Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Why did Rockstar actually decide on Los Santos?

355 replies to this topic
Buffalo Soldier
  • Buffalo Soldier

    The Man Himself.

  • Members
  • Joined: 28 Oct 2011

#1

Posted 12 April 2012 - 12:41 PM

I'm just thinking this - why do we think Rockstar actually decided, 'Right, let's take the game back to Los Santos.'

I mean think about it - they could of went somewhere new, or went to Vice City and Vice City would of been the next logical step if they're mirroring the GTA III trilogy. And to be honest, I know myself and alot of others would of preferred Vice City anyday.

But why did they chose Los Santos?
I could only put it down to the continuous efforts of SA fans, constantly mailing Rockstar over years to tell them that 'San Andreas was the best' and on YouTube the way there is constantly people bombarding GTA videos with OTT love for San Andreas.

But that love is for San Andreas itself, the cheats, the characters, the storyline, the features - not the location. Because location wise, Vice City was clearly the greatest. Maybe Rockstar felt they needed to do California justice before moving onto Miami or a new location? There has to be some reason behind why they decided on a return to Los Santos.

PaddsterG2k3
  • PaddsterG2k3

    The Bee's Knees

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Jul 2003

#2

Posted 12 April 2012 - 12:47 PM

Good question. I'm sure once the Magazine previews are out they'll be asked this a lot. Maybe they felt that there is so much more with LA culture that they could explore? After all, its probably the most iconic US city after New York City.

1whitebuddah
  • 1whitebuddah

    SHOWN PARASITIC

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2012

#3

Posted 12 April 2012 - 12:47 PM Edited by 1whitebuddah, 12 April 2012 - 12:50 PM.

to be honest, just because its called los santos it doesn't mean its not going to be new, city of angels in hd needed to be done, because its a nice looking city and there is a lot to be done

someone mentioned on here the other day that if they done vice city again it would have to be set in the 80's otherwise it wouldn't feel right, and if it was set in the 80's it would just be the same game again pretty much

ccrogers15
  • ccrogers15

    REQUESTED BAN

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 26 Jul 2010

#4

Posted 12 April 2012 - 12:48 PM

My opinion is SA was better in all features, even the map. But i still do like VC and would love to see rockstar return to it next. (its likely they are)

thebestgameever
  • thebestgameever

    Playa

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Jul 2011

#5

Posted 12 April 2012 - 12:50 PM

I liked the SA map more than that of VICE CITY BUT i only liked it more because of the desert, countryside, forest, airports, small towns and other cities but i did not actually spend that much time in Los santos OR even enjoy it that much, except from the missions i never really went there, if the map is just one big city like LS and a little countryside i will be disappointed.

As city maps go, VC was better.

kesta195
  • kesta195

    L.S.P.D.

  • Members
  • Joined: 20 Jun 2011

#6

Posted 12 April 2012 - 12:54 PM

Not sure, but I'm glad. I'm actually happy that it's just Los Santos because now they can focus on making it feel like a real city like in IV. Let's face it, LS in SA was prety poor.

Chickenwing
  • Chickenwing

    You See it in the Movies.....

  • Members
  • Joined: 28 Oct 2011

#7

Posted 12 April 2012 - 12:55 PM

If they made Vice City 3 times as big and present time I'd probably like it just as much....

I can't see them going anywhere other than SA, LC & VC....

matajuegos
  • matajuegos

    2 Years in the forums!!! I MISS YOU ZEE

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2011

#8

Posted 12 April 2012 - 01:00 PM

The most likely reason is the one you say: lots of fans mailing R* about how san andreas was the best of the series, so Rockstar decided to make a comeback to one of the most famous cities in GTA, well I still liked Vice city and by far IMO was the best setting in a GTA (and VCS is my favorite) so if I were dan houser, I would say to stay in vice and then make a full san andreas for the next gen and not only los santos, you know, to demonstrate to the fans that they deserve great games

