Countryside too small and empty.

[darksats]

They made the city big. but the countryside was too small. the mountains are very empty and it gives the illusion that the area is bigger when it is not. if the mountain areas are flat the countryside will feel very very small. there is nothing interesting or fun to do in countryside. the desert area is small and you don't get the feeling of lost in the desert like in san andreas. same for the forest area. 

[Cjrememberthat]

Yeah alwsys tought this when i see people talking about V's map, i mean who gives a sh*t about big empty ass mountains and desert

Edited June 5, 2019 by Cjrememberthat

[El Penguin Bobo]

I quite liked the forests and mountains in V (mainly because you can get attacked there and there's animals and you can kill someone there without getting caught), however there's way too many mountains and I always thought there should have been more city.

[iiCriminnaaL]

It's no way small, especially compared to the city. But yeah, more effort should've been put on it. Instead of focusing on making it as big as possible, they could've made it actually feel like countryside, with real forests.

[Syrens]

...are we playing the same game.  The city is big, but the countryside is vastly bigger than the city, how can you say it's too small?

[darksats]

16 minutes ago, Syrens said:

...are we playing the same game.  The city is big, but the countryside is vastly bigger than the city, how can you say it's too small?

Countryside should be bigger than city area. it would make it realistic and will feel like you were living in real world.

1 minute ago, darksats said:

Countryside should be bigger than city area. it would make it realistic and will feel like you were living in real world.

 

22 minutes ago, Syrens said:

...are we playing the same game.  The city is big, but the countryside is vastly bigger than the city, how can you say it's too small?

Countryside should be much bigger around 5 to 10 times bigger than the city like in real world with lots of towns and village and large farms, grasslands, forests and deserts. in gta v 90% of the countryside is mountains which have nothing on them. it feels so empty and dont really feel lost in the mountains. the forest and desert areas are so small you don't get the feeling of getting lost in them. also only two towns in a very small flat area.i dont feel like i travel long distances to reach interesting places like i did in san andreas.

[god speed]

There should have been a lot more trees at least but I guess the last generation consoles couldn't handle them and that carried over to newer versions too.

[El Penguin Bobo]

41 minutes ago, darksats said:

Countryside should be bigger than city area.

It is in the game though, lol. Countryside is definitely NOT small and bigger than the city, see for yourself...

Edited June 5, 2019 by El Penguin Bobo

[Killerman29]

I agree, there are several zones in the contryside that are useless, like alamo sea which is too big and josiah mountaint is f*cking pointless and a empty place, no trails, nothing to do there, even mount chiliad is worst than SA chiliad, SA chiliad had several trails and bikes races to do, in V chiliad there is only 3 very basic trails and nothing to do in the top, only for take photos 

[El Penguin Bobo]

^ V's chillad had some trails too, and you can use a bike to go down too. lol

[Killerman29]

22 minutes ago, El Penguin Bobo said:

^ V's chillad had some trails too, and you can use a bike to go down too. lol

Yes, but they are just two simple paths that go from bottom to top and vice versa, in SA chiliad you had a trail that went around the mountain, another with ramps and platforms, narrow trails with sharp curves, etc

Edited June 5, 2019 by Killerman29

[darksats]

38 minutes ago, El Penguin Bobo said:

It is in the game though, lol. Countryside is definitely NOT small and bigger than the city, see for yourself...

I did a mistake saying that countryside is not bigger as city but i can't edit it as i am a new member. but what i want to say is the countryside should be atleast 5 times bigger than the city to be realistic to get the feeling of living in  a state or district . but in v the countryside is only around 2 times bigger than the city and 90% of the countryside is made up of mountains which are mostly empty with very few trees on it. 

[El Penguin Bobo]

^ I understand now. I agree that there are WAAAAYYY too many mountains but I liked the forests though.

