Too much details, too few interiors

[ChiroVette]

Stick to PC then! I was quick to assume you played them on console. I very much envy PC GTA gamers, they get to experience the GTA game of their dreams with all kinds of real good mods. I don't game on PC, I'm a strictly console gamer, secondly I have no time for the modding stuff, barely have enough to time to game that much these days as it is.

 

 

Not a big modder, just very, very basic stuff. Though I do love RealGTA3. It is a mod that takes two minutes to download and install and the changes to the map and game are pretty incredible. RealGTA3 is not just "a mod" but an entire set of mods for everything, top to bottom, in one very small GTA3.exe file that replaces the original.

 

Can I ask you why you haven't tried the old GTA games on PC? To be frank, the requirements, even for San Andreas, are very low by today's PC standards. Obviously GTA IV and V you need decent gaming PC's, but you could probably play GTA III, VC, and SA all with maxed settings on a very low end machine with a crappy graphics card.

 

I had a nice gaming laptop back in 2005, TEN years ago, that ran all the PS2 GTA's maxed out. I wouldn't be surprised if whatever computer you are accessing this forum with would play those games with ease.

[Official General]

 

 

 

 

Stick to PC then! I was quick to assume you played them on console. I very much envy PC GTA gamers, they get to experience the GTA game of their dreams with all kinds of real good mods. I don't game on PC, I'm a strictly console gamer, secondly I have no time for the modding stuff, barely have enough to time to game that much these days as it is.

 

Not a big modder, just very, very basic stuff. Though I do love RealGTA3. It is a mod that takes two minutes to download and install and the changes to the map and game are pretty incredible. RealGTA3 is not just "a mod" but an entire set of mods for everything, top to bottom, in one very small GTA3.exe file that replaces the original.

 

Can I ask you why you haven't tried the old GTA games on PC? To be frank, the requirements, even for San Andreas, are very low by today's PC standards. Obviously GTA IV and V you need decent gaming PC's, but you could probably play GTA III, VC, and SA all with maxed settings on a very low end machine with a crappy graphics card.

 

I had a nice gaming laptop back in 2005, TEN years ago, that ran all the PS2 GTA's maxed out. I wouldn't be surprised if whatever computer you are accessing this forum with would play those games with ease.

Attempted to play VC on PC and install mods, but I had no idea how to do it and it was too time consuming. Just couldn't be bothered in the end.

[Guest]

The problem isn't the number of interiors, it's how rockstar use them

 

Rockstar made the maze bank stadium, we use it for one mission. That stadium as far as most players are concerned, it's just another generic building we go past all the time.

 

If that interior was expanded and actually used for something, say, a demolition derby event or a stunt park, we'd start seeing the stadium as a proper stadium rather than an empty shell that takes up space. That's the type of thing that makes worlds immersive.

 

More generic interiors would've helped. GTA4 had the right idea. I'm sure making a few "apartment flight of stairs" interiors and putting a few of those around the world for roof access would have added a lot. That sort of thing is what I expected from V

[PhillBellic]

The problem isn't the number of interiors, it's how rockstar use them

 

Rockstar made the maze bank stadium, we use it for one mission. That stadium as far as most players are concerned, it's just another generic building we go past all the time.

 

If that interior was expanded and actually used for something, say, a demolition derby event or a stunt park, we'd start seeing the stadium as a proper stadium rather than an empty shell that takes up space. That's the type of thing that makes worlds immersive.

 

More generic interiors would've helped. GTA4 had the right idea. I'm sure making a few "apartment flight of stairs" interiors and putting a few of those around the world for roof access would have added a lot. That sort of thing is what I expected from V

Funny you should mention this.

 

There is a full Stadium Interior Model in the Game Files, suggesting it could have been used in a Stadium Event like Dirt Ring from Vice City.

[XenoxX]

 

The problem isn't the number of interiors, it's how rockstar use them

 

Rockstar made the maze bank stadium, we use it for one mission. That stadium as far as most players are concerned, it's just another generic building we go past all the time.

 

If that interior was expanded and actually used for something, say, a demolition derby event or a stunt park, we'd start seeing the stadium as a proper stadium rather than an empty shell that takes up space. That's the type of thing that makes worlds immersive.

