Thoughts on GTA maps?

They should go the Yakuza route and make the map smaller with more to do in it.

Attached: Map.jpg (500x550, 63K)

SA's map was great for the time, but shit gets boring fast. As a game designer, it's easy to see why they paired it down in GTA 5.

>Then a new IP
That's a weird way to spell Agent.

thats when the game truly starts. driving on those roads and looking at the map for the right way is the best.

Attached: GTA XVIII Map.jpg (1100x813, 137K)

They’re honestly too big. For some reason people view big maps as a good thing but it just makes the game feel empty as fuck. There were several missions in GTA5 for example that were boring as fuck because all you did was drive long distances while listening to the characters’ unfunny dialogue.

That's because it's not right. They took the GTA5 Los Santos and put it in the San Andreas map. It's a pretty shit photoshop.

The size of SA compared to anything else at the time and compared to the size of 3 and VC was God tier.
Never again lads

SA map was well crafted to hide how ridiculously small it really was, with hills/trees/fog used just right to hide the fact that each city was basically right next to each other.

Weird they would go with historical sovereign country borders and not globalist megacorp territories

You're retarded, over 10k people still play SAMP everyday thanks to how much replaying the locations have, the map is designed with gameplay in mind instead of your shitty pretentious wanna be movie nu rockstar trash.

Some one hacked out GTASA's Los Santos and replaced it with GTAV's Los Santos without doing a single thing to the rest of the map.

Attached: 1536093948349.png (2560x2048, 396K)

That was called good space usage back then when level design mattered in GTA instead of just trying to imitate real life with barely any creative effort.

I think it's the perfect size for a game with no mounts/cars and few fast travel points.

And over a hundred thousand people still play GTAVO, so I'm not sure what your point is.

Attached: Untitled.jpg (748x228, 54K)

Can they ever go back to making geographically accurate cities or will it be another island floating in the ocean again?

It was literally always an island floating in the ocean though

Pic related

Attached: ViceCity-GTA1-map.jpg (2364x1680, 1.57M)

>he prefers the old mt.chillichad

Not even a fraction of the people that will keep playing after it's around for as long as gta sa without more micro transactions for the drooling retards that play that shitty grindfest. GTA V is shit, cancer and the most zoomer game ever made.

San Andreas had a great layout and a remake that made it larger/denser would be amazing.

Ooiiiiii we have an inside over here

FTL thread?

why bother making that other trash no one wants?

You are unnecessarily mad. Do you own stock in Rockstar or something?

SA was great, not gonna aruge that, but the map design really is a relic of its time.
For one thing, everything's super compact, which gave the whole map a kind of surreal, Disneyland feel. When your only point of reference is GTA 3 and Vice City, with maps that can fit on a postage stamp, it's mind-blowing, but it really hasn't aged well.
On top of that, having multiple cities was a mistake. After a while, they tend to blend together. Put on a blindfold, let your friend drive you to a random location, take off your blindfold, and chances are good you won't know where you are without a map. In GTA5, every are is unique. It's impossible to mistake downtown LS with northern LS with Grapeseed, with Paleto Bay

To be clear, I DO think San Andreas is far and away the better game, but the GTA5 map is a strict upgrade, from a design perspective.

The scale's totally off

Its seems to be the main trope of the series since the 3D era as RDR1-2 are both part of a larger mainland.

How would they avoid players trying to escape from the city to another place they shouldn't go in helicopters?

>city is a few islands connected by bridges that may or may not be surrounded by endless ocean
it’s depressing

With the same thing they use to prevent players from going out of bounds on the ocean, or even just a zone wall of fuck you, you're dead.

Looks like a flaccid dick touching a Yoshi's skull.

Never ever.

Attached: 9F36F973-CA2D-4183-8069-BE2E5DA9BABF.jpg (1470x1470, 743K)

Two other cities can be seen at the distance, while they aren't accesible, the "way" people travel from city to city is on boat.

4 suffered from having no countryside like upstate new york. also no planes allowed because 9/11

play just cause 4 and see why this is an awful idea

Dude

Attached: 7LhVxPQ.jpg (799x465, 82K)

>With the same thing they use to prevent players from going out of bounds on the ocean
I know planes and boats stop working eventually. But what happens if you try to keep swimming? Do you get killed by something?

I would love an endless wilderness/desert/forest/tundra or whatever where you permanently have 5 stars and are constantly under fire. Just make an infinite stretch of highway into whatever kind of environment it is and come up with some in-universe reason why no one is allowed out of the county.

what irl cities have a road grid completely seperated from any other road grid that isnt an island?

Eyes bigger than your stomach.

You suddenly realize that this is a bad idea when you have to drive one side of the map to the other for a mission

LA noire taught me that lesson. That city was big, but had fuck all to do. Still a decent game, but the map was more of a hindrance than a boon.

it's literally just the bottom right corner of the SA map

Plus the bottom left corner too

i love that game, but its the perfect example of why not every game needs an open world

That would suck
Imagine driving for 30 minutes in Los Santos just to start a mission.

>Sneeding

I don't need them. I know how to get around these cities better than the place I actually live in.

>On top of that, having multiple cities was a mistake. After a while, they tend to blend together. Put on a blindfold, let your friend drive you to a random location, take off your blindfold, and chances are good you won't know where you are without a map
I agree with most of what you're saying but holy shit this is absolutely wrong. All three cities were immediately distinct from one another. That's why it was a bummer to only get LS in V because after how good the cities were in SA and how much of an upgrade LS saw in V, seeing either SF or LV get the same treatment would have been amazing.

I was more referencing the layout of the map and neighborhoods.
Looking at a topographical map of the cities of the first game they at least attempted to mimic them in geography instead of culture.

Dude... it’s been like 4 years since the game came out on Steam, 6 since it came out in general and it still sells millions of copies and has millions of active players ever week.

It ain’t gonna die for a long time.

>bully 2
you wish. its gta online dlcs from now until next console gen then gta 6 online and another 8 years of dlc for that. take2 owns rockstar body and soul and its cash shop hell until the end of time.

As a fag who have only played GTA V and free-roamed San Andres without actually playing any missions as a child

What's another GTA that I must play? GTA Vice City is often recommended but it looks gay to me

None really, san andreas, 4 and 5 are the only ones worth playibg in this year, 3, LS and VC aged like shit

Attached: Gtasa-blank[1].png (1536x1536, 1.44M)

You say that but GTA5's issue is that it just isnt interesting to explore areas other than downtown Los Santos.

The original.

youtube.com/watch?v=JYy69qOJWoM

This is probably an unpopular opinion in this board, but is actually kind of cool to explore the interesting bits on the natural area (the cult, the jail, Fort Zacundo, etc.).