Will GTA 6s Map REALLY Be Significantly Bigger than GTA 5?

[GTAhare]

I honestly don’t think that the map in GTA 6 will be THAT much larger than GTA 5. Unless Rockstar makes a very large leap over Red Dead Redemption 2 as it did to GTA 5 I think realistically it will only be 1-2.5 times bigger than GTA 5. Red Dead Redemption 2’s map is actually SMALLER than GTA 5. RDR2 has the longest development time and is their most ambitious game yet, in fact GTA 6 could very well be less detailed even if it’s next gen as RDR2 is on another league of detail, yet the map is smaller than GTA 5. Yes, you ride a horse instead of driving a car but if Rockstar wanted they easily could’ve made it be 3x the size of GTA 5 with large wilderness areas yet they very much focus on quality over quantity.

 

I understand that Online could force them to make a large map but the thing is if Los Santos had fast food interiors it probably would feel twice as big. If Rockstar follows the same philosophy of RDR2’s map it won’t be that much larger than GTA 5 but will have lots of interiors and be a living and breathing world. It’s just odd that people assume Rockstar would suddenly change their design philosophy into multiple cities when they’re quality over quality. I honestly wouldn’t mind one city the size of Los Santos but with lots of interiors and a RDR2/GTA 4 quality living breathing world, and a great countryside.

 

It would be very hard for even Rockstar, and even with next gen hardware (IF GTA 6 is even next-gen in the first place) to make 3+ cities that are a high quality. Not to mention with scaling down GTA 4 to just Liberty City when originally it was going to be an entire state, and having only Los Santos in GTA 5, it’s very clear Rockstar isn’t as interested in multiple cities as a lot of the fanbase.  With better hardware and more development time perhaps they could make multiple cities in one game but the idea they could have cities that are on completely different parts of the country in one game sounds ludicrous. Yes, Online has definitely influenced the map design but it seems the Housers would be more interested in representing a state rather than multiple parts of the country in one. If GTA 6 has “multiple cities” I’d expect it to be states where if it returns to Liberty City it’s Liberty City and the surrounding state and atmosphere not the whole country, and if it’s Vice City it focuses on Florida culture, not the whole country.

[Jabalous]

A multi-city map would require a significant investment in size and spread of the map so that it'd look and feel believable with enough natural buffer zones between the different cities. Size matters the most in the Online space, so naturally the map will not be smaller than V's. I'd say that a map that is twice the size of V's and with two major cities would be believable and would look right enough. However, it might as well be true that they would rather focus on a single city and the surrounding areas. It's also worth to remember that VI is having the luxury of more development time, and maybe also budget, than V. Because of this, I can see them being able to pull off a 2-city map with details that will naturally go beyond V and Redemption 2.

[Eternal Moonshine]

44 minutes ago, GTAhare said:

if Los Santos had fast food interiors it probably would feel twice as big

What. Why do people care about fast food interiors so much? Having to enter buildings to replenish health is a chore. I'd rather use hotdog stands or vending machines instead as they're much more easily accessible and generally are a faster option. Why would I want to visit fast food places then? Sure I would welcome more interiors but I'd take multiple cities over more enterable buildings in a heartbeat

[DexMacLeod]

1 hour ago, GTAhare said:

Not to mention with scaling down GTA 4 to just Liberty City when originally it was going to be an entire state, and having only Los Santos in GTA 5, it’s very clear Rockstar isn’t as interested in multiple cities as a lot of the fanbase.

I don't know, the fact that they wanted GTA IV to be bigger and if rumours are true that San Fierro and Las Venturas were originally planned for V I think it's very clear that they are interested in multiple cities and just haven't been able to make it work exactly how they want it to.

 

I think it's like you said, though. It's going to depend on where the game is set. If it's Liberty again I think we'd probably get quite a bit of Alderny along with it and for Vice it'd probly just be Vice and some smaller places around the area. I think if it's in the midwest we could get a bunch of smaller cities with farmland and very little rural towns scattered about.

 

The idea that we might get multiple major cities from opposite ends of the country has never really made sense to me. 

[Gustavo Mota]

A smaller map with more detail to dynamic interaction and a functional economy would be better than a bigger map with less of the above.

[Paper Mario]

As long as there is nature. If we only get city like GTA 4 I will be very disappointed.

[Kris194]

54 minutes ago, Eternal Moonshine said:

What. Why do people care about fast food interiors so much? Having to enter buildings to replenish health is a chore. I'd rather use hotdog stands or vending machines instead as they're much more easily accessible and generally are a faster option.

