Jump to content

V is the best in the series (My Review)


Recommended Posts

Sometimes I wonder if V's map is really bigger than SA's map. I mean it feels like I need hours to get from one side in SA (in a helicopter) to the other whilst in V it takes only a few minutes (in a helicopter). Am I doing something wrong???

 

It's the huge difference in speed and velocity between the games in combination with the fog that hugely limits view distance that might give this feeling. San Andreas did a good job at making the relatively small map feel big and diverse. GTA V is pretty huge, but when you have faster cars and jets getting from A to B doesn't take too long. It doesn't help that V is has a wonderfully long view distance either.

Edited by Conwin
Geralt of Rivia

Sometimes I wonder if V's map is really bigger than SA's map. I mean it feels like I need hours to get from one side in SA (in a helicopter) to the other whilst in V it takes only a few minutes (in a helicopter). Am I doing something wrong???

It's the difference in speeds and stuff. The jet is faster in V than in SA, and the draw distance helps a lot too. Actually, probably everything is faster in V than in SA.

 

Also, the highway in V is straight-forward. The highway in SA is lots of twists and turns.

 

V's map is bigger than SA's.

Edited by TheMasterfocker

 

Sometimes I wonder if V's map is really bigger than SA's map. I mean it feels like I need hours to get from one side in SA (in a helicopter) to the other whilst in V it takes only a few minutes (in a helicopter). Am I doing something wrong???

It's the difference in speeds and stuff. The jet is faster in V than in SA, and the draw distance helps a lot too. Actually, probably everything is faster in V than in SA.

 

Also, the highway in V is straight-forward. The highway in SA is lots of twists and turns.

 

V's map is bigger than SA's.

 

Yet V's map is piss poor compared to SA's map.

 

3 cities with 3 different countrysides are mixed in on that small map.

Geralt of Rivia

 

 

Sometimes I wonder if V's map is really bigger than SA's map. I mean it feels like I need hours to get from one side in SA (in a helicopter) to the other whilst in V it takes only a few minutes (in a helicopter). Am I doing something wrong???

It's the difference in speeds and stuff. The jet is faster in V than in SA, and the draw distance helps a lot too. Actually, probably everything is faster in V than in SA.

 

Also, the highway in V is straight-forward. The highway in SA is lots of twists and turns.

 

V's map is bigger than SA's.

 

Yet V's map is piss poor compared to SA's map.

 

Opinion

 

3 cities with 3 different countrysides are mixed in on that small map.

 

3 small, moderately undetailed cities with 3 small countrysides with nothing to do? Fantastic.

 

I'd rather have one huge, detailed city, and one countryside with nothing to do than 3, thank you very much.

Edited by TheMasterfocker
FranklinDeRoosevelt

 

And maybe you're in denial. 3 cities in one map, but the smog makes it look big. SA's map is probably not even as big as Liberty City is.

It was already proven that SA is bigger than Liberty City

 

Liberty City was one city alone. And SA had three cities AND a countryside. IV is just one big city and that alone makes SA look like a dwarf. You butthurt?

 

It hasn't been proven btw. It takes different measurements to see the size of SA, especially when 90% of the credit goes to the smog.

Edited by FranklinDeRoosevelt

 

 

 

Sometimes I wonder if V's map is really bigger than SA's map. I mean it feels like I need hours to get from one side in SA (in a helicopter) to the other whilst in V it takes only a few minutes (in a helicopter). Am I doing something wrong???

It's the difference in speeds and stuff. The jet is faster in V than in SA, and the draw distance helps a lot too. Actually, probably everything is faster in V than in SA.

 

Also, the highway in V is straight-forward. The highway in SA is lots of twists and turns.

 

V's map is bigger than SA's.

 

Yet V's map is piss poor compared to SA's map.

 

Opinion

 

3 cities with 3 different countrysides are mixed in on that small map.

 

3 small, undetailed cities with 3 small countrysides with nothing to do? Fantastic.

 

I'd rather have one huge, detailed city, and one countryside with nothing to do than 3, thank you very much.

 

Saying Los Santos in SA wasn't detail makes you look like a SA hater.

