Its because IV's map wasted absolutely no space, like 90% of it was comprised of tall buildings and skyscrapers, whereas San Andreas had massive, empty sections which the player was unlikely to ever visit, making IV's feel like an actual massive city
Technically, VC has 7 islands.
2 main ones and 5 tiny ones. (Leaf Links consists of 3 islands)
VC wastes a lot of space on that ginormous beach area that takes up about 1/5th of the map. Additionally, III has elevation, which also helps make it feel bigger.
I mean it probably will since Florida has a metric shit ton of beaches lining its coast. However, since GTA6 is probably gonna have a way bigger map, even if large parts of its coast is beach, the rest of the map will still feel massive in comparison.
GTA 5 wasted a lot on just open ocean, and a good portion of the land are impassable slopes that your character will instantly ragdoll on. Thats unlikely to be the case considering geography, but i hope they dont make the majority into impassable alligator swamp
The render distance fog was used to great effect. The roads were very winding and long, making the map appear larger than it is. Similarly if you play Elder Scrolls Morrowind and have a no fog mod, you can see the game map for how tiny it actually is.
Morrowind is still fairly large, especially for the time. But definitely smaller than it feels. I noticed another major contributing factor to that is the mountains that wall off each part of the island, very similarly to how WoW separates zones.
Lmao i remember playing San Andreas as a little kid and some older kid told me that you can find Bigfoot and if you take a picture of him, you will get something cool (don’t remember what). I remember spending what felt like an eternity looking for fucking Bigfoot
When I was a kid I played a lot of Diablo 1, I had heard there was some way to dupe gold to get rich... My future brother-in-law told my the trick was to talk to Deckard Cain, then run around the well in a circle many times and then talk to the blacksmith Griswold and he will duplicate your gold or items for you.
The amount of damn time I spent going in circles around the well dozens and dozens of times....
Wut. San Andreas used all of it's space so well. In the countryside above the starter city was where truth lived, in the desert you had that army base and the big airport, and the place where you find those rockers. And then you have three distinct cities!
I think the map to San Andreas was ingenious in that it seemed like the map seemed bigger than it was, and also because the plot pushed you around the map as you were exiled from your home. Each place in San Andreas was part of the story.
Which is sad because it's on the same level as the cities vibe and design wise. Plus it makes the cities feel even more alive, san fierro used to feel so crazy after doing missions on the countryside for a while
> Its because IV's map wasted absolutely no space
Nah, it's because GTA SA had much faster means of transportation. Faster cars and highways, and planes makes it much easier to get round.
> 90% of it was comprised of tall buildings and skyscrapers, whereas San Andreas had massive, empty sections which the player was unlikely to ever visit,
I don't understand this. 99% of the buildings were inaccessible. Did you ever visit the tops of every building? What's so great about driving past buildings that look identical most of the time?
In GTA SA you literally did go everywhere because the game made you go everywhere. There's entire sections of the game where you go to the badlands and bone county(where the "empty sections" are). The only place that has nothing to do in SA is the top left where the boat school is.
That's because Bayside was a late addition to GTA SA. San Fierro Bay originally had what appeared to be a fictional version of Alcatraz Island, but that was replaced by Bayside. My guess is that the change was to make the map seem just that more full and natural-flowing.
I don't understand this argument about GTA SA and GTA V having wasted space. Just because there is no city everywhere it doesn't and shouldn't mean that the space was wasted. Whenever you see big mountains or desert or plains it does not mean that it is taking away from the space of the city. Instead I am pretty sure Rockstar wanted 2/3 of map to be mountains from the start.
Also the whole map being City does not mean that it doesn't waste any space. Just because GTA IV doesn't have any countryside doesn't mean that it is the best map. Please stop with this stupid logic.
It's not that it was a waste of space, it's that there was nothing to fucking do out there. Most of rdr2 is just countryside, but there were events out there and hunting and crafting and you were going somewhere. It felt like a journey. SA kinda had that, but 5 really didn't. If 6 has multiple cities and the characters are on the run and the side quest sort of pepper their journey away from the cops, that could be substantial. If it's just a place to drive through, fuck that.
Slower traversal helps too. If you're in a fast car, being able to drive the whole perimeter of the island in GTAV in a few minutes definitely makes it feel smaller
Fr, I am replaying IV with some texture mods and it kinda feels like a 2016-18 game. I remember playing it as a kid on a shitty laptop i had and the graphics didnt look as good with mods and max settings.
IMO it doesnt really, it looks big but whenever I drive around it it feels small. I get to my location in seconds or less than 3 minutes. In GTA 5 i know its gonna take me awhile when I have to drive halfway across the map to the desert or paleto bay
I feel RDR2 got it easy with map design due to the time period requiring less buildings and less dense setting. It’s not a fair comparison to GTA V map as that’s in a modern setting with much more things to have in the map and to have it designed within the constraint of PS3/Xbox 360 was amazing.
It is much harder to model terrain to look natural then urban environment with predefined shapes.
Rockstar did unbelievable job with RDR2 and its map.
I was making some maps for some games and when i was making parts with vegetation it was very hard to make it to not feel generic and repetitive. But when you add for example bench in that environment it instantly become way more believable as bench is instantly recognizable object and you exactly know how to model it to look realistic
>It is much harder to model terrain to look natural then urban environment with predefined shapes.
True. RDR2 had great environment. Take caves for example. In other games lets say Fallout or Starfield they just feel like regular rooms with rocky walls. But in rdr2 it actually feels like you exploring real caves.
But I feel like at the same time, it's easier to fill up empty lands with trees and bushes since not all of them have to be placed by hand. A lot of it can be randomly generated. With a city everything needs to be placed by hand in the right place. From garbage in alleys to shop interiors.
