Shady Creeks, Back O' Beyond, Flint County

[Drake1212]

Are people seriously talking about getting lost in SA? that map was so cramped that there was no way to get lost. The only place where you could atleast "pretend" to get lost was those swampy woords near Mt. Chiliad. Face it - the only reason you thought those places were scary was due to the draw distance and nostalgia.

I'm not saying you can get lost in V's map - you can't, but in return we got that awesome draw distance which makes flying so neat.
Creating huge empty forests/deserts just isn't worth it in a game. They would take a lot of disc space (especially a forest) and with no roads going though them, it would be a pain in the ass for the gamer if they broke down in the middle of it.

[Mathew4296]

The fact that SA had 3 cities and 3 countryside areas, even though SA's entire map would fit in V's Los Santos, did make the map feel really big plus the low draw distance. I think that if V had 3 cities and countryside areas and lower draw distance, it would feel much bigger even if it was the same size as the current map .The fact that you were confined to one city at the start and slowly unlock the other two, that would make it feel bigger too.

 

Also on a slightly off-topic note, is it just me or did anyone feel that the PS2 version of SA look better than the PC version? I know PC has better graphics and all, but I think that SA just looked weird on the PC. The PS2 had a much warmer, more authentic visual feel whereas the PC just looked sterilized and bland. It (from memory) lacked that orange tinge that SA had, especially in Los Santos. For me, that orange tinge added atmosphere.

Edited December 5, 2013 by Mathew4296

[MAKAVELlil]

In GTA V The Place Where The Submarine Is Feels SOOOO f*ckING CREEPY AND SCARY

Edited December 5, 2013 by MAKAVELlil

[DaRkL3AD3R]

Now THAT'S creepy. It looks tiny!

 

Yep it is tiny, but SA nostalgia kiddies will scream that it was the biggest map Rockstar made to date.

 

Oh how powerful draw distance can affect the mind. Especially when the mind is a pubescent teenager's.

[pentaxian]

I'm not a SA fanboy, but SA's forest is waaay more intimidating and creepier than V's, even if in V there are those mountain cats that one-hit kill you.

Yea that's true.

 

This topic is interesting, and I never realized that yea, it is hard to get lost.

 

Credit to OP for bringing up something that was kind of on my mind in terms of criticizing this map, but I couldn't quite place it.

 

I feel like the scale of chilliad in V is a little off too, further ruining the experience. idk, just another gripe i have about this game that was supposed to blow IV out of the water.

[Cutter De Blanc]

Chilead is just weird. It has an odd very unnatural looking placement at the edge of the map. It's like a block or two distance from the foot of the mountain to the ocean on the north side.

 

The only place I sometimes feel lost is the desert, but then I just spin the camera until I see the giant mountain and I'm not lost anymore.

 

I don't know why, but I've learned the layout of the map already and can find most places without a waypoint. Compared to GTA IV where I still can't find my way out of south Alderney without 10 minutes of attempting to drive north.

[Tilemaxx]

 

Also on a slightly off-topic note, is it just me or did anyone feel that the PS2 version of SA look better than the PC version? I know PC has better graphics and all, but I think that SA just looked weird on the PC. The PS2 had a much warmer, more authentic visual feel whereas the PC just looked sterilized and bland. It (from memory) lacked that orange tinge that SA had, especially in Los Santos. For me, that orange tinge added atmosphere.

 

I'm getting that feeling only in PS2 version. SA PC has already a much bigger draw distance and clearer textures you can see from far away (they also removed plenty effects from PC ver). It takes away all the atmosphere.

[D T]

That's just an illusion. First, the feeling of "isolation", SA had very little draw distance which gave the impression of being huge. Second, there are plenty of areas in GTA like the 2nd photo you posted.

 

In fact, would you still feel creepy if you realised that:

 

 

That's just an illusion. Real life also has very little draw distance which gives the impression of being huge. In fact, would you still feel creepy if you realised that:

 

[Mintal]

 

Now THAT'S creepy. It looks tiny!

 

Yep it is tiny, but SA nostalgia kiddies will scream that it was the biggest map Rockstar made to date.

 

Oh how powerful draw distance can affect the mind. Especially when the mind is a pubescent teenager's.

