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

[Slasher]

 

Yes, of course it's "pretty f*cking small compared to Just Cause 2's map" because JC2's map focuses on size instead of detail. It's a pretty pointless comparison to make.

Lmao, oh really? Because I just crossed V's map in like 4 minutes with my Massacro (I even crashed multiple times). V's map isn't even that big, it's actually pretty f*cking small compared to Just Cause 2's map lol!

 

 

Hey, JC2's map is pretty damn small compared to The Crew, why is JCS such a tiny map?

The Crew's map is tiny compared to Daggerfall, why does anyone think it's a big map?

Daggerfall's map is tiny compared to Minecraft, why does anyone think it's a big map?

Minecraft's map is tiny compared to EVE Online, why does anyone think it's a big map?

EVE Online's map is tiny compared to space engine, why does anyone think it's a big map?

 

You get the point.

 

SA's map is tiny, and the main reason it doesn't suffer badly from that is draw distance, but also map design. You can't easily go directly from one part to the other, but in V there's large motorways connected all the main parts of the map, and you can easily plow through the landscape.

 

And as dead as the desert and countryside seem to be in V to some people, they're better than SA's. That desert has a few interesting rock formations, and that's it...

 

That's what I'm saying, just because the map is bigger doesn't mean it's better.

It's tiny, yet more people prefer it. Main reason it doesn't suffer badly from that is because it has diversity. V needs less mountains and more unique landscape.

 

SA desert & countryside > V's desert & countryside (That's just my opinion, my reply session will end here)

 

 

Just Cause 2 features a giant map filled with 10 varieties of building all copied and pasted over and over again. I love that game, it's incredible fun and gorgeous to look at, but dude, don't deny that there is very little variety to it.

 

You did not cross then entire map in less than 4 minutes. I want to see video. Start on the pier at Del Perro and end at the Northernmost point of the shore in Paleto Bay.

 

As far as boring?? Huh??? What's boring about it? It's the most detailed map in a GTA game to date. If this map is boring then IV and SA must have been that much worse.

 

I didn't? Well too bad for me I guess ://

[MrDeSanta]

 

V's map is just so boring, it's just one big potato with mountains, a small desert and a regular city. I do hope R* goes crazy on the new map and cares less about the "being realistic".

 

Crossing V`s map in less than 5 minutes? Yeah right. Unless you`re flying Lazer or Besra.

In SA you really could do that. I did a test once. Riding NRG-900 from Angel Pine to Prickle Pine- 3,5 real life minutes. But not in GTA V.

 

I just played SA yesterday, just for a feeling and i can`t believe how small and ridiculous it`s map looks compare to V. It is almost unplayable. Low res textures, the worst draw distance out of any GTA so far, sh*tty layout...f*ck me it`s like a cheap cartoon.

 

So whoever says SA`s map is better than V`s need to get their eyes examined ASAP.

For a 2004 year game it was a blast, but once we`ve got V there is no comparison to that.

Lmao, oh really? Because I just crossed V's map in like 4 minutes with my Massacro (I even crashed multiple times). V's map isn't even that big, it's actually pretty f*cking small compared to Just Cause 2's map lol!

Low res textures and bad draw distance? That's what you get when you play on a console buddy.
V's map was a big disappointment (one of the worst GTA maps imo), but that's mainly because everyone hyped up the "HUGE" and "insane" map. IV's map > V's map.

That`s not because of the console in general but because of limitations of PS2.

And that`s exactly why i find it so unapropriate to compare V and SA map. It`s absolutely uncomparable. The best detailed map with top draw distance and HD textures in V/old gen (not even going to mention the new gen) just can`t compare to a 10 year old map without any details live environment.

 

We all know that there are too many mountains and too large Alamo Sea which make V`s map feel somehow smaller than it is but it is still No.1 map to date. Not just the best GTA map but the best video game map.

Just Cause 2? Oh please, that map was only about the size, without any details in it.

 

You can say whatever you want, you can say any map is better than V`s if you want, it`s only your own opinion but the fact is V has the best map to this day. It isn`t perfect but it is still way better than any other. RDR comes pretty close to it while the rest of the open world games are far from V in the terms of map-detailed environment.

I`ve played most of open world games available on PS2/3/4 and i didn`t find a map so far that would come even close to V`s and RDR in the terms of size, details and wildlife.

[79'Blazer4x4]

I'll get around to testing if you can really cross the V map sometime today, though there's no guarentee I'll be able to upload a video as my internet connection sucks hard. Last time I tried to upload a 2 minute video(unrelated to gaming) on youtube it estimated that it would talke 3 days.

