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

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. PC
      2. Gameplay
      3. Missions
      4. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Gameplay
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
    1. Crews & Posses

      1. Recruitment
    2. Events

    1. GTA Online

      1. Diamond Casino & Resort
      2. DLC
      3. Find Lobbies & Players
      4. Guides & Strategies
      5. Vehicles
      6. Content Creator
      7. Help & Support
    2. Grand Theft Auto Series

    3. GTA 6

    4. GTA V

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

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

    7. GTA Vice City Stories

    8. GTA Liberty City Stories

    9. GTA San Andreas

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

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

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

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    13. 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. News

    2. Forum Support

    3. Site Suggestions

GTAForums does NOT endorse or allow any kind of GTA Online modding, mod menus or tools. Do NOT post them here or advertise them, as per the forum rules.
Rocket man FI

Why San Fierro and Las Venturas didn't appear in Gta V?

Recommended Posts

Rocket man FI

I was always trying to figure it out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The7thOne

Because the story was written around Southern San Andreas, Los Santos specifically. If the story called for SF and/or LV they would have included the maps in-game. This also would have added on to the time required for development.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
~Tiger~

I can think of two reasons.

 

Firstly, Rockstar didn't want GTA V to become GTA SA II. It is a stand alone story in a completely different environment. True, there are nods to GTA SA (Grove Street, Chilliad, bigfoot etc) but here was Rockstars dilemma: if they did create a map similar to GTA SA's map, with the three cities and deserts etc, critics would have accused Rockstar of an unoriginal game that merely copied their previous work. But then if Rockstar made a completely different map with no connection to GTA SA critics would have complained that nothing was the same as the original San Andreas. And so we got a compromise.

 

Secondly, Rockstar spent so much time, money and resources on developing a bewilderingly complex under-the-ocean world that any additional cities in San Andreas were not possible.

 

I hope for the future, I would love to see a HD San Fierro someday....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HeySlickThatsMe

Because it would be too big and when they made the game it was still "Oldgen era"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stoney0503

Quality over quantity.

 

And R* mostly want to use those settings for future titles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ProKiller93

I don't think anyone cares about that anymore

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BlueRoseGirl_xx

Maybe they are going to use them for future games. Nah that is what I had hoped though because I was guttered to play GTA V and it was only half of San Andreas... But the details in the graphics + the size of the areas all make up for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ZZCOOL

Maybe they are going to use them for future games. Nah that is what I had hoped though because I was guttered to play GTA V and it was only half of San Andreas... But the details in the graphics + the size of the areas all make up for it.

i thought the world was extremely bland like a traincity model city

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Rockstar Gamer 108

Rockstar is perhaps making completely new cities for it's new HD gtas. For example, one can have a look to [iV/EFLC]'s Liberty City or V Los Santos.

 

IV's Liberty City is completely different from III's LC, exept of Francis Airport, which has been transferred from West to East. All areas in IV map are renamed, not even a single one is left out, I guarantee it.

In San Andreas, Mount Chiliad lies in west of LS, while in V, it lies at North. Blaine County is introduced to V, which is absent in SA. Many of the areas are renamed too. For example, Ganton to Davis, Mulholland to Vinewood Hills etc. Some are left unrenamed likr Downtown LS, Richman etc.

 

Secondly, SFO, LA and Vegas are extremely big areas. It is also very difficult & timetaking to port the prototype copies of these 3 cities into a single game. GTA V is 60 GB just for pc, which has LS & Blaine County. Just imagine the amount of space the game would occupy if it's length had been produced to 4-5 times.

 

Thirdly, the Game Engine too has got importance. It is a very very important thing. Many texturors would be needed to make 3 cities + Villages. Different places have their own style & customs. More cities means more peds. The whole work might collapse down if the game engine can't handle such a big amount of graphics, textures, scripts etc, is mounted in it heavily.

They had to design a very powerful engine, coz RAGE might never hve handled 300-350 GBs.

 

Fourthly, it's time consuming. They took 5 years only to build 1 City & 1 Village.

3 Cities + 2 Villages could result em 7-10 years at least.

 

Fifthly, the story of the game matters a lot. If the story is short, there's no importance of making 3 Cities. They had to design 100 mission at least, as SA did. GTA V map is bigger than SA 10 times at least. Imagine, if it was made 30-35 times bigger, with 69 missions only. Thus, the big story & 100 missions made SA a bigger game than V.

Edited by DIze

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TheOriginalGunslinger

There are a few references to San Fierro and Las Venturas in GTA V. Nothing major but references that include a "San Fierro Air" terminal at the Airport, Las Venturas lottery tickets found in gas stations, and even a trucker talking through the radio in Trevor's Bodhi (when the music is off) about hookers around Las Venturas.

