Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Why is it called GTA V then?

114 replies to this topic
Deadly Target
  • Deadly Target

    Rat

  • Members
  • Joined: 12 Apr 2010

#31

Posted 04 November 2011 - 12:45 AM

QUOTE (BGModder @ Friday, Nov 4 2011, 00:32)
QUOTE (Shockenheim @ Thursday, Nov 3 2011, 19:28)
QUOTE (BGModder @ Friday, Nov 4 2011, 00:25)
Because they don't want people to find out they're reusing the same map from L.A. Noire.

Dude, serious?

lol What do you think?

I think you're joking. Anyone with some sense can see the map in the GTA V trailer looks completely different than L.A. Noire's map.

DlZZEE
  • DlZZEE

    PC peasant

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Oct 2011
  • None

#32

Posted 04 November 2011 - 12:46 AM

QUOTE (crapmadgig @ Friday, Nov 4 2011, 00:41)
QUOTE (downthrough @ Friday, Nov 4 2011, 00:37)
well because of this:

Company founder Sam Houser called the upcoming game "another radical reinvention of the Grand Theft Auto universe."

and this

Rockstar says the game will present "a bold new direction in open-world freedom, storytelling, mission-based
gameplay and online multiplayer," as the game "focuses on the pursuit of the almighty dollar."

i think they save the numbered installments to indicate new directions and changes they are making to the formula of the game.

But is it gonna be as revolutionary as III and IV?

III basically is where GTA begins as a mainstream success videogame. It revolutionized the industry by bringing an open-world sandbox 3D game into your hands, and you could literally do anything you imagined in the game.

IV brought a new engine to the game, and an unparalleled degree of realism we had not seen before in any GTA game. Playing IV was truly like watching a movie, as much as people want to bash it, it was a revolutionary game too (even though not in the same degree as III, but still...)

This.
V doesn't looks as revolutionary as III and IV.

gtabelieber
  • gtabelieber

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Nov 2011

#33

Posted 04 November 2011 - 12:46 AM

who knows although we only had 111 and iv anyway and ye sure there was 2 installments of gta '3' it ddnt really exist i wouldn't say, at the time they prob knew ps3 was comin out and said well keep iv for the ps3 or something

DlZZEE
  • DlZZEE

    PC peasant

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Oct 2011
  • None

#34

Posted 04 November 2011 - 12:49 AM

QUOTE (skillz7855 @ Friday, Nov 4 2011, 00:39)
QUOTE (DizzeeXL @ Friday, Nov 4 2011, 00:31)
QUOTE (skillz7855 @ Friday, Nov 4 2011, 00:22)
Maybe because the DLC for GTA IV ended the era for the game. Its time to move on to a bigger and better game.

Again with era, the new era is gonna be when new consoles are going to be released.

GTA I and II where on playstation

But both games weren't that good, GTA III started the real era of GTA franchise.

spaceeinstein
  • spaceeinstein

    Chocolate

  • GTA Mods Staff
  • Joined: 17 Jul 2003
  • Hong-Kong
  • Major Contribution Award [Mods]
    Helpfulness Awards [Mods]

#35

Posted 04 November 2011 - 12:52 AM

QUOTE (DizzeeXL @ Thursday, Nov 3 2011, 19:49)
But both games weren't that good, GTA III started the real era of GTA franchise.

dozingoff.gif Without GTA 1 and 2, there would not be GTA III...

TheTerminatorNY
  • TheTerminatorNY

    Saxon = Joke Account

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Apr 2008

#36

Posted 04 November 2011 - 12:52 AM

QUOTE (crapmadgig @ Thursday, Nov 3 2011, 20:31)
QUOTE (TheTerminatorNY @ Friday, Nov 4 2011, 00:29)
Can we stop with this stupid "oMgz this Isnt a NeW ErA y r th3y caLLing it GtA V?!?!1?1?1?" It's GTA V because that's what Rockstar wanted to name it. This ridiculous "III era," "IV era," garbage was created by fans. Rockstar has never said anything about stupid eras. The next GTA game will most likely be GTA VI, then after that GTA VII, and so on and so forth.

