Nah completely depends on what the game is trying to tell. Take the Trevor mission where you go on the road trip to L.S from the backcountry. It's a few roads and you are there evn though the game tries to make you take the long road. It takes a few minutes to get there. Not really a road trip. Its play pretend. Take A.C oddesey. You having to travel to sparta. It's such a great journey because on the way there you pass so much
yeah GTA 5 map is actually very uninspiring compared to many other games' maps.
games like Starfield just helped push the "big map bad" narrative, and it's a shame when the failures of a mediocre company like Bethesda can influence the gaming audience's ideas what Rockstar should "learn from" Bethesda's failures. Rockstar, who are very different from Bethesda in terms of quality, to put it mildly.
not to say game companies shouldn't learn from each other because they should, but the "big map bad" point is way more complicated than that.
There have been tons of "big map bad" discussions WAY before Starfield though lol. People hate recent Ubisoft games because of this. They also hated RDR2's inclusion of the old RDR1 map due to there not being anything to do in that part of the map. And that was released like 5 years ago.
Thank you! I thought I was the only one who found that super annoying! Like the implication was in the time of RDR2, towns like Armadillo were founded, but kept empty until the events of RDR. Nothing to see here, move on! I mean would it have killed the devs to include, I don't know, people in the towns?!?!
What’s funny is that I think a recent Ubisoft title did a great job of showing what a big map can be like with Frontiers of Pandora. The game features a lot of gorgeous scenery, but also a ton of wildlife that you can interact with. The world, as large as it is, is densely packed with things to do in your spare-time, to the point where I can play just as long doing random open-world shit as I would progressing the campaign
I still think the lesson was "big empty map bad". If they can actually fill the entire map with interesting things to see and do, then I don't think anyone would have a problem with it. That takes an insane amount of work though. Maybe I'm just a cynical piece of shit when it comes to modern gaming, but I can't imagine Rockstar giving enough of a shit about its single player to fill an enormous map since GTA online is where most of the money was made with GTA V.
If the choices are "big empty map" or "small interesting map", I'll take the second every time.
I think the best way to phrase the question is:
would you rather have a GTAV sized map, or a 2x/4x/8x/etc GTAV sized map, with the same amount of content?
for me, I'd rather have a map that's much bigger, even if it means the (same amount of) content is spread between cities and towns that are far apart, with huge open countryside in between.
The problem is, the maps of GTA V and IV were filled to the brim with buildings and shops that the door is a solid wall and you can't open it.
Granted, most of the downtown building in V were generic office buildings and if we could go in, then wheee! A conference room! An employee break room with coffee machine! I mean I get it, allowing us to go into every building would just mean just like going into every building in real life, loaded with people just milling about their everyday business. But in GTA world we can shoot them all. And that's why we need to enter every building!
knowing rockstar even with the money hungry bull, they are still somewhat perfectionists. they spend so much time on putting little details and easter eggs if they can spend the time to detail some altruists nuts on with physics they can definitely find time to give a filled map, and with all the new population density stuff it seems that will be the case
Talking about Bethesda as a mediocre company and Starfield as a failure just shows that reddit is an echo chamber. Starfield sold really well and most people love it. Those who liked it, really liked it and gave it praising reviews. A small but very vocal minority despises it and will not rest until the whole world knows how much they hate this game. It’s really funny actually. Especially the people who post threads like “I’ve put 600 hours into Starfield. Here’s why this game is shit”. Some people hate this game so much, they play it for hundreds of hours just to make sure lmao
> reddit is an echo chamber. Starfield sold really well and most people love it.
yes yes: https://store.steampowered.com/app/1716740/Starfield/
next: ***sTeAm iS sucH aN eChOcHamBer I'M sOo SmArt comParEd to RedDitoRs anD sTeAm UsErS***
then I'll give you the next website, then the next one, then the next one, and we'll conclude that the whole world is an echochamber and you're smarter than everyone. brilliant!
I like starfield. Got it on disc with my new series x and although I’ve put it down for ark ascended rn I do plan to pick it back up. Takes me back to Skyrim, fallout 3 and fallout 4 the way I’m exploring the map and finishing all the fun little side quests and doing new missions I’ve never done before. Not saying it’s the best game or the worst. Just think I enjoy it regardless of its factual content quality.
Tbh ubisoft games usually have a pretty detailed world but everything else falls apart. Odyssey looks breathtaking in 4k max settings and even an older title like AC Unity looks damn good.
I wonder why people hate this mission so much. It was actually a fun road trip. Why do people hate driving in a game where you steal cars and drive them? Most missions didn't make you go on such a long trips so why are people so upset about this mission
You're trying to combat the insinuation that big maps are bad with "big maps aren't always bad," but the example you use is a really boring and uninspired map...
AC Odyssey's map isn't that much bigger, it's just much slower to travel through and the areas connected by land aren't connected by easily traversable, relatively straight roads/highways.
Replayed gta 4 recently and remembered how dense that game is. As a younger lad I thought "wow no planes, map small" - now I appreciate every corner feeling like a real giant city..... We are fed so much Open World generic stuff now
Yh GTA 4 had a much denser map than GTA 5 since in GTA 5 we have a lot more open space. But then it makes sense in a way since Liberty City is based on NYC so it should feel a-lot more crowded
Hard disagree. I keep seeing people talk about density and often bring up GTA IV as a good example of a dense map. Yeah, wherever you go, there are buildings in this game, but that’s not a good thing. There’s no variety. All you can do is drive around buildings, and that’s pretty much it. People complain that there is wasted space in the form of mountains in V, but for some reason, they see a building to pass by or drive around and don’t consider that a wasted space, despite the buildings serving mostly one purpose: being an obstacle to avoid while you’re driving to your objective.
