Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Will it deserve the "FIVE" in GTA:V ?

85 replies to this topic
GTAVIViceCity
  • GTAVIViceCity

    CarJacker

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Nov 2011

#31

Posted 07 December 2011 - 03:13 AM

Don't you see what Rockstar is doing.

GTA III = GTA IV
GTA VC = GTA VI
GTA SA = GTA V

GTA IV
GTA V
GTA VI

Will be all the same maps we all love. They're just leaving the best for last.

Dick Valor
  • Dick Valor

    Cold Ass Honky

  • Members
  • Joined: 30 Nov 2011

#32

Posted 07 December 2011 - 03:34 AM

QUOTE (Zee @ Tuesday, Dec 6 2011, 22:11)
They couldnt call it GTAIV San Andreas because that would be a bold faced lie as its only in Los Santos and they couldnt call it GTAIV Los Santos because of how obviously lame and dissapointing it is that its just Los Santos, so, to fool people into thinking it will be a major installment instea of GTA4 in kos angeles they called it GTAV.

Obviously lame that it's just LS? Not remotely. Not that I would object to additional cities, but it's not the hope that SF and LV are secretly included that makes me salivate when I see the V trailer. In any case, it isn't just LS as there will be countryside, mountains, beaches--that is, areas based on rural SoCal. So there are likely to be smaller towns with airstrips in addition to LS. Does that make it the whole of SA? No. But does it make it obviously lame? Not even close. V is going to be its own game, with its own feel and scale. It is not a remake of IV or SA, nor should it be. I hope it includes elements from each as they're the best in the series... at least until V comes out.

Darrel
  • Darrel

    Reported!

  • Members
  • Joined: 23 Aug 2007

#33

Posted 07 December 2011 - 03:39 AM

QUOTE (Rucke @ Tuesday, Dec 6 2011, 19:45)
Maybe it's just as groundbreaking as GTA IV was even though they're on the same generation of consoles.

This.

And perhaps they don't want people to associate it with with Gta IV

gtacritic
  • gtacritic

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 04 Dec 2011

#34

Posted 07 December 2011 - 03:44 AM

QUOTE (J-B @ Tuesday, Dec 6 2011, 19:35)
People put way too much thought into the titles. What were they gonna call it , San Andreas II ? That sounds rehashed. Los Santos ? Sounds unappealing. They obviously couldn't come up with a name that sounded appealing and fitting. By naming it V/Five they get to use the five dollar bill insignia which fits the "Pursuit of the almighty dollar" tagline. This whole numbered releases means a new era is a pure fan invention that Rockstar has never acknowledged besides saying that IV was in a different universe than the previous 3D titles. The reason VC , SA , LCS and VCS weren't numbered was because they were prequels to III. Chronologically , III was the most recent out of them.

This man makes sense. icon14.gif

Put the myth to rest.

AceRay
  • AceRay

    In my restless dreams, I see that town...

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Oct 2010

#35

Posted 07 December 2011 - 03:53 AM

Not to mention that "Los Santos" means "Saints" in Spanish and they don't want to be mistaken with Saint's Row.

Stinky12
  • Stinky12

    No title

  • Members
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2010

#36

Posted 07 December 2011 - 03:55 AM

IMHO the way I see it, GTA titles with roman numerals are major releases while GTA VC and SA and all other ones are just fill in the gaps.
But most titles with roman numerals involves Liberty City except for GTA 2 and GTA V.
GTA, GTA III, GTA IV - Liberty City

gen pepsi
  • gen pepsi

    Crackhead

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Nov 2011

#37

Posted 07 December 2011 - 03:56 AM

I dont get whats up with you clowns and the titles.

The games been in development for years now and im sure it will "deserve" the number V

And get over the game needing a "big step" to have a number.

every game steps up from the previous one. VC was a step up from III as was SA to VC.

AND gta V isnt a remake of SA. IV wasnt a remake of III. They have never done a remake. what a dumb thing to think whoever posted that

Crakbone335
  • Crakbone335

    Rat

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Nov 2011

#38

Posted 07 December 2011 - 04:05 AM

As most of u know GTA VC, and GTA SA were part of the GTA III era. Then IV came around so you would think that the GTA after that would be part of the same era. (now this i what i think, i haven't really researched it) but i think Instead of IV having two separate games on that same era, it just had its two DLC's (TLAD and TBOGT). so my assumption is that GTA V will have DLC's too. that's just what i think so don't quote me on that.

and sorry if someone mentioned this already.

gtacritic
  • gtacritic

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 04 Dec 2011

#39

Posted 07 December 2011 - 04:06 AM

QUOTE (Zee @ Tuesday, Dec 6 2011, 22:11)
They couldnt call it GTAIV San Andreas because that would be a bold faced lie as its only in Los Santos and they couldnt call it GTAIV Los Santos because of how obviously lame and dissapointing it is that its just Los Santos, so, to fool people into thinking it will be a major installment instea of GTA4 in kos angeles they called it GTAV.

