Should the Gta 6 map be huge or small ?

[RDR2Fan101]

Now I know what your thinking, but let me persuade you a little bit.

 

Less is More correct ?

 

Because I’ve noticed a trend with open world games. “Make a big world with a ton of collectibles and lifeless.” Look at Assassins creed Oydessy for example. The world is huge, but it doesn’t have as many unique locations. While in Red Dead 2 the world feels alive and is pretty diverse.

Another example is the crew 2. While this game might have the whole U.S. the game has barely any content. You might think “Oh in the crew I can drive or fly from New York to Miami.” But the world feels completely lifeless so maybe from a visual perspective it looks amazing, but once you dig deeper in you find nothing in it.

 

Who cares if the world is huge in The Crew it’s a shallow world. All the huge map is a puddle with no depth to it. In fact The Crew 2 feels even worse than the original Crew even though it was only on Current-Gen consoles.

https://imgur.com/gallery/T6ywozy

 

If Gta 6 was a huge map with Liberty City, Vice City then the whole San Andreas(includes Las Ventures, San Fierro and Los Santos.) it might not be as alive as maybe 2 cities would be. Plus the interiors as well too. I just don’t want Gta VI to feel like a dead world to me.

 

Even for Red Dead 2 the map isn’t that much larger than Gta 5’s map, and that’s not a complaint it’s a compliment. Rockstar didn’t say “we should make the largest open world out there.” They said instead “How can we make a world and get the player immersed into the world.”

 

Just Cause 3 and 4 are 3 times larger than Gta 5. But the games don’t have as much content as Gta 5 does. 

 

So so for Gta 6 I think Rockstar should either make it twice the size of Gta 5 or make the world as large as they think it should be. I don’t want to feel like I’m playing in a shallow open-world like I’m in the Crew or something.

Edited February 2, 2019 by RDR2Fan101

[god speed]

Quality > Quantity. I want cities at least as detailed as HD Liberty City and Los Santos, I don't care about the overall amount of square kilometers.

[TheSantader25]

Quantity+Quality. 

I never weigh one over the other. They both work together to make great things happen. If each is abandoned I'll be pissed. I think you should have had an option for both in the poll. I can't vote for any of those options. San Andreas' map had a brilliant combination of the two and based on the progression R* have made since the beginning of the HD era,it's time to go for multiple cities and varied environments. R* can pull it off with quality as well. 

 

I just repeat this from another post I made a while back. 

-It's definitely a feature that I miss from the SA. no GTA has given me the sense of "travel" and "progress" like SA and I miss it. It also saves the game from being a boring sh*tfest. Cause multiple cities means different cultures and that means newer activities, variety and storyline material that stops the game from being repetitive -

Edited February 2, 2019 by TheSantader25

[Grotti Vigilante]

Without any shadow of a doubt it has to be Quality over Quantity. I mean we can already have a huge map with a large city as GTA V proves. Yes, Red Dead Redemption II has a huge map, but Saint Denis is about the size of Broker at a quick estimate, so it's not a fair comparison given the fact that GTA cities. If I made a quick total estimate I'd say all settlements in RDRII are about the size of HD Liberty City. 

 

GTA V was also last-gen, so maybe we can get even bigger with the next game. But if size comes into it at the cost of detail and life, then I know that quality comes first. I think of all companies though, Rockstar can easily pull off both. With the leaps and bounds made in this generation of games, Rockstar will probably give us GTA on the next-gen systems and make it even bigger than we could imagine. 

Edited February 2, 2019 by Grotti Vigilante

[Algonquin Assassin]

Quality > quantity. Big maps aren't as impressive as they used to be now that technology has advanced so much consoles can easily handle large open worlds. What's harder to achieve IMO is the right balance whether what's contained within that world is actually interesting.

 

Ghost Recon: Wildlands, Just Cause 2 etc all have big maps, but they're shallow as f*ck once the "wow" factor wears off. Ideally it would be better to have the best of both worlds, but if I had to choose only one than quality anytime like GTA IV's Liberty City which is still the best/most detailed singular city in the series.

[Aquamaniac]

I'd like a map 4 times as big as GTA V, if possible featuring a city nearly as big as the entire map of V and various smaller towns scattered over the rest of the map which I'd like to be rather rural apart from the big city.

