Blaine County = 70% empty mountains!

[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.

 

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

 

 

Thats great and all, but thats suggesting that those were their options, but they weren't.

Taking away three mountains wouldn't have added much detail to a remaining mountain if any detail at all, because it wouldn't have made it any more possible for more trees or details to occur in any given spot at one time. With those mountains, they gave us extra land that they didn't have to add, but chose to, and I thank them for it.

Edited October 17, 2013 by killahmatic

[Cicero The Great]

All we need are repeatable/infinite bounty/ vigilante missions, enterable buildings from storyline, enterable properties with new activities and side missions ( bahamas mamas, tequila la-la, the bar in paleto etc..) plus two more nightclubs, casino, race track, more races, more thriatlons and challenges, bears and other animals from rdr et voilà...

 

GTA v comes alive !

 

The sad thing is that we have to pay for something that already exist on the vanilla game (DLC ?)

 

Or that should have been included on release date at least

[The-San-Andreas-man]

And this is different from GTA SA how exactly?

[saintsrow]

The problem was RDR's countryside was more alive and detailed than LS's country side. So it LS's country side seemed inferior. I really wish they had made LS a bit bigger or added few more towns or one medium size city. The urban area is pretty awesome though.

 

I loved RDR's countryside and all the wildlife in it, and I expected something similar in GTAV, with the caveat that people suggested, that we would not see quite the density of wildlife as we had in RDR. That's OK.

 

However, what we got is a plague of deer in Blaine County. I could never have imagined that this is how Rockstar would have managed the wildlife. You can't drive half a GTAV mile in the countryside without coming across a herd of deer. I have never seen a deer in SoCal, though they are plentiful in states east fo the Mississippi River. Who the heck did Rockstar hire as a wildlife consultant for this game??

 

In Los Angeles, I have seen raccoons, opossums, skunks, crows, pelicans, sea lions, stray cats and lizards almost every month. And ducks and geese in the urban park ponds. But deer??? WTF??

[Raavi]

 

The problem was RDR's countryside was more alive and detailed than LS's country side. So it LS's country side seemed inferior. I really wish they had made LS a bit bigger or added few more towns or one medium size city. The urban area is pretty awesome though.

 

I loved RDR's countryside and all the wildlife in it, and I expected something similar in GTAV, with the caveat that people suggested, that we would not see quite the density of wildlife as we had in RDR. That's OK.

 

However, what we got is a plague of deer in Blaine County. I could never have imagined that this is how Rockstar would have managed the wildlife. You can't drive half a GTAV mile in the countryside without coming across a herd of deer. I have never seen a deer in SoCal, though they are plentiful in states east fo the Mississippi River. Who the heck did Rockstar hire as a wildlife consultant for this game??

 

In Los Angeles, I have seen raccoons, opossums, skunks, crows, pelicans, sea lions, stray cats and lizards almost every month. And ducks and geese in the urban park ponds. But deer??? WTF??

 

 

They added animals in solely for the sake of being able to market it as such. Zero thought went into the eco-system.

[ry12111]

Iv'e seen deer,pigs,boars,cows a few others the animals are ok should have bears though

[AtomicPunk]

The ecosystem is laughable, at best. It's so half-assed it isn't even funny. That was one of their tickets to sales because they knew people would say "Red Dead". How far off that marketing was....

[DoubleOGJohnson]

It's kind of funny how every time a fan critiques a feature that is lacking in GTA V, the fanboys come soon after and make the claim that the feature in question isn't important and was unneeded. What criteria are fanboys using to judge which features are useful and which are unimportant? Just months ago they mocked fans for wanting properties, barbershops, tattoo shops, car customization, etc and other features from San Andreas then when Rockstar announced that some of those features would be in the game, all of the sudden the fanboys who dissed those same features were on-board with including them. It's like they wait until something is announced before supporting it. What rationale or criteria are they using to determine which features should and shouldn't be included? Im just curious, tell me.

[RyanBurnsRed]

I'd like to know this as well.

[The Jungz]

Well .. it's been a while since V was out and .. I am starting to realize how much stuff was left out because of console limitations. If you ask me, why in the f*ck, didnt they wait and got V out on PS4/Xbox One. I thought they were letting these consoles go with a loud bang. GTA V sounds more like a slight breeze at this point. How sad.

Edited October 17, 2013 by ThroatSlasher2

[HakatoX]

why in the f*ck, didnt they wait and got V out on PS4/Xbox One.

