Why do many people prefer the GTA San Andreas Map to GTA V?

[Saintdestroyer]

What are your reasons behind it? I hear so many people saying that the GTA V map isn't as good and I am just curious as to why.

 

Do you find the PS2 version of San Andreas to be more detailed? Is it because it had more cities? Were the cities more realistic? Did the game just have more to see and explore? Did it feel more alive?

 

I think GTA V has the best game world I have ever seen, it looks real and thats a huge compliment. But some others disagree?

[fwenshy]

I play SA on my ipad all the time and it's awful compared to gtav. It was awesome back in the day but so was gta gta2 gta3

[Patrykq]

My guess is the thing that always makes people say that GTA:SA is better than GTAV, and it is nostalgia. If I was still so nostalgic about previous GTA games, I too would probably say that GTA:SA map was better, because of the childhood and stuff, but I don't do that anymore. Besides GTA:SA having three cities, GTAV map wins by a long shot.

[RominOctane]

Personally I think 3 full fledged cities(by ps2 era standards) and a large diverse(again, by ps2 era standards) counntryside and desert makes it so unforgettable. I don't think any game has come close to what SA's map was if converted to what that would be in today's standards.

 

Of course V's map is far bigger and it's one city is bigger than all 3 of SA's cities combined. But, what would make it equal to or greater than SA's map is two more los santos sized cities and much more varied and separated terrain. That's what a map that rivals SA would have to be in today's standards and technology.

 

This is just my personal opinion.

[Raiden1018]

Its because even though its wayyy smaller than GTAV, everything just feels so big and relevant that is placed. From rocks, to mountains. And GTAv is just, cluttered with a bunch of empty mountains and has small areas like the desert.

 

/thread

[DaWiesel]

V's the best map yet IMO. The awful draw distance made the SA map feel bigger than it really is. There's more things wrong with it, it got squished into a square, mayor cities are just one or two miles away from each others, repetitive looking towns... it was a great map for it's time though.

[VIPΣR]

One day the folks on here will prefer the GTAV map over the GTAVI map. Remember...I said it first.

[oCrapaCreeper]

Nostalgia, more then one city, or people simply falling for the illusion that San Andreas' map is somehow bigger due to the sh*tty draw distance.

[grantelicious]

The map is more varied and MTA owns the crap online in V.

[tranceking26]

Its because even though its wayyy smaller than GTAV, everything just feels so big and relevant that is placed. From rocks, to mountains. And GTAv is just, cluttered with a bunch of empty mountains and has small areas like the desert.

 

/thread

 

I think the same as this.

 

V's map has some good areas though, but it's not as well thought out.

[CarnageRacing00]

It's the draw distance. You can't see far, so it FEELS like everything is really far away. The draw-distance mod for PC was eye opening, using that makes SA feel ridiculously tiny.

[Zondar]

It's the draw distance. You can't see far, so it FEELS like everything is really far away. The draw-distance mod for PC was eye opening, using that makes SA feel ridiculously tiny.

This is exactly what I was going to say.

[TheGodDamnMaster]

-Diversity

-A greater sense of scale

-A desert that actually feels like a desert

-More small towns

[CarnageRacing00]

 

All of that is less than half the map in V. To put it into perspective, the distance from the tallest building in GTA:SA to the desert is less than the distance of the Maze Bank building in V to the beach.

 

If this map were in GTA V, with the new gen draw distance, you could stand on top of the tallest building and sniper another player in the desert.

Edited November 25, 2014 by MichiganMuscle77

[minifat]

It's not nostalgia, it's not that they liked the game better overall, it's that it had better variety. V's variety sucks.

[Daniel4]

 

 

All of that is less than half the map in V. To put it into perspective, the distance from the tallest building in GTA:SA to the desert is less than the distance of the Maze Bank building in V to the beach.

 

If this map were in GTA V, with the new gen draw distance, you could stand on top of the tallest building and sniper another player in the desert.

 

Wow! Amazing how big it felt back then though.

Edited November 25, 2014 by Daniel4

[woggleman]

Nostalgia.

[CarnageRacing00]

It's not nostalgia, it's not that they liked the game better overall, it's that it had better variety. V's variety sucks.

 

I'm not following your train of thought. The only thing SA has that V doesn't is a bunch of casinos in a small area. San Fierro was just another place, not anything unique about it. The desert was smaller than it is in V, but also less dense - less buildings and such. The mountains in V make up most of the empty space.

[GTA V Is On PC]

Maybe it's because you have a reason to go to San Fierro or Las Venturas.

 

What's the point of going to Paleto Bay if there is nothing unique or interesting there? Why not just stay in the city the entire time?

 

The map in San Andreas had enough diversity to make you actually want to go to different parts of the map, at least in my own opinion.

[serpentofIight]

Edited November 25, 2014 by serpentofIight

[CarnageRacing00]

Maybe it's because you have a reason to go to San Fierro or Las Venturas.

 

What's the point of going to Paleto Bay if there is nothing unique or interesting there? Why not just stay in the city the entire time?

 

The map in San Andreas had enough diversity to make you actually want to go to different parts of the map, at least in my own opinion.

 

Well, for one thing, it's a lot smaller, so in terms of density, it just makes sense that there are interesting things across the entire map. I would wager that there are more interesting things in GTA V spread across a larger template, whereas SA had fewer interesting things spread across an even smaller template.

