In terms of GTA VI map, would you perfer quantity or quality?

[Gtaman_92]

I am curious to know what would you want R* to do for GTA VI's setting? make a large map with one or multiple cities, natural landscapes and huge selection of things to do or just a small but fully detailed city with lots of interiors, huge amount of activites and advanced NPC's?

Edited March 16, 2014 by Gtaman_92

[Rainbow Party]

Quantity, many many small cities are better than 1 big one for me. I prefer variety over detail.

[Blennerville]

Good question

 

There needs to be a balance between the two.

 

 

GTA 3 has a good balance of both - it was very large for its time and the quality was also pritty good for its time when you look back at it.

 

 

GTA Vice City was pritty small but its quality was great.

 

 

GTA San Andreas - The game definitely had quantity and 50% of it was of very good quality.

It Los Santos quite well - It is almost as big as GTA5 version of it and for me San Andreas's Los Santos has more quality to it - it got the mood/vibe right and there just feels like there was more in it.

The countryside and the mountain was very good for its time in terms of quality, but San Fierro and all the 3rd island (including Las venturas) was pritty poor by comparison.

 

 

GTA4's map is very similar to that in GTA3 in terms of size. The city is big but for me its quality is lacking. it has more detail but most of the stuff is pointless and falls under annoying realism.

 

 

 

GTA5 didnt have much of either imo. The city is very small when you consider Los Santos was almost as big in SA. The quality is poor and again there is a lot of pointless annoying realism. The countryside is very poor and feels like it is just filler for the map. The desert and farm area around it is the strongest part of the map for me, that area is good.

 

 

 

 

Quality is the most important - good quality, not the annoying realism stuff that is in GTA4 and 5. Quantity is also important but it shouldnt be just for the sake of it - it should all be of good quality.

 

 

R* need to spend a lot more time on the map for the next game instead of the annoying realism.

Edited March 16, 2014 by Blennerville

[BLOOD]

@Blennervile

So a big map with Saints Row's Craziness yeah? cool

[Blennerville]

never played Saints Row.

 

i was kinda hoping for GTA5 to have a larger version of Los Santos - at least twice the size it is.

And that the countryside and mountain would be along the same lines as that in GTA SA, only more of it and all of good quality.

[heroe]

Why can't we have both? There's no reason why we can't have quality and quantity at the same time.

[CantThinkOfOne2013]

Why can't we have both? There's no reason why we can't have quality and quantity at the same time.

 

Exactly, GTA V's map was both.

[Gtaman_92]

Why can't we have both? There's no reason why we can't have quality and quantity at the same time.

Making a large map with a insane amount of detail will take a long time.

 

@CantThinkOfOne2013

 

I would not call V map that detailed. The countryside lack a vast amount of vegetation and wildlife and the grass textures were poorly done.

[.Ryan.]

I wouldn't mind seeing the map the size of V's again providing more of it is utilised this time around.

[NYC PATROL]

 

Why can't we have both? There's no reason why we can't have quality and quantity at the same time.

Making a large map with a insane amount of detail will take a long time.

 

@CantThinkOfOne2013

 

I would not call V map that detailed. The countryside lack a vast amount of vegetation and wildlife and the grass textures were poorly done.

 

That's more hardware limitation than anything. GTA 6 probably isn't releasing for another 3-4 years at the least. Plenty of time to grab the power of the PS4,XB1 by the horns. I think they can definitely up both the quality and quantity on the next one w/o sacrificing.

[Hodgey.]

I wouldn't mind seeing the map the size of V's again providing more of it is utilised this time around.

 

Pretty much this to be honest. I think that GTA V's map is plenty big enough, but if you start to add more interiors and instead of having a number of mountains and fill that space with other towns would be satisfactory for me.

[Vanto]

I'd prefer a V-sized map with a lot quality and detail.

 

And interiors

 

[[...]]

I prefer quality, but with a touch of quantity.

[RoadRunner71]

Why not both?

[XxX19Dude95XxX]

Why not both?

[Graven]

Quality has better replay value. It keeps You coming back to the game.

I believe in quantity only when buying socks.

[MythicalCreature]

Quality. If GTA 3's map had as much detail as V's, with the vibe, atmosphere and all i think its safe to say it'd be pretty darn awesome. GTA IV's map was pretty good, though maybe they could actually give the buildings a paint job, if anything.

