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

Journey_95

City vs countryside- How should it be handled in GTA VI?

Recommended Posts

Journey_95

In my opinion the countryside in V really didn't need to be so big (especially those huge mountains). I would have gladly given a part of it up to have a bigger Los Santos (very detailed but everything felt like it was just slapped together, it didnt give me a huge city feel like LC did).

 

The next game should focus more on a bigger city in my opinion, maybe even bring the island system back. That gave the player a sense of progression. I would cut down on the countryside and also place it better (didn't have that isolated feel in V like in SA).

Edited by Journey_95

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Efreet

From an artistic point of view, the countryside is beautiful and gives more variety to the map instead of one big concrete jungle. From a design, and possibly immersion, point of view, it can be more meaningful if it is there to act as a natural barrier between two or more cities similar to 2004's San Andreas. For me, I love both the art and the design, so if either one of them is satisfied, then I appreciate the existence of the countryside. If both are satisfied, then I'd be extra appreciative. I'm one who calls for San Fierro and Las Venturas with countryside to be VI's map. With two concrete jungles, we get mountains, forests, hills, deserts, villages and ghost towns to explore while we're traveling to either of the two cities. Who doesn't want that?

Edited by Efreet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CT1612

San Andreas still had the best map design. It felt much larger than it was.

 

For me, a group of islands is also worth a try. Or maybe completely without a large city, GTA: West Virginia could be interessing. :D

 

The only thing I really want is a better concept than in V. You have one big city on the one end of the map, and the rest is just.. meeh. Its not all about the size. The map is the reason why I still prefer SA over V.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jaljax

I'd rather like a swampy area, very similar to Everglades in Florida or even a parody of Florida Key's, but obviously along with a city..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aquamaniac

In my opinion the countryside in V really didn't need to be so big (especially those huge mountains). I would have gladly given a part of it up to have a bigger Los Santos (very detailed but everything felt like it was just slapped together, it didnt give me a huge city feel like LC did).

 

The next game should focus more on a bigger city in my opinion, maybe even bring the island system back. That gave the player a sense of progression. I would cut down on the countryside and also place it better (didn't have that isolated feel in V like in SA).

 

Ideally it should have both and the map should even be bigger, just to cruise around and enjoy the countryside, San Andreas in V actually didn't feel like a major city but I am no towns person so I was fine with that but I understand your point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DOUGL4S1

The countrysides in San Andreas were so immersive because they did what countrysides mostly do in real life: fill the gap between cities. In San Andreas, you could follow a highway going anywhere and you'd get somewhere interesting. The GTA V map was layed out in a weird way, the highway curves around and ends in the exact same place it begins after going through the entire map. Most of the countryside of V is just useless, the desert is too tiny to be immersive and the mountains are just there for scenary and nothing else. So the map would be much, much better if Paleto Bay served a bigger purpose and was much larger than it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CT1612

The countrysides in San Andreas were so immersive because they did what countrysides mostly do in real life: fill the gap between cities. In San Andreas, you could follow a highway going anywhere and you'd get somewhere interesting. The GTA V map was layed out in a weird way, the highway curves around and ends in the exact same place it begins after going through the entire map. Most of the countryside of V is just useless, the desert is too tiny to be immersive and the mountains are just there for scenary and nothing else. So the map would be much, much better if Paleto Bay served a bigger purpose and was much larger than it is.

 

Full Ack, Paleo could have closed the circle. While SA offered cruising from LS to SF to do some Bullit-like-jumps and then enjoying a virtual beer at Pier 69, GTA V has nothing that makes me want to leave Los Santos. For what? A small desert that feels limited? Forests that are too abandoned ? It takes years to get in and out while SA had everything quickly accessible due to highways.

And in the end of your way there is nothing waiting for you, so you drive back to Santos. Where you already are. So why doing a trip

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RetroMystic

 

The countrysides in San Andreas were so immersive because they did what countrysides mostly do in real life: fill the gap between cities. In San Andreas, you could follow a highway going anywhere and you'd get somewhere interesting. The GTA V map was layed out in a weird way, the highway curves around and ends in the exact same place it begins after going through the entire map. Most of the countryside of V is just useless, the desert is too tiny to be immersive and the mountains are just there for scenary and nothing else. So the map would be much, much better if Paleto Bay served a bigger purpose and was much larger than it is.