Why not both? That way you have choice just like in GTA IV.

Edited October 28, 2019 by Kris194

[CarltonDanks69]

Whats up with everyones obsession with big empty maps?

 

Bigger map doesnt mean a better one or a better game. The design and variety is all that matters and coming off of RDR2, Im confident it will be amazing

[Eternal Moonshine]

5 minutes ago, Kris194 said:

Why not both? That way you have choice just like in GTA IV.

i agree. more interiors would be nice but not for the cost of having a smaller map or less populated with cities and towns

[Kris194]

City without interiors is not city IMO. It's just bunch of roads and buildings having no purpose.

 

Vice City - had interiors

San Andreas - had interiors

GTA IV - had interiors

GTA V - almost no interiors

RDR 2 - I'm about to play it next week but from what I read it has many interiors.

 

Having interiors doesn't have to mean having smaller map.

Edited October 28, 2019 by Kris194

[Eternal Moonshine]

10 minutes ago, Kris194 said:

City without interiors is not city IMO. It's just bunch of roads and buildings having no purpose.

 

Vice City - had interiors

San Andreas - had interiors

GTA IV - had interiors

GTA V - almost no interiors

RDR 2 - I'm about to play it next week but from what I read it has many interiors.

i would like to see someone count all the interiors in both GTA IV and V. everyone says that IV had more interiors but i'm not so sure about that. and even if it did have more interiors, they felt more like filler rather than actual content because they weren't interesting at all. Trevor's trailer had more things going for it than any 10 interiors from GTA IV. don't mean to argue, that's just how i feel. i would like to see someone legitimately compare the number of interiors in IV and V though

Edited October 28, 2019 by Eternal Moonshine

[Volatollotalov]

1 hour ago, CarltonDanks69 said:

Whats up with everyones obsession with big empty maps?

 

Bigger map doesnt mean a better one or a better game. The design and variety is all that matters and coming off of RDR2, Im confident it will be amazing

As you might guess I'm quite fond of flying in GTAO, so a much larger map would be awesome personally though I'm sure it's not everyone's thing.  

 

There's also a longevity factor. I've been playing GTAO for about three years and I probably know almost everything on that map, although I do remember that at least a year into playing I was still finding new things. That sense of open discovery added a lot to the experience. I don't want to second-guess the views of others but I reckon a lot of the 'big map' advocates probably feel the same way.

 

Also, I've seen a few people complain here and there about the lack of any map extensions in the history of GTAO updates. But isn't the Arena Wars DLC technically a map extension?

Edited October 28, 2019 by Volatollotalov

[burger_mike]

2 hours ago, Eternal Moonshine said:

What. Why do people care about fast food interiors so much? Having to enter buildings to replenish health is a chore. I'd rather use hotdog stands or vending machines instead as they're much more easily accessible and generally are a faster option. Why would I want to visit fast food places then? Sure I would welcome more interiors but I'd take multiple cities over more enterable buildings in a heartbeat

Because it adds depth? GTAV doesnt even have hotdog vendors

[XXVIII]

The structure of this installment’s map and geography wants it all and so too, do the globe of crusaders, wielding their guitars, huddled around the Gold Master. The Gold Master is heavy with ‘are we there yet?’, wanting to call upon any second to slip a note or a hint out of silence... before the click of the ‘tick’ hits a nickel’s back.  
 

These landscapes have been forged so that ideally, the customized photorealistic character, hunted down by the eager eye, can meet a story that is simple at first breath, but complex seconds into seconds left on your life. As your would-be-legacy with... a Colt Austin or a Charlotte Brooks, or an Arnie Drucker, or even a more 3-Dimensional GTA, comical kind of spin Guy Brewski, falls and the black screen rushes in... is it over? Similar to the query that the ill-tempered commando Sam Fisher throws over a thought of Colonel Irving Lambert’s? (Let me guess: three alarms and the mission’s over?”) 
 

It is indeed over, not the mission, nor your freedom to toy with civilization, VI miles that broke away from the straightaways packed with civvies and the 9-to-5 blood sprees that are whining for a slot in taxpayers’ 1040s, about to be wacked... but for all other competitors’ confetti sprees. 

This MIRACL3 welcomes metacognition: thinking deeper than your thinking. Reality does not accept one and done because if just one cue, one job, one score drowns in child play... the chances are heavy that there is a hothead about to dive out of cannon in a splash of lead. The light found a spot and the reason is you. 
 

