What is your opinion of the map size and landscape in GTA 5?

[GAMESHARQ]

What do you think about the size and landscape of the map in this game?

[Choco Taco]

The size and ratio are fine. The countryside should have had a better layout.

[Femme Fatale]

The only problem is that the woods aren't creepy enough...

[roe]

Not sure how to answer this tbg because I don't really have an opinion on the size of the map/scale of the city. The only problem is that there's still not enough active things within it. By this I mean yes interiors and just businesses/shops that actually do something. In most areas (the city of Los Santos in particular) there are many great ideas that just aren't used for anything.

 

For example take just one small area of the city - Davis. Here's a list of businesses in the area: http://gta.wikia.com/Davis#Businesses

 

Now tell me how many of those you can actually interact with in any way at all. About 2 or 3 at most..

 

It's a waste. So if the city or map gets any bigger, there's just gonna be a whole lot more empty space. I honestly think I'd rather have a map a quarter of the size if it made it more interactive

[PhillBellic]

I felt that the City should be larger.

[GTA-Biker]

The size of the map is ok,but landscape could be better.I think there should be much less mountains (personally I would be happy with only Mount Chilliad),and instead a larger desert and countryside.Also,they should have made a larger distance between Sandy Shores and Grapeseed,they are so close it looks like one big town instead of two separate towns.Maybe they could have added one more town somewhere,something similar to Fort Carson or Palomino Creek from GTA SA.

[wiizardii]

My overall problem is the layout and alot of waste of space. It seemed R* just went for alot of mountains and county and stuff and calls it detailed, which it is. But lets be honest, players won't spend time walking around the county and looking and the grass and stuff and saying ''wow this is beautiful, well done R*!!!!''

 

It just feels a little lazy at times. For LS, I think they could have done a better job. Instead of having the entire east side of LS being county, they could have filled it up with it being the city. Could have given more buildings and stuff, LS also feels like a city that is easiley 'read', if you know what I mean. You will remember the LS very easiley and the roads, I could turn off the radar, drive from franklin's house to grove street with no problem. Its easy to remember. maps like IV's LC is very hard to remember because its just so complicated and big on its own way, which alot of people like and brings the argument ''is a small map with lots of details better than a huge map with moderate detail?''

 

 

LS could have just been better IMO. It feels R* just wanted to make it a huge map, release it fast and say ''there we go our biggest map so far.''

[TrevorPhilipsInc]

My overall problem is the layout and alot of waste of space. It seemed R* just went for alot of mountains and county and stuff and calls it detailed, which it is. But lets be honest, players won't spend time walking around the county and looking and the grass and stuff and saying ''wow this is beautiful, well done R*!!!!''

 

It just feels a little lazy at times. For LS, I think they could have done a better job. Instead of having the entire east side of LS being county, they could have filled it up with it being the city. Could have given more buildings and stuff, LS also feels like a city that is easiley 'read', if you know what I mean. You will remember the LS very easiley and the roads, I could turn off the radar, drive from franklin's house to grove street with no problem. Its easy to remember. maps like IV's LC is very hard to remember because its just so complicated and big on its own way, which alot of people like and brings the argument ''is a small map with lots of details better than a huge map with moderate detail?''

 

 

LS could have just been better IMO. It feels R* just wanted to make it a huge map, release it fast and say ''there we go our biggest map so far.''

 

The Countryside was meant for you to explore and do things on your own in. Hiking, Mountain Biking, DirtBiking, Fourwheeling and Base Jumping. As well as all the other things you can do out there. It was meant to be a true free roam area where you could enjoy the view and do things that would otherwise be unavailable to you in such a video game.

 

To say they rushed things. Have you been paying any attention to the game as you play through it? Theres all sorts of details in not just the map design, but the aesthetics and interactions of NPCs. The game is not just BIG its actually alive.

[Karls]

 

My overall problem is the layout and alot of waste of space. It seemed R* just went for alot of mountains and county and stuff and calls it detailed, which it is. But lets be honest, players won't spend time walking around the county and looking and the grass and stuff and saying ''wow this is beautiful, well done R*!!!!''

