Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    2. News

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

    1. GTA Online

      1. After Hours
      2. Find Lobbies & Players
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Vehicles
      5. Content Creator
      6. Help & Support
    2. Crews

      1. Events
      2. Recruitment
    1. Grand Theft Auto Series

    2. GTA Next

    3. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    4. GTA IV

      1. Episodes from Liberty City
      2. Multiplayer
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
      5. GTA Mods
    5. GTA Chinatown Wars

    6. GTA Vice City Stories

    7. GTA Liberty City Stories

    8. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    9. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    10. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    11. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    12. Wiki

      1. Merchandising
    1. GTA Modding

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    3. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Red Dead Redemption

    2. Rockstar Games

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    1. Forum Support

    2. Site Suggestions

Merle Travis

RDR2 Possible Leaked Map Discussion

Recommended Posts

wagszilla

Journalists can be wrong but usually when they publicly verify something, it's pretty reliable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
El Diablo 702

I for 1 would love to see the old map with a huge expansion. There was a lot more to the old west era than most people know about. Everything from the south to San Fran to New York. Tent cities like early dead wood to startups like Cheyenne with the railroad and let's not forget the gold rush of 1849 "central California " it all depends on what year and what kind of story they are goin to do it's still a year away at least "how many times was GTA v pushed back". And with as awesome redemption was both sp/online I hope it's even better this time and I'll gladly wait a bit longer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
El Diablo 702

On another note is what can we expect for online. Cattle rancher, gold miners, oil tycoon, railroad Barron types of missions/business. Again it's the story and era that we might get but with what they did with GTA it's some good speculation right there

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merle Travis

There are things that speak for the leaked maps validity, definitely. And most people around here seem to believe it is real. Personally, I am still hoping it is a fake.

 

Why? Well largely due to the fact that if you map this map on RDRs map, it comes out as not much bigger than RDR. Now I know people like to point out that density is more important than sheer size but if we are talking almost the same size as RDR, I have to respectfully disagree.

 

A necessity of a map of a game set in the "Heartlands" of the Old West and coming out 2017 (meaning, it should be significantly larger 7 years later due to technology advances, even if it is more dense as well) is for it to feel huge. RDRs map did feel big at first, yes, but once you got around and recognised the landscape it got clear it wasn't big. In fact I think it was something like only 28 sq miles. Also, remember it felt big back in 2010. I don't think a map with something of the size of 35-40 sq miles (approx. what the leaked map suggests) will feel big for a game set in the Old West coming out in 2017 possible early 2018. An important aspect of the landscapes in the Old West was that there were vast distances to get across, so I really think it is important for RDR2s map to give that feel.

 

Add to it that the leaked map has huge areas of water, which will most likely be unused in the game, aside from the occasional canoeing. To me, it frankly looks like a big waste of space. Even if swimming is a feature, you aren't going ot be swimming around in those huge bodies of water because why would you.

 

sovARvn.jpg

 

So to be honest, if the map is real, I don't really like the look of it. To me it seems way, way too small for a 2017/2018 RDR2, even density improved. It isn't even 1.5x the size of RDR...

Edited by oglocindahouse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mister Pink

I don't think so, no. It seems about aligned with what Rockstar have been doing since the 'HD-era' began.

 

Do I want a really big map? Yes but sure we know a lot of resources will be going to Online play.

 

 

Add to it that the leaked map has huge areas of water, which will most likely be unused in the game, aside from the occasional canoeing.

 

What are you basing that assumption on? Water is there, it's a part of the world. We don't know what Rockstar may have planned to make use of the environments. Just because there's water there, doesn't necessarily mean it's taking away from the land. Unless you know that Rockstar builds maps that have to be one size then they ration out the water to land ratio :p

Edited by Mister Pink

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spider-Vice

Guys, moved a couple posts from a new thread into this thread, as this is the correct thread to use for speculation on the possible leaked map. I've also renamed the thread to better reflect its use and what the discussion has mostly been.

 

Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chinese Takeout

So to be honest, if the map is real, I don't really like the look of it. To me it seems way, way too small for a 2017/2018 RDR2, even density improved. It isn't even 1.5x the size of RDR...

Yes, I agree with you. There are quite a few of us in here that feel the same way and have put forward many of the same arguments you have.

 

The "density" argument ("it's stupid to want a large map, when the tradeoff means it will lack "density") is ridiculous to me. Nobody wants to lose density, but whether by "density" you mean unique human NPCs or unique man-made structures/towns/homesteads), the fact is FRONTIER AMERICA **IS** less dense than modern-day Los Santos. Imagine R* making the transition from creating Los Santos' level of density-complexity to Sandy Shores level of Density-complexity. It's still just as dense with unique features and inhabitants, but nowhere near as complex.

 

When I say I want to see a MUCH (MUCH, MUCH, MUCH) larger map in RDR2, I don't mean I want to see the same textures repeated x10...I mean, I want to see the same kind of quality increase we witnessed from GTA4 to RDR1, and then from RDR1 to GTA5. And I believe R* could do it IN THEIR SLEEP! That's how good they have become at surpassing our expectations with each new game.

And that's where my biggest problems come from regarding the leaked map. First, it's only slightly bigger. Second (and MOST IMPORTANTLY), it contains part of the RDR1 map, which means (if the map hasn't been altered) that it FORCES the NEW part of the map to adopt the SAME SCALE as the RDR1 map. So much for density. And, if you argue that "maybe they DID alter the original map," well then WTF did they keep it for in the first place? It just makes Zero sense.

However, when I watch the trailer (3 thousand times), it's clear to me that R* did, in fact, incorporate a much larger sense of scale in their RDR2 world than is found in the RDR1 world. The consequence of this is that the RDR1 map must necessarily be discardEd. That, or, there will be a jarring, noticeable difference as you ride from the new map into the old map tantamount to the difference between Kansas and Oz.

