Nobody Ever Talks About This, So I Will.

[Smash Bandicoot]

Everbody likes to ramble about how GTA 5's map is like 5 times bigger than SA's, and while these are very much understandable, absolutely NO one mentions how the GTA 3 map is smaller than VC's map, yet feels much bigger, hell, when literally for years I thought GTA 3/LCS's map was bigger, and when I found out it wasn't, I was surprised to say the least, not only does this mean that VC is extremely overrated, but it means it was very much unpolished rushed, and most of it was filler.

[.Ryan.]

Having 3 islands as opposed of 2 probably helps and the lack of an in game map disguising Liberty City's true scale.

 

Then again when I play Vice City it doesn't feel that small. However GTA III's Liberty City is based more on a built up metropolitan area where Vice City is more open. It's a similar reason why Liberty City in GTA IV feels bigger than GTA V's Los Santos despite both being of a similar size.

Edited April 1, 2021 by Algonquin Assassin

[Jezus Holy Christ]

10 hours ago, Smash Bandicoot said:

VC is extremely overrated, very much unpolished rushed, and most of it was filler.

 

And you wonder why nobody says that.

Where's the "filler" in Vice City? The game literally used all of its map in missions, and the remaining areas had side activities, collectibles, etc. The beach was left mostly empty but the rest of the map is really detailed and on par with III's. There was something interesting in every corner.

It's probably just not your cup of tea.

[Space Cowboy]

Even though Vice City is my favourite GTA, I get the criticism of the small map especially from a modern day perspective. But I don't think there's "filler" or that it's unpolished. The map is very detailed, full of interesting locations out of which nearly all utilized in a meaningful way. It even has cool easter eggs that aren't used in any of the missions, like the Apartment 3c which features easter egg depicting a scene from Scarface.

And if you take into consideration that the game was made in a very short time, it all becomes even more impressive.

I get that from a modern day perspective the map is awfully small, but back in the day it didn't feel like it to me. Compared to III it offered lots of interesting interiors and finally unlike III the game was also meant to be explored by a plane/heli, so the roofs on the buildings were actually finished this time. III still has lots of advantages over VC map, but to call it unpolished or rushed is just ridiculous.

[billiejoearmstrong8]

11 hours ago, Jezus Holy Christ said:

 

And you wonder why nobody says that.

Where's the "filler" in Vice City? The game literally used all of its map in missions, and the remaining areas had side activities, collectibles, etc. The beach was left mostly empty but the rest of the map is really detailed and on par with III's. There was something interesting in every corner.

It's probably just not your cup of tea.

 

The beach and airport take up a HUGE percentage of the map though. And some of it is also awkwardly/annoyingly designed (eg how inaccessible the airport/army base area is, which was at least fixed in VCS). The second island in general does seem rushed, the way each area is kind of just stuck together (rather than flowing together at all) and downtown and especially the stadium area is rather plain and ugly. The first island is much better, but they could've cut down the size of the beach in the north and and added more streets. I love a lot about the map and VC is my second favourite GTA but the map design does have some glaring flaws.

 

But yeah as far as OP's point I agree with @Algonquin Assassin, it's just the nature of LC and VC more than anything. With a similar sized map to work with for each the dense New York one was always going to feel bigger than the more spread out Miami one. Another thing is how many individual areas the map is split into. When it's split into a larger number of smaller areas it just makes it seem bigger, I think it's a big part of why both III and IV's LC seems so big.

Edited April 2, 2021 by billiejoearmstrong8

[Americana]

Vice City looks awful mainly due to terrible textures, or lack of buildings in certain areas. 

[Jezus Holy Christ]

5 hours ago, billiejoearmstrong8 said:

The beach and airport take up a HUGE percentage of the map though. And some of it is also awkwardly/annoyingly designed (eg how inaccessible the airport/army base area is, which was at least fixed in VCS). The second island in general does seem rushed, the way each area is kind of just stuck together (rather than flowing together at all) and downtown and especially the stadium area is rather plain and ugly. The first island is much better, but they could've cut down the size of the beach in the north and and added more streets. I love a lot about the map and VC is my second favourite GTA but the map design does have some glaring flaws.