 

More generic interiors would've helped. GTA4 had the right idea. I'm sure making a few "apartment flight of stairs" interiors and putting a few of those around the world for roof access would have added a lot. That sort of thing is what I expected from V

Funny you should mention this.

 

There is a full Stadium Interior Model in the Game Files, suggesting it could have been used in a Stadium Event like Dirt Ring from Vice City.

 

Yep it was in the beta files, but probably cut or delayed to be released in GTA Online.

(Note that in GTA Online the type: "Stunt race" has apeared in the Social CLub that suggests that Stunt races will be availeable at some point.

[Algonquin Assassin]

 

 

I'll take the details over the interiors. I love interiors and wish we could have more, but I don't find my gaming suffers due to there being only a few of them.

I know a lot of GTA fans would disagree with me on this, but I have never been a big fan of interiors in sandbox games. I find them, comparatively speaking, to be limited and cramped and having very little gameplay associated with them. I know in San Andreas, you could play Nineties videogames (Degenatron) and play little mini games in some bars, and I know GTA IV and V really stepped this up with things like bowling, darts, pool, and so on. But no matter how well developed interiors are in a sandbox game, I always find that I spend very little time in them because I prefer the wide open spaces of the outdoor world, where all the real gameplay stuff takes place.

 

I like some of the missions that bring you into closed quarters to fight, like some of V's heists, A Long Stretch, and others. But personally, I have never once thought to myself, "Gee, I wonder if I can get back to that warehouse from A Long Stretch and just look around." or "Wow, I wish I could get back into the morgue in the FIB building where Steve sends an unconscious Michael."

 

Not saying there shouldn't be more interiors. I just personally don't feel the same allure as many others do.

I'm very much of a similar view to SoL on this. Playing VC for the first time really brought home the great value of interiors to gameplay and immersion within the GTA environment. The city just felt much more alive and interactive knowing I could encounter human life and activity indoors, not just outside in the streets. After VC, interiors was something that I looked forward to a lot in future GTAs, just to see how they could expand and improve upon it. To me, any GTA environment with reduced interiors after VC would have just felt a lot more lifeless, and amazingly and unfortunately, it's V that had this.

 

When playing GTA, I spend a lot of time outdoors and indoors - the balance gives me the ultimate feeling of realisim in my role playing activities while exploring the GTA world. In real life, gangsters aren't just out on the streets engaging in shootouts with rivals, causing havoc, or in wild chases running from police, they spend a great deal of time indoors doing everyday stuff like eating, drinking, socialising, etc - basically enjoying the nice life that the proceeds of their crimes brings them. A gangster is realistically just as likely to encounter enemies indoors in a spot frequented by criminals, be it a club, bar eaterie etc - a perfect opportunity to RP and create intense, close quarter gunfights in an interior. Even seeing patrons in a bar or club running around screaming and shouting at the sound of gunfire just adds greatly to the realisim of the GTA city world - a place where any crazy sh*t can go down, in the streets or in a public building/establishment, nowhere is safe - that feeling in a GTA world is priceless. You need many interiors for stuff like that. And the general feeling of realistic interactivity of course.

 

 

I still think VC has the most impressive amount of unique interiors even moreso than SA and GTA IV. Even though the later generally have more VC feels like it has less repetition and more uniqueness. With GTA V however the majority of the unique interiors it has get locked immediately after one time use which is incredibly disappointing IMO..

 

To be fair it's not the only GTA that does it, but I thought by the time of GTA V's release R* might have eased off except it seems to be worse. Almost like a tease if anything such as the Maze Bank Arena like lazy. pointed out.

Edited January 8, 2016 by SonOfLiberty

[~Tiger~]

I still think VC has the most impressive amount of unique interiors

 

I agree but then VC needed impressive interiors because it had a less than impressive exterior. The city was fine and dandy and the bright colours and neon effects were great but the city was a drawing. The atmosphere was two dimensional and so the contrast was different.

 

In VC, it wasn't possible to climb a mountain (in great detail) and having reached the summit, stand amongst the rocks and enjoy the view across a vast landscape to a great city in a hazy distance. It wasn't possible to fly an aircraft and look down at a phenomenal tapestry of differing terrain; then swoop into an urban environment and a bewilderingly realistic cityscape of accurately crafted structures.