I may have exagerated a bit too, I said what I said based on how long it felt like it was. It just feels like it's so fast crossing V's map compared to SA, maybe I'm wrong but like I said, I'll test it and see. I'll do it Mythbuster's style starting with an average car and if that doesn't work I'll move to faster and faster cars to see if they can cross in 5 minutes or less.

[CarnageRacing00]

I'll get around to testing if you can really cross the V map sometime today, though there's no guarentee I'll be able to upload a video as my internet connection sucks hard. Last time I tried to upload a 2 minute video(unrelated to gaming) on youtube it estimated that it would talke 3 days.

I may have exagerated a bit too, I said what I said based on how long it felt like it was. It just feels like it's so fast crossing V's map compared to SA, maybe I'm wrong but like I said, I'll test it and see. I'll do it Mythbuster's style starting with an average car and if that doesn't work I'll move to faster and faster cars to see if they can cross in 5 minutes or less.

You would have to find some way to ensure the cars in each game are traveling at the same speed. I suspect Vs cars are faster... That could be wrong, but that's what I think.

 

I'm gonna do a map size comparison video tonight too. GTA IV, standing on Rotterdam Tower and looking in 360*. SA standing on the tallest tower in LS, 360*. Same with V and Maze Bank. Then I'll do a south to North travel using the roads available. Then maybe east to west.

[wiizardii]

People are stuck in 2004 and still think Nokia is the dominant electronical company atm, lol

 

But seriously, nostalgia. Nothing more, nothing less.

[RedDagger]

You would have to find some way to ensure the cars in each game are traveling at the same speed. I suspect Vs cars are faster... That could be wrong, but that's what I think.

A good comparison vehicle would be the taxi - average car in all the series, and they should have the same (relatively) stats.

 

I started at the taxi bay at LS International Airport and ended at Beaker's garage in north Paleto Bay, and got 5:36. Not bad, ey?

 

But that journey outlines the differences in the map: for that route, I went pretty straight up the east coast of the map the entire way. In SA, you have to go to through specific bridges and curvy roads - there's no easy straight road from A to B.

[BabeRuth]

But seriously, nostalgia. Nothing more, nothing less.

Your wrong man, playing with your childhood toys/games or watching your childhood movies is great. I just reminds the person of when things were awesome, easy, didn't have to worry about bills/house payments/car payments, etc......

 

I absolutely love playing Resident Evil 2 and Metal Gear Solid.

[wiizardii]

 

But seriously, nostalgia. Nothing more, nothing less.

Your wrong man, playing with your childhood toys/games or watching your childhood movies is great. I just reminds the person of when things were awesome, easy, didn't have to worry about bills/house payments/car payments, etc......

 

I absolutely love playing Resident Evil 2 and Metal Gear Solid.

 

By nothing more nothing less, I ment that it is the only thing and reason as to why people like SA's map over V, and ofc you are right about that.... Though, I don't wanna go off topic, lets be honest - being stuck in nostalgia and the past won't get you nowhere. you will realise it soon. Been there done that.

[CarnageRacing00]

 

 

You would have to find some way to ensure the cars in each game are traveling at the same speed. I suspect Vs cars are faster... That could be wrong, but that's what I think.

A good comparison vehicle would be the taxi - average car in all the series, and they should have the same (relatively) stats.

 

I started at the taxi bay at LS International Airport and ended at Beaker's garage in north Paleto Bay, and got 5:36. Not bad, ey?

 

But that journey outlines the differences in the map: for that route, I went pretty straight up the east coast of the map the entire way. In SA, you have to go to through specific bridges and curvy roads - there's no easy straight road from A to B.

I for some reason didn't even think about the highway, I was literally thinking about driving straight through the center of the map using whatever roads are available. It's pretty obvious the highway would be faster. If I take the highway to work in the morning, it shaves 10 minutes off of my drive time. That's it's purpose. And you're right, there is no direct route in the older games, even the highways don't really take you from point a to b efficiently.

[MrDeSanta]

I agree with @Phoenix_Poop here. It`s all about nostalgia. It simply can`t be anything else consider that V`s map is as good as it can get so far.

I have yet to see a better open world game map than V has and i`ve played most of them.

 

But prefering some map to another just because of nostalgia still doesn`t tell the facts. Sure you can love SA`s map more than V`s if you are nostalgic, warped in the 2004 time period but that still doesn`t mean you actually play SA instead of V.

