GTA 6 map needs to have multiple big cities

[NextGTA]

One city games get boring fast. One of the reasons San Andreas felt so big and was so fun to play, was driving from one city to another.

 

also the airport was useless in GTA 5...

 

the future of GTA is multiple city games. no more one city games.

 

would be cool with multiple Island cities crossable by long bridge:

 

Edited May 3, 2017 by NextGTA

[Good Hombre]

A pretty big Vice City would be enough for me.

[DOUGL4S1]

I agree to some extent. Yes, multiple cities are amazing because of Road Trips, it feels real because you're actually going from somewhere to somewhere else, not from somewhere to loop around the map. But the huge bridge thing just feels kinda boring and lazy. I'd rather have a nice cruise down a desert road or through a forest.

Edited May 3, 2017 by DOUGL4S1

[DoomsdayFAN]

I agree absolutely. The bigger, the better. The more stuff to do, the better. The more towns, areas, and multiple cities, the better. I'm still holding out hope that someday we get a map that includes every previous GTA city, town, and wilderness area plus all new areas sprinkled throughout. Around the time the PS5 comes out this should be doable, no question.

Edited May 3, 2017 by DoomsdayFAN

[Mister Pink]

Yeah I wouldn't use one single large bridge as an example of how traversing multiple cities can be fun.

 

I'm very vocal about my longing for multiple cities. I have been since San Andreas. Unfortunately, Rockstar went with multiple characters instead of multiple cities. It was a fun concept but I didn't like the execution.

 

Multiple cities offer variety, it's like getting two or more GTA's in one game. Variety is breeds longevity. If the two cities are distinctly different maybe economically, socially and architecturally we can be assured it will make SP last a very long time.

 

I've been hoping for a Detroit/Chicago or Baltimore/Philadelphia or Boston/Detroit combination of 2 cities. I love the purposeful feeling of traversing between two cities.. you know when you've spent a long time in one place and now it's time to move on, maybe buy an apartment in the new location and set up shop there. You do a few missions and get used to the lay of the land. Arriving at that new city is like that exciting feeling you get when you launch a new GTA. Then you get a little bored of that newer, 2nd city and you return back to the first city and you start feeling nostalgic.

 

Also if pricing was different in due to local economies it may be a good idea to steal cars in one city and selling them in the other? Could be a few other purposes for multiple cities apart from the obvious variety and change of scenery.

[mariana_dm1989]

True it would be nice, but I'm worried about the sizes of the multiple cities. Gtav had just one city and it was so tiny and lame. A big and detailed city with lots of stuff to do in it would be much better than multiple cities and mediocre rockstar- style countryside in between them. Rockstar has definitely lost their touch on map layout, as is apparent by GTAV. Gtav would have in fact been so much nicer if rockstar excluded all that garbage countryside above vinewood hills and just made the whole map area as the Los Santos city. Rockstar can't be trusted to make even one city properly.

Edited May 3, 2017 by mariana_dm1989

[Good Hombre]

Gtav would have in fact been so much nicer if rockstar excluded all that garbage countryside above vinewood hills and just made the whole map area as the Los Santos city. Rockstar can't be trusted to make even one city properly.

This! LS shoud've been way bigger, instead they decided to make those useless empty mountains.

Edited May 3, 2017 by Good Hombre

[Payne Killer]

A long bridge would be cool for a cruise, but I'd rather steal a jet and fly to another island, the bridge would lose its appeal after some time.

[Maxxeine]

It's quite clear that even focusing on just one city, there can be problems (see: GTA V)...so the whole argument isn't perfect.

 

However, focusing on just one city greatly increases the amount of care and detail can be put into the map. Unless you spend a lengthy amount of time creating multiple cities which would just delay the game's release further.

 

Really, I don't see a reason why we should have multiple cities unless the plot calls for it. I really don't want to see several, somewhat-detailed cities if we're only focusing on one. I wouldn't mind a larger map, with one large city, and sparsely populated towns in the surrounding countryside. Instead of Sandy Shores and Paleto Bay (which are fine in their own right) we could have suburban neighborhoods in the outskirts and eventually leading to isolated unincorporated communities like Sandy Shores. This would provide a good balance instead of having the focus be too drawn-out and ambitious - resulting in poor detail and consistency.

 

If we got something like GTA V - multiple protagonists - but instead had each character in a different city it could work. But again the detail has to consistently match throughout the map. I would hate to have something like The Crew again; the detail seen there was just poor. It's a great example of how having too big of a map can create compromise in quality (and yes, TC is a racing game, but the point still stands).

