This map ruined the game

This map ruined the game

Why do Rockstar never venture to the pacific north west?

Why is every GTA an island?

Because having a "Turn back, cunt. You've gone too far." message pop up is annoying.

The series takes place long after the event of the film "Waterworld"

Couldn't they do the same thing they do with water on land? Just make it a vast desert

Because I fucked your mom

Morrowind thread?

post the map with all the gta areas combined

Do you prefer invisible walls all over the place? Do you have a better idea for keeping the player within the map limits without ruining the immersion?

I like the amount of country and forest we got but it really needed another city. The feeling of traveling through the world in SA was amazing. V has some of that but the multiple protag thing kind of marred it.

Really it was the plot and the characters that ruined it for me. The plot was a fucking mess and getting paid from a heist only to lose most of it was such complete horseshit. Heist should have been another activity to do instead of being only story related events.

Also, not enough criminal activities to do. I want to make meth with Trevor, or rob trap houses with Franklin but for a game about crime they really give you fuck all to do. I appreciated things like the hit jobs with Franklin but it wasn't enough.

I still come back to it for my crime game/Murding sim fix which is does well but man what a forgettable game when compared to the rest. I was so god damn hyped for this game too.

wew lad

>what is North Yankton

I disagree. It is the best GTA map yet. Liberty City is the worst.

Because then you would be saying some dumb shit like "why is every GTA surrounded by endless desert."

hey, that's not a bad idea

Because making your boat sink followed by you getting eaten by a shark is less annoying for players than "RETURN TO MISSION ZONE IN 10 SECONDS"

Additionally, an endless ocean is easier to create than an endless landmass.

>Do you prefer invisible walls all over the place?

Yes, because they aren't all over the place, they're at the edges of the obviously playable area of the map, like in every open world game ever. You have some form of objective in the area you are in, that's immersive enough for me to not fuck off like a moron.

How stupid do you have to be to continuously try to go out of the boundaries of the map? Did you spend the majority of your time playing GTA swimming around the outskirts?

Some parts could be desert, some water some impassable mountains

GTA's landmarks are its land vehicles. It would be easier and more intuitive for the player to drive fast through that "vast desert" than getting onto a boat and reach the limit.

No you have more factors to animate/take into account on land. On water it's literally just you swimming, boats and planes, with planes already being dealt with due to height restriction.
Doesn't matter though, people will still be complaining it's surrounded by water, desert, mountains, whatever the fuck.

>The entire USA being made up of Island cities in the GTA universe isn't breaking immersion

>GTA:SA had 4 islands
>GTA:V has 1
V has a shit map compared to others

SA is shit m8 give it a break

a 5 minute tutorial level where you shoot a few cops and drive in a straight line until a cutscene happens.

SA looks and plays like shit though.

I personally felt it was the terrible game design that ruined the game

San Fierro and Las Venturas expansions when?

Do you forget that freeroaming is part of any GTA? Imagine yourself driving without looking at the map for a while and suddenly crashing with air. The only reasonable solution that comes to my mind would be a city built on a valley with unclinbable hills.

>it's sorrounded by a vast dessert
>Why didn't they just make it an island!?!

>loved the GTA5 single player
>hated the multiplayer
>Rockstar scrapped all plans for SP DLC because the MP makes a trillion dollars per minute

>loved the GTA5 single player
Very scary stuff, you should be thrown in jail.

Nothing wrong with island nations.

So if you don't care then why the fuck are making a point about it. It's not immersion breaking, it's better than endless desert, so shut the fuck up.

That sounds stupid.

> the entire US is only three cities
You've got more problems than the other guy. Besides-

San Fran is bordered by water on three sides.
Manhattan is New York City's largest hub and an island.
Miami is half islands and sand barriers.
LA is a coastal city.

Vegas is the only land locked city they've done and North Yankton wasn't an island.

Stop hating. It was a good game with good characters. Except for Trevor and Franklin. They sucked.

Yes because having endless land would be fucking weird and you would also never be able to drive along the coast. It looks better and it functions better so fuck with your pansy wining. You probably don't even play GTA V ever so just fuck off already.

Blatantly based on North Dakota or Minnesota?

1) It's not the entire USA. We've seen 5 cities so far, plus Anywhere City (which is not entirely sorrounded by sea btw)
2) You don't need to feel that you're on murrrica to enjoy GTA's landscapes

Stop being a pretencious cuck

>this game will be 3 years old in 2 months

God where does the time go?

in*

sorry

>write post about my opinions on the game and map
>all people argue about is how the GTA map is an island.