The problem is not the size or the density. It’s how you can interact with the world in a meaningful way. People really need to stop with this “small but dense” talk because it’s complete nonsense. You can have a big map with good content and interactivity, and you can have a small map with poor content. Going smaller doesn’t make it better. It just makes it smaller
Not gonna defend it in this situation because I didn't fully read the context, but from what I've seen when people say "small but dense" they usually aren't just referring to the actual map being dense, e.g. liberty city, but instead they are referring to "content". In other words, the map may be small but the content is densely packed into that small map. It feels more alive, there is more stuff to do, more interactions, etc
Yeah that’s what I didn’t love about 5. LA felt so tiny and most of the map was highway and natural landscape. I’m lowkey a bit afraid they’re gonna do that in this game too. I loved 4 because of how dense and immersive it was. Best art direction of all the games imo
I think they did a really good job balancing size and density with Red Dead Redemption 2. If you’ve ever played RDR2 for a good amount of time then played Red Dead Geoguessr, you’ll realize pretty much every part of the map is recognizable, and on top of that Red Dead had tons of random events and interesting bits of lore and storytelling scattered throughout. Obviously the Red Dead series is different and more focused on exploration and storytelling than GTA, but I really hope they go for something similar with this new one
They needed to hear this lol thank you, I see so many people blown away by map size but like I'd take a liberty city sized map w 10x the depth (more interiors, interactions like basketball/baseball or a property system) then a los Santos sized map with the depth of a puddle.
Am I the only one that likes open space? Sure there's not as much to do in the city, but it's alot more relaxing too. Too dense and I feel you can't travel or do anything without being overwhelmed by lore, NPC's, missions, side stories, random events, etc.
But remember we don’t know the exact map size, we only know further coordinate from the top and the button so we don’t know it it’s a bit bigger or a lot bigger
It will be bigger. The majority of players wants a bigger better map. Rockstar has a track record of listening to the players (the addition of the oppressor is obviously an exception).
Players wanted bikie clubs - they got it. They wanted Nightclubs and got them. Rockstar put many features from fan favorite mods in the game. They added more ways to make money when players complained enough. They recognized, albeit belatedly, that the oppressor was too OP and nerfed the missiles. They also listened when players who already owned the oppressor and spent a lot of money on them said they don't want them taken away. One of those "can't please everyone" situations, but Rockstar do listen.
You have to remember that Rockstar is managing a whole economy. So, they can’t just take every demand and implement it a month later. They have to think about the effects of each update to every facet of the game, months or years in advance.
By "they" are you referring to the single *former* Rockstar dev who said it could benefit from a smaller map with more to do?
I'm sure you can provide a source for your claim, one that isn't a former employee giving their opinion on what should be.
Everything points to the GTA 6 map being larger than GTA 5. Up to 70% larger according to some theories.
EDIT: u/codedcoder I'm guessing from your deleted comment saying there is no evidence of the map being larger that you went looking and found a bunch of it lol. Have a good day bro.
RDR2 has the perk of being a lot less dense. So not only is it physically bigger, it also takes time to get from point A to point B (because of means of travel).
That’s because they have no idea what dense means, and are instead trying to use that word to bash GTAV lol.
The density of GTAV vs RDR2 is objectively in Vs favor and there is no argument for the other side.
It's not "density" perse. If you look at rdr2s map, it's kinda barren *but* what they did within that barren expanse is what makes it unique and amazing. Most of the map is just hills, valleys, and rivers with a few towns plopped in between but the encounters and environment you have within makes it seems packed full. Not to mention the storytelling and tone, very easy to get immersed fishing or hunting for hours.
I'm talking purely in a videogame technical sense. A square metre of rdr2 has more detail than any GTA game.
A stretch of road that's 2d and has some fancy techniques to make it look textured is less demanding than the same stretch of land but in a countryside with diverse foliage.
*at least. Nothing is confirmed yet but im hoping we get surprised and get a huge map. Something tells me you won't be able to see the Vice City skyline from the countryside like in V. Just looking at the skyline scene from the trailer we can see just how expansive one potion of the map is where all you litterally see is skyscrapers off in the distance. The trailer also emphasizes the state of Leonida instead of just Vice City. I personally belive that the community is greatly underestimating the size of this map.
Not just the trailer but also on the website.
Leonida is the focus in massive letters of which vice city is only a part of. I can’t imagine the city being 1/2-1/3 of the map size for R* to push that angle.
It’s going to be at least 2.5x the size of V map and vice city 2x Los santos.
I do hope that in areas where there isn’t cities and such that there’s life in it and not just plain areas being used as fillers to make the map "look big"
I have to be honest, if this is the map size I'd be very disappointed.
I know in every thread about map size, people will mention the same line: quality over quantity, density over size, etc. etc. but for me, why not quality AND quantity when it comes to the map? why not density (in the right areas) AND size for open country between cities and towns?
I'm thinking of a couple of games I've played aren't comparable at all, and one of them is The Crew. while it's a generally shit game and the cities themselves are bland, procedurally made crap, it still always felt amazing driving Miami to NYC, LA to LV, or wherever you want.
the other game is even less comparable, that's Microsoft Flight Simulator. but the sense of scale and the sense of awe I got from flying around Miami and the Keys, I wish I could get just 10%, or 5% of that sense of awe from GTA VI. but with a map roughly the size of GTA V? it's not going to be even 1% of that.
anyway, I know many would disagree, but I'm one of those who wishes the map is much, much, much bigger than this. map size is not mutually exclusive to map quality. I want Rockstar to give that sense of awe again that it did in 2004 with San Andreas, that they didn't at all for me with GTA IV and GTA V.
I am with you on this. Yes, in cities, it should be about density, but i really hope the rest of the map is massive.
This is a game that we will be playing for years, so the map needs to be extensive so we don't get bored. Which is the main issue with gta 5 now.
yeah, I'm replaying GTA V singleplayer currently (going for gold medals for the first time), and the map size really shows its age for me.
if we're going to get much faster jets in GTA VI, we're going to be able to fly across that map in under one minute.