 

GTA IV did this near-perfectly - a big enough city, with enough diversity that you felt the progression in the story relative to what boroughs of LC you were moving through. If the cut countryside had stayed, it would have been perfect. If they do this again in GTAN I just hope they continue the trend that V started with being able to explore the map at will. Landlocking boroughs made sense in IV because they were separate islands. Not so much for a 100% land map.

[Pink Pineapple]

also the airport was useless in GTA 5...

 

 

 

That was one of the big disappointments I had with this game. You can buy a private jet, but there's no proper destination to fly to. I just don't understand why they didn't have a small airport in Paleto Bay and have some houses for sale and some unique activities there. There's no reason to travel across the map.

 

I don't need a second large city. I'd be fine with a smaller town. I just want to be able to travel somewhere with a purpose.

 

 

But the huge bridge thing just feels kinda boring and lazy.

 

Plus, if there was just one long bridge between cities, it would be a death trap filled with proximity mines in online.

[Zello]

Disagree I don't really see a story working with a bunch of cities. I just enjoy 1 city but that's just me also it would be difficult as f*ck to develop

Edited May 12, 2017 by Zello

[Mister Pink]

snip..

 

I mostly agree with you many thing but I do disagree with some of your points here. If I can pick apart a few things...

 

 

However, focusing on just one city greatly increases the amount of care and detail can be put into the map. Unless you spend a lengthy amount of time creating multiple cities which would just delay the game's release further.

 

We don't know this for sure. If any company has the skill and the budget to make two worthwhile cities, It's Rockstar. If you don't think Rockstar can do it, then it's almost like saying it can't be done. Yes, it may take more time to make but nobody is going to know how long GTA Next is going to take anyway whether it's one city or two cities.

 

Also, for V, if Rockstar focused on one character for GTA V, for example Michael, I'm guessing the resources going towards, 2 other characters such as mo-capping, recording of dialogue, mission structure, animations, character-switching dynamics etc etc, could have gone in to a team developing a second city, a city where Michael could have traveled to fulfill the story.

 

 

 

Really, I don't see a reason why we should have multiple cities unless the plot calls for it.

 

Well, I think a second city can provide more that just plot calling for it. There's plenty of reasons a character can visit another city.

 

In The Wire we often heard about drug contacts in Philadelphia and New York. There's many non-story reasons why a second city would be justified such a drug-smuggling missions. I'll list a few:

 

Non-story reasons to have two cities:

 

- Drug Smuggling: Smuggling drugs between cities. Or stealing drug-smugglers along a popular route between cities, like in San Andreas but more evolved.

- Different economies: Some cars in one city may fetch a better price than in the other. Say you are stealing cars to sell. A Sentinel may fetch more in one city (if you want to drive it there) than the other. Buying drugs in one city might be cheaper so you can sell them in the other city at more of a profit. A bit like in RDR where some stuff fetched a better price if you went over the border.

- Different scenery: Another city is another city. Bored of one city, go to the other. It's like two GTA's in one. I would find it hard to get bored a game that offers such variety. Each city can have it's own distinct feel and identity. Once can be affluent, nicer have a more thriving economy and one can be ravaged by poverty, unemployment, crime, grimness. We could have a contrasting cities, one vibrant and modern and the other dark and gritty. The progression from dark and gritty to the affluent city could be so refreshing.

 

Overall, I just think the potential of two cities offers way more than say multiple characters. Imagine starting off poor, in the sh*tty part of town in the poorer city, ravaged by crime. The story takes your around that city's underbelly. You earn dough, make contacts etc and follow a dark and gritty story. Eventually you start making a name for yourself and you start becoming more of a big-shot. You might be a big-shot in the poor city but you'd be somewhere near the bottom if you arrived in the more affluent city. Then then you meet contacts from the nicer, 2nd city...

 

You make the journey by car, excited by the prospects of what's in the newer city. Of course, the stores there will sell more stylish and expensive clothes, better car shops open up there with access to more sports and luxury, access to better, less street-grade weapons and access to more high-end properties etc. The sense of progression would be amazing.

 

Travelling back to the first city will have it's charms and dangers. There'll be street gangs on the corners and rival gangs you may have pissed off. Travelling back to the old city will have a danger-feel but it's also where to came-up. You may also have contacts there to smuggle drugs in to the 2nd city, like cocaine for the young, stupid and rich. Meanwhile your jacking rich-kids cars and then selling them to drug dealers back in the first city.

