Creative Geography Vs Realism

[ivarblaauw]

- snip -

I agree that with no or limited fast travel options, a map of 30x35 miles is way to large. However, this could easily be fixed by adding fast travel options at busstations, trainstations, subways and airports. Perhaps just go to the map, click an icon (clothing store, modshop etc) and you will travel there for a small fee ($10 per mile). I think this would be an easy fix for the large map.

 

​If we look at the map of Ghost recon wildlands (which is 3 - 4 times the size of GTA V), this game is filled with stuff to do and interesting locations. Luckily you can fast travel. For a game like GTA, which has jets and super cars which can drive 200 miles per hour, you can still go from one side to the other in 10 minutes.

 

If you look at the Crew 2 (coming 2018), the game has a very detailed environment and the cities are really alive and HUGE. Although it is a racegame, this game is about 40 by 75 miles and the cities are more detailed than GTA V (although GTA V is already quite old ofcourse!). My point is: the hardware of the current generation can easily handle huge maps and detailed environments. It is the developer to create a map which is really fun and not boring.

 

​*The map I create (35 by 30 miles) is San Andreas State, filled with about 10 cities and dozens of towns. Trust me, it will make you drool xD

- snip -

 

San Andreas used the low draw distance to its advantage, and by adding mist, it created the illusion that the map was huge. Also having all these different territories and vastly different regions, it felt like you traversed a huge map. The cars didn't go as fast as in GTA V as well, which makes the current map very small.

 

I think that by adding dozens if not hundreds of scenic routes and a few main routes, you can create a map with lots of different locations and interesting things to do. Even if the next game only has 2 cities and some countryside, they can still use this. Even Watch Dogs 2 uses this concept, and this game has a huge draw distance. I advise you to play Watch Dogs 2 and you will see that having more cities can easily be done.

 

I personally love countryside and huge maps. I rather drive a little longer, than drive around the corner and immediately be in a new area. I think that a slow transition works best, but that is my personal opinion.

[CasperRDG]

I was all about the city setup in SA. I spent literally hundred of hours with my bud in 2 x player mode doing what we called the 3 x city tour. Start in Grove Street and get maybe 3 or 4 stars and then jump on a bike with me driving and him shooting and then try to do the 3 x cities and back to Grove without dying!!

 

We'd head out West through Beacon Hill and then through the big tunnel with the jump over to SF airport. Head North through SF and then over the Golden gate to the very North West. Then head along the very Northern Road through the Desert...Then boom chicken jump. Carry straight on to the very North of Vegas then all the way down the Strip then South on to the freeway back into Los Santos hitting the Freeway jump to get back down towards Grove.

 

That journey felt absolutely epic because you passed through so much different terrain. The cities all felt distinct which helped add to the vastness. There were fun things like jumps on the way. The same Route in GTAV basically involved getting on a freeway going all around the outside until you got to some crap small town in the North where there was literally nothing to do.

 

You need to be able to go from City to City. You need to be able to make your own fun and journeys in a freeroam environment. You need a feeling of Realism. You need creative Geography!!

You need a feeling of Realism. You need creative Geography!!

 

 

I realise the contradiction of what I just said there. I meant realism in the map feeling big not realism as in the question at the top of the thread.

 

 

[Mister Pink]

Yes, the sense of purpose traversing between cities is very satisfying. When escaping police in SA and making a break for the next city it really felt more realistic, like you were escaping one city to go somewhere else and "lay low." With IV and V, it's like you commit all these crimes then hang around that very same city all day and nobody bats an eyelid. Also, the 3-City tour was just super fun. It's always good to have challenging objectives during chaos and mayhem of a SP rampage - somewhere to go.

 

Rockstar have been pretty great at making the effort to create fun not bound the shackles of realism as seen in GTAO with the crazy racing. This gives me hope that Rockstar still have a sort of willingness to push boundaries, let their hair down and have a little fun.

 

With that in mind, we may see a more liberal and creative attitude to map design in the next GTA. One that isn't restricted by realism (well, if realism the reason why we haven't seen a second city) Cities that may not seem obvious to twin together for a GTA may end up in the same GTA afterall. So long as the map is designed well, I can't see people complaining. That's the thing about suspension of disbelief, kind of like special effects in a film. If the film is exceedingly well, great story, script/dialogue, cinematography, people over look bad special effects

 

If a map may have two cities that have another obvious real-life city in-between that wasn't used.. Like Boston and Baltimore for example but they didn't include Philadelphia, people initially might not think it makes sense. But if the map itself is a great representation of the two cities and with creative techniques to make them connect then I can see people just enjoying it. A bit like San Andreas. It didn't bother me that Los Santos was so close San Fierro or Las Venturas in SA. The endgame was fun. The ambition was phenomenal. Afterall, these are re-imaginings and Rockstar can do what the feck they like.

