Blaine County = 70% empty mountains!

[Raavi]

You're right, the majority of the countryside is filled with empty mountainous area, there is not even a decent forest. Far too straightforward for my taste. Then that underwater world, it's just a waste of time and resources.

Edited October 14, 2013 by Raavi

[King Kapone]

I want to be able to buy this shirt at Binco.

[killahmatic]

I have no problem with them because they help stretch out the map, and give great scenery to the game.

 

I do wish some of them had more trees though. We never really got the "Tall Trees (RDR)"-style forest that I was hoping for, and yes there could have been cabins or other interesting things to explore, but we've gotta remember that there were limitations.

 

I'm sure when R* first thought up the idea of multiple mountains and peaks they had all sorts of ideas, which all had to be taken off the table at some point or another to keep the game running smoothly.

[Raavi]

I have no problem with them because they help stretch out the map, and give great scenery to the game.

 

I do wish some of them had more trees though. We never really got the "Tall Trees (RDR)"-style forest that I was hoping for, and yes there could have been cabins or other interesting things to explore, but we've gotta remember that there were limitations.

 

I'm sure when R* first thought up the idea of multiple mountains and peaks they had all sorts of ideas, which all had to be taken off the table at some point or another to keep the game running smoothly.

 

I'd rather had a smaller denser, more detailed map than a map that's too big for current generation consoles to handle.

[WhiskeyFoxtrot]

Have you guys just taken a vehicle and drove it through the mountains? If you have not, do it, jumping from ridge to ridge has made for some of the best times I have ever had in GTA, and I do not think it would be possible if the area was littered with trees.

 

It's all fun and games until you land wrong and your car explodes.

[Official General]

 

 

 

I'd rather had a smaller denser, more detailed map than a map that's too big for current generation consoles to handle.

 

 

Yep, I totally agree

 

I genuinely believe Rockstar could have easily pulled that off and given us more detailed cities that just Los Santos. I believe that Los Santos could have still been the same size on a scaled down map, they could have just made the roads narrower, the buildings and structures a bit smaller, and added more accessible interiors - and add 1 or 2 other main cities in the same way.

[Wylight]

To be honest they could of easily removed a lot of trees because of technical limitations. GTA V has a very large and highly detailed map so I could see them removing some trees as a way to make the game work properly. Even in the 1st trailer the were a lot of trees in that Mt Chilliad scene so something went wrong while developing the game and a few things had to be taken out including some trees.

''Some'' ??? More like 90% of them in some areas

[Wylight]

 

 

 

 

I'd rather had a smaller denser, more detailed map than a map that's too big for current generation consoles to handle.

 

 

Yep, I totally agree

 

I genuinely believe Rockstar could have easily pulled that off and given us more detailed cities that just Los Santos. I believe that Los Santos could have still been the same size on a scaled down map, they could have just made the roads narrower, the buildings and structures a bit smaller, and added more accessible interiors - and add 1 or 2 other main cities in the same way.

 

Since it was possible in SA it would've been possible with GTA V too

[Wylight]

You're right, the majority of the countryside is filled with empty mountainous area, there is not even a decent forest. Far too straightforward for my taste. Then that underwater world, it's just a waste of time and resources.

I actually do like the underwater since it helps with the immersion and exploration but if I was to choose between that and another city\oppurtunities I know what my choice would be

[Wylight]

 

They removed over 90% of the trees in some areas

 

No.

 

Then what is this???, there is more of this if you want to see

 

 

 

[Raavi]

The evidence is damning.

 

Marketed as:

 

Reality:

 

 

Marketed as:

 

Reality:

 

 

Marketed as:

 

Reality:

[AtomicPunk]

I don't get why there aren't any little cabins in the mounatins and stuff like that. Another thing is we don't get rewarded for exploring. If nothing else, put a box of ammo in some of the remote places instead of nothing at all. There should be more and better small towns. I don't like the layout of the map at all. The desert should've been the south bordering Mehico, instead, it's in the middle of the map? It's just not a very good design, IMO of course.

 

@(It's spelled Raavi, go edit your post)

What happened? You used to go after anyone who said anything negative about V, now, you've joined reality and see it for what it IS NOT. What was it for you that turned you off? I know the forests are lame as hell and not what R* advertised, but what else? I hope OP doesn't mind me jacking his thread for a sec lol

Edited October 14, 2013 by AtomicPunk

[walkingsickness]

So reading all of these comments, I guess we are all in agreement that this should of came out on the newer consoles???

 

Really IAH this should of came out on the newer consoles. I mean really what you are getting is LS, Blane counties, and space.

I mean 100 exteriors and like 5 interiors...sheeh! I guess T2 stockholder are happy at least...

[I<3GTAV]

It was the same way in RDR and SA...

