Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Is it going to be in the 80s or 90s?

56 replies to this topic
CaliMex
  • CaliMex

    Crackhead

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Jul 2006

#31

Posted 04 July 2006 - 09:21 AM

QUOTE (ATK @ Jul 3 2006, 05:46)
It will be '78-'85 and, leading up to vice city.

CaliMex: Dont see how there is a 3 year 'rule' they have only came out with 1 'stories' game so far, and it just happened to be 3 years before GTA3, dosent really mean anything.

I am just saying but I should not have called it a rule since it is not mandatory and R* doesn't have to do that but most of the games have a setting based in a year divisible by 3. I also did say if yet I shouldn't have said definitely (I changed it now) but I think that the game with be based in the year 1983. The only game during the GTA 3 era that did not adhere to the "rule" or trend (thanks to ATK for using the word trend) was GTA Advance which is set in 2000, the year before GTA 3. If you divide 1998 by 3 you get 666. OMG, hell and stuff!

If they do have a 4 year "trend" for the next GTA then it may be based in 2004 or 2008 but then this is just pure speculation based on little info. 4 is divisible into 2004 and 2004. Just simple math.

I am just going by the first "Stories" trilogy (maybe a trilogy but I doubt it since SA is so big) game but it looks like you agree that it will take place before Vice City yet where is your reasoning? I only have so much knowledge about how R* does what they do and this is all I have to go by. Do you have anymore to go by because I would love to hear it (I am not being sarcastic here). If you don't it's understandable and the way I think it might go is understable but may or may not be true.

At ATK, there may be a trend or there may not be a trend. You are also making an assumption by saying that R* isn't going by some sort of trend when they choose settings and years for games. Some of us see that little trend that we noticed or discovered and we go by it because we are just curious and want to know. We love our GTA, can you blame us?

These games aren't that a big of deal since they are PSP games and the were (LCS) and will be (VCS) limited by the hardware. They are just to give us one slice of pizza at a time until we get the supreme pizza. This is all speculation anyhow since we are just fans who love our GTA. Speculation doesn't mean anything except that you are bored perhaps.

ATK
  • ATK

    Drive Slow

  • Feroci Racing
  • Joined: 15 Sep 2005

#32

Posted 05 July 2006 - 11:56 PM Edited by ATK, 06 July 2006 - 12:00 AM.


QUOTE
At ATK, there may be a trend or there may not be a trend. You are also making an assumption by saying that R* isn't going by some sort of trend when they choose settings and years for games. Some of us see that little trend that we noticed or discovered and we go by it because we are just curious and want to know. We love our GTA, can you blame us?

Im not making any asumption. I can show you articles where R* said it themselves. There is no trend at all, they had the areas/cities alredy picked out, so they chose a time period in which they area was highliy influential.
QUOTE
I am just saying but I should not have called it a rule since it is not mandatory and R* doesn't have to do that but most of the games have a setting based in a year divisible by 3...*snip*....The only game during the GTA 3 era that did not adhere to the "rule" or trend was GTA Advance which is set in 2000, the year before GTA 3...*snip*

If the so-called 'trend' that R* is going by is that each year is divisible by 3, then why didnt they just make the games 1993, 1996, and 1999? Wouldnt it make more sense than going 2001, 1986, and 1992? Your saying they just chose random years that were divisible by 3? Why not by 2, 4, or 5?

QUOTE
These games aren't that a big of deal since they are PSP games and the were (LCS) and will be (VCS) limited by the hardware. They are just to give us one slice of pizza at a time until we get the supreme pizza. This is all speculation anyhow since we are just fans who love our GTA. Speculation doesn't mean anything except that you are bored perhaps.

How are they not that big of a deal? They are a new game and adds a piece of the GTA story you have never heard before. Just because PSP cant hold as much as a home console dosent mean that the game dosent improve on your GTA 'experience'. You must not really like GTA then my man.