 

Side-note:

 

I'm also thinking GTAO and character-switching kind of snubbed out any chance of a second city. I don't think it's Rockstar not wanting to do it but probably just not as viable. They developed RAGE and IV from the ground up and with V they made an Online game and some character switching with probably took up the greatest amount of resources as that's all kind of new territory.

 

Edited July 29, 2017 by Mister Pink

[MojoGamer]

Las Venturas and Vice City is my #Relatable prospective, as yours is Boston and Baltimore.

I would greatly appreciate if they finish up this HD Era with a mix of 4K.

Afterwards it would be amazing to explore new locations never done before like Boston and Baltimore in 4K.

Just wish a GTA 4 vs GTA 6 will happen in the near future, with GTA 6 Winning. We all saw GTA 5 was the Loser to GTA 4 on Youtube, where attention really mattered.

Like the people say they want destruction, Max Payne 3 did deliver. People wanted online, GTA 5 delivered. People wanted countryside, Red Dead Redemption delivered.

Hopefully Tim Neff delivers GTA Next and people would stop trolling, so R* can ship it already before PS5/XboxNext.

[Journey_95]

Yes, the sense of purpose traversing between cities is very satisfying. When escaping police in SA and making a break for the next city it really felt more realistic, like you were escaping one city to go somewhere else and "lay low." With IV and V, it's like you commit all these crimes then hang around that very same city all day and nobody bats an eyelid. Also, the 3-City tour was just super fun. It's always good to have challenging objectives during chaos and mayhem of a SP rampage - somewhere to go.

 

Rockstar have been pretty great at making the effort to create fun not bound the shackles of realism as seen in GTAO with the crazy racing. This gives me hope that Rockstar still have a sort of willingness to push boundaries, let their hair down and have a little fun.

 

With that in mind, we may see a more liberal and creative attitude to map design in the next GTA. One that isn't restricted by realism (well, if realism the reason why we haven't seen a second city) Cities that may not seem obvious to twin together for a GTA may end up in the same GTA afterall. So long as the map is designed well, I can't see people complaining. That's the thing about suspension of disbelief, kind of like special effects in a film. If the film is exceedingly well, great story, script/dialogue, cinematography, people over look bad special effects

 

If a map may have two cities that have another obvious real-life city in-between that wasn't used.. Like Boston and Baltimore for example but they didn't include Philadelphia, people initially might not think it makes sense. But if the map itself is a great representation of the two cities and with creative techniques to make them connect then I can see people just enjoying it. A bit like San Andreas. It didn't bother me that Los Santos was so close San Fierro or Las Venturas in SA. The endgame was fun. The ambition was phenomenal. Afterall, these are re-imaginings and Rockstar can do what the feck they like.

 

Side-note:

 

I'm also thinking GTAO and character-switching kind of snubbed out any chance of a second city. I don't think it's Rockstar not wanting to do it but probably just not as viable. They developed RAGE and IV from the ground up and with V they made an Online game and some character switching with probably took up the greatest amount of resources as that's all kind of new territory.

 

The problem is the story suffers a lot with multiple cities if there is only one protagonist. SA's story goes downhill really fast after Los Santos and completely loses focus. By the point the desert stuff begins its a trainwreck.

 

Of course it would be fine with multiple protagonists (each in one city) but not sure you were talking about that one since the "Journey" aspect of SA wouldnt be there

 

And the crazy racing is a bad sign in my opinion and risks the series going into a more Saints Row esque direction which would be awful

Edited July 29, 2017 by Journey_95

[TheHolyNZF]

Sorry for a derail. What I meant is that for a map to be succesful, every place needs a reason to exist.

Otherwise it is pretty much same for me if it is fantasy or realistic. Maybe not floating islands though.

Las Venturas and Vice City is my #Relatable prospective, as yours is Boston and Baltimore.
I would greatly appreciate if they finish up this HD Era with a mix of 4K.
Afterwards it would be amazing to explore new locations never done before like Boston and Baltimore in 4K.
Just wish a GTA 4 vs GTA 6 will happen in the near future, with GTA 6 Winning. We all saw GTA 5 was the Loser to GTA 4 on Youtube, where attention really mattered.
Like the people say they want destruction, Max Payne 3 did deliver. People wanted online, GTA 5 delivered. People wanted countryside, Red Dead Redemption delivered.
Hopefully Tim Neff delivers GTA Next and people would stop trolling, so R* can ship it already before PS5/XboxNext.

