Posted 17 April 2012 - 01:48 PM
Edited by Official General, 17 April 2012 - 02:18 PM.
You are being unreasonable in your slating of Vice City. You probably was not saying all those negative things about Vice City when it first came out, and you are only saying them because you were able to experience the huge maps of San Andreas and GTA IV, which both came out after VC. So yeah, right now its easy for you say, "Oh I don't like Vice City that much now, the map was not big enough".
VC was big enough for what it was, it was based on just ONE city, which was a 1980 Miami, and Miami back then was not a very big city like it is today. The city was linear in its design because that is how Miami looks in real-life, why don't you go and look at a real-life map of Miami and see for yourself. VC was flat, because, again in real-life, Miami and most of South Florida IS FLAT lowland terrain, with marshes, swamps and sprawling beaches. And there was definitely variety in VC's scenery, I thought it was brilliant - there were the luxury mansions of Starfish Island, Ocean Drive-style strip with all the bright neon lights, the stylish, towering hotel buildings of Washington Beach, the modern skyscrapers of Downtown VC, to the run-down ghetto slums of Little Haiti and Little Havana.
If anything, I think VC was one of the most visually amazing, accurate and interesting locations in GTA, regardless of it size.
I agree with you on this though - "they chose Los Santos because they wanted to."