 

Full Ack, Paleo could have closed the circle. While SA offered cruising from LS to SF to do some Bullit-like-jumps and then enjoying a virtual beer at Pier 69, GTA V has nothing that makes me want to leave Los Santos. For what? A small desert that feels limited? Forests that are too abandoned ? It takes years to get in and out while SA had everything quickly accessible due to highways.

And in the end of your way there is nothing waiting for you, so you drive back to Santos. Where you already are. So why doing a trip

 

 

There's a big highway that takes you around the map in V as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DOUGL4S1

There's a big highway that takes you around the map in V as well.

What we're saying is that the GTA V highway is mostly useless because it takes you to a place that is used in very few story missions and has almost nothing to do. Compared to San Andreas' Highway system that takes you through 3 very different cities and dozens of smaller ones, each with different things to do, the one in V is useless.

Edited by DOUGL4S1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CT1612

 

 

 

 

 

There's a big highway that takes you around the map in V as well.

 

 

Yep. But if you want to get deeper into the center of the map (the mountains f.e.) it takes ages without cheating/teleporting.

The pro is, it gives you a quite good feel of wilderness and untouched nature. I am sometimes teleporting there in SP to watch the sunset...

But in online where you cant teleport I never got there except hiding from the police.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GTA-Biker

I think that,while it was of good size,the countryside in GTA 5 was poorly designed.Most of it was useless mountains,and whatever flat ground was left was covered in man-made objects (roads, trailer parks, big airfield in the middle of the desert, random buildings every few dozen yards alongside every road...),which makes it looks weird.

Here's how I would design the countryside:

-it should be from the same size as the city to twice the size of the city

-it should have a few towns far away from each other (not too close like Sandy Shores, Grapeseed and Harmony)

-towns should be designed like real towns (like Palomino Creek or Fort Carson from GTA SA,with a few dozen streets, a residential "neighborhood" with houses, middle of the town with a police station, a hospital, some stores, a local diner and a local bar) not just a few houses and stores around a single road like Harmony

-country roads should feel more empty (have a lone motel, diner or a gas station every few miles,not every few dozen yards)

-countryside should have a large forest or grasslands or desert or swamps or whatever,and feel empty too (when you're in the middle of a desert or a forest you shouldn't see random signs, fences and other man-made objects everywhere you look)

-if there's any mountains,there should be only one or two,they shouldn't take up 70% of the countryside

 

The city could be designed better too.For example,the middle class suburbs and ghettos could be larger in comparison to the rich neighborhoods.

Edited by GTA-Biker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Official General

Its simple for me - go back to map-making in the way it was done is San Andreas, the best GTA map ever made so far (in my opinion).

 

Multiple main cities separated by significant swathes of countryside and wilderness, with many small towns dotted around in between.


 

The countrysides in San Andreas were so immersive because they did what countrysides mostly do in real life: fill the gap between cities. In San Andreas, you could follow a highway going anywhere and you'd get somewhere interesting. The GTA V map was layed out in a weird way, the highway curves around and ends in the exact same place it begins after going through the entire map. Most of the countryside of V is just useless, the desert is too tiny to be immersive and the mountains are just there for scenary and nothing else. So the map would be much, much better if Paleto Bay served a bigger purpose and was much larger than it is.

 

Full Ack, Paleo could have closed the circle. While SA offered cruising from LS to SF to do some Bullit-like-jumps and then enjoying a virtual beer at Pier 69, GTA V has nothing that makes me want to leave Los Santos. For what? A small desert that feels limited? Forests that are too abandoned ? It takes years to get in and out while SA had everything quickly accessible due to highways.

And in the end of your way there is nothing waiting for you, so you drive back to Santos. Where you already are. So why doing a trip

 

 

That's what I really hate about V's map. There is nothing much that fascinates or interests me enough to want to leave Los Santos.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Journey_95

 

Its simple for me - go back to map-making in the way it was done is San Andreas, the best GTA map ever made so far (in my opinion).