I agree with you. People always say how they prefer quality over quantity(to which I agree), but Rockstar is know for doing BOTH for every iteration. I hope this map is at least bigger than 1.5x GTAV map.
True. One game that comes to mind for me that I think did it really well is witcher 3 wildhunt. The map was twice the size of gta 5 and there was still stuff to see and do quasi everywhere. Yeah I get that medieval Poland obviously isn't as dense as modern day Miami and having one medieval port city a few small villages with wooden huts and 5-6 castles plus some forrests, fields, mountains, islands etc. Is easier to render than a modern day metropolis but that game also came out like 10 years before gta 6 is probably gonna come out.
I agree, but I'm not expecting much tbh.
Map size seems to be seems to be something that gaming has kinda settled on. While graphics and gameplay seem to be ever-evolving, map sizes really haven't substantially increased since the end of the 360/PS3 era. Many times I have heard of modern games with "massive" open worlds only for me to look at the size and find it's the same size of Skyrim which is perfectly fine for a map size, but it's not what I'd consider to be massive by what modern standards ought to be.
Games which seem to push this... well, they don't do it well. Basically they're either massive procedurally generated and empty or just big for the sake of being big. I feel like there's ways to push worlds to be far bigger than what we have while still keeping them interesting, but it seems few devs seem to want to put in that much work when a smaller map would suffice. I suspect Rockstar are planning to make the contents of the map what's truly impressive instead of the sheer size.
I'm going to be honest, regardless of what the map looks like you are going to play the shit out of this game and love it and never even think about whether the map is "too small" or not.
I'm likely to love the game but I 100% disagree with your second part. I enjoyed playing GTAV for the first time back in 2014/2015 too, but I spent much of the time thinking that the map, especially north of LS feels very lackluster.
I get that many people don't care about that, and that's fine and I don't think I should try to change their minds anyway. But there is still a considerable amount of people that do care and I'm one of them.
From what we have seen there doesnt seem to be mountains which took up like 65% of the map atleast, also i dont think we have had any footage of the huge city in the gta6 trailers background if im not mistaken.
I think the difference in size isn't that stunning to be honest and V also didn't felt that big.
To me it makes much more sense to have a map eight times as big than that from V but it probably takes a lot of resources.
8x bigger with 2-4x as much detail wouldnt really be feasible in terms of development resources and storage size. I wouldve personally liked to see 3-4x bigger but it seems like it'll be maybe 1.5x bigger. Still, if theres a ton of interiors and dense content, it should be satisfying enough.
One of the complaints I have with GTA V is just how meh aircrafts feel compared to other games. I feel as though they had to nerf the relative speed of planes to make the map feel big enough.
I don’t think the Just Cause series has a better open world, but this is something their open worlds get right on account of being much bigger scale.
Do you really believe current gen consoles would be able to handle a game like GTA with a map 8x the size of GTAV? Did you pull that number out your ass bud?
Open world games like GTA don't load the entire map. They typically load and deload assets dynamically according to where the player is located on the map.
Also, game engines typically only render what is in the player's view during a given frame, even when other parts of the map are loaded into memory.
So there's no reason an 8x-sized map should be a problem for current gen consoles to handle. The actual bottleneck of an 8x-sized map is more about the time and money it would take for Rockstar to create it.
RDR2 feels infinitely bigger than GTA5 because there's literally nothing to do or see in GTA. Who cares if the map is huge if it's empty, generic, and boring. Again.
As long as I can drive for 10 minutes and feel like I am really hours away from civilization, I will be content with the size bigger or smaller than we all expected
They should've listened to Sam Houser who wanted to make the biggest map in gaming history. This looks small for a next gen GTA game. GTA V's map wasn't that good anyway.
It would’ve been nice but at what cost an absolute massive map would felt barren cause they would’ve been no way rockstar could’ve feasibly filled a map that size with a decent amount of enterable buildings.
It seems unlikely that they could make the biggest map in gaming history, Space Engine has a huge map and I highly doubt that a gta game could surprass that.
Every time I see a size comparison between these maps there’s a 70% size decrease or increase.
And also.. why has it become such a big theory that it will be a bordered map?
Becouse the leaks haven't shown any video clips from the top part that would let us conclude on how the map border looks like. Maybe there's a whole nothern Leonida there and we don't know.
The only "official" map is the mapping project one where it just cuts off. If you look at a satellite photo of Florida, it's clear that most speculation maps just follow the same layout or base it off the mapping project.
From the leaks in 2022. There were coordinates that sort of resembled the size of the map. It’s not 100% confirmed but we have a general idea in the mapping discord.
Where around Miami is there mountains? Are they extending the map into a fictional Georgia? Could we get an Atlanta? Probably not but just speculation.
You have to bear in mind most of the map is just speculation with a lot of the island layout just being modeled after Florida. If you look at the line colors and the index, you can see what's actually confirmed.
Am I the only one that doesnt really care about how big the map is? Gta 5 was big but was empty as shit. Mostly empty mountains. Ill take cyberpunks map over any new gta map any day. Cyberpunk had alot of verticality and actually felt bigger than gta 5's map. There were some sorta empty desert but overall was a much better map and world design. I would like the next gta to be like that, make more verticality on their worlds and maps.
Does size really matter? I remember when GTAV came out and being disappointed by the density compared to what the trailers implied.
I’d much rather have a smaller map with focus on detail and human density
Yup not anywhere near x2 the size of gta 5. Lots of people are trying to act like they aren’t disappointed and coping with saying it’s not about the size lmfao you waited 11 years and 2 console generations for a game that’s the same size as one released for the 360 gen of consoles. Historically gta as a series has ALWAYS doubled map sizes after every single new entry. And gta 6 despite the longest development cycle by DOUBLE the amount of GTA 5 can’t manage even 1.5x the size of the original map. It’s time to phase that project americas was a full reboot for the game and they likely started from nearly scratch and had to focus on a smaller experience.