 

With so much to see and do in V's exterior world, a lack of interior interaction doesn't worry me.

[PhillBellic]

 

I still think VC has the most impressive amount of unique interiors

 

I agree but then VC needed impressive interiors because it had a less than impressive exterior. The city was fine and dandy and the bright colours and neon effects were great but the city was a drawing. The atmosphere was two dimensional and so the contrast was different.

 

In VC, it wasn't possible to climb a mountain (in great detail) and having reached the summit, stand amongst the rocks and enjoy the view across a vast landscape to a great city in a hazy distance. It wasn't possible to fly an aircraft and look down at a phenomenal tapestry of differing terrain; then swoop into an urban environment and a bewilderingly realistic cityscape of accurately crafted structures.

 

With so much to see and do in V's exterior world, a lack of interior interaction doesn't worry me.

 

Also, Vice City had a fairly bland Map, in my opinion.

 

Half of 'Vice Beach' Island was nothing but flat sand, and on the 'Mainland' there was some pretty large "Dead Zones", some of which were located around Little's Havana and Haiti, and the area around Sunshine Autos.

[Algonquin Assassin]

Don't turn this into a VC map bashing thread. That's not cool.

[PhillBellic]

Don't turn this into a VC map bashing thread. That's not cool.

I guess I did, Fanboy.

 

At least in VCS, the number of Dead Zones was reduced, for example, the Trailer Park adjacent to Sunshine Autos was a welcome change/addition, in my opinion.

[Shadowfennekin]

The interiors thing.... it mainly pissed me off when some you could access(Like the Police Station from Eye in the Sky, was a fun place to have a shoot up with cops) they end up patching so you can't cause of the "No Fun!" rule. At least the Yacht from the Father and Son mission got recycled twice, once for Heists and again for sale Online(Man I wish they made mansions and yachts available in SP too). I wish we could access some again, Humane Lab sure that can stay locked as it's "restricted" territory but I'd like to go back into places like Life Invader, that warehouse, the chicken and slaughter factories, etc

[~Tiger~]

The main reason why most interiors in V are inaccessible is simply because there is no point accessing them.

 

You can enter a shop to buy a snack, rob the cash registers or hide from cops (for a short time). But what would be the point of entering Maze Bank Tower? To use the ATM? To be spirited onto the roof so you can do a CJ and jump off?

 

Why enter a building if you cannot benefit from it? You can have a look around but it would soon lose it's appeal. The large Motel at Sandy Shores has lots of explorable interiors in great detail but it is far from interesting.

[SmileyBandito]

Man it's been 13 years since Vice City was created, and we haven't seen it recreated since. I sorta want it to be in GTA 6, but I sorta don't at the same time.

 

Vice City is only as special as it is because of the 80's setting we've seen it in. I can't really picture a modern day Vice City. It would probably feel like a more beachy, flat version of Los Santos. I still love Vice City though, such a cool name for a location.

 

I would love an extremely dense, heavily populated and detailed Vice City though, with tons of interiors and whatnot, even if the map isn't as big as GTA V's.

[UshaB]

Vice City Interiors and stuff

 

Oi, stay on topic m8 or you're dun! Torkin' bout V here *smh*

 

OT: V needed more interiors. When playing San Andre it was the interiors I loved to go to, especially the fighting gyms and such. It makes the world feel more relate-able and larger than what it already is. Therefore I would of loved the nightclubs, cluckin' bell, the Queensbury Gym, all restaurants accessible, plus that Casino. It would of made the game feel much larger. I don't understand why they didn't go through with the simple ones, e.g. Cluckin' Bell.

Edited January 8, 2016 by UshaB

[PhillBellic]

The main reason why most interiors in V are inaccessible is simply because there is no point accessing them.

 

You can enter a shop to buy a snack, rob the cash registers or hide from cops (for a short time). But what would be the point of entering Maze Bank Tower? To use the ATM? To be spirited onto the roof so you can do a CJ and jump off?

 

Why enter a building if you cannot benefit from it? You can have a look around but it would soon lose it's appeal. The large Motel at Sandy Shores has lots of explorable interiors in great detail but it is far from interesting.

"I Hate Gravity!" CJ - 1992.