No. I don't want GTA Next to be released for the old gen (technically with Switch being the "current gen", PS4 and XBone are already "old gen". Despites they are anyways outdated by now.) There is just much more potential in the 9th gen consoles.

Edited July 30, 2017 by TheHolyNZF

[TheHolyNZF]

 

- snip -

I agree that with no or limited fast travel options, a map of 30x35 miles is way too large.

 

 

Mach 1 = 1 225 km/h = 760 mph

 

Your map from edge to edge = 46 miles

 

46 mi / 760 mph = 3 minutes 37 seconds

 

Way too small! When jets and realistic speeds are introduced every distance becomes too short.

 

Without concordes though fast travel would be a good idea.

 

GTAV map is just on the edge if it should have had fast travel or not.

Edited July 30, 2017 by TheHolyNZF

[the consigliere]

 

Yes, the sense of purpose traversing between cities is very satisfying. When escaping police in SA and making a break for the next city it really felt more realistic, like you were escaping one city to go somewhere else and "lay low." With IV and V, it's like you commit all these crimes then hang around that very same city all day and nobody bats an eyelid. Also, the 3-City tour was just super fun. It's always good to have challenging objectives during chaos and mayhem of a SP rampage - somewhere to go.

 

Rockstar have been pretty great at making the effort to create fun not bound the shackles of realism as seen in GTAO with the crazy racing. This gives me hope that Rockstar still have a sort of willingness to push boundaries, let their hair down and have a little fun.

 

With that in mind, we may see a more liberal and creative attitude to map design in the next GTA. One that isn't restricted by realism (well, if realism the reason why we haven't seen a second city) Cities that may not seem obvious to twin together for a GTA may end up in the same GTA afterall. So long as the map is designed well, I can't see people complaining. That's the thing about suspension of disbelief, kind of like special effects in a film. If the film is exceedingly well, great story, script/dialogue, cinematography, people over look bad special effects

 

If a map may have two cities that have another obvious real-life city in-between that wasn't used.. Like Boston and Baltimore for example but they didn't include Philadelphia, people initially might not think it makes sense. But if the map itself is a great representation of the two cities and with creative techniques to make them connect then I can see people just enjoying it. A bit like San Andreas. It didn't bother me that Los Santos was so close San Fierro or Las Venturas in SA. The endgame was fun. The ambition was phenomenal. Afterall, these are re-imaginings and Rockstar can do what the feck they like.

 

Side-note:

 

I'm also thinking GTAO and character-switching kind of snubbed out any chance of a second city. I don't think it's Rockstar not wanting to do it but probably just not as viable. They developed RAGE and IV from the ground up and with V they made an Online game and some character switching with probably took up the greatest amount of resources as that's all kind of new territory.

 

The problem is the story suffers a lot with multiple cities if there is only one protagonist. SA's story goes downhill really fast after Los Santos and completely loses focus. By the point the desert stuff begins its a trainwreck.

 

Of course it would be fine with multiple protagonists (each in one city) but not sure you were talking about that one since the "Journey" aspect of SA wouldnt be there

 

And the crazy racing is a bad sign in my opinion and risks the series going into a more Saints Row esque direction which would be awful

 

I think the story could be even better with mulitple cities, San Andreas had some good aspects of travelling to a different area such as laying low after leaving Los Santos, getting into street racing in San Fierro, getting into the casino business in Las Venturas that much was good it just got a bit random at times and didn't all make sense.

 

Multiple cities should be useful for associating with various gangs/criminals to get into certain business ventures, for example in one area drug dealing may be the most lucrative venture but to get the supply for this you have to travel to another area and make the right connections to obtain a shipment, or if you want to get into illegal street racing you have to make connections with a different gang in a different area. Heists, assassination missions, gambling, there could be lots of reasons to travel around.

 

Having different cities could keep it fresh, like Mister Pink said committing so many crimes and becoming a known criminal/gangster in one city without backlash is for me more unrealistic than any made up map could ever be.

 

However saying this I do think multiple protags all in their own city to begin the game might also be a good idea.

[MojoGamer]

No. I don't want GTA Next to be released for the old gen (technically with Switch being the "current gen", PS4 and XBone are already "old gen". Despites they are anyways outdated by now.) There is just much more potential in the 9th gen consoles.

