I am NOT hyped about under water exploration

[gtafiend47]

 

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.

 

 

 

Thanks for the reassurance, guys. I thought I was crazy for a second.

 

[Lukijs]

yes

[MajesticJazz]

@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.

Yes, I have GTA SA and played it. My point is that Rockstar said that they shot down the concept of having multiple cities because they wanted to focus on just one. Yet they turn around and make a DETAILED underwater section which takes up about 30% of the map in certain perspectives.....but yet they just wanted to focus on Los Santos/country-side.

 

Furthermore, people really wont be going underwater much. Yes, at first people will play with it because it is new and different, but after they get the gist of it, they will be back on the streets doing GTA stuff and the underwater protion will be just that thing on the side that nobody really cares for.

 

Again, nobody answered my question. If you had the choice of having San Fierro or Las Venturas instead of this detailed underworld stuff which would you choose?

[Dick Valor]

 

Again, nobody answered my question. If you had the choice of having San Fierro or Las Venturas instead of this detailed underworld stuff which would you choose?

Honestly, it's a difficult decision. I'd love LV and SF, but these would just be more cities and the gamplay wouldn't be much different than LS. An underwater world actually affords us opportunities for a different kind of gameplay altogether. I want to say SF/LC out of nostalgia, but I'm just too damn curious about what it's going to be like to patrol the depths in a submarine, or contend with sharks. I have to go with the underwater world as it adds more diversity to the game, as hard as it is to choose.

[Poedersuiker]

@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.

Yes, I have GTA SA and played it. My point is that Rockstar said that they shot down the concept of having multiple cities because they wanted to focus on just one. Yet they turn around and make a DETAILED underwater section which takes up about 30% of the map in certain perspectives.....but yet they just wanted to focus on Los Santos/country-side.

 

Furthermore, people really wont be going underwater much. Yes, at first people will play with it because it is new and different, but after they get the gist of it, they will be back on the streets doing GTA stuff and the underwater protion will be just that thing on the side that nobody really cares for.

 

Again, nobody answered my question. If you had the choice of having San Fierro or Las Venturas instead of this detailed underworld stuff which would you choose?

Las Venturas obviously.

[jperkovic]

Yet they turn around and make a DETAILED underwater section which takes up about 30% of the map in certain perspectives...

why do you keep on saying that if is not true?

[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.

Yes, I have GTA SA and played it. My point is that Rockstar said that they shot down the concept of having multiple cities because they wanted to focus on just one. Yet they turn around and make a DETAILED underwater section which takes up about 30% of the map in certain perspectives.....but yet they just wanted to focus on Los Santos/country-side.

 

Furthermore, people really wont be going underwater much. Yes, at first people will play with it because it is new and different, but after they get the gist of it, they will be back on the streets doing GTA stuff and the underwater protion will be just that thing on the side that nobody really cares for.

 

Again, nobody answered my question. If you had the choice of having San Fierro or Las Venturas instead of this detailed underworld stuff which would you choose?

Las Venturas obviously.

Yes, Las Venturas it is.

On the other side I have to agree with you about the underwater section, it's way to big like they said it is.

But I'm still excited about the sharks, scuba diving, submarines etc etc...

I rather have Las Venturas instead of all this underwater shizzle, but since Rockstar know what they're doing, I trust em on this one.

 

[Tasha + Kamali]

 

@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.

Yes, I have GTA SA and played it. My point is that Rockstar said that they shot down the concept of having multiple cities because they wanted to focus on just one. Yet they turn around and make a DETAILED underwater section which takes up about 30% of the map in certain perspectives.....but yet they just wanted to focus on Los Santos/country-side.

 

Furthermore, people really wont be going underwater much. Yes, at first people will play with it because it is new and different, but after they get the gist of it, they will be back on the streets doing GTA stuff and the underwater protion will be just that thing on the side that nobody really cares for.

 

Again, nobody answered my question. If you had the choice of having San Fierro or Las Venturas instead of this detailed underworld stuff which would you choose?

1. Who are you to be saying what people won't do? If it is as DETAILED as you are suggesting, that means it will not just be a gimmick, it will actually be something worth spending a bunch of time on. Exploring. Finding secrets and easter eggs and role playing, which are things people do once they have beaten the game and just want to play around. Multiplayer underwater with submarines sounds like a blast.

 

2. The landmass alone is already HUGE. 3.5x larger than an already huge open world from 3 years ago. If R skimmed on the size of LS, then you'd have a good point, but they didn't.

