Drew-Barnes 64 Report post Posted November 8, 2011 I'm still not convinced that when they said it was going to be the biggest, most ambitious game to date they meant map size. they might have meant big in terms of content. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rayge 689 Report post Posted November 8, 2011 Originally I was thinking we'd only see Los Santos, but I did some digging around and here's what I found: San Andreas 13 Sq. Miles GTA 4 6 Sq. Miles RDR 26 Sq. Miles L.A. Noire 8 Sq. Miles If it quite literally is the biggest game they've made, it must be more than 26 Sq. miles. If Liberty City was just 6, we can easily expect to see more than one city in GTA V. I'd imagine that we would see a very big Los Santos around 5/6 sq. miles (slightly smaller than L.A. Noire and LC, LA Noire was so large that much of it was unvisited and LC included another state, technically anyway, Algonquin), and a slightly smaller SF/LV at perhaps 3/4 Sq. miles each (as they were smaller in SA, and are much smaller in real life, besides, with LV especially, we wouldn't want much more than downtown and the strip, etc) that means about 11 to 14 Sq. miles of city. If, going by RDR standards, that leaves 11 to 15 Sq. miles of country/desert. Though, I'd imagine we'd see more, as they said, it is bigger than their previous titles. So perhaps 16 to 20 Sq. Miles of country/desert. Therefore, 3:1 ratio, very similar to San Andreas's ratio. In comparison, Just Cause 2 was 400 Sq. Miles and was only one disc on the 360. I do understand though that GTA is a far more detail heavy game, much more sound files, animations, etc.. However, 400 Sq. miles was achieved on one disc, most of which is country (as this is relatively less data intensive). So it wouldn't be too unrealistic to see 30/35 Sq. miles of much more detailed data on one disc (with two thirds being less data heavy countryside/desert). Perhaps one option for Rockstar would be the optional installation of the radio stations, as they take up considerable data (2 to 3 GB) and, to be honest, they're not essential to the gameplay. Also, just a bit of personal speculation, but the guy who we assume is the protagonist at the moment, the old white guy. He seems to fit the 'Venturas' bill doesn't he? The dollar sign on the GTA V logo, "the pursuit of the almighty dollar", they all point towards Venturas playing some sort of role. Plus, where does everyone go to lose money? Just my thoughts. Hypothetically speaking let's assume GTA V is 30 square miles.So if San Fierro and Las Venturas were included at 4 square miles each, that would leave 22sq/m left for Los Santos, and the surrounding countryside. Realistically if LS is the main city it should be bigger than the rest, so maybe 6sq/m? The size of LC? and add on 2sq/m for the little towns scattered across the countryside. So that leaves 14sq/m of countryside, which in my opinion is a reasonable contryside:city ratio. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rob Angus 1 Report post Posted November 8, 2011 I'm not going to say you are wrong, id love to have LV and SF in it, but i doubt it will. -And, probably the most damning piece of evidence, Mount Chiliad is shown in the trailer, a location in San Fierro. -They did it for San Andreas. They must know fans would be expecting it if they returned to Los Santos. I feel like even if the other cities don't appear in the game, they must've been up for discussion and debated. In San Andreas it was below San Fierro and to the west of Los Santos, the difference between GTA3 and IV had similar movements of landmarks and entirely reimagined from what LC was. Also adds to the hype and hunger for more information which is a very common rockstar marketing method. -In the first San Andreas trailer, they only showed Los Santos, like this one. It was made obvious that there were three cities in total fairly early. -There are rumors that (more legit than the UK PS3 magazine rumors, in that they were posted on a rumor site and not as a random post on a forum) say the map is 2.5 times bigger than Red Dead Redemption's map, which is unbelievably freaking huge, certainly bigger than the original San Andreas map. -There are jets, so obviously they're going to take you to far away places and other airports, which means other cities. Why not San Fierro and Las Venturas? Also, the jet coming from behind the Vinewood sign at the end of the trailer, wasn't the path from Las Venturas in San Andreas? Can Los Santos and the surrounding countryside not make up for this? It goes from vineyard to desert (Did i put desert as in the course or the waterless land). People also whinged about the lack of them in IV which was one city/well only had one airport and therefore wouldnt have taken you to other cities anyway. Plus if the map is that huge its entirely possible the city has two airports (like a lot of real major cities do have) -Some license plates say "San Andreas" in the game (not really indicative; the state is San Andreas, so naturally the license plates would read that, but I don't think they would make it cryptically noticeable in the trailer if they didn't want to slyly allude to the first game). -If they weren't going