 

Are we holding a game that was made in under a year, two decades ago, up to today's standards? Of course it's outdated.

I think it's a matter of taste and personal preferences. To me, the Vice City map was always remarkable because of how easy it was to distinguish different areas, and I can say the same about Vice Beach. And let's not forget, you could actually do something in the HUGE airport, whereas in III it was just a waste of space. A fully accessible map wasn't something you'd see in every game back then.

It might feel smaller than Liberty City but what was there to do in 3D LC? Exactly, nothing. That map had LOTS of unfinished areas that they had just blocked away, lots of unfinished areas that they hadn't blocked away so you had to tolerate them, and lots of heavily undercooked and underused areas, so I think VC (the rushed game) deserves some credit here. You should see it in the context of its time, and then you'll truly understand how great it is.

[Mikeol1987]

The only thing that ever bothered me was the amount of beach on the map. Other than that, I was happy with the overall size when it released in 2002. besides, when it released, we were all just about driving bikes for the first time! Its also based on Miami, which is more open than New York City, as others have said, so It doesn't make the map rushed as such just different... It's an evolution, don't expect innovation if you're moving backwards in the GTA series.

Edited April 2, 2021 by Mikeol1987

[billiejoearmstrong8]

1 hour ago, Jezus Holy Christ said:

 

Are we holding a game that was made in under a year, two decades ago, up to today's standards? Of course it's outdated.

I think it's a matter of taste and personal preferences. To me, the Vice City map was always remarkable because of how easy it was to distinguish different areas, and I can say the same about Vice Beach. And let's not forget, you could actually do something in the HUGE airport, whereas in III it was just a waste of space. A fully accessible map wasn't something you'd see in every game back then.

It might feel smaller than Liberty City but what was there to do in 3D LC? Exactly, nothing. That map had LOTS of unfinished areas that they had just blocked away, lots of unfinished areas that they hadn't blocked away so you had to tolerate them, and lots of heavily undercooked and underused areas, so I think VC (the rushed game) deserves some credit here. You should see it in the context of its time, and then you'll truly understand how great it is.

 

I really like the VC map and I prefer it to the LC map. The VC map has better style, more variety and better atmosphere and there's more to do. Loved it since it came out, and I don't mind that it's small. You're preaching to the choir! But I think one area where the map could've been better is in the use of space and layout, that's all.

 

While a big part of why VC feels smaller is just because LC is a denser, more urban environment, LC probably does also do better at using the space and layout to make it feel bigger in some ways. SA which only came out a couple of years later had incredibly good use of map space (I'd say it's the most impressive thing about the game). Each game and each map has its strengths and weaknesses.

 

 

Edited April 2, 2021 by billiejoearmstrong8

[CryptReaperDorian]

I remember from years back that GTA III's map is supposed to be a fifth of the size of GTA SA's map while GTA VC's map is supposed to be a quarter of the size of GTA SA's map (all being land mass, I believe). So, GTA VC's map being roughly 25% larger than GTA III's map isn't very noticeable when the former's map is of easier-to-navigate layout along with having significantly more accessible off-road terrain (the beach).

 

R* was never really about making maps technically large, but rather exploring all sorts of tricks (multiple islands, sometimes illogical road logic/layout, mission structures, limited draw distance, and the like) to make their game worlds feel very expansive. GTA V may be the oddball among all of them since it seems like it was only made large for the sake of R* marketing. Personally, I believe R* should continue making larger maps, but they also should always assess if it sacrifices any of the overall character of the game world. If it does, then they need to step back a little.

[Adminsaredicks]

This is thanks to map layout.

LIke 3D era San Andreas is for me still "bigger" than San Andreas from GTA V .

I barely get lost in HD SA, but in 3D era SA, well sometimes still happen.

 

[Leotardo]

It's really funny when people think GTA V's map is so much bigger than SA,in reality it's like  this:

 

I think it's because IGN called the game map to be 49 sq miles (127 sq km) back in 2012,it's a misconception at it's finest...

Edited April 10, 2021 by Ryz 92

[billiejoearmstrong8]

I think it's more impressive to make a map feel big/bigger than it is than to just make a big map anyway. I think the V map is the only GTA map to date that actually feels smaller than it is. At that size it should feel endless! But poor design choices mean it doesn't.