 

Each city can have it's own benefits and disadvantages. One can have a more NY/LC feel that's more condensed, where good sections of the map encourage on-foot game-play with many seedy underground places and derelict buildings that entice you out of the car to explore, full of mystery and details and the other city can be more open like LA/LS with highways and roads good for racing and being in your car. These two distinctions can offer varied gameplay. The cities don't have to be the same or just there for the sake of it or because plot calls for another city. A lot of care, attention and psychology can go in to the two cities so they're very different, very purposeful.

 

If you were building a GTA with two cities, you'd have to almost build the cities and be happy that if only one city was being released, gamers would be happy with that one city. Then do it twice and make two so nothing is left out.

 

 

Disagree I don't really see a story working with a bunch of cities....also it would be difficult as f*ck to develop.

 

We're not talking about a bunch of cities. We're only talking about one more than there has all ready been in the last two titles and one less than there has in San Andreas. Also, anything worth developing has to difficult AF.

Edited May 4, 2017 by Mister Pink

[burger_mike]

i want to see the 7 mile bridge to the miami keys which would be in it's GTA version, obviously.

Edited May 5, 2017 by Rodger Cheeto

[VictorVance1239]

I think it could work if they make it so you can only fly a certain amount of the trip in your personal planes before a cutscene cuts it off to save time and space, or if you choose to spend the money you can just go to the airport and go straight to the next city like that.

 

I'd have Vice City(Florida), Liberty City (New York) , Lone City (Texas) and (District City) Washington DC)

all of which has it's own unique missions in GTA online.

[DarkSavageDeathlyCloud]

I really do not see the need for this.

 

I do like more interiors then in gta5 though...

And less desert.

And more underground areas.

[Retro Flutter]

I'd like to see a map size similar to The Crew, (maybe a bit smaller to have more detail and such).. It was all of the US. If you wanted to "fast travel" to another city, you could opt for a plane/train ride, screen goes black and you spawn in the city you wanted to go to. Online, this could be an instant thing, Story, some time could pass in game to make it a bit more immersive.. You'd have wide open deserts, massive forests, big cities, farmland/plains.

 

Maybe perhaps, each city has a main character and they eventually meet up in some way and so everyone has to travel between the cities throughout the story.

[DOUGL4S1]

I'd like to see a map size similar to The Crew, (maybe a bit smaller to have more detail and such).. It was all of the US. If you wanted to "fast travel" to another city, you could opt for a plane/train ride, screen goes black and you spawn in the city you wanted to go to. Online, this could be an instant thing, Story, some time could pass in game to make it a bit more immersive.. You'd have wide open deserts, massive forests, big cities, farmland/plains.

 

Maybe perhaps, each city has a main character and they eventually meet up in some way and so everyone has to travel between the cities throughout the story.

Rockstar already took 5 years to make Los Santos and its surroundings, and 3 to make Liberty City. The whole US would take them like 20 years minimum, not to count all the testing and other work, like interiors, missions, vehicles, characters, weapons, etc, and all the areas that would be useless during gameplay...

Edited May 12, 2017 by DOUGL4S1

[Great Britain]

 

I'd like to see a map size similar to The Crew, (maybe a bit smaller to have more detail and such).. It was all of the US. If you wanted to "fast travel" to another city, you could opt for a plane/train ride, screen goes black and you spawn in the city you wanted to go to. Online, this could be an instant thing, Story, some time could pass in game to make it a bit more immersive.. You'd have wide open deserts, massive forests, big cities, farmland/plains.

 

Maybe perhaps, each city has a main character and they eventually meet up in some way and so everyone has to travel between the cities throughout the story.

Rockstar already took 5 years to make Los Santos and its surroundings, and 3 to make Liberty City. The whole US would take them like 20 years minimum, not to count all the testing and other work, like interiors, missions, vehicles, characters, weapons, etc, and all the areas that would be useless during gameplay...

 

 

I don't think it would take that long tbh. We are way more advanced technologically now and it's not like they have to start from scratch on some of the major cities. Also a point to note would be the fact that Rockstar is very choosy when it comes to interiors and such. Rest all of It just depends on the amount of people you have working on the project and how much dedication they show towards the game. I can imagine it would be their number one priority if such a game was to ever hit the scene.

Edited May 12, 2017 by Great Britain

[kj2022]

 

 

I'd like to see a map size similar to The Crew, (maybe a bit smaller to have more detail and such).. It was all of the US. If you wanted to "fast travel" to another city, you could opt for a plane/train ride, screen goes black and you spawn in the city you wanted to go to. Online, this could be an instant thing, Story, some time could pass in game to make it a bit more immersive.. You'd have wide open deserts, massive forests, big cities, farmland/plains.

