Does GTA 6 really need a huge map? 

Like Yakuza saga?

True as F

@@D.V312 Yakuza maps had content in them, I wish the same for GTA 6.

They could ad more things over time to fill it

Controversial take: GTA V's map size was fine. Making Paleto Bay so boring was its only flaw. Have another city as large as the city of Los Santos in the top of the map and the map would have been perfect.

Facts, now let me steal your Pink diamond

LOL

U a bad man.

when is the next panther ?

Dont you dare buy the Sinsimito tequila again

lol

Patience..

@@incredimixerchannelofficial What's that?

@@Comoisseur Edible

Wait 3-4 months

Yeah I knew I wasn't the only one who caught that.

i knew something was off fr.

☠️☠️💀💀💀

"faulty ai" nah this is written. It was a mistake. Breathe. Calm down. ​@@Nitroh-

Proof that Xbox have stupid names

They already made liberty city in the GTA V version of RAGE but scrapped it because of GTA O. They need to add cities if they milk it for 10 years again

They could have expanded the map by simply opening up new indoor areas to explore. I never understood why they put time into these areas for single player missions only to lock them up for the online portion. Especially looking at you RDO.... If having less assholes per lobby helps save game memory for stuff like that then let's goooo!

Expanding the map in updates sounds more like a burnout thing, not a GTA thing

@@bubz4196what’s RAGE?

Bro is acting like they haven’t done anything lol

Long answer tho???

@@royale76200:00 - 10:17

@@royale7620I guess so because San Andreas was the only GTA to have multiple cities, so im guessing fans want it in GTA 6 too

​@@royale7620immersion, field for random events to take place in, longer roads to really feel the speed, etc. EVERYTHING will be better with bigger map

​@@alkhoaja This.

I really want a big forest to explore, I was always quite disappointed with how small the Chilliad Mountain State Wilderness was

It was a ps3 and 360 game, it was the max they could do​@@arcticwolfy1573

@@arcticwolfy1573 If they gonna make a version of Orlando,they could ''cheat'' and put Ocala National Forest in between them.These areas are at their best when the're in between cities,like in San Andreas

Ngl NFS Heat has a lot of places that look similar to some of the areas in the leaked GTA six clips

The biggest mistake they made was that there were only a couple of roads to get from South to North and it all felt the same.

That simple, enough said, perfectly said, nothing more.

The problem is it'll probably be a huge map with almost nothing to do like gta 5

Either you buy the game or not rockstar doesn’t owe you anything

@@thelastant8366 this.

I think that's what's going to happen. Bigger map, more things to do/explore. For sure.

That was my gripe with Blaine county. You could’ve added passive activity like hunting wildlife, or for exploration, have hidden entrances on the mountains that leads to secret bases or just nice places for treasure hunts. Grapeseed and Paleto bay is useless because there’s no explorable buildings there and it’s lifeless. RDR2, it’s a gigantic map but every town you go to, there’s an activity you can do and even in your commutes, there’s random events that you can interact with. In GTA story mode, there’s barely any of that.

that was my issue with just cause 4. it has a HUGE map with different biomes and weather etc but absolutely nothing to do

​@@the-ironcladWith Trevor you can hunt bruh and with Michael you can search for submarine remains or toxic waste. Although those activities are quite boring

@@MuteCrimsonthey really should’ve kept the bases like how just cause 3 was

@@the-ironcladso basically you want it to be more arcade-y. Yeah?

Watch the game turn back to the 2D viewpoint.

@@Uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu01 Given how popular drones are now, I can imagine a mission referencing GTA 1 and 2 by you flying a drone over your character.

Watch as they make a GTA+ subscription be mandatory to play the game, and everything in-game requiring real life money to be bought. (And there will "free" things like clothes, cars and weapons, but they will suck)

@@pedinhuh16they aren’t stupid. That would flop the game. No game has this hype they can’t afford to fail. GTA fails that’s belly up. No shot it happens they didn’t spend so much time developing just to make it a shitty experience like that.

That really broke the game

good news if you were born +2010 bad news if you were born -1980

Year 2035

​@@Lupo32who's to say you won't die young?

@@gilpetperdon9831 True .... guy I went to high school with Was gunned down after a new years party. Got shot in his torso

@@gilpetperdon9831 Welp .... they are gonna have to use caution !