But since GTA III, the Roman Numeral has been used to denote the start of a new "Era". It is not BS invented by fans. Rockstar refers to them as actual eras.

Rockstar does no such thing, people on this and many other sites do. The reason the fans created the eras of GTA games was to group similar games together. The "GTA 1 era" contains the classic top-down GTA games GTA, GTA: London 1969, and GTA: London 1961. The "GTA III era" contains GTA III, Vice City, San Andreas, and all of the PSP games. Then the "GTA IV era" is GTA IV, Lost and the Damned, and Ballad of Gay Tony.

Rockstar has never come out and said that a new roman numeral means a new era! It's just the damn title of the game! Idiotic teenage fans came up with this nonsense and it's been used so often that people now believe it to be fact.

Little William
  • Little William

    Mangi PNG ya!!

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 08 Mar 2009

#37

Posted 04 November 2011 - 12:52 AM

I don't know the mentality of some people here. When R* announced it will be Los Santos and surrounding areas , they assumed it will be smaller than SA's map. R* did say it will be the biggest GTA ever and it will portray whole of Southern California. Southern California, that is nearly half of the f*cking state! Even if they only 50% of SoCal, it is still much much bigger than SA's map. So it does not have SF and LV, so it is automatically crap. If you wanted SA so bad, go back and play it. I am buying and playing V, thank you.

Nem_Wan
  • Nem_Wan

    The Artist Formerly Known As Magic_Al

  • Members
  • Joined: 12 Aug 2006
  • United-States

#38

Posted 04 November 2011 - 12:54 AM

I believe the new system, starting with IV, is that a roman numeral indicates a new game world (map), and a title indicates an add-on or spin-off of an existing world. In this system GTA III, VC, and SA, would be retroactively I, II, and III in the 3D series, and the top-down GTA 1 and 2 are separate from the 3D series.

It makes sense, you just accept it.

downthrough
  • downthrough

    Snitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2007

#39

Posted 04 November 2011 - 12:54 AM

QUOTE (DizzeeXL @ Friday, Nov 4 2011, 00:46)
QUOTE (crapmadgig @ Friday, Nov 4 2011, 00:41)
QUOTE (downthrough @ Friday, Nov 4 2011, 00:37)
well because of this:

Company founder Sam Houser called the upcoming game "another radical reinvention of the Grand Theft Auto universe."

and this

Rockstar says the game will present "a bold new direction in open-world freedom, storytelling, mission-based
gameplay and online multiplayer," as the game "focuses on the pursuit of the almighty dollar."

i think they save the numbered installments to indicate new directions and changes they are making to the formula of the game.

But is it gonna be as revolutionary as III and IV?

III basically is where GTA begins as a mainstream success videogame. It revolutionized the industry by bringing an open-world sandbox 3D game into your hands, and you could literally do anything you imagined in the game.

IV brought a new engine to the game, and an unparalleled degree of realism we had not seen before in any GTA game. Playing IV was truly like watching a movie, as much as people want to bash it, it was a revolutionary game too (even though not in the same degree as III, but still...)

This.
V doesn't looks as revolutionary as III and IV.

yeah but i am not talking about "looks" i am talking about gameplay elements added that we have never seen before that will change how we play the game. stuff that we were not given any info on in the introductory trailer. i think this whole money thing will be a big part of single player as well as multiplayer. i also think that this world will be interactive in ways IV could only dream of but time will tell.

iGrandTheftAuto
  • iGrandTheftAuto

    Mack Pimp

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 28 Oct 2011

#40

Posted 04 November 2011 - 12:54 AM

I don't really think it matters what the game is called, but you make a good point.

ccrogers15
  • ccrogers15

    REQUESTED BAN

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 26 Jul 2010

#41

Posted 04 November 2011 - 12:54 AM

ive been saying since announcement:

ITS NOT GONNA BE CALLED GTA:5. THE GTA IV ERA IS TOO INCOMPLETE AND SOME HINTS PROVE THIS IS PART OF THE 4 ERA. IT WILL BE CALLED GTA:LOCATION NAME HERE.

