Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Wouldnt it make sense if GTA V started a new

38 replies to this topic
Zorenic
  • Zorenic

    I'll have a number nine.

  • Members
  • Joined: 06 Jan 2010

#1

Posted 26 June 2013 - 02:40 PM

Wouldnt it make sense if GTA V started a new universe?
GTA 3 Universe > GTA 4 universe > GTA 5 universe
Doesn't sound logical to me if it'd be like this:
GTA 3 Universe > GTA 4 universe > GTA 6 universe

Happyness
  • Happyness

    Li'l G Loc

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 11 Jan 2013

#2

Posted 26 June 2013 - 02:41 PM Edited by Happyness, 26 June 2013 - 03:26 PM.

Edit: People can't stand criticism, screw it.

fastetshot
  • fastetshot

    I'm very serious.

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 May 2012

#3

Posted 26 June 2013 - 02:44 PM

QUOTE (Happyness @ Wednesday, Jun 26 2013, 14:41)
The whole universe thing is retarded in my opinion, a lazy attempt from Rockstar. I mean why not have one huge universe? "Buildings wouldn't realistically improve like that 1!1!!!1", yeah, okay.

Shut up, you doesn't know sh*t.

TehTacoGuy
  • TehTacoGuy

    Half taco, half human.

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Nov 2011
  • Australia

#4

Posted 26 June 2013 - 02:45 PM

Its not III Universe>IV Universe>V Universe.
It goes 2D>3D>HD...

Dope_0110
  • Dope_0110

    Gangsta

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 May 2013

#5

Posted 26 June 2013 - 02:46 PM

Who cares.. the universe thing was made up as a quick explanation why the city is so different in different games, and to ditch previous stories and characters as that would lock them down creatively. Imagine having to write a new story in Liberty City and having to make it fit with the previous stuff that already happened in GTA III and make it all make sense. So to avoid all the problems they said ... hey this is new universe.

So no, it wouldn't make no sense as they simply don't need a new universe for LS right now.

VincentPericant
  • VincentPericant

    Peon

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Nov 2010

#6

Posted 26 June 2013 - 02:51 PM

I see what you mean. I think R* just see "GTA V" as a title that makes it sound more epic than "GTA IV: Los Santos".
Obviously most people wouldn't give a hoot either way, but despite VC and SA in the GTA III era being named as they were, "GTA IV: Los Santos" makes it sound like a spin off. From a marketing point of view, the people that don't stay in the loop like us sad twats on here ( wink.gif ) might not care too much about games that sound like add-ons and just want the whole new game.

RedDagger
  • RedDagger

    Crash test dummy

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 24 Oct 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#7

Posted 26 June 2013 - 02:51 PM

It's 2D>3D>HD; or top-down, III-era then HD universes. A bit different, though I wonder how/if they'd get to a new one.

J-B
  • J-B

    Two Faced

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

#8

Posted 26 June 2013 - 02:54 PM

QUOTE (Dope_0110 @ Wednesday, Jun 26 2013, 08:46)
Who cares.. the universe thing was made up as a quick explanation why the city is so different in different games, and to ditch previous stories and characters as that would lock them down creatively. Imagine having to write a new story in Liberty City and having to make it fit with the previous stuff that already happened in GTA III and make it all make sense. So to avoid all the problems they said ... hey this is new universe.

So no, it wouldn't make no sense as they simply don't need a new universe for LS right now.

Exactly. They had five games(more if you count the GBA games) of storyline and character baggage going into IV. I can see why they'd want to move on and start fresh.

jamieleng
  • jamieleng

    Chafing the Chimp is totally natural behaviour!

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 Mar 2008
  • England

#9

Posted 26 June 2013 - 02:57 PM Edited by jamieleng, 26 June 2013 - 03:11 PM.

QUOTE (Happyness @ Wednesday, Jun 26 2013, 14:41)
The whole universe thing is retarded in my opinion, a lazy attempt from Rockstar. I mean why not have one huge universe? "Buildings wouldn't realistically improve like that 1!1!!!1", yeah, okay.

Because it would cost hundreds of trillions of dollars to completely re-landscape 1992's San Andreas & demolish, then rebuild Los Santos so it would look like 2013's map. Otherwise, how are you going to explain away the differences between the maps? Or maybe that's how the West got into financial troubles.