 

I'd totally do that if the Game had that Feature.

 

Also, I'd hope that with more Interiors, there would be more locations for you to hide from the Police.

[~Tiger~]

Don't turn this into a VC map bashing thread.

 

Folks might have differing opinions but at least we all share memories of a great game

[Osho]

 

 

I agree but then VC needed impressive interiors because it had a less than impressive exterior.

Uh?

I don't think so..

The interiors are not impressive because it had less than impressive exteriors.

Vice city had "less" development time to improve the exteriors.

Besides, the interiors in Vice city are as detailed as the exteriors to me. They are nowhere close to what I'd say impressive.

Both the exterior world and interior felt on the same level of quality when it comes to details.

Besudes, console limitations also play a crucial role here, and with limited development time I think the map of VC unfortunately seem to have suffered.

In VC, it wasn't possible to climb a mountain (in great detail) and having reached the summit, stand amongst the rocks and enjoy the view across a vast landscape to a great city in a hazy distance. It wasn't possible to fly an aircraft and look down at a phenomenal tapestry of differing terrain; then swoop into an urban environment and a bewilderingly realistic cityscape of accurately crafted structures.

But in SA you can.

Of course, the experience differes in terms of the environment details but that's because of the game engine and hardware in use during the time.

Most of what you mentioned isn't something I haven't experiences in real life. Speaking of myself, I play video games to escape from all the realism as much as possible, visually speaking.

I already addressed this in one of my earlier post to the topic that detailed interiors are not enough but having much better variety, and scale of both the exploring capabilities and interactions.

I mean, If I can't expect such a thing in 2015 then how many years should it take for the developers to offer better interiors than focusing on stunning exteriors and effects, which are anyways just..beautiful looking for nice screenshots that are interesting to keep in front of my computer as02wallpapers, because even the exteriors suffer from more or less the same amount of limited interactions, and in some cases, restrictions as well.

So I don't see the point in having those excessive exterior details than required.

Besides, I feel that many interiors are kept reserved for Online than keeping single player in mind. Only time could tell whether my suspicion is true or not, but even after NG release they didn't do enough to make more interiors accessible with much better interactions.

[XenoxX]

 

I agree but then VC needed impressive interiors because it had a less than impressive exterior.

Uh?

I don't think so..

The interiors are not impressive because it had less than impressive exteriors.

Vice city had "less" development time to improve the exteriors.

Besides, the interiors in Vice city are as detailed as the exteriors to me. They are nowhere close to what I'd say impressive.

Both the exterior world and interior felt on the same level of quality when it comes to details.

Besudes, console limitations also play a crucial role here, and with limited development time I think the map of VC unfortunately seem to have suffered.

In VC, it wasn't possible to climb a mountain (in great detail) and having reached the summit, stand amongst the rocks and enjoy the view across a vast landscape to a great city in a hazy distance. It wasn't possible to fly an aircraft and look down at a phenomenal tapestry of differing terrain; then swoop into an urban environment and a bewilderingly realistic cityscape of accurately crafted structures.

But in SA you can.

Of course, the experience differes in terms of the environment details but that's because of the game engine and hardware in use during the time.

Most of what you mentioned isn't something I haven't experiences in real life. Speaking of myself, I play video games to escape from all the realism as much as possible, visually speaking.

I already addressed this in one of my earlier post to the topic that detailed interiors are not enough but having much better variety, and scale of both the exploring capabilities and interactions.

I mean, If I can't expect such a thing in 2015 then how many years should it take for the developers to offer better interiors than focusing on stunning exteriors and effects, which are anyways just..beautiful looking for nice screenshots that are interesting to keep in front of my computer as02wallpapers, because even the exteriors suffer from more or less the same amount of limited interactions, and in some cases, restrictions as well.

So I don't see the point in having those excessive exterior details than required.

Besides, I feel that many interiors are kept reserved for Online than keeping single player in mind. Only time could tell whether my suspicion is true or not, but even after NG release they didn't do enough to make more interiors accessible with much better interactions.

 

I think you seem to have a significant lack of information in regards to how console limitations exactly work, the console limitations did in fact, NOT stop R* from having properly detailed interiors or exteriors, you can look at Shenmue btw. that game was packed full of details and running on very old harware.