 

They seem to have approached it with the opposite philosophy to the San Andreas map. San Andreas: uses clever road design and elevation to make LS and SF feel like they're hundreds of miles apart, V: puts a gigantic ring road from LS back to LS around the entire map so everywhere feels close. San Andreas: uses hills/mountains to split up different areas of the map and make them feel further away, V: puts mountains around the edges of the map to enclose everything together in the middle. San Andreas: uses draw distance and obstacles to disguise how close together different areas are, V: You can literally stand at the top of Vinewood Hills and see the whole map. 

Edited April 10, 2021 by billiejoearmstrong8

[.Ryan.]

10 hours ago, billiejoearmstrong8 said:

I think it's more impressive to make a map feel big/bigger than it is than to just make a big map anyway. I think the V map is the only GTA map to date that actually feels smaller than it is. At that size it should feel endless! But poor design choices mean it doesn't.

 

They seem to have approached it with the opposite philosophy to the San Andreas map. San Andreas: uses clever road design and elevation to make LS and SF feel like they're hundreds of miles apart, V: puts a gigantic ring road from LS back to LS around the entire map so everywhere feels close. San Andreas: uses hills/mountains to split up different areas of the map and make them feel further away, V: puts mountains around the edges of the map to enclose everything together in the middle. San Andreas: uses draw distance and obstacles to disguise how close together different areas are, V: You can literally stand at the top of Vinewood Hills and see the whole map. 

 

Yeah. It's amazing how close Sandy Shores feels to Los Santos even though when I look the maps it's roughly as far away as the other cities are in San Andreas, but as it stands it feels like it's a stone throw's away. The "crater" feel goes completely against the sense of size and scale. IMO if it had some mountains providing a barrier between Los Santos and the rest of the countryside it would probably feel a lot bigger.

 

For example in San Andreas driving from Los Santos to San Fierro feels like it takes forever because you're driving through a lot of twisty and winding roads. Whereas in GTA V everything's easily accessible by the ring highway system, but in San Andreas it doesn't have a straight passage. Plus because it's a state the cities are placed in perfect positions so you have to navigate the many roads in the countryside/desert that dissect the various towns, settlements and so on to get to where you want to go.

[El Penguin Bobo]

15 hours ago, Ryz 92 said:

It's really funny when people think GTA V's map is so much bigger than SA,in reality it's like  this:

As a fact, GTA V’s map is bigger than SA.

 

On terms of it feeling bigger however? Nah.

[Leotardo]

5 hours ago, El Penguin Bobo said:

As a fact, GTA V’s map is bigger than SA.

 

On terms of it feeling bigger however? Nah.

Nobody denies that it's bigger,it's just it isn't "much bigger" than SA.

[DeltaV20]

5 hours ago, El Penguin Bobo said:

As a fact, GTA V’s map is bigger than SA.

 

On terms of it feeling bigger however? Nah.

One Rage city is bigger than 3 renderwave cities 

well maybe SA is bigger 

 

[Leotardo]

 

5 minutes ago, DeltaV20 said:

One Rage city is bigger than 3 renderwave cities 

 

Not true,you can see Las Venturas is nearly as big  as Los Santos(HD) without Airport etc.

3 Cities of SA together is much bigger than Los Santos.

Edited April 11, 2021 by Ryz 92

[DeltaV20]

everyone gangsta till gta 1 maps shows up 

[Leotardo]

6 minutes ago, DeltaV20 said:

One Rage city is bigger than 3 renderwave cities 

well maybe SA is bigger 

 

 

I  watched that video,it's because GTA SA road system is more complex rather than car-friendly nature of V highway

[DeltaV20]

But los santos itself in SA is smaller than V , all three cities would made V insanely gigantic if they were added in the map 

[Leotardo]

1 minute ago, DeltaV20 said:

But los santos itself in SA is smaller than V , all three cities would made V insanely gigantic if they were added in the map 

Yeah,you'd also get Northern San Andreas with hills and mountains with San Jose,San Francisco,Oakland and Capitial Sacramento,also state of Nevada in the east which would be desert hell.