 

Can you only think black and white? Not everyone who prefers GTA SA's map over V's is a "SA nostalgia kiddie" or a "pubescent teenager", and not everyone believes that SA's map IS bigger. Of course it is NOT. It's tiny compared to V.

 

But it matters to me how you FEEL while playing. And I love R*'s tricks they used to make us think that SA is freakin massive. Those places like Shady Creeks made ... no, they still make me feel lost when I'm playing. R* did a good job on that, and it is not only the poor draw distance. It is the whole style of the countryside. V's is way too recognizable, in SA I still find things I've never seen, because the countryside was way more... complex and it had more variety + hidden things. That doesn't mean I hate V's map. It's still beautiful and well done, but.. I expected something different. Not something bigger, but something with more variety and places to get lost.

 

But that's just my opinion, do you call me a SA fanboy now?

 

I know you weren't specifically talking to me, but: Did you even read my first post when I made this topic? No? I wasn't talking about SA being huge or so. I was talking about the PLACES I miss. Like Shady Creeks, Flint County and Back O' Beyond. I never said that I get lost in SA because it IS bigger. It is NOT.

[Wylight]

Even Just Cause 1 had a better wilderness. I still remember how hyped everyone got because of the ''amazing wilderness'' when in fact is just too half-assed in terms of pure and untouched wilderness, and on top of all, they cut most of the trees from some areas. And stop with the ''console limitation'' bullsh*t cause that's just a sorry-ass excuse.

[Killerman29]

im tired of those using the "bad draw distance" of gta sa to justify the poor map of gta v, in all posts about gta v country vs gta sa country, "is a ilusion, the map is small" omg is a game from 2004 and still have the best map of the series with great layout and design

[Raj The Rager]

If GTA V had San Andreas' terrible drawn distance you would get lost.

[.Smaher.]

im tired of those using the "bad draw distance" of gta sa to justify the poor map of gta v, in all posts about gta v country vs gta sa country, "is a ilusion, the map is small" omg is a game from 2004 and still have the best map of the series with great layout and design

That bump.

[Gnocchi Flip Flops]

If GTA V had San Andreas' terrible drawn distance you would get lost.

No you wouldn't.

 

It all had to do with the layout. But apparently people are so thick headed they need to keep repeating the same old sh*t "oh draw distance draw distance" nobody gaf, provide some better points or don't comment at all.

[D9fred95]

No you wouldn't.

 

It all had to do with the layout. But apparently people are so thick headed they need to keep repeating the same old sh*t "oh draw distance draw distance" nobody gaf, provide some better points or don't comment at all.

 

This is true. I still sometimes feel like I'm going the wrong way when traversing SA's wilderness, probably because of the road layout. In V, all the roads lead to Sandy Shores, Grapeseed or Paleto Bay which kills the backwoods feeling.

 

The lack of towns too. SA had at least 9 towns in both the countryside and desert. V has 3, not counting that "town" where the Fleeca Heist happens.

[Gnocchi Flip Flops]

 

No you wouldn't.

 

It all had to do with the layout. But apparently people are so thick headed they need to keep repeating the same old sh*t "oh draw distance draw distance" nobody gaf, provide some better points or don't comment at all.

 

This is true. I still sometimes feel like I'm going the wrong way when traversing SA's wilderness, probably because of the road layout. In V, all the roads lead to Sandy Shores, Grapeseed or Paleto Bay which kills the backwoods feeling.

 

The lack of towns too. SA had at least 9 towns in both the countryside and desert. V has 3, not counting that "town" where the Fleeca Heist happens.

 

Also doesn't help that nothing is really that separated by mountains. They're all pushed out towards the edges of the map. If we had rugged terrain between every town with a bit more forest it would feel more like the countryside.

 

The weather in the countryside also sucks. I remember the weather in San Fierro being different from Los Santos and Las Venturas. Of course the latter was the driest while San Fierro and the backwoods got more fog and rain. But all of the weather is the same all across Los Santos and Blaine County. This is no difference at all.

[D9fred95]

Also doesn't help that nothing is really that separated by mountains. They're all pushed out towards the edges of the map. If we had rugged terrain between every town with a bit more forest it would feel more like the countryside.

 

The weather in the countryside also sucks. I remember the weather in San Fierro being different from Los Santos and Las Venturas. Of course the latter was the driest while San Fierro and the backwoods got more fog and rain. But all of the weather is the same all across Los Santos and Blaine County. This is no difference at all.