 

The only conclusion to which I can come is that the leaked map is illegitimate.

Edited by Chinese Takeout

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merle Travis

I can only agree. Like I said in another thread, real or not, imo at about 1.5x RDRs size the leaked map is just too small to give a realistic vast Old West feel. In a modern day bustlin GTA map I would be fine with prioritising density over sheer size, but in a western game? The whole point is that it needs to feel huge and desolated with vast distances and wilderness as far as the eye can see. That's what the Old West was like, it wasn't dense. Can't say I am getting that feeling from the leaked map, the land area looks kind of cramped and thin with huge water areas. I'm not really a fan of the Bayou laying a couple of miles from snowy mountain ranges either.

 

I also think it is curious that many of the shots in the trailer are from the same general area, that big valley is shown at dusk (or dawn) and during day time, the opening shot is the same general area as the closing shot, even looking in the same direction. Even the oil fields at night are present if you look through the horses legs in the last shot. And that shot with the carcass on the horse is clearly West Elizabeth. Then there is that shot of the train and buffalo that also looks like the same area.

 

So the trailer basically shows us land that we already known through RDR and the same new area (possible the heartlands from the leaked map) "recycled" in several shots. Why would R* only show that same area several times? Does it mean there isn't much else to the map? I think the early trailers of RDR displayed a much greater variety of the landscapes in its map. I find it curious how the teaser for the whole of RDR2 is focusing on just one part of the map (if there is much else to see).

Edited by oglocindahouse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
m8son

I don't understand why everyone thinks that a bigger, massive map would be better. The reasons why Redemption 1's map was so perfect is because it was a decent size but still extremely dense. With GTA V we got a giant map, but honestly half of it was completely empty and useless. Every mountain is completely barren, they should've cut the amount of mountains in half and added some more small towns or something instead of giant empty fields. For how small San Andreas was compared to V it felt way bigger and overall much more fun to explore because of the density.

 

I would be completely satisfied with the leaked map, it looks to be a little bit bigger than 1 and very dense with stuff to do.

 

Edit - Looking at the leaked map again I am thinking that if it's real and we can actually swim and use canoes, that weird looking water area on the right could be rapids and waterfalls that will kill you if you go to far. That could also be how they stop you from going down the Rio Bravo and the river in Tall Trees leading over to the old map.

Edited by m8son

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chinese Takeout

I don't understand why everyone thinks that a bigger, massive map would be better. The reasons why Redemption 1's map was so perfect is because it was a decent size but still extremely dense. With GTA V we got a giant map, but honestly half of it was completely empty and useless. Every mountain is completely barren, they should've cut the amount of mountains in half and added some more small towns or something instead of giant empty fields.

Can you elaborate on what you mean by "dense"? You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. RDR1's map is the opposite of dense when it comes to civilization. It's sparse. and that's why it was and is so wonderful. You can go riding in Nuevo Paraiso for miles and miles and miles and never come across a town, they're so spread out and limited. Just tumbleweed after tumbleweed, rock after rock, cactus after cactus after cactus. It's GREAT! :-)

 

In a thread about RDR2, you bring up the GTA5 map and say, "they should get rid of all the boring mountains and add more exciting towns!" I wonder if Red Dead Redemption is really the game for you? Also...as far as GTA5 goes...you're saying they should cut the number of barren and boring mountains in half, and instead add some exciting, non-barren things like more Casinos you can't do anything with? More horse racetracks with no horses? More Vinewood Bowls that have no concerts or purpose? More NOOSE headquarters that don't do anything? More grain elevators and farms in Grapeseed that serve no function? More Sherrif's offices in Sandy Shores that you can't go in? More college campuses that exist for no reason? Etc, etc.

 

My point is: you say the wilderness in GTA5 is boring and should be reduced to make more....non wilderness stuff. But, by your same standard of measurement, the non-wilderness stuff in Los Santos/Blaine County is just as "barren."

 

I say that ALL OF THE ABOVE (the casino, the Vinewood Bowl, etc) as well as ALL THE mountains & desert make the GTA5 MAP awesome! there is no need to cut down on "boring" mountains to add "boring" non-mountains.

 

And I think the same will be true of the RDR2 map. I don't understand your argument that we should limit the wilderness of the wilderness. If vast, wide-open spaces aren't your thing...maybe stick with GTA? Or Watch Dogs 2?

 

Dense doesn't have to mean "rush hour in Times Square." Dense can mean "wilderness in all directions, as far as the eye can see."

 

IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Deadite

So... no one mentioned that river going through West Elizabeth?

That definetly wasn't in RDR1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chinese Takeout

West Elizabeth is not confirmed to be a location in RDR2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
m8son

 

I don't understand why everyone thinks that a bigger, massive map would be better. The reasons why Redemption 1's map was so perfect is because it was a decent size but still extremely dense. With GTA V we got a giant map, but honestly half of it was completely empty and useless. Every mountain is completely barren, they should've cut the amount of mountains in half and added some more small towns or something instead of giant empty fields.

Can you elaborate on what you mean by "dense"? You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. RDR1's map is the opposite of dense when it comes to civilization. It's sparse. and that's why it was and is so wonderful. You can go riding in Nuevo Paraiso for miles and miles and miles and never come across a town, they're so spread out and limited. Just tumbleweed after tumbleweed, rock after rock, cactus after cactus after cactus. It's GREAT! :-)

 

In a thread about RDR2, you bring up the GTA5 map and say, "they should get rid of all the boring mountains and add more exciting towns!" I wonder if Red Dead Redemption is really the game for you? Also...as far as GTA5 goes...you're saying they should cut the number of barren and boring mountains in half, and instead add some exciting, non-barren things like more Casinos you can't do anything with? More horse racetracks with no horses? More Vinewood Bowls that have no concerts or purpose? More NOOSE headquarters that don't do anything? More grain elevators and farms in Grapeseed that serve no function? More Sherrif's offices in Sandy Shores that you can't go in? More college campuses that exist for no reason? Etc, etc.