1whitebuddah
  • 1whitebuddah

    SHOWN PARASITIC

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2012

#9

Posted 12 April 2012 - 01:07 PM Edited by 1whitebuddah, 12 April 2012 - 01:12 PM.

maye there waiting to do vice city on the next gen consoles, think about it, vicy city in the next gen could look AMAZING with all the bright vibrant colours and the neon lights and what not

my theory is now that have got to grips with this generation of consoles, they wanted to make a huge map with country side and mountains and what better way to do that than recreate los angeles

Nebby
  • Nebby

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 01 Aug 2011
  • None

#10

Posted 12 April 2012 - 01:10 PM

QUOTE (PaddsterG2k3 @ Thursday, Apr 12 2012, 07:47)
Good question. I'm sure once the Magazine previews are out they'll be asked this a lot. Maybe they felt that there is so much more with LA culture that they could explore? After all, its probably the most iconic US city after New York City.

Yep. icon14.gif

There is sooooooooooooooooo much Rockstar* can do with L.A.. From Hollywood to Compton. It's endless. icon14.gif

whittle13
  • whittle13

    I'm not a mod

  • Members
  • Joined: 01 Jun 2011

#11

Posted 12 April 2012 - 01:12 PM

I'm Glad GTAV isn't set in Vice city because now R* will really be able to do Vice City justice on the next gen systems in about 5 years time

PaddsterG2k3
  • PaddsterG2k3

    The Bee's Knees

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Jul 2003

#12

Posted 12 April 2012 - 01:19 PM

QUOTE (Method @ Thursday, Apr 12 2012, 13:10)
QUOTE (PaddsterG2k3 @ Thursday, Apr 12 2012, 07:47)
Good question. I'm sure once the Magazine previews are out they'll be asked this a lot. Maybe they felt that there is so much more with LA culture that they could explore? After all, its probably the most iconic US city after New York City.

Yep. icon14.gif

There is sooooooooooooooooo much Rockstar* can do with L.A.. From Hollywood to Compton. It's endless. icon14.gif

Yup. I imagine Vice City will be given the State this time around (GTA VI?).

Furthermore, they developed the technology for South Western/Californian countryside in RDR, and already had a lot of the city mapped out in LA Noire. I imagine this will have allowed them adapt certain elements and develop it further.

The whole Hollywood culture, Disney, Bank Heist Movies (Reservoir Dogs, Heat, Point Break et al) are again stuff that has so much to be explored. I'm getting more and more scoped for GTA V just thinking about it.

inflamedeyeball
  • inflamedeyeball

    New Carcass album coming this year!

  • Members
  • Joined: 21 Nov 2011

#13

Posted 12 April 2012 - 01:41 PM

Vice City worked really well in the 80's because of the Scarface vibe. I think R* goes with cities that are very well known because they are the setting of iconic movies, and LA has more movies that take place in it than Miami.

That's my guess anyway.

There's a big chance they are shooting themselves in the foot if V isn't as good as SA, while the main city on the map the same as in SA.

Vice Beach
  • Vice Beach

    .....

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 Oct 2011
  • United-States

#14

Posted 12 April 2012 - 01:49 PM

They knew fans wanted Vice. They knew fans were expecting Vice. That's why the first shot in the trailer could just as well be Vice Beach. But then they show you Los Santos. R* is pretty much saying "We know what you want, but we're doing it our way."

F4L?
  • F4L?

    Well I'm sorry, Princess.

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 Jan 2010
  • None

#15

Posted 12 April 2012 - 01:52 PM

QUOTE (BrianJohnsonsBrotherCarl @ Friday, Apr 13 2012, 00:49)
They knew fans wanted Vice. They knew fans were expecting Vice. That's why the first shot in the trailer could just as well be Vice Beach. But then they show you Los Santos. R* is pretty much saying "We know what you want, but we're doing it our way."