to include them, I think they would outright say it, instead of relaying ambiguities (see below) Not a US citizen but don't the licence plates by default have the state on anyway? Again hype is a wonderful thing, although i can see your point. However i think the ambiguities are being created in the minds of people who really really really want to see LV/SF. -They've called it "the largest and most ambitious game Rockstar has yet created" which without San Fierro and Las Venturas, would feel like an overstatement. Now I'm aware that Rockstar has said that the game "heads to the city of Los Santos and surrounding hills, countryside and beaches." It could be an overstatement, but then again people may assume all they mean is map size, on top of that you have vehicle range, voice acting, motion capture (potentially), music and/or game/story length. However again, we do not know the size of this map, we dont know how many interiors we can explore. Its entirely possible that every hospital, police station, etc is exploreable. So big in terms of content overall is a plausible explanation for that word. Okay so this one doesnt actually 100% deny that LV/SF will be there, but it is essentially saying what there will be. Anyway i hope no one thinks im attacking you over it, but just the way i see it. Personally id love a full san andreas, but i think its asking for too much. Besides leaves extra cities for future games so its not just some endless reimagineing of Vice, Liberty and San Andreas. over and over until they say fuck it lets make GTA X have LC, VC and SA in one. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
liquidhalogen 7 Report post Posted November 9, 2011 Originally I was thinking we'd only see Los Santos, but I did some digging around and here's what I found: San Andreas 13 Sq. Miles GTA 4 6 Sq. Miles RDR 26 Sq. Miles L.A. Noire 8 Sq. Miles If it quite literally is the biggest game they've made, it must be more than 26 Sq. miles. If Liberty City was just 6, we can easily expect to see more than one city in GTA V. I'd imagine that we would see a very big Los Santos around 5/6 sq. miles (slightly smaller than L.A. Noire and LC, LA Noire was so large that much of it was unvisited and LC included another state, technically anyway, Algonquin), and a slightly smaller SF/LV at perhaps 3/4 Sq. miles each (as they were smaller in SA, and are much smaller in real life, besides, with LV especially, we wouldn't want much more than downtown and the strip, etc) that means about 11 to 14 Sq. miles of city. If, going by RDR standards, that leaves 11 to 15 Sq. miles of country/desert. Though, I'd imagine we'd see more, as they said, it is bigger than their previous titles. So perhaps 16 to 20 Sq. Miles of country/desert. Therefore, 3:1 ratio, very similar to San Andreas's ratio. In comparison, Just Cause 2 was 400 Sq. Miles and was only one disc on the 360. I do understand though that GTA is a far more detail heavy game, much more sound files, animations, etc.. However, 400 Sq. miles was achieved on one disc, most of which is country (as this is relatively less data intensive). So it wouldn't be too unrealistic to see 30/35 Sq. miles of much more detailed data on one disc (with two thirds being less data heavy countryside/desert). Perhaps one option for Rockstar would be the optional installation of the radio stations, as they take up considerable data (2 to 3 GB) and, to be honest, they're not essential to the gameplay. Also, just a bit of personal speculation, but the guy who we assume is the protagonist at the moment, the old white guy. He seems to fit the 'Venturas' bill doesn't he? The dollar sign on the GTA V logo, "the pursuit of the almighty dollar", they all point towards Venturas playing some sort of role. Plus, where does everyone go to lose money? Just my thoughts. Hypothetically speaking let's assume GTA V is 30 square miles.So if San Fierro and Las Venturas were included at 4 square miles each, that would leave 22sq/m left for Los Santos, and the surrounding countryside. Realistically if LS is the main city it should be bigger than the rest, so maybe 6sq/m? The size of LC? and add on 2sq/m for the little towns scattered across the countryside. So that leaves 14sq/m of countryside, which in my opinion is a reasonable contryside:city ratio. Doubt it, that would seem half assed. All three of those cities in real life are a big deal, and though LA truly is bigger than the other two put together by far it would still seem lopsided in my opinion. I just want to point out somethign that I've mentioned before, LA county has some cities in it that have a very unique vibe and could definately be mentioned. Malibu - super classy, Glendale - huge russian community, Pasadena - totally different vibe. Loads of others... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Wu Zi Mu 5 Report post Posted November 9, 2011 It won't have SF or LV; it's Los Santos only, as well as the "surrounding countryside". However, just as Liberty City completely "grew up" from GTA3 to GTA4, I think San Andreas from GTA: SA will also experience the same effect. I am actually excited that they are focusing entirely on Los Santos/Los Angeles and the surrounding countryside, because I really liked Los Santos more than San Fierro and Las Venturas, anyway. I think if they focus on just one area, then the resulting product will be much more detailed and "alive". I just hope they FILL this city with fun things to do, which I found GTA4 to be sorely lacking in. Also, just like GTA3 and the GTA3-era games were all considered part of a "trilogy", and just like GTA4, TLATD, and TBOGT are all part of a trilogy.... the pattern would indicate that GTA5 is also going to be a trilogy. The most "ambitious" GTA to date, according to Dan Houser. Who else thinks the GTA5 trilogy might go like this? Los Santos, then San Fierro, and then Las Venturas. That would make sense, right? If you could travel between the three of them at any given time after they've all been released, that would be truly epic, as well. (although I don't think the technology of this generation of consoles could handle that... ) At any rate, I am happy they chose Los Santos, because out of all three of San Andreas's cities, I think I liked it the best. Las Venturas was a close second, ONLY cause of casinos, though. I am actually very excited with what I see so far about GTA5, everything from brighter colors, the emphasis on money-making, the perfect trailer, and what I believe is going to be a perfect combination of all of the things the new GTA did right, as well as all of the things that the old GTA (San Andreas) did right. If they can give players enough meaningful things to do in the game, with good rewards that benefit your character in some way (like in San Andreas) or having weapons spawn at your safehouse, stuff like that is what made GTA so addictive in the past. Oh, and for God's sake, give people a reward -- SOMETHING -- for getting 100%. In GTA4, you didn't get anything for 100%. That blew me away when I found that out. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Drew-Barnes 64 Report post Posted November 9, 2011 I would rather have my rewards before 100% completion, once I get to 100% I usually stop playing or start from the beginning again. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Wu Zi Mu 5 Report post Posted November 9, 2011 exactly, that's what I mean. There used to be rewards for every 10th hidden package, for example, all along the way towards getting 100% ultimately. But not in GTA4. There wasn't even a reward for getting 100%, was my point. In San Andreas, you'd get a Hydra that spawned on top of your house in Grove Street! That was awesome... 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thomsedavi 5 Report post Posted November 9, 2011 In comparison, Just Cause 2 was 400 Sq. Miles and was only one disc on the 360. I do understand though that GTA is a far more detail heavy game, much more sound files, animations, etc.. However, 400 Sq. miles was achieved on one disc, most of which is country (as this is relatively less data intensive). So it wouldn't be too unrealistic to see 30/35 Sq. miles of much more detailed data on one disc (with two thirds being less data heavy countryside/desert). To be honest, there is only so much country I can take. I love the inclusion of country in SA, this is one of the main reasons it's my favourite game, but there was a lot of variety in a relatively small space. It only takes a few minutes to drive from forest to desert to farmland and back again. There's a huge amount of detail in that space. On the other hand, if I was forced to drive for half an hour through farmland, I might lose interest after a while, especially since there's no way anyone could pay attention to that much space and keep it interesting. I'd rather they include as much country as they are able to keep interesting, rather than forcing in extra space just so they can claim it is their 'biggest game eva'. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
liquidhalogen 7 Report post Posted November 28, 2011 Who else thinks the GTA5 trilogy might go like this? Los Santos, then San Fierro, and then Las Venturas. That would make sense, right? Good point, that sounds very plausible... To be honest, there is only so much country I can take. I love the inclusion of country in SA, this is one of the main reasons it's my favourite game, but there was a lot of variety in a relatively small space. It only takes a few minutes to drive from forest to desert to farmland and back again. There's a huge amount of detail in that space. On the other hand, if I was forced to drive for half an hour through farmland, I might lose interest after a while, especially since there's no way anyone could pay attention to that much space and keep it interesting. I'd rather they include as much country as they are able to keep interesting, rather than forcing in extra space just so they can claim it is their 'biggest game eva'. Yea maybe, I'm thinking maybe the maps shouldn't get bigger and bigger, I think I bonded with the previous games more because every street had a very particular feel and vibe, maybe too much of it and you become desensitized to it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tnz 6 Report post Posted November 28, 2011 I recognize a lot of arguments that I had to support the idea for San Fierro (including the first trailer of GTA:SA also only showing LS), but I think TreeFitty showed me an image of the mountains around LA, to suggest it doesn't have to be Mount Chilliad in the trailer, but might be another mountainous object. On a side-note: Lately I'm playing GTA:SA, trying to get the 100% completion (on 97% atm), and I notice how well a job Rockstar has done to put 3 cities and numerous small towns on a relatively small map (even though it's bigger than GTA4's). In fact the distance between the cities is really small, they just try to make it seem bigger by using a lot of swirly roads. This must've been a puzzle to achieve this. If they can work with a much larger map, it should be relatively easy to put 3 (or more) cities in. But if it's just a huge Los Santos and an immense countryside, I will also be happy. Edit: I also notice in GTA:SA that neighborhoods in LS are so tiny, it's almost cute and funny. Ganton is like 1 or 2 streets... They can easily expand all neighborhoods and agglomerations in LS, that have their own unique atmosphere, to have a very diverse one city game. Much more diverse than LC. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rm80rams 62 Report post Posted November 28, 2011 i would really like to see Los Santos and San Diego as the only two cities. SD is a perfect compliment as a mid-major city to the what will be huge Los Santos. have SD at the south end of the map and LS at the North end and put a few small towns (oceanside, carlsbad, san clemente) and a BIG countryside with mountains and deserts in between along with the military base Camp Pendleton. that would be pushing the ps3 and 360's limits but it would be amazing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marneyknuckle 30 Report post Posted November 29, 2011 As much as weed like to see SF and LV I don't think theu will make a gta5 appearance It would b dope as fuck but I doubt it.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rayge 689 Report post Posted November 29, 2011 i would really like to see Los Santos and San Diego as the only two cities. SD is a perfect compliment as a mid-major city to the what will be huge Los Santos. have SD at the south end of the map and LS at the North end and put a few small towns (oceanside, carlsbad, san clemente) and a BIG countryside with mountains and deserts in between along with the military base Camp Pendleton. that would be pushing the ps3 and 360's limits but it would be amazing. The PS3 version would just be a shitty port from Xbox, so it will nowhere near test the true power of the PS3. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TreeFitty 2631 Report post Posted November 29, 2011 I believe they built GTA IV side by side. So no, it wouldn't be a shitty port. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rayge 689 Report post Posted November 29, 2011 I believe they built GTA IV side by side. So no, it wouldn't be a shitty port. Really? Where did you find that out? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marneyknuckle 30 Report post Posted November 29, 2011 Well gta 3 was ps2 exclusive. Same with gta sa They came out like 2 years later for xbox Since then r* signed a deal with Microsoft I'm pretty sure they have the same release date Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rayge 689 Report post Posted November 29, 2011 That depends on whether MS will pay a few hundred mil for timed exclusives, like they did with TLAD and TBoGT. III and SA were PS2 exclusive back then because the PS2 literally shit on all other consoles, nothing came CLOSE. But now the Xbox360 is the leading console (although the PS3 is catching up). They will probably have same release date of original game, but it will also probably be pushed back a few months. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marneyknuckle 30 Report post Posted November 29, 2011 Yeah I hope so. Id hate to have to buy a ps3 just for gta 5(and a couple other ps3 badass exclusives) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rm80rams 62 Report post Posted November 29, 2011 Yeah I hope so. Id hate to have to buy a ps3 just for gta 5(and a couple other ps3 badass exclusives) god of war, uncharted, infamous, resistance, ect. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Massacre 7646 Report post Posted November 29, 2011 God of War and Resisitance are meh. Uncharted and Infamous are good, though. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tnz 6 Report post Posted November 30, 2011 I hope the PC port won't take too long, I hope the PC port will be running well, and I actually hope (which was the plan for GTA4 right?) that they enhance the PC version, because a good gaming PC can handle much more detail. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marneyknuckle 30 Report post Posted November 30, 2011 Uncharted 2 looks bomb as hell same with infamous 2 idk tho I've only played a ps3 like twice Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rayge 689 Report post Posted November 30, 2011 PS3 has better graphical capability, but V will probably be multi-platform so they can reach all segments of the target market. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