 

San Fierro always had a nice blue tint that I always loved, and the way the orange color dominates the screen during dusk in Los Santos? You can almost feel the heat of it. They should've brought sandstorms back for Blaine County, I liked how sandstorms would sometimes creep into LV.

[Official General]

 

No you wouldn't.

 

It all had to do with the layout. But apparently people are so thick headed they need to keep repeating the same old sh*t "oh draw distance draw distance" nobody gaf, provide some better points or don't comment at all.

 

This is true. I still sometimes feel like I'm going the wrong way when traversing SA's wilderness, probably because of the road layout. In V, all the roads lead to Sandy Shores, Grapeseed or Paleto Bay which kills the backwoods feeling.

 

The lack of towns too. SA had at least 9 towns in both the countryside and desert. V has 3, not counting that "town" where the Fleeca Heist happens.

Totally agree with both of you.

 

Nobody gave a flyin' f*ck about SA's illusionary draw distances - the bottom line is that the map looked huge in size, and more importantly felt huge in size too. There were many points in SA's map where you just felt lost and in the middle of nowhere - that alone is a testament to the fact that it was successful in making the player feel like SA's world was so vast in size, despite whatever illusions were employed. There were so many different highways and roads on SA's map that led to many different places, and some just lead to nowhere but wilderness and countryside. You really had to sometimes stop and find your bearings on that map, I loved that feeling, gave me a real sense of navigation and adventure. The fact that SA's map had 3 different major cities and numerous small towns all the more added to its great feeling of exploration.

 

V's map just does not have that feeling of sheer vastness that SA had. The layout of the map means that most routes are very easy to remember and are so predictable, making the very big map feel much smaller than it is. You have the circular highway that leads to Paleto Bay to the northwest, and Grapeseed in the northeast, and then the road that leads Sandy Shores and the big lake right in the middle, and Los Santos in the south - that's really all there is. V's map should have at least had more small towns to make the map feel like it had more to it. A reduction in mountains and more remote forest would have helped greatly too.

[The Dedito Gae]

im tired of those using the "bad draw distance" of gta sa to justify the poor map of gta v, in all posts about gta v country vs gta sa country, "is a ilusion, the map is small" omg is a game from 2004 and still have the best map of the series with great layout and design

Is partially true though, SA's draw distance makes it feel bigger than it already is, V's map is more like a straight line on a clear day, SA is like a foggy laberinth, there's not a single straight road, small mountains are placed in the middle to make drives longer, not as simple scenery you can drive over like in V.

 

The design and layout in SA wasn't that great either, the transition from countryside to desert is not smooth at all, the whole map is a square, the Robada desert is next to the ocean, cities layout is not faithful to the real version (Hoover Dam should be east of LV, Galileo Observatory is in south LS etc)

[Official General]

 

im tired of those using the "bad draw distance" of gta sa to justify the poor map of gta v, in all posts about gta v country vs gta sa country, "is a ilusion, the map is small" omg is a game from 2004 and still have the best map of the series with great layout and design

Is partially true though, SA's draw distance makes it feel bigger than it already is, V's map is more like a straight line on a clear day, SA is like a foggy laberinth, there's not a single straight road, small mountains are placed in the middle to make drives longer, not as simple scenery you can drive over like in V.

The design and layout in SA wasn't that great either, the transition from countryside to desert is not smooth at all, the whole map is a square, the Robada desert is next to the ocean, cities layout is not faithful to the real version (Hoover Dam should be east of LV, Galileo Observatory is in south LS etc)

@ Midnight

 

It may be true, but I still prefer the feeling of exploring SA's map over V's. Regardless of SA map's imperfections, it still felt a much more vast and interesting an area to explore than V's map. The three different cities and many small towns in SA's map contribute a lot to this.

[Lemoyne outlaw]

i will admit that the countryside in 5 was not what i expected and could have been bigger. but i still like it. i like the atmosphere and the animals make it feel more alive especially since the couger is a real threat although i do wish the bear and horses made it into the game.also the area in between vinewood hills and the desert where the mineshaft is makes me lost sometimes. if you look on the map its all kind of confusing. once i was locked on by the homing launcher there i bailed out and parachuted in there. it took a while find a way out. anyways like i said the map aint perfect but i still enjoy it. even the countryside. but i think that red dead redemptions countryside beats both gta 5 and sa.

