Do you want to see another island map?

[Edward Nashton]

If I recall correctly, every GTA map so far has been set on an island. The reasoning for this, I'd imagine, was to avoid using invisible walls and preserving the player's immersion - in later games like SA and IV, you could even drive a boat or fly over the ocean indefinitely. This stopped in V, once you approach the map's limit, your vehicle breaks down into the sea and then you're eaten by sharks. So now that R* has broken that trend of not using artificial barriers on the map, would you still want to see the next map set on an island?

 

I wouldn't, it's pointless now. They might as well set it on the mainland and do the same thing they did in V - for example, if the next game is set in Las Venturas, have it so that your car breaks down once you begin to reach the end of the map, and when you get out and continue to walk in the desert, you're ripped apart by a roaming pack of coyotes. Or Something like that. There's also the possibility of using procedurally generated terrain, but that's a tall order. I just want to get a sense that the map is actually connected to the rest of the world, and not this self contained Twilight Zone pocket dimension that floats on an endless ocean.

Edited August 3, 2017 by Edward Nashton

[~Tiger~]

I just want to get a sense that the map is actually connected to the rest of the world

 

It's certainly do-able. Far Cry 4 is set in a land-locked country which just happens to be surrounded by unscalable terrain. The sandbox is contained nicely with no clumsy 'turn back' warnings to break the immersion.

 

For this reason I would like to see GTA Next with a mainland location map.

[Tycek]

Maps in 2D era GTAs weren't islands and Shoreside Vale from GTA III and LCS is located on mainland at least in theory.

 

I wouldn't mind seeing new map in the game to be part of the mainland if the boundaries are made well. Whether these will be mountains or procedurally generated terrain it doesn't matter for me as long we got interesting map to play on.

 

And to be honest I wouldn't mind seeing exclusion of the flying vehicles for the sake of map immersion. We didn't have them in GTA III, Saints Row, Watch Dogs and many other games that in the end were really great to play.

[Kyoto]

I'm down for either, as long as they don't put too much time on making the sea so expansive.

[Watain]

I don't really mind, but I guess it's convenient having the map being a lonely island. That way you can go around by boat and have access to the shores everywhere.

[DimitriFaustin]

To be honest, I wouldn't mind if the setting was either surrounded by water or part of a mainland. Red Dead Redemption and the Mafia games are also great examples of settings that are part of

a mainland with water in certain places (and there's no flyable vehicles in the Mafia games, either). I vote for both.

[Mister Pink]

I like the island model although V really stood out like an actual island to me. San Andreas didn't feel like an island to me, maybe it was the 3 cities or sprawling countryside and varied terrain, I could easily forget it was an island.

 

Part of me thinks I would enjoy something like RDR but then I often wonder what flying would be like with such a map. I wouldn't be inclined to scrap flying (fun and realism) for the sake of map realism. I think the trade-off of it being on an island is perfectly good video-game logic to fulfill a feature that offers more fun, value and gameplay than say, having the odd existential thought about it being an island. If the map is designed well, most vistas should give you an impression you are on a mainland and not necessarily on an island.

 

If they lock it off like RDR, they'll have to do an exceptional job of it because what would be immersion breaking is invisible walls, ledges that are normally climbable, non-climbable etc.

 

The island model might be unrealistic in the sense that the place it's representing isn't really an island. However most locations GTA is based on are by the sea so at least one half of the map is real, it's the just the other side where the land should keep going that's at odds. However, the landlocked model also forces you to suspend your disbelief in that you can't drive or go here or there. At least with the island model, it doesn't restrict you in things you can't do. If you want to over that mountain or building you, you can. If you want to see the other side, you can. That player freedom to me is more valuable that coming to terms that you are on an island.

 

The thing is, too, islands do exist, but locking off map trickery doesn't exist in real life. What I mean by that is if I see a mountain, I can climb it. If I come across a tricky-rockface that stops me from climbing over it, I can at least get a helicopter and fly over it. I'm never going to come across an invisible wall or some physics defying block to stop me doing so.

 

Making creative ways like being attacked by bears or coyotes or whatever is nice but after a few times wouldn't it just be so unrealistic that every time you want to leave a place or go beyond a certain point you get killed. The island model doesn't ask that of you. It's just an island and they exist except all they ask you do is believe that it's LA or New York which they do quite convincingly.

 

When we used to play Road Rash as kids, I would think about how it would be cool to go to places we can see in the map. But the game doesn't let you. You're restricted the road and a few metres either side of the road. When GTA III came about it was like wow. Almost anywhere I see, I can go!

 

The landlocked map in Skyrim is perfect and it's great in Watch Dogs too. Skyrim isn't a vehicular game, obviously so traversing is done a lot of horseback and on foot. I find a lot of Watch Dogs action focuses on non-vehicular action, although vehicles are main thing used to get around.

 

I just think GTA's exciting use of Airports, flying, flying missions, versatility of missions including flying should remain so. I don't think it should regress to removal of such big features and having those big features greatly benefits an island map.