See how ludicrous that paragraph above sounds? Well, that's how ridiculously retarded your reasoning is.

Anyway, they went back to Liberty City for IV's location, because the new hardware gave them the ability to 'do it properly'. In other words a faithful & believable recreation of NY City, which still hasn't been surpassed. V is still on this generation, so while it is a major leap forward in features, it is still restricted by the hardware. They may or may not create a new universe next gen.

SlappyPwnsAss
  • SlappyPwnsAss

    I done kept it real from tha jump

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Jan 2013

#10

Posted 26 June 2013 - 03:01 PM

No. I think it would make alot more sense if they start a new universe when they make a GTA for the next gen consoles

Happyness
  • Happyness

    Li'l G Loc

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 11 Jan 2013

#11

Posted 26 June 2013 - 03:21 PM Edited by Happyness, 26 June 2013 - 03:27 PM.

QUOTE (fastetshot @ Wednesday, Jun 26 2013, 17:44)
QUOTE (Happyness @ Wednesday, Jun 26 2013, 14:41)
The whole universe thing is retarded in my opinion, a lazy attempt from Rockstar. I mean why not have one huge universe? "Buildings wouldn't realistically improve like that 1!1!!!1", yeah, okay.

Shut up, you doesn't know sh*t.

QUOTE (jamieleng)
Because it would cost hundreds of trillions of dollars to completely re-landscape 1992's San Andreas & demolish, then rebuild Los Santos so it would look like 2013's map. Otherwise, how are you going to explain away the differences between the maps? Or maybe that's how the West got into financial troubles.

See how ludicrous that paragraph above sounds? Well, that's how ridiculously retarded your reasoning is.


I don't get why you people can't be respectful, I am having a hard time holding myself not to insult others like you fellas do, and in the end, if I insult someone, it is me who gets insulted warned and probably eventually banned... I don't understand the logic behind this forum, is there.. no logic?

Also, if Rockstar wanted they could've done it from the beginning, to make one universe, I don't understand the need for multiple universes. They could've modeled old games to be as close as possible to the current times, your logic is .. illogical.

Also, what's your problem with me? Trashing all of my posts, regardless of what they are? What have I done to you? Sometimes I just think that you're a 14-15 year old teenager who just hit puberty and is venting his anger on forums, hop off my brains, seriously.

I am seriously getting sick of this forums' attitude towards others.

@Fastestshot, eh... Grow up a bit.

brwhizz
  • brwhizz

    Mack Pimp

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 Oct 2012

#12

Posted 26 June 2013 - 03:21 PM

QUOTE (Happyness @ Wednesday, Jun 26 2013, 14:41)
The whole universe thing is retarded in my opinion, a lazy attempt from Rockstar. I mean why not have one huge universe? "Buildings wouldn't realistically improve like that 1!1!!!1", yeah, okay.

It's the complete opposite of lazy and makes good sense. The lazy thing to do would be to reuse old cities and characters.

NikoBellic1993
  • NikoBellic1993

    Peon

  • Members
  • Joined: 09 Jan 2013

#13

Posted 26 June 2013 - 04:09 PM

QUOTE (brwhizz @ Wednesday, Jun 26 2013, 15:21)
QUOTE (Happyness @ Wednesday, Jun 26 2013, 14:41)
The whole universe thing is retarded in my opinion, a lazy attempt from Rockstar. I mean why not have one huge universe? "Buildings wouldn't realistically improve like that 1!1!!!1", yeah, okay.

It's the complete opposite of lazy and makes good sense. The lazy thing to do would be to reuse old cities and characters.

Why do you bother explaining anything to that guy ? He's going on his R* hating tirade and when someone disagrees with his opinion he starts insulting people.

KingJames37
  • KingJames37

    Trick

  • Members
  • Joined: 22 May 2013

#14

Posted 26 June 2013 - 04:09 PM

QUOTE (xXTacoGuyXx @ Wednesday, Jun 26 2013, 14:45)
Its not III Universe>IV Universe>V Universe.
It goes 2D>3D>HD...

this.

end of discussion. icon14.gif

Fail_At_GTA
  • Fail_At_GTA

    Actually awesome at GTA

  • Members
  • Joined: 28 May 2012

#15

Posted 26 June 2013 - 04:20 PM

QUOTE (jamieleng @ Wednesday, Jun 26 2013, 08:57)
QUOTE (Happyness @ Wednesday, Jun 26 2013, 14:41)
The whole universe thing is retarded in my opinion, a lazy attempt from Rockstar. I mean why not have one huge universe? "Buildings wouldn't realistically improve like that 1!1!!!1", yeah, okay.

