I am NOT hyped about under water exploration

[DeafMetal]

I'm more than satisfied with the landmass being x3.5 RDR, so the water doesn't bother me. I'm really hyped for the sharks and how awesome water will be in multiplayer Can you imagine a deathmatch in a corral reef?

[Mister Pink]

 

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?

Explorable sea provides many useful and exciting things for the GTA gamer. First of all, it adds to exploration and discovery. It will provide hours of free-roam fun, exploring and collecting hidden treasures.

 

Second of all, it completes the map, makes it more realistic. I don't want to just be floating on top of a spongey sea again.

 

Flying above the sea, I'll be happy to know that there's more out there than meets-the-eye. The sense of freedom and exploration is greater than having more streets just to do what we've always been able to do in a GTA.

 

Variety is key in GTA. The sea offers more variety. Rather than just land and air in our playground, we have a complete trinity - land, sea and air.

 

OP sounds like he's just like another concrete jungle that is IV.

[wwinterj]

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.

The same can be said for the Sky really. I am however looking forward to both Sky and Sea. The underwater sections look great. I've always liked going in the water in GTA games and trying to dive. At least in GTA V R* have added a bigger reason to do that and added more detail to it. That sub we see in the trailers looks really fun plus the sea life such as fish and sharks.

[Nah Tso Gud]

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?

Explorable sea provides many useful and exciting things for the GTA gamer. First of all, it adds to exploration and discovery. It will provide hours of free-roam fun, exploring and collecting hidden treasures.

 

Second of all, it completes the map, makes it more realistic. I don't want to just be floating on top of a spongey sea again.

 

Flying above the sea, I'll be happy to know that there's more out there than meets-the-eye. The sense of freedom and exploration is greater than having more streets just to do what we've always been able to do in a GTA.

 

Variety is key in GTA. The sea offers more variety. Rather than just land and air in our playground, we have a complete trinity - land, sea and air.

 

OP sounds like he's just like another concrete jungle that is IV.

This post sums it up perfectly.

 

All hail Pink.

[.dre.]

 

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?

I get exactly what you are saying. I hate when they keep reiterating that it's bigger than RDR, San Andreas, and GTA IV combined....if you count the water. Now why do they keep saying...if you count the water? Because the land isn't as big as all those combined. So there's treasure in the water.. I don't care. This isn't Uncharted muthaf*cka. I want to drive around, shoot people, and see different towns, maybe San Diego. I rather have all of that instead of seeing constant blue.

Watch people think it's going to be a huge land map and come back here bitching that it isn't. It was the samething with GTA IV. they said it was huge...if you count the interiors and the tall buildings. But you couldn't even go inside as many places as the other GTAs. So I'm skeptical until I actually see how big this map really is.

[mikekolesar]

I do agree to a certain extent OP. Except i was worrying about the vast countryside taking up most of the land that is "4x bigger than RDR". What's the use of a map that large if so much of it will (probably) be just countryside we will only see when on the road passing it going 100 MPH in a cheetah? The same goes for the ocean. I think it's important to account for ocean and countryside portions of the map taking up most of the large map.

 

Don't get me wrong this is goin to be incredible and I love the countryside just as much as the ocean exploration but I just have my expectations lowered.

[GamerToons]

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.

you are wrong.

 

3.5 times bigger land mass than RDR

 

5 times if you include the water.

[vivalavendredi]

Maybe (if not probably) we can use some weapons under water. I can imagine funny little battles and missions there. Same for the water surface. Franklin is driving a boat, we have followers and Michael shoots at them from the rear part of the shop Franklin drives. We can switch between em. If it's getting tricky we switch to Trevor who drops stuff from a plane at them… sound pretty good to me

[dontdieb4september]

 

why have people got to turn every thread into a map size argument.. f*cking annoying.

Not much of an argument here. Just someone making a pretentious, false claim and everybody telling that one person he was very wrong.

LOL I just noticed your username. Awesome.

Cheers Yeah I meant the punk bringing it up first, Its like every single thread has to go the same way.. Its all good.

 

Man one of the first things I will do is fill a plane or helicopter up with people if its possible and ditch it in the sea, Sharks deserve dinner.

[Execta]

 

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?

How in the holy hell did you calculate that GTA V's land mass is only 20-25 % bigger than GTA IV's? It has already been told that the WHOLE GAME WORLD is 5 times the size of Red Dead Redemption. Now, if you minus the water parts, the land mass of GTA V is 3 times the size of Red Dead Redemption - this is what the previews said last week. Now compare GTA IV and RDR. RDR's land mass is already almost 50 % bigger than GTA IV's, not to mention how much more complex it is with all the mountains and rivers, but to be fair, let's say RDR's game world is only 40 % bigger than GTA IV's land mass. So if this is true, then GTA V's land mass size is 3 x RDR, so compared to IV, GTA V's land mass is 3 x 40 % = 120 % --> 240 % of GTA IV's. So it's almost 2.5 times the size of Liberty City, in addition to the water parts.

 

If that's not enough for you... I don't know, I feel sorry for you.

Edited May 8, 2013 by Execta

[jamieleng]

 

I have a question. Okay. They confirmed Los Santos to as ever, be an island. They've confirmed a fully detailed, explorable ocean floor. Alright, well if you swim out to the border (while diving in gear of course) of the ocean, will it be repeated textures or what exactly would happen?

i think you would just keep going

I think you will reach a Continental Shelf, where it gets so deep, you wouldn't be able to reach the ocean floor anyway. Maybe your submarine will implode if you go down too far (though I highly doubt it).