Edited August 4, 2017 by Mister Pink

[Lemoyne outlaw]

 

 

.

 

 

And to be honest I wouldn't mind seeing exclusion of the flying vehicles for the sake of map immersion. We didn't have them in GTA III, Saints Row, Watch Dogs and many other games that in the end were really great to play.

 

 

i have to disagree. because flying is one of the best parts of gta in my opinion. do you remember how upset people were because there was no flyable planes in gta 4? sure there were helicopters and they were nice. but people loved flying planes in gta sa. even vice city had the dodo. flying in gta 5 is one of my favorite things to do. sure some open world games dont have them. and if they worked out good then fine. but there is a big community of aircraft lovers in gta. if they took them out it would ruin the game for me.

 

anyways back on topic. i think the island in gta 5 is fine. honestly im too busy racing or getting in gunfights to care about the endless ocean. it dosent bother me. the map is already big. although i still wish we could normally go to north yankton.

[Tycek]

I don't care as much about the planes as you do, and the San Andreas was one of the worst games you could fly the plane in. The low visibility with high pop-up rate, especially in case of the trees appearing right before your nose didn't make flying pleasant experience for me and during all my playthroughs of SA I've never done in more than game wanted me to. I much more preferred to grab a car and drive through the map than flying above it.

 

Surely Vice City got a plane (called Skimmer BTW) and it was something that was just right for me. For the planes to work properly you need a really big map as even V one was too small, which resulted in laughable velocity of the flying vehicles.

 

Planes won't save mediocre game and good one will defend itself even without a possibility to fly.

 

And map could be either encircled with unpassable mountains or with procedurally generated land as I've said before, which would allow inclusion of planes and create immersion that we don't playing on the lonely island located in the middle of the ocean.

Edited August 7, 2017 by Tycek

[Excalibur Voltaire]

Just keep it as island. It gonna need a lot of effort to make the map in the mainland, and I'm pretty sure there gonna be a complain that the map feel too small and they doesn't need to lock the map. It actually make the map feels so small if they make it as mainland, where island map actually feels big and much more xomplete

 

And beside if R* make the map as a mainland, there gonna be a clickbaiter youtuber who "show" us how to pass the barrier to unreachable part

[Emmi]

GTA set in mainland rather than an island could work though ... just let us fly over the borders and suddenly the planes', helicopters' engine stops working and you crash in this part of map which is restricted ... sure R* would have to fully model a small part of it, including peds and cars, ... but it would greatly add to the immersion. One part can be surrounded by sea, the other by mainland where when you enter it, your car will break down, your plane, you'll be shot by gangstas or the police, animals attack you, ... There is dozens of ideas to prevent/stop the player going deeper into this area. It would be great.

Edited August 18, 2017 by .Emmi

[ViceOfLiberty]

I think it could go either way. One way to do it would be instead of using water to the horizon they could make it mountainous. You could have a freeway that is blocked off at some end point so that you can't go past it, yet it offers the feeling of something existing beyond it. This poses a problem with aircraft though, unless you just get auto shot down with an RPG when you cross the line.

Really, GTA V is the first game it being an island really bummed me out and I think it's because the barrier seemed very artificial. A 3-island map has a better feel than the 1 island because since there are very large bridges over water, the water doesn't stick out as much. You don't notice the water as a barrier when you have the ability to travel over large portions of it via bridges.

Edited August 18, 2017 by ViceOfLiberty

[Algonquin Assassin]

I think Island maps feel more natural. I hate invisible walls/barriers in games. In games like RDR landlocked maps work best, but in a GTA game I'd hate to be restricted to the physical area.

 

Maybe island maps aren't the most realistic, but I don't see to fix what isn't broken.

[Pink Pineapple]

It depends on the location. I think Vice City should be an island. For Las Venturas, I'd prefer endless desert and you hit a dense sandstorm when you go too far out.

[Charlottes]

I guess a mainland map would make sense if we couldn't use planes or anything but...we can, there's probably going to keep on being planes and helicopters in this game

[mariana_dm1989]

It's always been islands with every GTA game.It's like we are playing in the universe of United Islands of America. But i dont mind. There probably is no better alternative.

[Santoslosvargas2567]

I have never seen the map being surrounded by water as a negative thing. Being forced back or unable to fly higher than a mountain would be corny and videogamey.

[Trooper Fera]

Island, because unreachable areas kill the immersion on a whole new level. It doesn't feel as complete when you have a mainland, because you can never access all of it.

[Jabalous]

I've been interested in a procedurally generated land solution since before the announcement of GTA V. It could be technologically feasible, but it mightn't serve the artistic point of view better than the current island solution. 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it' nicely explains why Rockstar hasn't tried to depart from what has long been established since GTA 3 when it comes to the map being an island. It's all about the illusion and making a good layout of the map to trick the player's mind into thinking that he/she is playing in a large connected world, which is a thing that worked for me, from III, San Andreas to V.

Edited September 1, 2017 by Jabalous

[E_S]

One island thing was great in older gta's but not 5. If they do more islands why not?