Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Just to remind you guys who the top 10 cities in America are

17 replies to this topic
DoubleOGJohnson
  • DoubleOGJohnson

    Playa

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 Feb 2007

#1

Posted 07 October 2013 - 09:29 PM

I see people picking SF, LV, or VC as locations for GTA 6 and making delusional statements about each town's capabilities of hosting the next IMPORTANT INSTALLMANT of GTA. The next GTA will be on a new system, and people are naming midsized cities as places they want to go? I've heard SF, LV, VC supporters say crazy sh*t, one guy on here even said that the next GTA should be in VC and VC should be 15-30 sq miles. WTF is wrong with some of these dudes? Do some f*cking research before you make claims. Miami is a small ass city. 15-30 sq miles is bigger than LC and LS. How the f*ck are you going to make VC 15-30 sq miles realistically? Miami has 400,000 people, individual sections of New York, LA, and Chicago swallow Miami up.

 

Boy I tell ya, the sh*t is ridiculous and makes me wonder if yall do any research on America or know anything about the top cities in America. Well for those foreigners out of the loop and Americans who never picked up a book, here is a list:

 

1. New York 8,300,000

2. Los Angeles 3,800,000

3. Chicago 2,700,000

4. Houston 2,100,000

5. Philadelphia 1,500,000

6. Phoenix 1,400,000

7. San Antonio 1,300,000

8. San Diego 1,300,000

9. Dallas 1,200,000

10. San Jose 980,000

 

Where is Miami? Where is Vegas? Where is SF? If yall still desire the next GTA in SF, LV, or MIA instead of places like Chicago, Texas (Houston & Dallas combo), or Philly AFTER this, I don't know what to tell ya.

  • D- Ice likes this

Tycek
  • Tycek

    Being a bastard works.

  • Members
  • Joined: 20 Jul 2009
  • Poland

#2

Posted 07 October 2013 - 10:05 PM

You really can't understand even the simplest things. GTA isn't set in the biggest cities, cities with the highest crime rate or cities with the highest number of idiots per square mile. GTA is set exactly in these cities, because they are iconic. Since R* is recreating movie reality in the game world, games are set in cities, which world knows from the cinema. We got NY, LA, SF, LV, Miami, because almost everybody in the world knows these (maybe except some deep Africa tribes).

 

Chicago can be dropped at the start, because it's not iconic in any way and almost no crime movies were set there. Home Alone is rather weak start for a GTA game and whole city is like LC with more land mass and without Statue of Happiness.

 

Same goes for Houston and Philadelphia. Typical american cities with glass skyscrapers and suburbs, but without any icons or identity.

 

Phoenix and San Antonio goes too, because they are like LV without Casinos. Cities set in the middle of the desert, but without anything original.

 

San Diego is like younger brother of LA, but it's not as iconic. Midnight Club 3 got it and it was rather typical city. 

 

Dallas, San Jose, not much can be told about them.

 

It doesn't matter if city is big or small, crime ridden or calm. What matter is the fact if the city is iconic, got identity and people know about it. Good city for new GTA would be Detroit, city that moved USA, but also became symbol of decay and recession. And that's the only city that could work alone apart from the five cities we already know. 

  • l911 likes this

RoadRunner71
  • RoadRunner71

    Try to Run, Try to Hide

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Mar 2012
  • None

#3

Posted 07 October 2013 - 10:05 PM

Honestly, I don't see why just for being important should be a better setting. I'm one of these who would rather to see a whole new destination before one of these previously seen in other GTA games but I find cities like Vice City (Miami) or LV more interesting that some of these you've listed. The size? Hell, they could even remade Vice City adding the Everglades, these endless highway bridges over the sea, Key West... (and again, I'm not an enthusiast of VC being the next GTA).

By other hand, the size of the city as a problem? I'd take a smaller Las Venturas with plenty of interiors (casinos and such), features such as gambling and so over an immense but lifeless Houston or Chicago (both nice cities and attractives for a new GTA, I won't deny it) style cities.

universetwisters
  • universetwisters

    Ich liebe dich.