Your explanation is also reasonable. lol.gif

DarrinPA
  • DarrinPA

    Orange Grove Member

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 Mar 2009
  • None

#40

Posted 07 December 2011 - 04:09 AM

I'm not sure if they just thought that GTA San Andreas "II", "Redux", "Deuce", ect would be too confusing. Or possibly they are trying to seperate themselves form the GTA IV storyline.

PulpFiction
  • PulpFiction

    Yeah, we happy

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

#41

Posted 07 December 2011 - 04:45 AM

Well calling it GTA: San Andreas II wouldn't have made sense, because all the SA fanboys would be thinking "OMGZ CJ AND TEH GROVE ARE BACK CUZ ROFL LOL" (although some people think that anyway). That title would give the impression that it's a sequal to SA went it's not.

GTA: Los Santos wouldn't have made sense either, because GTA V is not just Los Santos. It has surrounding areas too and we don't know what else there'll be on the map.

R* more than likely chose GTA V as the title, because they saw it as the most appropriate. It's probably the same reason Volition went with Saints Row: The Third instead of Saints Row 3.

ccrogers15
  • ccrogers15

    REQUESTED BAN

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 26 Jul 2010

#42

Posted 07 December 2011 - 04:52 AM

GTA 5 does *not* deserve the 5. Main reason: I can bet money its gonna be in the same canon as 4. And its in los santos, meaning it can simply be named GTA:Los santos. GTA5 is most likely the working title.

thatguy23
  • thatguy23

    Li'l G Loc

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 Jun 2011

#43

Posted 07 December 2011 - 04:56 AM

Please, not this discussion again about "why isn't the title named...?", which then comes with the "which era is GTA V?", with everyone becoming enemy's.

PulpFiction
  • PulpFiction

    Yeah, we happy

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

#44

Posted 07 December 2011 - 05:00 AM

QUOTE (ccrogers15 @ Wednesday, Dec 7 2011, 15:52)
GTA 5 does *not* deserve the 5. Main reason: I can bet money its gonna be in the same canon as 4. And its in los santos, meaning it can simply be named GTA:Los santos. GTA5 is most likely the working title.

Not really sure why people think it's still a working title. How many games get announced only to have their names changed later on? A working title makes sense for the lead up, but the fact it was announced as GTA V (FIVE) to me suggets that's what it'll indeed be called when the game's marketing program officially begins.


ccrogers15
  • ccrogers15

    REQUESTED BAN

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 26 Jul 2010

#45

Posted 07 December 2011 - 05:02 AM Edited by ccrogers15, 07 December 2011 - 05:05 AM.

QUOTE (Miamivicecity @ Wednesday, Dec 7 2011, 05:00)
QUOTE (ccrogers15 @ Wednesday, Dec 7 2011, 15:52)
GTA 5 does *not* deserve the 5. Main reason: I can bet money its gonna be in the same canon as 4. And its in los santos, meaning it can simply be named GTA:Los santos.  GTA5 is most likely the working title.

Not really sure why people think it's still a working title. How many games get announced only to have their names changed later on? A working title makes sense for the lead up, but the fact it was announced as GTA V (FIVE) to me suggets that's what it'll indeed be called when the game's marketing program officially begins.

Activisions skylanders was announced as spyros kingdom at first then the trailer said skylanders.

Same happened with saints row 1. The original announcement it was called "bling bling". And "bling bling" was originally going to be PS2 exclusive.

Little William
  • Little William

    Mangi PNG ya!!

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 08 Mar 2009

#46

Posted 07 December 2011 - 05:08 AM

QUOTE (ccrogers15 @ Wednesday, Dec 7 2011, 05:02)
QUOTE (Miamivicecity @ Wednesday, Dec 7 2011, 05:00)
QUOTE (ccrogers15 @ Wednesday, Dec 7 2011, 15:52)
GTA 5 does *not* deserve the 5. Main reason: I can bet money its gonna be in the same canon as 4. And its in los santos, meaning it can simply be named GTA:Los santos.  GTA5 is most likely the working title.

Not really sure why people think it's still a working title. How many games get announced only to have their names changed later on? A working title makes sense for the lead up, but the fact it was announced as GTA V (FIVE) to me suggets that's what it'll indeed be called when the game's marketing program officially begins.