CaliMex
  • CaliMex

    Crackhead

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Jul 2006

#33

Posted 06 July 2006 - 01:34 AM

I never said I hated the game. If R* said it themselves then where is the source? I have not read anything like that before so I wouldn't know. If you can show me that they did say that then I will change my mind. So you didn't make an assumption and what I said is totally wrong and I will concede.

Like I said, each of those years are divisible by 3; 1993, 1996 and 1999 are seperated by 3 years but are not divisible by 3. Try it on a calculator.

Yeah, its a PSP game and I am a little prejudice against it since the media cannot hold as much content as a DVD. I also thought that way because SA was so big and LCS had the exact same map as GTA 3 with more content but not like SA. It would have been great if they added more streets, buildings and increased the physical size a bit but they put it on that small little thing and it is still great. I just wanted more content but it's on the PSP to help sell them. Then they port it for the rest of us who won't get or can't buy a PSP. I like the storyline but the ending I didn't like too much. Maybe it's because I know where his life is going to be like in GTA 3, I don't know.

It's just not as big a deal as GTA 3, VC and SA but those who love GTA will still get it. I bought it (even though I want for the PC) for the PS2 and if it did come out on PC I would buy it again because I prefer using the mouse and keyborad. I like my slice of pizza. I like all pizza in general, with extra pepperoni, crushed red peppers and parmesan cheese. GTA IV will have that and more and I will buy any GTA that comes out but after a price drop because I am poor.

Bare with me, I am bad at communicating.

biggestloser
  • biggestloser

    i <3 felicia

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Nov 2004

#34

Posted 06 July 2006 - 01:55 AM

1989.

I want it explained why Ken left Vice City, why Kent left Vice City, how Macker came about, what ever happened to Tommy Vercetti, and a segment on VROCK where Lazlow gets kicked off. Put those things in, and I'm fine.

Coach Dante
  • Coach Dante

    Crackhead

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Nov 2005

#35

Posted 06 July 2006 - 02:38 PM

QUOTE (Seddo87 @ Jul 3 2006, 06:13)
there is a 3 year trend going on with

1983 -  ? maybe VCS
1986 - Vice City
1989 - ? maybe VCS
1992 - san andreas
1995 - ? maybe san andreas stories
1998 - LCS
2001 - GTA 3
2004 ? - maybe GTA 4

so with a 3 year pattern emerging VCS might just be set in 1983 or 1989.

Dude, there's no "trend." Get over it.

Let's take out the games that you are merely speculating about and take the liberty of adding the games you accidentally (or otherwise) left out. Let's take a gander, shall we?:

1961 - London '61
1969 - London '69

1986 - Vice City
1992 - San Andreas
1997 - GTA
1998 - LCS
2000 - GTA: Advanced
2001 - GTA 3

I also took the liberty of putting in boldface not only every game you left out, but every game that doesn't fit the so-called "trend." Interestingly enough, every game you left out is also a game that doesn't fit your "trend." I don't think it can be called either a rule or trend if it only applies to half of the games (some of which never offer solid proof of what year they take place in). In fact, the only thing it could possibly called is a COINCIDENCE.

In closing, I'd also like to point out that it is asinine to make the assumption that every 'Stories' game will take place three years prior to or following their parent game. Until you have two games that follow this pattern, you can not use one out of three (possibly five if we get SA:S broken up) to accuratley estimate anything.

Remember kiddies: when you assume, you make an ass out of u and me.
Cheers

Seddo
  • Seddo

    YNWA

  • Zaibatsu
  • Joined: 15 Sep 2005
  • None

#36

Posted 06 July 2006 - 11:23 PM

well if you leave the 2D games out cos they really dont count there is sort of a pattern if vice city stories comes out being 3 years behind or infront of vice city.

ATK
  • ATK

    Drive Slow

  • Feroci Racing
  • Joined: 15 Sep 2005

#37

Posted 07 July 2006 - 12:23 AM


QUOTE (CaliMex)
If R* said it themselves then where is the source? I have not read anything like that before so I wouldn't know. If you can show me that they did say that then I will change my mind. So you didn't make an assumption and what I said is totally wrong and I will concede.

