Should the Gta 6 map be huge or small ?

[GTA-Biker]

I'd like it to be big,but also quite detailed.If I had to choose,I'd prefer a smaller but detailed map over a huge but empty map.

[MrQuiche]

Same size as RDR2 or a little bit bigger but with the same attention to details as GTA V and RDR2.

[Tejender Singh]

I think a huge map with good quality sounds good because rockstar has taken a long time for this upcoming game...

[Felipeborges388]

Why not a huge map with huge amount of details and quality? I think Rockstar is capabble of it

[XXVIII]

The map ought to be global, with international love...

[Eternal Moonshine]

there should be an option to choose a big and detailed map

[ChiroVette]

@RDR2Fan101, I totally understand your concern, and overall I agree with you about most developers. I remember games like FUEL, which I actually really enjoyed, highly underrated game, I thought. But its massively, insanely huge map was actually one of its flaws. It was so big it became repetitive very fast. Rockstar has never really been like that. For the PS2 gen (or 3D Era), San Andreas was actually considered a mind-blowingly huge map, yet it wasn't stale at all. For all my complaints about IV, the map was very nice, as was V, which was also much bigger. My feeling is that Rockstar is not going to make a map as massive as, say Fuel, mostly because they don't need to, and because as you suggested, as some point, maps will start to lose originality throughout as they map gets to be large to the point of unwieldy.

 

Bear in mind, too, that Rockstar is not some indy dev company with ten people with a ponytail and an attitude working on games. They have such a massive team, and the budget for GTA games. I don't have exact numbers, but I believe that it cost a few million to develop San Andreas waaay back in 2003 through 2004. It took $100 to develop GTA IV, and a whopping $265 Million to create GTA V. Can we expect a $500 to $600 Million dollar budget to create GTA VI? Time will tell. But with that kind of a budget, and a team of hundreds, maybe thousands of the best developers, writers, content creators, and artists in the videogame industry, are we really going to be too worried that no matter how huge the map is for GTA VI that Rockstar will skimp to save time and money?

 

I very seriously doubt it.

Edited November 20, 2019 by ChiroVette

[Pete4000uk]

2 hours ago, XXVIII said:

The map ought to be global, with international love...

That's a very short but clear post from you!

[Duhillestpunk]

Small. With it being small, it can have so much extra space for interiors

[Eternal Moonshine]

1 hour ago, Duhillestpunk said:

Small. With it being small, it can have so much extra space for interiors

small map doesn't have to mean more interiors. what if we'd get a small map with equally small amount of interiors? R* seem to be more focused on outdoor environments anyway

[GTAhare]

On 2/2/2019 at 10:44 PM, SonOfLiberty said:

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.

 

I think Rockstar could easily have a detailed city but also a big map by having large countryside areas with miles of road to race on. They could make a Liberty City 2.0 but still have a big map with some large wild biome areas you can race through or explore 

[subzero5]

Huge or small doesnt matter, i wanna see full detailed city. thats all

[C-h-a-r-l-y]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ENTtGyaXkAAsi8b.jpg:large

 

I think it´s just not possible to have a map like this for example and at the same time a high quality world, because the game development would take decades.

[Billy Russo]

It needs to be huge. They want to show it off and people be like: "Wow, that's massive"

 

A small map doesn't get anybody excited. 

 

[ventogt]

It would be nice to see a large enough map with fast travel options a la RDRO.  This game is going to have to satiate players for a decade or more, so hopefully some more beefy DLC add ons/updates with new maps/additions over time as well.  Seeing how long it takes now to develop these games, there will hopefully be some sort of "lego-brick" approach to building more content and detail over time.

[The Nerdy Stormtrooper]

If it were for me, I'd definitely go with a smaller map. I feel like Rockstar should take inspiration from GTA: IV, which, yeah, wasn't exactly small, but allowed you to enter certain buildings. Apartment complexes, Burger Shot...geez, when you joined a multiplayer free roam match you could even enter Niko's safehouses if you remembered where they were.

 

OH OH, EVEN BETTER: Deus Ex. This is a wild dream but man, I'd cry tears of joy if R* created a map similar to Human Revolution's: smaller areas and (almost) every building accessible. Every. Building. It truly made you feel like you were in a real city.

[Lotte]

Maybe bigger than GTA V but not dramatically bigger? I feel like the size of V's map works well for the story but is kind of small for online, if that makes any sense?

[Evil empire]

A gaming area at least the same size than San Andreas in the eponymous game with a more living coutryside would be cool.