I would say there were just as many if not more people who did not want Vice City.
Or maybe you're right and Rockstar decided 'You know what? Let's do the opposite of what everyone wants for the hell of it' rolleyes.gif

AtomicPunk
  • AtomicPunk

    I'm your huckleberry

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Mar 2012

#16

Posted 12 April 2012 - 01:54 PM

Why? Because San An is the most popular of the series and to remake it is money in the bank. Maybe they feel they never captured it the way they wanted to so now that the technology is better they wanna go for it.

thebestgameever
  • thebestgameever

    Playa

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Jul 2011

#17

Posted 12 April 2012 - 02:03 PM

QUOTE (1whitebuddah @ Thursday, Apr 12 2012, 13:07)
maye there waiting to do vice city on the next gen consoles, think about it, vicy city in the next gen could look AMAZING with all the bright vibrant colours and the neon lights and what not

my theory is now that have got to grips with this generation of consoles, they wanted to make a huge map with country side and mountains and what better way to do that than recreate los angeles

Have you seen the latest sleeping dogs gameplay?

The colours and lighting in that game are phenomenal, especially those on the streets and of buildings, plus HK probably has more neon than VC will.

I think V will be the last GTA this generation of consoles so they chose to use the location that the majority of people would have preferred and would last the longest, sadly what they MIGHT not know is that we liked the variety of the map, not LS.

Moist Peanut
  • Moist Peanut

    Crackhead

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Nov 2011

#18

Posted 12 April 2012 - 02:05 PM

One of the reasons they picked Los Santos is because they wanted to do something vastly different from IV. So instead of a cold-ish, northerly east coast city, they did a hot, southernly west coast city. They're trying to keep the series feeling fresh. I don't personally think they did Vice City was because I think it really works best in the 80's setting, and 1980's has already been done before, twice. So Rockstar are trying to keep it new and fresh. After V, I really do think it's time for a new city. Maybe a city in Texas like Houston or San Antonio, and the theme being about immigration from Mexico and maybe Global Warming? Just a thought

Isuck100%
  • Isuck100%

    Hasa Diga Eebowai!

  • Members
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2005

#19

Posted 12 April 2012 - 02:14 PM

They want to do Los Angeles justice just as they finally were able to do for New York City in GTA IV.

Knife
  • Knife

    Tits.

  • Zaibatsu
  • Joined: 11 Jul 2004
  • None

#20

Posted 12 April 2012 - 02:17 PM

What's the countryside like around Miami? Is it as interesting? That's one reason Los Santos would appeal, the rather epic countryside around it.

Zeichef
  • Zeichef

    Gambler

  • Members
  • Joined: 09 Mar 2006

#21

Posted 12 April 2012 - 02:24 PM

OP there's no such thing as "would of". It's WOULD HAVE, or WOULD' VE.

On topic, I think they just looked at all the different ideas for storylines and locations when they decided to work on the next GTA and figured a modern day LA is more interesting than a modern day Miami or San Fransisco. Although I would say a modern day Las Vegas would be awsome as well.

Mute Giant
  • Mute Giant

    Thug

  • Members
  • Joined: 01 Apr 2007

#22

Posted 12 April 2012 - 02:28 PM

Well... LA is huge with a lot of distinct boroughs. Ive heard that it feels like several diffent cities crammed together, more so than one city on its own. Of corse I havent been there, and its debatable. But since they seem to be going for size this time around, in that respect LA would be the perfect city to try and "replicate"; at least compared to the other previously used cities like San Francisco and Las Vegas which really arent that sizeble and varied. And there is exciting enviroments to pick from too. What would be interesting about the deserts of Las Venturras?