 

Maybe perhaps, each city has a main character and they eventually meet up in some way and so everyone has to travel between the cities throughout the story.

Rockstar already took 5 years to make Los Santos and its surroundings, and 3 to make Liberty City. The whole US would take them like 20 years minimum, not to count all the testing and other work, like interiors, missions, vehicles, characters, weapons, etc, and all the areas that would be useless during gameplay...

 

 

I don't think it would take that long tbh. We are way more advanced technologically now and it's not like they have to start from scratch on some of the major cities. Also a point to note would be the fact that Rockstar is very choosy when it comes to interiors and such. Rest all of It just depends on the amount of people you have working on the project and how much dedication they show towards the game. I can imagine it would be their number one priority if such a game was to ever hit the scene.

 

Maybe not 20 years, but way more than 5. The Crew used procedural generation and a ton of Google Maps data (I believe), which is why it is so big, with Rockstar doing every inch of their map by hand, we've no chance of a map the size of The Crew anytime soon.

[Pete4000uk]

A bigger city than LS (100% bigger) with a town half the size of LS separated by some countryside. Make both parts of the map have a few unique things which makes the player base spread out between them.

[Queen Elizabeth II]

It doesn't really need multiple cities. It needs one, big, realistic city and an interesting countryside. They couldn't even make Los Santos big and interesting. It should be more like GTA IV (City) + Countryside.

Edited May 22, 2017 by Queen Elizabeth II

[Mister Pink]

I really don't think we need bigger cities than GTA V's Los Santos. I mean I think at that size you can fill in all you need to make a good city, financial/skycraper district, pier/leisure district, old part of town, suburbs, airport, docklands, affluent areas, poor areas, transport system with stations etc. I mean how much bigger do you have to go before the tedium of actually having cross the city sets in? I mean if you like to roleplay, you can spend 20-30mins crossing the city getting stuck in traffic. But if you need to zip across the city, it's sizable enough to feel like you are traversing a city, yet you can get through it pretty quickly.

 

I think the cities should remain the same size as GTA V Los Santos or maybe slightly bigger but the cities should get "deeper" more interiors, more fleshed out underground areas etc more random events, more non-mission purposed interiors, just to f*ck around in.

 

I stated my case for multiple cities all ready. But yeah, why not have variety, why not have 2 instead of one (given there's no compromise being made for having two). However, I can see certain people here complaining that if Rockstar did make a second city that if there was something lacking in the game they would blame the second city or their least favourite city of the two as a result of why 'X' feature wasn't included despite Rockstar consistently adding an removing features from title to title.

 

I see a second city like getting two GTA's for the price of one. The choice and variety would be immense. The longevity we could get from a map with two cities.

Edited May 26, 2017 by Mister Pink

[Algonquin Assassin]

I would rather R* put all of their effort into one city that has more interiors, realistic ped density etc. I would even sacrifice the countryside if that's what it takes.

 

It would be nice to see a map reach the standard of Liberty City/Alderney again.

[AnywhereCityBitch]

Big doesn't equate to good IMO..look at Just Cause the maps are huge & yes they are lovely looking but are they interesting to explore? are they atmospheric? not really & if anything the size becomes more of a negative than a positive.

 

As long as the location is atmospheric detailed & interesting to explore, its size is not that important of a factor.

 

 

[gtamann123]

I would say the sweet spot would be 2 large cities at opposite ends of the map with an expansive country side with multiple small towns in between.

[AnimalFather]

I disagree. we need to focus on 1 city and make is believable as possible and not empty or dead like LC is in GTA5.

[Algonquin Assassin]

I disagree. we need to focus on 1 city and make is believable as possible and not empty or dead like LC is in GTA5.

 

 

I agree with the rest of this post.

[Shyabang Shyabang]

At least two cities would be good.

 

NYC (Liberty City)

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJn9G84_tlo

 

and Saint Petersburg (Saint Fevroniasburg)

 

 

Edited May 29, 2017 by Shyabang Shyabang

[Shyabang Shyabang]

and San Francisco (San Andreas) and Oakland (Quercusland), which is right across the bay from San Francisco

 

 

 

Edited June 2, 2017 by Shyabang Shyabang

[Rose.Quartz]

and San Francisco (San Andreas) and Oakland (Quercusland), which is right across the bay from San Francisco

 

 

 

oh, you mean Watch Dogs 2? already has those cities in it.