GTAV world size vs. GTAIV.

[ViceCityStalker]

But still San Andreas feels bigger to me even though I know it is not,I just made peace with myself that the guy tasked with making the layout of GTA V`s map was both drunk and high on Trevors Meth

Edited December 14, 2014 by ViceCityStalker

[Krysalis]

 

 

 

Also, 90% of V's map is mountains on which there are no activities.

Gotta agree with this sadly.

 

Most of the mountains are lame, except for chilliad and maybe mount gordo.

 

They got little vegetation and nothing interesting.

 

They should have used all that space for some deep forest maybe with a cave or something that makes you wanna explore. Hell make phone signal and radar not work there.

 

Even police will be affected and choppers can't look for you since some magnetic force ala bermuda's triangle affects their instruments therefore cops will look for you on foot and maybe use k9's..

 

Idk but it sounds epic lol

 

I agree. Of course the 90% thing is a huge exageration but way too much of V's map consists of mountains. I think it would've been fine to completely get rid of Mt. Chilliad and make Mt. Gordo a bit bigger to compensate for that, then just have one huge dense forest in the place of Mt. Chilliad that has a larger logging facility, the occasional cabin(including some abandoned ones with interiors like SA had, though obviously more detailed and not just one big blank room) and maybe even a hidden farm around the middle of the forest with a few Fieldmasters, a tractor(old style) and a Combine. There shouldn't be too much in this forest though or it would just be overcrowded like the rest of V's map and constantly feel like you're 10 feet away from a major settlement or road.

Of course none of this would ever happen(would it even be possible to have that many trees on screen at once?) but a man can dream.

Nice idea lol and yeah that's the feeling I hate, you are never too far from civilization. Maybe I have been playing too much far cry 4...

 

Having that many tress at once is indeed possible. Hell just cause 2 from 2010 did it and it was back on ps3, I know they wanted to emulate that CA feel but they should have done something like that.

 

The baren landscape plus no interiours made this map pretty uninteresting to explore compared to others.

 

You can argue that the map is better designed and more detailed, but the actual wilderness is not that good.

 

GTA V was based on South Cali, and that region of California is very poor with forest and has alot of empty hills and mountains, GTA V did it 80% right. In Just Cause 2, indeed it was amazing, but it lacked detail.

[RedDagger]

Guys, just to be clear, he's not talking about the size of the map at all, or the landmass, or explorable area. You shouldn't be thinking about mountains and the like, or if IV felt bigger than V, or which cars were faster or anything of the sort.

 

He's talking about the entire area rendered by the engine, beyond the artificial ocean boundaries.

 

I couldn't say, but because of the improvements in the engine I'd wager it would be larger - however nothing else is going to be placed in unused areas, since Rockstar said they wouldn't do DLC to the scale of EFLC, and adding areas would require a pretty hefty DLC.

[Sneakymist]

Total map is about 30 sq miles. Just the land area is about 19 sq miles.

 

http://imagizer.imageshack.us/a/img571/1084/d60t.jpg

 

A lot of people will tell you that GTA V is 49 sq miles, but they're mistaken. If anything, it is 49 sq km, which is roughly equal to 19 sq mi.

Edited December 14, 2014 by Sneakymist

[Official General]

People who say V is 90% mountains sound just as ignorant as those who said LC was all grey buildings that looked the same.

 

Ok it may not be 90% as such, but it certainly felt like it was, so I can understand people saying that. And there is no denying that mountainous terrain indeed took up a huge part of the map in V, because it clearly did. This is not people making up stuff about V just because they don't like the game, these claims are based on facts.

 

Anyway most buildings in LC in IV are indeed grey, and various shades of brown, because in real life that's the color of most New York buildings and dwellings. So even then, they are not far off the mark with these claims about IV's buildings.

