Small High Density Map vs Huge Low Density Map

[Jade95 30]

If you look at GTA V/Online, its map is amazingly huge and there are a lot of environments, buildings, areas.

However, density of the map is very low. You can rarely find building that can be entered. (There are more enterable buildings in GTA Online but those are mostly just places where you visit shortly for starting missions)

 

Besides, most players these days just use opressors, flying cars, or even teleport.

In my opinion, in 2021, GTA V's huge map is just useless. People don't care about detailed streets and environments since they mostly move in the sky.

 

Return to the subject, which would you prefer, very small but dense map where you can enter every floor of every building in the city, and you have a lot of things to interact with.

or super huge map where there are countless regions, environments, areas, and biomes, yet you can enter no buildings and there's nothing to interact with.

 

Please let me know your opinion!

Edited April 10 by Jade95
bolded texts

[DexMacLeod 1,948]

I'd prefer big and open. On-foot gameplay isn't really Rockstar's strength and I can't see any point to going inside most buildings, let alone all of them. With a big open world at least there's a fun playground to drive around in.

[Mikeol1987 1,838]

I have to say I would prefer a more densely packed city area over anything else, as Metropolitan stuff is the sort of heart and soul of GTA. Of course some country side is good too, but More city than anything else, like GTAV could of had way more of that map be part of the city and still have a decent bit of country to play with.

[Thomas Cavendish 172]

Obviously a high density map. Doesn't matter the size, if it's gonna have low density, it is going to be terrible.

[Collibosher 2,064]

Huge, with lower density. I like driving around in GTA:SA deserts and woods and then randomly finding those "points of interests" here and there. If the map was smaller but more tense, I feel like it all would be explored and experienced faster, GTA is a heavily vehicle based game, I don't want to be able to drive thru the map in couple of minutes, I want to "get lost", even after years.

[MuffinMcFluffin 36]

Huge, but better idea of sprawl. It feels unnatural to go from downtown to desert in a flash in GTA V. Hell, downtown doesn't feel downtown-y at all.

 

I'm also a fan of any given area having anything possible. RDR 2 really nails this, like every foot of area that I step on has the potential for something to happen.

[Ryz 92 151]

At this point neither will cut the fans happy unfortunately.

I'd prefer High density map but even 3x the  size of V for VI will make fans unhappy,after 2 generations of leap and 10 years for sequel.

[Kris194 8,161]

If I would have to choose, smaller but denser. Huge map with low density limits mission design very hard.

Edited March 28 by Kris194

[Jade95 30]

17 hours ago, DexMacLeod said:

I'd prefer big and open. On-foot gameplay isn't really Rockstar's strength and I can't see any point to going inside most buildings, let alone all of them. With a big open world at least there's a fun playground to drive around in.

Thanks for the opinion. I also love driving the seaside highway listening to Blonded FM in GTA V

17 hours ago, Mikeol1987 said:

I have to say I would prefer a more densely packed city area over anything else, as Metropolitan stuff is the sort of heart and soul of GTA. Of course some country side is good too, but More city than anything else, like GTAV could of had way more of that map be part of the city and still have a decent bit of country to play with.

Agree. It would be awesome if I can walk around a dense city while there's some big country areas to drive around freely.

15 hours ago, Thomas Cavendish said:

Obviously a high density map. Doesn't matter the size, if it's gonna have low density, it is going to be terrible.

I agree. GTA V's map feels somewhat empty.

[Jade95 30]

11 hours ago, Collibosher said:

Huge, with lower density. I like driving around in GTA:SA deserts and woods and then randomly finding those "points of interests" here and there. If the map was smaller but more tense, I feel like it all would be explored and experienced faster, GTA is a heavily vehicle based game, I don't want to be able to drive thru the map in couple of minutes, I want to "get lost", even after years.

I completely agree. I love driving complex roads of country side in GTA V with some slow vehicle to find some places I've never been.

 

But in these days, people just take flying vehicle when they want to go somewhere, which makes GTA V's map super small to them. I wish Rockstar to encourage players to drive around the state with cars.

9 hours ago, MuffinMcFluffin said:

Huge, but better idea of sprawl. It feels unnatural to go from downtown to desert in a flash in GTA V. Hell, downtown doesn't feel downtown-y at all.

 

I'm also a fan of any given area having anything possible. RDR 2 really nails this, like every foot of area that I step on has the potential for something to happen.