 

It just feels a little lazy at times. For LS, I think they could have done a better job. Instead of having the entire east side of LS being county, they could have filled it up with it being the city. Could have given more buildings and stuff, LS also feels like a city that is easiley 'read', if you know what I mean. You will remember the LS very easiley and the roads, I could turn off the radar, drive from franklin's house to grove street with no problem. Its easy to remember. maps like IV's LC is very hard to remember because its just so complicated and big on its own way, which alot of people like and brings the argument ''is a small map with lots of details better than a huge map with moderate detail?''

 

 

LS could have just been better IMO. It feels R* just wanted to make it a huge map, release it fast and say ''there we go our biggest map so far.''

 

The Countryside was meant for you to explore and do things on your own in. Hiking, Mountain Biking, DirtBiking, Fourwheeling and Base Jumping. As well as all the other things you can do out there. It was meant to be a true free roam area where you could enjoy the view and do things that would otherwise be unavailable to you in such a video game.

 

To say they rushed things. Have you been paying any attention to the game as you play through it? Theres all sorts of details in not just the map design, but the aesthetics and interactions of NPCs. The game is not just BIG its actually alive.

 

inb4 someone calls you gta v fanboi.

 

Fanboi.

Oh wait.

[Lemoyne outlaw]

overall i would say the size is fine but... the desert and countryside are too small. first they should made mount chilliad smaller like half its size and add more countryside. even add another small town like in gta sa. add some cabins and other areas like in sa. then the desert. they should have made the whole highway 68 area desert all the way to fort zancudo. and the area after vinewood hills should be desert. pretty much it goes city then vinewood hills mansions then after that start becomes desert earlier than it does. make the whole area past vinewood hills desert. then make alamo sea the transition at grapeseed becomes countryside. and everything north is all forests small roads and dirt roads. smaller mountains. then of course paleto bay. also take out all those other huge mountains like san josia and chaniski or something i cant remember. but take those out and make more room for more small towns and farms and stuff. thats my idea of the perfect gta 5 map.

[r0llinlacs]

The ratio is right.

 

The map is too small.

 

Need bigger city, more sprawling neighborhoods, more interactive buildings.

 

I hope everybody commenting knows the vehicle speeds are nerfed to make the map seem larger/take longer to cover.

[nanomed]

Not enough pines we saw in the trailer.

[fac316]

The hood shouldve been bigger and at least one or two of the mountains cut out for another small town,

[wiizardii]

 

My overall problem is the layout and alot of waste of space. It seemed R* just went for alot of mountains and county and stuff and calls it detailed, which it is. But lets be honest, players won't spend time walking around the county and looking and the grass and stuff and saying ''wow this is beautiful, well done R*!!!!''

 

It just feels a little lazy at times. For LS, I think they could have done a better job. Instead of having the entire east side of LS being county, they could have filled it up with it being the city. Could have given more buildings and stuff, LS also feels like a city that is easiley 'read', if you know what I mean. You will remember the LS very easiley and the roads, I could turn off the radar, drive from franklin's house to grove street with no problem. Its easy to remember. maps like IV's LC is very hard to remember because its just so complicated and big on its own way, which alot of people like and brings the argument ''is a small map with lots of details better than a huge map with moderate detail?''

 

 

LS could have just been better IMO. It feels R* just wanted to make it a huge map, release it fast and say ''there we go our biggest map so far.''

 

The Countryside was meant for you to explore and do things on your own in. Hiking, Mountain Biking, DirtBiking, Fourwheeling and Base Jumping. As well as all the other things you can do out there. It was meant to be a true free roam area where you could enjoy the view and do things that would otherwise be unavailable to you in such a video game.

 

To say they rushed things. Have you been paying any attention to the game as you play through it? Theres all sorts of details in not just the map design, but the aesthetics and interactions of NPCs. The game is not just BIG its actually alive.

 

Yes, detail. That is what I am trying to say, the world of GTA V is detailed and that is what I was talking about, its beautiful and if you take pictures at snapmatic and stuff, its beautiful.

 

 

However, I just don't see the point in putting alot of detail in these areas if you know people won't even go there, thats how I feel. The detail I love is like in GTA IV's liberty city, where there is alot of places to explore and see. It's hard to explain but I get what you mean.

[TrevorPhilipsInc]

 

 

My overall problem is the layout and alot of waste of space. It seemed R* just went for alot of mountains and county and stuff and calls it detailed, which it is. But lets be honest, players won't spend time walking around the county and looking and the grass and stuff and saying ''wow this is beautiful, well done R*!!!!''

