Which map would you have preferred?

[Choco Taco]

Would you rather have the actual map or a map that's smaller, but with a larger town to the north with an airport, safehouse, garage, and a couple of activities?

 

I'd prefer the smaller map because there's not much of a reason to go to the north of the actual map and a lot of the countryside seems like wasted space.

 

 

 

overlay for size comparison:

 

 

 

 

[Harisondb]

I wanted los santos to be a bit smaller and some other new state like Florida or Miami :-)

[grumpy cat meme]

The one we have right now.

[Osho]

I agree.

The map we have now has a lot of limiting factors. If we have a small map (not quite small literally but perfectly laid out and more meaningful) with equally good amount of interactive objects and activities then it will be a sweet and satisfying experience.

 

But, the consoles have still done a great job for the scale offered by making it possible to have the biggest map to play.

 

The remaining complaints about the contents and put more life into each square of the map can be easily answered by next-gen (highly doubtful) or PC which will definitely do the needful.

[fuzzel]

ill take a map that has all the maps, to ever exist in gta.

[G_Masta_Phunk]

This is why GTA SA seemed bigger without actually being bigger... you had incentive to go from LS to SF to LV.... they were all different cities and unique in their own way...

 

Why GTA V didnt take this same approach? who knows... too hard to build 3 cities? I would have been happy with 2.... or atleast a house to buy in Paleto bay...

 

I want to live in Paleto bay! SP or Online... braah!

[GUCCI_MANE_PIZZA_PARTY]

Hmmmmm.... I would probably enjoy the second one. That town looks interesting especially with the airport. That's what I loved about SA. Flying through the countryside from one city to the next.

[ViceCityStalker]

The smaller one most def,they should of left out the boring as f*ck underwater bullsh*t and had a second smaller city.

[ivarblaauw]

I still believe they will create city DLC, may it be Liberty City or Las Venturas/ San Fierro.

 

Just don't take me down guys... Let me have dreams xD

[Fail_At_GTA]

You know what would have been better? If Rockstar made more of the countryside as open, fun space and put those buildings in Paleto Bay to make it a bigger town. The countryside feels like there's too much life in it and Paleto Bay feels a little too dead.

[Flachbau]

The smaller one most def,they should of left out the boring as f*ck underwater bullsh*t and had a second smaller city.

 

I agree with VCS. The map is already a bit too big for my liking in the first place (yeah, sounds weird huh? kill me for it)

 

but Cities > Country Side.

 

I barely visit the country side.. I only drive or fly right through it. That's just one reason why I don't like GTA V.

[Detective Phelps]

I like the countryside, but there should be more activities and enterable buildings in the towns. There should have also been at least 3 large towns, not 2.

[dyz]

I like the countryside, but there should be more activities and enterable buildings in the towns. There should have also been at least 3 large towns, not 2.

There is 5 towns, paleto bay, sandy shores, chumash, harmony and grape seed.

[HOW'S ANNIE?]

ill take a map that has all the maps, to ever exist in gta.

Yes, and a game like that would without a doubt kill the series.

[lol232]

I prefer the current one.

But where did you get the 2nd one?

[Beanee]

Posted my thoughts on this in another thread, but the second map, I think, would've been better.

 

I love driving through the countryside as well as the city, but I do wish there were more activities, properties and tasks up the north of the map; I get that LS is meant to be in a 'valley' of sorts (as in, surrounded by mountains) but another smaller city or town (hell, one or two) would've been better imo.

 

R* should do a poll on these types of things, see what the fans really want. I know it'd be harder to cater for all and to build a story around a smaller map, but its about the fans more than bragging rights and awards

[GUCCI_MANE_PIZZA_PARTY]

The smaller one most def,they should of left out the boring as f*ck underwater bullsh*t and had a second smaller city.

What's funny is that they COULD have added more. They just didn't feel like it.

[Giles Flaggot 1]

This is why GTA SA seemed bigger without actually being bigger... you had incentive to go from LS to SF to LV.... they were all different cities and unique in their own way...

 

Exactly!

 

I remember customizing a car in vinewood and taking a drive to Las Venturas just to gamble

 

There doesn't seem to be a point to Blaine County and the rural areas this time round, apart from the views

 

My dream size for a GTA map would be Test Drive 2's Ibiza

[killahmatic]

there's not much of a reason to go to the north of the actual map and a lot of the countryside seems like wasted space.

 

I don't know why people always say that. I assume "north of the actual map" means north of the city.

I find my self in the northern section way more than southern section. We get city in EVERY GTA game. Its nice to have some freedom for a change.

 

That map looks terrible and there's almost no land between the city and desert. That would be lame. Chiliad and other mountains would have to be much shorter, which would completely take away from even having them. Chiliad would be about the size of Josiah now, and the rest would be nothing more than hills.

 

With that being said, I'd gladly take the current map size with Paleto Bay the size of the second map. But we always want more.