Now it will most likely be: GTA: LOS SANTOS.

Nem_Wan
  • Nem_Wan

    The Artist Formerly Known As Magic_Al

  • Members
  • Joined: 12 Aug 2006
  • United-States

#42

Posted 04 November 2011 - 12:56 AM

QUOTE (ccrogers15 @ Thursday, Nov 3 2011, 18:54)
ive been saying since announcement:

ITS NOT GONNA BE CALLED GTA:5. THE GTA IV ERA IS TOO INCOMPLETE AND SOME HINTS PROVE THIS IS PART OF THE 4 ERA. IT WILL BE CALLED GTA:LOCATION NAME HERE.

Now it will most likely be: GTA: LOS SANTOS.

They're not changing it. It's announced. It would be confusing and might even make Take-Two's stock drop to change it because it would look like they made a mistake. And if they did change it, what about when they want to announce the "real" GTA V? "Rockstar announces GTA V. Again."

bobgtafan
  • bobgtafan

    The last thing you never see

  • Members
  • Joined: 21 Apr 2009

#43

Posted 04 November 2011 - 12:56 AM

QUOTE (Little William @ Friday, Nov 4 2011, 00:52)
I don't know the mentality of some people here. When R* announced it will be Los Santos and surrounding areas , they assumed it will be smaller than SA's map. R* did say it will be the biggest GTA ever and it will portray whole of Southern California. Southern California, that is nearly half of the f*cking state! Even if they only 50% of SoCal, it is still much much bigger than SA's map. So it does not have SF and LV, so it is automatically crap. If you wanted SA so bad, go back and play it. I am buying and playing V, thank you.

People are mad because they didn't really want to go back to Southern California to begin with sense many fans have wanted a new region all together. Everyone who was saying go back to San Andreas didn't mean JUST go back to the Southern California part of SA or else they would of asked for Los Santos to begin with.

TheTerminatorNY
  • TheTerminatorNY

    Saxon = Joke Account

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Apr 2008

#44

Posted 04 November 2011 - 12:59 AM

QUOTE (ccrogers15 @ Thursday, Nov 3 2011, 20:54)
ive been saying since announcement:

ITS NOT GONNA BE CALLED GTA:5. THE GTA IV ERA IS TOO INCOMPLETE AND SOME HINTS PROVE THIS IS PART OF THE 4 ERA. IT WILL BE CALLED GTA:LOCATION NAME HERE.

Now it will most likely be: GTA: LOS SANTOS.

What the f*ck are you talking about? The game is called Grand Theft Auto V.

And stop with the damn "oMgz new ERA!!11" nonsense. There are no GTA eras! That is stupidity made up by fans.

Jackmackg
  • Jackmackg

    Mack Pimp

  • Members
  • Joined: 15 May 2008

#45

Posted 04 November 2011 - 12:59 AM

Because its going to be 5 times as awesome.

crapmadgig
  • crapmadgig

    Ruthless Criminal

  • Members
  • Joined: 24 Aug 2011

#46

Posted 04 November 2011 - 01:02 AM

QUOTE (Little William @ Friday, Nov 4 2011, 00:52)
I don't know the mentality of some people here. When R* announced it will be Los Santos and surrounding areas , they assumed it will be smaller than SA's map. R* did say it will be the biggest GTA ever and it will portray whole of Southern California. Southern California, that is nearly half of the f*cking state! Even if they only 50% of SoCal, it is still much much bigger than SA's map. So it does not have SF and LV, so it is automatically crap. If you wanted SA so bad, go back and play it. I am buying and playing V, thank you.

