TheJasonGallant Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 V for sure even if I did like IV's map. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NYC PATROL Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 (edited) They are both great maps. LC from IV was a great rendition of NYC for what is was worth. But obviously V's offers a huge amount of variety that was sorely missed. As much as I love NYC there is nothing like the great outdoors when you want to experience it. Edited October 10, 2013 by NYC PATROL Cyron43 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NothingPersonal Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 (edited) Having visited New York many times, I'd take Los Angeles over it any time as a recreational place............. New York is not a vacation city, it's more of a commence center... and it's so drab (reminds me of London too much). I think their ambitions were limited as with GTA 3, to be honest, and they testing their capabilities with a relatively straightforward city. Edited October 10, 2013 by NothingPersonal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashify Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 (edited) 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've found myself agreeing with all of your posts about IV, Miami. The part I've quoted and put in bold are my exact thoughts which you have written down. To me, V is great but I still can't seem to prefer it over IV. I mean I've been playing IV online for years on end, favourite game of the decade - yet I'm still finding places that I never knew were there. Even simple things like stunt jumps or an interior stairwell leading to a rooftop. V just doesn't have that same feeling of exploration, despite it's size because excluding the shops you can enter, it is completely empty. Edited October 10, 2013 by Flashify Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GTASeriesFan Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 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. HOUSTON is the 4th largest. Brooklyn isnt even top 10... lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnDReJ98 Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 Liberty City feels bigger and has more interiors than Los Santos. Even if you compare LC to LS, they are similar size, maybe Los Santos could be i little bigger but Liberty City still feels bigger and more alive. It's because Rockstar focused more on Liberty City itself since it's the whole map in IV. It had more interiors activities on streets and felt bigger and more alive than Los Santos. In fact V was focused on countyside also, but adding very fast cars in game made V's map feel smaller than it is. Which is different case in IV. Anyway, which one i would rather choose? It depends of what i'm looking for. But from me, answer would be both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s_aint Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 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. LC has a fantastic story map. The interiors are fantastic, but really only viewable during missions. That museum stood out a lot. However, once I finished the story, I felt no major urge to explore and just dwell. GTA4 without the story is rather bland and boring and stale. On the other hand, GTAV has the deserts, woodlands, mountains, cities (which don't stand up to Liberty City, but still look nicer) Rivers, oceans you don't die in, beaches, animals to interact with. GTA4 just has a city. Once I finished GTA4 I didn't feel any need to visit it. Finishing GTA5, I still love just walking around and absorbing the map and locations. GTA5 lives on when the story finishes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graven Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 I like V map more, it has colors. Cyron43 and scrublord 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashify Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 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. LC has a fantastic story map. The interiors are fantastic, but really only viewable during missions. That museum stood out a lot. However, once I finished the story, I felt no major urge to explore and just dwell. GTA4 without the story is rather bland and boring and stale. On the other hand, GTAV has the deserts, woodlands, mountains, cities (which don't stand up to Liberty City, but still look nicer) Rivers, oceans you don't die in, beaches, animals to interact with. GTA4 just has a city. Once I finished GTA4 I didn't feel any need to visit it. Finishing GTA5, I still love just walking around and absorbing the map and locations. GTA5 lives on when the story finishes. Add an extra 15 people to the game and you can so much fun having a shootout in the museum or going to the top of The Majestic which had a cool interior - V just feels empty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillBellic Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 If we are talking about navigation only I feel that GTA IV had a much better designed map which was more conducive to efficient routes through out the urban metropolis. The map presented to us in GTA V while interesting was I feel, 'padded' with quantity over quality which meant that even for destinations which I travelled to previously (not helped by poorly designed/sign posted street-scapes) I still had to require the use of the (non-verbal) GPS system when in the preceding game I learnt where all the destinations where off the back of my hand. