GTA IV map vs GTA V map

[ry12111]

Which do you prefer & why

[spamtackey]

Neither. They're both different places with different feels and I have no reason to pick a favorite. If I want to visit Liberty City I'll visit it and if I want to visit Los Santos I'll visit that.

[tranceking26]

V's map by far, but LC and Alderney will always be imprinted on my brain lol

[KillaDanny]

easily V. My only problem with IV's map was the lack of variety and the size of it but it was still a pretty nice map

[GranThefTito]

i like liberty city more over the exterior decoration no interior tennis golf no food barbie girl los santos city

[ry12111]

gta v for me

[Gnocchi Flip Flops]

Liberty City will always be a special place for me but I do love Los Santos a lot.

[Raavi]

There is no comparison. IV had a very dense urban jungle and it looked liked every inch was meticulously handcrafted. Whilst V, let's just say that it made me appreciate the importance of good texturing and density.

Edited October 9, 2013 by Raavi

[Flashify]

IV was much denser with a load more interiors, if you disagree then you clearly don't realise how many interiors IV has.

 

V has an empty city with empty hills and plains. The underwater was a nice touch but I'm not gonna explore it.

 

IV, for me.

Edited October 9, 2013 by Flashify

[IveGotNoValues]

V's map is definitely better IMO. So much more variety and places to explore. Also the fact that I live in real life Southern California makes me appreciate it more, I have never been to New York so I can't relate to Liberty City.

[scrublord]

Everyone saying that IV had a lot of interiors need to go play it again to refresh their memories.

[InfernoV]

Red Dead Redemption

[IGhostUlt]

deleted

Edited October 9, 2013 by IGhostUlt

[Mr. Rocko]

Everyone saying that IV had a lot of interiors need to go play it again to refresh their memories.

 

TBGT had tons online.

[GoldenBlade]

I'm not going to answer. Why? ...because it depends what kind of environment I'm in the mood for.

[caseclosedjk]

Honestly call me crazy, but IV.

 

IV had more going on and felt alive. V? Boring and bland, and everything felt generic. Peds have no real personality like they did in IV.

[Garrison64]

Everyone saying that IV had a lot of interiors need to go play it again to refresh their memories.

I played it plenty and it definitely had more interiors. You can look up a map using Google that shows all of them. Not only were there more, there were a good many that were large interiors. Some were nothing more than a stairwell to a roof but it was still fun utilizing them to run from cops or to go up and do a base jump. The only interiors, besides the houses, in GTA V are the small stores which are all identical. There are no random buildings or businesses to enter that I've seen. If there are please point them out to me because so far I haven't seen any. I was really disappointed that I couldn't even enter the properties I purchased. And to me mission interiors don't count. What I'm talking about are interiors you can enter during free roam sessions.

Edited October 9, 2013 by Garrison64

[mattymcs]

Anyone that suggests IV had a better map than V is either deluding themselves or has their own agenda

[marizzocos]

Thats like comparing an apple to a fruit salad... Gta V has so much than LC map... Most boring map ever all you had was buildings in gta v you have so much sh*t to explore... It just beats the crap out of IVs map... Vs map has much more life and colors in it and I dont care if IV has more interiors... Doesnt change the fact that the city is boring as f*ck

[bish0p2004]

I like variety in my scenery, so GTA V's map is better to me. I actually hated going back to Liberty City because of this and had no hype whatsoever for IV. It just felt so boring...and looking back, it pretty much was.

[Magic_Al]

If we just compare interiors I think V went for quality over quantity in some ways, though I suspect a full count of interiors would prove there is not the drop in quantity that people say. There is certainly a drop a density but that's not surprising with a bigger map. And obviously, to see some locations such as Burger Shot that are enterable in IV be not enterable in V feels like a loss (though the same loss happened in IV with 27/7 and several other stores that were enterable in San Andreas and not enterable in IV). Obviously, the safehouse interiors in V blow away the little apartments in IV. With the exception of TLAD the safehouses in IV are one-room apartments. The mansions in V are beautifully intricate, interactive (smoking, sitting, drinking all new) and their contents change with story progression. V is in no way less than IV, it's just a shifting of priorities, which happens with every new GTA.