Because it would cost hundreds of trillions of dollars to completely re-landscape 1992's San Andreas & demolish, then rebuild Los Santos so it would look like 2013's map. Otherwise, how are you going to explain away the differences between the maps? Or maybe that's how the West got into financial troubles.

See how ludicrous that paragraph above sounds? Well, that's how ridiculously retarded your reasoning is.

Anyway, they went back to Liberty City for IV's location, because the new hardware gave them the ability to 'do it properly'. In other words a faithful & believable recreation of NY City, which still hasn't been surpassed. V is still on this generation, so while it is a major leap forward in features, it is still restricted by the hardware. They may or may not create a new universe next gen.

I believe this will be the final universe, unless they remake Liberty City again, which I highly doubt. I'm expecting all brand new cities in the future GTAs such as SF, LV, a couple other famous American cities, but not Vice City as it wouldn't work outside of the 80s.

VIPΣR
  • VIPΣR

    Doesn't give up the fight

  • Members
  • Joined: 01 Aug 2012
  • European-Union

#16

Posted 26 June 2013 - 04:23 PM

QUOTE (xXTacoGuyXx @ Wednesday, Jun 26 2013, 14:45)
Its not III Universe>IV Universe>V Universe.
It goes 2D>3D>HD...

icon14.gif

Dope_0110
  • Dope_0110

    Gangsta

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 May 2013

#17

Posted 26 June 2013 - 04:26 PM

QUOTE (Fail_At_GTA @ Wednesday, Jun 26 2013, 16:20)
QUOTE (jamieleng @ Wednesday, Jun 26 2013, 08:57)
QUOTE (Happyness @ Wednesday, Jun 26 2013, 14:41)
The whole universe thing is retarded in my opinion, a lazy attempt from Rockstar. I mean why not have one huge universe? "Buildings wouldn't realistically improve like that 1!1!!!1", yeah, okay.

Because it would cost hundreds of trillions of dollars to completely re-landscape 1992's San Andreas & demolish, then rebuild Los Santos so it would look like 2013's map. Otherwise, how are you going to explain away the differences between the maps? Or maybe that's how the West got into financial troubles.

See how ludicrous that paragraph above sounds? Well, that's how ridiculously retarded your reasoning is.

Anyway, they went back to Liberty City for IV's location, because the new hardware gave them the ability to 'do it properly'. In other words a faithful & believable recreation of NY City, which still hasn't been surpassed. V is still on this generation, so while it is a major leap forward in features, it is still restricted by the hardware. They may or may not create a new universe next gen.

I believe this will be the final universe, unless they remake Liberty City again, which I highly doubt. I'm expecting all brand new cities in the future GTAs such as SF, LV, a couple other famous American cities, but not Vice City as it wouldn't work outside of the 80s.

Why not, people seem to think Miami can only be interesting in the 80's. With a good story, they can set it at any point in time they want. I personally would like a GTA set in 70's regardless of the city.

brwhizz
  • brwhizz

    Mack Pimp

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 Oct 2012

#18

Posted 26 June 2013 - 04:28 PM

This is how it works, people: Rockstar decide where they want to set the game and in what time period. They then do whatever's necessary to accommodate this, which may mean beginning a new universe - Like all good writers and filmmakers they try not to reuse or overuse old characters and locations. CJ and the like have served their purpose - it is now time for them to step aside and give Trevor, Franklin and Michael the limelight. I struggle to see why so many people seem to have a problem with this - it's pathetic and juvenile.

Fail_At_GTA
  • Fail_At_GTA

    Actually awesome at GTA

  • Members
  • Joined: 28 May 2012

#19

Posted 26 June 2013 - 04:29 PM

QUOTE (Dope_0110 @ Wednesday, Jun 26 2013, 10:26)
QUOTE (Fail_At_GTA @ Wednesday, Jun 26 2013, 16:20)
QUOTE (jamieleng @ Wednesday, Jun 26 2013, 08:57)
QUOTE (Happyness @ Wednesday, Jun 26 2013, 14:41)
The whole universe thing is retarded in my opinion, a lazy attempt from Rockstar. I mean why not have one huge universe? "Buildings wouldn't realistically improve like that 1!1!!!1", yeah, okay.