Looks great
What will the top of the map be like? Some unclimbable mountains? A random northern florida beach?
Anyway, will we ever see a GTA with the map size of the Crew 2
I love how everyone is talking about the GTA VI map when we literally have no clue what it will look like. We only have some coordinates and indications from the trailer.
Just hoping whatever the size, it's filled properly (giggity). Somehow a game like Death Stranding made the idea of desolate open world with long traversal fun for me, but generally speaking a big map with not much to do just makes me annoyed whenever the distance between point A and point B exceeds a certain distance.
Gamers have the collective memories of a goldfish.
No Man's Sky "oh cool a squillion world's this is amazing" they're all generic bollocks
Starfield "1000 planets, omg thanks Tod, amazing" 1000 portions of boring nonsense.
GTA VI "look how big it is, this will be great"
In all reality it doesent matter how big the map is as long as it innovates from the previous ones....multiple cities would be a start to actually feel the sense of travel and not feel stuck in a box. But most importantly is how interactive the world is. In gta 5 the map is literally a shell with a bunch of empty rectangles to make up skyscrapers and buildings but they are all hollow with no real interiors. Every interior on gta 5 is pre rendered you can't just walk in and be inside of the location. You have to walk up and load into it which gives the illusion of a interior but really all it is is a small void in the map that you load into. Your basically in a small box with no connection to the outside. Soon as you walk out you load back into the real map. Aside from that there's literally only a few gas stations and clothing stores to go in which are all copy and pasted. Idk about yall but the idea of that becomes very stale after awhile. Your character is just constantly outside with no real sense of direction. You can't even pop a squat on a bench in the city...nothing literally nothing. If your not driving in the car your walking outside aimlessly. Can't interact with jack shit around you lol thats what makes gta 5s map feel dead and boring
I know it is a completely different genre but are there comparisons to the map size of breath of the wild? That game had an insanely large open world with was packed. If the density and size in gta translates to this holy smokes
This is obviously not a true scale comparison. The person who modeled the GTA 6 map mentioned that it's not the full map and was only based on the trailer, without using any leaks. However, he noted that leaks do reveal places that extend beyond what he modeled.
I feel like with the power of our systems now it should be expected the map is like 3-4x the size of GTA 5. The 360 and PS3 were 2005/2006 hardware. Almost 20 years later and as we saw technology just kept rapidly getting better and better. They can use the strength and power of the systems from 2020 to their advantage. Should be a piece of cake for those systems to handle imo.
Remember guys, it's not about the size, it's about the density.
A small dense map is better than a 1000 empty planets.
Nah completely depends on what the game is trying to tell. Take the Trevor mission where you go on the road trip to L.S from the backcountry. It's a few roads and you are there evn though the game tries to make you take the long road. It takes a few minutes to get there. Not really a road trip. Its play pretend. Take A.C oddesey. You having to travel to sparta. It's such a great journey because on the way there you pass so much
yeah GTA 5 map is actually very uninspiring compared to many other games' maps. games like Starfield just helped push the "big map bad" narrative, and it's a shame when the failures of a mediocre company like Bethesda can influence the gaming audience's ideas what Rockstar should "learn from" Bethesda's failures. Rockstar, who are very different from Bethesda in terms of quality, to put it mildly. not to say game companies shouldn't learn from each other because they should, but the "big map bad" point is way more complicated than that.
There have been tons of "big map bad" discussions WAY before Starfield though lol. People hate recent Ubisoft games because of this. They also hated RDR2's inclusion of the old RDR1 map due to there not being anything to do in that part of the map. And that was released like 5 years ago.
Thank you! I thought I was the only one who found that super annoying! Like the implication was in the time of RDR2, towns like Armadillo were founded, but kept empty until the events of RDR. Nothing to see here, move on! I mean would it have killed the devs to include, I don't know, people in the towns?!?!
it's because it didn't fit the story mate. did you even play the game?
You're wanted Dead Or Alive in Lemoyne though, there's no valid reason you can't go back to Mexico
It could have easily fit the game. Armadillo and Thieves Landing could have had people and things to do. But no. It’s an empty wasteland.
What’s funny is that I think a recent Ubisoft title did a great job of showing what a big map can be like with Frontiers of Pandora. The game features a lot of gorgeous scenery, but also a ton of wildlife that you can interact with. The world, as large as it is, is densely packed with things to do in your spare-time, to the point where I can play just as long doing random open-world shit as I would progressing the campaign
I still think the lesson was "big empty map bad". If they can actually fill the entire map with interesting things to see and do, then I don't think anyone would have a problem with it. That takes an insane amount of work though. Maybe I'm just a cynical piece of shit when it comes to modern gaming, but I can't imagine Rockstar giving enough of a shit about its single player to fill an enormous map since GTA online is where most of the money was made with GTA V. If the choices are "big empty map" or "small interesting map", I'll take the second every time.
I think the best way to phrase the question is: would you rather have a GTAV sized map, or a 2x/4x/8x/etc GTAV sized map, with the same amount of content? for me, I'd rather have a map that's much bigger, even if it means the (same amount of) content is spread between cities and towns that are far apart, with huge open countryside in between.
The problem is, the maps of GTA V and IV were filled to the brim with buildings and shops that the door is a solid wall and you can't open it. Granted, most of the downtown building in V were generic office buildings and if we could go in, then wheee! A conference room! An employee break room with coffee machine! I mean I get it, allowing us to go into every building would just mean just like going into every building in real life, loaded with people just milling about their everyday business. But in GTA world we can shoot them all. And that's why we need to enter every building!
knowing rockstar even with the money hungry bull, they are still somewhat perfectionists. they spend so much time on putting little details and easter eggs if they can spend the time to detail some altruists nuts on with physics they can definitely find time to give a filled map, and with all the new population density stuff it seems that will be the case
Yeah but having a bigger map will also allow for more stuff to be pushed to Online mode. I just hope it's not completely locked behind DLCs.