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Feb 2011
  • United-States

#4

Posted 07 October 2013 - 10:08 PM

Why not a Border town in the next GTA, like on the Mexican or Canadian border? Imagine all the crime, smuggling, etc. If Rockstar could do two countries in Red Dead Redemption, why can't they do it in GTA?


l911
  • l911

    ⒶⓌⒺⓈⓄⓂⒺ

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Oct 2008

#5

Posted 07 October 2013 - 10:42 PM Edited by ludi911, 07 October 2013 - 10:48 PM.

GTA covered almost all the important cultural and prestigious landmarks of the USA.

I think the only place left is New Orleans.


D- Ice
  • D- Ice

    Gangsta

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 02 Aug 2006
  • None

#6

Posted 08 October 2013 - 02:08 AM Edited by D- Ice, 08 October 2013 - 02:11 AM.

I completely agree on the importance of having large cities.

Apart from the physical size of the city, larger cities also tend to have more cultural diversity.

In addition to that, you also have a greater diversity of criminal activity and more powerful criminal organisations at the top.

 

A major issue I have is simply going back to places already done. What a lot of fans of cities returning want is that fantastic feeling of a new atmosphere and place to explore as soon as we went to those cities in the 3D era.

That is sadly the very first thing to go when these cities are redone - the sense of a new atmosphere to take in and explore would be gone as we've already been there. That is sadly one of the first things I noticed in V - despite the beautiful graphics, that amazing sense of a new setting that I got when I first started playing SA was simply not there.

 

And for those who want it to be VC in modern times, well the very VC/Miami 1980's atmosphere would simply be diluted, if not absent. The colourful glitz and glamour, cocaine culture and crime, and the Cuban and Haitian slums which attracted you to VC in the first place would all be long gone.

 

I personally would like a GTA set in Detroit to tell the story of the decline in US economy, which hasn't really been done well in IV or V. Though the issue is that its population is now too small, and the city too desolate.

That's why I set my GTA ideal in a Chicago/Detroit/US 'Rust-Belt' Hybrid. The timeline is pushed into the near future in a dystopian scenario when the rest of the US suffers economic decline and follows Detroit's model.

As desperation spreads, people move into the dirt-cheap abandoned neighbourhoods as they can't afford living elsewhere in the US. Others move in due to the high levels of financial diversification (which might fair best in economic decline).

 

Here is my GTA Concept if any of you are interested.

 

TC.


PooyanCyrus
  • PooyanCyrus

    iFruit fanboys are idiots

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Apr 2013
  • Mars
  • Best Concept Story 2013 "Grand Theft Auto: Ultimate"

#7

Posted 08 October 2013 - 01:40 PM

This guy is just right. VC, SF and LV aren't worth a new MAIN game but all three of them are nice for being continuation games in V era (i don't like saying hd era).
SF VC and LV are good for games with stories before or after V's events.
Perhaps we'll see Chicago in GTA 6, but it's not much interesting to me. I would love a Whole California with LS, LV, SF, Villages, BC and of course Nevada and Sierra Nevada (Robada and Tierra Robada?!), THE WHOLE STATE.

ThePeskyCrow
  • ThePeskyCrow

    :v

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Oct 2013

#8

Posted 12 October 2013 - 09:00 PM

Pedro The Russian Told Me He Fingers Sheep. :/


LibSity
  • LibSity

    Genetically Superior

  • Members
  • Joined: 30 May 2013

#9

Posted 13 October 2013 - 06:29 PM

You really can't understand even the simplest things. GTA isn't set in the biggest cities, cities with the highest crime rate or cities with the highest number of idiots per square mile. GTA is set exactly in these cities, because they are iconic. Since R* is recreating movie reality in the game world, games are set in cities, which world knows from the cinema. We got NY, LA, SF, LV, Miami, because almost everybody in the world knows these (maybe except some deep Africa tribes).

 

Chicago can be dropped at the start, because it's not iconic in any way and almost no crime movies were set there. Home Alone is rather weak start for a GTA game and whole city is like LC with more land mass and without Statue of Happiness.

 

Same goes for Houston and Philadelphia. Typical american cities with glass skyscrapers and suburbs, but without any icons or identity.