 

It just feels a little lazy at times. For LS, I think they could have done a better job. Instead of having the entire east side of LS being county, they could have filled it up with it being the city. Could have given more buildings and stuff, LS also feels like a city that is easiley 'read', if you know what I mean. You will remember the LS very easiley and the roads, I could turn off the radar, drive from franklin's house to grove street with no problem. Its easy to remember. maps like IV's LC is very hard to remember because its just so complicated and big on its own way, which alot of people like and brings the argument ''is a small map with lots of details better than a huge map with moderate detail?''

 

 

LS could have just been better IMO. It feels R* just wanted to make it a huge map, release it fast and say ''there we go our biggest map so far.''

 

The Countryside was meant for you to explore and do things on your own in. Hiking, Mountain Biking, DirtBiking, Fourwheeling and Base Jumping. As well as all the other things you can do out there. It was meant to be a true free roam area where you could enjoy the view and do things that would otherwise be unavailable to you in such a video game.

 

To say they rushed things. Have you been paying any attention to the game as you play through it? Theres all sorts of details in not just the map design, but the aesthetics and interactions of NPCs. The game is not just BIG its actually alive.

 

Yes, detail. That is what I am trying to say, the world of GTA V is detailed and that is what I was talking about, its beautiful and if you take pictures at snapmatic and stuff, its beautiful.

 

 

However, I just don't see the point in putting alot of detail in these areas if you know people won't even go there, thats how I feel. The detail I love is like in GTA IV's liberty city, where there is alot of places to explore and see. It's hard to explain but I get what you mean.

 

 

And yet plenty of people go there and spend their time out there. Youtube is loaded with videos of people doing everything and anything they can outside the city.

 

Its your opinion that it was a waste. Plenty of people would disagree.

[wiizardii]

 

 

 

My overall problem is the layout and alot of waste of space. It seemed R* just went for alot of mountains and county and stuff and calls it detailed, which it is. But lets be honest, players won't spend time walking around the county and looking and the grass and stuff and saying ''wow this is beautiful, well done R*!!!!''

 

It just feels a little lazy at times. For LS, I think they could have done a better job. Instead of having the entire east side of LS being county, they could have filled it up with it being the city. Could have given more buildings and stuff, LS also feels like a city that is easiley 'read', if you know what I mean. You will remember the LS very easiley and the roads, I could turn off the radar, drive from franklin's house to grove street with no problem. Its easy to remember. maps like IV's LC is very hard to remember because its just so complicated and big on its own way, which alot of people like and brings the argument ''is a small map with lots of details better than a huge map with moderate detail?''

 

 

LS could have just been better IMO. It feels R* just wanted to make it a huge map, release it fast and say ''there we go our biggest map so far.''

 

The Countryside was meant for you to explore and do things on your own in. Hiking, Mountain Biking, DirtBiking, Fourwheeling and Base Jumping. As well as all the other things you can do out there. It was meant to be a true free roam area where you could enjoy the view and do things that would otherwise be unavailable to you in such a video game.

 

To say they rushed things. Have you been paying any attention to the game as you play through it? Theres all sorts of details in not just the map design, but the aesthetics and interactions of NPCs. The game is not just BIG its actually alive.

 

Yes, detail. That is what I am trying to say, the world of GTA V is detailed and that is what I was talking about, its beautiful and if you take pictures at snapmatic and stuff, its beautiful.

 

 

However, I just don't see the point in putting alot of detail in these areas if you know people won't even go there, thats how I feel. The detail I love is like in GTA IV's liberty city, where there is alot of places to explore and see. It's hard to explain but I get what you mean.

 

 

And yet plenty of people go there and spend their time out there. Youtube is loaded with videos of people doing everything and anything they can outside the city.

 

Its your opinion that it was a waste. Plenty of people would disagree.

 

Actually that's totally wrong, you can't just say ''plenty people in YT do it and go outside the city'' that's a stupid ass statement because you make it sound like everyone does, which is not true at all. Alot of people especially in GTA Online do spend time in LS which is a fact if you just log onto a random lobby.

 

An opinion can't be a waste, what does that even mean?