I don't think you are understanding what others are trying to get to. Yes we will all love to play GTA V when it comes out, who the hell wouldn't? But I think we should give a little constructive criticism for Rockstar. Things can only improve in the world if you notice what is exactly wrong and how you want to solve it (and that applies to everyone's life). I think that Rockstar should have opted for a little more diversity within its environments instead of limiting itself to one city. I am delighted for the fact that R* has added the countryside in there; in fact I congratulate R* for attending the fans' demands for rural areas, but knowing I'll be driving in that beautiful countryside in the game only to go back to the original city I was in, is to a degree, disappointing. What felt so cool about GTA: SA was that feeling of exploration, of leaving one city, driving through the countryside, and then reaching a totally different city with a different feel than the one you were in before. Now, I know for sure that Los Santos will be extremely diverse, but at the end of the day it's still the same city, and that's what many fans didn't want if Rockstar was to remake San Andreas in GTA V. We wanted the cities that were present in SA!

Anyways, GTA V looks awesome. The trailer looks fantastic and I can't wait to play it! But that's just something Rockstar could have done to literally make this game perfect imo

walkingsickness
  • walkingsickness

    Mr. "Blow Your Head Off"

  • Members
  • Joined: 21 Dec 2005

#47

Posted 04 November 2011 - 01:14 AM

Just to add my 2 cents about this (because I haven't been on this forum in so f*cking long)
I'm EXTREMELY pissed about not having a FULL SA.

However 2 things to note...

R* knows better to not listen to the consumer base that not only makes their games sell better
than any other game in mankind, but makes their games classic in a very obvious cult like way.
(Hence...gtaforum.com), so they know what we want (like dogs)

And they also know how to cleverly say things that for fanboys to over analyze, and assume.

In their PR, they didn't say that their WASN'T going to be SF or LV.

I believe their is going to be a more on making a wonderland out of LS first...then the other 2 would follow.

I still don't quite understand why there are f*cking planes in the game, tho...but it only means that this
would be quite massive in size.

Might be the same size of SA at the end...I'm going miss the LV tho confused.gif



bread
  • bread

    Nutrition Facts not needed

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 27 Jul 2011
  • United-States

#48

Posted 04 November 2011 - 01:15 AM

QUOTE (Shockenheim @ Thursday, Nov 3 2011, 19:20)
Because GTA SAN ANDREAS was already taken :-)

It's Los Santos only.

MiamiViceCity
  • MiamiViceCity

    The Harwood Butcher

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2007
  • Australia
  • Best Poster [GTA] 2014
    Best Member in the OGA 2012

#49

Posted 04 November 2011 - 01:17 AM

QUOTE (ccrogers15 @ Friday, Nov 4 2011, 11:54)
ive been saying since announcement:

ITS NOT GONNA BE CALLED GTA:5. THE GTA IV ERA IS TOO INCOMPLETE AND SOME HINTS PROVE THIS IS PART OF THE 4 ERA. IT WILL BE CALLED GTA:LOCATION NAME HERE.

Now it will most likely be: GTA: LOS SANTOS.

The game was announced as GTA V, the trailer has the GTA V logo at the end, R*'s official press release says GTA V. The game will be marketed and sold as GTA V. Is it so hard for some of you to comprehend? confused.gif

bobgtafan
  • bobgtafan

    The last thing you never see

  • Members
  • Joined: 21 Apr 2009

#50

Posted 04 November 2011 - 01:20 AM

QUOTE (walkingsickness @ Friday, Nov 4 2011, 01:14)
Just to add my 2 cents about this (because I haven't been on this forum in so f*cking long)
I'm EXTREMELY pissed about not having a FULL SA.

However 2 things to note...

R* knows better to not listen to the consumer base that not only makes their games sell better
than any other game in mankind, but makes their games classic in a very obvious cult like way.
(Hence...gtaforum.com), so they know what we want (like dogs)

And they also know how to cleverly say things that for fanboys to over analyze, and assume.

In their PR, they didn't say that their WASN'T going to be SF or LV.

I believe their is going to be a more on making a wonderland out of LS first...then the other 2 would follow.

I still don't quite understand why there are f*cking planes in the game, tho...but it only means that this
would be quite massive in size.

Might be the same size of SA at the end...I'm going miss the LV tho confused.gif

They've basically said it's only Southern California so no Vegas or Francisco in store.

J24D
  • J24D

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Nov 2011

#51

Posted 04 November 2011 - 01:28 AM

I read somewhere that R* numbers the games that they feel will stand out in the series.