 

For one thing how much detail can you put on the PS2 version seeing it was the first one made compared to the PS3 version of V? Hardware limitation -_-

 

SA has more interiors, more content, first to do swimming ( which was groundbreaking for a GTA game ). Have you seen the post that people liked SA's forest more than V's? SA did the forest well and a great sense of isolation.

 

@Frank

 

So I'm butthurt that SA is bigger than IV? Has more content and is the last true GTA game we had? I guess you don't know who really is butthurt. The one who makes up lies cause he needs a way to justify his purchase of a game no one liked compared to someone like me who knows the real difference?

Edited by redx165
Gnocchi Flip Flops

 

 

 

Sometimes I wonder if V's map is really bigger than SA's map. I mean it feels like I need hours to get from one side in SA (in a helicopter) to the other whilst in V it takes only a few minutes (in a helicopter). Am I doing something wrong???

It's the difference in speeds and stuff. The jet is faster in V than in SA, and the draw distance helps a lot too. Actually, probably everything is faster in V than in SA.

 

Also, the highway in V is straight-forward. The highway in SA is lots of twists and turns.

 

V's map is bigger than SA's.

 

Yet V's map is piss poor compared to SA's map.

 

Opinion

 

3 cities with 3 different countrysides are mixed in on that small map.

 

3 small, moderately undetailed cities with 3 small countrysides with nothing to do? Fantastic.

 

I'd rather have one huge, detailed city, and one countryside with nothing to do than 3, thank you very much.

 

I'd rather have two detailed cities with a countryside that feels like it has a purpose, thank you very much.

 

 

 

 

Sometimes I wonder if V's map is really bigger than SA's map. I mean it feels like I need hours to get from one side in SA (in a helicopter) to the other whilst in V it takes only a few minutes (in a helicopter). Am I doing something wrong???

It's the difference in speeds and stuff. The jet is faster in V than in SA, and the draw distance helps a lot too. Actually, probably everything is faster in V than in SA.

 

Also, the highway in V is straight-forward. The highway in SA is lots of twists and turns.

 

V's map is bigger than SA's.

 

Yet V's map is piss poor compared to SA's map.

 

Opinion

 

3 cities with 3 different countrysides are mixed in on that small map.

 

3 small, moderately undetailed cities with 3 small countrysides with nothing to do? Fantastic.

 

I'd rather have one huge, detailed city, and one countryside with nothing to do than 3, thank you very much.

 

I'd rather have two detailed cities with a countryside that feels like it has a purpose, thank you very much.

 

The sad thing is Los Santos in V isn't even half the map. Not even 1/4 of the map if you count underwater.

FranklinDeRoosevelt

 

 

 

 

Sometimes I wonder if V's map is really bigger than SA's map. I mean it feels like I need hours to get from one side in SA (in a helicopter) to the other whilst in V it takes only a few minutes (in a helicopter). Am I doing something wrong???

It's the difference in speeds and stuff. The jet is faster in V than in SA, and the draw distance helps a lot too. Actually, probably everything is faster in V than in SA.

 

Also, the highway in V is straight-forward. The highway in SA is lots of twists and turns.

 

V's map is bigger than SA's.

 

Yet V's map is piss poor compared to SA's map.

 

Opinion

 

3 cities with 3 different countrysides are mixed in on that small map.

 

3 small, undetailed cities with 3 small countrysides with nothing to do? Fantastic.

 

I'd rather have one huge, detailed city, and one countryside with nothing to do than 3, thank you very much.

 

Saying Los Santos in SA wasn't detail makes you look like a SA hater.

 

For one thing how much detail can you put on the PS2 version seeing it was the first one made compared to the PS3 version of V? Hardware limitation -_-

 

SA has more interiors, more content, first to do swimming ( which was groundbreaking for a GTA game ). Have you seen the post that people liked SA's forest more than V's? SA did the forest well and a great sense of isolation.

 

I can accept SA having more interiors, that's not a surprise considering it's probably still my favourite game as a classic. However, a lot of them were useless. More content, but half of them were useless and gimmicks. And swimming wasn't even a groundbreaking feature, that's just blind fanboyism. Yeah it was a good addition for sure, but not something great. Especially when there was barely anything underwater.

