This map would have been cool

[Fuzzknuckles]

Alright, it felt to me that it was bigger, better and all that good stuff, but you have to admit that SA had more uses for its map than V. Vast amounts of space aren`t even used in a mission in V so it`s really pointless to go to such places.

Unless you're one of the millions of weirdos that actually explore the map and have fun... off-mission.

 

I've explored every tiny little bit of V's map and I've always had plenty to do. From trying to get around the military base and prison without getting brutalised, to infiltrating the altruist camp... there's just so much to do if you use your imagination.

 

I set myself little missions - see if I can get all the way from the beach to the top of Chiliad on a BMX, see if I can land a bunny hop off the cable car station roof to the foot of the mountain, see if I can parachute on top of an NPC plane... if you just abstract the game and make it a playground, you will struggle to run out of things to do.

[lastmanonearth]

 

Alright, it felt to me that it was bigger, better and all that good stuff, but you have to admit that SA had more uses for its map than V. Vast amounts of space aren`t even used in a mission in V so it`s really pointless to go to such places.

Unless you're one of the millions of weirdos that actually explore the map and have fun... off-mission.

 

I've explored every tiny little bit of V's map and I've always had plenty to do. From trying to get around the military base and prison without getting brutalised, to infiltrating the altruist camp... there's just so much to do if you use your imagination.

 

I set myself little missions - see if I can get all the way from the beach to the top of Chiliad on a BMX, see if I can land a bunny hop off the cable car station roof to the foot of the mountain, see if I can parachute on top of an NPC plane... if you just abstract the game and make it a playground, you will struggle to run out of things to do.

 

You COULD just go outside and play with a ball, I mean in real life, but you don`t. You COULD build a little castle using household furniture but you don`t, because what would be the point right? That`s how I feel about what you`ve just described. If there`s no reward, then there`s no sense of accomplishment. Not to say that I haven`t explored every bit of the map, but that took me one day and never again.

[Fuzzknuckles]

 

 

Alright, it felt to me that it was bigger, better and all that good stuff, but you have to admit that SA had more uses for its map than V. Vast amounts of space aren`t even used in a mission in V so it`s really pointless to go to such places.

Unless you're one of the millions of weirdos that actually explore the map and have fun... off-mission.

 

I've explored every tiny little bit of V's map and I've always had plenty to do. From trying to get around the military base and prison without getting brutalised, to infiltrating the altruist camp... there's just so much to do if you use your imagination.

 

I set myself little missions - see if I can get all the way from the beach to the top of Chiliad on a BMX, see if I can land a bunny hop off the cable car station roof to the foot of the mountain, see if I can parachute on top of an NPC plane... if you just abstract the game and make it a playground, you will struggle to run out of things to do.

 

You COULD just go outside and play with a ball, I mean in real life, but you don`t. You COULD build a little castle using household furniture but you don`t, because what would be the point right? That`s how I feel about what you`ve just described. If there`s no reward, then there`s no sense of accomplishment. Not to say that I haven`t explored every bit of the map, but that took me one day and never again.

 

You might want to play a game that features hundreds and hundreds of missions in a linear world that you can't explore, which hand-holds you throughout and doesn't let you do anything outside of the structured stuff provided by the developers, then,

 

Clearly, an open world sandbox game is not the game for you, if you need direction throughout the entire thing. These games enable freedom within the world, the ability to do things that don't fit into a story. You just have to put in a bit of effort, and step away from the very narrow path you seem to want to walk.

[lastmanonearth]

^You`re describing V to a tee. It is a game dominated by linear missions, so linear to the point where I`ve watched videos of missions on YouTube and didn`t feel like doing them afterwards because I`d still have to do the exact same damn thing again without changing a thing. There isn`t much point to that. SA had gambling, lowrider challenges, gang wars, arcade games, horse punting, dancing, dating, pool, taxi, viligante, ambulance, pizza delivery missions, diners, gyms, sprawling interiors, SP races scattered throughout the whole map, RC plane/helicopter/car missions, driving school etc. etc. etc. etc. and V doesn`t have enough content to hold a candle to SA. It`s map is a Big Empty and I`m not happy about being charged more money than what I bought SA with to use my friggin` imagination!