GTA: Released in 1997: You play a criminal in a free roam world. Undergo missions or do whatever else you want, rob banks, steal cars...

GTA: 2 - The sequel to the 1977 hit. Much improved over their first venture into what was to be one of the most successfull video game series' of all time.

GTA: III - Introduced 3rd person view, a much greater interface and HUD, and many more features.

GTA: Vice City - Introduced helicopters and aircraft, Home ownership, Increased the number of vehicles and weapons, not a huge improvement.

GTA: San Andreas - A vast map, high level of customization, storyline and minigames significantly improved, reworked camera system, improved money system, ability to swim, removal of loading screens when in transit, hundreds more features I don't have time to write about. Mabye R* underestimated San Andreas?

GTA: IV - More realistic, not just in terms of graphics, but in terms of design, much more in-depth storyline, Multiplayer is introduced, successful DLC released, once again... too many to list. Apart from it cost close to $100m to develop.

GTA V - Could this be the perfect combination between San Andreas and IV?, a mixture of a large and realistic map, upgraded RAGE engine providing even better graphics, even more customization than seen in San Andreas, use of MotionScan?, so much to speculate, and so long to wait sad.gif

We will just have to wait and see what the next trailer brings us smile.gif

Outplug
  • Outplug

    PSN: Headphenomenon

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2011
  • None

#52

Posted 04 November 2011 - 01:38 AM

QUOTE (Puma06111991 @ Friday, Nov 4 2011, 00:20)
Can be pretty short about that: GTA 4 also wasn't called "GTA Liberty City".

Yeah, but this had to be a new era because it was a new set of consoles and beautiful new graphics.

walkingsickness
  • walkingsickness

    Mr. "Blow Your Head Off"

  • Members
  • Joined: 21 Dec 2005

#53

Posted 04 November 2011 - 01:40 AM

QUOTE (bobgtafan @ Friday, Nov 4 2011, 01:20)
QUOTE (walkingsickness @ Friday, Nov 4 2011, 01:14)
Just to add my 2 cents about this (because I haven't been on this forum in so f*cking long)
I'm EXTREMELY pissed about not having a FULL SA.

However 2 things to note...

R* knows better to not listen to the consumer base that not only makes their games sell better
than any other game in mankind, but makes their games classic in a very obvious cult like way.
(Hence...gtaforum.com), so they know what we want (like dogs)

And they also know how to cleverly say things that for fanboys to over analyze, and assume.

In their PR, they didn't say that their WASN'T going to be SF or LV.

I believe their is going to be a more on making a wonderland out of LS first...then the other 2 would follow.

I still don't quite understand why there are f*cking planes in the game, tho...but it only means that this
would be quite massive in size.

Might be the same size of SA at the end...I'm going miss the LV tho  confused.gif

They've basically said it's only Southern California so no Vegas or Francisco in store.

"They" said that because its LS and surrounding whatever...for right now..

"They" Didnt say its LS and surrounding whatever and thats what it is. No DLC,
no plans of doing anything else in the future..

They read these f*cking forums...they know how to mess with us alien.gif

pVuyc
  • pVuyc

    Square Civilian

  • Members
  • Joined: 01 Nov 2011

#54

Posted 04 November 2011 - 01:50 AM

They can't call it San Andreas, if the game takes place only in Los Santos. And GTA Los Santos as a title would have been terrible.

jackass2009
  • jackass2009

    We're bouncing now?

  • Members
  • Joined: 28 May 2009

#55

Posted 04 November 2011 - 01:52 AM

It's called Grand Theft Auto V. There is no such thing as eras. It's just the title. Grand Theft Auto: Los Santos both A) doesn't have that GTA zing to it and B) would probably get people confused with San Andreas.

[enforcA]
  • [enforcA]

    The original one.