[Jimmy Darmody]

Liberty city is better than Los Santos, but V's map is better.

[WorldWideFM]

LC is dull and depressing, I know that this was the idea but it's just not a place that I enjoy being. Despite how well made it is, every part feels the same. Sure, every building may be handcrafted and different from the others but when you're speeding past everything in a fast car (as you usually are, let's face it you don't walk anywhere) you can't notice that detail, all you notice is a grey block. Nothing but grey blocks. Grey after grey after grey.

 

Whereas LS is an explosion of colour - and that's just the city. Add in Blaine County and it's absolutely amazing, without a doubt the most beautiful world I have ever played in.

[DeafMetal]

I don't know how that's even a question. Ofc V's map. It's everything IV's map should have been.

[Algonquin Assassin]

It's everything IV's map should have been.

 

No offense, but I find these sort of comments very ignorant. R* wanted to create a more authentic interpretation of NYC so I fail to see how GTA V's map is what GTA IV's should've been when it has completely different geography.

 

As for the question GTA V's map is beautiful, but LS against LC is a different story. I know LS looks prettier in general, but it feels....."generic". Actually at times it feels like MC; LA, other times TC: SOLA etc.

 

Maybe it's just NYC's nature, but I feel R* got a handle of NYC's landmarks better in GTA IV than LA's in LS. Also I like in LC the majority of the neighbourhoods parodied reflect their real life counterparts.

 

GTA V's LS has weird names like "Davis", "Strawberry" etc which I'm sure are based on Compton and Inglewood?

 

Overall I don't think GTA V's LS is as interesting as GTA IV's LC. I already feel like I've seen everything there is to see in a matter of 3 weeks whereas I was still finding places in GTA IV's LC 5 years after release.

 

GTA V's saving grace is it's more diverse. The cities on the other hand GTA IV is better without breaking a sweat IMO.

[legendm0de]

I wish Broker and Dukes were larger in Liberty City so thats a reason I prefer V. Brooklyn is the 4th largest city in the united states, but doesn't feel that way in IV.

Edited October 10, 2013 by legendm0de

[DeafMetal]

 

It's everything IV's map should have been.

 

No offense, but I find these sort of comments very ignorant. R* wanted to create a more authentic interpretation of NYC so I fail to see how GTA V's map is what GTA IV's should've been when it has completely different geography.

 

As for the question GTA V's map is beautiful, but LS against LC is a different story. I know LS looks prettier in general, but it feels....."generic". Actually at times it feels like MC; LA, other times TC: SOLA etc.

 

Maybe it's just NYC's nature, but I feel R* got a handle of NYC's landmarks better in GTA IV than LA's in LS. Also I like in LC the majority of the neighbourhoods parodied reflect their real life counterparts.

 

GTA V's LS has weird names like "Davis", "Strawberry" etc which I'm sure are based on Compton and Inglewood?

 

Overall I don't think GTA V's LS is as interesting as GTA IV's LC. I already feel like I've seen everything there is to see in a matter of 3 weeks whereas I was still finding places in GTA IV's LC 5 years after release.

 

GTA V's saving grace is it's more diverse. The cities on the other hand GTA IV is better without breaking a sweat IMO.

 

 

I mean in terms of diversity. Having played GTA IV for five years, the gritty urban jungle theme gets very very very old. I often found myself repeating the same things with friends on multiplayer because the map more or less limited us with what we could do due to its lack of real diversity. Sure, you'll have small areas of trees and suburbs, but nothing large enough to really make me feel like I "traveled" anywhere, y'know?

 

It's nice to have a large varied map to traverse for when I get too saturated with one area. In fact, that's the exact reason why a lot of my GTA IV sessions these past two years had lasted no more than maybe thirty minutes. I just get tired of loading the game up to the exact same building I'm always greeted with in the exact same neighborhood, with the exact same streets, architecture, etc. etc.