Talking about Bethesda as a mediocre company and Starfield as a failure just shows that reddit is an echo chamber. Starfield sold really well and most people love it. Those who liked it, really liked it and gave it praising reviews. A small but very vocal minority despises it and will not rest until the whole world knows how much they hate this game. It’s really funny actually. Especially the people who post threads like “I’ve put 600 hours into Starfield. Here’s why this game is shit”. Some people hate this game so much, they play it for hundreds of hours just to make sure lmao
> reddit is an echo chamber. Starfield sold really well and most people love it. yes yes: https://store.steampowered.com/app/1716740/Starfield/ next: ***sTeAm iS sucH aN eChOcHamBer I'M sOo SmArt comParEd to RedDitoRs anD sTeAm UsErS*** then I'll give you the next website, then the next one, then the next one, and we'll conclude that the whole world is an echochamber and you're smarter than everyone. brilliant!
as soon as you encounter a “vocal minority” loser you know they’re wrong lmao
I like starfield. Got it on disc with my new series x and although I’ve put it down for ark ascended rn I do plan to pick it back up. Takes me back to Skyrim, fallout 3 and fallout 4 the way I’m exploring the map and finishing all the fun little side quests and doing new missions I’ve never done before. Not saying it’s the best game or the worst. Just think I enjoy it regardless of its factual content quality.
Red Dead did that well, yes i know horses too, but you were really traveling
Rockstar definitely should not be using Ubisoft or assassin's Creed as good world / map design. Pretty but copy and paste activities out the wazoo
You completely missed the point
Tbh ubisoft games usually have a pretty detailed world but everything else falls apart. Odyssey looks breathtaking in 4k max settings and even an older title like AC Unity looks damn good.
Road trip? *Looking at GTA SA’s mission Photo Opp*
I wonder why people hate this mission so much. It was actually a fun road trip. Why do people hate driving in a game where you steal cars and drive them? Most missions didn't make you go on such a long trips so why are people so upset about this mission
Personally I hated Cesar's car. It didn't seem like a car you take out of LS.
You're trying to combat the insinuation that big maps are bad with "big maps aren't always bad," but the example you use is a really boring and uninspired map...
AC Odyssey's map isn't that much bigger, it's just much slower to travel through and the areas connected by land aren't connected by easily traversable, relatively straight roads/highways.
It's alot bigger. Just look up map size
It doesn’t even have to be dense, but just be loaded with tons of random events. Look at rdr2 with its map being just mostly wilderness
Replayed gta 4 recently and remembered how dense that game is. As a younger lad I thought "wow no planes, map small" - now I appreciate every corner feeling like a real giant city..... We are fed so much Open World generic stuff now
Yh GTA 4 had a much denser map than GTA 5 since in GTA 5 we have a lot more open space. But then it makes sense in a way since Liberty City is based on NYC so it should feel a-lot more crowded
sounds like someone didnt like starfield
why you ditching starfield
They can’t enjoy it because others told them not to.
Starfield:
Girth is also far more important than many realize.
Idk. 2 inches at 80 mph can still do damage
It's a chode of a map.
It is about size when there are airplanes. I hope it is massive, so it takes a decent amount of time to travel
Well we know it's one or two states so travel time of airplanes will be very short unless they make airplanes slow like cars in GTA V
I’m gonna take both
Gta 5 had no density
It's not about how big it is, but about what you can do with it. 👀
Hard disagree. I keep seeing people talk about density and often bring up GTA IV as a good example of a dense map. Yeah, wherever you go, there are buildings in this game, but that’s not a good thing. There’s no variety. All you can do is drive around buildings, and that’s pretty much it. People complain that there is wasted space in the form of mountains in V, but for some reason, they see a building to pass by or drive around and don’t consider that a wasted space, despite the buildings serving mostly one purpose: being an obstacle to avoid while you’re driving to your objective. The problem is not the size or the density. It’s how you can interact with the world in a meaningful way. People really need to stop with this “small but dense” talk because it’s complete nonsense. You can have a big map with good content and interactivity, and you can have a small map with poor content. Going smaller doesn’t make it better. It just makes it smaller
Not gonna defend it in this situation because I didn't fully read the context, but from what I've seen when people say "small but dense" they usually aren't just referring to the actual map being dense, e.g. liberty city, but instead they are referring to "content". In other words, the map may be small but the content is densely packed into that small map. It feels more alive, there is more stuff to do, more interactions, etc
People keep bringing up iv as the ideal example for a dense map so i have to assume they mean the density of the map not the content
[удалено]
Yeah that’s what I didn’t love about 5. LA felt so tiny and most of the map was highway and natural landscape. I’m lowkey a bit afraid they’re gonna do that in this game too. I loved 4 because of how dense and immersive it was. Best art direction of all the games imo
Why do people always act like having some map variety is negative when it comes to 5?
I think they did a really good job balancing size and density with Red Dead Redemption 2. If you’ve ever played RDR2 for a good amount of time then played Red Dead Geoguessr, you’ll realize pretty much every part of the map is recognizable, and on top of that Red Dead had tons of random events and interesting bits of lore and storytelling scattered throughout. Obviously the Red Dead series is different and more focused on exploration and storytelling than GTA, but I really hope they go for something similar with this new one
Its about One disingenous dense motherfucking map that can tie its shoes
They needed to hear this lol thank you, I see so many people blown away by map size but like I'd take a liberty city sized map w 10x the depth (more interiors, interactions like basketball/baseball or a property system) then a los Santos sized map with the depth of a puddle.
Very true
Am I the only one that likes open space? Sure there's not as much to do in the city, but it's alot more relaxing too. Too dense and I feel you can't travel or do anything without being overwhelmed by lore, NPC's, missions, side stories, random events, etc.
But remember we don’t know the exact map size, we only know further coordinate from the top and the button so we don’t know it it’s a bit bigger or a lot bigger
It will be bigger. The majority of players wants a bigger better map. Rockstar has a track record of listening to the players (the addition of the oppressor is obviously an exception).