800,000,000.00 the first weekend?

or maybe you would turn down the chance to get a quick billion off suckers who will buy it again?

Edited October 17, 2013 by HakatoX

[Official General]

The ecosystem is laughable, at best. It's so half-assed it isn't even funny. That was one of their tickets to sales because they knew people would say "Red Dead". How far off that marketing was....

 

You, Raavi and saintsrow summed this subject up perfectly

 

The wildlife ecosystem in GTA V was a very poor effort indeed. Southern California has much more wildlife than what the game portrayed - just where the f** were all the rest of the other animals that typically inhabited the region ? And the forests were not really forests, they were just clusters of trees.

 

I personally would have rather had a map similar to San Andreas with different cities.

Edited October 18, 2013 by Official General

[Leafy Hollow]

RDR had a great forest. I thought GTA V would have at least had some sort of fictional Northern Cali Redwood wilderness type sh*t in it. IMO they overdid the desert a little too much and should have added more forestry.

Edited October 17, 2013 by Leafy Hollow

[Official General]

RDR had a great forest. I thought GTA V would have at least had some sort of fictional Northern Cali Redwood wilderness type sh*t in it. IMO they overdid the desert a little to much and should have added more forestry.

 

Yeah the redwood and giant sequoia forests would have been great, especially if they had lost of wildlife in them. Not just cougars, but bears and many other animals. Once again, Rockstar blew it.

[Cicero The Great]

RDR had a great forest. I thought GTA V would have at least had some sort of fictional Northern Cali Redwood wilderness type sh*t in it. IMO they overdid the desert a little too much and should have added more forestry.

The transition city- desert- forests was a great idea, but what about seasons and another medium sized city/town ?

 

Oh yeah, of course, hardware limitations...

[Wylight]

 

The ecosystem is laughable, at best. It's so half-assed it isn't even funny. That was one of their tickets to sales because they knew people would say "Red Dead". How far off that marketing was....

 

You, Raavi and saintsrow summed this subject up perfectly

 

The wildlife ecosystem in GTA V was a very poor effort indeed. Southern California has much more wildlife than what the game portrayed - just where the f** were all the rest of the other animals that typically inhabited the region ? And the forests were not really forests, they were just clusters of trees.

 

I personally would have rather had a map similar to San Andreas with different cities

If you haven't already, look for The Crew, an open world racing game, that's what R* should have give us instead of this. That map blows GTA V's map in less than a second. It has New York, Miami, Los Angles, Las Vegas, Detroit, Chicago as well as a colossal countryside which consists into mountains, forests, deserts, fields that look much more wild and appealing than in GTA V, it also has a big snowy area. All that shaped exactly like the US, so yeah, this game takes place across the whole country. Not to mention the cities are big and detailed pretty much like LS in GTA V. There are also animals and other random things

[Wylight]

It's kind of funny how every time a fan critiques a feature that is lacking in GTA V, the fanboys come soon after and make the claim that the feature in question isn't important and was unneeded. What criteria are fanboys using to judge which features are useful and which are unimportant? Just months ago they mocked fans for wanting properties, barbershops, tattoo shops, car customization, etc and other features from San Andreas then when Rockstar announced that some of those features would be in the game, all of the sudden the fanboys who dissed those same features were on-board with including them. It's like they wait until something is announced before supporting it. What rationale or criteria are they using to determine which features should and shouldn't be included? Im just curious, tell me.

Exactly, everytime I bring up a negative fact about the game all the fanboys say it's not really important and why am I complaining about such a minor thing. They can say that about everything, that's how fanboys like Mr StarVisitor are, delusional till death

[Wylight]

 

 

The problem was RDR's countryside was more alive and detailed than LS's country side. So it LS's country side seemed inferior. I really wish they had made LS a bit bigger or added few more towns or one medium size city. The urban area is pretty awesome though.

 

I loved RDR's countryside and all the wildlife in it, and I expected something similar in GTAV, with the caveat that people suggested, that we would not see quite the density of wildlife as we had in RDR. That's OK.

 

However, what we got is a plague of deer in Blaine County. I could never have imagined that this is how Rockstar would have managed the wildlife. You can't drive half a GTAV mile in the countryside without coming across a herd of deer. I have never seen a deer in SoCal, though they are plentiful in states east fo the Mississippi River. Who the heck did Rockstar hire as a wildlife consultant for this game??