 

And why would a City take up half the map? LOL. You sure are exploiting your intelligence. And it is 1/4 of the map. It's already been proven in the LS size thread.

Edited by FranklinDeRoosevelt
Geralt of Rivia

 

 

 

 

Sometimes I wonder if V's map is really bigger than SA's map. I mean it feels like I need hours to get from one side in SA (in a helicopter) to the other whilst in V it takes only a few minutes (in a helicopter). Am I doing something wrong???

It's the difference in speeds and stuff. The jet is faster in V than in SA, and the draw distance helps a lot too. Actually, probably everything is faster in V than in SA.

 

Also, the highway in V is straight-forward. The highway in SA is lots of twists and turns.

 

V's map is bigger than SA's.

 

Yet V's map is piss poor compared to SA's map.

 

Opinion

 

3 cities with 3 different countrysides are mixed in on that small map.

 

3 small, undetailed cities with 3 small countrysides with nothing to do? Fantastic.

 

I'd rather have one huge, detailed city, and one countryside with nothing to do than 3, thank you very much.

 

Saying Los Santos in SA wasn't detail makes you look like a SA hater.

 

SA is my 2nd favorite GTA, so no. And woo! 1 out of 3!

 

For one thing how much detail can you put on the PS2 version seeing it was the first one made compared to the PS3 version of V? Hardware limitation -_-

 

Exactly. 3 detailed cities wouldn't work on this gen, just like 3 more-than-barely detailed cities wouldn't work on PS2. Bring on the next-gen.

 

SA has more interiors, more content, first to do swimming ( which was groundbreaking for a GTA game ). Have you seen the post that people liked SA's forest more than V's? SA did the forest well and a great sense of isolation.

 

SA's 'interiors' are not interiors. They're loading screens. Of course there's gonna be more when there's loading screens.

 

Let me clarify: I don't believe they're interiors. I don't count them as interiors because of the difference between real-time loading and loading screens

 

 

 

 

 

Sometimes I wonder if V's map is really bigger than SA's map. I mean it feels like I need hours to get from one side in SA (in a helicopter) to the other whilst in V it takes only a few minutes (in a helicopter). Am I doing something wrong???

It's the difference in speeds and stuff. The jet is faster in V than in SA, and the draw distance helps a lot too. Actually, probably everything is faster in V than in SA.

 

Also, the highway in V is straight-forward. The highway in SA is lots of twists and turns.

 

V's map is bigger than SA's.

 

Yet V's map is piss poor compared to SA's map.

 

Opinion

 

3 cities with 3 different countrysides are mixed in on that small map.

 

3 small, moderately undetailed cities with 3 small countrysides with nothing to do? Fantastic.

 

I'd rather have one huge, detailed city, and one countryside with nothing to do than 3, thank you very much.

 

I'd rather have two detailed cities with a countryside that feels like it has a purpose, thank you very much.

 

I would too, but we didn't get that. Next-gen baby!

Edited by TheMasterfocker

 

 

 

 

 

Sometimes I wonder if V's map is really bigger than SA's map. I mean it feels like I need hours to get from one side in SA (in a helicopter) to the other whilst in V it takes only a few minutes (in a helicopter). Am I doing something wrong???

It's the difference in speeds and stuff. The jet is faster in V than in SA, and the draw distance helps a lot too. Actually, probably everything is faster in V than in SA.

 

Also, the highway in V is straight-forward. The highway in SA is lots of twists and turns.

 

V's map is bigger than SA's.

 

Yet V's map is piss poor compared to SA's map.

 

Opinion

 

3 cities with 3 different countrysides are mixed in on that small map.

 

3 small, undetailed cities with 3 small countrysides with nothing to do? Fantastic.

 

I'd rather have one huge, detailed city, and one countryside with nothing to do than 3, thank you very much.

 

Saying Los Santos in SA wasn't detail makes you look like a SA hater.

 

For one thing how much detail can you put on the PS2 version seeing it was the first one made compared to the PS3 version of V? Hardware limitation -_-

 

SA has more interiors, more content, first to do swimming ( which was groundbreaking for a GTA game ). Have you seen the post that people liked SA's forest more than V's? SA did the forest well and a great sense of isolation.