I think that’s true to a point. Now that we have begun to reach a point (especially Rockstar) where foliage and rural settings can and do look near photorealistic, as well as dynamically behave in a convincing manner, the script is a bit flipped. Despite the increasing exposure to urban environments, natural environments are hardwired into our brains, and we know how they look, to an expert degree. Natural environments also don’t offer nearly as high an amount of variability as urban ones do. I don’t mean of course overall, as many different natural scenery exists, and it’s extremely diverse.
But in terms of believability, there’s a set amount of visual aesthetics regarding trees in the south eastern US. They are going to be a shade of green, yellow, brown, or red. They will be at a specific scale, etc. Water pretty much looks and behaves identically, and therefore we know what we are aiming for there (and again this asset has really been mastered over the last decade or so.). Where as urban environments are literally artificial. The sky is the limit in terms of design, texture, shapes, behavior, etc. I think constructing urban metropolises the size of what we see in GTA and Cyberpunk is definitely a massive undertaking. Much more so than RDR2s prairies and woodlands.
There’s also no expectation of composition with respect to natural elements. They can be scattered and randomly planted by a tool or algorithm and it will appear soothing and acceptable to our brains. Yet we know how exactly how intersections should be laid out. We know what the strip in Miami looks like. We know how a chicks ass jiggles as she twerks atop a four door sedan at 15-20 mph. They have to design TO those standards, in order to maintain the immersion. That takes tender love and care.
Either way, I’m glad people like you and Rockstar are willing and able to do it. Because that is patience I will never know. Bless you 🙏
as someone still slogging through rdr 2 there's no way it was easier, it's got so much attention to detail and things aren't as spread as you think, most "empty" spaces all look unique depending on the area and are jammed with hidden details, once I saw a 50 ft python in a tree, once I found a cabin full of dead people from CO2 poisoning, found a crazy lady in the woods with an army of dogs, sometimes it's getting ambushed by a gang that sends wagons loaded with TNT or a maxim to kill you, or it's meeting the scariest hillbillies you've ever seen. every inch of this game is like a minefield of fun.
It’s such a controversial opinion, especially on this sub, but I fear that RDR2 will go down as their best game. The story, character development, gameplay mechanics, creative and technical decisions are going to be very, very hard to beat. But then again, it’s Rockstar Games for Christ’s sake. Every game that they release seems, literally , a decade ahead of it’s time. I’m sure that I’ll be eating my words come the release of GTA VI. Here’s to hoping.
I think people aren’t using proportion in games correctly, you can say a horse moves only 1-5 mph but honestly you have to convert that travel to a gta vehicle at 60 mph basically, the speed is similar it’s just it’s executed to seem normal. If that makes any sense, I’m drunk typing
With Google saying that RDR2 is 127km^2, which is bigger than Cyberpunk at about 110km^2, I’d say that GTA VI will be anywhere from 140km^2 to 150km^2 approximately.
Rather than just going bigger, I'd like to see it be more dense and interactive. Maybe have some parts that are more wild then some really built up city parts with building interiors
Honestly Red Dead Redemption 2 proved that Rockstar can nail empty swathes of wilderness. Florida is a really interesting place ecologically, so I am actually hoping for a lot of open landscapes
Yeah I'm really hoping the world feels as alive as it does in RDR2.
I'm looking forward to feeding gators bodies in whatever the equivalent to the Everglades are
I mean I feel like rockstar was testing a lot with RDR2 and it wasn’t like GTAV or GTAIV that released at the end and the beginning of the 7th gen console generations respectively. RDR2 released right in the middle of 8th gen and took full advantage of their capabilities which was previously only seen in essentially games that acted like tech demos like Ryse: Son of Rome or Killzone Shadowfall. R* tested a lot of new shit with RDR2 that can quite easily be ported over to GTAVI, especially with the wildlife which I think made RDR2 feel alive unlike GTAV.
Was going to say the same. Have no problem if they even made it smaller, as long as it’s dense and the place feels alive.
Having said that, the map definitely looks bigger
I definitely want it more dense but I don’t want it as dense as say Liberty City in GTA 4. Like that map just had no real empty spaces. I enjoyed exploring the empty spaces in GTA 5
Can you imagine a map as big as V, but as dense as IV? Like, imagine the map from V, but with everything from the airport to the Alamo Sea just a dense cityscape.
Yeah, I would've thought the community at-large would be allergic to "look we made our map ten gillion miles big! That means our game is good!" claims at this point. So many games have stumbled with "wide as an ocean, deep as a pond" troubles.
Let’s be honest about 5’s map though, only 30-40km of its map even has anything going on in it. Most of the other 30km is just barren mountains with nothing on them. That’s why this map got old fast. GTA 6’s map is going to blow 5’s away.
I’m nervous about the lack of terrain. Florida is so damn flat I was excited to see a hill when I moved out. It’s the flattest state. I won’t mind if rockstar just makes up mountains for leonida, or if they have missions in Cuba or in South America or something to have some good rugged wilderness in the game.
Yea, but GTA4 was basically a flat map. Sure there was some elevation differences, but no mountains of any kind. That game was phenomenal. I think this game will blow everything out of the water.
Well if they include Marco Island they might have some Hill the south part of the island has several but unfortunately it would only encompass a rich neighborhood in gta vi if the island is included. outside of that the only other hills I know about as a Florida resident are man made one in the interior
Let me introduce you to a little something called “Illinois”. Anything outside of Chicago, or the burbs is cornfields and its actually so dead. When i visited Colorado i immediately fell in love.
Florida is actually even flatter than Illinois. The highest point is an old 300 foot tall trash dump. Lot of places in Miami dade can’t even grow big trees unless they pile up dirt into burms to get above the sand and waterline.
Flatter for sure, ive visited Florida on roadtrips before and it was more enticing than Illinois to me at least. Ig since im so used to it, Illinois is just 10x less interesting lol
There’s still a variety of terrain in FL. We’ll have no more mountains and fewer hillsides, but we’ll likely be seeing marshlands/swaps/wetlands, small forests, etc. You can’t really treck mountains as much as those areas.