Get fucked Sup Forums, no one here wants any discussion so fuck this thread.

>play mp
>no one ever leaves the city limits
>players so limited you're still lucky just to run into anyone

I don't get why people dislike Vs map.

Los Santos is huge, varied city with unique districts that flow into each other well, and is the largest single city the series has ever had.

The rest of the map offers all the types of open world playgrounds GTAs mechanics can benefit from - hill areas, mountain areas and steep roads, wide views, flat desert areas, long roads that span the whole map, even long stretches of varied bridges that can help make flight interesting. It has a large stretch of inland water, rapids, big waterfalls.

What the fuck else do you want from it?

>but wasted space
Sure, it's density map isn't going to be uniform but why should it be? Some locations like flat desert or Chiliad being a fuckhuge mountain inherently take up more space to do what they do. They're not taking away space from other things, either.

What about writing a blog then? This is a discussion site.

>good characters
>except for 2 of the 3 characters

are you even reading what you're typing?

all the cities in gta are fictional
they don't need to be like their real life counterpart, hence the island maps

I agree with your first point, I liked GTA V's map, it had a good bit of detail, but most of the area north of Los Santos felt so underutilized. It really would have benefited to have a larger city or town somewhere to the north that was also used more heavily by the story. Shady Sands gets used a bit, but it's not really a true city or town. There's the town to the far north which gets used in one whole heist and never really touched again. The reason I liked SA's map so much is that a lot of space was utilized sometime through the story, arguably maybe not so much the badlands, but I liked how there were specific sections of the game that utilized that map/city space. GTA V had a nice map, but you rarely had a reason to do a lot of exploring north of Los Santos unless you just wanted to explore for exploration's sake.

>The entire USA being renamed in the GTA universe isn't breaking immersion

>All of GTA5 only had 3 characters

Come on.

I'm saying the other guy's complaint about being islands is retarded based on the actual geography of the real cities they're based on.

As I posted , while the map is very well detailed, so much of it is underutilized. I suppose you could argue that the map sees more utilization with multiplayer, but I would have liked to see more areas play a role in the singleplayer instead of most of the game being Los Santos and a bit of Shady Sands.

It just doesn't break my immersion because I know there's a reason why the character is in the area they are in. I turn away from the boundary and carry on because I know im not supposed to leave.

Jesus Christ that's nit picking. It was pretty much a joke comment, but still, the islands have massive stretches of ocean that are a little beyond the stretches of water that border some of the cities you've mentioned/ they're based on.

For example, Manhattan has been the basis for a shit ton of open world games but you can still see the surroundings in the distance. The game is set in Manhattan, so you know that's where you should be exploring. Seeing the outside regions just builds up your immersion.

>You've got more problems than the other guy.
>Stop being a pretentious cock
Okay you guys are reaching a bit now.

You seem a touch frustrated.

>that moment when you get caught by those two cops and you get stuck in that town in the middle of nowhere for a while

I enjoyed the fuck out of SA

that's it
i'm done with this board
goodbye children

It's more picturesque to make it an island and it makes boats more useful.

To expand they could have done something more with properties, have more properties scattered about and actually make them have a purpose, the game had plenty of potential for properties to make a comeback, but what we got were useless things to spend money on that don't have any purpose, you can't even make a return on them in a sane amount of time.

I always loved the transition to a new area in the story, that first time you enter San Fierro after burning all the weed is one of my favorite parts of SA.

Didn't the devs explain this by saying the game takes place in the world where the icecaps already melted?

Or did I hallucinate that?

>good game
mechanically i suppose it was solid
>good characters
>mah niggaaaaaaa, so randum xD, get off my lawn, and le plain jane in black
>good characters

Your shit taste won't be missed :)
Also, you were a kid when you played SA, let's not pretend otherwise.

That's fucking stupid. How would that be any better?

Sweet. Now boats are useless and in return we get...oh nothing.

Great idea user

No. What ruined the game were Buyable jets and homo launchers.

The furthest they should've went with armed air vehicles was the Savage, and it shouldn't have had nonstop rockets, and it should've costed upward of 3m, because the cannon itself is fucking OP.

Hydra shouldn't have been buyable.

Homo Launchers shouldn't have existed.

