Just Cause 2 has functioning cinemas in it? Since when? Or cable cars for that matter. I remember elevators that you could hook on to, but not cable cars.Undomesticated Equine said:
GTA V Map...Soooooo, is this really all there is?
- Thread starter RJ 17
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I remember a couple cable cars in some missions. You don't have to use them in the slightest what with the your hyper mobility via the grappling hook + parachute, but they're there, and you can ride them too I believe.Racecarlock said:
(In fact, I seem to recall one time where I was TRYING to do just that. Got inside, hit the button, was on my merry way when a rocket out of nowhere blew me literally out of the car.)
[quote="RJ 17" post="9.828991.20183909" Hell, I'd say it's on par with Vice City, actually. [/quote]
But Vice city was just two main roads and a couple of bridges :O
I think the map is big enough. Big enough to get lost in but not so big it gets annoying to travel across. I remember in the first san andreas being in for a looong slog if you flipped your vehicle in the desert or forests. In V you never seem to be too far from some kind of transport. Los Santos doesn't feel as big as IV's Liberty city but is still as densely packed. That said I expected the desert area to be bigger.
I think the first san andreas just felt bigger because each city slowly got unlocked as you played, with you spending several hours in each doing missions. It kind of felt like you were on a quest.
Still, just think what rockstar will be able to do on next gen grand theft auto :O
But Vice city was just two main roads and a couple of bridges :O
I think the map is big enough. Big enough to get lost in but not so big it gets annoying to travel across. I remember in the first san andreas being in for a looong slog if you flipped your vehicle in the desert or forests. In V you never seem to be too far from some kind of transport. Los Santos doesn't feel as big as IV's Liberty city but is still as densely packed. That said I expected the desert area to be bigger.
I think the first san andreas just felt bigger because each city slowly got unlocked as you played, with you spending several hours in each doing missions. It kind of felt like you were on a quest.
Still, just think what rockstar will be able to do on next gen grand theft auto :O
The sad thing here is, they could have still had a really large, impressive map, while having all three islands. If each main island were the size of Liberty City from GTA IV, each island would still feel large and expansive, far more than previously in GTA:SA, and the whole game would still have just as much expansiveness, if not more so by adding variety with the San Fran/Vegas/Area 69 etc.
I still stand by my argument that Saints Row 2 has one of the best sandbox maps. Not big, but very diverse, with plenty of secret areas and activities, and not bland and samey. In that aspect, I'm not sure this map is much better than GTAIV, sadly. At least it's not all gray and brown...
I still stand by my argument that Saints Row 2 has one of the best sandbox maps. Not big, but very diverse, with plenty of secret areas and activities, and not bland and samey. In that aspect, I'm not sure this map is much better than GTAIV, sadly. At least it's not all gray and brown...
My thoughts exactly. First time I played as Trevor, I freakin' loved just cruising around. It was such a different feeling to being in Los Santos (up until that point, I mainly just stayed in the city doing missions, except for a few trips to some nearby hills and parks). It's such a contrast driving in the desert and valley compared to that being in the city. It's also absolutely hilarious how different the NPC's react to you out in the countryside. Yesterday I was driving recklessly at night down this valley, and I accidentally ended up in the river and had to jump out of my car. So I get out of the water, crawl back up to the road again, and wait patiently in the dark for a car to arrive. Then finally I see the headlights of a car in the far distance approaching. I pull out my gun, and stand waiting in the middle of the road. The car approaches and slows down to a halt, and I expect they guy to open the door and run off screaming(like most citizens in Los Santos do), but boy was I wrong! This hillbilly came out blazing with a shotgun and nearly killed me on the spot. Absolutely hilarious!piinyouri said:
This is why I love GTA, these little non-scripted, random events that can take you totally by surprise. The graphics as well are so good, and I love the color and lighting effects they chose this time around. Standing there in the valley in complete silence, with my gun out, seeing the headlights of the car approaching... it reminded me of all these classic hollywood horror movies where you just know something bad is gonna happen once he pulls over, except this time around, I was the bad guy so to speak.
Indeed there were large bits of countryside and desert, my point of making this topic was that having a big map is all fine and dandy, but when there's nothing to do in the vast majority of it, why bother? I was looking forward to going back to San Fierro and Las Venturas, instead we're given one city, a handful of small towns, and a bunch of desert and mountains. My point is it seems like they made the map so huge purely so they could say "It's the biggest map ever!" when in reality it's just a map filled with a whole lot of nothing. Earlier in the topic someone summed it up pretty well: "95% of the game takes place in 10% of the map."piinyouri said:
Just seems like a whole lot of fluff, where-as San Andres had 3 major cities to explore along with a lot of countryside and desert.
A lot of fluff? I'm sorry, but I don't agree with this at all. Los Santos itself is huge, and PACKED full of content. And there is loads of stuff to do around the villages as well. I'm almost loving the countryside and desert more than the city itself to be honest. It feels fresh and fun, and serves as the great contrast to the sprawling city life. And even where there are no missions available, Rockstar STILL bothered to put all sorts of detail into the map. There are loads of desolate places, with housing complexes with such detail that they never would have made it into another game, without it being a mission there. The amount of detail really is staggering.RJ 17 said:
If people are going to complain about an "empty" map, then I just have to laugh really. It says it all about the quality of this game, if you have to reach for that sort of an argument. Rockstar is totally spoiling us at this point.
I do hope you realize the amount of work and money that goes into making such a world with HD graphics? Because you are actually comparing it with a PS2 game, which is totally unrealistic. No other developer can even dream of spending so much money on a game, and gamers like you are still not satisfied. No, we need another two cities! In native 1080p! LOL.
