I suppose that it's their final goal.
Having Los Santos, San Fierro, Las Venturas, Vice City and Liberty City in one single game.
The written "five" on the official logo means that, in my opinion.
Right. So Grand Theft Auto 4 actually meant there were 4 cities, right?
People really need to stop stretching.
I guess Rockstar's claim that Los Santos was the only major city is just bogus right? From a marketing point of view it just doesn't make much sense to keep a second true city hidden for all this time. It just doesn't add up at all. Rockstar even made the claim they only wanted to focus on ONE city this time to make sure to do it justice. But hey, it is all nonsense because on Twitter someone who is not Dan Houser and just a CM stated something else.
Will there be more cities? Yes, but for GTA Online. Will San Fierro and Las Venturas get added any time soon? Not bloody likely since both cities would have to be completely remade. Liberty City is currently the only city likely to be added to GTA Online. I bet any other city will only get added after release of a new stand alone game. It costs way too much money to create a city on the scale of Los Santos. Just look at GTA 5's budget and you should be able to tell why additional cities can't remotely be done as DLC. Rockstar would be losing money on the DLC.
IGN also said they were seeing pop in of mountains when looking over the Alamo Sea past Chiliad. The only way they could have seen any mountains is if those mountains are bigger than Mount Chiliad. There is just no way Rockstar has been hiding a mountain which even appears bigger than Mount Chiliad from a vast distance, so it would have to be absolutely massive in size from up close. It just doesn't add up.
To be honest I think the IGN journalist was actually looking in a westerly direction and saw pop ins from the Alamo River canyon.
Edited by gwaha, 08 September 2013 - 01:45 PM.