Yeah one thing I love about GTA games is just driving around the map, so for that I love if it’s big

What's that mps bullshit, do you mean 300 km/h?

​@@ThePindar What's that km/h bullshit? Don't you mean 88.000 gigawatts per hour?

​@@Sir.Lil-NubStubs What's that KM/H bullshit? Don't you mean 2.7797e-7 lightyears?

@@ThePindar he's talking about miles per second not per hour

i want airports on opposite sides of the map so that owning planes and hangars actually has a purpose beyond flying around for a few minutes just to end up going nowhere

Except a bigger map also means more empty areas with not much going on. You can't have a big map that's also very dense. Not at this point in time anyway.

@@-sanju- RDR2 had a big and dense map

​@@VerminSupremeFanPage rdr2 map was same size as GTA 5

​@@xers6704 Empty?? you never played rdr2 in your life lmao, You can literally spend HOURS exploring every corner of the map, finding unique objects, special missions, interactions with NPCs, animals, food... Its the MOST full map in gaming and im not exaggerating, you will never go explore and find nothing

@@-sanju- a dense map is easier to scale up once you have already built a small dense area. objects and clutter and textures can easily be used again. given a budget of 2 billion there's no need for a small map. it can be big and dense

I saw this poster sort of thing can’t guarantee it’s real but it had about 9-12 different places which looked like cities to me

I personally spend more time out in Blane county than I ever do in the city

@@HotCakes456Where you saw it ?

​@Kyle_Be_Bussen1426 That's weird.

​@@Kyle_Be_Bussen1426Me too

a big ass world of nothing going on

@@b.1570​​⁠GTA 5 was 10 years ago. Look at RDR2, it’s a little bigger than GTA 5 yet it’s densely packed with content for a world that is mostly just nature and wilderness. GTA 6 is likely to be bigger than both games and expect the content to be there

​@@SonGokuuuuuuu rdr2's map is a little smaller

@@dudemp4 No it isn’t. Misconception and this was detailed on GTA subreddit. RDR2’s is bigger per square km but not by much

@@SonGokuuuuuuu I can see the point on that on the wilderness aspect RDR2 trully managed to make it such an great world by it's setting. I still rather a map in small scale but with more in depth literally. activities, having interiors to access, interacting in the enviroment even levels of destructible. like crashing into a store with a car for an instance. random events while roaming, interacting with npcs and so on. My point is my ideal world map is a world not significantly big in a large sense but richer by it's little details.

Ac origins does a good job in that regard, the sand dunes make you feel like you're really in the middle of the desert

512 mb of shared vram and memory was their budget.

Both content styles are so well made and great too

Even the memes were of surprisingly high quality

Tho bigger map is also essential. Having a map that feels small is one of many reasons GTA 4 flopped in community's eyes

u literally a verified gta nerd u telling me u didnt hear when they said 70% of the map will have enterable interious and the leaks said it was about 1k+ random events

@@BLET_55artem55”GTA 4 flopped in the community’s eyes” lmfaoooo

@@iCookCrystalMeth idk if you're caught in 4's bootlicking bubble, but 70-80% of GTA fanbase dislikes 4 for being gray, serious and overly physical (like cars swinging like boats in a seastorm or NPCs flying 60 meters from a punch). I'm neutral about it

My favourite part of the map and we STILL CAN'T buy a damn house in there

@@BLET_55artem55 fr

Having small map is one of the reasons GTA 4 flopped so hard in community's eyes. Slow cars, barely any room to even drive, random events are few but NOT FAR in between, which feels stupid. Tho in GTA 5 the map really feels like a stage decoration with how little interiors there are

I used to think that. Then saw how RDR2's map is bigger than GTA V's and filled with minute details.

yup that was the smoothest transition ever 💀

We'll see. RDR2 was a big hit but it didn't really change the industry in any way.

@@-sanju-rdr2 is nowhere near as big as the gta series

@@EVERYTHINGPHONK Sure but it's still huge. RDR2 is currently the 7th best selling video game of all time and that's a big feat for a mainly single player game.