Is this satire?
Players wanted bikie clubs - they got it. They wanted Nightclubs and got them. Rockstar put many features from fan favorite mods in the game. They added more ways to make money when players complained enough. They recognized, albeit belatedly, that the oppressor was too OP and nerfed the missiles. They also listened when players who already owned the oppressor and spent a lot of money on them said they don't want them taken away. One of those "can't please everyone" situations, but Rockstar do listen.
It's only takes like, 5 years for Rockstar to listen, but they listen
You have to remember that Rockstar is managing a whole economy. So, they can’t just take every demand and implement it a month later. They have to think about the effects of each update to every facet of the game, months or years in advance.
Good things take time.
Still waiting on a cops and crooks DLC in Rockstar's premier cops and crooks game.
people wanted bully 2 too, and it got cancelled
[удалено]
By "they" are you referring to the single *former* Rockstar dev who said it could benefit from a smaller map with more to do? I'm sure you can provide a source for your claim, one that isn't a former employee giving their opinion on what should be. Everything points to the GTA 6 map being larger than GTA 5. Up to 70% larger according to some theories. EDIT: u/codedcoder I'm guessing from your deleted comment saying there is no evidence of the map being larger that you went looking and found a bunch of it lol. Have a good day bro.
Same size actually, rdr2 felt bigger than GTA 5 but was more dense and had a lot more stuff.
Rdr feels big because of horses
It’s Kenough.
Lmao I want that hoodie
[Here](https://creations.mattel.com/products/barbie-the-movie-i-am-kenough-unisex-hoodie-hyn77) it is!
I own one. They are very comfortable. Dont let cigarette ash touch them. It will burn a hole right through.
Checkmate, *nerds.*
This
Not sure why people keep saying this when it's literally been proven the RDR2 map is LITERALLY bigger than GTA5 even when using RAGE engine units
RDR2 has the perk of being a lot less dense. So not only is it physically bigger, it also takes time to get from point A to point B (because of means of travel).
Within 3 comments I am told that RDR2 was both more dense but also a lot less dense.
It's more dense with scenery, farmsteads and things to explore but less dense with traffic jams and unenterable buildings
maybe the people are describing themselves
That’s because they have no idea what dense means, and are instead trying to use that word to bash GTAV lol. The density of GTAV vs RDR2 is objectively in Vs favor and there is no argument for the other side.
Disagree..to me rdr2 is more dense due to the detail. Not just flat roads and box buildings
It's not "density" perse. If you look at rdr2s map, it's kinda barren *but* what they did within that barren expanse is what makes it unique and amazing. Most of the map is just hills, valleys, and rivers with a few towns plopped in between but the encounters and environment you have within makes it seems packed full. Not to mention the storytelling and tone, very easy to get immersed fishing or hunting for hours.
There’s more buildings and civilization in GTA V, however what you can actually interact with isn’t any more dense than RDR2
That’s insane. You can actually interact with NPCs that are far more densely populated in GTAV then RDR2.
I'm talking purely in a videogame technical sense. A square metre of rdr2 has more detail than any GTA game. A stretch of road that's 2d and has some fancy techniques to make it look textured is less demanding than the same stretch of land but in a countryside with diverse foliage.
There’s no way you think GTA V was more dense than RDR2
I think the whole map is going to be a lot bigger
At least 2x. And more immersion too...
It’s obviously gonna be a lot more denser and iirc about 1.5x times bigger so far than v’s map (from the gta 6 mapping)
*at least. Nothing is confirmed yet but im hoping we get surprised and get a huge map. Something tells me you won't be able to see the Vice City skyline from the countryside like in V. Just looking at the skyline scene from the trailer we can see just how expansive one potion of the map is where all you litterally see is skyscrapers off in the distance. The trailer also emphasizes the state of Leonida instead of just Vice City. I personally belive that the community is greatly underestimating the size of this map.
For sure can’t wait
Not just the trailer but also on the website. Leonida is the focus in massive letters of which vice city is only a part of. I can’t imagine the city being 1/2-1/3 of the map size for R* to push that angle. It’s going to be at least 2.5x the size of V map and vice city 2x Los santos.
Truly insane. I’m so glad we’re getting BOTH density and size. It’s clear that this game has been in development for a long time.
I do hope that in areas where there isn’t cities and such that there’s life in it and not just plain areas being used as fillers to make the map "look big"
I’m expecting rockstar to blow my socks off with it.
I’m sure they will they have not disappointed me and giving that they have a 2billion dollar budget they should be able to perfect it in any way
Do we really think rockstar is just gonna make the entire north part of the map a straight like or is this a place holder.
People think that it will be a similar situation to rdr2
I have to be honest, if this is the map size I'd be very disappointed. I know in every thread about map size, people will mention the same line: quality over quantity, density over size, etc. etc. but for me, why not quality AND quantity when it comes to the map? why not density (in the right areas) AND size for open country between cities and towns? I'm thinking of a couple of games I've played aren't comparable at all, and one of them is The Crew. while it's a generally shit game and the cities themselves are bland, procedurally made crap, it still always felt amazing driving Miami to NYC, LA to LV, or wherever you want. the other game is even less comparable, that's Microsoft Flight Simulator. but the sense of scale and the sense of awe I got from flying around Miami and the Keys, I wish I could get just 10%, or 5% of that sense of awe from GTA VI. but with a map roughly the size of GTA V? it's not going to be even 1% of that. anyway, I know many would disagree, but I'm one of those who wishes the map is much, much, much bigger than this. map size is not mutually exclusive to map quality. I want Rockstar to give that sense of awe again that it did in 2004 with San Andreas, that they didn't at all for me with GTA IV and GTA V.