>North Dakota/Minnesota
>pacific northwest

>I've never played SA2B

So what's wrong with this image?

besides 19 hours spent in ms paint

It's wearing disco platform shoes. Pretty cool

Based on what Sup Forums said I was expecting trevor to be lel so randum but he wasn't really

He was just a bit insane, he had motives for why he did most of the things he did

I don't agree with him either, but to be fair, boats were always useless and boring, except for (maybe) Vice City, where you had a massive portion of water in between two tiny islands.

too much mountains

>pic for ants
there was an attempt i guess
also aesthetically unpleasing as fuck desu neko chan

WHY IS THE AIRPORT SO FUCKING BIG

What if I told you that you can climb them

>impassable mountains

Fuck off ubishill

The map should be bordered by endless, procedurally generated land and an endless highway running through it.

and if you drive across it for more than 100 miles you eventually come across a hidden town

I get they wanted to limit vast distances of land, but the map being 50% mountains/big ass hills just fucking made it boring to travel and no missions ever took place on those hills.

Remember me?

>What's wrong with his image besides the poor aesthetics from it being a quick job in ms paint
>the aesthetics are shit

Way to go champs.

He's not your typical psycho. He fakes or exagerates most of it, I think that's the whole point of its character, not being a borderline Joker.

Why would a major coastal city have no major land routes in or out?
Though the missions involving shit like mining and major shipping stations would be cool.

That and beaches are more aesthetically pleasing in terms of escapism than lodes of mountain forests and its hard to have both.

He was still so randum XD the character. now I gottta meditate, or masturbate, OR BOTH XD omg im gonna FUCK U IF U DONT SHUT UP XDDD

He was the most uninteresting character in the entire game. Saying a whole fucking lot since Franklin was also in the game.

never ever
sadly

Also Undead DLC for GTA V when ? probably never ? ; _ ;

>besides the poor aesthetics
But you didn't say that. Are you even keeping up?

no post the other one

Ubi and Besthesda failed because their games are so bugged that you can climb the mounstains in their games if you try hard enough.

I wasn't in love with trevor, I probably spent most of my time playing as franklin just for his driving power, but people really seem to exaggerate the problems the characters had in the game

>50% of the map is mountains, forcing forests and other interesting areas to be cramped and too close to roads / towns

>tfw I spent more time in MP driving on the freeway in my customized cars than I did on any of the activities
I just like cruising, okay?

>So what's wrong with this image?
>besides 19 hours spent in ms paint
>Copied and pasted mountains to make it seem like part of a bigger land mass

>everyone complains about the mountains being shit

Use your head. It could be anything other than mountains, the point is that it's not just an island anymore.

I'm fucking done, god damn morons.

Nah, his problems are rightfully talked about. The rest of the game was just so fucking boring.

Needed some single player DLC
It's not a bad game by any means, but I have no desire to replay it unlike other GTA games

Los Santos isn't the problem

it's literally everything that's _not_ Los Santos. There's no reason to go out and explore the rest of the map outside of missions that tell you to go there because there's literally nothing out there. Just a few properties at end game, clothes stores that have the exact same items as the ones in Los Santos, and Los Santos Customs with the exact same modifications available as the ones littered around Los Santos.

The problem is that it doesn't reward the player for choosing to leave Los Santos, mostly because Los Santos has everything and more than what you get from every other part of the map combined.

Maybe you just don't like GTA?

AESTHETICS
motherfucker
not the "mountains being shit". I was visualizing properly designed mountains, but it was still shit. It doesn't even fix the original problem, only procedural generation does.

You're literally so fucking stubborn over a shit idea you never should have had in the first place. Get over it LOL

>>everyone complains about the mountains being shit
1 post was about mountains being shit. The other 2 are that the aesthetics of 'unpassable' landmasses being shit regardless of what they are. Deserts are ugly to look at, mountains are eyesores, beaches are nice and comfy.
Tell me what other landmasses are there that prevent most travel wholesale?

I like collecting cars for the garage lists in 3, why the fuck did they get rid of that? That was the best part. Then being able to get that car whenever you want, it was the perfect reward. Fuck rockstar.

So let's get down to business and do what this thread really was made for.

What do you want to see from the next GTA map? Londonfags stay away. What city? Bigger or smaller?

I'd perosnally like to see some canadian border big map with medium sized towns instead of huge cities and go around on a truck while it snows and listening to redneck shit. Make the criminal element about a Truck gang that smuggles drug to canada or some shit

Nah I loved all of them so far. Not a huge fan of johnny's dlc (but it was a refreshing take) nor SA though, but the rest were fantastic.
V was just dull. Everything from how cars handle to the characters was flat.

>was so god damn hyped for this game
i know that feel

With no one discussing the game besides stupid fucking indivisible wall bullshit.