 

My point is: you say the wilderness in GTA5 is boring and should be reduced to make more....non wilderness stuff. But, by your same standard of measurement, the non-wilderness stuff in Los Santos/Blaine County is just as "barren."

 

I say that ALL OF THE ABOVE (the casino, the Vinewood Bowl, etc) as well as ALL THE mountains & desert make the GTA5 MAP awesome! there is no need to cut down on "boring" mountains to add "boring" non-mountains.

 

And I think the same will be true of the RDR2 map. I don't understand your argument that we should limit the wilderness of the wilderness. If vast, wide-open spaces aren't your thing...maybe stick with GTA? Or Watch Dogs 2?

 

Dense doesn't have to mean "rush hour in Times Square." Dense can mean "wilderness in all directions, as far as the eye can see."

 

IMO.

 

By dense I mean the things Red Dead had that actually populated the barren wastes, like treasure hunts, camps, repeatable random events, actual good hunting. Hell, even you mentioned it, there was small details like tumbleweeds rolling by and destructible cacti. GTA V has none of these which is why the empty areas (pretty much only the mountains) are extremely boring.

 

From what I'm gathering after re-reading your post multiple times you're saying that the empty ass mountains in V are the same as exploring the areas that actually have detailed places to explore and actual stuff to do? I'm not saying there is much to do in that game in the first place while free-roaming but there is literally NOTHING to do in the empty areas but stand there, you didn't even touch on what I said about San Andreas feeling much bigger than V because of the map design so I will refer you to that as an example. Filling the map with un-detailed barren wastes is a dumb idea and it is what will happen to Red Dead 2 if you really want a map like that, just for the fact that it's big. And where did I say that I wanted less wilderness in 2's map? I just don't want such a massive map that we get nothing but emptiness, you can see that they have a pretty similar balance of towns and wilderness in the leaked map just like they had in the first game.

 

However you can't compare Red Dead's wilderness to V's anyway and I am not trying to, but what I am saying is that there is no need for a massive map filled with open nothingness when the last game already balanced civilization and wilderness perfectly. You people want something bigger and bigger every time they release a new game and it sacrifices the 1 thing that made them great in the first place, detail!!!

Edited by m8son

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merle Travis

 

 

I don't understand why everyone thinks that a bigger, massive map would be better. The reasons why Redemption 1's map was so perfect is because it was a decent size but still extremely dense. With GTA V we got a giant map, but honestly half of it was completely empty and useless. Every mountain is completely barren, they should've cut the amount of mountains in half and added some more small towns or something instead of giant empty fields.

Can you elaborate on what you mean by "dense"? You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. RDR1's map is the opposite of dense when it comes to civilization. It's sparse. and that's why it was and is so wonderful. You can go riding in Nuevo Paraiso for miles and miles and miles and never come across a town, they're so spread out and limited. Just tumbleweed after tumbleweed, rock after rock, cactus after cactus after cactus. It's GREAT! :-)

 

In a thread about RDR2, you bring up the GTA5 map and say, "they should get rid of all the boring mountains and add more exciting towns!" I wonder if Red Dead Redemption is really the game for you? Also...as far as GTA5 goes...you're saying they should cut the number of barren and boring mountains in half, and instead add some exciting, non-barren things like more Casinos you can't do anything with? More horse racetracks with no horses? More Vinewood Bowls that have no concerts or purpose? More NOOSE headquarters that don't do anything? More grain elevators and farms in Grapeseed that serve no function? More Sherrif's offices in Sandy Shores that you can't go in? More college campuses that exist for no reason? Etc, etc.

 

My point is: you say the wilderness in GTA5 is boring and should be reduced to make more....non wilderness stuff. But, by your same standard of measurement, the non-wilderness stuff in Los Santos/Blaine County is just as "barren."

 

I say that ALL OF THE ABOVE (the casino, the Vinewood Bowl, etc) as well as ALL THE mountains & desert make the GTA5 MAP awesome! there is no need to cut down on "boring" mountains to add "boring" non-mountains.

 

And I think the same will be true of the RDR2 map. I don't understand your argument that we should limit the wilderness of the wilderness. If vast, wide-open spaces aren't your thing...maybe stick with GTA? Or Watch Dogs 2?

 

Dense doesn't have to mean "rush hour in Times Square." Dense can mean "wilderness in all directions, as far as the eye can see."

 

IMO.

 

By dense I mean the things Red Dead had that actually populated the barren wastes, like treasure hunts, camps, repeatable random events, actual good hunting. Hell, even you mentioned it, there was small details like tumbleweeds rolling by and destructible cacti. GTA V has none of these which is why the empty areas (pretty much only the mountains) are extremely boring.

 

From what I'm gathering after re-reading your post multiple times you're saying that the empty ass mountains in V are the same as exploring the areas that actually have detailed places to explore and actual stuff to do? I'm not saying there is much to do in that game in the first place while free-roaming but there is literally NOTHING to do in the empty areas but stand there, you didn't even touch on what I said about San Andreas feeling much bigger than V because of the map design so I will refer you to that as an example. Filling the map with un-detailed barren wastes is a dumb idea and it is what will happen to Red Dead 2 if you really want a map like that, just for the fact that it's big. And where did I say that I wanted less wilderness in 2's map? I just don't want such a massive map that we get nothing but emptiness, you can see that they have a pretty similar balance of towns and wilderness in the leaked map just like they had in the first game.