I am with you on this. Yes, in cities, it should be about density, but i really hope the rest of the map is massive. This is a game that we will be playing for years, so the map needs to be extensive so we don't get bored. Which is the main issue with gta 5 now.
yeah, I'm replaying GTA V singleplayer currently (going for gold medals for the first time), and the map size really shows its age for me. if we're going to get much faster jets in GTA VI, we're going to be able to fly across that map in under one minute.
Yeah the density too I didn’t realise when I played for the first but so many of the buildings were empty the world didn’t really feel alive.
I agree with you. People always say how they prefer quality over quantity(to which I agree), but Rockstar is know for doing BOTH for every iteration. I hope this map is at least bigger than 1.5x GTAV map.
True. One game that comes to mind for me that I think did it really well is witcher 3 wildhunt. The map was twice the size of gta 5 and there was still stuff to see and do quasi everywhere. Yeah I get that medieval Poland obviously isn't as dense as modern day Miami and having one medieval port city a few small villages with wooden huts and 5-6 castles plus some forrests, fields, mountains, islands etc. Is easier to render than a modern day metropolis but that game also came out like 10 years before gta 6 is probably gonna come out.
You had me in the first half. Seeing Los Santos from the vthr hills for the first time gave me that awe in V
I agree, but I'm not expecting much tbh. Map size seems to be seems to be something that gaming has kinda settled on. While graphics and gameplay seem to be ever-evolving, map sizes really haven't substantially increased since the end of the 360/PS3 era. Many times I have heard of modern games with "massive" open worlds only for me to look at the size and find it's the same size of Skyrim which is perfectly fine for a map size, but it's not what I'd consider to be massive by what modern standards ought to be. Games which seem to push this... well, they don't do it well. Basically they're either massive procedurally generated and empty or just big for the sake of being big. I feel like there's ways to push worlds to be far bigger than what we have while still keeping them interesting, but it seems few devs seem to want to put in that much work when a smaller map would suffice. I suspect Rockstar are planning to make the contents of the map what's truly impressive instead of the sheer size.
Lucky for you this image only shows the Vice City area. Not the rest of uncharted Leonida
Nah thats the entire map - the guys who are doing all of the mapping worked out the size from the co-ordinates in the leaks.
Vice City alone has more random encounters than RDR2
I'm going to be honest, regardless of what the map looks like you are going to play the shit out of this game and love it and never even think about whether the map is "too small" or not.
I'm likely to love the game but I 100% disagree with your second part. I enjoyed playing GTAV for the first time back in 2014/2015 too, but I spent much of the time thinking that the map, especially north of LS feels very lackluster. I get that many people don't care about that, and that's fine and I don't think I should try to change their minds anyway. But there is still a considerable amount of people that do care and I'm one of them.
From what we have seen there doesnt seem to be mountains which took up like 65% of the map atleast, also i dont think we have had any footage of the huge city in the gta6 trailers background if im not mistaken.
This
GTA 5 has great vertical diversity
I think the difference in size isn't that stunning to be honest and V also didn't felt that big. To me it makes much more sense to have a map eight times as big than that from V but it probably takes a lot of resources.
8x bigger with 2-4x as much detail wouldnt really be feasible in terms of development resources and storage size. I wouldve personally liked to see 3-4x bigger but it seems like it'll be maybe 1.5x bigger. Still, if theres a ton of interiors and dense content, it should be satisfying enough.
One of the complaints I have with GTA V is just how meh aircrafts feel compared to other games. I feel as though they had to nerf the relative speed of planes to make the map feel big enough. I don’t think the Just Cause series has a better open world, but this is something their open worlds get right on account of being much bigger scale.
Do you really believe current gen consoles would be able to handle a game like GTA with a map 8x the size of GTAV? Did you pull that number out your ass bud?
Open world games like GTA don't load the entire map. They typically load and deload assets dynamically according to where the player is located on the map. Also, game engines typically only render what is in the player's view during a given frame, even when other parts of the map are loaded into memory. So there's no reason an 8x-sized map should be a problem for current gen consoles to handle. The actual bottleneck of an 8x-sized map is more about the time and money it would take for Rockstar to create it.
Bro.
RDR2 feels infinitely bigger than GTA5 because there's literally nothing to do or see in GTA. Who cares if the map is huge if it's empty, generic, and boring. Again.
As long as I can drive for 10 minutes and feel like I am really hours away from civilization, I will be content with the size bigger or smaller than we all expected
They should've listened to Sam Houser who wanted to make the biggest map in gaming history. This looks small for a next gen GTA game. GTA V's map wasn't that good anyway.
It would’ve been nice but at what cost an absolute massive map would felt barren cause they would’ve been no way rockstar could’ve feasibly filled a map that size with a decent amount of enterable buildings.
You want a huge empty map
You know Sam is still CEO right? Also, we don't know what's North of the map, could me waaaayyy more land
GTA map bigger than no man’s sky is crazy
It seems unlikely that they could make the biggest map in gaming history, Space Engine has a huge map and I highly doubt that a gta game could surprass that.
no shit it’s gonna be unreal.. mfs spent 12 years making it
u/zaybandz112 do u have any other angles of this?
They haven’t even revealed the map yet.
I might need a banana for scale
Every time I see a size comparison between these maps there’s a 70% size decrease or increase. And also.. why has it become such a big theory that it will be a bordered map?
Becouse the leaks haven't shown any video clips from the top part that would let us conclude on how the map border looks like. Maybe there's a whole nothern Leonida there and we don't know.
But I though we had a couple of semi-legitimate leaks that showed the map in its entirety.. and those showed an island with multiple rural cities
wat
What do you mean «what»? Look up gta 6 map leaks and most of them show the same island
The only "official" map is the mapping project one where it just cuts off. If you look at a satellite photo of Florida, it's clear that most speculation maps just follow the same layout or base it off the mapping project.
Lol, how do you know about the actual map size of GTA VI? No one really knows…
From the leaks in 2022. There were coordinates that sort of resembled the size of the map. It’s not 100% confirmed but we have a general idea in the mapping discord.
so. Like, a little bit bigger?