Of course with the new times GAMES simply take longer to develope, you have less console limitations but that does not mean that the developers have less work, to produce the amount of detail in an open world is not only time consuming, but also money consuming.

I somehow see that you fail to understand that it STILL is a great achievement of Rockstar, as to what extend the open world is detailed and handcrafted, it is NOT only because of console limitations that SA was not as detailed and mainly consisted of literal BLOCKS.

[Official General]

The problem isn't the number of interiors, it's how rockstar use them

Rockstar made the maze bank stadium, we use it for one mission. That stadium as far as most players are concerned, it's just another generic building we go past all the time.

If that interior was expanded and actually used for something, say, a demolition derby event or a stunt park, we'd start seeing the stadium as a proper stadium rather than an empty shell that takes up space. That's the type of thing that makes worlds immersive.

More generic interiors would've helped. GTA4 had the right idea. I'm sure making a few "apartment flight of stairs" interiors and putting a few of those around the world for roof access would have added a lot. That sort of thing is what I expected from V

Sorry but I kinda disagree. V was missing important interiors like bars, nightclubs and restaurants, so for me, the number of interiors was a big issue. For a game as big as V to have a relatively low amount of interiors for its size was just one massive dissapointment in my view, nothing can get around that. But your point about making good use of interiors is very valid indeed. For instance, the Fleeca banks should have been able to have been robbed by the player at anytime.

 

@ SoL

 

I totally agree, VC really set the bar high with the immersion and interactivity it provided regarding interiors. Relative to the city's size, VC had a high number of interiors, and the uniqueness variety among them was very rich indeed. No interior in VC actually felt or looked the same, that's what made the feature all the more stunning. It's one of the reasons why VC is my all time favourite GTA - I just loved exploring the environment and its in-depth interaction provided by its rich variety and numbers of interiors.

 

The main reason why most interiors in V are inaccessible is simply because there is no point accessing them.

 

You can enter a shop to buy a snack, rob the cash registers or hide from cops (for a short time). But what would be the point of entering Maze Bank Tower? To use the ATM? To be spirited onto the roof so you can do a CJ and jump off?

 

Why enter a building if you cannot benefit from it? You can have a look around but it would soon lose it's appeal. The large Motel at Sandy Shores has lots of explorable interiors in great detail but it is far from interesting.

 

Don't quite agree with that. What about the Tequi-La La ? That could have been made into real cool nightclub interior to have drinks, dance with chicks or socialise with friends - stuff you do in V anyway, well 2 out of 3.

 

Anyway, it's not just about what you can do with interiors it's also about providing realistic interactivity and immersion into the whole GTA environment and making the player really feel the in-game world is beating with life and human activity. That's very important to fully appreciating the GTA environment and getting engrossed within it as you play the game. What's the point of having a lovely looking city with stunning exteriors but you can't enter 99 percent of the interiors ? It just becomes a beautifully painted cardboard display, and that does nothing to enhance interactivity or immersion in the GTA world - it just makes the environment feel more lifeless and bleak.

[Osho]

Not sure what you're trying to point out. If the console limitations have had nothing to do then what's the difference between the details seen in SA and V, be the exteriors / interiors?

My point is not regarding more detailed interiors, but having more interactions and variety with ample amount of freedom to explore and play.

Level of graphical fidelity don't matter to me.

In my opinion, interiors should have more variety, and the most detailed and interactive at that.

Right now, the exteriors are the most detailed with little to no interactions outside the ambience and immersion it offers which are purely atmospheric in nature. It has no direct relation in making the gameplay better, other than making it more feel more immersive.

Most of the time players only stop to experience the environmental details of the exteriors, otherwise the beautifully crafted world is still just a playground to create mayhem and what not.

But the interiors offer a bit more than the immersion. It can extend beyond that through more interactions and things to do within those finite boundaries.

I think you haven't experienced many games of the past which are average on looks but impressive in the amount of interactions and emergent gameplay they offer within each and every inch on the map.

Edit:

I was responding to XenoxX.

Edited January 8, 2016 by Osho

[XenoxX]

Not sure what you're trying to point out. If the console limitations have had nothing to do then what's the difference between the details seen in SA and V, be the exteriors / interiors?