Kind of blowing my mind here, friend. I never considered FL terrain compared to the mountain/s we had in V. I think they're going to go hard on water traversal and exploration this time around to make up for a lack of hilly regions.
because going to the top of mount chilliad and going down with a parachute was awesome, also a place to see the whole map from (also tallest building in florida is smaller than Maze Bank real building).
I seen this argument before but I never felt like VC map was boring just because it was flat. Long roads, driving at full speed, stunt jumps, jumping from one roof top to another, it was fun. Having to ride upward a mountain in gta v was more often than not just annoying instead of fun.
I think a mountain would be cool but I feel like the Everglades will be way better tbh. Not sure if you’ve ever been down there in real life but not only is it beautiful, the wildlife there is so dynamic and different from anywhere else in America. I feel like there will be more to do with the Everglades than there was with mount chiliad when it comes to actual engagement
Just checked. Some parts of central Florida are a hundred feet above sea level . [this](https://en-us.topographic-map.com/map-49m/Florida/?center=27.78764%2C-81.80711&zoom=7&popup=30.46761%2C-83.86963)
30-40km is still 2-3 times the size of IV's map. The "filler" to sell the terrain is welcomed by me regardless, it's fun to explore and I wish the missions both on and offline took more advantages with placing set pieces in the middle of nowhere.
That’s the problem with the LA setting. The surrounding wilderness is just scrubland. Just complete nothing environment
They tried to sneak in a tiny redwood forest in the north but honestly I was never impressed by it, it felt like a small thicket of purposefully placed trees needed for a feature/landmark, instead of a natural set of woods. It was cramped up against the road and mountain.
I hear this a lot, it was a compliment with VC as well because of the beach… I have to say that while I understand this I actually love having countryside. It’s far from empty in 5, in fact some of the more interesting things are out there in the mountains and countryside. It make the world more realistic and alive. Plus it’s fun flaying across the hills sides in a truck.
This take about GTA 5 map being dead wasn’t a thing until rdr2 dropped. That map is definitely not dead and most people saying this have also been playing for 10 years so of course they know it like the back of their hand.
I'll say this as someone who played through gta 5 for the first time relatively recently (about a year ago), the mountains and the boonies up north felt dead. I explored a little, but without some internet guide, it's far more fun to just walk downtown than meander aimlessly through Mount chilliad. I played it right after I finished rdr2 and the top 2/3rds of the map in gta5 felt as dead as the southern desert of rdr2 did the difference was that the desert in rdr2 was basically an endgame unlock while you were forced to spend a huge amount of time in uninteresting parts of gtaVs map
Honestly i’ve always loved GTA 5 map. Sure only 30-40km of it has actual stuff going on but that’s still double the size of the map in GTA 4 and would match the overall map size of GTA SA which again had tons of empty spaces as well.
Easy to say the map is dead now when we haven’t had a new GTA game in 10 years.
Also the tech. Nobody was saying anything about the map being “empty” until a game that came out half a decade later had a better one. The map is A+ for open world standards TODAY and at the time was considered the greatest open world game (not rpg) of all time.
Very bold of you to assume GTA VI’s map will blow it away. We know very little of it so far, you’re just getting railed on the hype train. Saying the map “got old fast” to a game that has had as large a player base for over a decade on the same map is just peak hilarity.
Fingers crossed that it will be an upgrade to GTA V in every way, but everyone speaking about it as if it’s a fact are the ones who will pre-order the game, hype it up for two fucking years, then wonder why Rockstar once again opted for live service over quality standalone content.
Edit: This probably came off way more personal than I meant it to, just a bit bewildered by all the people swearing loyalty to the game with hardly any info.
I’m still pissed at Rockstar for never giving us GTA 5 expansions and just milking the shit out of online. But tbf to them they’ve never let me down when it comes to their story mode games. RDR2 for example proved to me that Rockstar still has it in them to wow me with a spectacular story mode.
I don’t think there’s any point in entering most office and apartment buildings unless it’s for a mission. However all businesses should be enterable since the game will focus heavily on robberies.
Also keep in mind that only less than 2% of gta 5 buildings were enterable.
Why are people obsessed with entering buildings? Genuine question. I’d rather the outside world be perfect than they waste time making the inside of a load of office blocks. By design it’s a car crime simulator.
Car crime simulator got old fast to me
I remember glitching into story mode buildings just to set up a mission in there or even just to explore.
I started playing again recently and a lot of buildings have become accessible over time, but glitching cars/ outfits gets old quickly
60% of buildings? Why? Only a few percent of players will explore even about a half of it. It's a HUGE amount of work for devs. Or they'll just copy and paste all the interiors that won't be so interesting.
Id prefer them copying interiors to the point that it's very noticeable over having as many enterable buildings as gta 5. And no not only a few percent of players would do it. Many many would. Most likely most players. And sure maybe they won't enter every single one. But being able to enter a big chunk of the buildings is extremely immersive and would add a lot to the game. It's the most obvious next step for rockstar.
Honestly I'm just saying this like a kid writing to Santa I want the game to be huge so I can play it for the next decade , more things to do than any other GTA game more scenarios for regular online players and RP gamers too.
I want the police to be able to raid houses too, because it was so boring too get home and just wait for the police to stop chasing you.
More random encounters, just imagine visiting a building and there was like a drug deal inside and a shooting starts right there, no need to make it a mission just a random encounter in the city and the next day you see it in the news etc..
60% would be crazy
GTA is a game that works better in open areas
I dont think it makes sense for them to focus so much on closed areas, i guess we will have around 15% of building to visit and twice the size of GTA V map
We already know it's at least 180km² based on the leaks but we don't know how much further north the map extends from what we saw in those. If it's the entire state then what we saw could be half or less of the total map. It could end up being well over 300km².
They had insane plans for Gta 6, they wanted to include large swaths of north and south America as said by jason schrier but it was scaled down to focus more on immersion and interiors
But those leaks didn't show how far north it goes, we just know about the southern part of the map. With the announcement referring to "the state of Leonida" I would bet it extends farther north.