Because it would cost hundreds of trillions of dollars to completely re-landscape 1992's San Andreas & demolish, then rebuild Los Santos so it would look like 2013's map. Otherwise, how are you going to explain away the differences between the maps? Or maybe that's how the West got into financial troubles.

See how ludicrous that paragraph above sounds? Well, that's how ridiculously retarded your reasoning is.

Anyway, they went back to Liberty City for IV's location, because the new hardware gave them the ability to 'do it properly'. In other words a faithful & believable recreation of NY City, which still hasn't been surpassed. V is still on this generation, so while it is a major leap forward in features, it is still restricted by the hardware. They may or may not create a new universe next gen.

I believe this will be the final universe, unless they remake Liberty City again, which I highly doubt. I'm expecting all brand new cities in the future GTAs such as SF, LV, a couple other famous American cities, but not Vice City as it wouldn't work outside of the 80s.

Why not, people seem to think Miami can only be interesting in the 80's. With a good story, they can set it at any point in time they want. I personally would like a GTA set in 70's regardless of the city.

Miami is just... dead. What are you going to do in that game? Play as a 74 year old retired grocery bagger who only uses a cane as a weapon, cant drive, cant fly aircraft, and rides around on his Relax Power X Motorized Scooter? Setting the game in the 80s again would ruin the feel in my opinion. It would be like going back to 1992 Los Santos. It has been done, the magic is gone.

brwhizz
  • brwhizz

    Mack Pimp

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 Oct 2012

#20

Posted 26 June 2013 - 04:30 PM

QUOTE (Dope_0110 @ Wednesday, Jun 26 2013, 16:26)
QUOTE (Fail_At_GTA @ Wednesday, Jun 26 2013, 16:20)
QUOTE (jamieleng @ Wednesday, Jun 26 2013, 08:57)
QUOTE (Happyness @ Wednesday, Jun 26 2013, 14:41)
The whole universe thing is retarded in my opinion, a lazy attempt from Rockstar. I mean why not have one huge universe? "Buildings wouldn't realistically improve like that 1!1!!!1", yeah, okay.

Because it would cost hundreds of trillions of dollars to completely re-landscape 1992's San Andreas & demolish, then rebuild Los Santos so it would look like 2013's map. Otherwise, how are you going to explain away the differences between the maps? Or maybe that's how the West got into financial troubles.

See how ludicrous that paragraph above sounds? Well, that's how ridiculously retarded your reasoning is.

Anyway, they went back to Liberty City for IV's location, because the new hardware gave them the ability to 'do it properly'. In other words a faithful & believable recreation of NY City, which still hasn't been surpassed. V is still on this generation, so while it is a major leap forward in features, it is still restricted by the hardware. They may or may not create a new universe next gen.

I believe this will be the final universe, unless they remake Liberty City again, which I highly doubt. I'm expecting all brand new cities in the future GTAs such as SF, LV, a couple other famous American cities, but not Vice City as it wouldn't work outside of the 80s.

Why not, people seem to think Miami can only be interesting in the 80's. With a good story, they can set it at any point in time they want. I personally would like a GTA set in 70's regardless of the city.

Off topic, but perhaps Agent will scratch that 70's itch, when it finally gets released in the 2070s!

Happyness
  • Happyness

    Li'l G Loc

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 11 Jan 2013

#21

Posted 26 June 2013 - 04:34 PM Edited by Happyness, 26 June 2013 - 05:12 PM.

Nevermind.

brwhizz
  • brwhizz

    Mack Pimp

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 Oct 2012

#22

Posted 26 June 2013 - 04:37 PM

QUOTE (Happyness @ Wednesday, Jun 26 2013, 16:34)
QUOTE (NikoBellic1993 @ Wednesday, Jun 26 2013, 19:09)
QUOTE (brwhizz @ Wednesday, Jun 26 2013, 15:21)
QUOTE (Happyness @ Wednesday, Jun 26 2013, 14:41)
The whole universe thing is retarded in my opinion, a lazy attempt from Rockstar. I mean why not have one huge universe? "Buildings wouldn't realistically improve like that 1!1!!!1", yeah, okay.