 

However you can't compare Red Dead's wilderness to V's anyway and I am not trying to, but what I am saying is that there is no need for a massive map filled with open nothingness when the last game already balanced civilization and wilderness perfectly. You people want something bigger and bigger every time they release a new game and it sacrifices the 1 thing that made them great in the first place, detail!!!

 

 

Really? You are going to criticise the vast open nothingness of nature, and say such things like they should "cut down on big mountains" and nature, in a western game, set in the middle of the friggin' wilderness? Really now? It's like you seem to completely forget we are talking about a game set in the actual Old West back in 1880-90s. Such a setting is supposed to be filled with a lot of "open nothingness" and barren areas with little to do except hunting. There weren't any really big towns on the frontier either, that's the whole point. You could travel huge distances back then and not come across a single human being over the course of weeks. It is called just plain nature. If you don't like that, you are playing the wrong game.

 

So to be honest a western game isn't what you are looking for if the one thing you complain about in a game is how there is "nothing to do" in nature. A realistic map for a western game should feel empty in life (excluding wildlife) but rich in pure untouched wilderness. I don't want small towns cramped all over in a game set in the Old West to make it feel "dense" where I can gamble or meet people, it defeats the whole purpose of a western. A couple? Yes, and some small settlements, sure.

 

But make no mistake, it must feel desolate and give a feeling of "untouched by civilization" for it to even feel like the Old West. Most of the time back then were spent living very close to nature, or in the few limited, occasional small settlements, located far as hell from each other. The way I see it, the one time bigger = better holds true is in a western setting. You want density and populated? You have GTA. The whole purpose of a game set in the Old West is that it should feel non-dense, otherwise it sort of defeats its own purpose...

Edited by oglocindahouse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
m8son

 

 

 

I don't understand why everyone thinks that a bigger, massive map would be better. The reasons why Redemption 1's map was so perfect is because it was a decent size but still extremely dense. With GTA V we got a giant map, but honestly half of it was completely empty and useless. Every mountain is completely barren, they should've cut the amount of mountains in half and added some more small towns or something instead of giant empty fields.

Can you elaborate on what you mean by "dense"? You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. RDR1's map is the opposite of dense when it comes to civilization. It's sparse. and that's why it was and is so wonderful. You can go riding in Nuevo Paraiso for miles and miles and miles and never come across a town, they're so spread out and limited. Just tumbleweed after tumbleweed, rock after rock, cactus after cactus after cactus. It's GREAT! :-)

 

In a thread about RDR2, you bring up the GTA5 map and say, "they should get rid of all the boring mountains and add more exciting towns!" I wonder if Red Dead Redemption is really the game for you? Also...as far as GTA5 goes...you're saying they should cut the number of barren and boring mountains in half, and instead add some exciting, non-barren things like more Casinos you can't do anything with? More horse racetracks with no horses? More Vinewood Bowls that have no concerts or purpose? More NOOSE headquarters that don't do anything? More grain elevators and farms in Grapeseed that serve no function? More Sherrif's offices in Sandy Shores that you can't go in? More college campuses that exist for no reason? Etc, etc.

 

My point is: you say the wilderness in GTA5 is boring and should be reduced to make more....non wilderness stuff. But, by your same standard of measurement, the non-wilderness stuff in Los Santos/Blaine County is just as "barren."

 

I say that ALL OF THE ABOVE (the casino, the Vinewood Bowl, etc) as well as ALL THE mountains & desert make the GTA5 MAP awesome! there is no need to cut down on "boring" mountains to add "boring" non-mountains.

 

And I think the same will be true of the RDR2 map. I don't understand your argument that we should limit the wilderness of the wilderness. If vast, wide-open spaces aren't your thing...maybe stick with GTA? Or Watch Dogs 2?

 

Dense doesn't have to mean "rush hour in Times Square." Dense can mean "wilderness in all directions, as far as the eye can see."

 

IMO.

 

By dense I mean the things Red Dead had that actually populated the barren wastes, like treasure hunts, camps, repeatable random events, actual good hunting. Hell, even you mentioned it, there was small details like tumbleweeds rolling by and destructible cacti. GTA V has none of these which is why the empty areas (pretty much only the mountains) are extremely boring.

 

From what I'm gathering after re-reading your post multiple times you're saying that the empty ass mountains in V are the same as exploring the areas that actually have detailed places to explore and actual stuff to do? I'm not saying there is much to do in that game in the first place while free-roaming but there is literally NOTHING to do in the empty areas but stand there, you didn't even touch on what I said about San Andreas feeling much bigger than V because of the map design so I will refer you to that as an example. Filling the map with un-detailed barren wastes is a dumb idea and it is what will happen to Red Dead 2 if you really want a map like that, just for the fact that it's big. And where did I say that I wanted less wilderness in 2's map? I just don't want such a massive map that we get nothing but emptiness, you can see that they have a pretty similar balance of towns and wilderness in the leaked map just like they had in the first game.

 

However you can't compare Red Dead's wilderness to V's anyway and I am not trying to, but what I am saying is that there is no need for a massive map filled with open nothingness when the last game already balanced civilization and wilderness perfectly. You people want something bigger and bigger every time they release a new game and it sacrifices the 1 thing that made them great in the first place, detail!!!

 

 

Really? You are going to criticise the vast open nothingness of nature, and say such things like they should "cut down on big mountains" and nature, in a western game, set in the middle of the friggin' wilderness? Really now? It's like you seem to completely forget we are talking about a game set in the actual Old West back in 1880-90s. Such a setting is supposed to be filled with a lot of "open nothingness" and barren areas with little to do except hunting. There weren't any really big towns on the frontier either, that's the whole point. You could travel huge distances back then and not come across a single human being over the course of weeks. It is called just plain nature. If you don't like that, you are playing the wrong game.