 

This is why I love GTA V's San Andreas: if I get too full of big tall buildings, I'll head to Sandy Shores. If I get tired of hillbillies with trailer parks, I'll head to the desert, etc. And not only that, but GTA V's character switching system has really improved the repetitious game startup that plagued IV: now when I start, I could be Trevor throwing someone off a cliff or Michael watching TV or Franklin washing his bike in the side of the highway. The diversity is not just sloppily thrown at you, it's presented very carefully and begs to be explored.

 

Don't get me wrong, LC was an amazing map, but it's just not what I would have expected from the sequel of a game with a very much varied map. So, therefore, in terms of variety, I honestly believe that something along the lines of GTA V's SA would have been more appropriate to follow up 2004's SA. I'm not saying it was necessarily POSSIBLE, just what I would think is more appropriate. You can argue about the tiny details such as names (which is fine, tiny things make the big picture), but you can't argue on either size or diversity, which are what I personally am interested in the most and what I want to be improved on any sequels to open-world games.

 

Let me give you an example of how a varied map - if done correctly - can add vast amounts of fun to the game:

 

I was trying to steal a jet from the military base with a group of friends on GTA Online. I died and spawned near a cliff nearby the base, and told everyone I was gonna grab something to drink real quick. So one of my friends rushed to where I was and waited until I was back, then as soon as I said something, the asshole punched me in the face and my character fell right down the cliff. So, I challenged him to a 1-on-1 deathmatch that pops up when you're killed by someone.

 

The thing is that he has a lot more free time than I do, so he was higher leveled and had way better guns than I did. My best gun was the .50 Special Edition pistol, his was the carbine rifle. He completely owned me three times. Then I spawned near at the bottom of the cliff, where there's shallow water (or swamp? can't remember) and some medium-sized trees scattered around. So I decided to use that to my advantage.

 

I looked for a tree big enough to cover most of my character and lured him there, where he was walking in shallow water therefore very slowly. That made it very easy to pick him off a few times. Then he killed me again and I spawned at the top of the cliff, and he was on his way up. That's when I noticed the change in elevation on the cliff just nearby, so I ran the hell over to that side where he couldn't use the carbine rifle's range to own me, he had to get close enough to see my character. i.e., I lured him close enough so that I could also have him within my range and quickly shot a headshot.

 

For the final kill, I ran towards a group of trees gathered together enough so that he couldn't flank me since I could switch from tree to tree without being completely exposed to his rifle. Did so until he was within range and boom, popped him one last time.

 

So the diversity of the map actually helped me even out a match where I was heavily outgunned. See how much of an impact map diversity can have? It's mind-blowing how a swamp, differently-sized cliffs, or the placement of trees can affect gameplay and fun. That was one of the funnest online experiences I've ever had and it came thanks to the game not being an infinite urban jungle.

Edited October 10, 2013 by DeafMetal

[Tacymist]

GTA V's map hands down. Ever since I seen how great LC looked in IV, I couldn't wait to see how San Andreas would look in similar graphics. Now that it's here, everything looks beautiful, the mountains, the desert, the trees, and especially LS. Having an actual working camera phone helps me enjoy it even more since I can take pictures when I go site seeing.

 

And I just find the west coast more interesting than the east in general, but that's most likely due to the fact that I've lived on the east side my whole life, so I find it boring here. Although we do have Florida which is cool.

[baskerwil]

 

Everyone saying that IV had a lot of interiors need to go play it again to refresh their memories.

 

TBGT had tons online.

 

 

I don't think it's fair to compare DLC-added interiors to vanilla GTA V.

 

GTA V should be compared to GTA IV, without the DLC's.

[Soccermad21]

depends whether you mean the entire GTA V map or just the Los Santos portion. The GTA V map is clearly superior then GTA IV's map, but I must say that Liberty City is much much more detailed and more interesting then Los Santos.