[Procopius]

Actually that's totally wrong, you can't just say ''plenty people in YT do it and go outside the city'' that's a stupid ass statement because you make it sound like everyone does, which is not true at all. Alot of people especially in GTA Online do spend time in LS which is a fact if you just log onto a random lobby.

 

 

An opinion can't be a waste, what does that even mean?

 

 

He didn't say your opinion was a waste. He said that, in your opinion, spending detail to the countryside was a bit of a waste, which is pretty much exactly what you wrote. He also said that many people would disagree with your opinion.

 

"Plenty of people do stuff outside of the city" means exactly that. No more, no less. You were the one who wrote that the countryside was a waste of space and detail because people never go into the countryside. Which isn't true, plenty of people do go outside of the city, as evinced by countless youtube videos. He merely pointed this observation out. He never claimed that everyone does it, and he also never claimed that people don't spend any time in LS. That's just you completely misunderstanding him.

 

You might want to read more carefully before you lambast others for "stupid ass statements" when it's really just you who completely misunderstood and jumped to conclusions.

Edited May 20, 2015 by Procopius

[Drill Sergeant]

It's pretty big as hell for a last gen game

[wiizardii]

 

Actually that's totally wrong, you can't just say ''plenty people in YT do it and go outside the city'' that's a stupid ass statement because you make it sound like everyone does, which is not true at all. Alot of people especially in GTA Online do spend time in LS which is a fact if you just log onto a random lobby.

 

 

An opinion can't be a waste, what does that even mean?

 

 

He didn't say your opinion was a waste. He said that, in your opinion, spending detail to the countryside was a bit of a waste, which is pretty much exactly what you wrote. He also said that many people would disagree with your opinion.

 

"Plenty of people do stuff outside of the city" means exactly that. No more, no less. You were the one who wrote that the countryside was a waste of space and detail because people never go into the countryside. Which isn't true, plenty of people do go outside of the city, as evinced by countless youtube videos. He merely pointed this observation out. He never claimed that everyone does it, and he also never claimed that people don't spend any time in LS. That's just you completely misunderstanding him.

 

You might want to read more carefully before you lambast others for "stupid ass statements" when it's really just you who completely misunderstood and jumped to conclusions.

 

You're right I did misread it, I thought he said ''than its your opinion that is a waste''.... Oh well

 

But I am still right about the fact that it is a stupid statement saying that alot of people go outside the city, saying YT is loaded with people playing outside the city is dumb just because you can't know how many people spend time in the city or outside, it's impossible to measure that out.

[Cutter De Blanc]

The size is fine, but there are too many mountains with nothing worthwhile on them.

[StormEye]

The size is fine, but there are too many mountains with nothing worthwhile on them.

Basically that.

 

Not that entire mountain needs to be full of dense buildings, but there are a lot of land being not used for anything other than scenery.

 

Also, action is too centralized in LS. Nothing much heppening up north.

[PKFillmore]

I think GTAv is HUGE for PS3 / 360 - as for PS4/Xbone/PC they could have gone bigger (Maybe for the next game)

 

IMO the details in the game are insane (Animals, grass, trees, ocean, sunset/rise, moon, etc)

 

But, there's some stuff I would have liked to see too

More trees, dense forest (Getting stuck in the forest in GTASA was soooooooo long to get out)

The city is pretty big to explore, however; it could have been bigger. It would be cool to see some bike trails run trough the city/suburban areas.

I think they could have added more interior areas, (indoor malls to explore not just strip malls, airport with baggage areas, etc..)

 

overall, I think the map is just right but I would have liked to see more details (dense trees, interiors ect)

[stillmatik36]

voted bigger map, and bigger city

[TrevorPhilipsInc]

 

 

Actually that's totally wrong, you can't just say ''plenty people in YT do it and go outside the city'' that's a stupid ass statement because you make it sound like everyone does, which is not true at all. Alot of people especially in GTA Online do spend time in LS which is a fact if you just log onto a random lobby.

 

 

An opinion can't be a waste, what does that even mean?

 

 

He didn't say your opinion was a waste. He said that, in your opinion, spending detail to the countryside was a bit of a waste, which is pretty much exactly what you wrote. He also said that many people would disagree with your opinion.