  • Members
  • Joined: 09 Mar 2005

#56

Posted 04 November 2011 - 01:58 AM

My thought about this is actually the following:

The "V" has a (R* typical) dual meaning, in short:

(1st meaning) The Roman numeral "V" (5), which declares this game as the fifth Major Release in the GTA Series, in short, the typical standard meaning.
(2nd meaning) The "V" from "Vinewood", which corresponds to the Hollywood Sign of Los Santos, the Vinewood Sign. Which would harden the "only Los Santos" or "concentrated on Los Santos" myth.

The money-like design just adds the typical expectation what foreigners think about Hollywood before they were there actually. Like: "Hollywood is about Dollars, getting Money and becoming a star." And then, when they are finally there, opinions change and they see the real Hollywood, poor neighborhoods, a dirty walk of fame, a kinda dirty place at all. At least that is what i heard about it.

The extra written "five" would then be just a simple addon to clarify/underline that this is the fifth part in the series (like the 1st meaning above).

...

Before the release of the first trailer i thought it could mean Las Vegas / Las Venturas (in a time when there was plenty of money), money and five cities (possibility to travel to different cities via plane), but after seeing the trailer, five cities would definitively be a way too large with that mass of details. And then finally seeing the Vinewood sign and what the guy said in the trailer and what Rockstar announced about Los Santos, it kinda made sense with the dual meaning. Although i hope it will be larger.

But the five character theory could also be true, at least in some way.

Ratone
  • Ratone

    Peon

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Nov 2011

#57

Posted 04 November 2011 - 02:06 AM

GTA eras don't really work like most people expect.

People usually think like this:
GTA 1
GTA 1: London
GTA 2:
GTA 3:
GTA 3: Vice City

and so on and on and on.
But in fact, there was no "GTA 3: Vice City" it was just GTA Vice City.
Rockstar chooses to user numbers or a subtitle depending on how cool it will sound, or not.

The whole era thing don't work anymore with the DLCs
It can't be "GTA 4: Los Santos", or else it would sound like a GTA 4 DLC.
GTA: Los Santos doesn't sound any good too, and rings like Saint's Row.

So yeah, GTA 5 sounds good, goes well with the money theme, and we don't know enough of the game to see how groundbreaking it will be. Seriously.

You people are bitching because the game doesn't have the same map size as San Andreas, is really map size all there is to a GTA? Thats why people like GTA San Andreas more than 4, because the map is bigger?
Sometimes I think most GTA fans don't really know to appreciate what they have. GTA is a masterpiece and some people threat it like raw meat on a barbecue.

Piperka
  • Piperka

    Big Homie

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 11 Apr 2009
  • Australia

#58

Posted 04 November 2011 - 02:26 AM

Because there's secretly San Fierro and Las Venturas! And they're hiding it from us until a later time.

Plus there's a massive countryside, so GTA: LS wouldn't be right.

Halo_Override
  • Halo_Override

    Dilettante

  • Members
  • Joined: 22 Oct 2011

#59

Posted 04 November 2011 - 02:27 AM

My thoughts: the V era -- and yes, I do believe Rockstar thinks in eras as well -- is about a leap upward in the game overall. Not just about radically improved graphics. The improvement from San Andreas to IV was huge, and there's no reason to expect the same level of improvement from IV to V.

From IV Vanilla to Lost and Damned to Gay Tony, you could see them experimenting with different (past and new) game dynamics. Team management, mission replay, mid-mission checkpoints, trip skip, gang battles, etc. Similarly, RDR and LA Noire let them try out a lot of different things too.

Obviously, they're going to take all this into account when designing V, add refinements based on what they've learned, and probably try some new and audacious things they haven't done before. They know they're looked upon as innovators within their niche, and it's very unlikely they're going to suddenly forget their ambition.

Will the graphics be improved? Almost certainly. But it's about much more than that, and I think they know what's on the line when they title a GTA with a new numeral.

Jeeebuuus
  • Jeeebuuus

    AKA So-crates

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Nov 2011

#60

Posted 04 November 2011 - 02:46 AM

If R* hadn't released that one vague statement I think more people would assume its all of SA. There is good evidence on both sides, mainly the multiple cities side. Either R* is being vauge in order to surprise us again or they want to let the SA fans down easily. To me its too early to say.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users