My point is not regarding more detailed interiors, but having more interactions and variety with ample amount of freedom to explore and play.

Level of graphical fidelity don't matter to me.

In my opinion, interiors should have more variety, and the most detailed and interactive at that.

Right now, the exteriors are the most detailed with little to no interactions outside the ambience and immersion it offers which are purely atmospheric in nature. It has no direct relation in making the gameplay better, other than making it more feel more immersive.

Most of the time players only stop to experience the environmental details of the exteriors, otherwise the beautifully crafted world is still just a playground to create mayhem and what not.

But the interiors offer a bit more than the immersion. It can extend beyond that through more interactions and things to do within those finite boundaries.

I think you haven't experienced many games of the past which are average on looks but impressive in the amount of interactions and emergent gameplay they offer within each and every inch on the map.

What I am saying is that,

 

creating an interiors in SA was far, far, far, far, far EASIER than creating an interior in GTAV simply because the interiors in V have a signficant amount of detail put into them, as well as the exteriours btw. that has nothing to do with graphical fidelity, it has something to do with DETAIL and EFFORT and frankly that is not anything that can be restricted by console limitations.

What I am saying is that Rockstar went quality over quantity with the map and interior design in GTA V, every interior in V is excessively modeled after a real life room, while in SA most(not all) interiors consist of empty rooms with a few set props in them, the only realy detailed interior in SA is CJs house, and even that cannot hold onto Franklins house or even Michaels.

 

Not that I want everyone to like the way V handled interiors, because I myself am not quite happy with it as well, since as Official General pointed out a few Restaurants, bars and nightclubs would have realy suited the enviroument, but I just wanted to point out that there still are a significant amount of interiors in GTA V including the protagonists houses which are highly interactive and evolve with the Story, AND the NPCs have a day to day cycle in them, also to point out are the severe amount of Shop hairdresser and tatoo shop interiors which again all offer interactivity and a right off purpose,

[SmileyBandito]

GTA V including the protagonists houses which are highly interactive and evolve with the Story, AND the NPCs have a day to day cycle in them, also to point out are the severe amount of Shop hairdresser and tatoo shop interiors which again all offer interactivity and a right off purpose,

 

 

I mean, I guess that's true, but all the Ammu-Nation, barbershop, clothing store, etc interiors are all reused, so it's nothing impressive to see the same place of interaction in a different part of the map. My biggest problem with the lack of interiors is how Rockstar closes huge, detailed interiors they made from the ground up solely for story missions. The LS Stadium, for example, could have been great fun for a police shootout in there. Or taking the elevator floor up to the FIB offices, or what about the recycling plant? That would be a great location for slasher mode come to think of it.

 

And although those are neat details to see NPC's lounging in player safehouses, it's nothing on the scope of - say - Fallout where NPC's will travel across the map in real time to reach a mission objective or player command.

[Osho]

No. Today, when you talk about details, graphical fidelity are automatically part of it, too.

Creating a more detailed world for such a big map is one thing but to improve their visual appeal is the other and that's where console limitations do have a role to play, in terms of environmental physics, interactions, and other capabilities to be allowed for the players to explore them.

In the 3D era, things were simple and limited to the details in the environment without too much of the graphical fidelity as seen nowadays to enhance the details of the game world, be the exteriors or interiors.

Even then they were copy pasted and you know why, right?

So, obviously console limitations have had a role to play in VC and SA.

Had these games were created with the hardware of the last gen in mind, I believe the quality of these games would have been a lot different. We might have experienced less copy pasted stuff and more interactions and variety in the interiors.

[XenoxX]

 

GTA V including the protagonists houses which are highly interactive and evolve with the Story, AND the NPCs have a day to day cycle in them, also to point out are the severe amount of Shop hairdresser and tatoo shop interiors which again all offer interactivity and a right off purpose,

 

I mean, I guess that's true, but all the Ammu-Nation, barbershop, clothing store, etc interiors are all reused, so it's nothing impressive to see the same place of interaction in a different part of the map. My biggest problem with the lack of interiors is how Rockstar closes huge, detailed interiors they made from the ground up solely for story missions. The LS Stadium, for example, could have been great fun for a police shootout in there. Or taking the elevator floor up to the FIB offices, or what about the recycling plant? That would be a great location for slasher mode come to think of it.