 

So to be honest a western game isn't what you are looking for if the one thing you complain about in a game is how there is "nothing to do" in nature. A realistic map for a western game should feel empty in life (excluding wildlife) but rich in pure untouched wilderness. I don't want small towns cramped all over in a game set in the Old West to make it feel "dense" where I can gamble or meet people, it defeats the whole purpose of a western. A couple? Yes, and some small settlements, sure.

 

But make no mistake, it must feel desolate and give a feeling of "untouched by civilization" for it to even feel like the Old West. Most of the time back then were spent living very close to nature, or in the few limited, occasional small settlements, located far as hell from each other. The way I see it, the one time bigger = better holds true is in a western setting. You want density and populated? You have GTA. The whole purpose of a game set in the Old West is that it should feel non-dense, otherwise it sort of defeats its own purpose...

 

My god it's like you didn't even read what I posted. You talk like you're a seasoned game developer and it's laughable/cringy as hell. Re-iterating what I said for a third time, I do not in any way shape or form want them to cut back on the "pure untouched wilderness" and "vast open nothingness of nature" that you seem to be creaming your pants over. Like I said before, the reason it worked so well in Redemption is because they balanced the wide open areas so perfectly with small bits of civilization scarcely spread throughout - maintaining perfect ambiance throughout the entire map with small details littered everywhere and things to do around every corner like stranger missions, gang hideouts, and random events.

 

I was using GTA V as an example of what happens when you sacrifice detail for a bigger map. The random events turned out like garbage as well as the stranger missions, there was nothing like gang hideouts and even the main storyline suffered because of the map design. Using common sense, I think it'd be much harder for Rockstar to still maintain the level of detail and ambiance that they had in Redemption 1 while making the "massive" map filled with "open nothingness" that you want so damn bad. They are great developers but they aren't f*cking wizards, we all saw V suffer because of them trying to include to much into 1 game.

 

I don't know how I can explain this in a simpler way, my main point is that I don't want to see a massive giant map that is actually empty at its core. I would much rather see a decent sized map like what we got before and have it be extremely well detailed.

Edited by m8son

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
finath

So... no one mentioned that river going through West Elizabeth?

That definetly wasn't in RDR1.

It's not a river, the purple line is district border. It's easily confused for the blue rivers for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
elfoam

Maybe there are some kind of guards that shoot you dead if you try to cross it?

GTAO Swat team

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
elfoam

Remember there's only one thing that matters in the lead up leaks for this game. Dedicated servers = buy/preorder. No servers = tell rockstar to stick it. Quite simple :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chinese Takeout

My god it's like you didn't even read what I posted. You talk like you're a seasoned game developer and it's laughable/cringy as hell. Re-iterating what I said for a third time, I do not in any way shape or form want them to cut back on the "pure untouched wilderness" and "vast open nothingness of nature" that you seem to be creaming your pants over. Like I said before, the reason it worked so well in Redemption is because they balanced the wide open areas so perfectly with small bits of civilization scarcely spread throughout - maintaining perfect ambiance throughout the entire map with small details littered everywhere and things to do around every corner like stranger missions, gang hideouts, and random events.

 

I was using GTA V as an example of what happens when you sacrifice detail for a bigger map. The random events turned out like garbage as well as the stranger missions, there was nothing like gang hideouts and even the main storyline suffered because of the map design. Using common sense, I think it'd be much harder for Rockstar to still maintain the level of detail and ambiance that they had in Redemption 1 while making the "massive" map filled with "open nothingness" that you want so damn bad. They are great developers but they aren't f*cking wizards, we all saw V suffer because of them trying to include to much into 1 game.

 

I don't know how I can explain this in a simpler way, my main point is that I don't want to see a massive giant map that is actually empty at its core. I would much rather see a decent sized map like what we got before and have it be extremely well detailed.

 

I really think we're arguing over nothing. I loved RDR1. Probably more than any other game I've ever played. I want RDR2 to be AS GOOD, or BETTER. But, I do not want it to be WORSE. And I'm pretty certain you feel the same way.

 

Now I understand (I think) that by density you mean "treasure hunts, camps, repeatable random events, actual good hunting, Stranger Events, Gang Hideouts, tumbleweeds rolling by and destructible cacti."

 

I want those things, too. We all do. Why did you assume we didn't want those things?

 

Forget about GTA5 for a minute. See if this helps explain my desire. If not, meh. Let's move on.

 

If RDR1 was of SIZE X, DENSITY Y (all those things you listed up there), and with a "Wilderness Factor" (how far you can go before you encounter another "Y") of Z

 

Then, I want RDR2 to be at least 4X, 4Y & 4Z.

 

Not 4X, Y, 8Z. Not 4X, Y, 10Z. Whatever the increase in X, I want Y and Z to show relative increase.

 

I most certainly do not want RDR1 X = RDR2 X.

 

I think the reason I wasn't understanding you is that, really, what you call Density I call Activities, and the number of Activities (Y) divided by the Size (X) of the map would give you its Density (Z).

 

If RDR1 has 100 activities and the map size is 10 units, it has a density of 10 (activities per unit). In RDR2, I would want the density to still be 10 or greater, but not less.

 

So, if RDR2's map size is 20 units, then I hope the Activities are set to 200, meaning the "Density" is still 10.

 

The MAP is bigger / The number of ACTIVITIES is greater / The DISTANCE between activities (i.e. wilderness) is greater (even though the density is the same).

 

Yes? No? I probably made things worse, didn't I?

Edited by Chinese Takeout

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BretMaverick777

My take on the "density vs. distance" battle: yes, I understand and agree with those of you who say the West should reflect vast empty distances, give you the same kind of immersive feel that a cowboy or settler or native or gunslinger riding across the Plains would have felt in the 1800s. On the other hand, the most important thing to keep in mind is how this translates to gameplay. Pretty is nice for a minute, but once you realize mission parameters require you to, say, ride across the Great Plains to get to another encounter area and you've got, like, 10 RL minutes of watching Ol' Trigger gallop across the grass....and more grass....and, yep, more grasss....