[Raavi]

@(It's spelled Raavi, go edit your post)

What happened? You used to go after anyone who said anything negative about V, now, you've joined reality and see it for what it IS NOT. What was it for you that turned you off? I know the forests are lame as hell and not what R* advertised, but what else? I hope OP doesn't mind me jacking his thread for a sec lol

 

I played the game for longer than 10 minutes, that happened. It's one big heap of disappointment. I'm very glad I switched to the special edition at the very last minute.

 

@

natethegreatforlife

RDR was far denser.

Edited October 14, 2013 by Raavi

[AtomicPunk]

 

@(It's spelled Raavi, go edit your post)

What happened? You used to go after anyone who said anything negative about V, now, you've joined reality and see it for what it IS NOT. What was it for you that turned you off? I know the forests are lame as hell and not what R* advertised, but what else? I hope OP doesn't mind me jacking his thread for a sec lol

 

I played the game for longer than 10 minutes, that happened. It's one big heap of disappointment. I'm very glad I switched to the special edition at the very last minute.

 

@

natethegreatforlife

RDR was far denser.

 

Although I think it's beautiful graphically, I agree that V is a disappointment. There's just too much missing.

[Hazencoke]

It was the same way in RDR and SA...

tall trees disagree now that's woods

[A5R]

 

@(It's spelled Raavi, go edit your post)

What happened? You used to go after anyone who said anything negative about V, now, you've joined reality and see it for what it IS NOT. What was it for you that turned you off? I know the forests are lame as hell and not what R* advertised, but what else? I hope OP doesn't mind me jacking his thread for a sec lol

 

I played the game for longer than 10 minutes, that happened. It's one big heap of disappointment. I'm very glad I switched to the special edition at the very last minute.

 

@

natethegreatforlife

RDR was far denser.

 

RDR also had 70% less going on. They had to remove alot of trees due to limitations. It's not like they just wanted to piss you off.

[woggleman]

If you think it is empty you should explore more. There is tons of random stuff that happens there. If they scaled back the country and just added more city people would have complained that it was too urban and felt claustrophobic like they did with IV.

[Official General]

Although I think it's beautiful graphically, I agree that V is a disappointment. There's just too much missing.

 

 

 

 

 

I totally agree. I think the graphics of GTA V are amazing and detailed, Rockstar definitely scored highly on that. The game was definitely fun for me, and I had a blast. But deep down, I just know that GTA V could have and should have been much better than it was touted to be, and that really is a bit of a disappointment in my eyes.

 

@ woggleman

 

If there was more fun and interesting things to do and see within the game, I don't think people would have cared too much about a lesser amount of countryside and wilderness. I think it's all about the quality and level of interaction the player can have with the environment. GTA V just did not have enough for it's huge size.

Edited October 14, 2013 by Official General

[woggleman]

So if the next game is all city people won't complain about that right?

[Wylight]

For all those bashing around about limitations, I highly doubt current gen consoles couldn't handle the extra trees, I mean look at the game, it looks magnificent in so many ways in terms of graphics and stuff. If they were really concerned about console limitations they could have dumped down the draw distance and keep all the stuff and also make the map seem even larger, I think SA stands as a proof of that where the lower draw distance made the map look bigger than it was.

[Official General]

So if the next game is all city people won't complain about that right?

 

Bro, I'm telling you now, if Liberty City in GTA IV had :

 

* A lot more fun and interesting things to do and see, including side missions and activities.

 

* A lot of random crime, shootings, and other ped action/events happening in the streets

 

* A lot of good stuff to spend money on

 

* Much more accessible interiors

 

* And less repetitive missions

 

I can almost guarantee you that people won't even be thinking about how they wished for countryside and wilderness in IV. Trust me, the only reason people kept harping on about it was because Liberty City was just lacking in many areas, and many found it boring to free roam after a while - so many people falsely believed that countryside and wilderness would be the answer to those issues. Those that wished for that in IV are not really intelligent to understand that countryside and wilderness will be of no use to a location entirely based on New York City and nearby New Jersey areas.

[A5R]

So if the next game is all city people won't complain about that right?

People complain about everything. After playing the game i was like let's go check out the joy at the forums and guess what, everyone was running with their panties in a bunch. No matter what no game is gonna satisfy everybody including me, even if it's a masterpiece for some.

[Wylight]

 

Although I think it's beautiful graphically, I agree that V is a disappointment. There's just too much missing.

 

 

 

 

 

I totally agree. I think the graphics of GTA V are amazing and detailed, Rockstar definitely scored highly on that. The game was definitely fun for me, and I had a blast. But deep down, I just know that GTA V could have and should have been much better than it was touted to be, and that really is a bit of a disappointment in my eyes.