[countrymike84]

I am going to say that GTA VI will be possibly 2x that of GTA V map but with all the positions that R has been hiring for the past few years, this game is going for a lot of quality also. GTA VI, like RDR2, will revolutionize the industry once again. Bully 2 will not be a slouch either lol

[Hmmm nice bike]

I don't think the map has to be huge or small. It'll probably be bigger than V, but it won't be the size of Edler Scrolls: Daggerfall. I'd much rather have a detailed map with stuff actually going on, an area that isn't a lifeless world or something akin to a movie set.

[ViceCityVin]

I would of course prefer quality over quantity, but I think it is possible to have a high-quality large map. 

[U Carmine]

If GTA 6 allowed us to enter random buildings, then that's a much bigger quality invested.

[Beato_dim]

I would favor the quality more. Although the way the vote options are worded now, it's kind of a loaded question, the balance is also important.

[Shadowphanto]

Quality over quantity up to a certain point. The map still has to be a decent size, though beyond that, I'd prefer more interactivity through side missions than a bigger map.

[Joaoseinha]

Smaller maps are better because the interesting stuff is more condensed. I'd like to see something a tad bigger than V with two cities. No GTA aside from SA had such satisfying planes in my opinion purely because they felt useful. You could fly from Los Santos to Las Venturas and flying to other towns actually made sense, instead of flying to nowhere. Planes can't exactly be landed everywhere.

[Lioshenka]

Both. Either on their own would suck.

 

Needs to be something on a level with SA where great details meets an enormous map. I actually think GTA 4 was more successful map-wise, it may have been a one boring city, but at least they didn't hide the fact that it's one city. In GTA 5 they pretended to make a big map - and that left us with a motorway leading from Los Santos to... Los Santos.

 

Give me medium size, filled with a medium level of details. And different cities and terrain. One piece of land with he same terrain and architecture will be boring.

Edited February 11, 2019 by Lioshenka

[Jabalous]

Huge and with a quality would be my choice. Actually, quality is definitely not an afterthought for R* when it comes to map design. It's their brand. I am really looking forward to seeing a multi-city map, so think of two large-sized cities and one medium-sized town to travel between, including all the natural barriers (i.e. mountain ranges, hills, plains and rivers) that separate them. In contrast, they can work on a map on the size of IV's LC and turn the focus to making it extremely detailed from a visual and behavioral point of view, including how pedestrians are generated and their AI system/schedule. 

Edited February 11, 2019 by Jabalous

[Collibosher]

A game with cars and planes? HUUUGE map please. Despite how "deep" the small map is, I just feel it will be experienced and fully explored faster. In a game like GTA:SA, with large areas of desert and "forest" with cottages and points of interests scattered here and there, it feels like a never ending exploration. I'm literally now playing GTA:SA and while driving around the countryside still, after 15 years, I find areas "I've never seen before" small and insignificant areas, but still.

 

I know many people hate long driving distances, but when I play GTA and drive from the far south to far north or from the city to countryside, I really wanna feel and "acknowledge" a long distance. It really bothered me how Trevor was supposedly living "in the desert, far away from the city" because it wasn't that far away, you can pretty much see the desert from the Winewood hills (in GTA V) I would've preferred a long ass "boring" country road sided by "boring" empty fields between the city and Sandy Shores.

[AUScowboy]

Why not just remaster LS again and add LV and SF. Then for VII they could do VC. The sub title could be VIICE CIITY.

Edited February 12, 2019 by AUScowboy

[Wolff]

Quality, I played Just Cause 2 and it has a gigantic map but I could just fall asleep playing it because there's not much to do.

[universetwisters]

I want the map to be as small as a city block

[.Smaher.]

The voting options are biased trash. Why does a large map have to be shallow? And why would a smaller map always have to have quality? I'm not voting unless you make it neutral.

But I'll still say I want it to be a huge.

[Pedinhuh]

V map size is decent enough for me...If it were multiplied by 2.

 

So there, gimme San Fierro along with Northern San Andreas, then give me a bridge or a connected land mass to Southern San Andreas and Los Santos, and I'll be very happy.