[billiejoearmstrong8]

The mountains in particular suck. There's literally nothing on them. No cool abandoned buildings, no caves, no tunnels, very minimal trees, no random interesting things to find. Not only do they make them needlessly difficult to climb/explore outside the like 1 or 2 paths they bothered to put on each one, even if you do manage to explore them there's simply nothing to find. Complete and utter waste of space taking up half the map. And the huge Alamo Sea, complete with being able scuba dive and use a submersible? Also totally empty. It has some nice views but from a gameplay/exploring perspective V's countryside is an empty wasteland with a highway (that goes from Los Santos to....Los Santos) going through it.

Edited June 5, 2019 by billiejoearmstrong8

[Duhillestpunk]

All the more reason I wish to never return to Los Santos

[Nintendo Thong Tuna]

It's larger than in SA, but it's not more interesting... it's not about how exactly large a map is but how you utilize the size. SA was more interesting because it was full of diverse areas and had a lot of towns. V's map is mostly boring mountains.

[GTA-Biker]

I agree with what you're saying,I wouldn't really say it's empty,in fact,I'd say that everything that's not a mountain is too crowded.Just look at the desert,wherever you go and wherever you look,you'll see some man-made stuff (roads, fences, electricity poles, buildings in the distance, etc.),you never really feel like you're lost in the middle of nowhere,miles away from any signs of civilization.IMO,they should have made less mountains,make the forests and the desert larger,and make them more empty,with something mysterious and interesting to be found on a few desolate locations,making it worth exploring.Also,they could have designed the towns better,I liked Palomino Creek and Fort Carson from GTA SA better than any of the GTA 5 towns.

Edited June 5, 2019 by GTA-Biker

[Ondr4H]

I feel like plain mountains take too much space, same goes for Alamo sea.

GTA V map is kinda rushed and I never feel completely remote on this map. Thats sad, If I compare to San Andreas from 2004

[El Penguin Bobo]

^ Meh, wouldn't go as far as calling it rushed, but I would say it could have been better in some ways.

[ChiroVette]

I actually like the Mountains a lot, when flying over them, doing the air races, base jumping, and so forth. The problem, I think, is that other than backdrop scenery, the area of Gordo could have been easily made a lot more functional than just really pretty at a flying distance. Rockstar seems to have shot their load with Chilliad in this game, because I LOVE that area. Tons of trails, sights, and great scenery and views. Had they put even 25% of the time into the area of Gordo that they put into Chilliad, they could have made that area something really special and fun to explore up close and personal, and not just as scenery from above. They had the right idea with Gordo, actually. It just needed a little more development, I think. I don't agree as much about the whole area housing Josiah. Perhaps because of its proximity to Chilliad, Zancudo, Sandy Shores, and the scenery in the region, as well as the collectibles, I have never found Josiah to be useless space at all. But instead, a beautiful, scenic region that I have fun exploring to this day.

 

I get this "empty space" complaint about Gordo and its surrounding area. But in Rockstar's defense, its a fairly small area in the upper northeast corner of the map. Still, I would have liked to see more development of scenery, paths, forests, and sights there.

 

 

Edited June 6, 2019 by ChiroVette

[darksats]

1 hour ago, ChiroVette said:

I actually like the Mountains a lot, when flying over them, doing the air races, base jumping, and so forth. The problem, I think, is that other than backdrop scenery, the area of Gordo could have been easily made a lot more functional than just really pretty at a flying distance. Rockstar seems to have shot their load with Chilliad in this game, because I LOVE that area. Tons of trails, sights, and great scenery and views. Had they put even 25% of the time into the area of Gordo that they put into Chilliad, they could have made that area something really special and fun to explore up close and personal, and not just as scenery from above. They had the right idea with Gordo, actually. It just needed a little more development, I think. I don't agree as much about the whole area housing Josiah. Perhaps because of its proximity to Chilliad, Zancudo, Sandy Shores, and the scenery in the region, as well as the collectibles, I have never found Josiah to be useless space at all. But instead, a beautiful, scenic region that I have fun exploring to this day.