Activisions skylanders was announced as spyros kingdom at first then the trailer said skylanders.

Same happened with saints row 1. The original announcement it was called "bling bling". And "bling bling" was originally going to be PS2 exclusive.

I agree. Maybe GTA V is just the placeholder name. Eventually they will change it to GTA: (Insert Name). But GTA: Los Santos does not really sound good.

PulpFiction
  • PulpFiction

    Yeah, we happy

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

#47

Posted 07 December 2011 - 05:10 AM

QUOTE (ccrogers15 @ Wednesday, Dec 7 2011, 16:02)
Activisions skylanders was announced as spyros kingdom at first then the trailer said skylanders.

Same happened with saints row 1. The original announcement it was called "bling bling".

Good points, but the game was announced as GTA V and it was retained in the first trailer. Why would they change the name now? It's very out of character for R* to do that. I know the original GTA was going to be called "Race N Chase" (Heh imagine if that stayed? lol.gif ), but that was before the game was offcially announced.


Long_Haired_Boy
  • Long_Haired_Boy

    Whilst everyone's lost, the battle is won

  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2011

#48

Posted 07 December 2011 - 05:48 AM

QUOTE (Gangsta-NL @ Tuesday, Dec 6 2011, 19:36)
Because of the marketing I guess.. Or they made some extreem changes in the game.

However, in my honest opinion, if they only made los santos, why didnt they call it GTA Los Santos?

This is what I was getting at. Liberty City Branded, Vice City Branded, San Andreas is Branded. Why stop there? hmm

CubA_iLL_BrothA
  • CubA_iLL_BrothA

    666سنة

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Apr 2009

#49

Posted 07 December 2011 - 05:54 AM

QUOTE (Miamivicecity @ Tuesday, Dec 6 2011, 23:10)
QUOTE (ccrogers15 @ Wednesday, Dec 7 2011, 16:02)
Activisions skylanders was announced as spyros kingdom at first then the trailer said skylanders.

Same happened with saints row 1. The original announcement it was called "bling bling".

Good points, but the game was announced as GTA V and it was retained in the first trailer. Why would they change the name now? It's very out of character for R* to do that. I know the original GTA was going to be called "Race N Chase" (Heh imagine if that stayed? lol.gif ), but that was before the game was offcially announced.

True. Plus what does SR have to do with GTA Series? I know the only thing that changes are the Release dates, like in Vice City and SA trailers. GTA IV had a 6 month Delay. In V (Five) trailer there was no release date shown, so hopefully there won't be a 6 month delay.


Vegetarian Piranha
  • Vegetarian Piranha

    Make my day Jew!

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Nov 2011

#50

Posted 07 December 2011 - 12:13 PM

really pointless, the name means nothing...

they could call it "Grand Theft Auto: Tuna Can" for all i care.

J-B
  • J-B

    One Man Crusader

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Nov 2011
  • United-Nations

#51

Posted 07 December 2011 - 12:39 PM

QUOTE (ccrogers15 @ Tuesday, Dec 6 2011, 22:52)
GTA 5 does *not* deserve the 5. Main reason: I can bet money its gonna be in the same canon as 4. And its in los santos, meaning it can simply be named GTA:Los santos.  GTA5 is most likely the working title.

Why is it so absolutely hard to believe that V will be the title and it will be in the same canon as IV(if it even is) ? The reason VC , SA , VCS and LCS had no numerals is because they didn't push the three era canon forward , they only expanded upon it's past. Thus numerals would have been unfitting. GTA:Los Santos would just be misleading. There's obviously areas outside of Los Santos in the game. In the Mapping Los Santos thread someone identified the windmills and the mountain as being far removed from the LA area. The windmills were locate around Thousand Palms which is both far removed from LA and fits the desert terrain the trailer showed off. The title being V allows them to show that the game is themed towards money in rather neat way and not have to think of a gimmicky title like GTA: Gettin Dat Chedda. I seriously doubt V is a working name. A decent amount of thought obviously went into picking the five dollar bill insignia. What would Rockstar have to gain by naming it something else at this point ? The title is already plastered all over the internet and magazines it would be weird for them to decide to change a perfectly fine title at this point.

CalgaryJay
  • CalgaryJay

    Hustler

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Nov 2011

#52

Posted 07 December 2011 - 02:21 PM

QUOTE (Darrel @ Wednesday, Dec 7 2011, 03:39)
QUOTE (Rucke @ Tuesday, Dec 6 2011, 19:45)
Maybe it's just as groundbreaking as GTA IV was even though they're on the same generation of consoles.

This.

