GTA V after playing Red Dead Redemption

[Cr!minal]

So, I recently completed Red Dead Redemption and it's expansion Undead Nightmare. Definitely one of the best gaming experiences in recent years. (I know I'm few years "late").

First thing that striked me how much detailed the world was. All those desert areas and *forests*. To be honest, I was bit shocked after seeing how beautifully dense and believable they can be. At this point I was glad that I did not play RDR before GTA V, because now going back to GTA V feels really "pale" in certain areas.

I was left wondering why R* did not introduce such vast wilderness areas in V..? I mean there's lot of countryside, but most of those areas really do not give you that isolated feel. It was definitely the case in RDR and the area wasn't even that large.
While GTA V main focus isn't countryside (and is set on modern day), I'm still quite a bit dissappointed that they did not create same wilderness feel in V, even in smaller scale.

I'm looking replies from people who have played both games so they know how they compare.

Cheers!

[grumpy cat meme]

I don't know either.

 

One thing that bothers me a lot with the wilderness in GTA V is the ground...

 

 

RDR:

 

 

The desert and the forest are full of chapparal and little weeds on the ground. Look at all the detail.

 

GTA V:

 

 

While in GTA V, everything is about the ground textures (which are ugly at some places).

[Staten]

I think they released a game a couple of years before that was based in a huge wilderness, so they probably wanted to avoid going over old ground.

 

Anyway, there is still quite a lot of wilderness in V. To get a greater impression of it's size, try walking across it, or riding a bmx instead of a car.

Edited February 11, 2014 by Staten

[~Tiger~]

The things I love about GTA are the open world high speed driving and flying. For these reasons I have not played RDR.

 

However topics like this one have inspired me.

 

When GTA gets boring, I'll give RDR a try.

[killahmatic]

I got RDR in November 2012 and played it almost daily until I got V. I consider it one of the best games ever in both world detail and story.

 

With that said, I have no complaints on how V's world is compared to RDR. Its more open as far as countryside goes, but that works for different reasons. Some areas are a little bit too bare, but had R* filled it all in, they would've been flooded with complaints that offroading is impossible and land unusable.

 

Not feeling isolated is something that accurately resembles the way our real world has destroyed natural habitat. Even in the most secluded areas in V, you still can see some sign that humans have been there, which is very accurate as to how our world has become.

 

Also, the size of the small towns and villages in RDR likely made it so R* could use everything they had on the countryside.

Edited February 11, 2014 by killahmatic

[SmoothGetaway]

When you've played GTAV and RDR enough, I think you'll see the difference. RDR is a very focused game. There is a huge emphasis on a few activities; hunting, bounties, random events.

 

I recently played RDR again to 100%, which doesn't take very long by the way. What I noticed most was how few things there are to do besides kill and gamble. The whole game can be summarized by that, which is good because R* made that a ton of fun.

 

In GTAV, I think there is way more going on and that's what separates the two. One has a whole lotta stuff, and one has a few things that are focused. So if you're in the mood for what RDR has to offer you'll like it more....but for sheer amount of activities and ability to make up your own fun, GTAV is way better.

[killahmatic]

What I noticed most was how few things there are to do besides kill and gamble.

 

That is the one downfall of RDR. There is very little to do after you beat the game. Sure there are some things, gang hideouts, exploring, activities, & random events, but you definitely hit a point where it feels like you've done everything and can't come up with more... but that does fade and a month or two later you want to get back into it.

 

The beauty of the world definitely keeps me playing, but I do wish R* could've added more things to do once the story is finished.

Edited February 11, 2014 by killahmatic

[Cr!minal]

Destroyed/human habited nature is reasonable explanation, but I think they could have pulled it of much better by making some areas more dense with forests. Right now there's honestly no place where you can feel you're far away from city or roads.

[Algonquin Assassin]

It does look ugly (the ground textures I mean), but to be fair one map is made up of wilderness of varying degrees while the other has wilderness, a fairly detailed city and ocean. I'm normally not a fan of when people use console limitations as an excuse for GTA V's short comings, but I do think it applies in this case.