[Fuzzknuckles]

I`m not happy about being charged more money than what I bought SA with to use my friggin` imagination!

Take game to shop, return game, ask for exchange or refund.

Problem solved.

 

P.S. All games are more expensive, due to the inflated cost of development on new hardware. Your point about paying more for a PS4 game than you paid for a PS2 game ten years ago is completely moot.

Edited April 21, 2015 by Fuzzknuckles

[SirPhilMcKraken]

I've played through V 4 times as well as countless of hours of Online since launch and I've done the same with SA and personally, SA had a lot more to do and had more variety. V is split into 3 main areas to me. Big city, desert and a small town and mountains and a small town. Don't get me wrong, the detail that has gone into the map is second to none, its gorgeous. But it lacks 'colour' if that makes sense compared to SA. In SA, you had 3 very different cities which were spaced out by unique landscape with a lot of different things like Area 69, the desert surrounding it and the countryside in between. Although V is a lot bigger, it feels smaller as there is a lot of emptiness. Once completing the SA story, there was still a lot to do in and around the map. Once you complete V, the map is bare. All that there really is is businesses which give you random missions but they arent anything special. It feels like a quantity of quality game.

 

I am capable of making my own fun as I have done both on my own and with crew. But especially with online, many things hinder such things with the biggest culprit being cops so people get annoyed and disinterested.

 

Dont take this to mean I dont like V, its one of the best games I've ever played but so is SA and I think SA had more to it and I'd like to see VI have some more things to do (cop and ambulance missions back for a start!!)

Edited April 21, 2015 by SirPhilMcKraken

[UAL]

That map would have been much better. Los Santos would have felt a lot more like LA, spread out, with more urban sprawl. A second city is the icing on the cake. Less mountainous areas too, that would felt much better.

 

V's map space was really wasted by the excessive presence of mountainous terrain.

 

Agreed.

 

Probably the most pointless map (in terms of layout) of the whole series.

[redpoint]

Thats a great looking map, much more creativity about it than V. V's map seems such a lazy design at times, just have one massive highway around the outskirts of the entire map, and half of it empty, sounds like what a 10 year old would design.

[AtomicPunk]

I was very surprised that there wasn't a smaller island in GTA V that we could fly to or take boats to.

 

It would've gave meaning to all that and give a reason for airports. I guess we won't get to do that until 6 when we leave VC for Cuba, then get to drive around Cuba in old classic American cars. (I reallllly hope the vehicle damage is better )

[Dope_0110]

Alright, it felt to me that it was bigger, better and all that good stuff, but you have to admit that SA had more uses for its map than V. Vast amounts of space aren`t even used in a mission in V so it`s really pointless to go to such places. SA on the other hand had a crazy farm with hillbilly hicks chasing you with harvesters and tractors, you had a weed farm that you torch and inadvertently get high doing it, an army base with a purpose, you had cross-state trucking missions, you had different bosses in each city and V didn`t have bosses giving you missions in Paleto Bay or whatever. In SA you had different girlfriends in different parts of the state, the list goes on. When I say there was more variety, I mean it looked geographically diverse. You had not only a single desert part, but a part of the desert was oil rigs, another was cacti, another was those huge red rocks like in Red Dead... it had variety! And the fact that assets were reused didn`t bother me as it was done cleverly that you don`t even notice it. I still stick with my opinion that SA still holds the prize for the best map of all the GTAs HOWEVER, it could be a sh*t ton better and that`s what I was hoping the V map was going to be. The HD map was a huge, huge letdown as it failed in all the departments I discussed.

To put it in as few words as possible:

 

Step 1. Get a PC copy of SA

Step 2. Install a mod that increases the draw distance

Step 3. Sudden realization on why it wouldn't work in V if it had the same layout

Step 4. ???