 

Phoenix and San Antonio goes too, because they are like LV without Casinos. Cities set in the middle of the desert, but without anything original.

 

San Diego is like younger brother of LA, but it's not as iconic. Midnight Club 3 got it and it was rather typical city. 

 

Dallas, San Jose, not much can be told about them.

 

It doesn't matter if city is big or small, crime ridden or calm. What matter is the fact if the city is iconic, got identity and people know about it. Good city for new GTA would be Detroit, city that moved USA, but also became symbol of decay and recession. And that's the only city that could work alone apart from the five cities we already know. 

Every single thing I was going to post was summed up right here. OP is an idiot.

  • The Made Man likes this

ThinRedLine1981
  • ThinRedLine1981

    Crackhead

  • Members
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2013

#10

Posted 17 October 2013 - 10:05 AM

Chicago and Philly are not iconic? No crime stories in Chicago? lol


Russ-T
  • Russ-T

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Oct 2013

#11

Posted 18 October 2013 - 04:16 AM

population and size doesnt mean jack.  its definately just gotta be iconic city and gta has its share already.

 

Heres how its gonna go

 

VICE CITY / CUBA / CARRIBBEAN ISLANDS

 

That is an awesome game right there ppl.  think about it.  think about Cuban history too and how awesome that can make for a storyline too.

 

Bow down to me now, for i am all knowing and willing to put money on this as an outcome (seeings though carribean is all the rage with assasins creed 3/4)


The Made Man
  • The Made Man

    Frank Matthews...The Guy that won...

  • Members
  • Joined: 30 Oct 2011

#12

Posted 18 October 2013 - 06:29 PM Edited by The Made Man, 18 October 2013 - 06:33 PM.

 

You really can't understand even the simplest things. GTA isn't set in the biggest cities, cities with the highest crime rate or cities with the highest number of idiots per square mile. GTA is set exactly in these cities, because they are iconic. Since R* is recreating movie reality in the game world, games are set in cities, which world knows from the cinema. We got NY, LA, SF, LV, Miami, because almost everybody in the world knows these (maybe except some deep Africa tribes).

 

Chicago can be dropped at the start, because it's not iconic in any way and almost no crime movies were set there. Home Alone is rather weak start for a GTA game and whole city is like LC with more land mass and without Statue of Happiness.

 

Same goes for Houston and Philadelphia. Typical american cities with glass skyscrapers and suburbs, but without any icons or identity.

 

Phoenix and San Antonio goes too, because they are like LV without Casinos. Cities set in the middle of the desert, but without anything original.

 

San Diego is like younger brother of LA, but it's not as iconic. Midnight Club 3 got it and it was rather typical city. 

 

Dallas, San Jose, not much can be told about them.

 

It doesn't matter if city is big or small, crime ridden or calm. What matter is the fact if the city is iconic, got identity and people know about it. Good city for new GTA would be Detroit, city that moved USA, but also became symbol of decay and recession. And that's the only city that could work alone apart from the five cities we already know. 

Every single thing I was going to post was summed up right here. OP is an idiot.

 

Agreed.

 

Vice City is the ONLY logical one!

 

Heres a very good post by member Official General on his thread that everyone should read.

 

Okay bro, you accept that South Florida/Miami is dangerous and rife with crime and gangs. Fine, we have the crime angle covered for a South Florida setting in the next GTA, so no argument there.

 

Your main argument is what is so interesting about modern-day Miami and South Florida in general (not just crime and murder) right ? Here is your answer in a nutshell, quoted from Wikipedia backed up with credible sources :

 