I quote my self:
QUOTE (ATK)
Im not making any asumption. I can show you articles where R* said it themselves. There is no trend at all, they had the areas/cities alredy picked out, so they chose a time period in which they area was highliy influential.

January 2005 issue of Game Informer.
user posted image
The fact that he says, contemporary (meaning the same time period) proves it wasent planned they didnt pick a certain year, they picked a time period in which the setting of the city was most appropriate.
Here is the whole article.
user posted image


Coach Dante
  • Coach Dante

    Crackhead

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Nov 2005

#38

Posted 07 July 2006 - 03:08 AM

QUOTE (Seddo87 @ Jul 6 2006, 23:23)
well if you leave the 2D games out cos they really dont count...

Sir, you fail to impress me with your non-existant reasoning.

TheDude5000
  • TheDude5000

    Soak of the year!

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 20 Jun 2005

#39

Posted 07 July 2006 - 04:36 AM Edited by TheDude5000, 07 July 2006 - 06:19 AM.

I'd say culturally, and pretty much generally, Miami was at it's peak in maybe 1990 or something.

That whole yuppie party culture kinda died with the decade, I guess.

So it's definitely gonna be in the 80's. Oh, and that font wouldn't fit in with a disco theme. That logo just doesn't say 70's to me. It's inspired by neon, which AFAIK, wasn't something you'd see at disco clubs(and I say this having seen Carlito's Way about 10 times tounge.gif ). It brings to my mind, the interior of the Babylon club, Ocean Beach, you know.


1983 would be a great year, so would 1989.

CaliMex
  • CaliMex

    Crackhead

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Jul 2006

#40

Posted 07 July 2006 - 05:09 AM Edited by CaliMex, 07 July 2006 - 05:17 AM.

You guys are also making too much of what I said even though I said it was complete speculation and I am aware that it is not fact. I just wanted you to understand why I thought that way and told you that I had very little to go on. I keep typing here because I feel that you guys (Coach Dante and ATK) want to make me, and others who believe this trend could be real, look stupid. Like I said, if you have proof that I am totally wrong I will admit and yes, they had no trend when they made the first trilogy but that does not mean that it won't be in 1983. We won't know until the game comes out and we will forget about what we said and flock to the nearest store and buy the game. Even if it is in 1983 and that you can divide the year that is set in by 3 I would say, "Wow, I was right, how the hell did that happen?" I just made a silly reason and we just wasted time arguing about like this which is very stupid. If you understood then I am happy. That's all I ever wanted. I didn't want to make anyone truly think that it will come out because I say so. Coming into here you should have known it was all speculation here trying to figure out the year.

I just said what I said for the sake of saying it. To answer the question in this thread, will it be fact? At this point in time it will not be fact (with a source to confirm facts). Rockstar hasn't released info about the year so it is all speculation. Knock, knock! Speculation! Why do you fight hard to disprove speculation when I am aware that it is and made no claim that it is fact. I even edited the mistake to my first post here making it seem that I was certain that I was right. I just joined here not too long ago so that I stop wandering around reading people's post and talk but not make enemies. How the hell did I do that?

When a new GTA is announced people will talk about anything but it won't mean that what they say is right just because they have have a half-assed reason. I just started typing and said what I said. I didn't really put thought into it because it is all speculation. Speculations don't mean a thing and facts do. How many times should I repeat myself? If I am wrong about this I won't care, I just wanted to add to the community here.

Today's word is: speculation. Oh yeah, how many times did I say speculation? I just wanted to make sure that you understood what I meant. Friends? Being my friend doesn't mean you can have my pizza slice however.

Seddo
  • Seddo

    YNWA

  • Zaibatsu
  • Joined: 15 Sep 2005
  • None

#41

Posted 07 July 2006 - 09:40 AM

QUOTE (Coach Dante @ Jul 7 2006, 04:08)
QUOTE (Seddo87 @ Jul 6 2006, 23:23)
well if you leave the 2D games out cos they really dont count...

Sir, you fail to impress me with your non-existant reasoning.

well the 2D games wernt part of the trilogy and the original 2D games didnt really have a storlyline connecting to the trilogy.