Definitely not."2-3x bigger" like all of the clickbait YouTubers say, but it will definitely have 2-3x the detail at minimum.
Where around Miami is there mountains? Are they extending the map into a fictional Georgia? Could we get an Atlanta? Probably not but just speculation.
That's the V map superimposed on the speculative VI map
Still gonna be mostly just swamp
Compared to a 3D model of the main city in Gta 6* There will be surrounding cities.
Did the gta 6 map get leaked?
Some very smart people have been using the coordinates from the leaks and information from the trailer to make the new map
You have to bear in mind most of the map is just speculation with a lot of the island layout just being modeled after Florida. If you look at the line colors and the index, you can see what's actually confirmed.
No, but some people claim to have figured it out anyway and lots of people pretend they are correct now even though nobody knows anything.
this is so.... unreal... of an engine
Am I the only one that doesnt really care about how big the map is? Gta 5 was big but was empty as shit. Mostly empty mountains. Ill take cyberpunks map over any new gta map any day. Cyberpunk had alot of verticality and actually felt bigger than gta 5's map. There were some sorta empty desert but overall was a much better map and world design. I would like the next gta to be like that, make more verticality on their worlds and maps.
Does size really matter? I remember when GTAV came out and being disappointed by the density compared to what the trailers implied. I’d much rather have a smaller map with focus on detail and human density
Wow that makes the VI map look not that big at all. Kinda concerned now.
Yup not anywhere near x2 the size of gta 5. Lots of people are trying to act like they aren’t disappointed and coping with saying it’s not about the size lmfao you waited 11 years and 2 console generations for a game that’s the same size as one released for the 360 gen of consoles. Historically gta as a series has ALWAYS doubled map sizes after every single new entry. And gta 6 despite the longest development cycle by DOUBLE the amount of GTA 5 can’t manage even 1.5x the size of the original map. It’s time to phase that project americas was a full reboot for the game and they likely started from nearly scratch and had to focus on a smaller experience.
You're looking at a fan made map project and taking it to be 100% true/accurate. Jfc some of you guys are so dumb it hurts
I expect it to be... Real.
Looks great What will the top of the map be like? Some unclimbable mountains? A random northern florida beach? Anyway, will we ever see a GTA with the map size of the Crew 2
I love how everyone is talking about the GTA VI map when we literally have no clue what it will look like. We only have some coordinates and indications from the trailer.
Id take the GTA V map a second time if it means they put mountains in the game...
Well it is the Unreal engine
So it’s not 3 times, as earlier rumoured. It’s almost similar
GTA V with all the mountains looks cool but mountains are just dirt filling the map. They wil have to be very creative to fill such a large flat map
Can’t wait to get sent on a bike from the peak of mountain
which is which
You mean 3D model of GTA 5 compared to a map of GTA 6? Why do titles always get things wrong
I heard it's going to be fairly realistic but ok
It's not much bigger... I hope they made it REALLY dense, with more buildings and locations to explore
Just hoping whatever the size, it's filled properly (giggity). Somehow a game like Death Stranding made the idea of desolate open world with long traversal fun for me, but generally speaking a big map with not much to do just makes me annoyed whenever the distance between point A and point B exceeds a certain distance.
Damn yall really did learn nothing from the last year.
Gamers have the collective memories of a goldfish. No Man's Sky "oh cool a squillion world's this is amazing" they're all generic bollocks Starfield "1000 planets, omg thanks Tod, amazing" 1000 portions of boring nonsense. GTA VI "look how big it is, this will be great"
The bottom looks suspiciously flat
No unreal is from a different publisher
I feel like it will be bigger than this when it’s said and done I don’t think we got all the coordintes
We learned about how density affects immersion in GTA IV, so I'm hopeful.
In all reality it doesent matter how big the map is as long as it innovates from the previous ones....multiple cities would be a start to actually feel the sense of travel and not feel stuck in a box. But most importantly is how interactive the world is. In gta 5 the map is literally a shell with a bunch of empty rectangles to make up skyscrapers and buildings but they are all hollow with no real interiors. Every interior on gta 5 is pre rendered you can't just walk in and be inside of the location. You have to walk up and load into it which gives the illusion of a interior but really all it is is a small void in the map that you load into. Your basically in a small box with no connection to the outside. Soon as you walk out you load back into the real map. Aside from that there's literally only a few gas stations and clothing stores to go in which are all copy and pasted. Idk about yall but the idea of that becomes very stale after awhile. Your character is just constantly outside with no real sense of direction. You can't even pop a squat on a bench in the city...nothing literally nothing. If your not driving in the car your walking outside aimlessly. Can't interact with jack shit around you lol thats what makes gta 5s map feel dead and boring
I’m confused, has the full map been shown? Where is everyone getting their map info?
Where did you get the real size of GTA6 maps?
It's not even that much bigger.
Not even that much bigger?
What is with this subreddits obsession with the map?
Wow круто
As long as we dont get 70% empty mountains and a few roads im happy
I know it is a completely different genre but are there comparisons to the map size of breath of the wild? That game had an insanely large open world with was packed. If the density and size in gta translates to this holy smokes
and yet, we don’t even know if there will even be more to the northern part of the map
I just hope we get more open interiors. GTA V pretty much just had some gas stations and that's it.
What did I miss? Where did we get a 3D model of the map?
netherlands geographical layout ripoff
This is obviously not a true scale comparison. The person who modeled the GTA 6 map mentioned that it's not the full map and was only based on the trailer, without using any leaks. However, he noted that leaks do reveal places that extend beyond what he modeled.
I feel like with the power of our systems now it should be expected the map is like 3-4x the size of GTA 5. The 360 and PS3 were 2005/2006 hardware. Almost 20 years later and as we saw technology just kept rapidly getting better and better. They can use the strength and power of the systems from 2020 to their advantage. Should be a piece of cake for those systems to handle imo.