 

In fact, seeing as that's what R* pulled off with RDR2 in comparison to RDR1, I think it's a safe bet that they're doing it for the next GTA game.

[Jack Lupino]

This is not either/or choice for me I want a good balance of both.

What I actually want is not giant wasted map spaces that players won't normally roam like those big beaches in vice city or huge mountains in V.

They should follow San Andreas model having multiple cities with small towns,forests and mountains in between and maybe a isolated island like happiness island in GTA 4.Also they need to have 50% of buildings having accessible interiors.

[Schokoladeka]

Make it huge, make it detailed as f*ck with tons of interactions available, all that. Then I wouldn't mind paying 200 bucks for that. I really wouldn't care about the price tag. 

[el carlitos]

Why not both? All major GTA cities in one big map. The quality should be at the current level or better. Hope it´s possible with next gen power.

 

[Ondr4H]

I had whole days of fun on two tiny islands in Vice city...

So quality over quantity.I feel San Andreas from GTA V ike generic open world, that world is shallow and boring...

[KingAJ032304]

On 2/2/2019 at 12:39 PM, TheSantader25 said:

Quantity+Quality. 

I never weigh one over the other. They both work together to make great things happen. If each is abandoned I'll be pissed. I think you should have had an option for both in the poll. I can't vote for any of those options. San Andreas' map had a brilliant combination of the two and based on the progression R* have made since the beginning of the HD era,it's time to go for multiple cities and varied environments. R* can pull it off with quality as well. 

 

I just repeat this from another post I made a while back. 

-It's definitely a feature that I miss from the SA. no GTA has given me the sense of "travel" and "progress" like SA and I miss it. It also saves the game from being a boring sh*tfest. Cause multiple cities means different cultures and that means newer activities, variety and storyline material that stops the game from being repetitive -

NO Rockstar game had quality and quantity until RDR2! gta sa tricks you by making it diverse giving the illusion that make it seem like it's interactive. You have a forest in GTA. GREAT! why? You can't cut or burn the forest down. You can't pick up stuff such as rocks and sticks. There aren't people interacting with wildlife or the plants in it. There aren't any animals to begin with in it. I literally just there for looks. The three different cities were really boring. How could it be 3 different cities that all feel so similar. All that's different is the npcs dress different with a couple different cars with mostly similar dialogue. This is also in GTA 5 like GTA SA. They don't talk about how their days are different. Or do different stuff. They just walk or sit around carelessly. The whole Las Ventures casino thing only plays for at most 5 missions. And even then there's no long term effect for it in gta 5. The only time the diversity feels good in GTA SA is how you have tagging activities and shoe horses to collect. That was pretty cool. But what if we had a snowy area people ski down with cable carts people got on while we also have the ghetto where the cruelest of thugs lived? Strangely the only time I felt progression was in GTA 2 and 3 where you start without being known to the whole city hating you with  different gangs do different stuff hating on you as you did their gang arc but even there it wasn't all that good. 

Edited February 19, 2019 by KingAJ032304

[killdrivetheftvehicle]

A driving game is supposed to be big. That's because there can be more variety in the map, when it's huge. A walking game must be small and packed with detail. GTA is both. So it needs to be a mix of both worlds or meet in the middle. You can always go deeper in detail and you can always make a bigger map. GTA is neither and both, depending on perspective. GTA has more detail than a driving game like crew, and less detail than a walking only game like Detroit. It's also a shooter and action adventure game.

[Timcatgt5]

A huge map with 80% as the mainland and 20% containing islands, larger than GTA V and IV combined by sq km which is enough, using a three tier system to organise the surroundings easier (main, big island with bridge connection and main). The water surrounds the whole map. 

 

Vice City has all the right ingredients for this plan, because they can put the Florida Keys in the south, a few islands dotted around the map, the industrial/run down area on the left, downtown and starfish island in the middle and the residential and rural district on the right. 

 

If it's just the mainland then it makes aquatic transport useless, due to the lack of exploration, unless there is an underwater section for submersibles. 

 

Prioritise on land and aerial vehicles, and make water vehicles secondary if islands are to be added. 

[GTASeriesFan]

Somewhere in the middle of not too big, but not too small either. Quality over quantity of course.

[ArkhamDeadp00l]

Like GTA V's but bigger.