Small High Density Map vs Huge Low Density Map

[Hellion]

In the middle but if I had to choose between the 2 then small and high density

[Leather Rebel]

On 4/7/2021 at 7:27 PM, VercettiGuy said:

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.

 

Sorry but I disagree.

 

I think there should be at least 2 big sized cities on the mainland(not talking about the other island,smaller one should be 70% the size of LS)Otherwise it would feel like V in 2 years after release.Also it should have  east-west development like SA and RDRII,not like VC or V where you have pretty good expansion to North but lack in Eastern direction.

 

Also if it's Florida  then  i'd expect more than 2 cities but of course in a much smaller size.

 

 

Edited April 10, 2021 by Ryz 92

[DexMacLeod]

9 hours ago, Ryz 92 said:

I think there should be at least 2 big sized cities on the mainland(not talking about the other island,smaller one should be 70% the size of LS)Otherwise it would feel like V in 2 years after release.Also it should have  east-west development like SA and RDRII,not like VC or V where you have pretty good expansion to North but lack in Eastern direction.

 

I feel like that's inevitable no matter how large or detailed the map is. They could make it five cities and you'll still have seen everything there is to see within a few weeks. The only real way to combat that would be an upgradable map.

[Leather Rebel]

7 minutes ago, DexMacLeod said:

 

I feel like that's inevitable no matter how large or detailed the map is. They could make it five cities and you'll still have seen everything there is to see within a few weeks. The only real way to combat that would be an upgradable map.

 

That feeling of already knowing everything about the map is inevitable,but  when you drive your car  in V you wish there was something  up north like San  Fierro  or Las Venturas in the east,is a very different thing  where you can feel the change of location.I want to do some RP's  of laying low after doing some criminal activity,or deliver the good to another location to a  Boss,that's really refreshing if you have other  major location in the  game.

[Jade95]

Thanks so much for valuable opinions! I read them all and there are so many noticeable opinions.

 

First, I found out that GTA 3, a game that has least density in the series, has a city that feels more active than GTA 5. I don't know what's the exact reason, but I will look into it.

 

Second, lack of second city makes countryside inactive. Despite there being a lot of mission taking place in countryside, many places outer city are mostly waste of spaces. I think If there's another city in the north, those spaces will be the passage between the cities, making it more active.

 

Third, the edge areas of Los Santos are waste too. For example, people rarely go to areas like Mirror Park, La Mesa, The Airport. It makes the city even smaller.

 

                                   

In my opinion, like many people said, GTA VI should have decent countryside while having active and dense cities. Since 9th gen consoles would be able to run more dense and larger map than GTA 5, it will be possible to achieve both.

 

A game by Fumito Ueda, The Shadow of the Colossus, has a huge map with a really low density. Most of areas are empty fields or deserts. However, even 16 years after its release, people still find new locations in the game. I think this is similar to that feeling of getting lost in GTA SA. Rockstar should have this kind of openworld, while having exporable dense city at the same time. It would be fun to get lost in the middle of the dense metropolis too

 

Feel free to submit more opinions!

[Jade95]

On 4/1/2021 at 11:37 PM, Lioshenka said:

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.

 

Thanks for the opinion! I found your opinion to be very noticeable. Although GTA 3 is my favorite GTA game, GTA 3 has a least density map in the series. But it still feels more active  than the GTA 5's Los Santos. I always drive around the LC in GTA 3, and still finds new interesting locations.

 

I think GTA 3's openworld is similar to the map of Shadow of the Colossus. SotC has very huge, yet empty map, but people still finds new locations in the game even 16 years after its release. I can't tell the exact factor differentiating the maps of GTA 3 and SotC from GTA 5's Los Santos, but I think Rockstar should look into these good examples of openworld rather than just making a huge map without careful design.

[Jade95]

Possibility: GTA 5's low dense map is because of technical issue. If you think about it, GTA 5 was originally developed for PS3/XBOX 360. Every main contents of GTA 5 should have run properly on those old gen consoles so Rockstar may had no choice but to make it less dense.

 

But considering GTA 3's map feels more active and alive than GTA 5, it's not enough for excuse.

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

Half the size of GTA V with a very high density would be much better and more immersive. I´m not a fan of huge and empty maps in which there is nothing to see and to do, it´s just wastful.

[Kris194]

14 hours ago, Jade95 said:

First, I found out that GTA 3, a game that has least density in the series, has a city that feels more active than GTA 5. I don't know what's the exact reason, but I will look into it.

I would never agree with this (especially if you play on PC with maxed out ped density) but I think, that I know what some people are talking about. Los Santos design wise is a place, that looks very realistic and it's kinda bless and curse at the same time. It's a bless because it looks like a real place, not just map in the game but it's also the curse because NPCs feel very fake in GTA V (robotic "people") and game has very few interiors due to limitations, that Xbox 360/PS3 had. Unfortunately AI is something, that takes a lot of resources and it's becoming huge issue in open world games. Long story short, AI is just not able to keep up.

Edited April 11, 2021 by Kris194

[Jade95]

8 hours ago, Kris194 said:

I would never agree with this (especially if you play on PC with maxed out ped density) but I think, that I know what some people are talking about. Los Santos design wise is a place, that looks very realistic and it's kinda bless and curse at the same time. It's a bless because it looks like a real place, not just map in the game but it's also the curse because NPCs feel very fake in GTA V (robotic "people") and game has very few interiors due to limitations, that Xbox 360/PS3 had. Unfortunately AI is something, that takes a lot of resources and it's becoming huge issue in open world games. Long story short, AI is just not able to keep up.

 

I agree. It's true both GTA 3 and GTA 5's AIs are relatively dull, but GTA 3's is more intense because its map is small and dense when it comes to roads, composition of blocks, etc. To me, I felt that "getting lost" feeling in GTA 3 while I am walking around alleys between big cities and sometimes I find alley I've never been to. So I've been playing GTA 3 for 6 years and never sick of it. Contrary, I tried walking around or driving around in GTA 5, but it wasn't really fun. I once walked the street of Los Santos with my friend, but since there is no object/AI to interactive with, We were bored and gave up in just 3 minutes. After that day, he never joins me walking around the city

 

I completely agree with your opinion. GTA 5's AIs are dull. It feels like they are doing same behavior over and over again, which makes them look like a robot.

 

Although it was because of technical limitations(7th gen consoles), it's sad to see GTA 5 lost the charm every previous GTA games had. There are so many huge openworld games like Just Cause, Far Cry, or Ghost Recon, so I wish Rockstar to make city busier in GTA VI (or GTA V 'Expanded' Version :D)

 

Thanks so much for the opinion!