TheDude5000
  • TheDude5000

    Soak of the year!

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 20 Jun 2005

#42

Posted 07 July 2006 - 10:11 AM

QUOTE (Seddo87 @ Jul 7 2006, 09:40)
QUOTE (Coach Dante @ Jul 7 2006, 04:08)
QUOTE (Seddo87 @ Jul 6 2006, 23:23)
well if you leave the 2D games out cos they really dont count...

Sir, you fail to impress me with your non-existant reasoning.

well the 2D games wernt part of the trilogy and the original 2D games didnt really have a storlyline connecting to the trilogy.

No sh*t they weren't part of the trilogy. It's a trilogy, ffs.

LCS takes place in the same timeline as the GTA 3 Trilogy, and so will VCS. When they say trilogy, they just use it to describe the post 2001 GTA console releases. LCS arrived after it was named the GTA 3 Trilogy by R*, so obviously it's not part of the trilogy.

But you are right about GTA 1 not fitting into the timeline. That's only because LC, VC, and SA(the cities) were in GTA 1, but were shaped/modeled completely different. This interferes with GTA 1 being canon.

GTA 2, London '61/'69 can possibly fit into the timeline created in GTA 3. Technically, it would be the other way around, but whatever.


I think this common misconception that GTA 4 will act as if the GTA 3/VC/SA storyline never existed is getting annoying.


AFAIK, R* have only let us know what consoles GTA 4 will be released on, and when.
They haven't said anything about storylines.

Seddo
  • Seddo

    YNWA

  • Zaibatsu
  • Joined: 15 Sep 2005
  • None

#43

Posted 07 July 2006 - 10:31 AM

QUOTE (TheDude5000 @ Jul 7 2006, 11:11)
I think this common misconception that GTA 4 will act as if the GTA 3/VC/SA storyline never existed is getting annoying.



yeah i agree with all the work they have put into the storyline i dought that they will just ditch it and start from scratch again.

like the two star wars trilogys two different trilogys but they both have the same storyline thats what will happen with the next few GTA games

ATK
  • ATK

    Drive Slow

  • Feroci Racing
  • Joined: 15 Sep 2005

#44

Posted 07 July 2006 - 10:34 PM

CaliMex nothing has blown up, you just said that R* was using a trend when making thier games, all I was doing was taking out the wrong, and giving you the right. And I never Said it wont be in 1983, that is acctualy the year I belive it will be in. I wasent talking about what year it was in at all, and I guess you could then accuse me of being off topic if you must.

And yea this is all speculationg, I wasent speculating on anything, I had facts, you asked for it, so I gave it to you. None of my posts directed at you were speculation. I dont mean to blast you because your a new member, your always going to get into a so-called 'argument' with people on these forums. Arguments arent always bad, you can acctually learn something.

CaliMex
  • CaliMex

    Crackhead

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Jul 2006

#45

Posted 08 July 2006 - 03:34 AM Edited by CaliMex, 08 July 2006 - 04:48 AM.

I just wanted to be understood about my reasoning and I did ask for some facts. It doesn't say anything about the newer games since it was an article over a year old but it may still hold for the newer games. I just used the reasoning I had to predict the year of the new game. I did not try to say (too lazy to re read my posts but hopefull I didn't say) that Rockstar planned all games like that from the beginning. I just thought they had a trend for the newer games. I just thought it might go that way but without any backing with facts since no one knows what year Rockstar is thinking of using.

I know that arguing is good unless it turns into a flame war. It was getting crazy in another thread that I was in. That one also calmed down a bit. I am calm now and no flaming happened so I am in my happy place. I think I need more practice on how to make my points clearly. I don't know how I got by when I went to school.

Thank you for not blasting me. You did not direct blatant insults at me and I just felt what I felt because I am paranoid but I will abandon what I said about you and Coach Dante. My intentions are not to create problems here or to insult anyone. Whatever year it comes out in will be good.