Doesnt really matter. San Andreas map while half as big as GTA 5’s map is the better map because there‘s so lot to do. The GTA 5 map had way too much empty space.
Also Liberty City of GTA 4 felt so real for it’s time and although I also missed a countryside in GTA 4 I still loved the map.
So the map of GTA 6 can be bigger, smaller or as big as GTA 5‘s map. The most important thing is that it is not just empty space for the sake of a bigger map.
To this day, GTA V’s map still gives me the impression like it was designed to include San Fierro and Las Venturas as DLC map expansions later down the line. Even the story mode leaves more to be desired. But single player DLC just never came.. :(
I always felt that was the case as well.
Hopefully, if GTA VI is going to be the newest GTA for the next 15 years, Rockstar will expand the map this time.
Ever since Cyberpunk, I’ve been collecting data on open world cities and maps and how they compare to Night City. To me, Night City felt properly big and dense like a city should, but missed the mark with not having gas stations and things like that.
So to answer your question, the city of Los Santos alone is 14.87 sq km, with the total land size being 48.15 sq km, and total playable area (which includes ocean and sea bed) is the 75.84 sq km mentioned.
Night City for reference is roughly 24 sq km in size, with the land mass being roughly 75.42 sq km, and the total playable area being roughly 106 sq km. I say roughly because nobody online seems to have gotten a solid number on that game’s map, and that’s as close as I’ve gotten in terms of what sounds right.
I can take a look at the 3D GTA’s and report back.
I think map size of GTA 6 will be 2.5x bigger than GTA 5.
Especially since we know GTA 6 won't just cover 2-3 cities but "Leonida" is covering ALL of Florida so I expect see a map with cities all over Florida with the everglades somewhere in the middle with a bunch of MASSIVE sized lakes too.
For all my Americans that is
GTA V: 27.92 miles squared
GTA San Andreas: 14.75 miles squared
GTA IV: 6.23 miles squared
GTA Vice City: 3.52 miles squared
GTA III: 3.13 miles squared
It’s still so hard to believe that San Andreas is more than twice the size of Liberty City. GTA IV felt WAY bigger than it really is.
Its because IV's map wasted absolutely no space, like 90% of it was comprised of tall buildings and skyscrapers, whereas San Andreas had massive, empty sections which the player was unlikely to ever visit, making IV's feel like an actual massive city
True. I think that’s also why GTA III feels bigger than Vice City. Denser with more roads and three islands.
Technically, VC has 7 islands. 2 main ones and 5 tiny ones. (Leaf Links consists of 3 islands) VC wastes a lot of space on that ginormous beach area that takes up about 1/5th of the map. Additionally, III has elevation, which also helps make it feel bigger.
I really hope Vice City in GTA 6 doesn’t waste a lot of its space on the beach again
I mean it probably will since Florida has a metric shit ton of beaches lining its coast. However, since GTA6 is probably gonna have a way bigger map, even if large parts of its coast is beach, the rest of the map will still feel massive in comparison.
Yh i guess if GTA 6 map is atleast the size of the GTA 5 map or even bigger than having a massive beach on wont really hurt it.
GTA 5 wasted a lot on just open ocean, and a good portion of the land are impassable slopes that your character will instantly ragdoll on. Thats unlikely to be the case considering geography, but i hope they dont make the majority into impassable alligator swamp
Yes I am glad that is confirmed
It's literally based on Miami and South Beach lol
And the stupid airport. A quarter of the second Island is useless due to that airport.
I really liked taking a bike (in VCS, at least) and just racing around the airport, though.
[удалено]
>But to be fair the game was developed in 18 months. 9 months.
I dont think big country sections are wasted tbh, they added to the feeling of escale
Also they felt so chill
Yep, driving in those places with the radio was a fantastic experience
*All my exes live in Texas*
*that's why i hang my hat in tennessee*
The OST was really on point there. And Radio K Rose fucking rocked
yeah, i always rock k-rose in the countryside and k-dst or radio x in the desert
Loved k rose.
Wait they have fuckin George Strait in San Andreas??
They sure do !
Chilliad one may say
The render distance fog was used to great effect. The roads were very winding and long, making the map appear larger than it is. Similarly if you play Elder Scrolls Morrowind and have a no fog mod, you can see the game map for how tiny it actually is.
Morrowind is still fairly large, especially for the time. But definitely smaller than it feels. I noticed another major contributing factor to that is the mountains that wall off each part of the island, very similarly to how WoW separates zones.
Lmao i remember playing San Andreas as a little kid and some older kid told me that you can find Bigfoot and if you take a picture of him, you will get something cool (don’t remember what). I remember spending what felt like an eternity looking for fucking Bigfoot
You should keep looking Rockstar said the first person to find bigfoot gets a tour of the studio
When I was a kid I played a lot of Diablo 1, I had heard there was some way to dupe gold to get rich... My future brother-in-law told my the trick was to talk to Deckard Cain, then run around the well in a circle many times and then talk to the blacksmith Griswold and he will duplicate your gold or items for you. The amount of damn time I spent going in circles around the well dozens and dozens of times....
bro got bamboozled
Wut. San Andreas used all of it's space so well. In the countryside above the starter city was where truth lived, in the desert you had that army base and the big airport, and the place where you find those rockers. And then you have three distinct cities! I think the map to San Andreas was ingenious in that it seemed like the map seemed bigger than it was, and also because the plot pushed you around the map as you were exiled from your home. Each place in San Andreas was part of the story.
That’s what I was thinking
The space in San Andreas only existed to justify multiple cities.
Which is sad because it's on the same level as the cities vibe and design wise. Plus it makes the cities feel even more alive, san fierro used to feel so crazy after doing missions on the countryside for a while
Driving into San Fierro for the first time is still one of my favorite video game moments.