Step V. Profit

[NumaYay]

V's layout and overall design is just lazy and.. yeah... retarted as hell. I loved every previous R* installment, but V was the first game I actually didn't like that much, the map is the main reason. It might be the biggest GTA map, but the layout is just bad, I can't imagine how the f*ck R* decided the game world to look like this.. crater. It also feels incredible small.

 

Southern California has got hills, yeah. But why in the world are the hills SURROUNDING the map? Hills and mountain ranges could have been an awesome way to create secluted, isolated areas and to block the view to other places. But in V the map is a goddamn motherf*ckin crater with a highway and hills surrounding it. You can overlook the whole map from Vinewood Hills. Boring and weird as f*ck. The design is just retarted and lazy, seriously. I have NEVER seen that much wasted potential as GTA V's sh*tty map.

 

With a better map design GTA V could have outclassed every goddamn game for me, but R* chose an awful map layout. It ain't even funny.

Edited April 21, 2015 by NumaYay

[redpoint]

 

Alright, it felt to me that it was bigger, better and all that good stuff, but you have to admit that SA had more uses for its map than V. Vast amounts of space aren`t even used in a mission in V so it`s really pointless to go to such places.

Unless you're one of the millions of weirdos that actually explore the map and have fun... off-mission.

 

I've explored every tiny little bit of V's map and I've always had plenty to do. From trying to get around the military base and prison without getting brutalised, to infiltrating the altruist camp... there's just so much to do if you use your imagination.

 

I set myself little missions - see if I can get all the way from the beach to the top of Chiliad on a BMX, see if I can land a bunny hop off the cable car station roof to the foot of the mountain, see if I can parachute on top of an NPC plane... if you just abstract the game and make it a playground, you will struggle to run out of things to do.

 

 

Yeah but even stuff like this punishes you for trying to use your imagination. You CANT properly infiltrate the altruist camp, or the Lost's hideout, because the f*ckers respawn before you've even left. It's like R* only want you to do the activities they've pre-set in free roam, which contradicts the whole idea of free roam, not to mention their activities are sh*te - yoga? No thanks.

[lastmanonearth]

V's layout and overall design is just lazy and.. yeah... retarted as hell. I loved every previous R* installment, but V was the first game I actually didn't like that much, the map is the main reason. It might be the biggest GTA map, but the layout is just bad, I can't imagine how the f*ck R* decided the game world to look like this.. crater. It also feels incredible small.

 

Southern California has got hills, yeah. But why in the world are the hills SURROUNDING the map? Hills and mountain ranges could have been an awesome way to create secluted, isolated areas and to block the view to other places. But in V the map is a goddamn motherf*ckin crater with a highway and hills surrounding it. You can overlook the whole map from Vinewood Hills. Boring and weird as f*ck. The design is just retarted and lazy, seriously. I have NEVER seen that much wasted potential as GTA V's sh*tty map.

 

With a better map design GTA V could have outclassed every goddamn game for me, but R* chose an awful map layout. It ain't even funny.

You`re right about the map being terrible but that was only the top of the iceberg, this is a game that feels like a linear game that was forced into an open world setting. The open world only realizes its potential in the Online.

[Otselot]

 

 

Seriously, the map feels like a f*cking crater some times.

 

 

It is a crater.

 

 

 

The Alamo Sea and Mount Chiliad are the worst things to happen in that map.

[The Dedito Gae]

Thats a great looking map, much more creativity about it than V. V's map seems such a lazy design at times, just have one massive highway around the outskirts of the entire map, and half of it empty, sounds like what a 10 year old would design.

you are kidding right?

the map has a highway crossing of the size of Central park, a underground tunnel long as LC, a road layout even worst than V, the city looks generic and boring (is just a grid design)...

 

are people so willing to whine that they'll go as far to say that dog sh*t is better than V's map?