Have a nice day.

ice tyrant
  • ice tyrant

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2005

#46

Posted 08 July 2006 - 05:35 PM

if im right, it will be 1989, here is why i think so:
VC-1986
VCS-1989
SA-1992
SAS-1995(you know its going to happen)
LCS-1998
III-2001

doesn't that make sense?

Rashon.
  • Rashon.

    What Comes Around Goes Around

  • Members
  • Joined: 24 Jun 2006
  • United-States

#47

Posted 08 July 2006 - 05:44 PM

Makes sense but you know, it's up to rahkstar2.gif . It's always up to rahkstar2.gif .

tekkenfreek233
  • tekkenfreek233

    Scheisse!

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 Jun 2006

#48

Posted 13 July 2006 - 06:51 PM

QUOTE (edisoncarter @ Jun 4 2006, 21:27)
If they did 90's they would have to port over all the cars from San Andreas. It might not look as much like Vice City anymore, and their goal with these "stories" games is to reuse existing work without redoing a lot of stuff.

The pink "Vice City Stories" logo wouldn't make any sense if it's 90's. They would risk losing that 80's vibe that made VC so great.

My money's on 80's. Could be a few years earlier or later.

I agree with you there, dude. It could probably be in the late 70's. 1979 would be a good year for Vice City.

Gman8
  • Gman8

    Mark Chump

  • Members
  • Joined: 09 Nov 2004

#49

Posted 13 July 2006 - 07:02 PM

Personally, I would like to work for Tommy, which would mean it would be set AFTER VC.

I agree with the poster that said 1989.

tekkenfreek233
  • tekkenfreek233

    Scheisse!

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 Jun 2006

#50

Posted 13 July 2006 - 07:32 PM Edited by tekkenfreek233, 13 July 2006 - 07:35 PM.

(deleted as this post was irrelevant and off topic)

TheDude5000
  • TheDude5000

    Soak of the year!

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 20 Jun 2005

#51

Posted 13 July 2006 - 08:30 PM

Either '89 or '83...would be a great year for VC Stories.

Hitman_90
  • Hitman_90

    im no player hater

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 10 Jul 2006

#52

Posted 13 July 2006 - 09:09 PM

QUOTE (ice tyrant @ Jul 8 2006, 17:35)
if im right, it will be 1989, here is why i think so:
VC-1986
VCS-1989
SA-1992
SAS-1995(you know its going to happen)
LCS-1998
III-2001

doesn't that make sense?

Wow, that does make sense. Thats pretty cool!

XMike
  • XMike

    Gangsta

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 27 Jun 2005

#53

Posted 13 July 2006 - 11:16 PM

I'd rather they do it in the 80's even though I don't have a psp, I would definately get this game if I ever got a psp and the 80's theme worked so well in miami for Vice City.

TonyZimmzy
  • TonyZimmzy

    The Bearded Child

  • Members
  • Joined: 20 Dec 2005

#54

Posted 15 July 2006 - 06:26 PM

VCS will be set in 1989

SAS will be set in 1995

GTA 4 will be set in 2007, Just like GTA 3 was set in 2001, The same year it came out, Present times

Werleman1
  • Werleman1

    Werle

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Nov 2004

#55

Posted 15 July 2006 - 08:46 PM

2 years after or before VC would be nice, that would bring something new to the table without giving VC a whole new setting.

TheDude5000
  • TheDude5000

    Soak of the year!

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 20 Jun 2005

#56

Posted 15 July 2006 - 09:20 PM

There's no chance that it won't be in the 80's.


Just look at the font.

Besides, Miami was kinda boring in the 70's and 90's.


In the 70's, nothing really happened.

In the 80's, you had Scarface, a few crime waves, the yuppy culture, great new music, etc.

In the 90's, the whole yuppy culture kinda died out, along with that party atmosphere.

alexrw
  • alexrw

    Peon

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Feb 2005

#57

Posted 18 July 2006 - 04:54 PM

It could be in the 70s. Maybe a Starsky&Hutch style theme.
Or maybe at the same time as VC but play as a different character, maybe a cop?




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users