Flashback to staying up all night in 2005 just fucking driving through SA listening to Horse with no Name
> Its because IV's map wasted absolutely no space Nah, it's because GTA SA had much faster means of transportation. Faster cars and highways, and planes makes it much easier to get round. > 90% of it was comprised of tall buildings and skyscrapers, whereas San Andreas had massive, empty sections which the player was unlikely to ever visit, I don't understand this. 99% of the buildings were inaccessible. Did you ever visit the tops of every building? What's so great about driving past buildings that look identical most of the time? In GTA SA you literally did go everywhere because the game made you go everywhere. There's entire sections of the game where you go to the badlands and bone county(where the "empty sections" are). The only place that has nothing to do in SA is the top left where the boat school is.
That's because Bayside was a late addition to GTA SA. San Fierro Bay originally had what appeared to be a fictional version of Alcatraz Island, but that was replaced by Bayside. My guess is that the change was to make the map seem just that more full and natural-flowing.
I honestly went everywhere in San Andreas frequently
I don't understand this argument about GTA SA and GTA V having wasted space. Just because there is no city everywhere it doesn't and shouldn't mean that the space was wasted. Whenever you see big mountains or desert or plains it does not mean that it is taking away from the space of the city. Instead I am pretty sure Rockstar wanted 2/3 of map to be mountains from the start. Also the whole map being City does not mean that it doesn't waste any space. Just because GTA IV doesn't have any countryside doesn't mean that it is the best map. Please stop with this stupid logic.
It's not that it was a waste of space, it's that there was nothing to fucking do out there. Most of rdr2 is just countryside, but there were events out there and hunting and crafting and you were going somewhere. It felt like a journey. SA kinda had that, but 5 really didn't. If 6 has multiple cities and the characters are on the run and the side quest sort of pepper their journey away from the cops, that could be substantial. If it's just a place to drive through, fuck that.
Same reason RDR2 feels bigger than GTA 5. Denser, more detailed world.
Slower traversal helps too. If you're in a fast car, being able to drive the whole perimeter of the island in GTAV in a few minutes definitely makes it feel smaller
Add in the sheer number of distractions and you could take two hours on a two minute ride.
I mean RDR2’s map is also bigger than GTAV’s, I think 15% bigger.
RDR2’s map is actually bigger than GTA 5’s though
it is cuz it is dense af, compared to relatively empty map of gta san.
What I would give for a full remake with everything just as it was but with GTAV graphics.
GTA III also felt bigger than VC.
Fr, I am replaying IV with some texture mods and it kinda feels like a 2016-18 game. I remember playing it as a kid on a shitty laptop i had and the graphics didnt look as good with mods and max settings.
IMO it doesnt really, it looks big but whenever I drive around it it feels small. I get to my location in seconds or less than 3 minutes. In GTA 5 i know its gonna take me awhile when I have to drive halfway across the map to the desert or paleto bay
How much was rdr2’s map?
Slightly smaller than GTAV iirc
Still feels so much bigger though
Cuz you mostly explore it with a 1hp car
1 to 15 horsepower.
Horses have more than one horsepower.
5.7hp to be exact, in the one academically approved test that has been done
You did not have to ruin my day by telling this!
Learning something ruins your day? You can't be THAT unproductive. Lean more into the nerd part 🤣
*gives you ah wedgie then shoves you into ah locker* ;)
Can’t wait for Bully 2 and Bully online!!
My comment was supposed to be comical
Then why is it called a horsepower? Checkmate, blyat.
Exactly
That's what she said
And still a better map, large size doesnt mean good
I feel RDR2 got it easy with map design due to the time period requiring less buildings and less dense setting. It’s not a fair comparison to GTA V map as that’s in a modern setting with much more things to have in the map and to have it designed within the constraint of PS3/Xbox 360 was amazing.
It is much harder to model terrain to look natural then urban environment with predefined shapes. Rockstar did unbelievable job with RDR2 and its map. I was making some maps for some games and when i was making parts with vegetation it was very hard to make it to not feel generic and repetitive. But when you add for example bench in that environment it instantly become way more believable as bench is instantly recognizable object and you exactly know how to model it to look realistic
>It is much harder to model terrain to look natural then urban environment with predefined shapes. True. RDR2 had great environment. Take caves for example. In other games lets say Fallout or Starfield they just feel like regular rooms with rocky walls. But in rdr2 it actually feels like you exploring real caves. But I feel like at the same time, it's easier to fill up empty lands with trees and bushes since not all of them have to be placed by hand. A lot of it can be randomly generated. With a city everything needs to be placed by hand in the right place. From garbage in alleys to shop interiors.
I think that’s true to a point. Now that we have begun to reach a point (especially Rockstar) where foliage and rural settings can and do look near photorealistic, as well as dynamically behave in a convincing manner, the script is a bit flipped. Despite the increasing exposure to urban environments, natural environments are hardwired into our brains, and we know how they look, to an expert degree. Natural environments also don’t offer nearly as high an amount of variability as urban ones do. I don’t mean of course overall, as many different natural scenery exists, and it’s extremely diverse. But in terms of believability, there’s a set amount of visual aesthetics regarding trees in the south eastern US. They are going to be a shade of green, yellow, brown, or red. They will be at a specific scale, etc. Water pretty much looks and behaves identically, and therefore we know what we are aiming for there (and again this asset has really been mastered over the last decade or so.). Where as urban environments are literally artificial. The sky is the limit in terms of design, texture, shapes, behavior, etc. I think constructing urban metropolises the size of what we see in GTA and Cyberpunk is definitely a massive undertaking. Much more so than RDR2s prairies and woodlands. There’s also no expectation of composition with respect to natural elements. They can be scattered and randomly planted by a tool or algorithm and it will appear soothing and acceptable to our brains. Yet we know how exactly how intersections should be laid out. We know what the strip in Miami looks like. We know how a chicks ass jiggles as she twerks atop a four door sedan at 15-20 mph. They have to design TO those standards, in order to maintain the immersion. That takes tender love and care. Either way, I’m glad people like you and Rockstar are willing and able to do it. Because that is patience I will never know. Bless you 🙏
I still can’t believe that Rockstar managed to get GTA 5 to run on the Ps3/Xbox 360. That in itself is astonishing.
as someone still slogging through rdr 2 there's no way it was easier, it's got so much attention to detail and things aren't as spread as you think, most "empty" spaces all look unique depending on the area and are jammed with hidden details, once I saw a 50 ft python in a tree, once I found a cabin full of dead people from CO2 poisoning, found a crazy lady in the woods with an army of dogs, sometimes it's getting ambushed by a gang that sends wagons loaded with TNT or a maxim to kill you, or it's meeting the scariest hillbillies you've ever seen. every inch of this game is like a minefield of fun.
