underwater portion is HUGE which means that the actual land part is only like 2x or 2.5x bigger than RDR which really isn't that big when you facter in the fact that there will be cars and planes. Remember, in RDR we got around on horse which was a bit slower which in essence made the world feel huge.

 

This is exactly what I am talking about, people will be in for a huge letdown when they actually play the game. I think people aren't accounting for the fact that the underwater takes up a huge part of the game as the previews say and that the actual land won't be as big as we all hype it to be.

[Poedersuiker]

Aint hyped for it aswell.

 

Cant say I dont like it.

Can say that I'm curious!

[Durden]

Isn't it 3.5x the size of RDR and 5x bigger when adding the water in the mix?

 

Still much bigger.

Incorrect, it is 3x the size (or 3.5x) of Red Dead Redemption WITH the underwater being included. And from the previews, the underwater portion is HUGE which means that the actual land part is only like 2x or 2.5x bigger than RDR which really isn't that big when you facter in the fact that there will be cars and planes. Remember, in RDR we got around on horse which was a bit slower which in essence made the world feel huge.

 

This is exactly what I am talking about, people will be in for a huge letdown when they actually play the game. I think people aren't accounting for the fact that the underwater takes up a huge part of the game as the previews say and that the actual land won't be as big as we all hype it to be.

Lol nope.avi

 

Try again.

 

This is either a shotty troll, or an uninformed GTA citizen.

[I Luke]

Aint hyped for it aswell.

 

Cant say I dont like it.

Can say that I'm curious!

Yeah, I'm kinda excited to see how much they can do with it but in perspective, we won't be able to do that much.

[Tasha + Kamali]

I believe GTA V land will be just about 20%-25% bigger than that of GTA IV which will be a nice size, but when you compare that to how they hype it up to be, we are in for a huge surprise.

 

But yeah, am I the only one who is not hyped about this sea feature? Anyone else shares my concerns?

And you would be wrong. If you actually read what the media is saying instead of being so quick to criticize then you'd get accurate information.

 

 

As we looked over Franklin's shoulder we were seeing the game from about one virtual kilometer up, the Rockstar rep told me, noting that the landmass of GTA V is 3.5x the size of that of Rockstar's sprawling 2010 western Red Dead Redemption. Five times bigger if you count the new game's underwater areas. (Note: If you read other new GTA V previews, you can play spot-the-similarities, as I'm sure many of the details I'm sharing were shared with other members of the press. Here's another measurement from the cheat sheet of details I got and I bet they got too: the game's bigger than Rockstar's GTA: San Andreas, GTA IV and Red Dead Redemption combined. It's large!)

 

http://kotaku.com/they-could-really-use-a-...ir-ne-487221509

 

Note that the land alone is nearly 4 times as large as RDR. RDR map was a good deal larger than the GTA 4 map.

 

Do the math.

 

 

[Miss Darko]

 

Isn't it 3.5x the size of RDR and 5x bigger when adding the water in the mix?

 

Still much bigger.

Incorrect, it is 3x the size (or 3.5x) of Red Dead Redemption WITH the underwater being included.

You are incorrect, sir. Several previews have stated that the landmass is 3.5x the size of Red Dead Redemption (and one alone is actually significantly bigger than GTA IV if the unexplorable areas are considered, but let's assume that they're not), and the map 'as a whole' including the point at which the underwater portions are no longer handcrafted is 5x the size of RDR.

 

Now, that's a lot of space that's being reserved for the water portions. But allow me to reiterate: having not done that, those portions would not have been replaced by other major cities, or even more land. The water portions are where they are based on the geography of the existing landmass, all they've done is expand that underwater. If they made the landmass bigger, they'd have to either further increase the size of the underwater portion, or not let us go underwater at all.

 

I think you're overestimating how much time and resources are being put into under-water. It's not being half-assed, but it's not nearly as much as an entire city, despite being very large.

Edited May 8, 2013 by Mr. Darko

[Tense]

 

To me GTA is cars, streets, and shootouts, not pretending to be a National Geographic photographer exploring the depths of the ocean.

Haha that's one of the greatest sentences I've read around here in a while. Couldn't agree more.

 

Although, with that said, I hope the water may offer a neat new method for evading the police. I could see the breathing gear coming in useful there.

 

Also, I really hope there's some kind of spear gun in the game because I'm not sure there are many other underwater 'weapons' as such. Particularly if we could also use it on land as well, that would be awesome. Imagine spearing people.. or like a helicopter or something and just hanging around. I can dream, can't I?

[Dick Valor]

 

Isn't it 3.5x the size of RDR and 5x bigger when adding the water in the mix?

 

Still much bigger.

Incorrect, it is 3x the size (or 3.5x) of Red Dead Redemption WITH the underwater being included. And from the previews, the underwater portion is HUGE which means that the actual land part is only like 2x or 2.5x bigger than RDR which really isn't that big when you facter in the fact that there will be cars and planes. Remember, in RDR we got around on horse which was a bit slower which in essence made the world feel huge.

 

This is exactly what I am talking about, people will be in for a huge letdown when they actually play the game. I think people aren't accounting for the fact that the underwater takes up a huge part of the game as the previews say and that the actual land won't be as big as we all hype it to be.

Actually, you are incorrect, MajesticJazz. It has been confirmed multiple times that GTA V's landmass is 3.5x RDR, while the entire map (including underwater) is 5x RDR. So we do know how much land we're getting and it is the largest R* has ever created (at least 21 square miles of land alone). Your concerns are unfounded:

 

From Kotaku:

 

the landmass of GTA V is 3.5x the size of that of Rockstar's sprawling 2010 western Red Dead Redemption. Five times bigger if you count the new game's underwater areas.

 

From IGN:

 

Rockstar says the map is 3.5 times bigger than Red Dead Redemption -- 5 times bigger if you include topography, as representatives kept talking about be depths of the ocean.

 

OT: How can you not be hyped about fighting great whites with spear guns and exploring the depths in a submarine? How many other games let you do this? Yeesh.

Edited May 8, 2013 by Dick Valor

[GTAFan20]

@MajesticJazz

 

Do you have GTA:SA?

I'll say go search for shelps underwater in SA and imagine how V's underwater exploration will be .

I'm playing it right now, lol.

[Durden]

He just left the topic in shame

[Poedersuiker]

Aint hyped for it aswell.

 

Cant say I dont like it.

Can say that I'm curious!

Yeah, I'm kinda excited to see how much they can do with it but in perspective, we won't be able to do that much.

It seems way to big considering its 1.5 times the map of RDR. Looks like that doesnt add much to your experience.

They could make a second city with 0.5 times the map of RDR instead of that tough.