 

LC in IV felt bigger than LS in V, but I'm gonna put that down to LC having a higher density and number of buildings, being split into islands and connected by many bridges. LS size is acceptable to me, but i still think it could have been bigger, with more suburbs, rather than just mostly rich areas with one ghetto area as it stands now. May main problem with LS is not so much the size though, it's the lack of immersion and interactivity caused by it's low numbers of interiors, and not having much interesting things to see and do within it.

Edited December 14, 2014 by Official General

[woggleman]

They overdid with the mountains a bit but people who really take the time to explore the map will see it is very diverse. I did all the collectibles and it gave me a whole new appreciation for the countryside on last gen so I can't imagine what it will be like on new gen, It could have used more interiors but the outside they nailed IMO. There is a lot of hidden stuff to look at that you don't notice at first.

 

Also as great as LC is stand on top of Rotterdam tower and you can see the entire map. It isn't very big but it makes up for it in density.

[BrokenLizard]

I like V's map. It's a legitimate replica of California. However, IV was much more immersive. I don't feel apart of the city when I play V. No interiors, too many mountains, psycho pedestrians, psycho cops, etc. makes it feel too arcade-like.

 

Quality > quantity

[Choco Taco]

If it had less mountains and more forests then people would complain there aren't enough mountains.

 

Nobody with a working brain in their head would complain if Mt. Josiah was replaced with a forest.

[woggleman]

 

If it had less mountains and more forests then people would complain there aren't enough mountains.

 

Nobody with a working brain in their head would complain if Mt. Josiah was replaced with a forest.

 

True but how many people have working brains in their heads?

[CarnageRacing00]

 

If it had less mountains and more forests then people would complain there aren't enough mountains.

 

Nobody with a working brain in their head would complain if Mt. Josiah was replaced with a forest.

 

 

i wouldn't complain, but I also doubt I'd say "Wow this was totally worth doing, since now there's an entire span of map that's impassable by any other means than walking or flying".

[MeltedSOX.]

Either way, guys, GTA V's map is the biggest map Rockstar ever created. If you think about it, there's almost two maps in one game. You have the actual land and of course underwater. Why I say this because even underwater it feels like a different environment.

 

 

Maybe most of you won't agree.

[CarnageRacing00]

Either way, guys, GTA V's map is the biggest map Rockstar ever created. If you think about it, there's almost two maps in one game. You have the actual land and of course underwater. Why I say this because even underwater it feels like a different environment.

 

 

Maybe most of you won't agree.

 

You can hit people over the head with facts all day long, but the truth is, once they've decided they dislike something, they aren't willing to compromise on anything. They won't admit the map is the biggest and most detailed (even though it can be proven that it is), they won't admit that there's more opportunity for things to do on it (again, it can be proven that there is), they won't put a point in GTA V's favor because they've gone wholesale on the idea that V is pure trash and IV is the godliest GTA game ever made.

 

I've said it before, I'll say it again. It's not enough for some people to just "not like" something. They have to make it out to be the worst f*cking sh*ttiest sh*t ever and go out of their way to tear it down because.. because. That's the question, isn't it?

[Osho]

Here. Let me put some points in GTA V's favor because its got the biggest EMPTY map of the series :-

- Lack of interiors

- Lack of activities after story completion

- Lack of rewards for many things you do

- Lack of good single-player races

- Overdose of anything but crime related side missions, or jobs.

 

Some people need to understand what makes a map really immersive for you doesn't mean its the best enjoyable for others who value gameplay over fancy graphics, and details a lot more in an open world ACTION game called GTA.

Heck, even RDR beats GTA V by a mile.

IMO they should have made the map as big as enough for them to fill the emptiness with some f*cking interesting things to do than wasting time on making a huge, detailed playground for the ONLINE casualfags.

[CarnageRacing00]

Here. Let me put some points in GTA V's favor because its got the biggest EMPTY map of the series :-

- Lack of interiors

- Lack of activities after story completion

- Lack of rewards for many things you do

- Lack of good single-player races

- Overdose of anything but crime related side missions, or jobs.