[DeltaV20]

[Leotardo]

 

This one from the forums is even better imo,they're all great.

 

 

This one's pretty neat too.

[Yannerrins]

And that's why i wish for remake of GTA III.

Edited August 14, 2021 by Yannerrins

[Mister Pink]

22 hours ago, billiejoearmstrong8 said:

I think it's more impressive to make a map feel big/bigger than it is than to just make a big map anyway. I think the V map is the only GTA map to date that actually feels smaller than it is. At that size it should feel endless! But poor design choices mean it doesn't.

 

They seem to have approached it with the opposite philosophy to the San Andreas map. San Andreas: uses clever road design and elevation to make LS and SF feel like they're hundreds of miles apart, V: puts a gigantic ring road from LS back to LS around the entire map so everywhere feels close. San Andreas: uses hills/mountains to split up different areas of the map and make them feel further away, V: puts mountains around the edges of the map to enclose everything together in the middle. San Andreas: uses draw distance and obstacles to disguise how close together different areas are, V: You can literally stand at the top of Vinewood Hills and see the whole map. 

Absolutely. 

 

I mentioned this before but there is some great mapmaking in SA. Whether, it's a fluke or a stroke of genius, I don't know - I like to think it's the latter.

 

To elaborate on AA's point about driving from LS to SF - there are two ways; the fast-paced highway goes the long way round. This is perfect because if you like going high-speed on highways, this experience takes the physically longer route, letting you enjoy high-speed experiences for longer. The second route is a short-cut that takes you through a couple of winding roads but allows you to cut through a whole mountain/hill via a tunnel. 

 

What also happens in SA is that if you take bad shortcuts by going off-road, you can end up in one of the many rivers or lakes and get stuck. In that respect, there's a 3rd danger option that if you don't know what you are doing, you could be seriously screwed. 

 

GTA V's map is very.. I don't know. The city, itself is beautifully laid out. It's actually very clever in how it's designed to keep you moving and chases very fluid. However the layout of the non-city part seems less well-thought out. And I think that it lacking another city might contribute to this. Essentially travelling north seems a bit convoluted. There's not much reason to go there. And having the map so bottom-heavy with nothing balancing it out is just not great. Also the shape is closer aligned with a symmetrical shape as apposed to SA's more asymmetrical shape that makes you feel you can get lost in it. The fact that V's map is this big oval, surrounded by hills - it just offers a nice optical illusion with nice vistas and landscapes but ultimately it's impossible to get lost in GTA V's map. You always know where you are in GTA V's map from the get-go. 

 

IV's map is so dense and unfortunately lacking some non-urban areas to balance it out - but it's so rich and so dense you can almost feel lost and certainly need to use the GPS or map to get around at times. 

 

My wish for next GTA is a city dense like IV's Liberty City and closer to it's driving and physics. Map like San Andreas where it feels bigger based on some great mapmaking - the ability to feel very lost in the wilderness at times - and the city-planning of GTA V where car chases felt fluid - there was always a way out and you rarely get stuck in corners. 

 

 

 

 

[TaylorSwiftDies2038]

My take: the reason why Los Santos feels small in relative terms is because it's based on a city that is notorious for its extensive suburban sprawl and is the second largest city in the United States. Liberty City felt big because it was dense like its real-life counterpart and had an extended area that was technically in another American state. Liberty City had residential areas that mostly consisted of high-rises/apartment blocks and these areas were close to commercial centers and industries, so the city felt huge and endless.

 

The map transitions in Grand Theft Auto V can be kinda awkward. Like, it only takes a few real-life minutes to get from Strawberry and suddenly you're in either Vinewood or Vespucci Beach. The Maze Bank Tower can be seen from every corner of the city. The low-income residential ghettos of Los Santos only extend so far before you hit either downtown or the industries. It's like Rockstar wanted to take the same map philosophy they had with Liberty City and apply it to Los Santos but misunderstood that the city design between New York and Los Angeles are so different. I don't like the "condensed" feel of Los Santos.

