What is your favourite map in the GTA series?

[simonp92]

Definitely GTA IV's Liberty City, it would have been awesome if they'd included the state too, as originally planned, though.

[SilentSeas]

HD Liberty City gets my vote. The map is a lot more varied than what people give it credit for. R* did great job of mingling areas steeped in decline with piercing skyscrapers and popular tourist hotspots. Not to mention, things like the countless back alleys, tunnels, Plumbers Skyway and the transit system really added a lot of density to the map.

[MrVance]

As much as i love HD LC map and IV is my favourite GTA i`d go with V`s map on this one. Simply because it`s diverse enviornment and size.

And if i may add that the worst map so far was 3D LC. IMO. That was a huge flaw, it didn`t have any resemblences to real life NYC whatsoever. However, VC map wasn`t that good neither. That uselles empty beach which took half of map was bs.

So i`d say;

1.) V map

2.)HD LC

3.) SA- but only for it`s release day because it got bored and outdated quite soon.

[universetwisters]

And if i may add that the worst map so far was 3D LC. IMO. That was a huge flaw, it didn`t have any resemblences to real life NYC whatsoever.

 

I don't think III-era LC was trying to emulate New York. If anything, they really didn't get accurate with real life cities until SA.

[MrVance]

 

And if i may add that the worst map so far was 3D LC. IMO. That was a huge flaw, it didn`t have any resemblences to real life NYC whatsoever.

 

I don't think III-era LC was trying to emulate New York. If anything, they really didn't get accurate with real life cities until SA.

 

Maybe you`re right. Well i wouldn`t know for sure but portland kind of tried to resemble Brooklyn in the way and shoreside vale is a very bad wannabe of Long island.

Coincidence maybe? Don`t know but that map sucked big time.

[GTA-Biker]

My top 5:

5 3D Liberty City

4 HD Liberty City(I think it may be better than HD San Andreas,but I haven´t played GTA 4 and EFLC yet,so I´m not sure)

3 HD San Andreas

2 3D Vice City

1 3D San Andreas

[Shadowfennekin]

HD Los Santos

[MrVance]

My top 5:

5 3D Liberty City

4 HD Liberty City(I think it may be better than HD San Andreas,but I haven´t played GTA 4 and EFLC yet,so I´m not sure)

3 HD San Andreas

2 3D Vice City

1 3D San Andreas

When you will play IV/EFLC some day (if ever) then you`ll see how 3D LC actually sucked big time. Trust me.

[universetwisters]

 

My top 5:

5 3D Liberty City

4 HD Liberty City(I think it may be better than HD San Andreas,but I haven´t played GTA 4 and EFLC yet,so I´m not sure)

3 HD San Andreas

2 3D Vice City

1 3D San Andreas

When you will play IV/EFLC some day (if ever) then you`ll see how 3D LC actually sucked big time. Trust me.

 

 

As I said before, III LC wasn't meant to resemble New York. Rather, it was a mashup of other general Northeastern cities. I think it was pretty good compared to IV LC.

[TheDeathRises]

3D San Andreas gets my vote. Amazing job that Rockstar did there. 6x6km map, but they put in 3 cities and about, what, 12 smaller towns and places. Farms and industrial plants are also present. What I don't like about HD LS and suroundings is all the empty space. They should have used more space for the desert IMO. The one in SA felt more like an actual desert, if you ask me.

[Testarossa]

 

1. HD Los Santos

 

HD Liberty City

 

3D Vice City

 

3D San Andreas

 

3D Liberty City

 

[Phil Collin]

HD LC so classic... Felt more like a real city then Los Santos... And harder then LS.

[ainsz]

1. HD LC. Everything is designed to a tee. No place goes wasted, It comes together to make one hell of a playground while still managing to mask itself as a detailed city at face value. The intricacies in this map is mind blowing at times. Like how some parts are specifically designed for the online race tracks but you'd never notice while just driving around. And besides Hove beach being the most developed for obvious reasons, the level of detail throughout the map is consistent.

 

2. 3D SA For pretty much same reasons others have said, the huge scope in such a small map is pretty amazing. Even if draw distance makes up for most of the illusion.