[Geralt of Rivia]

V's layout and overall design is just lazy and.. yeah... retarted as hell. I loved every previous R* installment, but V was the first game I actually didn't like that much, the map is the main reason. It might be the biggest GTA map, but the layout is just bad, I can't imagine how the f*ck R* decided the game world to look like this.. crater. It also feels incredible small.

 

Southern California has got hills, yeah. But why in the world are the hills SURROUNDING the map? Hills and mountain ranges could have been an awesome way to create secluted, isolated areas and to block the view to other places. But in V the map is a goddamn motherf*ckin crater with a highway and hills surrounding it. You can overlook the whole map from Vinewood Hills. Boring and weird as f*ck. The design is just retarted and lazy, seriously. I have NEVER seen that much wasted potential as GTA V's sh*tty map.

 

With a better map design GTA V could have outclassed every goddamn game for me, but R* chose an awful map layout. It ain't even funny.

No, but what is funny is you calling something retarded while spelling it wrong. Twice.

[PoliceFarm]

Real Life

 

GTA V

 

GTA SA

 

You tell me which ones you think look the most alike.

[Choco Taco]

I was very surprised that there wasn't a smaller island in GTA V that we could fly to or take boats to.

 

It would've gave meaning to all that and give a reason for airports.

 

I still don't understand why they didn't put a small airport in Paleto Bay so that we'd have a reason to buy a passenger jet.

 

Anyway...

 

[Geralt of Rivia]

Dude that donut looks good.

[Officer Ronson]

I've been completely playing SAMP and SA for the past year and all I can say is that ya'll living on a big fat lie. Once you get to know the roads then you realize the map is small as f*ck but made so it seems bigger.

[Haha365]

...Once you get to know the roads then you realize the map is small as f*ck but made so it seems bigger.

 

I want to take you seriously...but I can't.

 

Edited April 22, 2015 by Gigs84

[NumaYay]

 

V's layout and overall design is just lazy and.. yeah... retarted as hell. I loved every previous R* installment, but V was the first game I actually didn't like that much, the map is the main reason. It might be the biggest GTA map, but the layout is just bad, I can't imagine how the f*ck R* decided the game world to look like this.. crater. It also feels incredible small.

Southern California has got hills, yeah. But why in the world are the hills SURROUNDING the map? Hills and mountain ranges could have been an awesome way to create secluted, isolated areas and to block the view to other places. But in V the map is a goddamn motherf*ckin crater with a highway and hills surrounding it. You can overlook the whole map from Vinewood Hills. Boring and weird as f*ck. The design is just retarted and lazy, seriously. I have NEVER seen that much wasted potential as GTA V's sh*tty map.

With a better map design GTA V could have outclassed every goddamn game for me, but R* chose an awful map layout. It ain't even funny.

No, but what is funny is you calling something retarded while spelling it wrong. Twice.

Thanks for that lowbrow post. Believe it or not, there are people who are not from the US and don't want to google every single word they're typing. At least you got what I meant with this word.

 

So stop your worthless offtopic posts in here, please.

[Osho]

To put it in as few words as possible:

 

Step 1. Get a PC copy of SA

Step 2. Install a mod that increases the draw distance

Step 3. Sudden realization on why it wouldn't work in V if it had the same layout

Isn't it more about setting the layout in a way that allows one to appreciate the surrounding environment from a perspective that you get so immersed in the details, and interactivity, without setting the DRAW DISTANCE so high that it breaks the immersion?

That's the thing about GTA SA. The developers did a fine job in GTA SA to grab that immersion with the right draw distance and other attempts in making the game truly immersive.

So, why do you recommend to increase the draw distance of SA?

The draw distance isn't an issue in case of SA. I'm really getting a good sense of immersion simply because of its ability to provide me one through the surrounding environment and approaching the game with "the right kind of layout" all linked together in the best way possible.

Its quite wrong to pick on an old games' "draw distance" and try to justify it by comparing with V draw distance since the "big draw distance" isn't the main problem as much as the overall layout of the map in case of GTA V IMO.