[allftw]

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?

 

That would be so cool. Like a sunken city, not really realistic but would be fun to explore.

Sounds like easter eggs galore.

Imagine going down there and finding cities (or at least portions of it) from PS2 era. Now that would be an easter egg for ages.

[Peregrin Brandytook]

the ocean scares me lol

[GTAfan786]

Umm...it's actually 3.5x bigger than RDR without water, just land mass wise. With water, it's 5x.

 

Btw, i am hyped about the underwater

[TripleRob]

Be awesome if you find the old Los santos (ps2 version) under the water lol

[meleeman09]

I think I might be the most hyped about it I seriously can't f*cking wait to explore the ocean, it'll probably be the very first thing I do when I get a chance to free roam (SP). I'll just keep driving around until I find a boat with scuba gear and plop into the ocean I go.

[Freezer89]

Shipwrecks, sharks, underwater caves, submersibles.. yeah, how could I not be hyped for that? If there weren't any of these features, sure it would be kinda useless and a waste of space.

[Member#1]

I don't really understand why R* made swimming and diving such a big thing, maybe I'll find out once I play the game.

I can't see myself spending a lot of time in the water nevertheless, it will be very slow gameplay and I hate that.

[GTAfan786]

 

I don't really understand why R* made swimming and diving such a big thing, maybe I'll find out once I play the game.

I can't see myself spending a lot of time in the water nevertheless, it will be very slow gameplay and I hate that.

Swimming and diving isn't a waste of space and a bad idea. Why do you think a lot of people complained about IV's water? It was dull. You do know there are boats aswell, so you don't need to swim. How does it make gameplay slow?

[SuperCrayon]

I'm hyped about it, in fact it will most likely be the first thing i do. I think there will be a lot of secrets hidden in underwater, also the treasure hunting will be fun. That and the submarine, sharks and other divers to mess with. I hope there is some way to attack underwater, if not, i don't think it will be as fun.

[Honest Bill]

You're not the only one OP. I mean sure it might be fun explore the coral reef at first, and to find the odd shipwreck every now and then, but overall the whole depths of the ocean thing doesn't do a lot for me.

 

But hey variety is the spice of life. The landmass is plenty big enough imo.

[Member#1]

You do know there are boats aswell, so you don't need to swim. How does it make gameplay slow?

Have you ever been in the water? Swimming is slow. In GTAIV I always avoided ending up in the water without a boat and for driving a boat you don't need an underwaterworld.

[roboto]

 

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.

I had to sign up after lurking just to clarify something I read on Kotaku.

 

According to the article and the way I read it on May 2nd, the landmass will be 3.5x bigger than RDR...... OR 5 times bigger if you include the oceans/underwater areas. So 3.5x larger than RDR, but if you add the oceans, you get 5x the size. In math, that translates to the oceans taking up 30% of the entire playable area.

 

The actual article says the following:

 

"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!)"

 

So everyone compares the map to GTA: SA, but they are clearly saying GTA V is larger than GTA: SA, GTA IV and (AND!) RDR combined.

 

This is the link to the article: http://kotaku.com/ive-seen-grand-theft-aut...-diff-487200782

 

And this was posted on their site just this morning, reiterating exactly what I pointed out one more time (that it will be larger than the three games combined). It's mentioned in the second paragraph. http://kotaku.com/remember-weve-got-a-lot-...disco-496079830

Edited May 8, 2013 by roboto

[Romarique]

 

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.

 

I Trust R* all the way.. This will add some cool missions.

 

I would go with the water over another city, because you (OP) said that after a while people will get bored with the underwater gist and return to regular gta stuff in the streets.

"Regular GTA stuff" can be done in one city just fine.. So NOW i have a choice. I Like choice!

Give me the sea! And that mini undetwater pod thingy!!

Edited May 8, 2013 by Romarique

[Official General]

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

THIS

[GTAgamersquirrel]

Wouldn't it be badass to have under water submarine battles online presumably if they are equipped with weapons?!

 

[Andreas]

To be honest, I wasn't interested in the underwater environment either at the start, especially when I heard about it the first time. I thought what would be so special about it but my view changed since the screenshots we got in December last year and the latest previews. It seems that the underwater world will have more significance than we think and that could be a good thing. From what we know so far, the details seem to be really impressive, which is not a surprise considering that we're talking about Rockstar here, and exploring the map might be more fun than in any game of the series. It definitely does have potencial and I wonder what we will be able to do, other than using submarines and seeing sharks in the sea!

[YoungChrist]

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....

The thing is, it takes much less research to do an underwater portion of GTA V then another completely different city. And its much easier to get it right. A lot of the cities in San Andreas felt tacked on/rushed.

[gui_olecio]

I'm going to use this thread to ask this: Do you think we'll be ale to escape from the police by underwater? I mean, underwater will be much more detailed than GTA SA and I don't think cops will dive after us. What do you think??

?

[Dark Amun Re]

I'm going to use this thread to ask this: Do you think we'll be ale to escape from the police by underwater? I mean, underwater will be much more detailed than GTA SA and I don't think cops will dive after us. What do you think??

?

Hmm nice thoughts. But i think that we do not have the time to change the clothes on the boat while police or military is chasing us. We could try it!

When you have the time you could escape into a underwater cave