 

The cities themselves both exist within the world but obviously aren't accessible.

 

I hope for the future, I would love to see a HD San Fierro someday....

My god, the Gant Bridge would look marvelous if that happened. Edited by TheOriginalGunslinger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
VoodooVibez

I hate the map we got... I would have preferred a San Andreas kind of map. BUT we can't all get what we want

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Urustay Gordov Matt D.

Rockstar is perhaps making completely new cities for it's new HD gtas. For example, one can have a look to [iV/EFLC]'s Liberty City or V Los Santos.

 

IV's Liberty City is completely different from III's LC, exept of Francis Airport, which has been transferred from West to East. All areas in IV map are renamed, not even a single one is left out, I guarantee it.

In San Andreas, Mount Chiliad lies in west of LS, while in V, it lies at North. Blaine County is introduced to V, which is absent in SA. Many of the areas are renamed too. For example, Ganton to Davis, Mulholland to Vinewood Hills etc. Some are left unrenamed likr Downtown LS, Richman etc.

 

Secondly, SFO, LA and Vegas are extremely big areas. It is also very difficult & timetaking to port the prototype copies of these 3 cities into a single game. GTA V is 60 GB just for pc, which has LS & Blaine County. Just imagine the amount of space the game would occupy if it's length had been produced to 4-5 times.

 

Thirdly, the Game Engine too has got importance. It is a very very important thing. Many texturors would be needed to make 3 cities + Villages. Different places have their own style & customs. More cities means more peds. The whole work might collapse down if the game engine can't handle such a big amount of graphics, textures, scripts etc, is mounted in it heavily.

They had to design a very powerful engine, coz RAGE might never hve handled 300-350 GBs.

 

Fourthly, it's time consuming. They took 5 years only to build 1 City & 1 Village.

3 Cities + 2 Villages could result em 7-10 years at least.

 

Fifthly, the story of the game matters a lot. If the story is short, there's no importance of making 3 Cities. They had to design 100 mission at least, as SA did. GTA V map is bigger than SA 10 times at least. Imagine, if it was made 30-35 times bigger, with 69 missions only. Thus, the big story & 100 missions made SA a bigger game than V.

GTA 5's map being 10× times that of GTA San Andress?I highly doubt so, its 2× times at best

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ash_735

Roughly 4x if you include all underwater, but the bland design of over half of it makes it forgettable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Official General

I can think of two reasons.

 

Firstly, Rockstar didn't want GTA V to become GTA SA II. It is a stand alone story in a completely different environment.

 

No disrespect but that is utter nonsense. I really don't see what having 3 cities on the map had anything to do with the game being viewed another San Andreas. If that's supposed to be an excuse for Rockstar's badly structured and boring map design, then it's an extremely poor one.

 

3 different cities with the 3 protagonists we have in V would have ensured the experience would have been much different to SA's. The protagonist's personalities, identities, their stories and themes would have been much different, the period set is modern day and not the 1990s either. Everything about such a game would have been much different to SA.

 

The simple reason is that they made bad choices with what technology and resources they had at their disposal, and thus greatly wasted a beautiful looking detail map. Nothing else to it. Bad choices, badly designed map.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
~Tiger~

 

No disrespect but that is utter nonsense.

Please don't say "No disrespect" and then to go on and say something incredibly disrespectful as "Utter nonsense".

 

My reasoning makes absolute perfect sense and is far more logical than your "coulda, shoulda, woulda" attempt at reasoning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LaBombaRomba

 

No disrespect but that is utter nonsense.

Please don't say "No disrespect" and then to go on and say something incredibly disrespectful as "Utter nonsense".

You both have a point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Queen Elizabeth II

 

 

Secondly, Rockstar spent so much time, money and resources on developing a bewilderingly complex under-the-ocean world that any additional cities in San Andreas were not possible.

 

The most irrelevant thing in the whole GTA series - the ocean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pink Pineapple

but here was Rockstars dilemma: if they did create a map similar to GTA SA's map, with the three cities and deserts etc, critics would have accused Rockstar of an unoriginal game that merely copied their previous work.

 

The vast majority of players would have loved a map with 3 HD cities. Nobody would care if some critic said it was unoriginal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Plage

Because of console peas...ehm, I mean restrictions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CaptainMental

 

Secondly, Rockstar spent so much time, money and resources on developing a bewilderingly complex under-the-ocean world that any additional cities in San Andreas were not possible.

 

The most irrelevant thing in the whole GTA series - the ocean.

 

I dont think so much effort was put in for the ocean in GTAV, I mean how long did it take for them to plant out generic rocks, underwater plants and some wrecks? Cant be much effort.