 

Area 69 in SA is roughly a third of the size of Fort Zancudo, and with less interesting stuff in it.

[stonedbazz]

 

It's not nostalgia, it's not that they liked the game better overall, it's that it had better variety. V's variety sucks.

 

I'm not following your train of thought. The only thing SA has that V doesn't is a bunch of casinos in a small area. San Fierro was just another place, not anything unique about it. The desert was smaller than it is in V, but also less dense - less buildings and such. The mountains in V make up most of the empty space.

 

 

Really???? The only thing SA has that V doesn't is casino's???

 

Vigilante missions

Paramedic missions

Firefighter missions

Taxi missions

6 stars (god i miss that)

Burglary missions

Fast food shops for a quick health fix

Hot dog stands (granted V has taco stands, but you cant buy a taco to fill some health)

girlfriends (i hated these but it was worth getting the nurse, cop and mechanic)

A jetpack (lol, sorry i had to)

and lastly a big purple double ender that you could beat a policeman to death with

 

Back on topic, personally i think that SA's map felt a lot bigger than it was, and V's map doesn't feel as big as it actually is

[StJimmy]

Its because Zuckmeslow has very convincing arguments.

[Conwin]

Its because even though its wayyy smaller than GTAV, everything just feels so big and relevant that is placed. From rocks, to mountains. And GTAv is just, cluttered with a bunch of empty mountains and has small areas like the desert.

 

/thread

 

It felt so big because your view gets cut off by fog after like 10 feet. You could probably see all three cities at once if it had V's draw distance.

[CarnageRacing00]

 

 

It's not nostalgia, it's not that they liked the game better overall, it's that it had better variety. V's variety sucks.

 

I'm not following your train of thought. The only thing SA has that V doesn't is a bunch of casinos in a small area. San Fierro was just another place, not anything unique about it. The desert was smaller than it is in V, but also less dense - less buildings and such. The mountains in V make up most of the empty space.

 

 

Really???? The only thing SA has that V doesn't is casino's???

 

Vigilante missions

Paramedic missions

Firefighter missions

Taxi missions

6 stars (god i miss that)

Burglary missions

Fast food shops for a quick health fix

Hot dog stands (granted V has taco stands, but you cant buy a taco to fill some health)

girlfriends (i hated these but it was worth getting the nurse, cop and mechanic)

A jetpack (lol, sorry i had to)

and lastly a big purple double ender that you could beat a policeman to death with

 

Back on topic, personally i think that SA's map felt a lot bigger than it was, and V's map doesn't feel as big as it actually is

 

 

We were on topic before you took it off topic. Vigilante missions and everything else you listed has nothing to do with map size/variety.

[killahmatic]

I loved SA. It was my favorite GTA up until V was released. No doubting how big of a game it was in the series.

Of course V's map is better. It would be impossible to argue that its worse. Its bigger and more detailed. The transition from city to county is much smoother. I'd say the maps are equal as far as variety goes. Can't name one aspect where SA's map is better.

 

In fact, I played SA recently and found out it was actually less impressive than I thought it was at the time. I never realized there was a fog over the whole map. At the point of release, it just seemed normal, but last I played I realized how much smaller the map is compared to how I remembered it. Not being able to see the buildings and mountain is why it felt so much bigger. Likewise, being able to see across the entire map in V is why it seems smaller than it is.

[79'Blazer4x4]

I can only say why I liked it better but part of it was because it had more cites. It also had a better atmosphere, I don't really know how to describe it but It was just so easy to feel like you were really there, even compared to a game like V with so much realism(in terms of aesthetics). I've also heard quite a bit about how the V map is bigger, but I just can't believe that, it feels like it's only half the size of the SA map. There were also so many more places to explore in SA, there were at least 6 little towns in the countrysides, compared to the 2(Sandy Shores and Paleto Bay) in V. SA also had a LOT more countryside(or so it seemed, perhaps there was just less of it being occupied by mountains) and the desert in SA was huge compared to the Grand Senora Desert in V. Hell, it almost seems like Vespucci Beach is bigger than the Grand Senora.

I also miss the mesas that occupied the SA desert, it was so fun hanging out in the middle of nowhere in that game and not being able to even see civilization. There's really nowhere you can go in V where you feel far from civilization. Even in the mountain canyons where you can't see any settlements you just know that you're less than a minute away from at least one of them.

[Thundurus-T]

I've found that San Andreas' map just has more roads and there are a few different towns spread out throughout the map too, in between the cities. In V, the North of the map is half mountains, and there are a lot less roads, which just makes the map feel more deserted. The map size is also a factor I believe.

[Algonquin Assassin]

Obviously GTA V's map is more detailed and bigger, but the thing I've always like about SA's map is its organisation. You have the three cities in each corner with the countryside and desert in between. Whenever I play GTA V it really feels like it needed another city. Maybe not as big as LS, but another medium sized city.

 

Mostly I think people prefer SA's map because even though it's technically smaller it has a much larger scope. Whereas it's the opposite with GTA V. A bigger map, but smaller scope.

[Trademark]

One day the folks on here will prefer the GTAV map over the GTAVI map. Remember...I said it first.

You certainty weren't.