Would gta 5 feel bigger with more forest?

[darkwar854]

So, I've noticed that gta 5 doesn't really have any forest areas. I guess that small area by mt chilliad counts, but generally, it's mostly desert and mountains. I kind of wished that they put just a little more forested areas on the map. Or maybe they were going to, but ran out of space.

[Officer Ronson]

Well there is a small Forest which covers a part of Paleto and Raton Cayon, in some of the hills there were going to be even more threes, but due to limitations they had to be cut.

[E•MO•TION]

I wish there were more trees in general.

[Black & White]

I wouldn't mind if Rockstar added a little bit more of forest. To be honest, I wanted more out of the map. Los Santos is the only busy place. Other than Los Santos, the map is quite large but there isn't much going on in Blaine Country. A small airbase, a military airbase, and a few shops. The rest was all forest and deserts.

[E•MO•TION]

I wouldn't mind if Rockstar added a little bit more of forest. To be honest, I wanted more out of the map. Los Santos is the only busy place. Other than Los Santos, the map is quite large but there isn't much going on in Blaine Country. A small airbase, a military airbase, and a few shops. The rest was all forest and deserts.

Most of Blaine County is useless mountains that you cannot even explore for very long without getting mauled by a cougar. Sandy Shores is the only place worth going to, and maybe Fort Zancudo if you're in the mood for some mayhem. Paleto Bay is my favorite town in Blaine County but there is literally no reason to go there while free roaming. That being said, I too would have preferred a bigger Los Santos and I'm sure much of the community would agree, considering that whenever I'm in GTAO I observe that most people hang out in Los Santos.

Edited December 15, 2013 by 2281

[darkwar854]

Well there is a small Forest which covers a part of Paleto and Raton Cayon, in some of the hills there were going to be even more threes, but due to limitations they had to be cut.

That's what I figured. I wouldn't of minded if they took a little out of the underwater world to add more trees. It would make the map feel alot bigger. I think that's why a lot of people still think that SA is bigger than this map.

[Tupiz]

It seriously would. Plus the map would feel more cozy.

 

What I've noticed, is that there actually were a lot more trees back in trailer number 1. Just have a look at the ''for sale house'', you'll see various trees shadowing the yard. More trees on powerful PCs, maybe?

 

Trees are surprisingly huge factor when it comes to the game world.

Edited December 15, 2013 by Tuomaz_

[darkwar854]

It seriously would. Plus the map would feel more cozy.

 

What I've noticed, is that there actually were a lot more trees back in trailer number 1. Just have a look at the ''for sale house'', you'll see various trees shadowing the yard. More trees on powerful PCs, maybe?

 

Trees are surprisingly huge factor when it comes to the game world.

And that's why I think rockstar made cars go offroad so good. They thought they would have more trees in the game so it wouldn't matter much.

[visionist]

I think the "sports cars are better off road than 4X4s" problem is one of physics (simplified from IV). The sports cars obviously have a higher speed and so this simply translates to better climbing ability. There is no provision for torque curves, axle articulation, ramp-break over and approach/departure angles, low range gearing simulation & such (in IV I'm pretty sure the limited off road areas were inaccessible to sports cars as a result of this sophistication)...

[AnDReJ98]

Yes. I noticed this before. It would be better with large forests, and if you could lost there.

[darkwar854]

 

Top is before the game came out, bottom is gameplay.

[zielarz119]

forests were planned but deleted due to console limitations:

[Official General]

The forests in GTA V were very disappointed indeed. I was hoping for an extensive stretch of dense woodland like the Tall Trees region in RDR. Imagine going there at night and having all kinds of crazy, dark human random encounters.

 

The forest in Paleto was not even really a forest, it was just a hillside with more trees than usual. Very poor.

Edited December 16, 2013 by Official General

[zielarz119]

The forests in GTA V were very disappointed indeed. I was hoping for an extensive stretch of dense woodland like the Tall Trees region in RDR. Imagine going there at night and having all kinds of crazy, dark human random encounters.

 

The forest in Paleto was not even really a forest, it was just a hillside with more trees than usual. Very poor.

 

not only this but there was sh*tload of roads... that hidden village is interesting though

[Tupiz]

forests were planned but deleted due to console limitations:

And those huge mountains.

[Johnix1]

first thing I´m doing after GTAV releases on PC is adding more trees to make some actual forests via modding. It does feel kinda empty on PS3. I want mt. Chiliad´s flora to be as lush and diverse as possible.

Edited December 16, 2013 by Johnix1

[darkwar854]

first thing I´m doing after GTAV releases on PC is adding more trees to make some actual forests via modding. It does feel kinda empty on PS3. I want mt. Chiliad´s flora to be as lush and diverse as possible.

If I were you, I would add more trees west of vinewood. Feels pretty empty there. That is, if it is released for pc...

[Lil ski]

Idk the map already feels big as hell for me?

[saintsrow]

The forests in GTA V were very disappointed indeed. I was hoping for an extensive stretch of dense woodland like the Tall Trees region in RDR. Imagine going there at night and having all kinds of crazy, dark human random encounters.

 

The forest in Paleto was not even really a forest, it was just a hillside with more trees than usual. Very poor.

Even though the Great Plains and Tall Trees part of RDR were a small fraction of the map, they were so well done that they felt like larger and immersive areas.

 

I assume that in GTAV, they had to cut back on the trees due to rendering speed limitations, but it would have been nice to just support one or two small areas, far away from the city, where they could have placed a mini-forest of trees as dense as RDR Tall Trees. That would have made it seem unique and immersive.

[jameznash]

I think R* said it was to do with game lag. Trees are a problem when in a fast moving vehicle. They don't load fast enough so it ruins the big draw distance in game and even slows the game down.

 

In RDR its not a problem as you travel at a slower speed.

 

Simple limit to Console.

 

It would be interesting to know how much more the latest console's could manage in % terms. How many more tree's would you be able to have.

[Algonquin Assassin]

I really don't think so. While GTA V's map is huge the general scope is what makes it feel smaller than it is. I don't think more forest would do a whole lot.

 

The only way it would feel bigger is with another city or two. Atm it just feels like LS and its backyard so to speak.

[Josh410]

Well, its Console limitations, but it makes me wonder if they made a next gen GTAV and had DLC, could they add more diverse areas that they couldn't do on 360 and ps3. I would like to see a huge desert with LV on next gen.

[Cicero The Great]

Interaction and something unique to do even in the small towns, this is what V lacks more

Graphics are a surplus, fun and gameplay are more important in a GTA game

 

Not to mention a good story and concrete moral choices