 

The problem with a island that is oval/round and almost no inland waterways is that it makes seacrafts kind of pointless for transportation. There is really no need neither in GTAV/GTAO to get out in the ocean except for some missions/lost submarine pieces/waste barrels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
~Tiger~

The vast majority of players would have loved a map with 3 HD cities.

 

If you search this forum you will find discussions on this very point. Here's an example. Way back in 2011 folks were debating whether one HD city was enough and whether the game would be original or just a re-hash of SA. However, as Plage points out above, three HD cities were never going to happen on the console technologies available.

 

 

Nobody would care if some critic said it was unoriginal.

 

Rockstar would have cared. That's the point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Galehaut

 

but here was Rockstars dilemma: if they did create a map similar to GTA SA's map, with the three cities and deserts etc, critics would have accused Rockstar of an unoriginal game that merely copied their previous work.

 

The vast majority of players would have loved a map with 3 HD cities. Nobody would care if some critic said it was unoriginal.

 

 

Seriously , how much entitled people can be. They made the best reproduction of California / LA / Hollywood ever. Not a single game company in the world right now are able to even dream about creating what Rockstar did simply put. This game is a masterpiece on all level literally. Proof : still on top 5 global top seller on steam after more than 3 and half year of release.

 

Be it the dialogues , the main story line , music , graphics ( 5 different platform that can play this game. 5 . ) , An online component with thousands of hours of content , ect.

 

I can understand some critics , i'm the first one to critic everything around me. But i just have no word for comments like this '' majority of people would have liked more cities '' DUH. How is that even relevant to the game at all ? They never tried to remake a PS2 ERA Map ... how do you think these games are being made ? You realize that they first had to create the game engine FOR V and that it took them a lot of time right ?

 

Moreover , in GTA V , they had an ambitious project of actually mimicking the surroundings and buildings that we would see in the game. There's hundreds of example of it. Latest one i saw : https://imgur.com/a/jE6qi#GpW21FR

Trevor's meth lab : PaTouQT.jpg

 

San andreas was their third GTA with that engine. They could focus on content instead of engine creation. You'll be able to witness this too in RDR2 since they had more time to focus on content and probably only had to tweak the HDengine. You'll be able to compare to something when we have RDR2.

Edited by MuralDeciphered

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Official General

@ MuralDeciphered

 

I don't really see what the end point was in your post above. I'm happy for you that you view V as a masterpiece and you that you love it to no end. But nothing in your glowing praise and applause of V does not do anything to change the fact that many GTA fans view V's map as hugely wasted, poorly structured and badly designed. It has one city (not as big as it should be), very few small towns, tons of near-useless mountainous terrain, no proper forest, a quiet desert slapped in the middle, and lacking in interiors for its size. Reminding of us of the game's better points don't change our disappointment with the map's many important flaws and shortcomings that heavily contributed to the game's failure to realise its potential. If it means us critics are self-entitled then so be it, but it is what it is.

 

@ Tiger

 

I'm sorry but I just think your theory about Rockstar being concerned about similarities to SA's map is nonsense. It makes no sense whatsoever. With the advances in today gaming technology, 3 cities can be easily designed on V's map in a manner that don't make it similar to SA's map. If they made LS in V look much different and more detailed than LS in SA, why can't they do the same for SF or LV ?

 

Your theory is nonsense and that's just my opinion of it. Nothing personal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Galehaut

With the advances in today gaming technology, 3 cities can be easily designed on V's map in a manner that don't make it similar to SA's map. If they made LS in V look much different and more detailed than LS in SA, why can't they do the same for SF or LV ?

 

Your theory is nonsense and that's just my opinion of it. Nothing personal.

 

I think that what makes no sense here is your understanding of current and past technologies. I also think that you are simply dishonest about the sheer size of work and the insane amount of details that went in GTAV. Choosing to ignore all those details doesn't prevent them from existing.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/sep/17/grand-theft-auto-5-gta-dan-houser-interview

 

Dan Houser :

 

'' GTA is the bastard child of many different parents. It's more urban planning than architecture, though. There's a great skill in doing the first layouts of a map, it's so complicated what those artists are doing – the things they have to worry about. They have to bring a huge section of the world to life, get things working in the right way, make areas that look believable but work well for gameplay and give good roads for car chases and areas for shootouts. It has to be planned out but must still look organic; you have to capture the essence of what's really there in a city, but in a far smaller area. It's a great, great skill. ''

 

So you are telling us that about 7-8 years ago when they planned the game and started to plan what the game map should look like ( While keeping PS3 / XBOX360 hardware limitations in head here ) , they had enough '' technology '' to create 3x more total work that they actually did ? While also keeping in mind that the beta version had many things that they had to cut due to something called '' HARDWARE LIMITATIONS '' ?

