Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

GTA is not some sunny, mountain climbing simulator people!

9 replies to this topic
Budweiser Addict
  • Budweiser Addict

    That's, just, like, your opinion man

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Feb 2012

#1

Posted 22 November 2013 - 02:00 AM

Out of all the terrible things that San Andreas fanboy-ism has caused, it's this expectation that every GTA has to be bright with mile long expanses of countryside.

The biggest complaints some you people had about IV was that it was too dark, or there wasn't any countryside; thus probably the reason Rockstar chose to go back to a place like Los Santos for GTA V. But I really need to ask, was it actually that necessary?

While I actually like, and have no problem with, countryside and sunny environment, are you all going to bitch if the next GTA game returns to the original GTA formula?

If anything the majority of the series have had dark environment: 1, 2, III, LCS, Advance, IV, TLAD
Whereas the ones with vibrant environments: VC, SA, VCS, TBOGT (and that is even somewhat streching it), V
And even that said about the mood and the atmosphere, which ones in the second category actually had a decent storyline? Only Vice City.

And if you look at the ones with actual countryside what is there? SA and V.

In the end, I'm not saying that I hate vibrant environments and countryside. What I am saying is that if you're going to try and talk sh*t about Rockstar's choices in terms of map and atmosphere go find another series to play. Rockstar should not be discouraged from making a dark setting, a complete urban jungle, or both just to appeal to fans who think every GTA should feel like San Andreas.
  • D- Ice likes this

universetwisters
  • universetwisters

    Traum - Tagtraum - Am Fenster

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Feb 2011
  • United-States
  • Best Workshop 2014
    Most Improved 2014
    Funniest Member 2014
    April Fools Winner 2015

#2

Posted 22 November 2013 - 02:22 AM

Crimes happen in sunny, tourist-ey places too. Here in Daytona, there's a good deal of crime you hear about on the news. Sure, it doesn't come close to bigass bank robberies, but it's still gritty crime nonetheless. Most of it drug-related.

 

I guess it goes to show that there's crime to be had everywhere, from the grittiest alleyway to the sunniest European field.


TheOtherRyan
  • TheOtherRyan

    Soviet Connection

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2007
  • Australia
  • Best Poster [GTA] 2014
    Best Member in the OGA 2012

#3

Posted 22 November 2013 - 02:29 AM

It should be balanced IMO. I don't mind countryside and warm/vibrant places being included, but I prefer a gritty, dark concrete jungle for a game like GTA. I hope for GTA VI R* give a look at either Boston, Chicago, Detroit, Philadelphia etc.


ObsydianRaven
  • ObsydianRaven

    Formerly Sethpenguin

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Jul 2008
  • None
  • Contribution Award [Concepts]

#4

Posted 22 November 2013 - 02:35 AM

I have a feeling we're going to see fans complaining about the next GTA if it doesn't have a countryside. Yes Rockstar should listen to feedback from the fans but shouldn't have to kiss SA fanboy ass.
  • D- Ice likes this

thejack0ff
  • thejack0ff

    Snitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 Oct 2013

#5

Posted 22 November 2013 - 03:04 AM

It should be balanced IMO. I don't mind countryside and warm/vibrant places being included, but I prefer a gritty, dark concrete jungle for a game like GTA. I hope for GTA VI R* give a look at either Boston, Chicago, Detroit, Philadelphia etc.

 

I want to see something like this BUT with a couple of neighboring towns and dirty grass. In New York (Liberty City) there's a Racetrack, (recently-built) Casino, National Park and a large beach near where Beechwood City would be.

 

Of course, almost all of these places are poor (with the exception of a few with some mansions). An urban environment with a couple of nice but gloomy additions would be nice.


D- Ice
  • D- Ice

    Gangsta

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 02 Aug 2006
  • None

#6

Posted 22 November 2013 - 04:54 AM

Out of all the terrible things that San Andreas fanboy-ism has caused, it's this expectation that every GTA has to be bright with mile long expanses of countryside.

The biggest complaints some you people had about IV was that it was too dark, or there wasn't any countryside; thus probably the reason Rockstar chose to go back to a place like Los Santos for GTA V. But I really need to ask, was it actually that necessary?

While I actually like, and have no problem with, countryside and sunny environment, are you all going to bitch if the next GTA game returns to the original GTA formula?

If anything the majority of the series have had dark environment: 1, 2, III, LCS, Advance, IV, TLAD
Whereas the ones with vibrant environments: VC, SA, VCS, TBOGT (and that is even somewhat streching it), V
And even that said about the mood and the atmosphere, which ones in the second category actually had a decent storyline? Only Vice City.