It fails to heighten the sense of immersion when you take the surrounding environment ( especially the bigger, empty areas outside the city ) into account.

So, what's the point in increasing the draw distance too much that it deceases the overall immersion?

The map layout of V itself reflects the main problem that this leap in draw distance seems to only benefit in giving the realistic scale of the surrounding environment. But, doesn't hide the problem of the "layout done wrong". Since, the process of draw distance is quite a resource intensive task as well, I think they should have focused more on making the layout with the smaller individual areas ( and additional city as well ) that gives the perfect sense that you're a part of the larger map just like in GTA SA, without increasing the scale much to simply make everything seem bigger, larger but gives the feeling that you're traversing a smaller map.

Basically, I feel they really messed up the layout of the map in V.

It also gives me the impression that the ONLINE also played a key role in the layout for making the ONLINE gaming experience more expansive, as well as for the content creator to become more easy to use.

The map never felt as dense as GTA SA but more empty and lacking on the immersion factor IMO.

[redpoint]

 

Thats a great looking map, much more creativity about it than V. V's map seems such a lazy design at times, just have one massive highway around the outskirts of the entire map, and half of it empty, sounds like what a 10 year old would design.

you are kidding right?

the map has a highway crossing of the size of Central park, a underground tunnel long as LC, a road layout even worst than V, the city looks generic and boring (is just a grid design)...

 

are people so willing to whine that they'll go as far to say that dog sh*t is better than V's map?

 

 

Overall the map looks a lot more diverse. Any twat can draw a big island with a massive road going round the outside, V's map is dog sh*t.

[NumaYay]

The map concept must have been done in 10 minutes or so.

[Big Gta fan]

The biggest problem with V's map are all those damn mountains. It feels like R* made all of those mountains to create filler to make the map bigger.

 

Seriously, the map feels like a f*cking crater some times.

isn't the map based on true places................maybe it's not like 100% based on those true places ..............but still based on it.

I've been completely playing SAMP and SA for the past year and all I can say is that ya'll living on a big fat lie. Once you get to know the roads then you realize the map is small as f*ck but made so it seems bigger.

kinda agree with you...............i know every street and every thing about the map i can turn off the map and go to anywhere...........

[Mintal]

Personally I do not have any problems with a higher amount of mountains since the game is set in Southern San Andreas which represents Southern California.

[rjmthe2nd]

Looks Like Red Dead Redemption.

[Big Gta fan]

That's what i'm talking about.

 

 

Alright, it felt to me that it was bigger, better and all that good stuff, but you have to admit that SA had more uses for its map than V. Vast amounts of space aren`t even used in a mission in V so it`s really pointless to go to such places.

Unless you're one of the millions of weirdos that actually explore the map and have fun... off-mission.

 

I've explored every tiny little bit of V's map and I've always had plenty to do. From trying to get around the military base and prison without getting brutalised, to infiltrating the altruist camp... there's just so much to do if you use your imagination.

 

I set myself little missions - see if I can get all the way from the beach to the top of Chiliad on a BMX, see if I can land a bunny hop off the cable car station roof to the foot of the mountain, see if I can parachute on top of an NPC plane... if you just abstract the game and make it a playground, you will struggle to run out of things to do.

 

You COULD just go outside and play with a ball, I mean in real life, but you don`t. You COULD build a little castle using household furniture but you don`t, because what would be the point right? That`s how I feel about what you`ve just described. If there`s no reward, then there`s no sense of accomplishment. Not to say that I haven`t explored every bit of the map, but that took me one day and never again.

 

What kind of reward you want to make you have fun in V?

Edited April 22, 2015 by Big Gta fan

[Big Gta fan]

The map concept must have been done in 10 minutes or so.

 

Really in 10 minutes.....................i challenge to you to make a map like v's map in even 30 minutes.

Edited April 22, 2015 by Big Gta fan