 

You can't let size turn this into a snoozefest. However vast the map may be, there should be plenty to keep you, the gamer, occupied in the meantime. Wild animals, Indians, bandits, random encounters, collectibles, maybe even weather (hello? Great Plains? Some of the deadliest weather in the world....tornadoes, hailstorms, flash floods, blizzards? A stormcloud gathering on the horizon should make the player quake in his boots, literally, and start thinking about shelter in a hurry).....

 

....Anyone remember the game "Gun," which predated Red Dead Revolver, iirc? That illustrates the problem.....yeah, it was very pretty for the time, and cool to have an open world Western for the first time ever; but most of the game was spent riding across empty deserts and plains with absolutely nothing to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
m8son

 

My god it's like you didn't even read what I posted. You talk like you're a seasoned game developer and it's laughable/cringy as hell. Re-iterating what I said for a third time, I do not in any way shape or form want them to cut back on the "pure untouched wilderness" and "vast open nothingness of nature" that you seem to be creaming your pants over. Like I said before, the reason it worked so well in Redemption is because they balanced the wide open areas so perfectly with small bits of civilization scarcely spread throughout - maintaining perfect ambiance throughout the entire map with small details littered everywhere and things to do around every corner like stranger missions, gang hideouts, and random events.

 

I was using GTA V as an example of what happens when you sacrifice detail for a bigger map. The random events turned out like garbage as well as the stranger missions, there was nothing like gang hideouts and even the main storyline suffered because of the map design. Using common sense, I think it'd be much harder for Rockstar to still maintain the level of detail and ambiance that they had in Redemption 1 while making the "massive" map filled with "open nothingness" that you want so damn bad. They are great developers but they aren't f*cking wizards, we all saw V suffer because of them trying to include to much into 1 game.

 

I don't know how I can explain this in a simpler way, my main point is that I don't want to see a massive giant map that is actually empty at its core. I would much rather see a decent sized map like what we got before and have it be extremely well detailed.

I really think we're arguing over nothing. I loved RDR1. Probably more than any other game I've ever played. I want RDR2 to be AS GOOD, or BETTER. But, I do not want it to be WORSE. And I'm pretty certain you feel the same way.

 

Now I understand (I think) that by density you mean "treasure hunts, camps, repeatable random events, actual good hunting, Stranger Events, Gang Hideouts, tumbleweeds rolling by and destructible cacti."

 

I want those things, too. We all do. Why did you assume we didn't want those things?

 

Forget about GTA5 for a minute. See if this helps explain my desire. If not, meh. Let's move on.

 

If RDR1 was of SIZE X, DENSITY Y (all those things you listed up there), and with a "Wilderness Factor" (how far you can go before you encounter another "Y") of Z

 

Then, I want RDR2 to be at least 4X, 4Y & 4Z.

 

Not 4X, Y, 8Z. Not 4X, Y, 10Z. Whatever the increase in X, I want Y and Z to show relative increase.

 

I most certainly do not want RDR1 X = RDR2 X.

 

I think the reason I wasn't understanding you is that, really, what you call Density I call Activities, and the number of Activities (Y) divided by the Size (X) of the map would give you its Density (Z).

 

If RDR1 has 100 activities and the map size is 10 units, it has a density of 10 (activities per unit). In RDR2, I would want the density to still be 10 or greater, but not less.

 

So, if RDR2's map size is 20 units, then I hope the Activities are set to 200, meaning the "Density" is still 10.

 

The MAP is bigger / The number of ACTIVITIES is greater / The DISTANCE between activities (i.e. wilderness) is greater (even though the density is the same).

 

Yes? No? I probably made things worse, didn't I?

Nope you didn't make things worse, I understood what you were getting at from the beginning and what I'm saying is that you are asking for too much. I never assumed you wanted less detail or density, I'm saying that it's impossible to achieve what you're asking for in the amount of development time they've had.

 

They simply can't create a map as big as you want and still maintain the perfect map design they had in the last game. You're setting yourself up for disappointment if you are expecting them to have a map 4 times the size of Redemption and still have it be just as detailed as the last game.

 

I keep using GTA V as an example because look at what happened, IV had a smaller, much more detailed and actual lifelike map. V had a massive map lacking in detail and other areas of the game suffered because of it. AI and physics were downgraded, the storyline and side missions weren't that good, you needed to utilize character switching and fast travel often to keep you from having to bounce all over the map, ruining immersion.

 

I just don't want that to happen again, besides RDR was already huge anyway and the leaked map looks to be a decent amount bigger, do you really want that much more space? You people are asking for too much from the devs and it's the reason games are getting worse and worse with time instead of better.

Edited by m8son

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chinese Takeout

Nope you didn't make things worse, I understood what you were getting at from the beginning and what I'm saying is that you are asking for too much. I never assumed you wanted less detail or density, I'm saying that it's impossible to achieve what you're asking for in the amount of development time they've had.

 

They simply can't create a map as big as you want and still maintain the perfect map design they had in the last game. You're setting yourself up for disappointment if you are expecting them to have a map 4 times the size of Redemption and still have it be just as detailed as the last game.

 

I keep using GTA V as an example because look at what happened, IV had a smaller, much more detailed and actual lifelike map. V had a massive map lacking in detail and other areas of the game suffered because of it. AI and physics were downgraded, the storyline and side missions weren't that good, you needed to utilize character switching and fast travel often to keep you from having to bounce all over the map, ruining immersion.

 

I just don't want that to happen again, besides RDR was already huge anyway and the leaked map looks to be a decent amount bigger, do you really want that much more space? You people are asking for too much from the devs and it's the reason games are getting worse and worse with time instead of better.