 

3. I would have chosen 15% of different gameplay environments in GTA IV over 15% more city. And the same thing goes for GTA V. If the city gets a bit played, adding more of the same doesn't cure it. More facades and more roads doesn't create different gameplay when you've already put a ton of hours into playing in the city. Detailed ocean exploration gives entirely new gameplay. Give me that over a half baked new city.

 

The way I see if, if you don't want to fool with the ocean stuff then don't. You still have at least 3.5 times the size of any other GTA game you've ever played to have fun with. I believe R did the right thing. Make ONE extremely detailed area that has everything than two or three cities that lack.

Edited May 8, 2013 by Tasha + Kamali

[Cutter De Blanc]

Just ride up to the top of Nekoti Rock, and stare down at the vast landscape of RDR. All the way to mexico.

 

That much is going to be underwater.

 

More than that. Put another mexico in there.

 

THAT'S INSANE.

 

What in the hell are they gonna put down there, Atlantis?

 

 

[Revolution-XW]

You're in with a few others on this, not me.

 

I seriously can't understand how you don't get tired of the surface all the time tbh. This is the first time the underwater is fully explorable in this series.

 

Why don't you give it a first try, at least. Like

[JuiceMode]

Who was it that Niko killed in GTAIV and then threw his body into the river? Maybe we will find his fetid skeletal remains as a nice little Easter egg.

 

Also don't discredit the amount of hours people will spend searching underwater for a Loch Ness monster that doesn't exist. They will then post their expeditions on YouTube for thousands of people to watch.

[RedDragonsBOOM]

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?

You sound completely ignorant they have stated the land mass is 3.5xs bigger than just Red Dead alone, 3.5xs the size means THERE WILL BE 3 AND A HALF OF THE RED DEAD MAP JUST IN THE LAND MASS MEANING TAKE THE DAMN RED DEAD MAP AND PUT THREE AND A HALF OF THEM TOGETHER AND YOU HAVE JUST THE FREAKING LAND MASS OF V. There does that explain it well?

[Poedersuiker]

@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.

Yes, I have GTA SA and played it. My point is that Rockstar said that they shot down the concept of having multiple cities because they wanted to focus on just one. Yet they turn around and make a DETAILED underwater section which takes up about 30% of the map in certain perspectives.....but yet they just wanted to focus on Los Santos/country-side.

 

Furthermore, people really wont be going underwater much. Yes, at first people will play with it because it is new and different, but after they get the gist of it, they will be back on the streets doing GTA stuff and the underwater protion will be just that thing on the side that nobody really cares for.

 

Again, nobody answered my question. If you had the choice of having San Fierro or Las Venturas instead of this detailed underworld stuff which would you choose?

Las Venturas obviously.

Yes, Las Venturas it is.

On the other side I have to agree with you about the underwater section, it's way to big like they said it is.

But I'm still excited about the sharks, scuba diving, submarines etc etc...

I rather have Las Venturas instead of all this underwater shizzle, but since Rockstar know what they're doing, I trust em on this one.

After the confirmation of the customizing options for characters/cars/property, I couldnt agree more with you that R* knows what they are doing. :-)

 

Cant see myself spending much time underwater hehe.

I think Rockstar did not add all that space for just some wreckages, there must be more.

[Diesleman]

Just ride up to the top of Nekoti Rock, and stare down at the vast landscape of RDR. All the way to mexico.

 

That much is going to be underwater.

 

More than that. Put another mexico in there.

 

THAT'S INSANE.

 

What in the hell are they gonna put down there, Atlantis?

Lol, yeah that's ridiculous when you put it like that. Not bad ridiculous necessarily, but ridiculous nonetheless.

 

 

[douggoud]

Who was it that Niko killed in GTAIV and then threw his body into the river? Maybe we will find his fetid skeletal remains as a nice little Easter egg.

 

Also don't discredit the amount of hours people will spend searching underwater for a Loch Ness monster that doesn't exist. They will then post their expeditions on YouTube for thousands of people to watch.

That would be Vlad, and I highly doubt it, we're talking about New York to Los Angeles, it's pretty impossible for something to make it THAT far. Not to mention, I'm pretty sure I heard a news report about police finding a body dumped int he water a while after this happened, I doubt that they would of just left him there. That said, I do expect some sort of easter egg under the ocean surface. What it is? I can't say

[Nah Tso Gud]

I'm excited for it. It will make for interesting missions; story and sidemissions, as well as offer some freshness to the series that is extremely varied from the rest of the usual activities.

