Yea I feel pretty much the same. I thought that GTA IV was a significant step down from SA, and I'm starting to question GTA V too. After playing GTA IV, I can't say I'm surprised at what they're doing with V. For example, most people who played SA loved the planes and wanted then in GTA IV, but R* completely ignored its base there. Moreover, they traded the huge map of SA with three unique cities and a lot of cool desert/rural areas for the small, homogenous city of GTA IV. Then of course there are the properties you mentioned.
Even GTA V now looks like it's going to be a smaller map than SA. Why would they take such a blatant step backwards? I'm not saying GTA IV was a bad game, and I doubt V will be either, but I think SA might really mark R*'s peak. Since SA, they seem to have stopped caring what the consumers actually want, and I'm worried that they're doing the same with GTA V. I'm actually thinking I might not buy V if we see that the map is a lot smaller than SA's.
1) It was a new game on a new engine on a new platform. Of course many of the features from SA were going to be taken out -- that's why they keep emphasizing in the sparse interviews or comments we've seen so far the wealth of new content being added to the game now that they have some experience with the engine. They also stated that GTA IV's Liberty City was simply too small for planes.
2) While I'll give you that the three cities in SA were unique, they were all also "small" and there was basically a whole bunch of nothing in the deserts and the wilderness between cities. Mount Chiliad was cool, and yes the few towns and settlements were a neat edition, but there is more detail packed into Bohan alone on GTA IV than the cities of SA. Go to the southern end of Alderney and the middle part of Broker, or the center of Algonquin and the northern end of Alderney and then tell me they're "homogenous."
3) We haven't seen the map, and interviews have said that the exterior and interiors of GTA V combined are going to make up for the largest amount of playable space we've ever had in a Rockstar Game -- aka, ****ing massive. It won't be small, and even then you have to remember: size doesn't matter (too much).
4) Have you played RDR?
5) You just said it looks like it's going to be smaller than SA, despite their official comments, and now you're mentioning that you haven't seen the map yet? Well-thought post, dude.
And on properties -- yes, they're not including them, but they said there'll be plenty of stuff to spend our money on in the game. Let's wait and see what happens before making ridicudumb posts.
I said it looks like the map is gonna be smaller because they only mentioned one city. Obviously, one city is likely to be a smaller map than three cities, but I also have to see the map they make before I can know for sure. There was nothing ill-thought out about that comment and you're just going out of your way to be a dbag.
There's no good reason to go around calling people's post "ridicidumb" or other stupid, immature names. The OP asked for our opinions. If you have a different one, you can state it without being a dick.
Because the city will be the whole map, obviously, as you say. Even if the city is smaller than SA's three cities, I'd take a smaller detailed city that's actually fun to explore and mess around in than SA's dull, dry cities and the big nothings in-between.