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grayborders Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 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. I dont call you crazy i call you blind and deaf, generic? loooool how did gta4 with its terrible grey and orange colorfilters had more variety? ped have no personality? how many did you follow around? or listened to? ffs there are 40 rare peds alone you prolly never meet, or will meet.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuzzknuckles Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 V's map, because it's better. Pretty black and white for me, really. It has more variety, more detail, it's bigger and OTHER BORING REASONS. Signatures are dumb anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashify Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 V's map, because it's better. Pretty black and white for me, really. It has more variety, more detail, it's bigger and OTHER BORING REASONS. It's big, sure. Boring too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ten-a-penny Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 GTA IV: ????????? no forest (only at wekypton or whatever that place's name is) GTA V: its all about desert and mountains these places were the most places I head for in SA...so same here overall= V is in my opinion is better than IV in everything (all I need is just the annihilator ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LRW Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 Im Right. No you are Wrong, Im Right. No. Yes. f*ck off. No you f*ck of you f*cktard. /repeat Raiden1018 and _Klebitz_ 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillBellic Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 Im Right. No you are Wrong, Im Right. No. Yes. f*ck off. No you f*ck of you f*cktard. /repeat Pretty much some topics on these forums. Cheers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gnocchi Flip Flops Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 Everyone saying that IV had a lot of interiors need to go play it again to refresh their memories. Obviously they did. Use that damn thing behind your eyes for once. ten-a-penny 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ten-a-penny Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 Im Right. No you are Wrong, Im Right. No. Yes. f*ck off. No you f*ck of you f*cktard. /repeat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DoubleOGJohnson Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 (edited) Hard to compare because the vibe is different. But Liberty City has better hoods because every neighborhood had it's own character. But one thing I can say for GTA 4, is that nobody should be bragging about its interiors because the number of its interiors were a big drop off from SA. And you cant use the money grubbing GTA LC Episode DLCs as proof, the only interiors that games should be judged on are the ORIGINAL GAME interiors from the ORIGINAL game because not every plays DLC. You have to be a super hardcore Rockstar fan to have actually gone out and bought the GTA 4 DLC's which raped people by forcing them to pay for a new game in an old city they'd already beaten and unlocked. Look at the sales, a lot of people didn't buy them, only super hardcore dudes who buy ANYTHING Rockstar makes went and got them. So when we talk about GTA 4 VS GTA 5, leave the DLC's out, they are irrelevant to a large portion of the fanbase who refused to buy a rehashed game just for some "extra interiors" that should have been there in the 1st place. Edited October 10, 2013 by DoubleOGJohnson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joshua969 Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 The variety in V wins it for me. I love having the option of cruising under the desert sun, driving up a mountain, down the beach, or through the city. I liked the map in IV, but I prefer this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zerrier Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 V's map by far! Although i kinda miss the island scheme of previous games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legendm0de Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 (edited) 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. HOUSTON is the 4th largest. Brooklyn isnt even top 10... lol And I live in Houston so I know that even better than you which emphasizes my point that brooklyn wasn't re-created big enough. So I give the edge to V's map. I don't even consider Brooklyn a city NYC is the city. As a whole LC + Alderney is a good re-creation of the size but I wish Broker and Dukes were larger and had more in it. NH Edited October 10, 2013 by legendm0de Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyron43 Posted December 29, 2014 Share Posted December 29, 2014 I prefer the GTA V map because Liberty City is a dirty dying town, dominated by brown and grey colors. The looks of GTA V otoh is vibrant, colorful and (mostly) clean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JetsRLove Posted December 29, 2014 Share Posted December 29, 2014 I liked IV for the urban jungle with all the back alleys. But I also liked the countryside and the random places you would see while exploring. So the best map is the GTA SA map because it had a mixure of both. Nuetral Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmajede Posted December 29, 2014 Share Posted December 29, 2014 Vice City. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Algonquin Assassin Posted December 29, 2014 Share Posted December 29, 2014 This didn't need to be bumped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts