Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Why did Rockstar actually decide on Los Santos?

355 replies to this topic
El Diablo
  • El Diablo

    "Not Santa's balls!"

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars

#271

Posted 17 April 2012 - 06:09 AM

QUOTE (Buffalo Soldier @ Thursday, Apr 12 2012, 05:41)
I mean think about it

no, I'd rather not.

over-thinking is what has caused most of the stupid threads in this forum.

QUOTE
Because location wise, Vice City was clearly the greatest.

clearly?
says who?

I didn't particularly love Vice City.
lots of wasted space, linear design, flat as a board, no variety in the scenery.

QUOTE
There has to be some reason behind why they decided on a return to Los Santos.

the reason is simple.
they chose Los Santos because they wanted to.

let's stop over-analyzing everything....

Official General
  • Official General

    You gotta always carry heat in these Vice City streets

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2010

#272

Posted 17 April 2012 - 01:48 PM Edited by Official General, 17 April 2012 - 02:18 PM.

@ El_Diablo

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."

I am K
  • I am K

    K

  • Members
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2011

#273

Posted 17 April 2012 - 02:03 PM

QUOTE (ccrogers15 @ Thursday, Apr 12 2012, 12:48)
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)

100% next GTA go to vice city (miami) and include some of the surrounding area like the everglades - and maybe throw in the occassional hurricaine where you see cars just fly away - would be funny and trippy.

El Diablo
  • El Diablo

    "Not Santa's balls!"

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars

#274

Posted 17 April 2012 - 07:54 PM

QUOTE (Official General @ Tuesday, Apr 17 2012, 06:48)
@ El_Diablo

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

I am not being unreasonable.

that's how I feel now because that's how I felt at the time, when it first came out.
I enjoyed the game but I didn't care for the city. never have.

Official General
  • Official General

    You gotta always carry heat in these Vice City streets

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2010

#275

Posted 17 April 2012 - 08:07 PM

QUOTE (El_Diablo @ Tuesday, Apr 17 2012, 19:54)
QUOTE (Official General @ Tuesday, Apr 17 2012, 06:48)
@ El_Diablo

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

I am not being unreasonable.

that's how I feel now because that's how I felt at the time, when it first came out.
I enjoyed the game but I didn't care for the city. never have.

Well I'm sorry to hear you felt that way. I was totally immersed in the whole Vice City environment, its a shame you did'nt get that feeling, you sure missed out.

El Diablo
  • El Diablo

    "Not Santa's balls!"

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars

#276

Posted 17 April 2012 - 08:36 PM

I didn't miss out on anything.
I played the game to 100%.
I just didn't like the city.
stop parsing my own words in order to try and use them against me.

Vice City was boring.
it was flat as a board, wasted huge amounts of space on empty terrain where there was NOTHING to do (like the beach and golf course), and had little-to-no variety in terms of scenery.

I'm not talking about the game itself, I'm talking about the city.

Honest Bill
  • Honest Bill

    Gangsta

  • Members
  • Joined: 14 Sep 2010

#277

Posted 17 April 2012 - 08:40 PM

i think that the real reason VC seemed a little bit plain (the map itself, not the game) is because it didn't use the traditional 3 area progression, and the entire map unlocked a little bit too early.

Official General
  • Official General

    You gotta always carry heat in these Vice City streets

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2010

#278

Posted 17 April 2012 - 08:45 PM

QUOTE (El_Diablo @ Tuesday, Apr 17 2012, 20:36)
I didn't miss out on anything.
I played the game to 100%.
I just didn't like the city.
stop parsing my own words in order to try and use them against me.

Vice City was boring.
it was flat as a board, wasted huge amounts of space on empty terrain where there was NOTHING to do (like the beach and golf course), and had little-to-no variety in terms of scenery.

I'm not talking about the game itself, I'm talking about the city.

Like I said, I'm sorry you missed out, because it was the city itself in Vice City that greatly added to the brilliance of the gameplay experience.

Most GTA fans don't agree with your analysis, so its s shame you were one of the few who felt that way. There was plenty of things to do in VC, I'm not gonna go into it. I'm not putting words in your mouth, I'm serious. If you really did not enjoy the city in VC, then really, you missed out man.

El Diablo
  • El Diablo

    "Not Santa's balls!"

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars

#279

Posted 17 April 2012 - 08:53 PM

you're still choosing to ignore the point.
or maybe you're genuinely missing it, I don't know.

I don't care how many people agree with me, for one.
secondly I didn't say there weren't plenty of things to do.

I said the map wasted large space on empty terrain where there was nothing to do.
which is true and cannot be argued.

I never said the game itself didn't have plenty of things to do.
I said I was talking about the city, not the game.

the city.
not the game.

the city.
get it now?

Tipper
  • Tipper

    Playa

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 Oct 2009

#280

Posted 17 April 2012 - 10:24 PM

QUOTE
because it was the city itself in Vice City that greatly added to the brilliance of the gameplay experience.


No, in terms of city layout and map, VC was the worst city in the series. Not only was it flat, but there was so much wasted space. The beaches took a big part of the first island. The country club too (and since there is no normal road to get there with a car, we just rarely get there), so does the airport, and that empty space between Little Haiti and Downtown. And the main islands were too long compared to their width, they felt very narrow and we ended up using the same roads over and over again. I mean, just look at the second island's main road (going from Vice Port to Downtown), it was the only road that could get you from one side of the island to the other. It's supposed to be a city but the layout looks like it is countryside, with small neighbourhoods acting like small towns conected by a main road. It was definitely not a good layout. Liberty City in III was a much better city.

I loved VC as much as everyone here, but let's be serious, the city itself (not the vibe associated with it) was one of the few flaws of the game.

denvergta
  • denvergta

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 Apr 2012

#281

Posted 17 April 2012 - 10:28 PM

I think a new VC would be dope after this but maybe even a new spot. Somewhere really new like Seattle, Denver, New Orleans or Houston with the surrounding environments. Even if its VC the should do the wilderness around it like someone stated above. I'll be happy with any place but LC its played out as far as I'm concerned.

Official General
  • Official General

    You gotta always carry heat in these Vice City streets

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2010

#282

Posted 17 April 2012 - 10:53 PM

QUOTE (Tipper @ Tuesday, Apr 17 2012, 22:24)
QUOTE
because it was the city itself in Vice City that greatly added to the brilliance of the gameplay experience.


No, in terms of city layout and map, VC was the worst city in the series. Not only was it flat, but there was so much wasted space. The beaches took a big part of the first island. The country club too (and since there is no normal road to get there with a car, we just rarely get there), so does the airport, and that empty space between Little Haiti and Downtown. And the main islands were too long compared to their width, they felt very narrow and we ended up using the same roads over and over again. I mean, just look at the second island's main road (going from Vice Port to Downtown), it was the only road that could get you from one side of the island to the other. It's supposed to be a city but the layout looks like it is countryside, with small neighbourhoods acting like small towns conected by a main road. It was definitely not a good layout. Liberty City in III was a much better city.

I loved VC as much as everyone here, but let's be serious, the city itself (not the vibe associated with it) was one of the few flaws of the game.

I disagree. Vice City was brilliant as a city. It was a very realistic re-creation of Miami at the time. However I did have problems with it, it was not perfect. I did not like the fact that the beach was so big. It was so big, that in may parts it felt empty and lifeless - that part I agree with you on. I also did not like the fact that it had no metro rail system (Miami had a metro rail since 1984 and Vice City is set in 1986). I also did not like the fact that there were many parts of the city that felt under-populated with peds. However if you stayed in one place long enough, they would spawn more.

I admit there could have been much more use of space and all that. But I think you guys are just being a little too harsh. VC was using old PS2 technology, so bear in my mind there were limitations. For what it was, I thought it was good enough.

Tipper
  • Tipper

    Playa

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 Oct 2009

#283

Posted 17 April 2012 - 11:16 PM

QUOTE
I admit there could have been much more use of space and all that. But I think you guys are just being a little too harsh. VC was using old PS2 technology, so bear in my mind there were limitations.