 

And although those are neat details to see NPC's lounging in player safehouses, it's nothing on the scope of - say - Fallout where NPC's will travel across the map in real time to reach a mission objective or player command.

It sounds fun to play in all those interiors and have shootouts but to be honest it was probably a design decision early on that interiors in free roam would not be related to action gameplay.

The mechanics of the game are not all that much suited for interior combat, it just feels clunky, wrong and broken, it allready did in IV with for instance the hospital, thats not the kind of gameplay that R* thinks is "fun" and of quality that is why they removed the drawing of weapons in shop interiors and made them rather small as well, so they aren't used for something that their not intended for.

 

Regarding Fallout 4, it definately is an innovation to AI and dynamic gameplay, however as it seems the visual fidelity as well as the technical state of the game have suffered a lot from it.

No. Today, when you talk about details, graphical fidelity are automatically part of it, too.

Creating a more detailed world for such a big map is one thing but to improve their visual appeal is the other and that's where console limitations do have a role to play, in terms of environmental physics, interactions, and other capabilities to be allowed for the players to explore them.

In the 3D era, things were simple and limited to the details in the environment without too much of the graphical fidelity as seen nowadays to enhance the details of the game world, be the exteriors or interiors.

Even then they were copy pasted and you know why, right?

So, obviously console limitations have had a role to play in VC and SA.

Had these games were created with the hardware of the last gen in mind, I believe the quality of these games would have been a lot different. We might have experienced less copy pasted stuff and more interactions and variety in the interiors.

And I am sorry but you are wrong in that, detail does not equal graphical fidelity, that is a fact.

And DETAIL was possible on PS2 hardware allready it has nothing to do with console limitations that the interiors in SA were not that detailed, since they are seperate loading screens, so theoraticly every interior could have the amount of models from the whole SA map in it.

The interiors were not that detailed simply because at that time some compromises had to be taken...quantity over quality at that point.

Edited January 8, 2016 by XenoxX

[gooeyhole]

Playing IV makes me miss interiors so much. I was going on a random rampage in Bohan, and realized I could enter the Sprunk factory. The smoke filled the room, the dialogue was echoed by the small space, it was an interesting turn of events.

 

Did the mission where Niko kills some guy named Marlon, and as I was walking around thinking about how to approach it, I saw one of the many slummy apartment complexes. I was able to access the roof and kill him via sniper rifle, which again, was something interesting. V has some nice interiors, but in small number. It really could have benefited from some extra accessible areas. I wouldn't trade it for details, because V shines in that regard - and the beautiful weather might make you want to stay outdoors.

[Osho]

@ XenoxX

That's what I am saying. The distinction between the details and graphical fidelity is much more apparent today than ever before.

[XenoxX]

Actualy I have to say V has still a lot of enterable interiours I am afraid I would say even more than GTA IV, here is a list of them for anyone interested:

https://m.reddit.com/r/GrandTheftAutoV/comments/1p0r07/gta_online_known_interiorenterable_locations_with

[gooeyhole]

Actualy I have to say V has still a lot of enterable interiours I am afraid I would say even more than GTA IV, here is a list of them for anyone interested:

https://m.reddit.com/r/GrandTheftAutoV/comments/1p0r07/gta_online_known_interiorenterable_locations_with

I find it strange how I don't use them, besides a select few. IV's interiors were more practical, if you get me.

[Osho]

If GTA V had impressive gameplay and content to fully utilise the potential of the map then I'd still overlook the lack of interiors.

Right now, V fails to impress me in across all the departments. Nothing feels satisfying nor fun that I'd find myself returning for more.

I don't know how to put this in words but SP feels like a half assed, unfinished and sticking out in places that should have evolved "in this day and age", esp., when games like SA already had raised the bar.

Unfortunately, V feels nothing more than a beautifully crafted empty world to immerse myself for a few minutes driving around before getting bored due to the severe drought in the gameplay department.

[PMB91184]

Attention to detail is what sets this world apart from all those other open worlds out there. The new Just Cause map is far bigger than LS, but it doesn't have that living, breathing feeling you get while playing GTA.

 

More detail in the future please, and more interiors too. Thanks.