And if you look at the ones with actual countryside what is there? SA and V.

In the end, I'm not saying that I hate vibrant environments and countryside. What I am saying is that if you're going to try and talk sh*t about Rockstar's choices in terms of map and atmosphere go find another series to play. Rockstar should not be discouraged from making a dark setting, a complete urban jungle, or both just to appeal to fans who think every GTA should feel like San Andreas.

I completely agree. IMO GTA V was more of a sunny California-promoting Sim game with a criminal twist than an actual GTA game.

I find the direction in which GTA is heading - away from a crime-sim and more towards a sim game with crime - very worrying.

V is not the first game this has been happening in - it has been heading in that direction since SA IMO (LCS and VCS moving back towards original focus).

 

Crimes happen in sunny, tourist-ey places too. Here in Daytona, there's a good deal of crime you hear about on the news. Sure, it doesn't come close to bigass bank robberies, but it's still gritty crime nonetheless. Most of it drug-related.

 

I guess it goes to show that there's crime to be had everywhere, from the grittiest alleyway to the sunniest European field.

 

I completely agree. But the thing is that it is undeniable that crime is far more concentrated in poverty-stricken urban environments.

Gritty does not necessarily denote cold, damp weather - Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paulo in Brazil have ridiculous levels of crime in their slums.

 

The issue I find is that in GTA V - neither the countryside nor the city were fully utilised for crime. While the storyline missions were undeniably crime-themed, outside of missions most activities were just voyeuristic appreciation of the prettiness or Sims-like activities like Yoga and Tennis - none of which I enjoyed or completed.

 

If I wanted to waste time playing tennis with my virtual wife, hanging out with my virtual son, or climbing a mountain to look at a pretty sunset, I would've brough the Sims. Better still, I could just play tennis or go to a strip club with real friends.

I buy GTA to simulate a life I can't/won't have in reality - doing major drug deals, having shootouts and managing a criminal empire.


Pooyan Cyrus
  • Pooyan Cyrus

    Drake stole my notebook :(

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Apr 2013
  • Mars
  • Helpfulness Award [Concepts]
    Best Concept Story 2013 "Grand Theft Auto: Ultimate"
    April Fools Winner 2015

#7

Posted 22 November 2013 - 03:03 PM Edited by PooyanCyrus, 23 November 2013 - 12:49 PM.

So, you say New York is best place for GTA? "Better be kidding me, Tommy!" We've already seen that in 7 games.
Whole this thread is like a joke. Original GTA formula is setting the game in a black and white place with dead colors, peds talking nonsense and a dark story which is continuing a dark past?
Even if you believe in that so-called formula, SA isn't a vibrant game. Would you be happy if some street gangs kill your mother? If yes, try to be a "good kid, like kids in the TV". The only vibrant place in SA was LV Strip, and Vinewood blvd.
  • ObsydianRaven and Shmiqq like this

TaviColen123
  • TaviColen123

    Trollhater

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 21 Aug 2013
  • Romania

#8

Posted 22 November 2013 - 04:14 PM

SonOfLiberty, on 22 Nov 2013 - 04:29 AM, said:

It should be balanced IMO. I don't mind countryside and warm/vibrant places being included, but I prefer a gritty, dark concrete jungle for a game like GTA. I hope for GTA VI R* give a look at either Boston, Chicago, Detroit, Philadelphia etc.

I hope for the next GTA game R* will cut the game in half and charge for every single weapon and car in game so all the f*cking whiny bitches will finally have something to complain for real and maybe regret being such pricks in general .

  • ObsydianRaven likes this

Shmiqq
  • Shmiqq

    you know how it is man

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Jun 2013
  • United-Kingdom

#9

Posted 23 November 2013 - 10:50 AM Edited by Shmiqq, 23 November 2013 - 10:51 AM.

Idk man I don't ever go into the countryside, to ME it's just a barren wasteland since I've driven past it a couple of times. In SA it was nice to see the scenery while heading to another city, but here it's just LS and that's about it.

They did boast about the map size being huge, but I've found some areas to be wasted land that could've been cut out. LS is literally 1/3 (not even) the map size, and ik some people like the country but I don't see much to do there after a while.

And imo LCS wasn't dark, not for me anyway. And the story for VC made it seem more dark than SA when I played 'em.

Baramos
  • Baramos

    Snitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 Jan 2007

#10

Posted 24 November 2013 - 08:27 AM

This is kind of confusing in light of Vice City, which was a very vibrant/bright setting. It's not as if GTA V's story was bright/happy just because of the setting, either.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users