I couldn't agree more.MichiganMuscle77 said:
I don't really think money is an issue. They've already made their money back and if that wasn't good enough, they plan to sell it again on the next gen consoles and possibility on the PC. People will mostly likly re-buy it on the Next gen consoles for the smoother FPSs, enhanced graphics and engine while there are a number of people waiting for the PC version.havoc33 said:
My point is that with the increased costs and issues concerning AAA gaming, we should be extremely happy that we still have a series like GTA, with a developer that is willing to invest such ludicrous amount of money to make a game as massive and detailed as this. I can't think of another developer who could pull it off at this point to be honest. Yet gamers scream for more and complain about what isn't, instead of appreciating what is, and it will only end up hurting the business in the end. If you haven't paid attention, a number of high profile developers have already shut their doors, while others are struggling (Sega, Capcom, SE).mad825 said:
Well there isn't really any other publisher/developer that have the statistics and fan loyalty other than COD, maybe Bethesda but we'll see when FO4 comes out.havoc33 said:
You cannot blame other people for the bad management of companies; suicidal Market Development departments and unfocused CEOs too busy try to make money rather than games. Companies like telltale games, CD projeckt and Valve are doing exceedingly very well without having to unnecessary make extreme risks like spending millions in marketing.
Most of today's gaming problems is that a company is following other company's particular trend in order to gain the same if not more profit. Similarly so in the mobile phone industry; Microsoft, blackberry and Google are trying so desperately to be like Apple with their Iphone that they are still behind while some of them are struggling. but god damn it they will keep on try until they forced to close their business.
There are hundreds, if not thousands of people screaming for HL3 but all Gabe has to say is an apathetic no.
Look, all I'm saying is that I would have liked more than one city. As I said in my OP, I loved the game, this is more of a nit-pick than anything else. But you want a REAL complaint? Alright, I'll give you one that shows that GTA V most certainly is not perfect.havoc33 said:
How about a bug that numerous people have been having that prevents them from finishing the game? One in which, for no apparent reason, the doors to the strip club become sealed shut preventing all entry, thus making it impossible to launch the final heist since the strip club is your base of operations. Or how about the fact that now my game won't even go past the opening loading screen whenever I try to start it? Now I either have to wait for Rockstar to fix this bug or erase my save and start all over again and pray to god that the glitch doesn't happen again. Is that a more valid complaint about the game?
Nope, I've actually been complaining about how bugged the game is in a number of different topics. This topic was simply to express one thing: my wish that there had been more to the map than one city and a truck-load of countryside. Specifically: I would have liked there to be more than one city, with such vast amounts of countryside it makes "The Biggest Map In Rockstar History" seem a lot smaller than it really is. This is, of course, my opinion, and a few others in this thread seem to share it.Petromir said:
Christ, now I know how Greg Tito felt for daring to speak his mind about this game...
Ah sorry, the way your OP sounded suggested it was your biggest issue, as you started of by saying how great it was. And not mentioning any issues. A little note or link to your other concerns would help this.....RJ 17 said:
Your the opinion on the map is fine, I don't understand it as the previous games all felt pretty tiny to me.
Multiple cities on this map I feel would have had the opposite effect, it would have made it feel smaller to me, as either the built up area would have been split, or the amount of open space would have been compressed up. (It should be pointed out that the built up area on this would fit all 3 SA cities).
I do feel a bit of nostalgia for the old trap you in certain regions way of opening it up, even in IV where it was possible to circumvent them more easially than before (the epic chases through the forbidden regions were so much fun, and a part of the reason I disagree that IV was laking in it). They did make the eventual map a feeling of space it wouldnt have, but only by virtue of making you so clausrophobic intially.
The three charecters being introduced like they were, fairly seperate for the 1st two and then a fair whack away for Trev, I think was a mild attempt at this without the issues before (espicially as they became more transparent).
Given the relative scale of story of the GTA IV expansions, there is always the posibility of new landscapes appearing, its not like GTA V hasnt made the profit to sustain such a plan. 1-2 more cities possibly a new set of nutters to trash new and old with (or a mix of 1 new /2 old or 2 new/1 old (no idea if everyone makes it)) that would be some epic expansioning.
I can think of worlds that felt bigger than this, but none from previous GTAs and most felt far more repetitive than this land does.
This game is far from perfect, but I'm not sure they could have introduced more cities without a lot more work, or seriously compromising the city and landscape, either in layout or in detail.
I dunno, I feel it's pretty big, maybe it's the lack of bridges to each part of the map that makes it seem smaller? Instead of driving halfway across the one island to find a bridge then go past it to go halfway across the other island to get to the objective have been replaced with simply driving past block after block. Still, I do feel the size of it, the desert town for one feels quite large when it boils down to it. I prefer flying between LS and Sandy Shores if I can, because driving takes pretty long. Still, since it is one compact island instead of several islands that you don't even have to unlock, I can see how some may experience it to be small.
I've been playing lots all week, and I still haven't seen the whole map, constantly see new things. Still, apart from random encounters, there isn't much to do out there, I suppose you can hunt and watnot... But I dunno, I would've liked a tad more.
I've been playing lots all week, and I still haven't seen the whole map, constantly see new things. Still, apart from random encounters, there isn't much to do out there, I suppose you can hunt and watnot... But I dunno, I would've liked a tad more.
To all of you guys saying that San Andreas' map is bigger than Los Santos, have a look at this:
http://gamerant.com/grand-theft-auto-5-map-comparisons/
If you are too lazy to see, the site shows a map comparison between GTA V and GTA: San Andreas. San Andreas' map fits in the city of Los Santos alone, even excluding the coast and the airport.
http://gamerant.com/grand-theft-auto-5-map-comparisons/
If you are too lazy to see, the site shows a map comparison between GTA V and GTA: San Andreas. San Andreas' map fits in the city of Los Santos alone, even excluding the coast and the airport.