[woggleman]

GTA v takes place over a century after RDR so of course things will be more developed. Go to any real life location and compare it 1910 and you will see the same thing.

[Cr!minal]

RDR showed that current gen. hardware is very capable of rendering dense forests with wildlife so I don't believe it's because of hardware limitation.

Edit: now if I think it also could be. One key thing, you couldn't fly in RDR but you can in GTA V. So it may be something to do with streaming.

Edited February 11, 2014 by Cr!minal

[Mr Oraange]

Red Dead Redemption is centered around the Wild West (or what was left of it….)

Grand Theft Auto V is more about San Andreas as a whole, so to speak (Los Santos, lil' bit of desert, mountains, etc.)

Rockstar clearly wanted players to connect more with the environment in Red Dead, considering that was what most of the world in that game. Now, we've been offered with this huge game world, by today's generation standards, and we've been offered tons of space to roam around in, not just the desert. Nuahmean?

 

Clearer graphics comparison needed, me thinks.

 

 

Edited February 11, 2014 by Mr Oraange

[woggleman]

Red Dead Redemption is centered around the Wild West (or what was left of it….)

Grand Theft Auto V is more about San Andreas as a whole, so to speak (Los Santos, lil' bit of desert, mountains, etc.)

Rockstar clearly wanted players to connect more with the environment in Red Dead, considering that was what most of the world in that game. Now, we've been offered with this huge game world, by today's generation standards, and we've been offered tons of space to roam around in, not just the desert. Nuahmean?

 

Clearer graphics comparison needed, me thinks.

 

 

TO be honest I like GTA better in those particular shots.

[DaRkL3AD3R]

RDR has superior vegetation hands freaking down and unfortunately for me I DID play it before V. Man what a massive disappointment the countryside was for me. I was expecting some dense forests and thick grass but what I got was the outdoor sections of Half Life 2 in terms of graphics. Sad.

[Geralt of Rivia]

RDR showed that current gen. hardware is very capable of rendering dense forests with wildlife so I don't believe it's because of hardware limitation.

Edit: now if I think it also could be. One key thing, you couldn't fly in RDR but you can in GTA V. So it may be something to do with streaming.

RDR's map was also a lot smaller than GTA V's map. Plus a bunch of other factors.

 

It's hard to compare a smaller, more barren map to a bigger, more urban map because of all the variables that go into it.

[redx165]

Red Dead Redemption is centered around the Wild West (or what was left of it….)

Grand Theft Auto V is more about San Andreas as a whole, so to speak (Los Santos, lil' bit of desert, mountains, etc.)

Rockstar clearly wanted players to connect more with the environment in Red Dead, considering that was what most of the world in that game. Now, we've been offered with this huge game world, by today's generation standards, and we've been offered tons of space to roam around in, not just the desert. Nuahmean?

 

Clearer graphics comparison needed, me thinks.

 

 

RDR looks way more realistic with that pic than GTA V. The thing GTA V has on RDR is more vibrant colors.

 

The screenshot of GTA V is one of the best I've seen with the ground texture in V.

 

Can't find one but can some compare both Tall Trees and Chiliad Mountain State Wilderness.

Edited February 11, 2014 by redx165

[Osho]

So, you're looking for reply from those who have played both games then first point to understand is THEY ARE DIFFERENT.

 

What do you get out of this, by comparing?

 

I think you're disappointed to see no cityscape as beautiful as V in RDR, right?

 

In that case, RDR Sucks!!..

 

Seriously, both are poles apart, bar the engine that runs it and the few game mechanics.

[woggleman]

One thing I liked about V country is that it is the first to really show trailer parks and rural poverty. It's just the inner city that has ghettos and V does capture that. Some wilderness would have been nice though.

[redx165]

I found the video comparing both those games.

Both are ran on PS3.

 

RDR: 640p vs GTA V: 720p with better ground textures than 360. ( No fanboy war intended )

 

http://youtu.be/VQHjDEhBi7s

 

To be honest GTA V has the edge on color and brightness while RDR has the edge on environment. Thing is you can always change the brightness of the game and add more color. Can't add a better environment.