 

3. 3D LC

 

4. VC

 

5. HD LS V's map is cluttered mess. The city is compressed into small square with no real place of interest. And the countryside is stretched out and has no real place of interest. I think Rockstar got hung up about recreating LA, they forgot to make a map for a game.

[TheGr8Cornholio]

I really liked San Andreas' map, specially the long drives between Los Santos and San Fierro.

[PhillBellic]

HD era Liberty City and New Alderney got my vote. There were a few areas they could have done better, but for what it is it's marvelous.

 

Cheers.

[Algonquin Assassin]

 

My top 5:

5 3D Liberty City

4 HD Liberty City(I think it may be better than HD San Andreas,but I haven´t played GTA 4 and EFLC yet,so I´m not sure)

3 HD San Andreas

2 3D Vice City

1 3D San Andreas

When you will play IV/EFLC some day (if ever) then you`ll see how 3D LC actually sucked big time. Trust me.

 

 

I don't know why you keep bashing 3D LC lol. I've always felt it had its own, unique charm and I love that it's the only map that isn't an island per say. Although I did vote HD LC I love both renditions from the 3D era and HD era as well as VC.

[Son of Zeus]

3D SA. As someone else before me said, it was ridiculously ahead of time. It felt massive. The wilderness, where it was actually DEAD SILENT barring the wind, was amazing. Those bridges connecting the cities. The placement of Back o' Beyond. The unique feel of each(gangs in LS, the fog in SF and the casinos of each) was amazing. The desert. Beautifully done. Sure, LC was detailed, but it had the backing of improved tech.

 

If R* make an HD LV with even more detail than HD LC, it would blow away everything...,

[MrVance]

 

 

My top 5:

5 3D Liberty City

4 HD Liberty City(I think it may be better than HD San Andreas,but I haven´t played GTA 4 and EFLC yet,so I´m not sure)

3 HD San Andreas

2 3D Vice City

1 3D San Andreas

When you will play IV/EFLC some day (if ever) then you`ll see how 3D LC actually sucked big time. Trust me.

 

 

I don't know why you keep bashing 3D LC lol. I've always felt it had its own, unique charm and I love that it's the only map that isn't an island per say. Although I did vote HD LC I love both renditions from the 3D era and HD era as well as VC.

 

I`m bashing it because it was really messed up map. Well i respect other people`s opinions but i still think that 3D LC map was overall totaly screwed up. It was ridicolously small even if it had 3 islands but you could walk Portland on foot within few minutes, well SI was a little better but SSV was a mess, terrible layout. And the whole place was dark and depressed. It was really claustrofobic. Well i guess some of the gamers like it because it was dull and dark but i`d still take a bet that the majority of gamers didn`t like that map.

Speaking of it, that i won`t bash 3D LC only i`d say VC map was pretty messed up to. Little Haiti totaly sucked.

SA map was the best for that time of course but it looks like crap comparing to HD LC and V.

 

There aren`t all things better in HD era but it sure are the maps.

Just IMO, no ofence.

[wiizardii]

3D LC map, GTA San andreas map, GTA IV LC, GTA VC map, and GTA V map. These are the best IMO to date. And GTA V's Los Santos will proabably become the second best behind GTA IV's LC when its released on Next gen.

Edited September 21, 2014 by Phoenix_Shit

[AdusPL]

3D era LC of course. It felt much bigger than VC and it's half island beach bullsh*t. They just could complete all roofs and maybe expand SSV.

[MrVance]

3D era LC of course. It felt much bigger than VC and it's half island beach bullsh*t. They just could complete all roofs and maybe expand SSV.

Actually it was smaller than VC map, you had only the feeling 3D LC was bigger because it had 3 islands.

I saw some comparisons on the web and i was surprised as well when i saw that VC map was 30% bigger than 3D LC.

But i agree on VC map being messed up as well. Still better than 3D LC, IMO but far from being a good map.

IMO

;

1.) HD LC

2.) HD LS&BC

3.) SA

4.) VC

5.) 3D LC

[Queen Elizabeth II]

HD Liberty City, yes.

3D Liberty City was also great.

Vice City is just small, ugly piece of island.

3D San Andreas is epic but i don't like the look of it.

 

Edited September 22, 2014 by Queen Elizabeth II

[Osho]

Vice City is just small, ugly piece of island. 02

It's an old game, not ugly.