 

The vegetation and trees made the game unplayable believe it or not. Sometimes they don't have the choice of keeping something when it breaks the game. Sometimes whole mechanics get scratched due to bugs that could take too long to fix. Sometimes games are created and are shelved/terminated.*AGENT COUGH COUGH* Video games creation in big companies can take funny turns.

 

Question:

'' GTA 5 is coming at the end of the console cycle. Does the advance of technology interest you? Do you think, 'Oh wow, what will GTA 6 look like on a PS4?' ''

 

''Of course we're interested. But no, not in terms of GTA, because we're always working on the current game. We look at the tech at a more practical level: what will be ready for which game that we're working on further down the line. ''

Edited by MuralDeciphered

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Urustay Gordov Matt D.

Roughly 4x if you include all underwater, but the bland design of over half of it makes it forgettable.

Who the hell goes underwater anyway?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TheOriginalGunslinger

I'm kind of glad they didn't include San Fierro and Las Venturas for this particular GTA title. The Los Santos setting and the surrounding ocean, desert, countryside worked well in my opinion. Rockstar were really trying to give off that "Southern California" setting and they did excellent. It just all worked well. The details of nearly every area in Los Santos. From the neighborhoods to the docks to the airport and more. It's certainly impressive of how they went on about doing their version of this particular setting. Yes, it was a small desert and countryside so I'll agree with that for people who bring this up. All in all this game isn't as bad as some people say. It took me a while to appreciate it for what it is and I'm still enjoying it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
VenomsnakeVII

I'm kind of glad they didn't include San Fierro and Las Venturas for this particular GTA title. The Los Santos setting and the surrounding ocean, desert, countryside worked well in my opinion. Rockstar were really trying to give off that "Southern California" setting and they did excellent. It just all worked well. The details of nearly every area in Los Santos. From the neighborhoods to the docks to the airport and more. It's certainly impressive of how they went on about doing their version of this particular setting. Yes, it was a small desert and countryside so I'll agree with that for people who bring this up. All in all this game isn't as bad as some people say. It took me a while to appreciate it for what it is and I'm still enjoying it.

You mean the online world right?, i mean i liked V's map when it first was under wraps, but after realizing that there was nothing to go in, nothing to do, nothing to buy that would've improved SP, i quit as i knew the direction they were going in. This could've been the greatest open world game ever if they didn't cut corners, cut lots and i mean lots of content, and ultimately resold said content to online only for shark cards. The world can only look so good before you want to do something in it that's away from squeakers. Here's only hoping RDR2 redeems them but IMO i wouldn't hold my breath.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TheOriginalGunslinger

 

I'm kind of glad they didn't include San Fierro and Las Venturas for this particular GTA title. The Los Santos setting and the surrounding ocean, desert, countryside worked well in my opinion. Rockstar were really trying to give off that "Southern California" setting and they did excellent. It just all worked well. The details of nearly every area in Los Santos. From the neighborhoods to the docks to the airport and more. It's certainly impressive of how they went on about doing their version of this particular setting. Yes, it was a small desert and countryside so I'll agree with that for people who bring this up. All in all this game isn't as bad as some people say. It took me a while to appreciate it for what it is and I'm still enjoying it.

You mean the online world right?, i mean i liked V's map when it first was under wraps, but after realizing that there was nothing to go in, nothing to do, nothing to buy that would've improved SP, i quit as i knew the direction they were going in. This could've been the greatest open world game ever if they didn't cut corners, cut lots and i mean lots of content, and ultimately resold said content to online only for shark cards. The world can only look so good before you want to do something in it that's away from squeakers. Here's only hoping RDR2 redeems them but IMO i wouldn't hold my breath.

Basically, I should have just said Rockstar were going for the "Southern California" type setting. So, there was no need for San Fierro and Las Venturas. I'll agree about Single Player being bland but the city (no matter how small some people say it actually is) still looks gorgeous. As far as the desert and countryside go there could have been more, yes, but it's no need to sweat over after 3 years and some months. However, I'll still sweat over the fact that Single Player became an afterthought after GTA Online started getting going. I feel bad for people who comment in the "Single Player DLC" thread because I think we all know at this point it's never going to happen sadly.

Edited by TheOriginalGunslinger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
VoodooVibez

The GTA V map is boring in general... there is f*ck all to it. North of the map is mainly hills and mountains, whereas the lower half is the dull city. The GTA V map you can drive around and see it all in no time, whereas the San Andreas map there are still little areas I've stumbled upon and I used to play that game non stop. There's just no life in the V map

 

I hope they never do such ridiculous things to a classic map again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AUScowboy

Maybe next generation. I hope to see much bigger maps once hardware improves some more..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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