 

Yeah, "4" was a bad choice for my example. My point was that I wanted the increase to be evenly distributed between the 3 factors. I should have said "2x." I think that's reasonable. I'm not as disappointed by GTA5, apparently, as you are. I 100% loved it, and I thought it had great "density" when it came to strangers and jobs and random events...and destructible Joshua Trees. I loved 4, but there's no way I want to go back to the 4 version of Liberty City...not without some major upgrades. And I most certainly don't want to go back to the San Andreas of...GTA: San Andreas. Again...loved the game...LOVED IT...when it first came out...and I still love it. But it is completely dated. Do you not remember having to drive so far that you heard "Driving My Love Away" by Eddie Rabbitt 3 times before you finished the mission?! Each game has had its share of problems, BUT each game has shown improvement in how R* goes about creating their worlds.

 

That is what I want to see and what I fully expect to see: marked increase in size, quality, realism and immersion. I don't expect this because I feel I'm entitled to it...I expect it because R* has delivered this to me time and time again with each successive game! :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
m8son

 

Nope you didn't make things worse, I understood what you were getting at from the beginning and what I'm saying is that you are asking for too much. I never assumed you wanted less detail or density, I'm saying that it's impossible to achieve what you're asking for in the amount of development time they've had.

 

They simply can't create a map as big as you want and still maintain the perfect map design they had in the last game. You're setting yourself up for disappointment if you are expecting them to have a map 4 times the size of Redemption and still have it be just as detailed as the last game.

 

I keep using GTA V as an example because look at what happened, IV had a smaller, much more detailed and actual lifelike map. V had a massive map lacking in detail and other areas of the game suffered because of it. AI and physics were downgraded, the storyline and side missions weren't that good, you needed to utilize character switching and fast travel often to keep you from having to bounce all over the map, ruining immersion.

 

I just don't want that to happen again, besides RDR was already huge anyway and the leaked map looks to be a decent amount bigger, do you really want that much more space? You people are asking for too much from the devs and it's the reason games are getting worse and worse with time instead of better.

 

Yeah, "4" was a bad choice for my example. My point was that I wanted the increase to be evenly distributed between the 3 factors. I should have said "2x." I think that's reasonable. I'm not as disappointed by GTA5, apparently, as you are. I 100% loved it, and I thought it had great "density" when it came to strangers and jobs and random events...and destructible Joshua Trees. I loved 4, but there's no way I want to go back to the 4 version of Liberty City...not without some major upgrades. And I most certainly don't want to go back to the San Andreas of...GTA: San Andreas. Again...loved the game...LOVED IT...when it first came out...and I still love it. But it is completely dated. Do you not remember having to drive so far that you heard "Driving My Love Away" by Eddie Rabbitt 3 times before you finished the mission?! Each game has had its share of problems, BUT each game has shown improvement in how R* goes about creating their worlds.

 

That is what I want to see and what I fully expect to see: marked increase in size, quality, realism and immersion. I don't expect this because I feel I'm entitled to it...I expect it because R* has delivered this to me time and time again with each successive game! :-)

 

I guess that's the point where we disagree then. To me and a lot of other people, when V released it was pretty obvious that the map was lackluster in comparison to any of there previous games. Half of it was there for no damn reason other than sheer size. Every other Rockstar game utilizes pretty much every crevice of the map for the missions and other things to do while in V there is no reason to explore. They spent their time on the size of the map rather then realizing it'd be impossible to fill it with actual content. Why do you think they had so many stupid minigames like yoga in random ass places around the map? Why do you think the random events were so scripted and terrible compared to RDR? They all seem like last ditch, half-assed efforts to actually add some content to their map. Instead of focusing on the actual meat of the game they gave us a giant plate with nothing on it.

 

Also why do you think they went back to a much smaller map with IV after just making one of the largest locations seen in a game - San Andreas? Surely people wanted and expected IV's map to be much bigger than San Andreas, right? But that wasn't the case, when they made that generation leap the graphics and gameplay were improved 10 fold and while it certainly isn't the biggest - Liberty City is still held up today as one of, if not the most detailed map in any game (just like RDR1). They could've easily kept the graphics and gameplay relatively close to the old 3D games and just made a massive map instead for that initial "next gen" game.

 

RDR2 is Rockstar's first game on the next generation of consoles. If we end up with a map as huge as you want it's pretty likely that it'll be a watered down experience, losing that magic the original RDR had. But at the end of the day we are all entitled to our own opinion and expectations, we still know pretty much nothing about the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chinese Takeout

To me and a lot of other people, when V released it was pretty obvious that the map was lackluster in comparison to any of there previous games.

I don't doubt that that's true, but you are clearly in the vast minority. You can comb through review after review and while you'll occasionally find criticism of the story, protagonists or dialogue, you'll almost always see within the 90 and 100% review scores phrases like, "a world matched only in size by the number of things you can do in it," and "vast & sprawling with a thousand things to do," and "the best character in GTA5 is the world in which it's set." That these reviews are the majority isn't an opinion, it's a fact. That of course doesn't negate your opinion...but it still remains in the minority. Most people feel that R* hit the ball out of the park with GTA5.

 

Also why do you think they went back to a much smaller map with IV after just making one of the largest locations seen in a game - San Andreas?

 

You're comparing apples and oranges. What you should compare is GTA3 Liberty City to GTA4 Liberty City, which was HUGE in comparison. Then, when it came time for GTA5 they created a map that equally surpassed its predecessor - even without San Fierro & Las Venturas. GTA4 Liberty City is to GTA3 Liberty City as GTA5 Los Santos is to GTA:SA Los Santos.

 

As a reminder:

XDs0tTZ.jpg

 

 

RDR2 is Rockstar's first game on the next generation of consoles. If we end up with a map as huge as you want it's pretty likely that it'll be a watered down experience, losing that magic the original RDR had. But at the end of the day we are all entitled to our own opinion and expectations, we still know pretty much nothing about the game.