[Killerman29]

 

im tired of those using the "bad draw distance" of gta sa to justify the poor map of gta v, in all posts about gta v country vs gta sa country, "is a ilusion, the map is small" omg is a game from 2004 and still have the best map of the series with great layout and design

That bump.

 

sorry for the bump, the topic was in the top of the forum and i dont know why

Edited April 26, 2016 by Killerman29

[TheDeathRises]

Here's an idea that somebody with more skill and passion than me could do. Take GTA V's and SA's map. Obviously, we all know that SA's map is much smaller, but still feels more diverse and vast. Now, V's map has a lot of empty mountains where you barely are at all. They serve no purpose other than to increase the size of the map. They're not even a hindrance to create a more complex road network, they're just there. Take the map and using an image editing tool of your choice, cut out all those empty mountain areas and look at what you have left. GTA V is what, 81km²? And SA 36km². I'm not sure on the size of V but if that is true, it's just a bit more than twice the size of SA. Take away the empty, unused, mostly ignored mountains and you're probably down to about SA's size.

[Lester-The-Molester]

I like both.

[FranklinsIron]

Draw distance the problem.

[Raj The Rager]

 

If GTA V had San Andreas' terrible drawn distance you would get lost.

No you wouldn't.

 

It all had to do with the layout. But apparently people are so thick headed they need to keep repeating the same old sh*t "oh draw distance draw distance" nobody gaf, provide some better points or don't comment at all.

 

Right...

 

So you're telling me if you're right in the middle of say Los Santos County and it had San Andreas drawn distance, it be easier to get to your destination than San Andreas? Yeah right.

Edited April 27, 2016 by Chamberman20

[NumaYay]

SA's draw distance is just a lazy argument by those who deny the obvious flaws of GTA V's map.

 

 

If GTA V had San Andreas' terrible drawn distance you would get lost.

No you wouldn't.

 

It all had to do with the layout. But apparently people are so thick headed they need to keep repeating the same old sh*t "oh draw distance draw distance" nobody gaf, provide some better points or don't comment at all.

 

Right...

So you're telling me if you're right in the middle of say Los Santos County and it had San Andreas drawn distance, it be easier to get to your destination than San Andreas? Yeah right.

 

 

He IS right. It's the LAYOUT and not the draw distance that makes the trick.

[Raj The Rager]

SA's draw distance is just a lazy argument by those who deny the obvious flaws of GTA V's map.

 

 

 

 

Oh really? Then I suppose I could say that people using GTA V's map layout is such a stupid argument for people who are just trying make San Andreas look better and are trying to make another reason to hate on GTA V more. All while denying that you could get lost quicker in San Andreas if it had a terrible drawn distance.

Edited April 27, 2016 by Chamberman20

[D9fred95]

It's the road layout that gives SA it's "huge" feeling. While draw distance does help, it's the road diversity that does the magic. There's twists and turns, roads that lead around and about, some roads go over other roads and lead to several other small towns and cities. Stuff like that make SA feel huge.

 

Most roads in V lead directly to:

 

A. Los Santos

B. Sandy Shores

C. Grapeseed

D. Paleto Bay

 

The highway network makes it worse since there's two networks in V and they both lead directly back to LS. In SA, there are several networks and they have elaborate routes through the cities and several different points.

Edited April 27, 2016 by D9fred95

[Pink Pineapple]

Here's an idea that somebody with more skill and passion than me could do. Take GTA V's and SA's map. Obviously, we all know that SA's map is much smaller, but still feels more diverse and vast. Now, V's map has a lot of empty mountains where you barely are at all. They serve no purpose other than to increase the size of the map. They're not even a hindrance to create a more complex road network, they're just there. Take the map and using an image editing tool of your choice, cut out all those empty mountain areas and look at what you have left. GTA V is what, 81km²? And SA 36km². I'm not sure on the size of V but if that is true, it's just a bit more than twice the size of SA. Take away the empty, unused, mostly ignored mountains and you're probably down to about SA's size.

 

It's been done. There's about the same city area in both games. The desert is also a similar size in both. In San Andreas, the forest next to Angel Pine covers the same amount of area as both the Chiliad State Wilderness and Paleto Forest combined.

 

The main reason V is much bigger than SA is because all of the mountains.