Metacognition can also be applied to the Splinter Cell alias Sam Fisher. With one dive into Mr. Fisher’s DNA string, he is coy, cunning, ill-tempered, and calculated. 
 

However, if you drop deeper into another layer, ‘Sam Fisher’ metamorphosizes into a revelation. 
 

Please note that the following dialogue is purely conceptual, but could be actual.
 

Sam Houser: ‘What? That’s preposterous s*it! One character dies and it’s mission over, the character you customized and made your work of art?! Where’s the fun and ambition in that? How are you gonna explore the sexy map that’s 100 times bigger than Leslie’s Willy? The party’s just getting its gonads loose. If one dies, another should rise. Just put the action on pause for a bit and then jump back into  This map is really fishing for more; I mean, we really should p*ss out the entire globe. Made of land lines, boundary lines, straightaways and masses of ambition. *uck boundaries and constitutionality! Game of the Year!’

[HikikomoriYume]

Map size isn't what's important, detail is.

I would rather have a map the size of IV's Liberty City but with extreme forms of detail, complete interiors and lots of artistry.

Take V for example, it was large but full of nothing not worth exploring.

[GTK0HLK]

I don't think having a big map is an issue..,

the issue is how it's really used..,

(since I'm sure most have stuffed in that unused back pocket: that quite a bit was stripped to V based on limitations.., which is why most of the land is considered wasted space.., most of it was going to be filled with something.., but that's the past)

if R* makes a big map, they will have their reasons for it..,

most say the map along with the story are the first few things hashed out.., (or at least started..,)

 

so for V, I mostly blame end of console..,

 

so a large map with 1-2 cities should be fine.., and R* will fill it..,

they should have no issue what so ever.., and no excuses on 5/Xwhatever..,

[Lotte]

I don't think hardware limitations are really the issue for the map size, to be honest? the Just Cause games have had absolutely massive maps since forever, but they've also been a pain in the ass to get across and also extremely uninteresting

 

It's probably more a matter of needing to fill as much of the map area with things that are actually interesting AND not making it too big to make getting between areas of interest a major pain, right?

 

[GTK0HLK]

pretty much what i said..,

but what I meant of V was that many locations got shaved from their trees..,(the fact V released Right at the tail end of a console generation.., and had to be released again on current gen to be able to live out it's life speaks of limitation)

but that was only V(and t hats just a small thing)

 

and games like just cause are pretty much made with those features in mind.., so it works for that game..,

and R* no matter the size of the map will make a good world..,

but due to the amount of transportation, and necessity for a GTA title.., it needs to be larger so we don't end up doing laps around the map..,(which is another issue.., but there really isn't a point to leave the city in V since all that could have been outside the city was pretty bare n flesh..,)

 

(it'll be s long wait for steam RDR2, to see how they have improved in some aspects.., ~~ but really.., they should of tossed epic to last place ~~ )

[MrBreak16]

In this case I would really want them to make the state of Florida with Vice City and maybe Orlando if they can...

putting the Everglade swamps and the Florida Keys. People might disagree, but seriously... Vice City is the only City we didn’t see since the 3D Universe and Liberty City and Los Santos got there treatment unlike Vice City, So if Rockstar Games can’t make a map with these 3 cities then we should go back VC

[Pete4000uk]

The thing I find with the V map is that there are few places where you are far from anywhere. For me, having an area where there is nothing much in terms of places (as in destinations) is just as immersive as the über detailed city backstreets. 

[Duhillestpunk]

I personally hope it’s smaller than V. I prefer small map with a lot of interiors than a huge map with little to none interiors (GTA V)

[GTK0HLK]

i think it's clear by now..,

or should be..,

that nothing is Too much of a size  for it to be incredibly detailed..,

the question is.., is the new targeted size of the map too large for them to fill it up in time..,

or too small to take full advantage of the possibilities..,

 

we already know small will get filled..,

but the game needs to grow the more the vehicles, technology.., and R* experience in game-making increases..,

 

we should hope they can reach their mission..,(not overshoot and end up stripping the map.., an not undershoot.., where it feels like something is missing)

 

(is it at the maximum size in which R* can fill it up within their Dev Timeframe and be up o their standards..,?)

[Kris194]

On 10/29/2019 at 7:01 AM, Lotte said:

I don't think hardware limitations are really the issue for the map size, to be honest? the Just Cause games have had absolutely massive maps since forever, but they've also been a pain in the ass to get across and also extremely uninteresting

 

It's probably more a matter of needing to fill as much of the map area with things that are actually interesting AND not making it too big to make getting between areas of interest a major pain, right?