 

Multiple main cities separated by significant swathes of countryside and wilderness, with many small towns dotted around in between.

 

The countrysides in San Andreas were so immersive because they did what countrysides mostly do in real life: fill the gap between cities. In San Andreas, you could follow a highway going anywhere and you'd get somewhere interesting. The GTA V map was layed out in a weird way, the highway curves around and ends in the exact same place it begins after going through the entire map. Most of the countryside of V is just useless, the desert is too tiny to be immersive and the mountains are just there for scenary and nothing else. So the map would be much, much better if Paleto Bay served a bigger purpose and was much larger than it is.

 

Full Ack, Paleo could have closed the circle. While SA offered cruising from LS to SF to do some Bullit-like-jumps and then enjoying a virtual beer at Pier 69, GTA V has nothing that makes me want to leave Los Santos. For what? A small desert that feels limited? Forests that are too abandoned ? It takes years to get in and out while SA had everything quickly accessible due to highways.

And in the end of your way there is nothing waiting for you, so you drive back to Santos. Where you already are. So why doing a trip

 

 

That's what I really hate about V's map. There is nothing much that fascinates or interests me enough to want to leave Los Santos.

 

 

 

 

If they go with the SA style then multiple protagonists would be better (one in each city). Its better than putting slapping everything on one protagonist (which SA showed leads to a rather lackluster story).

Edited by Journey_95

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jack Lupino

Countryside is important but there needs to be large cities as well.

I dont want a huge ass map only filled with mountains,forests and oceans like Just Cause 3.

Also certain portion of the map must be inaccesible initially and only unlocked by completing missions.

This gives a feeling of biggerness in map and makes the gameplay more immersive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jaljax

Something very similar to this i would be happy to see in a future installment

 

 

Credit:(Ambient)s476csj.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maibatsu545

Change the garbage movement system so that you don’t slip slide down a 1ft incline and die. By far the most annoying thing about the countryside in V. May as well render the hills and mountains as giant greased up turds, because thats how the character acts when trying to climb up a slight incline. Disgraceful that a AAA game was released with such garbage movement mechanics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jackp2009

I'd like a map the size of GTA V but made up entirely of city

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
anthony

Its simple for me - go back to map-making in the way it was done is San Andreas, the best GTA map ever made so far (in my opinion).

This, I agree, it's exactly my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gummy 

The countryside/city ratio in SA was perfect. I don't want to see the whole map just filled with roads and buildings, as varied as the areas may be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lioshenka

I'm going to post before reading other replies for an unbiased opinion.

 

I think 80% of the map should be rural. However, it should be designed following SA principles, not GTA 5. In GTA 5 all you had was hills, hills, hills - okay, maybe this is what South California looks like but it gets boring very quickly.

 

The countryside needs to have different types of landscape: lake district, mountains, woods - deciduous AND coniferous, desert, meadows, moors. Each one should have 1 or two small towns, which will provide for a greater variety of diverse missions and the opportunity to explore each area in a relevant context.

 

SA's map was great in this context - granted, it feels small now, but even so, a clever used of raised terrain helped R* to very effectively create the right atmosphere while keeping the map relatively small. You felt in the middle of nowhere the minute you went to the B'oB swamps. You felt lost in the ghost towns of the desert. You were in a rural countryside simply by going through the train tunnel from LS.

 

There should be multiple bigger cities/towns with distinct features on opposite sides of the map. As many have said, it's pointless leaving LS via a motorway only to arrive back at LS.

 

And more wilderness. There's only very few small areas in 5 which weren't inhabited.

Edited by Lioshenka

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pete4000uk

As I just posted in another thread:

 

Would current gen consoles be able to support a real size city? I like countryside and feel a GTA map is better with it but Los Santos was way to small.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
_MK_

The problem with V's countryside is that it's empty and pretty dead,huge space with pretty much nothing in it.(click on my sig)

If VI is going to have a countryside I'd really hope they'll fill it with detail,the main reason for Rockstar to leave the North of V empty is because of the old consoles,they actually had the North side filled with trees but then removed,with VI that restriction should not be there since old gens are no longer supported and to be honest Rockstar are lazy as f*ck,they can simply add loads of content or simply put back the beta/cut content that was originally planned for CG and PC releasing it as dlc.