 

You're absolutely right. I'm excited to see what R* can do, unhindered by Last Gen hardware. I expect them to make the exact same leap they did from

 

GTA3LC -> GTA4LC

GTA:SA LS -> GTA5 LS

RDR1 America -> RDR2 America

 

But, I don't expect it to be watered-down at all. I expect it will be how they described it: a vast and atmospheric world. :^:

Edited by Chinese Takeout

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
m8son

 

To me and a lot of other people, when V released it was pretty obvious that the map was lackluster in comparison to any of there previous games.

I don't doubt that that's true, but you are clearly in the vast minority. You can comb through review after review and while you'll occasionally find criticism of the story, protagonists or dialogue, you'll almost always see within the 90 and 100% review scores phrases like, "a world matched only in size by the number of things you can do in it," and "vast & sprawling with a thousand things to do," and "the best character in GTA5 is the world in which it's set." That these reviews are the majority isn't an opinion, it's a fact. That of course doesn't negate your opinion...but it still remains in the minority. Most people feel that R* hit the ball out of the park with GTA5.

 

Also why do you think they went back to a much smaller map with IV after just making one of the largest locations seen in a game - San Andreas?

 

You're comparing apples and oranges. What you should compare is GTA3 Liberty City to GTA4 Liberty City, which was HUGE in comparison. Then, when it came time for GTA5 they created a map that equally surpassed its predecessor - even without San Fierro & Las Venturas. GTA4 Liberty City is to GTA3 Liberty City as GTA5 Los Santos is to GTA:SA Los Santos.

 

As a reminder:

XDs0tTZ.jpg

 

 

RDR2 is Rockstar's first game on the next generation of consoles. If we end up with a map as huge as you want it's pretty likely that it'll be a watered down experience, losing that magic the original RDR had. But at the end of the day we are all entitled to our own opinion and expectations, we still know pretty much nothing about the game.

 

You're absolutely right. I'm excited to see what R* can do, unhindered by Last Gen hardware. I expect them to make the exact same leap they did from GTA3LC -> GTA4LC

GTA:SA LS -> GTA5 LS

RDR1 America -> RDR2 America

 

But, I don't expect it to be watered-down at all. I expect it will be how they described it: a vast and atmospheric world. :^:

 

Comparing GTA III to IV as a reference point for this game would make sense if the console generation leap was anywhere near as big as it was with PS2 to PS3 and Xbox original to the 360, but it wasn't. Games have not made the leap they used to when a new console would come out, GTA V not even being able to run at a solid 30 fps is a testament to that. My point wasn't about the power of the consoles anyway, it was about the amount of time the developer puts in to each area. With a limited development time I would assume it'd be a lot more difficult to pay attention to detail to each area when the map is humongous.

 

And that picture you posted comparing V's map to San Andreas further proves my point. Half the map is barren and there is absolutely zero reason to visit it. Why don't you post a map comparison of V and San Andreas that also has the activities on there, oh yeah because V is barren as f*ck in that aspect too, unless you like playing tennis. Better yet, post a picture of Red Dead Redemption's map, which has much more open land, and compare it to V. You'll see that there was actual things to do and locations to discover, things around every corner! V is just 4 big blotches of emptiness thrown in to fill the space between 1 city and 2 towns. If you can't understand this then I don't know what else to say because I can't explain it any better. Bigger is not always better, it's as simple as that.

Edited by m8son

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chinese Takeout

Haha, nope. I can't understand it. You started arguing about console power, and then said that wasn't your point anyway, which made me wonder why you even brought it up, lol. Then you said something about a 30fps framerate which doesn't have anything to do with anything in this discussion, i.e. it's utterly up to the developer to decide what framerates they want to target for the hardware they're on. Tetris has a pretty amazing framerate on my watch. So what?

 

The only thing I understand is that you really, really, really hate GTA5. And that you hated tennis, but apparently really like horseshoes.

 

Moving right along...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
m8son

Haha, nope. I can't understand it. You started arguing about console power, and then said that wasn't your point anyway, which made me wonder why you even brought it up, lol. Then you said something about a 30fps framerate which doesn't have anything to do with anything in this discussion, i.e. it's utterly up to the developer to decide what framerates they want to target for the hardware they're on. Tetris has a pretty amazing framerate on my watch. So what?

 

The only thing I understand is that you really, really, really hate GTA5. And that you hated tennis, but apparently really like horseshoes.

 

Moving right along...

I guess there is no having a rational discussion with some people on here, I tried and tried to explain it in the simplest way possible but you still seem to lack the ability to understand a basic concept. You went on some complete nonsense rant trying and failing to use math, pretty much stating that you want 4x the map size, 4x the detail, and 4x the activities. You act like I wouldn't want this, who wouldn't want that? I am just trying to convince you that it isn't really in the realm of possibility with how long they usually have to develop. I only tried to use GTA V as an example of why bigger isn't always better, and never once did I say that I hated the game but you can continue to assume things all you want. Bringing up the flaws in a game doesn't mean you have to hate it but everyone on here always takes things to the extreme.

 

Also yes I did say that it wasn't my main point so I won't really go into it since you can't seem to grasp why anyway, but console power still relates to how this game will turn out in a huge way and if you can't understand how that ties into this then don't blame me for your lack of knowing. Your comparison to tetris made absolutely no sense btw.

Edited by m8son

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sanches

Lol, New Bordeaux. Could be just a same name, but not a Mafia 3 reference. New Bordeaux was portrayed from New Orleans, which is in Louisiana state. And people talk that RDR2 will take place in Florida.
Also in this map and Mafia 3 map, New Bordeaux is in marshy location, coincidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.