 

"Plenty of people do stuff outside of the city" means exactly that. No more, no less. You were the one who wrote that the countryside was a waste of space and detail because people never go into the countryside. Which isn't true, plenty of people do go outside of the city, as evinced by countless youtube videos. He merely pointed this observation out. He never claimed that everyone does it, and he also never claimed that people don't spend any time in LS. That's just you completely misunderstanding him.

 

You might want to read more carefully before you lambast others for "stupid ass statements" when it's really just you who completely misunderstood and jumped to conclusions.

 

You're right I did misread it, I thought he said ''than its your opinion that is a waste''.... Oh well

 

But I am still right about the fact that it is a stupid statement saying that alot of people go outside the city, saying YT is loaded with people playing outside the city is dumb just because you can't know how many people spend time in the city or outside, it's impossible to measure that out.

 

 

So let me get this straight. You get your panties twisted in a bunch when you misread my comment and assume Im telling you your opinion is a waste. But then turn around and tell me that essentially my opinion is stupid.

 

You really are one a** backwards moron. There now you have something to throw a temper tantrum over.

 

And YT Videos are evidence that disproves your opinions by the way. Saying theyre stupid is like sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming so you dont have to hear the truth.

[Ozu]

I like GTA V and it's map, but how can anyone honestly think that they don't want it bigger? You can be a massive fanboy and still want a bigger map, it's only natural.

 

I seriously hope R* doesn't listen to these people. VI better be bigger.

[J Cobra]

It's the right size, and I find the landscape great. They sould of made Mt chiliad smaller, expand the foresrt, and make the grand Senora Desert longer.

[BigBadMF]

My 2 cents.

No, I think Mt. Chiliad is just right. For the size of the map, they got the number of mountains just right. You have to consider travel time. I find myself driving from the north part of SA to Los Santos, and being glad the drive is not longer.
Same for the mountains. Do you literally want to spend an hour climbing Mt. Chiliad? One comment above is that it should be cut in half. Heck, it is only a little over 2,000 feet tall. I like having a mountain that tall to skydive off of, or to drive down the side of the mountain in an Infernus or whatever.

One thing I loved about GTA: SA was that you had Las Venturas and San Fierro. This map is easily big enough to have had at least one other major city.

As for Los Santos....I agree there are not enough interactive businesses. 2 or 3 enterable buildings inside of a square mile is not nearly enough. Way too many times I wanted to go into a building only to find I could not.

Same with GTA IV, and GTA SA. All these buildings, and nothing to do with them except MAYBE climb onto the roof.

I also think the desert could have been bigger. And the forest could have been WAY bigger. And there could have been more features in those areas. For instance, Cali has a ton of abandonded silver and gold mines. Why aren't there any such things on SA? They would be great for a rescue mission, or general exploration. No, not EVERYONE is out there exploring the desert, mountains or forest. But a lot of people are. What bugs me is that there are almost no areas where you can go that have no sign of civilization. No matter where you are, in most cases you can still see a road somewhere near, or buildings in the distance, or whatever. It would be nice to have a forest or desert that is say 25 square miles with no roads. But then again, Rockstar has to balance that desire against the need to not waste too much space on the map.

Overall, I am satisfied with the size of SA. It is big enough that I am still discovering new areas and things I had no idea existed, and this after 6 weeks of daily gameplay. I only discovered the dam about 3 days ago. And the detail of everything is great.

Rockstar also has to balance the size of the map, and the operable businesses, etc. with todays average hardware abilities. In 10 years time, the average machine will probably be 32 or 64 core CPUs, 4-8 gigs of video ram (minimum), and have 64 gigs of memory. So GTA 6 can be upgraded appropriately.

So overall I am ok with it as it is. Could be much worse.

[Slasher]

It's fine, could've been better but it could've been worse too.

[BigBadMF]

Couple of things I am surprised by.....you cannot steal or drive a train. As far as I can tell, you cannot steal or fly a jumbo jet. I expected to be able to do that, since you could do it in GTA: SA.

That falls under the "Activities They Should Have Had" category.

[TimmyM56]

The map size and ratio are good, I agree that there are too many mountains that would be better suited for something different.

 

One problem I have is that there are huge malls and stores that are not used. There's the mall next to LCS, the huge superstore next to Grove Street and the huge store up north near Grapeseed. These could have been made into actual stores.

 

I mean, we had a mall in Vice City, so I don't see why we don't have huge interiors in V.