 

I get this "empty space" complaint about Gordo and its surrounding area. But in Rockstar's defense, its a fairly small area in the upper northeast corner of the map. Still, I would have liked to see more development of scenery, paths, forests, and sights there.

 

 

Josiah is only good for scenery. it has nothing on it. they should have put a village on top of it and lot of trees and buses on slopes of it. its a big waste of land nothing fun or enjoyable there.

[ChiroVette]

17 minutes ago, darksats said:

Josiah is only good for scenery. it has nothing on it. they should have put a village on top of it and lot of trees and buses on slopes of it. its a big waste of land nothing fun or enjoyable there.

 

That's where we disagree. I have never considered good scenery in a sandbox game to be a "waste of space." Empty nothingness with no scenic or exploratory value, yeah, I would agree with you. This is NOT to suggest that Rockstar couldn't have added a plethora of SP content that could have been dropped into those areas. But for me, a lot of the joy of sandbox games is exploring beautifully crafted areas, like a sightseeing tourist, even with no apparent in-game agenda, rewards, or gameplay. If the areas in and around Josiah were just "meh" then I would agree also. But they really aren't.

[TheSantader25]

I still take this over not having a countryside. (IV you listening?). In my opinion R* didn't try to give the player the illusion of a big rich map in contrast to their previous titles which was a big mistake. They thought their map was big enough and they didn't have to do it anymore but they were mistaken. 

 

Giving the player the illusion is a big part of map design and a very difficult thing to do. Because it's all about psychology. Even a single object placement can have an effect on it. There's a reason why everyone still think the SA map seems far bigger in comparison to V and it's all because of the layout design. But in the end I still had a lot of fun in the countryside. Even the "useless" mountains were useful for me. Loads of self made activities I did that I couldn't do if they weren't there. Adds a lot to the free mode open world gameplay aspect.  But there's no denying R* could do a lot better. 

Edited June 6, 2019 by TheSantader25

[Ash_735]

Luckily it seems this decade GTAV is the odd one out for having awkward/bad map design in a Rockstar game. RDR1, L.A.Noire (which Rockstar contributed research to) and now RDR2 have shown they CAN do maps justice with a lot of detail, atmosphere and scope. Perhaps GTAV was just an awkward project since it was pushed back for years and had to be designed around older consoles before being shoehorned onto current gen and PC.

[Yinepi]

I always have hated the desert in the game. It never felt like a desert to me. Too much billboards, fences, cacti and roads. I never got the illusion of a vast emptiness like I get from real world Death Valley.

Also never cared for the shape. The Homer Simpson head is very off-putting.

Edited June 6, 2019 by Yinepi

[ChiroVette]

4 hours ago, Ash_735 said:

Luckily it seems this decade GTAV is the odd one out for having awkward/bad map design in a Rockstar game. RDR1, L.A.Noire (which Rockstar contributed research to) and now RDR2 have shown they CAN do maps justice with a lot of detail, atmosphere and scope. Perhaps GTAV was just an awkward project since it was pushed back for years and had to be designed around older consoles before being shoehorned onto current gen and PC.

I disagree.

 

GTA V's map is gorgeous, and I love the desert as well. I certainly like it a helluva lot better than the horrible rendering of my own city in IV. Plus, no fecal-brown haze over everything like in IV and the Crapisodes.

[Ash_735]

Thats nice and all but I didn't mention GTA IV or EFLC, I mentioned Rockstar games from this decade that have done similar things to GTAV but better.

 

ps: also ironically I think land mass wise, even the desert from San Andreas is bigger than the one from GTAV, that's how bad it was.

[ChiroVette]

2 hours ago, Ash_735 said:

Thats nice and all but I didn't mention GTA IV or EFLC, I mentioned Rockstar games from this decade that have done similar things to GTAV but better.