[Bob Loblaw_]

Like many already said, there should be an option for Quality + Quantity, I don't think its something impossible to achieve, specially now that R* is taking their sweet ass time to make games.

[Wonder81]

Both quantity and quality! If we are going to be playing the map for the next 6+ years then it needs to be HUGE. Or at least factor in map expansion during it's life cycle. This current GTA map has become stale and boring! 

[GTAhare]

1 hour ago, Wonder81 said:

Both quantity and quality! If we are going to be playing the map for the next 6+ years then it needs to be HUGE. Or at least factor in map expansion during it's life cycle. This current GTA map has become stale and boring! 

 

GTA 5 is a good map but since we’ve been stuck with it for years it’s become redundant. Same thing happened with Liberty City back in the day

[DexMacLeod]

Big or small doesn't really concern me much so long as it's engaging. For as diverse, beautiful, and detailed as RDR2's world is, if you're just free roaming, there isn't much to do in it and travelling from point A to point B grew stale pretty quick.  

[Middle Class Roadman]

I personally think the map should be bigger than what we saw in RDR2.

 

For me, RDR2's map is Rockstars greatest achievement and the most impressive open world game map ever created. However, I think the GTA VI map should be bigger because we'll be using cars, motorbikes, helicopters and planes to traverse the world.

 

Obviously RDR2's map was huge but the fact that we were only travelling around on horses made it seem bigger than what it was IMO. If you were to traverse RDR2's world in the aforementioned vehicles it would probably seem a fair bit smaller. Flying from say Tumbleweed to Annesburg in a helicopter wouldn't take long at all.  

 

That being said I feel the map needs to be of a size where it takes you just as long to get from one side of the map to the other in a car, in around the same time it would take you to get from one side of RDR2's map to the other on a horse, if that makes sense. So ultimately the map will need to be bigger than what we had in RDR2. 

[ivarblaauw]

Around 3-4x the size of GTA V would be perfect I think. Multiple cities, dozens of villages and towns, a lot of different regions and a large highway along the entire coast. 

 

In terms of enterable buildings, I would be satisfied with a similar amount to Mafia III or RDRII, which both had a satisfying amount of enterable buildings. 

 

Important would be the even distribution of airfields/landingstrips scattered across the map. GTA V's airstrips really bummed me out since the closest airstrip to Paleto Bay was literally cut off from it by a mountain. 

 

So in short; 3-4 times the size of GTA V would be perfect. It would be a realistically sized island which could easily exist in the real world. 

 

The most important thing to me: act like the island is indeed an island instead of being connected to the other states. It is obviously and island, so treat it that way.

Edited March 8, 2020 by ivarblaauw

[Mister Pink]

I love big maps but GTA V's map was so disappointing that it was this big bottom-heavy oval. If felt the most islandy of them all. With only one city, the thing felt really contrived. The city planning was excellent to drive around. They did a superb job on the city. However, the fact that the shape was obvious that wherever you are, you aren't lost because you are in this oval. And the mountains and hills go around the outside, mostly. And then there being nothing at the north of the map. What's the point in going up there, really? The symetry of the map, made it predictable. I never felt like I was lost in GTA V's map. It's like you always knew where you were, really early on the game. I prefer a more a-symmetrical map like San Andreas, so I feel I'm lost and it's bigger. 

 

A map like San Andreas where it takes a long time to drive from A-B. Winding roads, trees obscuring your views, mountains, hilly, windy roads that give a sense that the map is bigger than you think. Also, there was a difference in weather depending on where you were in San Andreas. Skies had a purple tinge at night in Las Venturas and a more green tinge in Los Santos, we had fog in San Fierro. Los Santos had that orange golden hour, sunset glow in the evenings. It just gave each part of the map it's own distinct feel. It's the like when you travel to another country/state or city. There's a different feel in the air. 

 

Size-wise GTA V's map was fine. They can just utilize the space better. Like San Andreas, it felt really lonely out in the wilderness of the desert or alone in a forest. There were big, towering trees. Some cross-country routes punished you for cutting through because there was a river. So it was better to take the long and winding road. The roads were so windy with trees obscuring, sometimes it was hard to get your bearings. This all contributed to the size or the illusion of size. 

 

Minimum 2 cities for me. I need an excuse to go to the other side of the map. The cities GTA IV and GTA V are perfect sizes. I don't think we need bigger cities than them. I don't think the maps need to be much bigger than V. Maybe a half size more if they include a second city. But more detail. In fact, I'm still happy with GTA V's detail. So if they can do 2 cities and improve detail, I'll be happy. By detail I mean a sizable amount of interiors. And some non-mission interiors. I want to discover some randomly when exploring.