 

While you can`t admit that V`s map is 100x better than of SA most of people still don`t touch SA anymore.

If you get my meaning.

In short; How many of you who say that SA`s map is better than V`s actually still play SA instead of V? Very few i reckon. If any.

[woggleman]

I think V's map deserves a lot more credit than it gets but I can admit SA did some things better.

[MrDeSanta]

I think V's map deserves a lot more credit than it gets but I can admit SA did some things better.

To be honest i have to say that if i take to a consideration SA`s release year (2004) i think it`s map was even bigger blast than V`s map was in 2013.

Trying to recreate the feeling i had when first time seeing that huge SA map. I just couldn`t believe it`s size and diversion after small and restricted maps of 3 and VC with terrible layout.

It was awesome and i spent months and months just exploring it. So yes i admit that and agree with you, SA`s map offered more for 2004 than V did for 2013 but still, saying that it is better than V`s map is silly.

After IV`s map which was limited to the city only, V`s environment was a pleasant surprise.

 

And seeing it now on the new gen with all the details and all other enhanced thing only just makes that "SA map is better than V" sayings even more ridicolous.

[Son of Zeus]

The whole comparison is ridiculous. Of course V's map is more detailed, bigger, full of life. V's budget was $265 freaking million! So guys saying that SA's map was lifeless are retarted. Of course it's lifeless, it came out a decade ago! A f*cking decade! The OP is an idiot for starting this. There is no comparison.

[RedDagger]

The whole comparison is ridiculous. Of course V's map is more detailed, bigger, full of life. V's budget was $265 freaking million! So guys saying that SA's map was lifeless are retarted. Of course it's lifeless, it came out a decade ago! A f*cking decade! The OP is an idiot for starting this. There is no comparison.

They started this because lots of people make the comparison, and lots of people insist that SA's map is better regardless of the computing limitations. I mean, you could easily read the OP to find that y'know - they say this twice.

 

The main argument people have for SA's map is the way it was designed and laid out (i.e. twisty/windy roads with no direct straight road between areas), as well as the fact the relatively small areas were complemented by the lower draw distance. V's map seems blander for some, because it's one big landmass and you can see from the top of the map to the bottom - whereas in SA you can only see a part of the area you're in. It certainly helps in parts with the atmosphere.

 

Still, I prefer V's map because the variety it offers more variety on top of all the bonuses it gets for not being released years ago.

[BabeRuth]

While you can`t admit that V`s map is 100x better than of SA most of people still don`t touch SA anymore.

If you get my meaning.

In short; How many of you who say that SA`s map is better than V`s actually still play SA instead of V? Very few i reckon. If any.

I wouldn't say most.

 

I don't know man, even Miami says different. He's enjoying SA a lot over V right now and he's playing the game too right now.

 

And I'm pretty sure lots of people bought the Remaster(360 Version) SA.

[MrDeSanta]

 

The whole comparison is ridiculous. Of course V's map is more detailed, bigger, full of life. V's budget was $265 freaking million! So guys saying that SA's map was lifeless are retarted. Of course it's lifeless, it came out a decade ago! A f*cking decade! The OP is an idiot for starting this. There is no comparison.

They started this because lots of people make the comparison, and lots of people insist that SA's map is better regardless of the computing limitations. I mean, you could easily read the OP to find that y'know - they say this twice.

 

The main argument people have for SA's map is the way it was designed and laid out (i.e. twisty/windy roads with no direct straight road between areas), as well as the fact the relatively small areas were complemented by the lower draw distance. V's map seems blander for some, because it's one big landmass and you can see from the top of the map to the bottom - whereas in SA you can only see a part of the area you're in. It certainly helps in parts with the atmosphere.

 

Still, I prefer V's map because the variety it offers more variety on top of all the bonuses it gets for not being released years ago.

 

Of course you can see across the whole V`s map if you`re high above the ground on a sunny weather. That`s because of great draw distance. Which is even increased in new gen V.

I rather have large draw distance and seeing across the map instead of seeing across 1/3 of map and objects keep poping infront of me when i drive/fly some fast vehicle.

 

In SA you could see from the top of the cliff near Area 69 to San Fierro on sunny weather. So that means across 1/3 of map aprox. Considering how SA`s terrible draw distance was you can imagine how much smaller SA is compare to V.

If SA would have V`s draw distance then you could easily see the smallest garbage can in Angel Pine watching it from Mt. Chilliad through some scope.