 

@ woggleman

 

If there was more fun and interesting things to do and see within the game, I don't think people would about a lesser amount of countryside and wilderness. I think it's all about the quality and level of interaction the player can have with the environment. GTA V just did not have enough for it's huge size.

 

The game has been waaaaayyy too overhyped for what it is, I don't say it's a pile of sh*t but it's definitely not as ''grand'' as everyone was advertising it. They put little effort in the open world experience, the one that matter the most in this game in my vision...

[HoleInTheSky]

Picturing what it could've looked like if the forest went on further with some extra space for creepy, desolate areas like Shady Cabin and a new Back O Beyond kind of area. (excuse the crappy cutting)

 

Edited October 14, 2013 by HoleInTheSky

[woggleman]

 

So if the next game is all city people won't complain about that right?

 

Bro, I'm telling you now, if Liberty City in GTA IV had :

 

* A lot more fun and interesting things to do and see, including side missions and activities.

 

* A lot of random crime, shootings, and other ped action/events happening in the streets

 

* A lot of good stuff to spend money on

 

* Much more accessible interiors

 

* And less repetitive missions

 

I can almost guarantee you that people won't even be thinking about how they wished for countryside and wilderness in IV. Trust me, the only reason people kept harping on about it was because Liberty City was just lacking in many areas, and many found it boring to free roam after a while - so many people falsely believed that countryside and wilderness would be the answer to those issues. Those that wished for that in IV are not really intelligent to understand that countryside and wilderness will be of no use to a location entirely based on New York City and nearby New Jersey areas.

 

There is plenty of country in NJ but I remember a ton of comments with people complaining about no countryside and now they give us plenty of countryside and people still complain. Making these games must be like trying to please a nagging wife.

[Sweettooth187]

No point arguing about it. Half the people want more trees and fish, the other half wants more buildings and interiors, and neither half seems to understand the concept of software and hardware limitations, as well as the concept of supply and demand.

 

Peopl were already pissing their pants in rage when the game was delayed the first time. Imagine the outcry if Rockstar had come out and said, "Sorry guys, we've decided to cancel GTAV for the PS3 and Xbox 360, favoring their next generation counterparts. The reason for this being that we simply can't give you the quality of game you expect without removing some trees...and fish...and the laundry mat...and those half dozen other liquor stores we were going to put in. Our bad!"

 

The expectations of most people are infinitely high and unreachable because they change dynamically. The fact is, Rock star could never give us all what we wanted outside of going into the distant future and bringing back hardware and software that would allow them to completely map all interiors and exteriors of the planet, and provide it on an equally powerful console for us to play on. Then of course people would complain that they had to play it on the futuristic console instead of the Xbox 360/PS3 they already have, then someone else would throw out there that they were really disappointed that you could invade NASA HQ but they left out the ability to travel to the moon.

 

It's one thing to point out a potential improvement, and another to call a game a complete disappointment because it didn't meet your tree count expectations...

[Wylight]

 

So if the next game is all city people won't complain about that right?

 

Bro, I'm telling you now, if Liberty City in GTA IV had :

 

* A lot more fun and interesting things to do and see, including side missions and activities.

 

* A lot of random crime, shootings, and other ped action/events happening in the streets

 

* A lot of good stuff to spend money on

 

* Much more accessible interiors

 

* And less repetitive missions

 

I can almost guarantee you that people won't even be thinking about how they wished for countryside and wilderness in IV. Trust me, the only reason people kept harping on about it was because Liberty City was just lacking in many areas, and many found it boring to free roam after a while - so many people falsely believed that countryside and wilderness would be the answer to those issues. Those that wished for that in IV are not really intelligent to understand that countryside and wilderness will be of no use to a location entirely based on New York City and nearby New Jersey areas.

 

Country side is good but only to some extent, you gotta be careful what you throw in there cause at the end of the day it's all about the so called ''things to do''. As you said, nobody wants to hear about LC again but that is not because of the city itself since you can set the game everywhere on the planet, if you have good gameplay then you can have whatever location you want but if the gameplay ain't that good the location won't even matter anymore, you'll get bored

 

GTA 5 has good gameplay but it's barely half of what it's been hyped up to be and I don't see this being the ''ULTIMATE GTA GAME'' as other have said since I find it lacking many features from previous games. In terms of ''things to do'' it doesn't offer more than SA in terms of raw content

[chr0ne]

it all feels like it serves no point a forest as decoration

 

i wanted a forest you could get lost in with a cabin in it that felt remote from the rest of the game where you spent a duration of missions

I agree with you man.

After the first trailer and a couple of screenshots i imagined this game to be filled with forests, people and students camping in the forests.

And I thought everything will be detailed, full of wildlife and will be the best game in the universe.

I am disappointed (But it's still a fun game) , but I hope the PC version will look like what we have imagined in our heads.