It's the complete opposite of lazy and makes good sense. The lazy thing to do would be to reuse old cities and characters.

Why do you bother explaining anything to that guy ? He's going on his R* hating tirade and when someone disagrees with his opinion he starts insulting people.

I'm really holding myself not to insult you, but f*ck off, you've been reported for constantly trying to provoke me.

You know what, just ban me from this f*cking forum, people who talk about Rockstar in a negative way can't have a f*cking break, just f*cking ban me, IP ban me, range IP ban me, whatever.

I am just getting sick of seeing retarded kids being allowed on this forum and they keep on dragging you and f*ckign dragging you down with their sh*tty posts and whatnot, if you're trying to be nice they f*cking insult you, if you're trying to be a jackass you're f*cking bombarded with insults, I don't even know what the f*ck am I doing here.

I respect everyone who is acting mature, everyone, y'all deserve a medal.

But people like Nikof*cker1993 is getting on my nerves everytime he quotes my posts and tries to provoke me, and no f*cking one is doing something against him, just f*cking ban me already.

Perhaps if you didn't swear every other word and actually took the time to make a logical, coherent argument you'd be taken more seriously. As it is you come across as a complete jackass.

Happyness
  • Happyness

    Li'l G Loc

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 11 Jan 2013

#23

Posted 26 June 2013 - 04:38 PM Edited by Happyness, 26 June 2013 - 05:12 PM.

Nevermind.

zeppelincheetah
  • zeppelincheetah

    Soldier

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 Jul 2004

#24

Posted 26 June 2013 - 04:38 PM

I don't know. for me it makes sense. Whereas the GTA III was about the trilogy - LC/VC/SA, and more focused on playing GTA in a 3d world, GTA IV was 100% focused on an HD Liberty City. It's become location specific. This makes GTA V defined by Los Santos and the surrounding countryside as well as three protagonists, which is the main reason it has a "V" instead of being called Grand Theft Auto IV: Los Santos. GTA VI will likely be HD Vice City. It won't be until GTA VII that we might see a new "universe". By GTA VII (10+ years from now) there will be the next level of HD - Ultra HD and that will be the first Ultra HD GTA.

Happyness
  • Happyness

    Li'l G Loc

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 11 Jan 2013

#25

Posted 26 June 2013 - 04:43 PM

QUOTE (zeppelincheetah @ Wednesday, Jun 26 2013, 19:38)
I don't know. for me it makes sense. Whereas the GTA III was about the trilogy - LC/VC/SA, and more focused on playing GTA in a 3d world, GTA IV was 100% focused on an HD Liberty City. It's become location specific. This makes GTA V defined by Los Santos and the surrounding countryside as well as three protagonists, which is the main reason it has a "V" instead of being called Grand Theft Auto IV: Los Santos. GTA VI will likely be HD Vice City. It won't be until GTA VII that we might see a new "universe". By GTA VII (10+ years from now) there will be the next level of HD - Ultra HD and that will be the first Ultra HD GTA.

But what is the difference between HD and Ultra HD? Apart from the "resolution" ?

brwhizz
  • brwhizz

    Mack Pimp

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 Oct 2012

#26

Posted 26 June 2013 - 04:44 PM

QUOTE (Happyness @ Wednesday, Jun 26 2013, 16:38)
f*ck off.

You're doing nothing but provoking, just f*ck off, immature little pieces of sh*ts.


Do you know why did I f*cking start to post the word f*ck after every post? Because every time I tried to criticize Rockstar in a nice f*cking way I just got f*cking bashed, and even if I apologized after insulting people I still got bashed, I got f*cking sick of it.

I think you're giving yourself far more credit than you deserve - I don't know you and nor does anyone else around here. All we can see is a spoilt brat having a hissy fit. You're free to criticize Rockstar all you want, but unless you put some thought into it and are prepared to debate your points then you won't be treated seriously - Saying 'Rockstar are f*cking lazy' and then giving no justification for this statement doesn't cut it - surely that's fair enough?

Happyness
  • Happyness

    Li'l G Loc

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 11 Jan 2013

#27

Posted 26 June 2013 - 04:46 PM

QUOTE (brwhizz @ Wednesday, Jun 26 2013, 19:44)
QUOTE (Happyness @ Wednesday, Jun 26 2013, 16:38)
f*ck off.