 

Some people need to understand what makes a map really immersive for you doesn't mean its the best enjoyable for others who value gameplay over fancy graphics, and details a lot more in an open world ACTION game called GTA.

Heck, even RDR beats GTA V by a mile.

IMO they should have made the map as big as enough for them to fill the emptiness with some f*cking interesting things to do than wasting time on making a huge, detailed playground for the ONLINE casualfags.

 

-Lack of interiors

People bitch about this a lot, but seriously, what f'ing good are interiors in this game? What good are they in ANY GTA game? Maybe now with First Person mode they could be fun, but prior to that with the clunky third person controls they are USELESS. I'm also trying to remember just how much time I spend indoors in GTA:SA or GTA IV... it certainly wasn't much.

 

-Lack of activities after story completion

And GTA IV had, what? "COUSIN LET'S GO BOWLING!" Isn't that the ONE thing that people hated MOST about GTA IV?

 

-Lack of rewards for many things

...ok? You need to be rewarded for wiping your ass or something?

 

-Lack of good single player races

I don't remember a single GTA game that had challenging single player races. If this is a point against GTA V, it's a point against all GTA games.

 

-Overdose of anything but crime related side missions and jobs

So, what exactly were you looking for?

 

FYI: You can find most of that stuff in GTA:O, which, by the way, you can play alone if you want to.

 

 

Biggest empty map? Empty map? EMPTY? First people say that the map has no desolate areas, that you never feel like you're far away from anything... and then people say it's too empty.

 

Then people say it's too uninteresting and bland, and then they say being crammed with detail doesn't make it good.

 

So which is it? Is the map too empty or too full? Is it to bland or too detailed?

 

You need to face the FACT that every square foot of V's map crams more detail than an entire city block of GTA IV. That's what Rockstar was going for, that's what they achieved. It's just true.

 

If you're having trouble thinking of things to do, maybe you should go play RAMIREZ PROTECT BURGER TOWN.

 

No f*cking WONDER the CoD games are so popular. People like you need their hands held to enjoy a game. Can't use your imagination and have fun that way. Doesn't make it a bad game, it makes you a brainless moron.

[Crimson Flam3s]

Off topic:

 

The thing is that V left out a lot of cool stuff older games had they could have easily put in.

 

Seriously, nobody gives a flying sh*t about yoga and arm wrestling and only a few play golf or tennis which are pretty decent btw.

 

They should have added a fighting club or something more entertaining.

 

What happened to getting npc backup like in IV or having police missions? They weren't perfect but pretty entertaining.

 

The reason why everybody criticizes R* one way or another is because they have the potential, and they have done it before but sadly they left some things half assed.

[Osho]

I really wish people stop suggesting the same old, tired mantra of "Use your imagination and have fun that way, otherwise it makes you a brainless moron".

Rockstar screwed up single-player for everything it could to make the players go ONLINE, and this is exactly why I feel disappointed, and somewhat cheated.

ONLINE suggestions are an absolute nonsense as a solution to the weak single-player IMO.

All the previews and interviews (trailers included) showed this game very good potential and never talked about "switching" ONLINE for "finding the rest of the fun gameplay" then why someone else wants to be a smartass and quite desperate to tell others how the game is meant to be played in parts, switching back and forth between offline and online for complete experience.

Are you out of your mind or what?

[CarnageRacing00]

I really wish people stop suggesting the same old, tired mantra of "Use your imagination and have fun that way, otherwise it makes you a brainless moron".

Rockstar screwed up single-player for everything it could to make the players go ONLINE, and this is exactly why I feel disappointed, and somewhat cheated.

ONLINE suggestions are an absolute nonsense as a solution to the weak single-player IMO.