I mean we get the reason for removing them from old gen,but why not put everything back with our current hardware ? even the way this game works is by streaming objects,meaning props vehicles (everything) will fully load only when you get near them,so with that VI should pretty much have everything the way it's meant without chopping it off like they did with V.

Edited by _MK_

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cheatz/Trickz

Simple; make it unpredictable and active. It should be teeming with dangerous animals and rural gangs running wild. Some parts of it could be totally lawless as well as having no phone signal preventing unwanted interference. They could throw in some weirdos roaming around in the woods at night and abandoned ghost towns with hidden secrets to find. It should be a very different place at night to day, but that should really go for the city as well.

 

Basically give the country some character instead of being just a waste of memory in order to tick off the big map box.

Edited by Cheatz/Trickz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GTA-Biker

Simple; make it unpredictable and active. It should be teeming with dangerous animals and rural gangs running wild. Some parts of it could be totally lawless as well as having no phone signal preventing unwanted interference. They could throw in some weirdos roaming around in the woods at night and abandoned ghost towns with hidden secrets to find. It should be a very different place at night to day, but that should really go for the city as well.

 

Basically give the country some character instead of being just a waste of memory in order to tick off the big map box.

I agree.It would be cool if animals would have a realistic ecosystem,with predators hunting herbivores and even attacking each other (for example,if a bear enters a turf controlled by a pack of wolves).It's stupid how in GTA 5 you can see a cougar walk by a deer and they just ignore each other.Also,animals like wild boar should be aggressive (at least if provoked) despite not really being a predator.

Countryside gangs would also be cool,there could be biker gangs and redneck gangs running the rural crime scene and fighting for control over small towns.

There could even be some trailer park deep in the forest,where some violent redneck clan lives away from civilization and shoots any outsider that approaches on sight (something similar to the altruist camp but smaller,that thing is a big fort easily visible from a helicopter,no way it can be hidden from authorities).A ghost town or two would also be cool,like in GTA San Andreas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Typhus

I maintain that the countryside is pointless, and that a smaller urban map without it is always preferable. Going back and forth in San Andreas and V was busy work, and it felt like it. And you know what makes it all the worse? The only thing which ever made it interesting were fan theories which ended up all being fake.

Grand Theft Auto III's map should be the blueprint for all others. It's small, but everything counts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Am Shaegar

Going back and forth

It applies to any map, whether urban or not. Even in VC, despite the smaller size, the same can be felt. Only the time it takes for going from one part of the map to another remains different between a smaller and larger maps, but that is the fault of the developers more than the map.

Thanks to SA's clever design that is not only reflected in the map, but also in the way story progresses. I don't remember "going back and forth" between the countryside and the rest of the areas because the story missions move from one area to another as you keep unlocking the map after passing a set amount of missions in each area, and not every third or fourth mission I keep switching between countryside or LS, etc, unless I decide on my own to leave the city for a change.

It's like three different cities of III's size with a countryside and desert, bringing more variety and content for gameplay w/o being forced (too often) to travel on such a large map - only on very rare occasions if the story required.

 

So, I don't find this good enough reason for not having a countryside, when it totally depends on the player how they handle the back and forth on a large map.

 

The only thing which ever made it interesting were fan theories which ended up all being fake

what?!?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lioshenka

I maintain that the countryside is pointless, and that a smaller urban map without it is always preferable. Going back and forth in San Andreas and V was busy work, and it felt like it. And you know what makes it all the worse? The only thing which ever made it interesting were fan theories which ended up all being fake.

Grand Theft Auto III's map should be the blueprint for all others. It's small, but everything counts.

Despite my love for GTA 3 one of the biggest reasons I rate GTA SA higher as my favourite game is the countryside.