I couldn't agree more. Although RDR 2 has even more lower density map, while players moves very slowly, its openworld is fascinating.

 

Maybe Rockstar could take the idea of RDR 2 for their next GTA.

[Jade95 30]

7 hours ago, Ryz 92 said:

At this point neither will cut the fans happy unfortunately.

I'd prefer High density map but even 3x the  size of V for VI will make fans unhappy,after 2 generations of leap and 10 years for sequel.

Yes. I am not sure about next GTA at this point since people's expectations is too high and I don't feel like Rockstar would satisfy them this time.

 

Despite RDR 2, their (relatively) new game being a success, I think GTA has a different circumstances. It would be very hard for Rockstar to satisfy the fans because GTAs before GTA V came out almost every year, Which made fans' anticipation relatively lower. Now, Rockstar will have to take a giant technical leap, enhancement in storytelling, and things like that to satisfy the fans, while not having former main members like Leslie Benzies and Dan Houser.

7 hours ago, Kris194 said:

If I would have to choose, smaller but denser. Huge map with low density limits mission design very hard.

Agree. GTA V wasn't that bad, but I felt its diversity in mission design wasn't perfect. There wasn't much impressive missions compared to previous GTAs.

[Americana 6,106]

All I need is an enormous city... When it comes to the countryside...?

 

Well, I wouldn't mind having something interesting. But, in my opinion, the main focus should be on the city.

[GhettoJesus 2,150]

It is hard to choose between the two so here's my 2 cents. I think San Andreas proved how much magic the countryside can have. You didn't have to stick to the roads, you could go around and explore. GTA V countryside in comparison is different. It mainly sticks to the coasts with a few roads in the middle. I feel like a well designed countryside can benefit GTA VI. A few activities out there can be fun (I don't mean hunting) but the main purpose of a countryside is to make us explore and to make us amazed. So overall I would go for a big map with medium density. Make the city active, make it busy, leave no unused space and make the countryside a bit quieter but also make it inviting. Have a few missions out there, make the small towns interesting, and give them soul.

Edited April 1 by GhettoJesus

[GRINCH ASS BITCH 425]

If those two extremes are the only options, then I'd choose the first since we've seen the second one countless times in countless videogames.

[basedhrg 84]

On 3/28/2021 at 9:18 PM, Americana said:

All I need is an enormous city... When it comes to the countryside...?

 

Well, I wouldn't mind having something interesting. But, in my opinion, the main focus should be on the city.

How enormous are we talking here? 2 times the size of los Santos?

 

I'd personally love a 1:1 remake of New York City. I don't care if it makes no sense, I f*cking love NY lol

[Lioshenka 1,148]

I'd like a middle ground, please. If I had to choose between dense and not dense then I would reluctantly pick non dense.

 

For me, dense ≠ detailed. Personally, I found GTA 5 to be very dense. You go to a countryside, and anywhere you go there are houses, roads, people; all without a purpose. On another hand, you have SA desert, which in that sense in "empty", but it's filled with objects that are there to further improve our experience. Cacti, planes, shacks, ghost villages - none of these objects you can interact with, but I'd always pick that over GTA 5's centre of Los Santos, filled with sky-high skyscrapers, motorways and multi-storey car parks.

 

I'd like to see an empty, but detailed map. If you can interact with objects (e.g. enter an abandoned mine and use the lift there) that would be a welcome addition, but not something I particularly need. I'd like a map which gives you a chance to explore, relax and have fun. I am not super keen on having 1 street of shops where you can enter each one and interact with every object there in a GTA game, let's leave that for L.A. Noire-2.

 

ADDED

But to be honest, it probably depends on the level of the developers' professionalism. GTA 3 was probably the least dense GTA when it came to map - it is essentially dead boxes with some roads between them, and yet it feels more alive and welcoming than GTA 5's Los Santos... Huh. So I guess I wouldn't mind a dense map if it was made by people who know their stuff, but it's a very risky gamble, so I'd rather stick with a "non-dense" option.

Edited April 1 by Lioshenka

[[Ambient] 948]

High density over big size. More details to see.