All the previews and interviews (trailers included) showed this game very good potential and never talked about "switching" ONLINE for "finding the rest of the fun gameplay" then why someone else wants to be a smartass and quite desperate to tell others how the game is meant to be played in parts, switching back and forth between offline and online for complete experience.

Are you out of your mind or what?

 

What is the game missing?

 

Vigilante missions. Anything else?

[matajuegos01]

 

 

If it had less mountains and more forests then people would complain there aren't enough mountains.

 

Nobody with a working brain in their head would complain if Mt. Josiah was replaced with a forest.

 

True but how many people have working brains in their heads?

 

not many, like you

[007_eleven]

 

Ignoring the unwarranted insults...

 

It is possible to hold conflicting opinions on a games map due to assets not being equally distributed across it. For example Los Santos is very detailed whilst the three mountains are not, they are just the same orange/brown dirt texture dotted with a few species of foliage. GTA V may have the most unique art objects compared to the other games but it can still be considered less interesting if the implementation of these assets are poor. GTA IV had less to work with but the way it was placed gave us more appreciation for what was there. Much of V's countryside, although large, felt like filler space, whereas GTA IV had detail in every nook and cranny.

 

I'll give a quick rundown on the main themed areas of V's map and whether they were good or not:

 

Industrial areas: Fine, lots of detail and quite sizeable map space. Not the most exciting area in the game but that's not a surprise.

Vespucci Beach: Lots of detail, respectable size, you don't want a beach too big or it feels like a desert (a.k.a Vice City)

Financial capital: A little crammed but otherwise ok.

Ghetto: Pitifully small, there was some detail in businesses but much of the housing was unenterable projects just copy/pasted. At least IV's had courtyards out front with some nice details i.e. play equipment, basketball courts, balcony access, interior stairwells.

Suburbs: Good detail but tiny, Mirror Park was a real let down.

Rich Suburbs: Vinewood hills had amazing details in houses as one would expect, the area that Rockford Hills took up though was in my opinion a little too large, more middle class suburbs would have been nice.

Main Drag: Good detail in the Oriental Theatre, various clubs, shops and diners along the road but a lack of interiors really hurts this place. IV had far more in its central hub that being fast food, split sides, both of the clubs that were a few blocks away from star junction.

Chumash: Good detail but the houses felt a little cramped, they could probably be more evenly distributed along the coastline until you reach that bridge.

Grand Senora Desert: This is what I feel suffers from too much detail in a tiny space. You expect a desert to be vast, uninhabited, easy to get lost in but no, you're not 5 seconds away from a major road or trailer.

Sandy Shores: The actual town was small but had enough detail, what let it down was that it didn't feel isolated enough due to the tiny desert.

Mountains: Most of these have little detail yet take up colossal map size with very little to do on them. Chiliad and the slopes down Vinewood Hills would have been enough but there is also Gordo, Josiah, Palomino Highlands, Pacific Bluffs etc.

Paleto Bay: Not bad but the tiny forest was a disappointment, it has the same problem as Sandy Shores in that it's supposed to be an area hub but the themed area surrounding it is tiny.

[DaRkL3AD3R]

I sincerely doubt any additions will be made to the map as it sits. I think, if LV or SF are eventually added, it will be a loading screen triggered by a marker at the airport, and for GTAO, essentially an entirely new lobby. That would be the best way to deal with it honestly.

I think you're spot on. This is exactly how I saw it going down. Most likely the first addition to GTAO map is going to be Liberty City from GTA IV touched up for 2015+ standards and you will access it by flying there from the airport in Los Santos. Then you'll arrive at LC and get introduced to the new map just like when you made your character on last gen and flew into LS.

 

Speaking of which is that even how it works still on next gen? Or is the character creator and starting point in the police station?

[XIantonioIX]

Think of it this way, it's impossible to explore all of GTAV im not talking about flying around and stuff im talking step to step the damn cities are so damn big I see places I never been to every now and then.