 

I can accept SA having more interiors, that's not a surprise considering it's probably still my favourite game as a classic. However, a lot of them were useless. More content, but half of them were useless and gimmicks. And swimming wasn't even a groundbreaking feature, that's just blind fanboyism. Yeah it was a good addition for sure, but not something great. Especially when there was barely anything underwater.

 

And why would a City take up half the map? LOL. You sure are exploiting your intelligence. And it is 1/4 of the map. It's already been proven in the LS size thread.

 

SA's swimming not groundbreaking? Must of been your first GTA game than. Lets go back to 2001 and 2002 with GTA III and Vice City. Water was a death trap. I understand III didn't need it but a game set in Florida in the 80's should of had it. The feature was long over due and SA brought it in and its a feature to stay. Underwater life might of been crap but did you remember all the hate IV got for not having the ability to go underwater?

 

Just like the 360 camera angle is groundbreaking and a feature that stayed with GTA to this day. The SA hater in you is very blind. SA brought features that GTA still uses to this day.

 

So SA cities if you combine them all up makes half a map. Lets make it even better, people consider Los Santos and Red County the best part of SA and you know what they're split 50/50. I truly thought you were smart but I guess you truly are the idiot. ( There's my childish insult back to you. Kinda sad you got to use them cause you can't come up with anything more intelligent to say )

 

@Master

 

I think I'm only going to respond to you seeing you bring a level of intelligence to your responds unlike Frank who brings nothing but childish remarks to try and feel superior.

 

SA's 'interiors' are not interiors. They're loading screens. Of course there's gonna be more when there's loading screens.

 

People consider the mall in Vice City a interior yet its a loading screen. If you enter them and its a interior

 

Exactly. 3 detailed cities wouldn't work on this gen, just like 3 more-than-barely detailed cities wouldn't work on PS2. Bring on the next-gen.

 

I understand 3 wouldn't work but they could of tried 2 cities one smaller than LS. This would of gave a purpose to go outside of the city.

 

SA is my 2nd favorite GTA, so no. And woo! 1 out of 3!

 

Sure doesn't seem like it

FranklinDeRoosevelt

Must have been my first GTA game? I've been playing since GTA 1 and you were probably in diapers that time. So why don't you shut the f*ck up and take your bullsh*t out of here. If swimming was a groundbreaking feature to you, then V's yoga was a masterpiece and you cannot say sh*t. You see what I'm saying? Where's your intelligence now? Think before you speak. Also the reason IV got the hate because it was on the PS3, therefore MORE than capable of implementing underwater exploration.

 

Like I said, SA is still my favourite GTA game. I'm not a handicap like you and praise a game without looking at its flaws.

Edited by FranklinDeRoosevelt
Theodore Roosevelt

 

V is the best in the series if you were born in 2002.

That's like saying Mike Tyson was the worst boxer if you were born in the early 1990's.

 

Well this is awkward son.

Edited by Theodore Roosevelt
FranklinDeRoosevelt

 

 

V is the best in the series if you were born in 2002.

That's like saying Mike Tyson was the worst boxer if you were born in the early 1990's.

 

Well this is awkward son.

 

Well, I'll be damned :sarcasm:

Edited by FranklinDeRoosevelt
Official General

I put a disclaimer up for this very reason.

 

I don't believe they're interiors. I don't count them as interiors because of the difference between real-time loading and loading screens

 

For a guy claims to be intelligent, this is spectacularly one of the most dumbest, bullsh*t kind of reasoning I've seen on this site.

Must have been my first GTA game? I've been playing since GTA 1 and you were probably in diapers that time. So why don't you shut the f*ck up and take your bullsh*t out of here. If swimming was a groundbreaking feature to you, then V's yoga was a masterpiece and you cannot say sh*t. You see what I'm saying? Where's your intelligence now? Think before you speak. Also the reason IV got the hate because it was on the PS3, therefore MORE than capable of implementing underwater exploration.

 

Like I said, SA is still my favourite GTA game. I'm not a handicap like you and praise a game without looking at its flaws.