Then how come Liberty City was very well designed with the same limitations ?

Official General
  • Official General

    You gotta always carry heat in these Vice City streets

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2010

#284

Posted 18 April 2012 - 12:30 AM Edited by Official General, 18 April 2012 - 02:08 AM.

QUOTE (Tipper @ Tuesday, Apr 17 2012, 23:16)
QUOTE
I admit there could have been much more use of space and all that. But I think you guys are just being a little too harsh. VC was using old PS2 technology, so bear in my mind there were limitations.


Then how come Liberty City was very well designed with the same limitations ?

Well there was not much to do in GTA III's Liberty City other than the storyline and there was hardly any interiors you could enter - in fact the only interiors in the entire game you could enter, were the two gun stores. Maybe thats why Liberty City in III was done so well, the lack of other things/features more than likely allowed for Rockstar to create a bigger, detailed map for III.

Vice City had so many interiors the player could enter explore, from various stores to nightclubs, strip clubs, hotels, mansions etc. Add the fact that you could do other things in VC like rob stores, buy mansions and businesses and build up your own gang - all this would have taken up considerable memory and information to create, AND keeping a whole city functioning at the same time. GTA III had none of this to deal with, you guys need to remember that.

meson1
  • meson1

    Soldier

  • Members
  • Joined: 14 Apr 2010

#285

Posted 18 April 2012 - 01:08 AM

I would argue that VC only looks small and relatively primitive in hindsight after we are used the the vastness of SA and immense detail of IV. It's only by today's standards that the VC playing area doesn't look all that brilliant.

At the time VC was a great game. The map served the purpose intended, it worked and many, many people enjoyed it.

Official General
  • Official General

    You gotta always carry heat in these Vice City streets

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2010

#286

Posted 18 April 2012 - 02:02 AM

QUOTE (meson1 @ Wednesday, Apr 18 2012, 01:08)
I would argue that VC only looks small and relatively primitive in hindsight after we are used the the vastness of SA and immense detail of IV.  It's only by today's standards that the VC playing area doesn't look all that brilliant.

At the time VC was a great game.  The map served the purpose intended, it worked and many, many people enjoyed it.

@ meson

Thank you, you have said exactly what I stated on here earlier. Vice City a very excellent effort for what it was at the time, and that was what I was pointing out.

Slamman
  • Slamman

    Smote

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 29 Nov 2003
  • United-States

#287

Posted 18 April 2012 - 02:48 AM

Well, I think GTA III's Liberty is still a good map, it worked to show PSP as an amazing platform for both LC and VC for Stories, but you also see their smaller maps afforded it to work, and with PSVita, the map could be perhaps, twice as big

GTAboyWonder
  • GTAboyWonder

    Die a hero, or live long enough to become a villain.

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 18 Jan 2012

#288

Posted 18 April 2012 - 02:54 AM

I think the new Vice City should include the evergladesand swamps. Just to give the city a more realistic feeling into it.

Slamman
  • Slamman

    Smote

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 29 Nov 2003
  • United-States

#289

Posted 18 April 2012 - 02:56 AM

There no word on a new Vice City, it's presumed to work as a DLC for GTA V, but after some thought, I realized the DLC thus far worked to share the same map, not do characters AND a new map, which is basically a new game at that point

Gregers08
  • Gregers08

    Gangsta

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Mar 2011
  • None

#290

Posted 18 April 2012 - 03:19 AM

Vice city would be a good starter game for Next Gen. I understand why they went with Los Santos instead because this is the last GTA of this Gen so therefore they wanted to bring back the epic feel of SA in terms of the diversity of map geometry. after 4 years of silence Vice city's layout would be sort of a let down since Miami itself is extremely flat. 2012 VC be a beautiful place no doubt but not exactly an interesting place to drive around in when compared to 2012 LS which already has me day dreaming about how amazing free roam will be with possibilities like driving up mountains and off roading in the country side. PS2 era VC mainly got past on it's amazing atmosphere, a present day VC would be quite boring in contrast.

Triple Vacuum Seal
  • Triple Vacuum Seal

    Ghetto Star

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Dec 2011
  • United-States

#291

Posted 18 April 2012 - 03:23 AM

QUOTE (Gregers08 @ Tuesday, Apr 17 2012, 23:19)
Vice city would be a good starter game for Next Gen. I understand why they went with Los Santos instead because this is the last GTA of this Gen so therefore they wanted to bring back the epic feel of SA in terms of the diversity of map geometry. after 4 years of silence Vice city's layout would be sort of a let down since Miami itself is extremely flat. 2012 VC be a beautiful place no doubt but not exactly an interesting place to drive around in when compared to 2012 LS which already has me day dreaming about how amazing free roam will be with possibilities like driving up mountains and off roading in the country side. PS2 era VC mainly got past on it's amazing atmosphere, a present day VC would be quite boring in contrast.

If they did VC next gen. It would be nice if they included parts of Cuba and flights to LC.

Slamman
  • Slamman

    Smote

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 29 Nov 2003
  • United-States

#292

Posted 18 April 2012 - 03:54 AM

I had hoped for an all new amalgam, basically a new fictional locale, for GTA V, or GTA VI
Either way, it seems they back peddled for LS because of time constraints, pushing this gen before the next gaming platform requires they don't spend forever making one game! GTA

Death2Drugs
  • Death2Drugs

    Wanna milky?

  • Members
  • Joined: 20 Feb 2011
  • Mexico

#293

Posted 18 April 2012 - 04:03 AM Edited by Death2Drugs, 18 April 2012 - 04:07 AM.

QUOTE (Slamman @ Wednesday, Apr 18 2012, 03:54)
I had hoped for an all new amalgam, basically a new fictional locale, for GTA V, or GTA VI
Either way, it seems they back peddled for LS because of time constraints, pushing this gen before the next gaming platform requires they don't spend forever making one game! GTA

I don't like completely fictional cities. No inspiration whatsoever. L.S. over some generic city please. Sure, Liberty City was meant to be a generic hybrid American city, but it still was mainly based on NYC. Portland had a strong Brooklyn feel, and Staunton Island was, for the most part, directly based on Manhattan. EDIT: misread your post. Still, I feel L.S needs to be redone. LS in San Andreas barely gave me an LA vibe. Also, there is no true free roam game in SoCal. San Andreas did Los Angeles rather poorly, and while True Crime did somewhat better in capturing LA's vibe, it didn't feel as detailed or immersive as a city in GTA.

HydraulicWaRiOr
  • HydraulicWaRiOr

    Moe Boats

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Dec 2011
  • Japan

#294

Posted 18 April 2012 - 04:03 AM

I can't really see any other American cities being added. All three cities are coastal, which is one of the things that completes GTA. At least not unless you add Detroit or something, but that's not really coastal, as I believe it resides by one of the Great Lakes if I'm correct. IMO Los Santos is much better anyways. Vice City is pretty much clubs anyway, and we were done with that when TBOGT came out. But I do agree somewhat, it would be nice to at least see Las Venturas, as for San Fierro I could care less. SF isn't that exciting of a city anyways.

Triple Vacuum Seal
  • Triple Vacuum Seal

    Ghetto Star

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Dec 2011
  • United-States

#295

Posted 18 April 2012 - 04:11 AM

QUOTE (HydraulicWaRiOr @ Wednesday, Apr 18 2012, 00:03)
I can't really see any other American cities being added. All three cities are coastal, which is one of the things that completes GTA. At least not unless you add Detroit or something, but that's not really coastal, as I believe it resides by one of the Great Lakes if I'm correct. IMO Los Santos is much better anyways. Vice City is pretty much clubs anyway, and we were done with that when TBOGT came out. But I do agree somewhat, it would be nice to at least see Las Venturas, as for San Fierro I could care less. SF isn't that exciting of a city anyways.