 

I wonder why; Rockstar has a "no suburbs" approach to map design, but that approach was flawed when trying to make a more faithful recreation of Los Angeles. Los Angeles is full of suburbs, I felt like they should've integrated that aspect of Los Angeles better into the game and hence make it feel "bigger". It's not like the alternatives that Rockstar designed instead were that much better and easily questionable:

 

1. Los Santos International: I mostly hate airports in GTA games, I think they're useless giant wastes of space with the exception of GTA: San Andreas where they are utilized properly. LSIA is one of the worst. It automatically gives you a wanted level even if you've completed flight school, so it's off-limits at all times. Isn't the point of an open-world game to explore freely? And it's not like there's something incredibly secret and rewarding to obtain like in Fort Zancudo. I get that some people have fun with that feature, but it should've been tied with completing flight school or something. Hence, it's a big chunk of the city that's off-limits at all times, bad design choice. An example of Rockstar being the "no fun police".

 

2. Palomino Highlands: I never really understood why this area was added in the game either and kinda feels like a last-minute addition. There are enough industrial areas in the game (perhaps too much, as I'll explain), so having a hilly industrial area feels redundant. I didn't really come back here that much during the single player, and it's the start of the "useless eastern stretch of land" that exists in Grand Theft Auto V. 

 

3. Industrial Areas: I felt these areas had too much representation, and while it's nice to have a mix of all areas, it really gives the vibe that Los Santos is a predominantly industrial city, like it's part of the Rust Belt. The Port of Los Santos was another area I rarely came back to, especially that terminal island area, so much so that it often stays blurred until I remember it exists. I just find it weird that Rockstar was happy to cut other areas that had more representation in San Andreas but focus so much time on the docks, and in Single Player it doesn't play a big role except in the great mission known as Scouting the Port.

 

In hindsight, I would've cut much of that unused southeastern mountain mass and have Mirror Park be the start of a larger residential area that stretched into the Southeast. Granted, it wouldn't have been particularly faithful to Los Angeles either, but adding some more middle-class areas and getting inspiration from areas like Pasadena, Burbank, etc would've kept them relatively vaired and interesting. I also would have given South Los Santos more residential space so it doesn't feel so small. Some better spacing of different areas by Rockstar would've made the city feel bigger.

 

Watch Dogs 2's depiction of the San Francisco Bay Area is a more fun map; that map wasn't that big, yet it felt huge because residential, industrial, and commercial areas of the map were so well-selected and given their own space. Granted, the geography of the SF Bay Area is different to Los Angeles, and Watch Dogs 2 was only really trying to capture an urban-scape, but that map was a lot more fun to explore. San Francisco received the most attention in that game, but it wasn't obnoxious like Vinewood in Los Santos, and it was more like how Algonquin was the center of Liberty City yet everything else was done pretty well.

[universetwisters]

2 hours ago, TaylorSwiftDies2038 said:

but adding some more middle-class areas and getting inspiration from areas like Pasadena, Burbank, etc

Isn’t Burbank where Nickelodeon Studios is located? They could’ve (should’ve) added them in a Burbank parody so we can at least have one extra film studio in the map because I just can’t believe that the center of entertainment has only one film studio lmaooo 

[TaylorSwiftDies2038]

16 hours ago, universetwisters said:

Isn’t Burbank where Nickelodeon Studios is located? They could’ve (should’ve) added them in a Burbank parody so we can at least have one extra film studio in the map because I just can’t believe that the center of entertainment has only one film studio lmaooo 

Duuude, a parody of Cartoon Network/Nickelodeon in Los Santos was a major missed opportunity by Rockstar. It would've been so perfect to given how many GTA fans are also big Nick/CN fans and they probably could've leveraged their connections to make a proper parody.

 

No Universal Studios either or Dodger Stadium. Meanwhile Watch Dogs has given us multiple sports stadiums. So disappointing.

[universetwisters]

3 hours ago, TaylorSwiftDies2038 said:

No Universal Studios either or Dodger Stadium. Meanwhile Watch Dogs has given us multiple sports stadiums. So disappointing.

 

I mean we got the Maze Bank arena which tbf is more sports stadiums than what we got in IV. They should've at least given us Madison Square Garden lmao 

 

How TF did Midnight Club 1 get it but not IV