 

 

 

You didn't have to mention IV. Since you said that V was "the odd man out" it was clear you were referring to the HD gen, not the 3D (PS2) gen. So your comparison, while unspoken, was a transparent attempt to refer to IV without actually referring to it, so that when I made the comparison, you could play the innocent card like you just did. Plus, you are a notorious IV fan from years back, and have been lobbying for "a return to IV" for the past 4+ years I can remember. I played RDR2. since you are hinting at that. Wasn't impressed, though I admit I got bored REALLY fast of that toxic waste. lol Unless. by "odd man out" (in this decade) you are comparing V to RDR2 only? But you can't compare only TWO games to one another and claim either one is "the odd man out." So clearly you were comparing V to other GTA games, when saying that.

 

 

2 hours ago, Ash_735 said:

ps: also ironically I think land mass wise, even the desert from San Andreas is bigger than the one from GTAV, that's how bad it was.

While I LOVE San Andreas, including its map, your "bigger" argument is a tad absurd. Because if V's desert was bigger, you would complain about that, saying it was "even more wasted space," hahahaha which has been a staple of your argument against V for years now. You can attempt to deflect and distract all you like, but your consternation about V's map is nothing more than some surreptitious lobbying for GTA to go back to Snore's inherent philosophy of gaming. LMAO Otherwise, why would you still be making the same complaints over and over again, ad nauseam, for coming up on 6 years now?

 

 

Edited June 7, 2019 by ChiroVette

[Ash_735]

@ChiroVette I think you should reread what I typed, I specifically said "this decade", GTA IV and EFLC were last decade, crazy I know.

 

You should also double check your facts about me, you'll see I've always wanted a bigger desert as I found the representation of Sky Valley/Joshua Tree/Cathedral City to be completely pathetic in GTAV which I've spoken about before as that's a big part of Southern California.

 

You seem more concerned with calling me a "snore" fanboy than to actually take any negative criticism of GTAV at face value, which as I stated in another thread, Rockstar have improved immensely on with RDR2. 

 

You also state how long I've had the same comments in this section without realising that it also reflects on you, you've been here for that amount of time too valiantly defending the game and calling anyone who criticizes it IV fanboy, despite YOU being the one to admit that you don't like other Rockstar titles, even recently stating that you dislike RDR2 so with that in mind it looks like you only really like GTAV over the course of the past 15 years, which one of us looks like a fanboy here?

 

If you like I'll stop posting in this section again since I post in the other areas and enjoy other things.

[ChiroVette]

@Ash_735, I would love to see more space as well. And if you say that you have always lobbied for that, then fair enough, I could agree it would be cool. My "valiantly" defending V is only stating my opinion, as you are stating yours. But its also in fun. I like talking about V in the V section. I think that the thing I don't understand is why people who hate the game, or aren't that into it, come into the same forum day after day, year after year to trash it. If you looked at my posting history, you would see that I don't bother with the IV forum. Why? When IV was "the most recent" GTA title, from 2008 through 2013, I didn't spend that 5 years, as you or others have spent the last 6, making the same complaints over and over and over again. I moved on. Sure, I hoped Rockstar would redeem the franchise again, and they did so valiantly!

 

This is not saying you have no right to be here expressing your opinions. Of course you do. From an intellectually honest perspective, though, I question even the rationale. I mean, could you imagine if I spent as much time in the IV forum, attacking that game, its horrible map, its story, gameplay, etc, etc? If I was doing it back in 2013, before V released? You have to admit there is something a little tired about the constant, never-ending, ad nauseam whinging & bitching in a forum.

 

You IV fans love to group me in the same basket as you guys. "Oh, you are here to feverishly defend it" lol. But you fail to account for the fact that most of my vigorous defense of V is mocking you IV fans. Something you have failed to realize. The irony is I actually agree with a some of the criticisms of V. But seeing the same ones over and over again makes me smile, roll up my sleeves, and mock. Yes, even in some cases where I do actually agree with complaints.

 

You honestly think I walk around in my everyday life talking about the Crapisodes and IV to everyone I meet whenever games come up? Or if I am in a Gamestop and someone talks about how much they love IV, that I talk to THEM the same way I talk to you? No, dude. 

Edited June 7, 2019 by ChiroVette