 

 

By 9th Gen you mean PS4 Pro/Neo/Slim and Xbox Scorpio.

GTA Next should be recommended for PS4 Pro, but still compatible with regular PS4.

Lol Switch got hacked remotely and Current Gen Cyberly.

Edited July 30, 2017 by MojoGamer

[Mister Pink]

The problem is the story suffers a lot with multiple cities if there is only one protagonist. SA's story goes downhill really fast after Los Santos and completely loses focus. By the point the desert stuff begins its a trainwreck.

Of course it would be fine with multiple protagonists (each in one city) but not sure you were talking about that one since the "Journey" aspect of SA wouldnt be there

 

And the crazy racing is a bad sign in my opinion and risks the series going into a more Saints Row esque direction which would be awful

 

 

That's your opinion and respect it but I disagree

 

There's no evidence to suggest story has to suffer because of multiple cities. Correlation does not imply causation and all that. Also, that's also your opinion. I liked SA's story. I liked the story when going to San Fierro. I think San Andreas was ahead of it's time, more advanced than some people give credit. The story was huge and long, deep, covering our most diverse map. I think of San Andreas's story like a multi-season TV show. Or like each city is an act in a film. Except SA has 4 acts (the 4th being returning to Los Santos for the conclusion) Or I think of going to San Fierro is the start of a new season. If IV is like a movie then San Andreas is definitely a 3 or 4 season epic TV show.

 

Once you are exiled from Los Santos and you start a new life in San Fierro but you are still shackled to and being used by Pulaski and Tenpenny as they have your brother. You discover Ryder's drug business stretches out there with leads you to the Loco Syndicate. Often drug trading goes beyond a city and San Andreas's story links the Los Santos to San Fierro pretty well. Mike Toreno was a part of that syndicate and you think you kill him but he survives and he obviously sees you as such a competent worker he uses you for his own operations including buying the landing stripe. The story can be a little confusing the first time but each replay it gets better and better. I would say the story is just a little more layered and complex because I understand it and it makes perfect sense and it's enjoyable.

 

Multiple city approach keeps the game fresh imo. Completing missions in one city eventually starts to lose something. A story taking you to a new city is like playing a new GTA. You get that new GTA feel every time you get to a new city. It's also more realistic to have more cities. If you like GTA touching on themes and gameplay of smuggling; weapons, drugs; people etc multiple locations is ideal. Also each city could have its own economy. So selling a car in one city might get more in another. That would be fun. Like RDR. Selling stuff from Mexico in the US may have given you more profit.

 

I'm all for longer, harder GTA's that have diverse maps. IV's story was good but lacked the gameplay to match. It's more of a story-game than a GTA video game and V carved up the story between 3 characters making the story seem super short and not very interesting and very underdeveloped. I'm ready for a long story an adventure that takes me all around a big map. Kind like the feeling in San Andreas and RDR where you start off at one point and the map and story take you on an adventure around it buying safehouses around the map and living in a section of map at the time before moving on.

Edited July 31, 2017 by Mister Pink

[Journey_95]

 

The problem is the story suffers a lot with multiple cities if there is only one protagonist. SA's story goes downhill really fast after Los Santos and completely loses focus. By the point the desert stuff begins its a trainwreck.

Of course it would be fine with multiple protagonists (each in one city) but not sure you were talking about that one since the "Journey" aspect of SA wouldnt be there

 

And the crazy racing is a bad sign in my opinion and risks the series going into a more Saints Row esque direction which would be awful

 

 

That's your opinion and respect it but I disagree

 

There's no evidence to suggest story has to suffer because of multiple cities. Correlation does not imply causation and all that. Also, that's also your opinion. I liked SA's story. I liked the story when going to San Fierro. I think San Andreas was ahead of it's time, more advanced than some people give credit. The story was huge and long, deep, covering our most diverse map. I think of San Andreas's story like a multi-season TV show. Or like each city is an act in a film. Except SA has 4 acts (the 4th being returning to Los Santos for the conclusion) Or I think of going to San Fierro is the start of a new season. If IV is like a movie then San Andreas is definitely a 3 or 4 season epic TV show.