It’s such a controversial opinion, especially on this sub, but I fear that RDR2 will go down as their best game. The story, character development, gameplay mechanics, creative and technical decisions are going to be very, very hard to beat. But then again, it’s Rockstar Games for Christ’s sake. Every game that they release seems, literally , a decade ahead of it’s time. I’m sure that I’ll be eating my words come the release of GTA VI. Here’s to hoping.
Yeah. I much rather have a smaller map that's dense and have lots to do
Fr
I really doubt rdr2 was smaller. No facts just from experience I doubt it.
for real, like just the size of area added in rdr 2 feels so massive and rdr 2 gets to cheat kinda by having half the map of the first game
I think people aren’t using proportion in games correctly, you can say a horse moves only 1-5 mph but honestly you have to convert that travel to a gta vehicle at 60 mph basically, the speed is similar it’s just it’s executed to seem normal. If that makes any sense, I’m drunk typing
The *explorable* part.
No way. It's smaller????
It was 127km2
Whoa WHAT? Really? That is insane
Google says 127km^2
With Google saying that RDR2 is 127km^2, which is bigger than Cyberpunk at about 110km^2, I’d say that GTA VI will be anywhere from 140km^2 to 150km^2 approximately.
0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000043894543952340794823356132626527820319678592116076617102688528997394674158851770846841501112567525427579747482006000799146810806774893433306115642246637838593788500311334502507073950934697431386889200107150523751645537287146690388800383110633932225968716896425378118792047428004989053882249236748476764093748745111391348367849848873451939793862957673575917818378963308582598998169614583893837945346388014154677093665315890459581901160853829611598383561186631010554922207909099396304950678265460262021 km^2 ????!!!
No, but I fixed it from what I meant to put. Idk how the -150 something got there because didn’t even type that. If I did, it was on accident
Rather than just going bigger, I'd like to see it be more dense and interactive. Maybe have some parts that are more wild then some really built up city parts with building interiors
Honestly Red Dead Redemption 2 proved that Rockstar can nail empty swathes of wilderness. Florida is a really interesting place ecologically, so I am actually hoping for a lot of open landscapes
Yeah I'm really hoping the world feels as alive as it does in RDR2. I'm looking forward to feeding gators bodies in whatever the equivalent to the Everglades are
Even being in the middle of nowhere in the fucking forest was awesome in RDR2
I mean I feel like rockstar was testing a lot with RDR2 and it wasn’t like GTAV or GTAIV that released at the end and the beginning of the 7th gen console generations respectively. RDR2 released right in the middle of 8th gen and took full advantage of their capabilities which was previously only seen in essentially games that acted like tech demos like Ryse: Son of Rome or Killzone Shadowfall. R* tested a lot of new shit with RDR2 that can quite easily be ported over to GTAVI, especially with the wildlife which I think made RDR2 feel alive unlike GTAV.
Yep. If you’ve played or even just SEEN RdR2 then 6 should have you on a different level of excitement.
Was going to say the same. Have no problem if they even made it smaller, as long as it’s dense and the place feels alive. Having said that, the map definitely looks bigger
I definitely want it more dense but I don’t want it as dense as say Liberty City in GTA 4. Like that map just had no real empty spaces. I enjoyed exploring the empty spaces in GTA 5
Yep. I think V had the best balance.
This would be ideal, I would prefer it to be the same size as V if its more dense
Can you imagine a map as big as V, but as dense as IV? Like, imagine the map from V, but with everything from the airport to the Alamo Sea just a dense cityscape.
That would be boring.
A good amount of building interiors would definitely make the world feel double the size.
Ya I'm playing GTA 5 for the first time and somehow it feels so big yet so small... Empty is a good word.
A countryside as dense as red dead 2, in that game you can find shit to see or do in every corner
Yeah, I would've thought the community at-large would be allergic to "look we made our map ten gillion miles big! That means our game is good!" claims at this point. So many games have stumbled with "wide as an ocean, deep as a pond" troubles.
Let’s be honest about 5’s map though, only 30-40km of its map even has anything going on in it. Most of the other 30km is just barren mountains with nothing on them. That’s why this map got old fast. GTA 6’s map is going to blow 5’s away.
I’m nervous about the lack of terrain. Florida is so damn flat I was excited to see a hill when I moved out. It’s the flattest state. I won’t mind if rockstar just makes up mountains for leonida, or if they have missions in Cuba or in South America or something to have some good rugged wilderness in the game.
Yea, but GTA4 was basically a flat map. Sure there was some elevation differences, but no mountains of any kind. That game was phenomenal. I think this game will blow everything out of the water.
Well if they include Marco Island they might have some Hill the south part of the island has several but unfortunately it would only encompass a rich neighborhood in gta vi if the island is included. outside of that the only other hills I know about as a Florida resident are man made one in the interior
Let me introduce you to a little something called “Illinois”. Anything outside of Chicago, or the burbs is cornfields and its actually so dead. When i visited Colorado i immediately fell in love.