 

Map alone not that much but put details on this map and it will start to struggle.

 

Best example: GTA V

Edited November 1, 2019 by Kris194

[GTK0HLK]

and then there is the view distance.., pop-in.., the quality of graphics in a distance.., the speed of movement/transport(which dictates the rate things have to process to show up..,) and the LOD.., etc.., etc..,

 

edit:

(The bigger map is slightly why people who had gripes about there being a speed cap on cars, want a bigger map.., at some point.., getting from point a-b takes close enough the same time.., also effects the limits in speed npcs go at to make the map feel larger..,- but then.., violence break loose, and the npcs become a quarter as deadly as the train at speed.., saying we want larger doesnt mean empty.., too large is no good.., too small and it sacrifices other things.., rdr2, from what I have heard.., did well in map size due to the amount of time it takes to travel.., GTA NEXT has to be just the right size so nothing is sacrificed..,

here s to them making it big enough to fit what they imagine..,)

Edited November 1, 2019 by GTK0HLK

[Kris194]

It's always about compromise. What worked for RDR 2 wouldn't work for GTA VI. I think it's viable to expect GTA VI map to be twice as big as GTA V map (map in RDR 2 is about 2.5 times larger than in RDR (2010). Not to mention, that things can go a lot faster when you don't have to care about every single MB of memory or ms of rendering.

Edited November 1, 2019 by Kris194

[Gustavo Mota]

It’s not so much the lack of interiors alone  but that and the lack of interactivity and motivation to use the interiors other than mowing down people sitting in a booth or people just standing, in a hail of arsenals or an ice pick to the eye socket.
 

Interiors will only provide so much as we’ve seen it all before. There needs to be dynamic missions that continue after the story and an economical system in place that provides logic for the player to have a reason for going in an establishment, and that could offer endless possibilities that can be built on, such as a mission editor and even maps that people can share like with Doom or even the old FarCry games. 
 

Higher dynamic interaction (action and reaction) is the only progress at this point and in the near future that will make a true difference no matter how big or how small a world is made.

We can’t go through another phase of prettier graphics but the same level of action/reaction that we’ve seen the past two video game generations.

 

Edited November 1, 2019 by Gustavo Mota

[GTAhare]

On 11/1/2019 at 2:27 PM, Gustavo Mota said:

It’s not so much the lack of interiors alone  but that and the lack of interactivity and motivation to use the interiors other than mowing down people sitting in a booth or people just standing, in a hail of arsenals or an ice pick to the eye socket.
 

Interiors will only provide so much as we’ve seen it all before. There needs to be dynamic missions that continue after the story and an economical system in place that provides logic for the player to have a reason for going in an establishment, and that could offer endless possibilities that can be built on, such as a mission editor and even maps that people can share like with Doom or even the old FarCry games. 
 

Higher dynamic interaction (action and reaction) is the only progress at this point and in the near future that will make a true difference no matter how big or how small a world is made.

We can’t go through another phase of prettier graphics but the same level of action/reaction that we’ve seen the past two video game generations.

 

 

I think we’re still too early too have open world games with tons of interactivity like what you’d see in an artistic VR game. For now, GTA 6 would benefit with more interiors. As Rockstar focuses on quality over quantity in their design I think they could deliver a lot of interiors with a purpose if they choose to prioritize interiors over a larger map.

[DarkDayz]

It’ll be bigger. 
 

Console tech will be massively improved and it’s been 6 years already since V and the game isn’t even announced yet.

 

Even if the game is announced tomorrow that’s still a 2021 release. Meaning it will have been 8 years. Only 5 years was required for GTA V so it’s safe to say the map will be bigger I think just based on those two factors.

[Guest Billy Russo]

You'd expect it to be bigger because of the tech, and big maps always bring eyes.

 

I personally hope they don't value quantity over quality though. GTA V's map looks big on first glance, and then you realize how underwhelming Los Santos is and how awfully boring the top part of the map is. There's really nothing to do.

 

I hope they either do one massive city again, or they do multiple cities with some desert/countryside areas sprinkled in like GTA SA but obviously way bigger.

[Eternal Moonshine]

to me one massive city would be incredibly boring. i need that change of scenery. maybe i'm weird but i have more fun hanging around Mount Chiliad than when i do stuff in Los Santos. not to say that i hate LS because it's one of my favourite GTA cities  i guess there needs to be a balance and city to country ratio should be around 50/50. this way everyone could just hang around the area they like the most, but still have other areas to visit if they wish to do so