Smaller city, larger city, blah blah

[Fail_At_GTA]

I don't really go into buildings often, as I play online most of the time. A larger city with less interiors would be a bit better for myself, and that doesn't mean the city wouldn't be as detailed.

[wwinterj]

No one says it has to be one or the other. It's about which one you would prefer out of the two

Not the brightest fella are you.

As I said I prefer both. Such a smart person like yourself should have been able to work that out fella.

[dxbrandon]

Something tells me that we are on the verge of another mindless 250 plus page thread arguing about the total size of INTERIOR spaces, and how the very same people who drove the "Los Santos size" thread are not satisfied with it. This will be followed of course, by calculations using the same type of formula that uses made up numbers pulled out of thin air.

Yup. These people on this forum are good, but they really get ahead of them selfs sometimes. We seen this all before, they always turn out to be wrong in the end. I'm sticking with LS is huge with lot's of detail and interiors.

[Don_Corleone]

[Eternal Moonshine]

C) Smaller city, bigger countryside

[Murad96]

Some of you don't understand what OP is saying here. OP doesn't just mean more or more detailed interiors. He means the world being way more lifelike and detailed.

 

- Houses look a lot more detailed from the outside.

- Roads are all different.

 

Those two things can make something from a repetitive boring city to something that actually looks like real life LA.

 

[TreyCrll]

Well, I like interiors because they're fun places to have shoot-outs/turf wars in multiplayer, but I could make due with a few good ones like in IV in exchange for a bigger city to wreak havok in. I couldn't make a definate decision between the two though. I guess we'll see when the game comes out. It's far too late to change the map anyway, so there's no reason to whine about speculation of city size/detail. What's done is done. I'm sure we'll be pleased regardless.

[LennonNL]

C) Smaller city, bigger countryside

This isn't a specific question for GTA V. This is just a general thought into the subject as I was curious to find out whether people preferred larger but less detailed cities over small, detailed cities. Cheers @murad for trying to clear that up, but you can't stop people jumping to conclusions

[Fisciletti]

Of course I'd prefer a larger city.

[Flashify]

It's funny how you use the Observatory pic to justify the city size

Yes I know it doesn't show all of the city, but what is shown looks plenty big enough to me... Which is my point.

[Kill Frenzy!]

Now I am not the wrong guy anymore, first I was. I said the city is smaller then LC and they said NO! LS is bigger then LC. But in the end as you can see the city is indeed smaller as LC, more enterable buildings I know but that doesn't count. I said area space from the city not building you can enter.

[raidenrbs]

Not fussed tbh, the map is bigger than LC which I thought was a decent size. I just want 2 play the fcukin game!!

[Official General]

I voted none, my option was not there.

 

I want a larger city - with interiors, and detailed buildings, with a sprawling area to drive in etc.

 

[waikzguy8998]

I have to imagine that Rockstar can do both for sure.

 

Just think of the progression for each of the past games, in terms of number of enterable buildings

 

SA - had dozens if you include all fast food, safe houses, liquor stores, 24/7s, bars, night clubs, etc.

IV - still had several safe houses, random apartments, clothing stores, internet cafes, 3 nighclubs (TBOGT), food joints, etc

RDR - multiple safe houses, saloons, gun stores, etc.

 

Plus RDR & IV you remember there's no load time either. I have a good feeling that R* can include at least 2-3 dozen enterable buildings scattered throughout san andreas, let alone LS alone

[Silentype]

It's funny how you use the Observatory pic to justify the city size

Because it does? Or am I missing something here?

 

I see that our "small city" crowd has found a new topic to "convert" us

Either way, so far according the poll results more people want a smaller but more detailed and interactive city.

It's one of the most deceiving pictures you can find. This and the Atomic Blimp one. They show the city as much smaller than it actually appears in the blueprint.

I beg to differ, the city looks even smaller(and disappointing.) on the map than it does on the screenshots. South Central looks like a complete and utter joke that looks to be an extension of downtown more so than a sprawling network of gang neighborhoods.

[driftnslide]

I feel a map like Just Cause 2 is on side of the extreme as it is way too large and poorly detailed.

 

On the other hand a map like Sleeping Dogs/The earlier Sims games are way too small, though they are indeed very detailed/interactive.

 

OP definitely seems biased with his description of a larger map. "generic blocks, weird windows". C'mon now. If Rockstar wanted to focus on a larger map size, sacrificing interiors does not necessarily mean more repeated textures/details. They could still implement unique and detailed locations, it's just that the interiors probably won't be as extensive.

 

Anyways, I don't think the city size necessarily will be "small" or "large". Rockstar has been known for hitting the sweet spot in terms of detail and map size unlike some other games I mentioned earlier.

 

[justgettinridiculous]

Something tells me that we are on the verge of another mindless 250 plus page thread arguing about the total size of INTERIOR spaces, and how the very same people who drove the "Los Santos size" thread are not satisfied with it. This will be followed of course, by calculations using the same type of formula that uses made up numbers pulled out of thin air.

lol couldnt have said it better myself. bunch of f*cking crybaby titbags