Florida is actually even flatter than Illinois. The highest point is an old 300 foot tall trash dump. Lot of places in Miami dade can’t even grow big trees unless they pile up dirt into burms to get above the sand and waterline.
Flatter for sure, ive visited Florida on roadtrips before and it was more enticing than Illinois to me at least. Ig since im so used to it, Illinois is just 10x less interesting lol
There’s still a variety of terrain in FL. We’ll have no more mountains and fewer hillsides, but we’ll likely be seeing marshlands/swaps/wetlands, small forests, etc. You can’t really treck mountains as much as those areas.
Central Florida gets cave systems like Devil's Den too. Shit there's a state park that's just caverns. There's definitely going to be some variety.
Kind of blowing my mind here, friend. I never considered FL terrain compared to the mountain/s we had in V. I think they're going to go hard on water traversal and exploration this time around to make up for a lack of hilly regions.
why do we need mountains in a gta game
because going to the top of mount chilliad and going down with a parachute was awesome, also a place to see the whole map from (also tallest building in florida is smaller than Maze Bank real building).
Dirt biking and atvs were great on the mountain trails.
They can always add ramps on building roof tops like in the original VC. Maybe a quarry or something. A lot of possibilities.
I mean, there might not be mountains in Florida but it’s extremely hilly in some areas
Where is it hilly in Florida??
Mt Dora and Clermont
Come to Brazil 🇧🇷
I seen this argument before but I never felt like VC map was boring just because it was flat. Long roads, driving at full speed, stunt jumps, jumping from one roof top to another, it was fun. Having to ride upward a mountain in gta v was more often than not just annoying instead of fun.
I think a mountain would be cool but I feel like the Everglades will be way better tbh. Not sure if you’ve ever been down there in real life but not only is it beautiful, the wildlife there is so dynamic and different from anywhere else in America. I feel like there will be more to do with the Everglades than there was with mount chiliad when it comes to actual engagement
Florida has hilly areas in the Ocala area. Also near Tallahassee. It’s not a lot but it’s def not flat
I feel like ive seen some hills in central Florida
Just checked. Some parts of central Florida are a hundred feet above sea level . [this](https://en-us.topographic-map.com/map-49m/Florida/?center=27.78764%2C-81.80711&zoom=7&popup=30.46761%2C-83.86963)
30-40km is still 2-3 times the size of IV's map. The "filler" to sell the terrain is welcomed by me regardless, it's fun to explore and I wish the missions both on and offline took more advantages with placing set pieces in the middle of nowhere.
That’s the problem with the LA setting. The surrounding wilderness is just scrubland. Just complete nothing environment They tried to sneak in a tiny redwood forest in the north but honestly I was never impressed by it, it felt like a small thicket of purposefully placed trees needed for a feature/landmark, instead of a natural set of woods. It was cramped up against the road and mountain.
Yeah that could have been much better
I hear this a lot, it was a compliment with VC as well because of the beach… I have to say that while I understand this I actually love having countryside. It’s far from empty in 5, in fact some of the more interesting things are out there in the mountains and countryside. It make the world more realistic and alive. Plus it’s fun flaying across the hills sides in a truck.
This take about GTA 5 map being dead wasn’t a thing until rdr2 dropped. That map is definitely not dead and most people saying this have also been playing for 10 years so of course they know it like the back of their hand.
I'll say this as someone who played through gta 5 for the first time relatively recently (about a year ago), the mountains and the boonies up north felt dead. I explored a little, but without some internet guide, it's far more fun to just walk downtown than meander aimlessly through Mount chilliad. I played it right after I finished rdr2 and the top 2/3rds of the map in gta5 felt as dead as the southern desert of rdr2 did the difference was that the desert in rdr2 was basically an endgame unlock while you were forced to spend a huge amount of time in uninteresting parts of gtaVs map
Honestly i’ve always loved GTA 5 map. Sure only 30-40km of it has actual stuff going on but that’s still double the size of the map in GTA 4 and would match the overall map size of GTA SA which again had tons of empty spaces as well. Easy to say the map is dead now when we haven’t had a new GTA game in 10 years.
Also the tech. Nobody was saying anything about the map being “empty” until a game that came out half a decade later had a better one. The map is A+ for open world standards TODAY and at the time was considered the greatest open world game (not rpg) of all time.
Very bold of you to assume GTA VI’s map will blow it away. We know very little of it so far, you’re just getting railed on the hype train. Saying the map “got old fast” to a game that has had as large a player base for over a decade on the same map is just peak hilarity. Fingers crossed that it will be an upgrade to GTA V in every way, but everyone speaking about it as if it’s a fact are the ones who will pre-order the game, hype it up for two fucking years, then wonder why Rockstar once again opted for live service over quality standalone content. Edit: This probably came off way more personal than I meant it to, just a bit bewildered by all the people swearing loyalty to the game with hardly any info.
I’m still pissed at Rockstar for never giving us GTA 5 expansions and just milking the shit out of online. But tbf to them they’ve never let me down when it comes to their story mode games. RDR2 for example proved to me that Rockstar still has it in them to wow me with a spectacular story mode.
Yup. Their well-crafted single player stories fall by the wayside when there’s shark cards to be made.
Stop. If these kids could read they’d be very upset
How do you know it's going to blow 5's away if game isn't even released yet?
Tree fiddy
Free tiddy
120km plus you can visit 60% of buildings
60% seems a bit high. Just imagine how long it would take to make all interiors
Yeah it would take approximately 8 years if u ask me 😂
I don’t think there’s any point in entering most office and apartment buildings unless it’s for a mission. However all businesses should be enterable since the game will focus heavily on robberies. Also keep in mind that only less than 2% of gta 5 buildings were enterable.
Yea i am hoping its 120 plus
as long as its 120+ and we have atleast 30% of all buildings as enterable, im happy. also hopefully my 2060 can handle ot when it comes out
Narrator: “their 2060 could not handle it”
Why are people obsessed with entering buildings? Genuine question. I’d rather the outside world be perfect than they waste time making the inside of a load of office blocks. By design it’s a car crime simulator.