GTAViscool1
  • GTAViscool1

    Snitch

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 10 Apr 2012

#23

Posted 12 April 2012 - 02:29 PM

Vice city is only a good set for in the '70 80's not 2012

MrGfield
  • MrGfield

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Apr 2012

#24

Posted 12 April 2012 - 02:42 PM

I'm not sure, but i'm glad they did. Los Angeles and the whole west coast is awesome. I'm from California so i'm always stoked when i play a game based in Cali. Besides, L.A. is the car jacking capitol of the world.

abottig
  • abottig

    tinyurl.com/2glbsx

  • Members
  • Joined: 20 May 2004

#25

Posted 12 April 2012 - 02:49 PM

QUOTE (Buffalo Soldier @ Thursday, Apr 12 2012, 08:41)
I'm just thinking this - why do we think Rockstar actually decided, 'Right, let's take the game back to Los Santos.'

I mean think about it - they could of went somewhere new, or went to Vice City and Vice City would of been the next logical step if they're mirroring the GTA III trilogy. And to be honest, I know myself and alot of others would of preferred Vice City anyday.

But why did they chose Los Santos?
I could only put it down to the continuous efforts of SA fans, constantly mailing Rockstar over years to tell them that 'San Andreas was the best' and on YouTube the way there is constantly people bombarding GTA videos with OTT love for San Andreas.

But that love is for San Andreas itself, the cheats, the characters, the storyline, the features - not the location. Because location wise, Vice City was clearly the greatest. Maybe Rockstar felt they needed to do California justice before moving onto Miami or a new location? There has to be some reason behind why they decided on a return to Los Santos.

I'll never understand people's fascination with Vice City.

Good game, don't get me wrong, but the city itself sucked. It was flat, and boring with too much "beach" aka empty space.

San An was the best all around map in the series IMO. The terrain was huge, and varied, and we already know that V will be huge and varied. Excellent decision by R*.


PaddsterG2k3
  • PaddsterG2k3

    The Bee's Knees

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Jul 2003

#26

Posted 12 April 2012 - 02:57 PM

QUOTE (abottig @ Thursday, Apr 12 2012, 14:49)
QUOTE (Buffalo Soldier @ Thursday, Apr 12 2012, 08:41)
I'm just thinking this - why do we think Rockstar actually decided, 'Right, let's take the game back to Los Santos.'

I mean think about it - they could of went somewhere new, or went to Vice City and Vice City would of been the next logical step if they're mirroring the GTA III trilogy. And to be honest, I know myself and alot of others would of preferred Vice City anyday.

But why did they chose Los Santos?
I could only put it down to the continuous efforts of SA fans, constantly mailing Rockstar over years to tell them that 'San Andreas was the best' and on YouTube the way there is constantly people bombarding GTA videos with OTT love for San Andreas.

But that love is for San Andreas itself, the cheats, the characters, the storyline, the features - not the location. Because location wise, Vice City was clearly the greatest. Maybe Rockstar felt they needed to do California justice before moving onto Miami or a new location? There has to be some reason behind why they decided on a return to Los Santos.

I'll never understand people's fascination with Vice City.

Good game, don't get me wrong, but the city itself sucked. It was flat, and boring with too much "beach" aka empty space.

San An was the best all around map in the series IMO. The terrain was huge, and varied, and we already know that V will be huge and varied. Excellent decision by R*.

I agree with this. Vice City was an awesome game. But the map itself was very bland. Very flat with little gradial variety.

Official General
  • Official General

    You gotta always carry heat in these Vice City streets

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2010

#27

Posted 12 April 2012 - 03:03 PM Edited by Official General, 12 April 2012 - 03:11 PM.

QUOTE (Buffalo Soldier @ Thursday, Apr 12 2012, 12:41)
I'm just thinking this - why do we think Rockstar actually decided, 'Right, let's take the game back to Los Santos.'

I mean think about it - they could of went somewhere new, or went to Vice City and Vice City would of been the next logical step if they're mirroring the GTA III trilogy. And to be honest, I know myself and alot of others would of preferred Vice City anyday.