 

SA`s terrible draw distance made you feel that the map is so huge.

 

But seriously go play it after V and everything will seem so small and funny.

But i agree with @son of zeus, this comparison is meaningless, of course a 2013 game will have everything better than 2004 year old game on PS2.

[woggleman]

Nostalgia is a hell of a drug. I came of age in the 90s and a lot of my peers will not listen to any music made after 2002 because they insist everything was better back then. I think gamers are the same way. The GTA you spent years playing and getting to know will always be better than the new one that changes everything.

[79'Blazer4x4]

So I did a test going across V's map in a taxi. I managed to make it from the airport to the little dirt loop beside the Up n Atom near Paleto bay(which is pretty much directly across the map) in a time of 4 minutes 28 seconds. Here's a map telling where my start and end points were. Also keep in mind that I was playing Trevor and didn't actually enter the airport because I didn't want cops after me messing with the results. You can pretty much guess if I had started from inside the airport it would've added maybe 15 seconds at most.

 

 

I also have the PS4 recording of the run saved but the PS4 is being a bitch and not wanting to connect to my youtube. If all else fails I'll just record the tv screen with my phone and see if I can upload that to youtube via the computer, haha.

[CarnageRacing00]

Like I said before, I hadn't considered using the highway since the guy who said he could cross the map in less that 4 minutes said drive straight across it. I was envisioning going over the mountains and everything - the slow way, you know. The expressway is meant to be just that - the expressway. There shouldn't be any question as to why it literally wraps the entire map. It was meant to give you quick driving access to anywhere lest you spend hours upon hours just driving to destinations during missions. I'd be curious to see how long it takes to get from your start to your finish NOT using the highway.

[Algonquin Assassin]

 

While you can`t admit that V`s map is 100x better than of SA most of people still don`t touch SA anymore.

If you get my meaning.

In short; How many of you who say that SA`s map is better than V`s actually still play SA instead of V? Very few i reckon. If any.

I wouldn't say most.

 

I don't know man, even Miami says different. He's enjoying SA a lot over V right now and he's playing the game too right now.

 

And I'm pretty sure lots of people bought the Remaster(360 Version) SA.

 

 

And that's just the thing. I think everyone knows I'm not SA's biggest fan, but like I've said before I think SA's larger scope is what makes it feel "bigger" even if the physical map is smaller than GTA V. SA represents an entire state with three cities and towns in between. GTA V is only half of a state with one city and the rest of the map being made up of countryside and "desert". I use the term desert loosely.

 

Another thing is on the 360 version of SA the draw distance is better than the PS2 version I've owed since new, but it doesn't feel any smaller. I think the major difference is how each map is designed and laid out. The square layout of SA's map with each city occupying a corner makes it feels like a flowing and consistent land mass. GTA V on the other hand as I've said before feels like some Hawaiian island.

 

Even if you applied SA's original draw distance to GTA V I don't think it would make much of a difference. The differences IMO come from the fact SA is focussing on a larger area whilst GTA V is focussing on a smaller one.

[79'Blazer4x4]

Like I said before, I hadn't considered using the highway since the guy who said he could cross the map in less that 4 minutes said drive straight across it. I was envisioning going over the mountains and everything - the slow way, you know. The expressway is meant to be just that - the expressway. There shouldn't be any question as to why it literally wraps the entire map. It was meant to give you quick driving access to anywhere lest you spend hours upon hours just driving to destinations during missions. I'd be curious to see how long it takes to get from your start to your finish NOT using the highway.

True, I just did the test because I said I was gonna do the test and didn't want to just abandon it or I'd come off as a liar. Taking a non-highway route is more complicated as well since the GPS will never point you down a long and winding road, it always points you down the highways. In order to take the fastest non-highway route you'd need to plan the route ahead of time and memorize it quite well, either that or pause often to see where you are and mess up the stopwatch count(or worse, have do do more MATH to separate the actual time spent driving from the time spent navigating in pause!!! D: ).

 

Unless there's some stupidly obvious solution that I'm completely overlooking.

Edited December 10, 2014 by 79'Blazer4x4

[Octavio89]

So I did a test going across V's map in a taxi. I managed to make it from the airport to the little dirt loop beside the Up n Atom near Paleto bay(which is pretty much directly across the map) in a time of 4 minutes 28 seconds. Here's a map telling where my start and end points were. Also keep in mind that I was playing Trevor and didn't actually enter the airport because I didn't want cops after me messing with the results. You can pretty much guess if I had started from inside the airport it would've added maybe 15 seconds at most.

