Should Rockstar continue to develop massive and sprawling maps, or could a different approach be the way to go for the next GTA?
I don't get the whole "smaller, denser" open world thing especially with GTA. They already had a huge city in GTA V along with rural open areas. How much more "dense" do you want a map to be than a packed city? Better to have the best of both worlds like GTA V did.
I think being able to run inside of any building without loading would go a long way towards making the world feel more dense. It seems they may be headed this direction based on the early leak where you could walk in and hold up a restaurant. Imagine chasing each other from building to building in GTA 6 Online.
I've seen this concept executed before it gets old fast
Heard a rumour that 70% of buildings can be entered. Taking it with a grain of salt but it would be awesome if its true.
@Hofstaderman 70% would make me really happy! Heck, even 50% would add a whole lot of depth we never had. It seems like a huge load of work to pull off, but if anyone can do it, it would be Rockstar. I always lost a huge amount of time just exploring the world slowly and admiring all the tiny details scattered around.
They've had like 10 years and unlimited resources, shouldn't be too much to ask for.
Rockstar are pretty much the only dev that can really pull off a massive map and actually utilize a large portion of it. Most open worlds are just empty space with next to nothing to find. For most devs their games would benefit from smaller worlds that they can more effectively utilize and populate with stuff to do.
Which is why they take so long. People complain about it but good things come to those that wait. When I said people complain ,, wasn't referring to you I've never seen you complain
I think denser may not be the right word maybe usable for example v had one City and most of the missions occured there yet you had a prison out near the windfarm that was never used despite and slight spoiler Trever being told Brad was in w upstate prison he never stated a breakout (maybe they used that concept in IV tlatd so they didn't do it again) but it's not a isolated incident the map is huge but the campaign reused the same portions of it over and over
Rockstar already makes the densest open world games. RDR2 is a shining example of that. The world design is the last thing they should worry about.
All I want is one protagonist. Don’t care about anything else. I thought 5 was his awful. I know I’m the minority with that opinion and am cool with any hate I get.
Same here I did find switching distracting
You'd be surprised most people prefer earlier games like myself. I did like v it's still better than most games but for me IV and it's DLC was the absolute best game as it's driving physics were spot on cars reacted to turning corners with the suspension bouncing on each wheel accurately vs v and it's arcade driving. combat felt better in IV you needed to take cover pick your shots but in v your a bullet sponge you can run out and gun down every enemy without worry your health even regens a little. And the story of v wasn't as good it was mainly about Michael and Trevors egos and government organisations despite having a many opportunities to break out of this mold you stay in it vs iv and meeting times off new characters that varried greatly
I think IV and San Andreas are best
I absolutely loved it. I also enjoyed the seamless transition between characters from that satellite perspective. Trevor was an absolutely fascinating character, and one of the few truly unique "protagonists" I've ever played in a videogame. I'd go so far to say that I'd probably want even more switching if possible, let me play out my Oceans 11 type fantasy haha. Of course, everyone is entitled to their own opinion!
Can I ask why you hated it ?
This is a question for UBISOFT etc. not R*. GTA has to translate to the more important online component and it has already been mentioned, by Snook and Ezio, R* does not have a problem making engaging open world games. I am really starting to think game writers do not understand gaming.
I actually preferred the island system it gave a feeling of progression that was completely absent from v. There was an excitement when you unlocked the next part of the map and often a cool mission to go along with it "are you going to San fierro" burning the weed crop and driving truth into the next island was a top 5 moment of GTA SA.
whos asking this stupid shit after the game is finished
You can’t make GTA a smaller game, or people will start calling it dlc to GTA5. Or are we okay with smaller games now, like Assassin Creed Mirage. Miles Morales, Frozen Wilds, and many others that had that dlc label applied to them when they were their own self contained games. I love NARRATIVE SHIFTS.
I don’t think anyone is qualified to suggest anything for Rockstar except Rockstar. They clearly know how to make a product for the masses. The numbers don’t lie.
Just watched a leaked trailer on Twitter, and even with the watermark it looked wicked af! 2025 tho 😭
I wish they knew that bully is better than gta and make a new one
I think Rockstar is very solid when it comes to open worlds. Let them do what they do best.
NO ! Get bigger and better. Don't listen to these virtual agoraphobes.
I absolutely love huge game worlds when properly populated with life and activities. Give me a sense of discovery and exploration. Horizon Forbidden West is a prime example.
I don't mind a big map in an open-world game, especially one that is meant to represent a city and its surroundings, including all its workings. But I also loved what Eidos-Montréal did with Deus Ex Mankind Divided, focusing instead on a small part of a city and letting you explore every nook and cranny.