[BLOOD]

I Prefer the one we have known for 4 months

[DeafMetal]

B for sure, but I think the other city could be a tad bigger. One of the awesome things about San Andreas was that you went to the countryside to travel between cities. In V, you go to the countryside and you just end up in Los Santos again. Still loved the map but I think they missed out on an opportunity to introduce a smaller, but still fairly large city to have as an alternative to the countryside and LS.

 

I really, really wanna see how they're gonna handle northern San Andreas. I would REALLY REALLY like to see it as a huge expansion pack to V. It should completely sh*t on every single other GTA combined if they did that. Hell, I'd pay f*cking full price, $60 for it. Totally far-fetched though.

[73duster]

The size of the map is perfect. The REAL problem's are:

1- Ocean is WASTED space. There is virtually nothing to do other than races. The whole underwater exploration was a GREAT idea, but it doesn't translate to online multiplayer in any useful fashion.

 

2- Lack of interiors. I'm really shocked that the airport was once again not enterable. Also, I was sure there would be at least ONE major mall that had a fully explorable interior like we had in Vice City.

 

3- Not enough to discover in the countryside. I personally love the countryside, but it's mostly wasted open space with little to NO secrets or interesting places to explore. Most people stay around the SAME area in the city, in spite of such a wide open map being available.

 

Instead of putting so much effort into the ocean space, they SHOULD have focused more on filling this beautiful map with interesting and diverse INTERIORS. Imagine the kind of chaos people could create inside of a huge mall, or the inside of the airport.

This was a HUGE missed opportunity for Rockstar. As much as I DO love the overall map, it becomes exposed in online multiplayer, because without the story mode, you feel like it is stripped down of a large part of it's interesting interior environments. While story mode allows you to appreciate everything the map has to offer, it's online counterpart eliminates almost ALL of the interesting interiors we have access to during the single player campaign.

 

I STILL can't believe they didn't do a fully explorable AIRPORT or MALL.

[Magic_Al]

I think the map is very carefully thought out and it's hard to think of changes that don't cause their own problems.

 

Rockstar strategically used an abundance of mountain terrain to increase the area of the map for flying purposes, the natural barrenness of mountains relieving the need to fill that area with as much small-scale and interactive detail. Mountains are also useful to obscure line of sight so you're not constantly reminded of it being a small island in real-world area. If you want to replace the mountains with something else, you're radically changing how Rockstar would have to budget their art and programming resources.

 

I've touched on this in other map-size threads but the ultimate limiting factor in world size is how many detailed objects and areas can Rockstar make in a "handcrafted" way in the timespan of one game's production.

[Woll Smoth]

I choose the second one, but I prefer a SA type map over both, though.

[PkUnzipper]

This is why GTA SA seemed bigger without actually being bigger... you had incentive to go from LS to SF to LV.... they were all different cities and unique in their own way...

 

Why GTA V didnt take this same approach? who knows... too hard to build 3 cities? I would have been happy with 2.... or atleast a house to buy in Paleto bay...

 

I want to live in Paleto bay! SP or Online... braah!

 

Perhaps if they had traded around 75% of the unused underwater areas and converted these into a more immersive SA style map. Especially seeing how the underwater regions did very little to contribute to game play in SP outside the collectibles mini game. And has made 0% contribution to date in GTAO.

 

The way the desert areas are setup makes the map feel as though it's a sandbox playground area to the city. Too small and insignificant (with not a damned thing going on due to lack of features like animal wildlife, hunting mini game etc). If they at least had added animals, that might have made the desert and country areas more interesting to explore. Or Trevor styled drug running missions to compliment the existing random drug war feature. Things like these would've made up a lot for the lack of the SA style map I'd been expecting.

 

Although I do think the smaller map would have worked if they had at least added building interiors. Like 25% of all buildings on the map having interiors (both above ground and underwater locations). That alone would have made the map seem so much bigger. Or at least whatever percentage interiors they included back in SA. But regardless of size, the map becomes dull after playing the game over an extended period of time. And this is especially true of GTAO, which has been lacking a lot of the good content SP has to date.

 

Wonder if R* plans on adding some of the missing SP content into GTAO as a future DLC? Could they be that callous?

Edited January 19, 2014 by PkUnzipper

[StJimmy]

Paleto bay was a wasted opportunity, I would have loved a SP safe house up there, a nice beach side residence, because firstly there is no safe house up north, making some clothing changing and time advancing a bitch. And secondly it would have actually showcased Paleto besides one mission. Hell I love Paleto Bay, it is my favorite small town in the GTA series but its empty

[Official General]

IF POSSIBLE :

 

I would prefer a San Andreas style map in HD GTA V-style graphics with Los Santos, San Fierro and Las Venturas. Los Santos would the same size as it is in V, but with much narrower roads and more spread out.

[darkwar854]

ill take a map that has all the maps, to ever exist in gta.

[Pilotmonkey]

 

ill take a map that has all the maps, to ever exist in gta.

Wheres Houser Land?