GTAV world size vs. GTAIV.

[Sussus Amongus]

 

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.

I agree with this post a lot. Although one thing that even I will admit is that GTA V had cool but easy and a small amount of street races. The SC races make up for it though. Even if they are just on the same track.

[Fuzzknuckles]

GTA races have always been cool and easy. Only completions and masochists would persevere through anything really difficult. GTA ain't just about racing, after all.

 

I think they balance the fun and difficulty of the races quite well.

[Andreas]

This thread is about the world size of IV and V, not the general aspects of both games. Let's keep it that way.

 

GTA IV's map has a resolution of 6000x3800 pixels and is in one-pixel-per-square-meter scale, which suggests that Liberty City and Alderney have a size of 22.8 square kilometers or 8.8 square miles. Needless to say that there is a lot of water around the map. If you remove the water outside of the map, and leave the land area and the water between the islands there, then the map is roughly 6.25 square miles. The land area alone is around 3.45 sqm, according to a calculation I made a long time ago, which involed Photoshop.

 

It's a little trickier in V, because there is no official map that is in the same scale as San Andreas, GTA IV and Red Dead Redemption, so measuring the map size would need to be done by hand. However, if my memory serves me right, someone worked out the map size and it was 8 x 10 kilometers, i.e. 80 square kilometers or 30 square miles. Not sure how accurate that is, but it can be proven through in-game measurements. I'll give it a shot sometime.

 

As for how the physical world size is, as in the absolute limit, I think it depends. Are you referring to the area that can be explored by the player, or the area that basically allows for the map to be expanded, without breaking any limits?

Edited December 15, 2014 by Andreas

[wiizardii]

I guess, most of the criticism comes to the fact that the world is big, but empty. What's worst, a small box, but with alot of great things, or a HUGE box, but totally empty? That is the way people see it, and that is why alot of people think GTA IV LC wins over V San Andreas, I don't necessarily agree on this, but at an extent is is true due to lack of interiors in V. I was something of a hoper that we would get more interiors in NG but we did not. What made LC in IV feel so immersive was the fact that you could go into a hospital and start a huge rampage, and the different stuff you could do.

 

People also complained that alot of activities felt too scripted, though I disagree with this.

 

We can't doubt that V is a bigger map than any in R* games to date, but really, if they tweaked it out more I promise you it would be one of the best maps in the series, if its not already due to its size, animals, and other stuff.

Edited December 15, 2014 by Phoenix_Poop

[Shade04rek]

The map size is definitely bigger in v, no debate, but the usable sections of the map are varied. All of Iv map is usable and playable, and v's barren hills are a waste, and it's not about it's Barrenness even, it's how steep the hills are. Think about rdr, it was barren, but still navigable. The size is mostly appreciated by the game having planes, and r* admitted that is why Iv didn't have planes, so it makes since even if big sections of the map are not convenient to hang around at. Another thing which is fact but more of an opinion what I have to say about it, is that Iv had more tall buildings, and seemingly to me a bigger core city which was the whole map itself. Whether it's useful or not, it gave a sorta big map feel, before you look down from a heli, and realize it wasn't really that big.

[Sneakymist]

All of Iv map is usable and playable

 

I strongly disagree with this point. Sure, GTA IV has arguably more interiors than GTA V, but HD Los Santos is much more playable than HD Liberty City. Almost the entire island of Algonquin is covered with tall but inaccessible buildings. The other islands are better, but not by much.

 

Now, you can say that Los Santos has the same problem, but even if the interiors to most buildings are inaccessible, I noticed that many of their roofs are. In other words, a large portion of Los Santos buildings' roofs can be accessed via a nearby ladder or adjacent building. This is not the case for Liberty City (especially Algonquin).

[Masny]

Full GTA's Maps comaprison is HERE

[Shade04rek]

 

All of Iv map is usable and playable

 

I strongly disagree with this point. Sure, GTA IV has arguably more interiors than GTA V, but HD Los Santos is much more playable than HD Liberty City. Almost the entire island of Algonquin is covered with tall but inaccessible buildings. The other islands are better, but not by much.

 

Now, you can say that Los Santos has the same problem, but even if the interiors to most buildings are inaccessible, I noticed that many of their roofs are. In other words, a large portion of Los Santos buildings' roofs can be accessed via a nearby ladder or adjacent building. This is not the case for Liberty City (especially Algonquin).

 

I can't disagree. V definitely has that to its size as well. But if someone flew to a tall building top, it still can be used to snipe or jump off of. The shorter buildings were the most likely to have latters, and v has more short buildings. I'll still give it to v though, it did have way more latters, but still not for the few skyscrapers it has, just like the whole lot of them in Iv.

[woggleman]

To me the lack of interiors is the only significant flaw in V's map. If they added that it would be nearly flawless.

[Shade04rek]

To me the lack of interiors is the only significant flaw in V's map. If they added that it would be nearly flawless.

True but the thing is, when Iv was the latest gta, even then that game had not many interiors. Yes v still could use some, but compared to iv, they're almost the same.

Edited December 17, 2014 by Shade04rek

[Ben73]

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.

 

 

Agree with this so much. Number of interiors in GTA is pretty unimpressive. Get rid of all that pointless detailed underwater world and give us more interiors.