 

Once you are exiled from Los Santos and you start a new life in San Fierro but you are still shackled to and being used by Pulaski and Tenpenny as they have your brother. You discover Ryder's drug business stretches out there with leads you to the Loco Syndicate. Often drug trading goes beyond a city and San Andreas's story links the Los Santos to San Fierro pretty well. Mike Toreno was a part of that syndicate and you think you kill him but he survives and he obviously sees you as such a competent worker he uses you for his own operations including buying the landing stripe. The story can be a little confusing the first time but each replay it gets better and better. I would say the story is just a little more layered and complex because I understand it and it makes perfect sense and it's enjoyable.

 

Multiple city approach keeps the game fresh imo. Completing missions in one city eventually starts to lose something. A story taking you to a new city is like playing a new GTA. You get that new GTA feel every time you get to a new city. It's also more realistic to have more cities. If you like GTA touching on themes and gameplay of smuggling; weapons, drugs; people etc multiple locations is ideal. Also each city could have its own economy. So selling a car in one city might get more in another. That would be fun. Like RDR. Selling stuff from Mexico in the US may have given you more profit.

 

I'm all for longer, harder GTA's that have diverse maps. IV's story was good but lacked the gameplay to match. It's more of a story-game than a GTA video game and V carved up the story between 3 characters making the story seem super short and not very interesting and very underdeveloped. I'm ready for a long story an adventure that takes me all around a big map. Kind like the feeling in San Andreas and RDR where you start off at one point and the map and story take you on an adventure around it buying safehouses around the map and living in a section of map at the time before moving on.

 

Not saying that I didn't enjoy SA's story after LS, its still very entertaining with fun characters and missions. But its more like a guilty pleasure at that point. The multiple season comparison is good but it just doesnt fit here.

 

It starts out as a really good hood story. As already with VC, Rockstar really nailed the feel of 90's LA and the gangster culture. Then they just dumped the relatively grounded story by shorhorning over the top CIA missions, the mob (why??? as if we dont have enough GTA's with the mob), Jetpacks etc.

 

The San Fierro portion was still ok as its at least connected with the Big Smoke stuff pretty clearly but it still has none of the charm of the LS arc and the city was bland as hell. The desert and LV stuff might as well be its own game though

 

Of course its my opinion but even a lot of hardcore GTA SA fans seem to agree the story jumps the shark. The game is more liked because of its gameplay and world.

 

RDR handled the different locations part way better and made it work with the story. If GTA VI would do that I would definitely be for multiple cities.

 

I would like a more gray/darker city like LC in combination with a colorful bright city so there is actually good variety.

Edited August 3, 2017 by Journey_95

[ivarblaauw]

 

 

- snip -

I agree that with no or limited fast travel options, a map of 30x35 miles is way too large.

 

 

Mach 1 = 1 225 km/h = 760 mph

 

Your map from edge to edge = 46 miles

 

46 mi / 760 mph = 3 minutes 37 seconds

 

Way too small! When jets and realistic speeds are introduced every distance becomes too short.

 

Without concordes though fast travel would be a good idea.

 

GTAV map is just on the edge if it should have had fast travel or not.

 

 

This is very true. With GTA coming closer and closer to higher speeds (cars which drive 200 miles per hour) and jets which reach (for game speeds) high speeds of about 300 miles per hour, even huge maps which are 46miles from edge to edge, would only be 8 minutes, and that is including the sea and not counting that they won't increase the speed of the planes. Realistic travel speeds with planes and helicopters would seriously make any game map tiny.

 

​However a map can only be big when it is filled with interesting stuff to do. 35 miles of non stop desert is... boring. However; 35 miles of desert, canyons, lakes, mountains, cities, towns and random events happening... that would seriously make it fun to play.

 

​In order to keep a map this size fun, random events and missions should always be available nearby. Having to drive 20 miles to your next mission would suck, but this can easily be fixed with fast travel options at train/subway stations, airports, bus stations and taxi's. And yes the map should be scattered with them. Players should have the freedom to travel across the map in seconds if they chose to do so, a great example being Ghost Recon Wildlands (Which had a map of 25x25 KM!!!, without loading times, enterable buildings and environment destruction).

 

​TL;DR:

​Huge maps can already be created and be very entertaining. Just add in enough different locations and environments. Also add lots of fast travel options.

Edited August 7, 2017 by ivarblaauw

[Patrizio]

Good topic.

 

I feel creative geography is essential but it must be done well in the sense that is must lead to immersion in that environment. An area can be small and close to another but still feel very different and thus make you feel like you really are in a different state, city or even country. RDR did this really well with the Mexico area and Tall Trees.

 

I think its perfectly plausible that Rockstar could do a map with say, Vice State and London or Las Venturas and Chicago, for example.