 

 

I also have the PS4 recording of the run saved but the PS4 is being a bitch and not wanting to connect to my youtube. If all else fails I'll just record the tv screen with my phone and see if I can upload that to youtube via the computer, haha.

 

 

Interesting, but you wouldn't get near the other end of the map in San Andreas in 4 1/2 minutes, that's for sure. I just don't buy this 'V's map is bigger' bullcrap

Edited December 11, 2014 by Octavio89

[CarnageRacing00]

 

 

So I did a test going across V's map in a taxi. I managed to make it from the airport to the little dirt loop beside the Up n Atom near Paleto bay(which is pretty much directly across the map) in a time of 4 minutes 28 seconds. Here's a map telling where my start and end points were. Also keep in mind that I was playing Trevor and didn't actually enter the airport because I didn't want cops after me messing with the results. You can pretty much guess if I had started from inside the airport it would've added maybe 15 seconds at most.

 

 

I also have the PS4 recording of the run saved but the PS4 is being a bitch and not wanting to connect to my youtube. If all else fails I'll just record the tv screen with my phone and see if I can upload that to youtube via the computer, haha.

 

Interesting, but you wouldn't get near the other end of the map in San Andreas in 4 1/2 minutes, that's for sure. I just don't buy this 'V's map is bigger' bullcrap

You don't need to buy it for it to be true, and it's absolutely true. You cannot prove otherwise, but I would love to see you try.

[Nah nah nah Gta 6]

 

V's map is bigger, and keep in mind CJ is faster than Micheal.

Edited December 11, 2014 by Stoney0503

[RedDagger]

Wait, some people actually think that SA's map is bigger?

 

It's painfully obvious that it's not, and the simplest way of seeing just how small SA's map is by upping the draw distance to see the entire map at once. It's tiny in comparison.

 

Though I do have to say, as I've said before, the way the map is laid out adds to the illusion of size and vastly separate areas that are only a stone's throw apart. One of the weaknesses of V's map is they plonked a big highway circling the entire map, letting you easily get from top to bottom, and quickly. It doesn't do the map any favours.

[MrDeSanta]

I really don`t understand you SA fanbase. Your tries to prove that SA map is bigger and better than V`s map are ridicolous.

The fact is SA map is about 40% of the V`s size and none of your attemts to prove otherwise will be succesfull no matter how hard you try.

 

Face it, you`re the history. SA was a good game once but today it looks like crap. Everything about it, from map, gameplay, story to your loved CJ. Especially when compared to V. Face that and put your pink nostalgic glasess off of your face already, noone gives a sh*t about SA anymore- not even you.

[CarnageRacing00]

 

V's map is bigger, and keep in mind CJ is faster than Micheal.

 

lol that's hilarious, CJ is almost completely out of the desert before Michael has even gotten past the last airport parking lot.

Wait, some people actually think that SA's map is bigger?

 

It's painfully obvious that it's not, and the simplest way of seeing just how small SA's map is by upping the draw distance to see the entire map at once. It's tiny in comparison.

 

Though I do have to say, as I've said before, the way the map is laid out adds to the illusion of size and vastly separate areas that are only a stone's throw apart. One of the weaknesses of V's map is they plonked a big highway circling the entire map, letting you easily get from top to bottom, and quickly. It doesn't do the map any favours.

 

I've done the work for everyone already.

 

http://youtu.be/dHSLuUDUTRE

[cryptorelic]

Well man we was all playing San Andreas in the past, probably double the amount we will ever play V, at least this fits with me. So it's all about memories and most people just wish the old classic way would come back or they could time travel back to relive those great times. Just like me, i still prefer the old stuff.

[Kafonix]

V just felt the exact same in every part of the map. SA felt really creepy in the southern forests and I don't know what makes me feel dis.

I really didn't like SF tho. For me, it just feels grey and bland. Not positively grey like GTA IV, but just empty.

[MrDeSanta]

Since i`ve been little to harsh on SA`s map i might as well mention 1 big plus it had over V`s map;

-V`s map lacks the creepy isolated parts like Back `O` Beyond was in SA. Like someone already mentioned it.

 

I wish V had more creepy places like BOB or Las Brujas in SA.

The top of Mt. Gordo is little creepy at night due to that ghost but i wish that was more consider how huge the countryside is.

 

And i should add 2 flaws in V`s map;

-too large Alamo Sea

-1 or 2 mountains too many

Edited December 12, 2014 by MrDeSanta