[Kris194 8,161]

On 4/1/2021 at 1:26 PM, basedhrg said:

I'd personally love a 1:1 remake of New York City. I don't care if it makes no sense, I f*cking love NY lol

It may sound and could look impressive on a first glance but there are at least two problems related to this:

 

- map diversity would be poor, very poor

- filling all of it with details would be chore for Rockstar Games

Edited April 2 by Kris194

[Schwartzxz 280]

having a dense, detailed city that feels alive is what I would want. even if that means no countryside at all. its not the same for every open world game but for GTA I think having a good city is more important than having a lot of space outside of city.

[Buckcote 304]

Why not both huge and dense? By the time this game arrive,year will be 2023. 2023! And its coming for 9th generion of consoles. Also it will be 10 years after last GTA game. At this point i cant accept any excuse for small map or lower density.

Edited April 2 by Buckcote

[Ryz 92 151]

My main problem with GTA V map is map's developed to north but it lacks east-west development,i mean it doesn't need another city but there could be more areas like Red,Flint counties etc.

[Kris194 8,161]

3 hours ago, Schwartzxz said:

having a dense, detailed city that feels alive is what I would want.

I think, that difference between Liberty City in GTA III and LC in GTA IV shows perfectly, that city can be only ~2x bigger but it can feel and be way more dense.

 

 

[WanteD1 1,080]

Small High Density Map 100% 

But online kids need a big empty map to have fun with opressors! 🙄

[JumpingKentFlash 895]

They better go HUGE this time. No more small deserts. Two big cities, TONS of barren desert in between. I’m talking BIG! Don’t want another of those “we put a lot of details into what we made” things. GTA VI will be an enormous success, so they need to make it usable for years to come. I got sick of the V map after 4 years. It’s too small. Go full on Minecraft next time, and have two VAST cities.

[VercettiGuy 1,364]

Somewhere in the middle.

 

I care about detail. The world of RDR2 is amazingly detailed and it's huge. I can get lost in it, I just love it.

 

GTA V felt enormous when it came out, but after 8 years driving up and down that highway, it doesn't anymore. I remember me and my buddy talking about slowly getting tired of the map back in 2015/16. Here we are, '21.

 

For VI, I think it should be way bigger than V. Three times the size, with another island (Project Americas) that's as big as V's map.

Two or more cities are MUCH needed. Paleto Bay and Sandy Shores weren't enough.

One huge city and one smaller city on the main island and another Los Santos sized on the secondary island.

Small villages inbetween. Four or five per island.

[marquuard 2,944]

-

Edited April 7 by marquuard
wrong topic

[ChiroVette 3,505]

I guess my answer to this thread question is, why does it have to be either/or? Why can't it be both? San Andreas had three densely packed cities, and a whole bunch of awesome, suburban and rural sprawls, and even a huge desert. GTA V has one major city, and a huge California desert environment. Why wouldn't Rockstar do what they did for SA, V, and to a much lesser extent, VC? Granted, VC is mostly city, but there are some fun, sandy, more desolate beach areas, too. My opinion is that GTA VI is going to have several large cities, maybe even more than San Andreas, as well as a plethora of countryside, rural, maybe even desert areas, the latter being more desolate, but still very scenic, the former being more urban and dense.

 

By the way, I could be very wrong, but I think the map is going to be massive, even larger than San Andreas. Possibly by a sizable amount.

Edited April 7 by ChiroVette

[Chrome Zentorno 209]

I’m sure the newest hardware can handle at least as many interiors as GTA 4 (if not more), while still having a pretty large map. That’s what I want.

[Algonquin Assassin 51,090]

I agree with the others that I don't see why it can't have both (high density = to huge size), but if I had to choose out of these two specifically then it would be a smaller, high density map. That's why I love GTA IV's map because it's focused on a tighter metropolitan area even if it sacrifices some physical size. Still feels pretty big anyway. 

Edited April 8 by Algonquin Assassin

[Ryz 92 151]

13 hours ago, Algonquin Assassin said:

I agree with the others that I don't see why it can't have both (high density = to huge size), but if I had to choose out of these two specifically then it would be a smaller, high density map. That's why I love GTA IV's map because it's focused on a tighter metropolitan area even if it sacrifices some physical size. Still feels pretty big anyway. 

 

Yeah,still can't understand how Los Santos is nearly as big as Liberty City+Alderney?I mean you can say airport in V is too big or people count Vinewood Hills and Oil Fields,but i'd say it's because streets and roads in IV are pretty tight compared to V,it has 3D era feeling,RDR2 has similar thing also.