How big of a map do you guys want?

[cryptorelic]

What i actually don't like about V's map: There was too much to get done at once.

 

Explanation: You have a huge map, and at the same time, per character, there are 6 side/main -missions to get done. Next to having the outdoor activities, shops and shooting ranges.

 

I kind of loose all hype when something like that happens. I mean, you don't know where to start.

[craigdyid]

What i actually don't like about V's map: There was too much to get done at once.

 

Explanation: You have a huge map, and at the same time, per character, there are 6 side/main -missions to get done. Next to having the outdoor activities, shops and shooting ranges.

 

I kind of loose all hype when something like that happens. I mean, you don't know where to start.

 

Surely it should just add replay value man?

[Ezza.]

I think something about the same size as V, or perhaps a slight bit bigger. I'm not sure tbh, I'd like to see two very different directions.

 

On one hand I'd love to see a map about as big as The southern-most point of LS up to the Alamo sea. Perhaps then (with a different city), maybe we could have interiors in most of, if not every building. It would make for some interesting ways to escape police and have deathmatches. I mean, it would be pretty cool to be able to leap through the window of someone's ground floor apartment and escape via the roof above.

 

On the other hand, however, I'd like to see a slightly bigger map than V's, but with a much, much more colossal city. LS was big, but it didn't have enough of a sprawl to it, and LA is known to be one big urban sprawl. I'd love to have a city extending about the distance of the current V map (albeit an extended LS, LC, VC or maybe a new location like Carcer City), with a small town and some forest/desert just north of there. Maybe even having two cities the size of LS at opposite ends of the map would work too.

 

Interiors are nice, but then again so is exploring and travelling through a massive city.

[Non Biased GTA 4 fan]

about the size of Bully

[Johnny Rebel]

I don't want a big map. I want a varied map. A big city and 5 generic mountains surrounding a miniature desert isn't varied, no matter how many pretty flowers R* adds to the game.

Look what happened with The Crew. A huge map with no effort put into it. Wow, it takes 2 hours to drive across the map? So THAT'S the reason why the game looks like a PS2 game.

 

I'm not saying games can't have the best of both worlds, but a detailed and diverse map will outdo a gigantic map any day of the week.

[Spadge]

There are soo much interiors in GTA 5, Rockstar just closed them, for whatever reason.

 

Install the mod Open All Interiors for PC, I spent hours exploring all the interiors. It's really well made, elevators in the FIB/IAA builing are working with this mod, you get cool features etc etc. About 40 more interiors to your map. Easy to install aswell.

Edited July 11, 2015 by Spadge007

[huge GTA fan]

Yeah course I think its very disappointing to see people complaining about the map but yeah course everyone's entitled to there opinion in my opinion it's a excellently designed map but yeah course that's just my opinion yeah course

[Magic_Al]

On the other hand, however, I'd like to see a slightly bigger map than V's, but with a much, much more colossal city.

 

The maps of SA, IV, and V actually have roughly similar amounts of urban area, it's just arranged differently each time, and more detailed each time. This pattern suggests Rockstar is trying to maintain the quality of how cities are populated and detailed by keeping sprawl limited.

[slimeball supreme]

The map in GTA V was perfect. Could've been more inner city though.

I imagine if they ever go back to Liberty City (and they will), I just hope they really give it that congested feel New York City really has.

Like packed sidewalks and a whole lot more skyscrapers.

 

I prefer an immersive map over a big one

I really hope if it ever happens, that is a part of it.

Though I don't see why everyone is so repulsed by the idea of Liberty City... Again.

The HD universe doesn't look like its gonna go back to the past again (like the 80s) so I don't see why returning to Vice City would be good.

It's actually said several times by characters the VC is basically just a glorified retirement home now (like real Miami/Florida) so that would be irrelevant. And if we go back to the 80s, what would we see that hasn't already been done in GTA: VC?

If we go back to LC, we could also add upstate, and expand Alderney. Even add another state based on Connecticut or Pennsylvania.