You're doing nothing but provoking, just f*ck off, immature little pieces of sh*ts.


Do you know why did I f*cking start to post the word f*ck after every post? Because every time I tried to criticize Rockstar in a nice f*cking way I just got f*cking bashed, and even if I apologized after insulting people I still got bashed, I got f*cking sick of it.

I think you're giving yourself far more credit than you deserve - I don't know you and nor does anyone else around here. All we can see is a spoilt brat having a hissy fit. You're free to criticize Rockstar all you want, but unless you put some thought into it and are prepared to debate your points then you won't be treated seriously - surely that's fair enough?

Sure, I've done bad posts, just like every other member on this forum, but I don't get it why the hell do people have to be disrespectful, this forum is filled with kiddos who should be outside playing or something. Did I insult them by criticizing Rockstar or what?

Dope_0110
  • Dope_0110

    Gangsta

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 May 2013

#28

Posted 26 June 2013 - 04:47 PM

QUOTE (Fail_At_GTA @ Wednesday, Jun 26 2013, 16:29)
QUOTE (Dope_0110 @ Wednesday, Jun 26 2013, 10:26)
QUOTE (Fail_At_GTA @ Wednesday, Jun 26 2013, 16:20)
QUOTE (jamieleng @ Wednesday, Jun 26 2013, 08:57)
QUOTE (Happyness @ Wednesday, Jun 26 2013, 14:41)
The whole universe thing is retarded in my opinion, a lazy attempt from Rockstar. I mean why not have one huge universe? "Buildings wouldn't realistically improve like that 1!1!!!1", yeah, okay.

Because it would cost hundreds of trillions of dollars to completely re-landscape 1992's San Andreas & demolish, then rebuild Los Santos so it would look like 2013's map. Otherwise, how are you going to explain away the differences between the maps? Or maybe that's how the West got into financial troubles.

See how ludicrous that paragraph above sounds? Well, that's how ridiculously retarded your reasoning is.

Anyway, they went back to Liberty City for IV's location, because the new hardware gave them the ability to 'do it properly'. In other words a faithful & believable recreation of NY City, which still hasn't been surpassed. V is still on this generation, so while it is a major leap forward in features, it is still restricted by the hardware. They may or may not create a new universe next gen.

I believe this will be the final universe, unless they remake Liberty City again, which I highly doubt. I'm expecting all brand new cities in the future GTAs such as SF, LV, a couple other famous American cities, but not Vice City as it wouldn't work outside of the 80s.

Why not, people seem to think Miami can only be interesting in the 80's. With a good story, they can set it at any point in time they want. I personally would like a GTA set in 70's regardless of the city.

Miami is just... dead. What are you going to do in that game? Play as a 74 year old retired grocery bagger who only uses a cane as a weapon, cant drive, cant fly aircraft, and rides around on his Relax Power X Motorized Scooter? Setting the game in the 80s again would ruin the feel in my opinion. It would be like going back to 1992 Los Santos. It has been done, the magic is gone.

To be honest I don't know much about Miami these days. I used to watch Miami Ink and occasional news, and that's pretty much it. GTA cities do require cities with some sort developed organized crime like mafia, gangs, triads.. and if Miami doesn't have those they'd have to make them up. But as far as I've seen, there are cuban and such latin gangs in Miami these days so they could act as a backdrop.

Agree about revisiting old setting in the same timeframe. Maybe in about 15-20 years, but definitely not after 5-10 years.

Leafy Hollow
  • Leafy Hollow

    Chief Marketing Officer for Trevor Phillip's Interprise

  • Members
  • Joined: 24 May 2013

#29

Posted 26 June 2013 - 04:51 PM

Don't worry everybody, nobody at rahkstar2.gif will listen to us for a subject of this magnitude.

Backfire6
  • Backfire6

    ༼ຈل͜ຈ༽

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Jan 2013

#30

Posted 26 June 2013 - 04:59 PM

QUOTE (Dope_0110 @ Wednesday, Jun 26 2013, 06:46)
Imagine having to write a new story in Liberty City and having to make it fit with the previous stuff that already happened in GTA III and make it all make sense. So to avoid all the problems they said ... hey this is new universe.

Actually that would be incredibly simple to have it make sense.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users