But why did they chose Los Santos?
I could only put it down to the continuous efforts of SA fans, constantly mailing Rockstar over years to tell them that 'San Andreas was the best' and on YouTube the way there is constantly people bombarding GTA videos with OTT love for San Andreas.

But that love is for San Andreas itself, the cheats, the characters, the storyline, the features - not the location. Because location wise, Vice City was clearly the greatest. Maybe Rockstar felt they needed to do California justice before moving onto Miami or a new location? There has to be some reason behind why they decided on a return to Los Santos.

I was very much hoping that GTA V would take place in Vice City when it was first announced. I was a bit disappointed when I watched the trailer and saw that it will be set in Los Santos. I really wanted a detailed, much bigger, modern-day version of Vice City, I still feel Miami and South Florida has a great deal to offer for a GTA setting. However, this Los Santos setting does look very good from what I've seen so far, so I'm just looking forward to seeing what its gonna look like.

I really don't know why Rockstar chose Los Santos over Vice City, because going by the chronological order of the previous GTAs, we would expect GTA V to take place in Vice City. I personally think there are two reasons behind it. One is that they really wanted to make a huge, detailed Los Angeles as realistically as they could, just like they did with New York in GTA IV. The other reason is that a modern-day Los Angeles/Southern Cali-based setting just seemed more appealing, with a lot to offer than a modern-day Miami. I will admit, the Miami setting was best for the 1980s theme, but I still think a modern-day Miami would have been great.

I hope any next GTA title after V will be set in Vice City, regardless of which console generation.

GTAFan20
  • GTAFan20

    I Got This.

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Dec 2011

#28

Posted 12 April 2012 - 03:05 PM

Dan Houser loves L.A. that's why they decided to do Los Santos

DaWiesel
  • DaWiesel

    Street Cat

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Sep 2011

#29

Posted 12 April 2012 - 03:06 PM

QUOTE (abottig @ Thursday, Apr 12 2012, 15:49)
QUOTE (Buffalo Soldier @ Thursday, Apr 12 2012, 08:41)
I'm just thinking this - why do we think Rockstar actually decided, 'Right, let's take the game back to Los Santos.'

I mean think about it - they could of went somewhere new, or went to Vice City and Vice City would of been the next logical step if they're mirroring the GTA III trilogy. And to be honest, I know myself and alot of others would of preferred Vice City anyday.

But why did they chose Los Santos?
I could only put it down to the continuous efforts of SA fans, constantly mailing Rockstar over years to tell them that 'San Andreas was the best' and on YouTube the way there is constantly people bombarding GTA videos with OTT love for San Andreas.

But that love is for San Andreas itself, the cheats, the characters, the storyline, the features - not the location. Because location wise, Vice City was clearly the greatest. Maybe Rockstar felt they needed to do California justice before moving onto Miami or a new location? There has to be some reason behind why they decided on a return to Los Santos.

I'll never understand people's fascination with Vice City.

Good game, don't get me wrong, but the city itself sucked. It was flat, and boring with too much "beach" aka empty space.

San An was the best all around map in the series IMO. The terrain was huge, and varied, and we already know that V will be huge and varied. Excellent decision by R*.

Well, some parts of SA map sucked, too. They should have put more easter eggs or something else in the woods instead of crappy glendales. But the desert was great. VC's map was good, just the beach part in the east was too big.

Darrel
  • Darrel

    Reported!

  • Members
  • Joined: 23 Aug 2007

#30

Posted 12 April 2012 - 03:07 PM

Personally, i did not think Rockstar were going to be predictable and choose San Andreas/Las santos or Vice city.

Was thinking they were going to shock us with a new location. But i guess, its because they can do a lot with the game . Mix the best of both worlds. A rich interesting city (Gta IV) With an exciting countryside with lots of open space (Red dead redemption)

Plus i think having a studio in southern california can really , really benefit the game. Anything they need the can simply use the Rockstar San Diego team to get them anything they desire. Photos, videos, weather data, traffic data you know, stuff like that.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users