Edited February 11, 2014 by redx165

[ZZCOOL]

I don't know either.

 

One thing that bothers me a lot with the wilderness in GTA V is the ground...

 

 

RDR:

 

 

The desert and the forest are full of chapparal and little weeds on the ground. Look at all the detail.

 

GTA V:

 

 

While in GTA V, everything is about the ground textures (which are ugly at some places).

this truly shows what makes me sad i wanted red dead like environments instead we got very a very openm countryside

 

i also played san andreas on my phone today and i seriously felt the countryside was more detailed more varied because you were far away from buildings many times

[Crumplet]

The countryside displayed in RDR is miles different from V on a multitude of levels.

 

The first one being that the world of RDR was focused entirely on forests, desert landscapes, mountains and etc, and therefore gives the developers more incentive to capture that with more rich detail and density.

 

Blaine County in its self is meant to be a no man's land scattered with the outskirts of Los Santos' populace and mountains, and I think that's captured as well as it could be.

[Cutter De Blanc]

So, you're looking for reply from those who have played both games then first point to understand is THEY ARE DIFFERENT.

 

What do you get out of this, by comparing?

 

I think you're disappointed to see no cityscape as beautiful as V in RDR, right?

 

In that case, RDR Sucks!!..

 

Seriously, both are poles apart, bar the engine that runs it and the few game mechanics.

I agree with this for the most part but I would say Red Dead does the game mechanics that the two games do share better.

 

With that said though, I haven't played Red Dead Redemption since GTA V came out.

[Peregrin Brandytook]

i can't understand why they removed the bullet exit/enter wounds from RDR.

[Marty892]

I hope that PC version of V will bring that cool grass back.

[ZZCOOL]

i can't understand why they removed the bullet exit/enter wounds from RDR.

the game was made by san diego

 

gta v is by north

[mariana_dm1989]

It's a hard choice for me. GTA V has far better gameplay, but RDR is far more immersive and i really liked the cop spawning system in RDR, as apposed to V's endless stream of cop legions coming from every direction. One thing i hate about RDR's countryside, is that bears spawn every 10 seconds when you are in the forest!!!!! lol at least GTA V regulated the spawning of wildlife. Speaking about forests, i am a big fan of forests, and RDR at least had a proper forest. GTA V had ''pseudo'' forests.

Edited February 11, 2014 by mariana_dm1989

[Cr!minal]

Thanks all for your imput so far!

Compared to RDR, GTA V has rather woodlands than forests.

[Ferocious Banger]

 

Red Dead Redemption is centered around the Wild West (or what was left of it….)

Grand Theft Auto V is more about San Andreas as a whole, so to speak (Los Santos, lil' bit of desert, mountains, etc.)

Rockstar clearly wanted players to connect more with the environment in Red Dead, considering that was what most of the world in that game. Now, we've been offered with this huge game world, by today's generation standards, and we've been offered tons of space to roam around in, not just the desert. Nuahmean?

 

Clearer graphics comparison needed, me thinks.

 

 

RDR looks way more realistic with that pic than GTA V. The thing GTA V has on RDR is more vibrant colors.

 

The screenshot of GTA V is one of the best I've seen with the ground texture in V.

 

Can't find one but can some compare both Tall Trees and Chiliad Mountain State Wilderness.

 

To be frank, the GTAV pic is an official one. So...

[Geeteeaifive]

deser is supposed to be barren, but rdr came out when consoles we're in the mid of their limits or something, so devs had more horsepower left for on ground bushes, and they don't have to emulate 500 people and 200 cars on screen every second.RDR, is less demanding, thats why u get better environment and MORE BUSHES...

Edited February 11, 2014 by Geeteeaifive

[Raavi]

The countryside in GTA V smells like a rush job, I mean the ground texture and vegetation is reminiscent of ps2 era games, which is just bad. So I much prefer Red Dead Redemption in terms of countryside.