Honestly the more I picture it the better it sounds. There is f*cktons of variety in real NY state, so I don't see the problem.

[Osho]

Not bigger than V for sure.

Personally, RDR map size was perfect! Maybe a bit bigger in scale but overall I think its optimum relative to the hardware in order to achieve an intended balance between graphics and solid gameplay without sacrifices made of either side.

I still can't get over all these people thinking Vs map to be of a great positive thing, instead of being aware how awful waste of potential map has been in trying to stretch their scale but what is the point?

So many areas of wasted space. Its horrible. A decent sized map would have made V shine easily and even surpass IV with no extra DLC had the developers thought about focusing on the single player potential than selling out to Online kids.

Anyways..

Smaller map ( > V in scale ), great amount of world reactivity, interactions, more challenging scenarios than load of mini-games sh*t and collectibles.

Also, its high time for destructible environments as well.

[the buckit]

6 million

[LennyLinguini]

I personally really liked the size of IV's map. Each island had it's own unique individual feel that I thought was pretty neat!

[Dee-account-with-1kbans]

I map with with variety, detail, scope, size, and realism.

[fac316]

I want a state in HD. I love Vs SA but since its the south I want to see the north, maybe there's a central. Games like true crime was an example of quantity over quality.

[slimeball supreme]

I want a state in HD. I love Vs SA but since its the south I want to see the north, maybe there's a central. Games like true crime was an example of quantity over quality.

True Crime is complete sh*t. Quantity over quality my ass.

[b0ssVenom]

Preferably most of the map to be a realistic countryside and a desert, areas with a lot of variety. I prefer higher quantity, but to an extent where the map is interesting and not boring to explore. I liked the way the areas looked back then in SA, I would like to see something very similiar, with higher vegetation density and both higher quality and quantity at the same time.

[Gummy]

A map as small as Prawn Island (GTA VC) but with fine details, detail here, detail there, not a single blurry, pixelated textures.

.

 

A map like SA, not to small nor big, and has equal parts of city, countryside, mountains, forests, waters, deserts and all

 

[Homicidal Hipster]

V's size is fine by me. anything bigger than that would be a chore to drive around.

[Progeekzy]

V's size is fine by me. anything bigger than that would be a chore to drive around.

Those are my thoughts. Maps require balance. If they are going to make a bog map, they need something worth driving for or flying for. I dont play online games to take road trips and Vs map is just under the size where a plane is not needed.

 

Travel and activity and scenery all need a fine balance.

 

 

If you make a huge map thats a pain to travel around for very little reward, you did something wrong. I feel Vs map balanced everything nicely.

[Dope_0110]

A procedural map (a la Minecraft) that simply stretches to infinity. Which won't happen, but it's good to dream. (Only half serious about that)

 

But while bigger is better, diversity is best. I just want a map where you can go to a forest and really feel like you're secluded. Or a desert with no roads anywhere in sight. The kind of map where you can explore for hours and not run out of content. For me (fanboys of IV will hate this) having an entire map that's nothing, but, say, a city, is f*ckin lame as hell. Why have 20 square miles of the same thing? That's one of the main reasons SA and V are my favorite GTAs. Liberty City is cool, or whatever, but it's just boring as f*ck. No open fields, no hills, nothing interesting at all. Blech.

 

But basically, just a lot of more.

 

As for the why, well, I personally like making races/DMs/etc, and having more land to work with is always nice. Especially when the current world has been basically used 100%

I fully agree with this. The probelem is we got some fairly good mountains where you can almost feel like you've gotten away from the civilization.. and then you have a bunch of people sayin ''Oh Fuzkc them UselesS mountayns'' because for them it's all about running pedestrians on the street or something.

 

I wouldn't ever think procedural is the way to go from GTA though, it would loose it's quality of design (eg. Oblivion's map compared to both Morrowind and Skyrim).

