restrictions on travel in the GTA series

[CamionneurCommuniste]

Why does Rockstar like to limit the freedom of players by blocking access to certain locations early in the game? The only excuse that makes sense was in GTA III where the bridge was blown up. "Terrorist threats" and other nonsense don't sound like they'd be excuses to block access to MASSIVE CITIES WITH LOTS OF TOURISTS like New York. Hurricane warnings also don't make much sense because why trap people there?

[cant remember]

It's been a tradition since GTA1. In the 2D era you couldn't freely travel between the areas even after unlocking them, they were totally separate levels you selected in the main menu.

 

In 3D era they improved it that all the areas were on a single large map and you could go from from one area to another in-game, and invented silly barriers to keep the same "do-missions-to-unlock-the-next-area" mechanic.

 

It makes no sense from a realism standpoint but it's a mechanic I appreciate, after you've progressed through a third or a good half of the game and know how to play, it's fun to still be rewarded with a totally new area to still explore that you couldn't go to before, and structure the campaign in distinct chapters with their own area.

[zlzgr]

I think it's a pretty good mechanic Rockstar made. You start with some area and when ypu get the the boardline you see there is more of the map after you play missions. It makes you be curious to what is beyond the limit and you want to play the missions for that.

I remember when I first got to SF in GTA SA and saw a new huge area to explore, and then the same for LV. I was very excited that time. Then you get to have the whole map to play and it feels like you really did a journey to get there and it feels worth it, at least for me.