 

I hated going "back and forth" in GTA 4 and 5 across the city. It's a huge maze of streetlights, barriers and concrete motorways all looking alike. Very boring! Up to this moment I absolutely hate it that I have to cross through downtown Los Santon (horrible depressing grey concrete road spaghetti) whenever I need to go to the aeroport. And yet, areas like the sea port or the oil pumping stations are underused.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Journey_95

 

I maintain that the countryside is pointless, and that a smaller urban map without it is always preferable. Going back and forth in San Andreas and V was busy work, and it felt like it. And you know what makes it all the worse? The only thing which ever made it interesting were fan theories which ended up all being fake.

Grand Theft Auto III's map should be the blueprint for all others. It's small, but everything counts.

Despite my love for GTA 3 one of the biggest reasons I rate GTA SA higher as my favourite game is the countryside.

 

I hated going "back and forth" in GTA 4 and 5 across the city. It's a huge maze of streetlights, barriers and concrete motorways all looking alike. Very boring! Up to this moment I absolutely hate it that I have to cross through downtown Los Santon (horrible depressing grey concrete road spaghetti) whenever I need to go to the aeroport. And yet, areas like the sea port or the oil pumping stations are underused.

 

And the countryside doesn't look alike? Same old forests and boring towns.. To me it never added much to either game, its fun to explore but gets old quickly and just doesn't feel as "alive" as the cities do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Official General

 

 

I maintain that the countryside is pointless, and that a smaller urban map without it is always preferable. Going back and forth in San Andreas and V was busy work, and it felt like it. And you know what makes it all the worse? The only thing which ever made it interesting were fan theories which ended up all being fake.

Grand Theft Auto III's map should be the blueprint for all others. It's small, but everything counts.

Despite my love for GTA 3 one of the biggest reasons I rate GTA SA higher as my favourite game is the countryside.

 

I hated going "back and forth" in GTA 4 and 5 across the city. It's a huge maze of streetlights, barriers and concrete motorways all looking alike. Very boring! Up to this moment I absolutely hate it that I have to cross through downtown Los Santon (horrible depressing grey concrete road spaghetti) whenever I need to go to the aeroport. And yet, areas like the sea port or the oil pumping stations are underused.

 

And the countryside doesn't look alike? Same old forests and boring towns.. To me it never added much to either game, its fun to explore but gets old quickly and just doesn't feel as "alive" as the cities do.

 

 

Disagree man, the countryside in SA certainly did not feel all the same. Red County was mostly hills and patches of light forests with small hick country towns, Flint County was situated in farmland and heavily forested mountainous country, Tierra Robada was rolling plains and sandy deserts with rock formations, it was highly varied.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Journey_95

 

 

 

I maintain that the countryside is pointless, and that a smaller urban map without it is always preferable. Going back and forth in San Andreas and V was busy work, and it felt like it. And you know what makes it all the worse? The only thing which ever made it interesting were fan theories which ended up all being fake.

Grand Theft Auto III's map should be the blueprint for all others. It's small, but everything counts.

Despite my love for GTA 3 one of the biggest reasons I rate GTA SA higher as my favourite game is the countryside.

 

I hated going "back and forth" in GTA 4 and 5 across the city. It's a huge maze of streetlights, barriers and concrete motorways all looking alike. Very boring! Up to this moment I absolutely hate it that I have to cross through downtown Los Santon (horrible depressing grey concrete road spaghetti) whenever I need to go to the aeroport. And yet, areas like the sea port or the oil pumping stations are underused.

 

And the countryside doesn't look alike? Same old forests and boring towns.. To me it never added much to either game, its fun to explore but gets old quickly and just doesn't feel as "alive" as the cities do.

 

 

Disagree man, the countryside in SA certainly did not feel all the same. Red County was mostly hills and patches of light forests with small hick country towns, Flint County was situated in farmland and heavily forested mountainous country, Tierra Robada was rolling plains and sandy deserts with rock formations, it was highly varied.

 

But the cities are varied too then, especially LC which has a different vibe in each district. Just dumbing it down to everything looking alike is silly. Its like some people want to play some Countryside simulator instead of freaking GTA (most of the missions will always be in the cities).

 

And Red Count & Flint County still had a similiar atmosphere to me but I agree that the Desert gave it more variety.

Edited by Journey_95

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.