And perhaps they don't want people to associate it with with Gta IV

This is what I'm thinking. A new number generally indicates a big shift in the franchise. While IV was a huge retail success and generated positive reviews (and I loved it too), in hindsight compared to previous games, many people felt it just wasn't as "fun". I've heard plenty about how the push to realism was great, but not at the expense of all the immature fun we're used to in previous GTA titles.

My guess is R* has keenly heard all these critiques (as evidenced by TBOGT), and is thus making quite a change with the new one in this regard. Probably bringing the fun back, as well as a number of other big changes. In short, they're distancing themselves from IV. Thus, "GTA V", as opposed to GTAIV: San Andreas.

Psycho_Motorin
  • Psycho_Motorin

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 01 Dec 2011

#53

Posted 07 December 2011 - 02:26 PM

Agreed, GTA V is a fine title. The best GTA game for me is Vice City, so I don't really equate a number with importance or not, it's just how they title 'em.

I think they'll stick with number titles from now on if a game is in an already established location and present day. But if they ever go for another game with a particular theme or different locale to sell, it'd make sense to go back to a subtitle.

Nova69_7
  • Nova69_7

    WEDNESDAY TIL I DIE!!!

  • Members
  • Joined: 16 May 2008

#54

Posted 07 December 2011 - 02:42 PM

I think we as fans have got used to the 'numbered' titles representing a new era but I honestly believe that isn't how RockStar sees it...we made that up and accepted it as fact but perhaps that isn't how it's meant to be.

For the record, I hope this new game is a continuation of IV, or at least set in the same universe as IV. That's just my personal preference. I can live with it if it isn't as I know the game is gonna be a belter whichever way it goes. I was - if I'm honest - a little dissapointed when it was GTAV and not GTA:Insert Name but then I realised that it's just the name and it doesn't neccessarily mean a 'new era'.

I'll wait and see. The name doesn't bother me...as long as it contains GTA I'm happy.

zacn138
  • zacn138

    "Nigggguuuh"

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Apr 2007

#55

Posted 07 December 2011 - 03:30 PM

QUOTE (F1 fan @ Tuesday, Dec 6 2011, 19:25)
Hang on. He actually has a point.

I discussed this on another forum.

GTA3 was a huge step up from it's predecessors. As good as VC and SA were, they were only small steps up from that. The gameplay was very similar. Culminating in the excellent SA.

Enter GTA IV. Gta IV was a huge step up from 3, VC and SA. Hence, it was entitled to the number IV.

My best guess is that GTA V will be another huge step up from GTA IV. Visually it's similar, but the news coming out of rockstar is very positive on this one.

What about the minor change between GTA I and GTA II?

Dystopia
  • Dystopia

    ?

  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • Joined: 05 Dec 2011

#56

Posted 07 December 2011 - 09:26 PM

I don't think its has much importance, They are obviously playing with the money theme so the V was important, especially in the logo they created with the dollar.

GTA: Los Santos sounds limited, because it's in essence 1/3 of San Andreas, which isn't good for marketing really.

It seems to me like they have finally decided to drop the 'era' stuff.

FelipeVinhao
  • FelipeVinhao

    Under construction, sorry for the inconvenience

  • Members
  • Joined: 16 Dec 2005

#57

Posted 08 December 2011 - 04:27 AM

QUOTE (Dystopia @ Wednesday, Dec 7 2011, 19:26)
GTA: Los Santos sounds limited, because it's in essence 1/3 of San Andreas, which isn't good for marketing really.

That's right. If y'all wanted a reason for this new nomenclature, pay close attention to this.

Calling it GTALS would make the game look "smaller", what isn't true. Although we already have enough people around here complaining about being only Los Santos...

K-Malo94
  • K-Malo94

    Latin Thug

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 Oct 2010
  • Puerto-Rico

#58

Posted 08 December 2011 - 05:30 AM

so by your logic, IV was just a redo of III just because it took place in LC. They should have called it GTA III II

zacn138
  • zacn138

    "Nigggguuuh"

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Apr 2007

#59

Posted 08 December 2011 - 06:24 AM

It's called GTA V because

QUOTE
GTA 5, which is also stated to be Rockstar's "largest and most ambitious game"


It's a new era, a new approach to the way GTA has been developed.

DAWeeE1
  • DAWeeE1

    Peon

  • Members
  • Joined: 16 Jul 2010
  • Sweden

#60

Posted 08 December 2011 - 06:29 AM

QUOTE (Cheat @ Tuesday, Dec 6 2011, 19:23)
The game doesn't "deserve" a number on it's name, it receives it if it starts a new era and advances.

That's up to Rockstar, not you.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users