[TempAccount]

I don't understand why people say, "If you stand on the highest point of the map, you can see the entire thing, which shows how small it really is." Did you expect the curvature of the earth to block your view?

 

After all, I can see four different states from the top of Sears Tower.

 

BTW MichiganMuscle, about one-third to one-half of the SA map wasn't even loaded in your video.

 

Also, I would say .1% of the time (500+ hrs on PC) I played IV was spent in interiors. That number is probably the same for all GTA games before it too. I don't understand what people feel interiors add to the game. The interiors in IV were tiny and were only good for camping.

Edited December 17, 2014 by TempAccount

[Masny]

 

 

don't understand what people feel interiors add to the game. The interiors in IV were tiny and were only good for camping.

Because it would take a gameplay in antoher level - just imagine situation like this

- you are doing a foot getaway in some alley and... oups, dead end! You look around and you've seen some doors. The doors leads to stairawy. Then you're breaking into someone house and terrorise them to keep them quiet because youre wanted. The cops go away and you are free.

 

And now imagine that you can enter any house and building. Chases on foot would be amazing

[MonsterCockDude]

 

 

 

don't understand what people feel interiors add to the game. The interiors in IV were tiny and were only good for camping.

Because it would take a gameplay in antoher level - just imagine situation like this

- you are doing a foot getaway in some alley and... oups, dead end! You look around and you've seen some doors. The doors leads to stairawy. Then you're breaking into someone house and terrorise them to keep them quiet because youre wanted. The cops go away and you are free.

 

And now imagine that you can enter any house and building. Chases on foot would be amazing

 

That would be great but has a couple of issues.

 

 

1) The retarded kids on here want a fantasy game like Saints Row, or Just Cause... so a foot chase would be "boring" so R* would have to change the police AI that they would just shoot at you in that alleyway instead of chasing you.

 

2) Hiding for a period of time from the cops in a building would also be seen as "boring" since your not doing anything or shooting at any thing.

 

 

If R* ever wanted to make a good crime simulator this could happen, but this would isolate the fanbase and get rid of the impatient children.

[CarnageRacing00]

I don't understand why people say, "If you stand on the highest point of the map, you can see the entire thing, which shows how small it really is." Did you expect the curvature of the earth to block your view?

 

After all, I can see four different states from the top of Sears Tower.

 

BTW MichiganMuscle, about one-third to one-half of the SA map wasn't even loaded in your video.

 

Also, I would say .1% of the time (500+ hrs on PC) I played IV was spent in interiors. That number is probably the same for all GTA games before it too. I don't understand what people feel interiors add to the game. The interiors in IV were tiny and were only good for camping.

 

1. The highest point on each map gives a better sense of scale. You can clearly see the difference in map sizes from those points in each map. Not rocket science.

 

2. No, ALL of SA was loaded in my video. There were holes in the map because the draw distance mod is buggy, but you can see the actual land mass (even if the buildings didn't load) of San Fierro all the way to Las Venturas. Are you implying that SA's map is actually bigger than V's? Because you're flat out wrong.

 

3. Agreed on interiors. Like I said, in the older games, I stayed away from interiors because the clunky 3rd person controls these games always have just make it a hassle. Now that we have a pretty decently done first person view, interiors might actually be worthwhile... but I still don't miss them. I have way more fun on the road or in the sky than snaking around some corridor.

 

I just don't know WTF people expect from this game. The types of complaints I'm reading lately fill my mind full of f*ck. So the tram riding experience isn't fully fleshed out. f*cking seriously? That's worth it's own thread? Are you f*cking kidding me? Yeah, so there's not a ton of interiors. Not really sure Rockstar meant for players to be spending all of their time indoors when they've put so much detail into the outside world. Limited activities? Like what? What exactly do you want the game to do for you? What activities are missing that would really contribute to a full gaming experience?

 

You don't have to like the f*cking game if you don't want to but it BLOWS MY MIND that anyone would call this a BAD game. It's FAR from a bad game, it's one of the best and most complete games ever made. Problem is that the typical spoiled brats of this generation who get everything they want from mommy and daddy are never satisfied and no matter how much Rockstar puts in the game, these people only see what ELSE there COULD have been.

 

f*cking A... No wonder this generation is so f*cked.

[Ben73]

 

 

Also, I would say .1% of the time (500+ hrs on PC) I played IV was spent in interiors. That number is probably the same for all GTA games before it too. I don't understand what people feel interiors add to the game. The interiors in IV were tiny and were only good for camping.

 

That's you, not everyone plays the same as you.

 

I may of only spent a couple of % of my time playing in interiors, but In GTA V i have spent 0.0001% of my time playing underwater, so maybe they should get rid of that because I never use it.

 

 

 

You don't have to like the f*cking game if you don't want to but it BLOWS MY MIND that anyone would call this a BAD game. It's FAR from a bad game, it's one of the best and most complete games ever made. Problem is that the typical spoiled brats of this generation who get everything they want from mommy and daddy are never satisfied and no matter how much Rockstar puts in the game, these people only see what ELSE there COULD have been.

 

f*cking A... No wonder this generation is so f*cked.

 

 

Calm the f*ck down. Most people are not saying it's a bad game, just because people would of liked to see things from previous version in this game, doesn't mean they are spoilt brat kids.

If anything it's the older aged players wanting things to return from previous games due to the nostalgia of it all.