I must of hit a nerve lol. I won't shut the f*ck up.

 

Swimming changed gameplay while yoga does nothing. Think before I speak? Yes I am a idiot cause I'm responding to a idiot like you who just attempted to say Yoga is as groundbreaking as swimming.

 

@ Master:

 

I held you for some intelligence but I guess I'm wrong.

 

Defintion of Interiors: https://www.google.com/webhp?tab=mw&ei=MnNJU7S-AeLx0gW0l4DACw&ved=0CAQQqS4oAQ#q=interiors+definition

 

Doesn't matter if its a loading screen or not it's still a interior.

Edited by redx165
FranklinDeRoosevelt

And you still didn't get what I mean. Jesus, why were you even f*cking born? Idiots like you ruin the Earth with your stupidity. You said Swimming was a groundbreaking feature, not it was not, it isn't a fact. That's why I compared to to Yoga because yoga has been implemented in GTA for the first time, but that doesn't make it groundbreaking, right?

 

Honestly, get a gun and shoot yourself in the foot.

And you still didn't get what I mean. Jesus, why were you even f*cking born? Idiots like you ruin the Earth with your stupidity. You said Swimming was a groundbreaking feature, not it was not, it isn't a fact. That's why I compared to to Yoga because yoga has been implemented in GTA for the first time, but that doesn't make it groundbreaking, right?

 

Honestly, get a gun and shoot yourself in the foot.

Swimming changed the way we played GTA. We can now escape the cops by swimming.

 

Going into the water was something new and was continue through all current GTA games.

 

Swimming even added a sense of role-playing to GTA.

 

Swimming has a purpose while yoga doesn't.

 

It just plain added a new dimension like heroe said

 

Telling me to shoot myself? Did that happen to you or someone you cared for? Sucks for you then doesn't it.

You honestly are one aggressive kid on this forum. Can't take this and you can't even take someones opinion on the Uncharted Stories and call them a straight hater.

 

Can't believe I was called a Naughty Dog fanboy and even I knew Uncharted wasn't a great game. 2 was the only one that I could give credit to.

 

Edited by redx165

@franklinderoosevelt ( can't quote on mobile device)

 

I've noticed alot of threads tend to become protracted because of fallacious arguments and reasonings such as one you just posted. If someone points out an statement and labels a term unto, just because its not a fact doesn't mean its wrong.

 

The reason diving/swimming was labeled groundbreaking is because it added a new dimension to the gameplay. Swimming created a tunnel of freedom to create boat/ship/water based missions.

Lol here we GO again Redx and FranklinDeRoosevelt, I guessi woke up in a wrong universe today...

 

 

Side Note:Btw SA is 10 years old this year (2004-2014) so it really was a Legendary and Influential Game,V is one of my Best Game of All-Time and the first best in the series but without SA we wouldnt have a HD Los Santos (a setting for V) plus that game in fact was the Main Reason Saints Row (2006-2014) existed in the first place...

Edited by Blood-Is-in-Diamond

@franklinderoosevelt ( can't quote on mobile device)

 

I've noticed alot of threads tend to become protracted because of fallacious arguments and reasonings such as one you just posted. If someone points out an statement and labels a term unto, just because its not a fact doesn't mean its wrong.

 

The reason diving/swimming was labeled groundbreaking is because it added a new dimension to the gameplay. Swimming created a tunnel of freedom to create boat/ship/water based missions.

Give up on him, if someone says one bad thing about Uncharted and Grand Theft Auto V he starts crying like a baby

And you still didn't get what I mean. Jesus, why were you even f*cking born? Idiots like you ruin the Earth with your stupidity. You said Swimming was a groundbreaking feature, not it was not, it isn't a fact. That's why I compared to to Yoga because yoga has been implemented in GTA for the first time, but that doesn't make it groundbreaking, right?

 

Honestly, get a gun and shoot yourself in the foot.

Unlike yoga, swimming is actually f*cking useful because you wont die by touching the water like in VC and III. Yoga serves no purpose.

 

Giving threats now? Ok it's confirmed: you are an idiot.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • 0 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 0 Guests

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.