[Crimson Flam3s]

Since you mentioned exploring, I think this is the issue with those bare mountains all over the map. There is literally nothing to explore. You can grab a chopper and explore from the air and even though it's quick' it's still gonna be boring after 2 or 3 times.

 

A bigger paleto bay would have been awesome. I also liked that mini settlement with the altruist cult.

 

I think everybody appreciates the map here a lot, it's just that it could have been expanded a little better in my humble opinion.

 

R* did mentioned they were interested in adding LC to V in the future.. Why would it need a loading screen? Just make people fly northeast and make em get to lc after a minute or 2.

[Osho]

What is the game missing? 02

Vigilante missions.

Anything else?

Its not about the vigilante missions or about losing any particular activity, mate.

I'm not asking R* for the same past activities/missions/job either. It could be something new, or an improvement over the past things with changes introduced similar to how IV did to 3D vigilante format with addition of the criminal database, and allowing the players to enjoy the good old vigilante in the name of 'Most wanted' as well.

Now, are you getting the whole picture of exactly what's SP is missing out and appears to be prioritised lower, in terms of increasing/improving the side missions/activities than adding bullsh*t mini-games, collectibles, etc. in this context?

For me detailed maps, and their big ass sizes do not automatically mean the actual greatness and fun within the game.

SA proves that even such a tiny map with simple details over the V map can STILL make a positive impact on the players in an appreciative manner, so long the map has all the proper tools, and choices within itself to make the game worth playing.

Even by the standards of quality over quantity, V map is filled with little to not much replay value attached to be worth the efforts to check back and play and enjoy them again, and again, IMO.

In fact, I feel like R* just sprinkled them over the map with no proper thought given in making SP more interesting as if single-players were some second class players compared to the care taken in making the ONLINE getting proper dose of endless fun.

[79'Blazer4x4]

Since you mentioned exploring, I think this is the issue with those bare mountains all over the map. There is literally nothing to explore. You can grab a chopper and explore from the air and even though it's quick' it's still gonna be boring after 2 or 3 times.

 

A bigger paleto bay would have been awesome. I also liked that mini settlement with the altruist cult.

 

I think everybody appreciates the map here a lot, it's just that it could have been expanded a little better in my humble opinion.

 

R* did mentioned they were interested in adding LC to V in the future.. Why would it need a loading screen? Just make people fly northeast and make em get to lc after a minute or 2.

I would take forever flying from Los Santos to Liberty City without a loading screen. Keep in mind that Los Angeles and New York(which are the bases for the two GTA cities) have the entire U.S.A. between them. It's also assumed that Los Santos and Liberty City are in the same geographical locations as their real world counterparts and are also across country from each other. Then there's the matter, considering all of this, that you'd need physical land below you for the whole flight(all the US between the two cities) so if they let you fly there without a loading screen it would either look incredibly false or they'd have to effectively turn GTA V into GTA America. A loading screen really is the most logical and sensible, though I would enjoy two choices to get there: go to a marker at the airport and automatically be taken to a loading screen and end up at the terminal in LC when the loading screen ends, or take a plane yourself and fly East and after a certain distance go into a loading screen and when the loading screen ends you'll be in LC airspace and can land the plane yourself at Francis International Airport(or just bail or land elsewhere).

[Ben73]

One point that was said multiple times is that the underwater world is 'massive and detailed' While yes this is true, I don't find it that interesting. Exploring the plane wreckage is cool, but it gets old pretty quick. I'd prefer to have a very basic under water world with only a few interesting points, and a slightly bigger and more detailed landmass.

[pilscy]

all this game really is missing is interiors to make it come to life.

i thought about it yesterday

 

*If rockstar opened the fast food places making them simply food spots and lounges (bean machine) - the game would slightly feel more real

*if more connivence stores and liquor stores where used instead of keeping them close - the game would slightly feel more real

*Casino - where we could finally put those millions after the game to use

*More Houses - To buy all over the map, for example ... you wanted to make Michael a hunter, and you wanna buy him a house in the woods

*Old run down apartments, projects, houses, garages - have pickups like amour and sh*t in them but yet again most of them closed.