@@EVERYTHINGPHONK rdr2 is the seventh highest selling videogame

@@-sanju- I think it set a new high standard for open world games. But I guess it didn’t change the industry because other game companies aren’t going to invest that much time, money, and people into making a game that huge. Rockstar is pretty much the only company willing to make a game like that. Maybe CD Project Red too, but after Cyberpunk, not sure if they will do it again, it took them way too long

And if they made the map bigger, it doesn't mean that the vehicles will be faster, It really helps rockstar to make the map feel big, if they increase the speed and the map, the map would this feel the same size as GTA 5 again The map will be bigger, and with same speeds so players notice the difference in the map

I think Paleto Bay is OK, but another town, bigger than that along the north east - east, would have helped the map tremendously.

No, it doesn't need a huge map.

I agree one of my fav things about gta games in general is exploring, finding easter eggs, roleplaying and it be amazing rp and exploration for a bigger map

It’s definitely a divided opinion I personally adore when any game as room to use than closed up maps that force you to do the same things over and over again

Yes it does ​@@Mitch93636 Unless you like to driving sports cars and supercars that can only do 150mph at best. Capped top speeds needs to go, and so it does needs a large map to accommodate.

Guys, we are going to have GTA 6 for 15 years before we get 7. IT NEEDS TO BE A HUGE MAP!

Of course. If game releases with a smaller map than 5 it wouldn't be acceptable.

GTA6 being the same size as GTA5 but more dense and detailed would be perfectly fine tho. But obviously theres nothin wrong with expecting more since RDR2 is massive AND detailed, although its way easier to detail an old world than the modern world

That's not possible though. Not only are their resources not limitless but they also have to keep modern hardware limitations in mind. There is no way to make a game with a massive open world that is also very dense with loads of explorable buildings unless they are going to divide the areas and put loading screens between them. Though even then they would still be limited in what they could do.

@@-sanju- Are you living in the past, you don't need loading screens. Also world streaming is a thing. it can be infinitely big and not cause a problem, especially since modern consoles and pcs use SSDs so world streaming is faster and easier. There is absolutely a way to make a dense, and large map work on modern hardware.

@@luigiwiiUU it wouldn't be "perfectly fine" for a map size of a 7th gen game on a 9th gen console. the map of GTA V isn't bad by any means but its very small compared to todays standards

GTA V's map was big but not dense. Yet RDR2s map was big and dense. Odd.

The amount of content is fixed, it can't magically increase. The only thing size changes is the content/area ratio. The bigger the map, the more space in between points of interest. If bigger map = more content would be true, games like the crew would have 100x the content of all GTA's and Elder Scrolls games combined.

@@Ruzzky_Bly4t1 yes it does small maps can get crowded and too packed with content in such a small map take for example assassins creed unity so much content packed in such a small fucking map that doesn't make for good gameplay (still a great game though) 2 the reason games like the elder scrolls and the crew don't have much content when we compare it to the map size is because the developers intentionally did that if they wanted to add content they can put almost limitless amounts of content because of the size of the map if they fill up an area they always have another area they can fill up with content something smaller maps don't have because they don't have many areas compared to bigger maps smaller maps are limited compared to bigger maps plus bigger maps have more easter eggs because you can run out of areas to fill up with easter eggs in smaller maps but in bigger maps you can almost never run out of areas to fill up with easter eggs if we take the amount of easter eggs put in a bigger map and put them in a smaller map the map will be so filled up with easter eggs that'll make the map so filled up with easter eggs that everywhere you look there's an easter egg then it's not really an easter egg isn't it and big maps offer a challenge to players to find easter eggs because of the size of the map and how many areas the developers can put the easter eggs in smaller maps easter eggs are usually found in like 8 seconds 3 size itself is content like take mount chiliad for example it has almost no content yet people always visit it because of many reasons like it's tall size or it's easter eggs ramps and many more reasons plus some gta players like exploration including me and exploration needs bigger maps and even more gta players like just driving around also including me and driving around needs bigger maps you don't wanna just keep running in circles around the map 4 please read my comment fully and don't just focus on one point

@user-cs2mx4lt3q My point is absolutely true and undeniable, it's bizarre to claim otherwise. Content and map size have nothing in common whatsoever, there are games with bigger maps than Earth. You just interpreted my comment wrong. I never claimed that a smaller map is better. I like big maps myself. And size is a quality in itself. But the commenters' logic is "bigger map = more content", which is false. And sorry to disappoint you, I scrolled straight to point 4 and didn't bother reading your comment. My bad.