 

In Los Angeles, I have seen raccoons, opossums, skunks, crows, pelicans, sea lions, stray cats and lizards almost every month. And ducks and geese in the urban park ponds. But deer??? WTF??

 

 

They added animals in solely for the sake of being able to market it as such. Zero thought went into the eco-system.

 

More like for the sake of braging about their perfect and imaculate countryside which is barely half of what it was hyped as

[RyanBurnsRed]

The evidence is damning.

 

Marketed as:

 

Reality:

 

 

Marketed as:

 

Reality:

 

 

Marketed as:

 

Reality:

 

Those [the marketed as] are all PC screenshots

Edited October 18, 2013 by brootalperry

[HakatoX]

PC or next gen..

plain and simple

[RyanBurnsRed]

PC or next gen..

plain and simple

 

I would say PC is more likely than next gen.

I think the next GTA will be next gen only. So no 360/PS3 versions. Just PS4/XB1/PC.

That's how Rockstar has always done it.

Edited October 18, 2013 by brootalperry

[Cicero The Great]

 

 

 

PC or next gen..

plain and simple

 

I would say PC is more likely than next gen.

I think the next GTA will be next gen only. So no 360/PS3 versions. Just PS4/XB1/PC.

That's how Rockstar has always done it.

 

Things can change...and more billions are to come...

[woggleman]

Since no animals have ever been in a GTA before I won't make a big fuss out of them not including every single species in the animal kingdom. To me there is plenty to do in the countryside. I come across random events all the time and just the other day I picked up a hitchhiker and discovered I could drop them off at some murderous cult way out in the middle of nowhere.

[Tarantulaguy1990]

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 think the closest thing to get lost in is the hedge maze pmsl

[dyz]

The evidence is damning.

 

Marketed as:

 

Reality:

 

 

Marketed as:

 

Reality:

 

 

Marketed as:

 

Reality:

They look identical, but the only difference is they took a few trees and bushes away to make the game run better but i can guarantee that the pc version will bring it all back.

[RyanBurnsRed]

 

They look identical, but the only difference is they took a few trees and bushes away to make the game run better but i can guarantee that the pc version will bring it all back.

 

 

Nah. In those pre-release pictures there's obviously Ambient Occlusion as well as higher draw/detail distance, higher textures, and sharper/darker shadows, just to name a few things.

That's more than just a few more trees and bushes. I think those pre-release shots are probably what the PC version will look like maxed out, or at least close to max settings.

I can't believe people actually bought the console version of this game thinking that it will look like those marketed screenshots

 

However like zzcool said, a forest where you feel disconnected from the city, and you feel like you're really in the wilderness would [have] be[en] awesome.

The feels man...the feels...

Edited October 19, 2013 by brootalperry

[ry12111]

Hopefully next game will look like the trailers did for this one hahaha

[K1NG CURT1S]

I wouldn't have half the fun I have if every hill was littered with trees and rocks...

 

EFF THAT. Driving off the side of a mountain only to lose momentum from hitting tree after tree would not be as amusing as it is currently.

 

 

ALSO. do you know how easy it is for R* to have just copy and pasted tree after tree after tree to create more "realism"?

 

They DIDNT do that PURPOSELY, because if they had then we'd have people complaining on the forums saying "OMG THERES TOO MANY FRIGGIN TREES I CANT DRIVE MORE THEN 100 FEET WITHOUT HITTING ONE!"

[Lock n' Stock]

I don't know about you, but driving off-road has never felt this fun before, especially up and down hills and mountains.

[woggleman]

I wouldn't have half the fun I have if every hill was littered with trees and rocks...

 

EFF THAT. Driving off the side of a mountain only to lose momentum from hitting tree after tree would not be as amusing as it is currently.

 

 

ALSO. do you know how easy it is for R* to have just copy and pasted tree after tree after tree to create more "realism"?

 

They DIDNT do that PURPOSELY, because if they had then we'd have people complaining on the forums saying "OMG THERES TOO MANY FRIGGIN TREES I CANT DRIVE MORE THEN 100 FEET WITHOUT HITTING ONE!"

 

I don't know about you, but driving off-road has never felt this fun before, especially up and down hills and mountains.

Me too. I was doing those missions at Trevor's hangar with that buggy and trying to outrun the other gun runners is fun as hell.

 

Also if they had more trees that is exactly what would have happened and if they had another city and less countryside people would have been complaining about the lack of countryside.