*Police Station

**with (mini game)

*Hospitals - Like put all of them to use.

*More Bars//Clubs - Rockstar just keep them closed up.and at night theres that whole strip thats filled with people just standing outside the clubs.

*** Tela-tiqula or w/e is a bigger club than vanilla unicorn ... sh*t it has two exits and a upstairs area, a band area - but rockstar keeps this club closed

*More Garages.

*more Random businesses

*Your purchased businesses

*Michael Movie studio

*Airport

 

 

Im not gonna get into how they messed up the criminal aspect of this game. most activities aren't criminal like (for example look at what you do for nigel - that they consider missions - pitty full)

 

AND ANYONE WHO TRIES TO GO AGAINST INTERIORS ARE REALLY DUMB. I'D SAY YOUR PRETTY DULL MINDED IF YOU DONT THINK INTERIORS OPEN UP A WHOLE NEW EXPERIENCE IN THIS GAME.

Edited December 15, 2014 by pilscy

[Sneakymist]

Here. Let me put some points in GTA V's favor because its got the biggest EMPTY map of the series :-

- Lack of interiors

- Lack of activities after story completion

- Lack of rewards for many things you do

- Lack of good single-player races

- Overdose of anything but crime related side missions, or jobs.

 

Some people need to understand what makes a map really immersive for you doesn't mean its the best enjoyable for others who value gameplay over fancy graphics, and details a lot more in an open world ACTION game called GTA.

Heck, even RDR beats GTA V by a mile.

IMO they should have made the map as big as enough for them to fill the emptiness with some f*cking interesting things to do than wasting time on making a huge, detailed playground for the ONLINE casualfags.

Compared to RDR, RDR is definitely more immersive and fun.

Comapred to GTA IV, and GTA V has a massive edge over it.

 

GTA IV probably has more interiors than GTA V, so I'll give you that.

I don't do enough races to comment on that point.

But in terms of activities? GTA IV only has its (mediocre) story, a couple of pointless activities like darts and bowling, and the vigilante missions that come to mind.

[Crimson Flam3s]

Now that I think about it, IV's hospital was open wasn't it?

 

Too bad R* locked up most of the interiors..

 

An enterable super mall would have been cool tbh.

 

Interiors could have had some cool purposes like hiding from police or something without mentioning gun battles.

 

I woulf be perfectcly happy if rockstar did something like this:

 

Make like 10 different interiors for houses and just use them randomly even if they don't matchup the shape of the house. Hell the interiors online are just copy and paste.

[Nick1020]

As big as V's map is, almost everything feels too small.

Except for the amount of Mountains and the rich parts of LS.

 

Things that are too small include Downtown LS, Middle Class LS suburbs, Desert, Forests, Paleto Bay.

 

I think Mt Josiah is the most pointless mountain in the game, so I'd rather see that gone to make the things I listed above a little bigger.

You basically summed up how I feel about LS.

[Fuzzknuckles]

I really wish people stop suggesting the same old, tired mantra of "Use your imagination and have fun that way, otherwise it makes you a brainless moron".

Rockstar screwed up single-player for everything it could to make the players go ONLINE, and this is exactly why I feel disappointed, and somewhat cheated.

ONLINE suggestions are an absolute nonsense as a solution to the weak single-player IMO.

All the previews and interviews (trailers included) showed this game very good potential and never talked about "switching" ONLINE for "finding the rest of the fun gameplay" then why someone else wants to be a smartass and quite desperate to tell others how the game is meant to be played in parts, switching back and forth between offline and online for complete experience.

Are you out of your mind or what?

And I really wish people would stop using the same mantra of Rockstar really screwed up and that they're concentrating on MP.

 

Hypocrisy is the greatest luxury.