[happygrowls]

Something similar to Saints Row 2's Stilwater, sure it's main setting is a city, but it has alot of variety.

Ranging from the Crackhouses and Strip Clubs of the Red Light District, to the more hustle and bustle of the Downtown. It also managed to put a university in, complete with it's own shopping area and such.

 

Imo, GTA should be going for Saints Row 2's mix of interiors, stuff to do and more.

[Algonquin Assassin]

Map size of GTA V is fine, but I really would like to see a better organised map than squashing the city down south and a crater of mountains up north.

[PhillBellic]

Map size of GTA V is fine, but I really would like to see a better organised map than squashing the city down south and a crater of mountains up north.

I would have liked to see the Palomino Highlands flattened, and more Suburbs placed out there.

[Ezza.]

 

Map size of GTA V is fine, but I really would like to see a better organised map than squashing the city down south and a crater of mountains up north.

I would have liked to see the Palomino Highlands flattened, and more Suburbs placed out there.

 

Exactly my thoughts too.

 

LA is known for it's Urban sprawls, but the most we got in LS was two streets in Mirror Park.

[PhillBellic]

 

 

Map size of GTA V is fine, but I really would like to see a better organised map than squashing the city down south and a crater of mountains up north.

I would have liked to see the Palomino Highlands flattened, and more Suburbs placed out there.

 

Exactly my thoughts too.

 

LA is known for it's Urban sprawls, but the most we got in LS was two streets in Mirror Park.

 

And a couple of Blocks in Davis.

[TheOneLibertonian]

I think that V's map size is pretty good, but the map layout rather felt dull compared to something like San Andreas IMO.

[Jammsbro]

I want all three SA cities.

 

I use all of the current map, all of the time. But I do hate the movement restrictions all over the place; walls, bricks, boulders, barriers, poles, trees, concrete blocks...

 

You can't hammer through the map for too long without hitting some sort of inane barrier. It takes the fun out of hooniganism.

[Vik]

I just didn't like the mountains,Mount Chillad was fine but the rest is placeholder so it can feel ''big'' if they replaced that with cities or countrysides I would have been much more happy

[Shadowfennekin]

V's map is perfect except for the big ass mountain taking up a lot of space and lack of interiors. Just add Northern San Adreas so Paleto Bay can be an actual bay. At least it would give boats more purpose(Since they're still adding more for whatever reason)

[The Jungz]

As a popular saying goes, size doesn't matter. It's the layout that is more important. Take GTA SA for example, although the map was considerably smaller than V's, the way it was arranged made it sure you had a reason to travel the whole place in a giant circle. Each city had a different feel to it, surrounded by their respective villages.

 

In V, you have a big sprawling city at the bottom and the rest is just a cluster of mountains, highways, and useless towns and buildings, like the Prison, the Humane lab, the power plant, the Madrazo Ranch, the ''Home Depot''. They all serve almost no purpose at all and are just a waste of space.

 

And it's unfortunate, because V's map is very gorgeously detailed and pretty much only Rockstar can repetitively release maps of such caliber. One of the biggest omissions in GTA IV somehow made its way into V, the lack of safehouses.

 

I cannot fathom how this feature keeps getting left out, as it is probably one of the most important. On my PS3, each of my characters had 2.1 billion, and on current-gen, they have about 350-500 million each. Super cars, boats, choppers, planes, guns, tattoos, haircuts and candy bars wasn't what I was expecting my money to be solely spent on.

 

So many possibilities Rockstar. Let me buy a 2 story penthouse in the heart of downtown LS, with a secret door that leads to the subway lines (for sneaky escapes). Let me buy a mansion the size of Devin Weston's, that has an elevator that leads underground, where I can have a massive armory to store ammo, with a tunnel that leads straight to the ocean, through the mountain, so you can ride in a submarine and come back home without setting foot outside once. Give me a reason to drive all the way to Paleto Bay, except to kill a dozen thugs having a rampage at The Hen House.