" According to the U.S. Census Bureau, Miami's metro area is the eighth most populous and fourth-largest urban area in the United States, with a population of around 5.5 million.[8][9]
Miami is a major center and a leader in finance, commerce, culture, media, entertainment, the arts, tourism and international trade.[10][11] In 2010, Miami was classified as an Alpha- World City in the World Cities Study Group’s inventory.[12] In 2010, Miami ranked seventh in the United States in terms of finance, commerce, culture, entertainment, fashion, education, and other sectors. It ranked thirty-third among global cities.[13] In 2008, Forbes magazine ranked Miami "America's Cleanest City", for its year-round good air quality, vast green spaces, clean drinking water, clean streets and city-wide recycling programs.[14] According to a 2009 UBS study of 73 world cities, Miami was ranked as the richest city in the United States, and the world's fifth-richest city in terms of purchasing power.[15] Miami is nicknamed the "Capital of Latin America",[1] is the second-largest U.S. city (after El Paso, Texas) with a Spanish-speaking majority, and the largest city with a Cuban-American plurality.[16] "
 
If that is not an interesting enough for a setting and location for a new GTA game, then I don't know what is.

http://gtaforums.com...e/?p=1063795159

 

Seriously...VC is the only location that will work.  Trust me, I really wanted the Midwest for GTA 6, because I really wanted to see gangs based off the Gangster Disciples, Vice Lords or Black P Stones, but VC is just MORE iconic. More people outside the USA know MORE about Miami than Chicago, because Miami is known for its nightlife.


Pyroshox
  • Pyroshox

    The Public Enemy

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 06 Sep 2013
  • Germany

#13

Posted 18 October 2013 - 08:28 PM Edited by Pyroshox, 18 October 2013 - 08:33 PM.

I really don't think VC/Miami is all that iconic anymore, it's just f*cking dirty down there anymore.

 

But, that's my opinion, if you all want VC as the next game, more power to you.


I<3GTAV
  • I<3GTAV

    I LOVE GARY PAYTON NO ONE UNDERSTANDS

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Nov 2012
  • United-States

#14

Posted 18 October 2013 - 11:20 PM

GTA San Jose sounds interesting! Running a tech company while stealing bicycles in the suburbs, oh boy!


iKevhawk
  • iKevhawk

    Street Racer

  • Members
  • Joined: 30 Sep 2013

#15

Posted 19 October 2013 - 04:04 AM Edited by iKevhawk, 19 October 2013 - 04:09 AM.

Las Venturas is good because Vegas is an iconic American city. You've all seen it in crime / action movies. Mainly about casino heists and such.

 

Sure, its population isn't something great, only around 600k people, but you have to remember the main point of Las Vegas is its tourism. There's constant tourists coming in and out of that city. To say it's small because of it's actual population is absurd.

 

It also has everything a GTA game could need. Strip clubs, casinos, it even has legal brothels. The real Vegas isn't as small as the one in San Andreas either. They could easily expand it like they did with Los Santos.

 

Most of the cities you mention aren't even iconic ones, they're just really big cities that a lot of people live in. You mention those ones to people and most people won't know much about them. Sure, they'll know New York, LA, Houston, etc. But would Houston make a good GTA game? Not really.

 

Vice City would also have my vote, but only after LV and possibly San Fierro getting their own games. VC already had some.


Pelle
  • Pelle

    Square Civilian

  • Members
  • Joined: 28 Mar 2007

#16

Posted 29 October 2013 - 11:41 AM

Las Venturas and San Fierro could make the same game


Niko Vercetti 112
  • Niko Vercetti 112

    That's, just, like, your opinion man

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Feb 2012

#17

Posted 29 October 2013 - 11:51 AM

Las Venturas and San Fierro could make the same game

If they made them the same game they would almost have to base the game in the mid to late 70's. Neither the real SF or LV feel relevant in today's setting, and having even one of those settings today would feel off, let alone both. So why not have both based in an era where both felt relevant?

xXGst0395Xx
  • xXGst0395Xx

    Boss

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Dec 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#18

Posted 29 October 2013 - 12:34 PM Edited by xXGst0395Xx, 29 October 2013 - 12:37 PM.

 

It doesn't matter if city is big or small, crime ridden or calm. What matter is the fact if the city is iconic, got identity and people know about it. Good city for new GTA would be Detroit, city that moved USA, but also became symbol of decay and recession. And that's the only city that could work alone apart from the five cities we already know. 

Every single thing I was going to post was summed up right here. OP is an idiot.

 

Yep, he's got one of the worst attitudes of any user I've seen.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users