[Algonquin Assassin]

As much as I love VC I do think they went a bit overboard making the beach as big as they did. It's still a fun map to play in, but the excessive beach makes me feel they could've done much more to expand the north eastern part of the city.

[PhillBellic]

As much as I love VC I do think they went a bit overboard making the beach as big as they did. It's still a fun map to play in, but the excessive beach makes me feel they could've done much more to expand the north eastern part of the city.

I agree about the beach. I feel that they only made it so large so they could pad out the map. My main problem with VC's map was how sh*t the 'Mainland' was in comparison to the east island. If you drove around Little's Haiti and Havana there were so many empty/desolate regions around there. The east island had every bit of land filled with something interesting or buildings.

 

Cheers.

[Osho]

 

 

 

As much as I love VC I do think they went a bit overboard making the beach as big as they did. It's still a fun map to play in, but the excessive beach makes me feel they could've done0106¥72much0106¥72more to expand the north eastern part of the city.

I agree about the beach. I feel that they only made it so large so they could pad out the map. My main problem with VC's map was how sh*t the 'Mainland' was in comparison to the east island. If you drove around Little's Haiti and Havana there were so many empty/desolate regions around there. The east island had every bit of land filled with something interesting or buildings. 0106¥72

Cheers.

I get somewhat same sense of wonder about IV and V map, despite the world seems so beautifully captured, there's still nothing much to do in free roam ( esp. IV ), feels a lot more limited in offerings, relative to the size, unlike VC map which despite being not fortunate to have enough time, and focus like IV - to make the map as detailed with things within the shorter time, and technically possible, to fill all those nook and cranny areas, you wished to see a lot better.

It's an unwisely decision, to me, not to offer much with better maps, than the focus on counter balancing the map design with equally good components to be fun enough, as intended to be admired from the players more than wasting a lot of time behind attention to details, and some of the areas to be amazing, that only encourages exploration more than anything.

IMO, IV map turns boring faster than V, while VC still feels good to me, as long as, I'm offered more things to do!

[Vercetti42]

I get somewhat same sense of wonder about IV and V map, despite the world seems so beautifully captured, there's still nothing much to do in free roam ( esp. IV ), feels a lot more limited in offerings, relative to the size, unlike VC map which despite being not fortunate to have enough time, and focus like IV - to make the map as detailed with things within the shorter time, and technically possible, to fill all those nook and cranny areas, you wished to see a lot better.

It's an unwisely decision, to me, not to offer much with better maps, than the focus on counter balancing the map design with equally good components to be fun enough, as intended to be admired from the players more than wasting a lot of time behind attention to details, and some of the areas to be amazing, that only encourages exploration more than anything.

IMO, IV map turns boring faster than V, while VC still feels good to me, as long as, I'm offered more things to do!

I can't speak for V's map but I absolutely love LC and as I much as I love VC (the game) I feel LC is far more detailed than VC. In VC you can see repeating streets and buildings but in IV nearly every street had a different model. The peds awere also far more in interesting in IV IMO.

 

Then again we are comparing a 2002 game to a 2008 one here. Vice City is isn't my favorite map in the series. (Mainly due to the big useless beach) but it's redeeming factor is it's varied interiors. On on hand you've got a nightclub and an airport and on the other hand you had a badass mansion and a shopping mall. It was the first GTA to introduce a fully enterable nightclub in the series, it is also the only GTA along with VCS to have an enterable airport and shopping mall.

 

There were also some cool peds such as the Elvis Presley ones and the beach skaters. I liked VC's map but due to the useless beach it just felt too small. Even III's LC felt bigger to me.

 

SA's map was great. I had a lot of fun exploring SA's map too. Los Santos (3D era) is my 2nd favorite map in the series. Of course it isn't as detailed as IV's but for it's time it was amazing.

 

So if I were to order the GTA cities it would be like this:

 

1) Liberty City (IV)

2) Los Santos (SA)

3) Las Venturas (SA)

4) Vice City (VC)

5) Liberty City (iii)

6) San Fierro (SA)

 

Now I like all the cities up until San Fierro. I just never really liked it in SA. Then again I do find SF to be a dull city in real life too.

[Osho]

we are comparing a 2002 game to a 2008 one here.

This is my point precisely.