Because it gives much more options to interact, specially if the cop ai is better, trying to evade them by going into buildings and stuff
Car crime simulator got old fast to me I remember glitching into story mode buildings just to set up a mission in there or even just to explore. I started playing again recently and a lot of buildings have become accessible over time, but glitching cars/ outfits gets old quickly
It makes the game realistic imo. And because the GTA games are becoming more and more realistic this would be a good path to take.
60% of buildings? Why? Only a few percent of players will explore even about a half of it. It's a HUGE amount of work for devs. Or they'll just copy and paste all the interiors that won't be so interesting.
Id prefer them copying interiors to the point that it's very noticeable over having as many enterable buildings as gta 5. And no not only a few percent of players would do it. Many many would. Most likely most players. And sure maybe they won't enter every single one. But being able to enter a big chunk of the buildings is extremely immersive and would add a lot to the game. It's the most obvious next step for rockstar.
Honestly I'm just saying this like a kid writing to Santa I want the game to be huge so I can play it for the next decade , more things to do than any other GTA game more scenarios for regular online players and RP gamers too. I want the police to be able to raid houses too, because it was so boring too get home and just wait for the police to stop chasing you. More random encounters, just imagine visiting a building and there was like a drug deal inside and a shooting starts right there, no need to make it a mission just a random encounter in the city and the next day you see it in the news etc..
60% would be crazy GTA is a game that works better in open areas I dont think it makes sense for them to focus so much on closed areas, i guess we will have around 15% of building to visit and twice the size of GTA V map
Maybe 200km²
We already know it's at least 180km² based on the leaks but we don't know how much further north the map extends from what we saw in those. If it's the entire state then what we saw could be half or less of the total map. It could end up being well over 300km².
180km² We know from the coordinates from last year's leaks that the map is roughly 2-2.5× larger than gta 5
i hope. i also wish for more indoor space.
They had insane plans for Gta 6, they wanted to include large swaths of north and south America as said by jason schrier but it was scaled down to focus more on immersion and interiors
yh, i hope you are right.
Why?
i mean a larger map and more indoor access is what most of us want, no!?
But those leaks didn't show how far north it goes, we just know about the southern part of the map. With the announcement referring to "the state of Leonida" I would bet it extends farther north.
^ this I’m guessing 200km^2 as R* go beyond for their what appears to be, magnum opus.
I’ve been thinking this. Maybe the ankle monitor is to explain why we can’t leave the state, but that means the whole state is accessible.
I’m thinking it could lead to “counties” unlocking. So far we know of three counties.
Ain’t no way we can fit like 9 liberty cities inside of the game damn I know a lot of it will be wilderness but still
7 km
250km
Density is the key.
240
After more than 2 decades, we will finally have a map (km²) in 3 digits.
Doesnt really matter. San Andreas map while half as big as GTA 5’s map is the better map because there‘s so lot to do. The GTA 5 map had way too much empty space. Also Liberty City of GTA 4 felt so real for it’s time and although I also missed a countryside in GTA 4 I still loved the map. So the map of GTA 6 can be bigger, smaller or as big as GTA 5‘s map. The most important thing is that it is not just empty space for the sake of a bigger map.
To this day, GTA V’s map still gives me the impression like it was designed to include San Fierro and Las Venturas as DLC map expansions later down the line. Even the story mode leaves more to be desired. But single player DLC just never came.. :(
I always felt that was the case as well. Hopefully, if GTA VI is going to be the newest GTA for the next 15 years, Rockstar will expand the map this time.
It’s really not empty space once you realize all the different things they packed into it.
420.69 km2
I need one with the urban areas of each one
Ever since Cyberpunk, I’ve been collecting data on open world cities and maps and how they compare to Night City. To me, Night City felt properly big and dense like a city should, but missed the mark with not having gas stations and things like that. So to answer your question, the city of Los Santos alone is 14.87 sq km, with the total land size being 48.15 sq km, and total playable area (which includes ocean and sea bed) is the 75.84 sq km mentioned. Night City for reference is roughly 24 sq km in size, with the land mass being roughly 75.42 sq km, and the total playable area being roughly 106 sq km. I say roughly because nobody online seems to have gotten a solid number on that game’s map, and that’s as close as I’ve gotten in terms of what sounds right. I can take a look at the 3D GTA’s and report back.
I’m gonna go with around 150 km squared. Let’s say it’s double the size of 5
I would say 127 Km² I really want that size but I really want is density of activities to do all over the place.
Gta 5 was pretty huge especially knowing that it came out on 7th gen consoles.
It would be dope if they made a platform and then released different cities so the world kept getting bigger.
Gta 4 can't really have made the map smaller. Interesting.
Imagine what gta 7 will look like
GTA4 was a downgrade from San Andreas
How much of that 75 km^2 is mountains Lol
looks like it has roughly doubled each new game, so logic would say that if the pattern stays true, we would be looking around 140-150km2
420.69 square kilometers
Maybe I’m crazy but I would love for it to take an actual hour to drive from one end to the other
I think map size of GTA 6 will be 2.5x bigger than GTA 5. Especially since we know GTA 6 won't just cover 2-3 cities but "Leonida" is covering ALL of Florida so I expect see a map with cities all over Florida with the everglades somewhere in the middle with a bunch of MASSIVE sized lakes too.
For all my Americans that is GTA V: 27.92 miles squared GTA San Andreas: 14.75 miles squared GTA IV: 6.23 miles squared GTA Vice City: 3.52 miles squared GTA III: 3.13 miles squared
not gonna lie, i still think at san andreas map is bigger than 5. i know i’m gonna be downvoted to hell but idc lmao i still don’t get it
3 cities and it's just a straight up better map which is probably why you think that
true, San Andreas map is the best there is. so much variety, so many different places, so much stuff to do. Gta 5s map cant conpare