[MRinBlack]

this is what we need i think

[killdrivetheftvehicle]

VI map should be bigger than V IMO

 

There could be more than three cities, because Les The Benz told in an inverview that they are not interested in making multiple cities, but definitely interested in making a whole bunch of cities.

 

It's going to be next gen, so they can't be worse graphicswise, but on the other hand should they really improve in that aspect? IMO not much. I prefer more variety and quantity over better graphics. To me V is as beautiful as gta should be.

Edited March 19, 2014 by killdrivetheftvehicle

[BLOOD]

@killdrivertheft

True GTA 5 graphics is a beautiful evolution of the Franchise as come.How Far GTA has come from 2D-Top Down to Superb HD Graphics,i am sure Next-Gen GTAs (GTA 6 or whatever it called) will take it to the next-level.

Edited March 19, 2014 by Blood-Is-in-Diamond

[Rainbow Party]

Yeah but judging from screenshots some textures still look kinda old and unrealistic Not a huge step from IV, right?

About the map, I think that if they are going to make a big countryside or desert they should at least put more than one city so there's an actual reason to drive across the emptyness (and not just some very small towns here and there). But I guess that a very big desert or countryside isn't really justified in a videogame.

Edited March 19, 2014 by Rainbow Party

[BLOOD]

Yeah but judging from screenshots some textures still look kinda old and unrealistic Not a huge step from IV, right?

Damn you need to play the game or check some of the In-game Pics over at the V section,The Graphics and Visuals are superb,from the Sunflare to the Raining and Lighting,the game is just gorgeous.I havent played GTA 5 in a month and i am missing it badly

Edited March 19, 2014 by Blood-Is-in-Diamond

[Gnocchi Flip Flops]

I'd go for quality. Quantity can be a quality in itself but I'm sure VI's map will be big enough, seeing as its supposed to be developed via the new consoles.

 

What I'd want for VI is the Vice City Metro and the Keys with a bit of swampland and deep forests in between. I would really love for there to be a big focus on the city with as much detail as we've seen in the past. When a developer only cares about quantity, you get a big map with a dull city that only looks pretty, and nothing to do other than using your "imagination" as some V regulars say. I don't care what size the map is, I just want everything to be detailed. No sacrifices should be made just to have a big map.

 

V has a big map with a dull ass sea and mountains that are just bare decoration. I don't want that again.

[BLOOD]

I have a feeling GTA 6 wont be set in Vice City,it will be one of those Legendary places that wouldnt have that feeling in the HD Era,Anywhere city was only seen once throughout GTA's evolution and that was in GTA2 (1999) same was with London (1999) atleast Vice City got two games in the 3D Era and was also one of the cities in GTA (1997) in the 2D Era.I think i read an article where The Benz said they would

love to Re-Imagined it in the HD Era but they cant see it being a great place for a present day GTA but the HD Era games will always include a nod or reference to Vice City, and that was during Vice City's 10th Anniversary in 2012 (2002-2012),so my best bet is a first next-gen GTA being a prequel set in LC or it between Carcer or Las Venturas.

Edited March 19, 2014 by Blood-Is-in-Diamond

[killdrivetheftvehicle]

I'd go for quality. Quantity can be a quality in itself but I'm sure VI's map will be big enough, seeing as its supposed to be developed via the new consoles.

 

...

 

V has a big map with a dull ass sea and mountains that are just bare decoration. I don't want that again.

The sea (not the lake) is on some parts very intersting ( seabed has sunken planes, and ships with containers) and has realistic waves on top. I do however see your point: there are not very many structured activities there. I'm talking about surfing or sailing, which would have made sense in the setting. But the scuba-diving was not boring. Maybe you could have had speargun fishing, but that's about all you could have added to that.

 

The mountains were really dull though. All you could do was hike and drive off-road vehicles. There was no rock-climbing, and only few places where you could parachute off a cliff, like mt chiliad.

 

So, OT, quality as in terms of value for the game should ofcourse be preferred over quantity in terms of size of map at all cost. but quantity as in terms of map size should be preferred over quality of map craphically.

Edited March 19, 2014 by killdrivetheftvehicle

[Gnocchi Flip Flops]

If VI were Vice City, I would rather there be a limit as to how far out from land you that can dive underwater with a smaller yet more detailed underwater terrain and one very deep area.