 

As for whether I would have the detailed underwater or another city in the game... I see it as - they can create a whole other game out of LV of SF, they can't make another GTA solely underwater. So I'd rather save the other cities ( mainly LV ) for potential future games rather than have a half assed version now.

[CryptReaperDorian]

Really, the only reason that GTA SA's underwater environment failed is because the game mechanics didn't allow it to be used as concealment aside from like one mission. You would jump into the ocean when you have a high wanted level and proceed swim to the deepest depths. However, the police helicopters and boats still knew exactly where you were. With this "line of sight" thing being in GTA V, this should hopefully be fixed. Also, it would be great to have something to defend yourself against underwater predators and enemies at the surface while swimming. I'm thinking something along the lines of the APS, ADS, or ASM-DT underwater assault rifles.

[Homemade Dynamite]

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?

Yes it will be that big. The landmass is 3.5 times RDR and 5 times when counting the water.

[GourangaMaster]

I find it funny the op made such a point of being concerned the land portion of the map would be smaller due to the underwater areas. However upon being shown what the true total is from the previews and that his hyperbolic and completely made up calculations are incorrect he ignores it. I for one will continue to explore the water area while others may not. Im fine with that and if your not going to go there cool but your opinion does not dictate the view of the majority, stop trying to validate your view by insisting that it does.

Edited May 8, 2013 by GourangaMaster

[Algonquin Assassin]

I think it's going to be great. Just think of all the underwater eastereggs there have been. Like the guy with the cement shoes in the water in VC. Underwater exploration was rather dull in SA. I think it'll be very interesting this time around.

 

Maybe we might get some lost city like SF or LV.

[golf wang]

I am PUMPED for it! I have been waiting for scuba diving to be in GTA forever. I hope they add a lot of interesting wildlife, though. I'm expecting whales, dolphins, barracudas, seals, etc.

[Algonquin Assassin]

 

I am PUMPED for it! I have been waiting for scuba diving to be in GTA forever. I hope they add a lot of interesting wildlife, though. I'm expecting whales, dolphins, barracudas, seals, etc.

What about ill tempered, mutated Seabass or sharks with laser beams attached to their freaking heads?

 

 

 

Don't forget the long, hard submarine full of sea men.

[Cutter De Blanc]

You know, if they put a Blue Whale down there, I will be happy.

 

Then I will try to kill it.

 

[golf wang]

I am PUMPED for it! I have been waiting for scuba diving to be in GTA forever. I hope they add a lot of interesting wildlife, though. I'm expecting whales, dolphins, barracudas, seals, etc.

What about ill tempered, mutated Seabass or sharks with laser beams attached to their freaking heads?

 

 

 

Don't forget the long, hard submarine full of sea men.

Hahaha Austin Powers was such a great movie! Never will I forget the scene where Austin gets the cart stuck in that little hallway lmao.

[gzam1312]

The genius of adding an underwater world is that it creates more sensory variability to the game.

From the deafeningly silent depths of the pacific to the forest to the desert to the bustling city....each aspect of the game makes the others have a greater impact...Oh lordy

[dirty dollar bill]

Since we have a submarine we can use I feel I'll be spending more time in the water than I ever did in any previous games. Boats were always kind of boring to me, as was swimming, but exploring the bottom of the sea in my very own sub? Hell yeah, count me in.

[dj212]

I'm not real stoked about the underwater stuff either. I'd rather they put the effort into something else -- bigger towns, more countryside, whatever. Hopefully I'll be wrong & the underwater bits will be amazing, but I'm skeptical so far. I think driving around like a maniac is going to be a lot more fun than boating/diving.

[Kiffster]

I'm hyped!! It'll be fun! And purrty!

[thestoneman420]

Well I'm goddamn keen for the underwater. Water was a death sentence in IV, as soon as you touched it, police boats would surround and destroy you. Now I can escape under the sea in a fully realized underwater 'world', complete with wildlife and scenery. There has been mention of underwater caves as well, treasures and goodies...label me hyped, bitches!

 

It is extremely naive and ignorant to think that the inclusion of underwater means less work applied to the landmass. Why not get the MOST out of this world instead of adding a whole much of land that we don't need. We know this map is gonna be huge and varied, why must you bitch for more when we have it all?

[TheQuestfor100Percent]

but to me it just doesn't seem GTA to me.

 

Rockstar are the ones who decide what GTA is and isn't in my opinion.

 

 

I look forward to underwater areas, but I'm not particularly hyped for any portion of the game. I am hyped for all of it.