[Supreme]

What is your opinion on Washington D.C.? I think it is very possible.

Gregers08
  • Gregers08

    Gangsta

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Mar 2011
  • None

#296

Posted 18 April 2012 - 04:11 AM

QUOTE (HydraulicWaRiOr @ Wednesday, Apr 18 2012, 04:03)
I can't really see any other American cities being added. All three cities are coastal, which is one of the things that completes GTA. At least not unless you add Detroit or something, but that's not really coastal, as I believe it resides by one of the Great Lakes if I'm correct. IMO Los Santos is much better anyways. Vice City is pretty much clubs anyway, and we were done with that when TBOGT came out. But I do agree somewhat, it would be nice to at least see Las Venturas, as for San Fierro I could care less. SF isn't that exciting of a city anyways.

[Supreme]

Kind of makes you wonder where else they can go once they give VC and the rest of SA the realistic makeover. London is the only obvious answer I can think of and maybe the deep south apart from that all the other interesting places won't work due to language barriers. Maybe we won't even get to that point and Agent will take over GTA's place.

Jeeebuuus
  • Jeeebuuus

    AKA So-crates

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Nov 2011

#297

Posted 18 April 2012 - 04:16 AM

I would imagine that they are saving VC for the next gen. consoles to really make the locale beautiful. If they were going to do a new city I think Chicago would work well but I'm not sure about the surrounding areas. Dallas would be cool but not really any tourist attractions except the obvious. London would probably be up there with VC as to what they are likely to do.

HydraulicWaRiOr
  • HydraulicWaRiOr

    Moe Boats

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Dec 2011
  • Japan

#298

Posted 18 April 2012 - 04:25 AM

QUOTE (Gregers08 @ Wednesday, Apr 18 2012, 04:11)
QUOTE (HydraulicWaRiOr @ Wednesday, Apr 18 2012, 04:03)
I can't really see any other American cities being added. All three cities are coastal, which is one of the things that completes GTA. At least not unless you add Detroit or something, but that's not really coastal, as I believe it resides by one of the Great Lakes if I'm correct. IMO Los Santos is much better anyways. Vice City is pretty much clubs anyway, and we were done with that when TBOGT came out. But I do agree somewhat, it would be nice to at least see Las Venturas, as for San Fierro I could care less. SF isn't that exciting of a city anyways.

Kind of makes you wonder where else they can go once they give VC and the rest of SA the realistic makeover. London is the only obvious answer I can think of and maybe the deep south apart from that all the other interesting places won't work due to language barriers. Maybe we won't even get to that point and Agent will take over GTA's place.

They'll think of something. They've already taken 2 cities out of the question, I can see them implementing that in some way in the future. But other than that, GTA has a long way to go. They can always succeed it with Red Dead games anyway if not. It'd be cool to see a wild west version of Los Angeles or something.

QUOTE (canttakemyid)
What is your opinion on Washington D.C.? I think it is very possible.

I don't know about DC, I think we have enough atlantic cities for the moment. And Las Venturas would be the perfect thing to compliment an equality between sides. I do believe New Orleans would be interesting though. It's about the only popular city in the south and it has that cajun feeling to it.

Triple Vacuum Seal
  • Triple Vacuum Seal

    Ghetto Star

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Dec 2011
  • United-States

#299

Posted 18 April 2012 - 04:25 AM

QUOTE (Knife @ Thursday, Apr 12 2012, 10:17)
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.


The countryside near Miami is vast and just as interesting. People on here think that just because SA has mountains, it's automatically a better countryside.

Florida Everglades
user posted image
user posted image
user posted image
user posted image

Florida Keys
user posted image
user posted image
user posted image


Cuba is 45 min. away if a very fast speed boat is used.
user posted image

kmlwin.1996
  • kmlwin.1996

    Hold upô

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 11 May 2010

#300

Posted 18 April 2012 - 04:32 AM

Hmmm...... Los Santos, interesting.

I think R* chose it because of the San Andreas. The game would be more popular if it based on the Old City.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users