@@Ruzzky_Bly4t come on you didn't even read it 😂 you literally just said "nu uh" (yes this argument is a waste of time but if you don't bother responding then why comment in the first place?)

@user-cs2mx4lt3q Alright, I read your previous reply. Looks like somebody is a *very* big fan of easter eggs, huh? A big map is good because you can fit more easter eggs in there, and if you would put these easter eggs in a small map, the easter eggs would be so close together that finding the easter eggs would be too easy, so what's the point of having easter eggs in the first place. How can I not focus on one point when 70% of your comment is about easter eggs?? Ok, if you want to go on a grand adventure in search of these things, go for it. I never searched for easter eggs, so don't share your passion. And I'm utterly disappointed that your reply doesn't relate to mine whatsoever. 😕 I said that the commenter would be wrong to assume that a bigger map offers more content, as the content is not scalable with map size, unless we mean that a mountain with no quests and NPCs is content (I guess if we add an easter egg or two, you would be delighted to spend hours exploring that rock). But, ok, let's go off on a tangent if you want. "Exploration needs a big map". The game with the best exploration that I played is Fallout 4 (didn't play the others), which has a tiny map. But because you only move around by foot, and it's packed with content and structures to explore at your own pace, it's a ton of fun. Exploration is also the main way to get loot, so game design is on point. Minecraft, which is the game with the biggest map that I played, offers a fraction of that. Sure, you can walk in one direction for 10 hours if you want, but that adds nothing. The exploration is fun, but not comparable to a saturated, hand-crafted experience like Fallout 4. The witcher 3, a masterpiece, has pretty bad exploration with a much bigger map. Because there are few points of interests other than the question marks, so things are scattered around too much to dedicate time to simply exploration. If you can move by car, just scale the map to accommodate for that. Obviously, you need a much bigger size for that. I agree that nature should be huge and it's fine if it is empty. For instance, I'm still waiting to see a game with realistically scaled mountains, so climbing one is a journey in itself. That doesn't work if the mountain takes up your entire map. A big map requires a compact, main center of activities though. Otherwise, moving around takes too much time. And fast travel sucks, I never use it. You lose immersion, sense of scale and direction from it. I had to use it in the witcher 3 though, because moving around took so long. Cyberpunk got the scale almost right I think, although it would be great if the city would be 2-3 times bigger to really make it seem like a metropolis. So the ideal structure in my opinion is a smaller compact core, that doesn't require fast travel, and a huge expanse on the outside to add scale, with some scattered points of interest and quests to journey out if you want to. But the main map (the core) can't be too big, otherwise it gets boring to move from place to place, and there is less detail if developers are spread more thinly. I do not agree with the video that gta 5 is the ideal map size. I'm pretty sure the witcher 3 has a bigger map, and you only have a horse. So something like 5x the size of gta5 would probably be better.

You seem to think that the bigger map is directly equal to more fun, and that's just not true

And what?

So you finished a 10 minute video in 6 minutes? Ah yes

Same.

No way they worked on it for 12 years. They had all their studios working on RDR2 they must've started around 2018.

@@sarcasticsaber8902 they literally started work on GTA 6 in late 2013, there’s actual proof in leaks, you don’t know what you’re talking about

@@KickTheBabyKAF Proof in what leaks?

@@sarcasticsaber8902 just stop, bum

​@@KickTheBabyKAFthey started in early 2017.

density and size, picking just one is slow brained.

Call a taxi

So you waited ten years just for a small map?😳

@@richardnester7203 you cant call taxis during missions

@@IsaacLuna-hl3dd no i waited 10 years for a detailed map with reasonable map proportions

I don't get it? That's what make the game more depth and fun??

That's something nobody seems to understand in this comment section. Bigger does not mean better

Yo where did you get your pfp from?

Not necessarily. The bigger the map the more wasted space. Quality always trumps quantity. Or maybe you feel ghost recon wildlands had a better map than gta5 🤷‍♂️

​@@shalindelta7nah, look RDR2 The map is huge and alive thanks to random encounters and animals. If GTA 6 has that it will be a good map

@@shalindelta7 knowing its Rockstar creating the map makes me want a bigger map.

@@D.V312 yeah, but RDR2 had horses, not cars. If RDR2 had cars, the map would be too small

@@D.V312 Yeah, but sadly there is that "If" in your sentence.