Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Were multiple cities not possible?

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
145 replies to this topic
BreakdownFace
  • BreakdownFace

    Crackhead

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 May 2014
  • United-Kingdom

#1

Posted 18 June 2014 - 10:56 AM

Okay, so GTA 5 is set in Los Santos, this is the PS3/Xbox 360 we're talking about, vastly more powerful consoles than the PS2/Xbox, yet they can only fit 1 city onto the disc. You can make the "detail" argument all you want, but the fact that San Andreas had 3 cities, desert and countryside, not to mention everything else like putting on weight/muscle, jetpacks, etc. were not possible on a next gen console? It's what always frustrated me about console generations since PS2, loads of features get stripped away, yet it's a more powerful console yet should be able of more instead of taking it away.

  • AtomicPunk likes this

Chips237
  • Chips237

    We are all God's children

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Nov 2012
  • Philippines

#2

Posted 18 June 2014 - 10:58 AM

Ever heard of graphics?


Fuzzknuckles
  • Fuzzknuckles

    Chronic Ape

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 10 Apr 2004
  • None

#3

Posted 18 June 2014 - 11:01 AM

I'm sure it was possible, but it was probably a case of 'we've already done that, let's try making a really dense city that's more detailed'.

 

Multiple cities worked once, but when we have much more detail, it would stretch too thin. Personally, I think the size of LS is about right - if we had more cities, it would have had to be smaller, which would have made it feel strange in the context of the HD era - LC was big, so making LS and the other cities smaller would have felt wrong. It would have looked wrong. And LV and SF were already horrible in SA, so why bother watering them down again? 

 

tl;dr - Let's stop talking about this. 

  • GroundZero, WorldWideFM, BLOOD-MOND and 2 others like this

BreakdownFace
  • BreakdownFace

    Crackhead

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 May 2014
  • United-Kingdom

#4

Posted 18 June 2014 - 11:02 AM

Ever heard of graphics?

That's what frustrates me most. PS2/Xbox were the last consoles that didn't require a massive chunk of the budget to be spent on graphics which means gameplay gets cut down, I wish technology peaked at those consoles so games could grow without more years and even more hundreds of millions of the budget spent on how it looks.


I<3GTAV
  • I<3GTAV

    I LOVE GARY PAYTON NO ONE UNDERSTANDS

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

#5

Posted 18 June 2014 - 11:05 AM

 

Ever heard of graphics?

That's what frustrates me most. PS2/Xbox were the last consoles that didn't require a massive chunk of the budget to be spent on graphics which means gameplay gets cut down, I wish technology peaked at those consoles so games could grow without more years and even more hundreds of millions of the budget spent on how it looks.

 

No one expected anything of graphics back then. Besides, I would take one city and great graphics over 3 cities and subpar graphics. Call me a graphics whore all you want.

  • MaddenSixx and Bob Ross like this

BreakdownFace
  • BreakdownFace

    Crackhead

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 May 2014
  • United-Kingdom

#6

Posted 18 June 2014 - 11:09 AM

 

 

Ever heard of graphics?

That's what frustrates me most. PS2/Xbox were the last consoles that didn't require a massive chunk of the budget to be spent on graphics which means gameplay gets cut down, I wish technology peaked at those consoles so games could grow without more years and even more hundreds of millions of the budget spent on how it looks.

 

No one expected anything of graphics back then. Besides, I would take one city and great graphics over 3 cities and subpar graphics. Call me a graphics whore all you want.

 

No disrespect to you. I just hate that video games have become about looking sophisticated over being fun fun fun.

  • Fuzzknuckles, buzzbass, HUGOHL and 2 others like this

AlienWillHeMonsta
  • AlienWillHeMonsta

    Prankster

  • Members
  • Joined: 22 Aug 2012

#7

Posted 18 June 2014 - 11:17 AM

Multiply development time x 3 now wait 15 years for the game's release.


BreakdownFace
  • BreakdownFace

    Crackhead

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 May 2014
  • United-Kingdom

#8

Posted 18 June 2014 - 11:20 AM

Multiply development time x 3 now wait 15 years for the game's release.

We could have a multiple city game on PS Vita in the space of 3 years I reckon. I hope this can happen.


Osho
  • Osho

    The Jackal

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Nov 2012
  • None

#9

Posted 18 June 2014 - 11:47 AM

It won't be on the same level level of visual quality as seen in GTA IV, since it needs to be bigger than Liberty City.
Looking back over the history of map sizes and game improvements, the developers need to find ways to cut corners, either featuring just one city with countryside or reduce the scale for having multiple cities with such scope and details.

Fuzzknuckles
  • Fuzzknuckles

    Chronic Ape

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 10 Apr 2004
  • None

#10

Posted 18 June 2014 - 11:53 AM Edited by Fuzzknuckles, 18 June 2014 - 11:54 AM.

If you reduce the scale of a city to keep the level of detail, you lose the feel of 'city' and get the feel of 'weirdly designed town'.

 

Look at the 'cities' in Just Cause 2 - 8 by 8 streets, huge tall buildings. That doesn't make sense. You could do bigger on new tech, but it still won't feel like a city. 

 

So, basically, multiple cities was fine for San An, because we didn't expect a city to be as realistic. But in the modern era, the HD era, where detail is key to giving the sense of realism, we have to have a single big, dense city, with area around it. Splitting it up and making several smaller cities just cannot work. 

 

Unless the map was maybe 5 times the size - but again, detail would have to be compromised - which is what we've seen with V on old-gen consoles. I want the detail, not the size. More empty country would be more empty space for people to complain about. San An excelled at fitting the cities into a small space because of the way the roads were set out - there was no simple direct route to San Fierro from LS or LV. It took time to get there in a land vehicle, because the roads were so long. Go off road, or fly, though, and it suddenly feels much smaller - unrealistically small. To the point where it starts to make me think, actually, they should have cut out the country side and jammed the three small cities together... then surrounded it with countryside...

 

Does that sound like a map we've played recently to anyone?

 

One city makes sense. Three small, underdeveloped cities don't. 

  • android and BLOOD-MOND like this

Bucky914
  • Bucky914

    Thug

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Feb 2011
  • None

#11

Posted 18 June 2014 - 12:08 PM

Rockstar want to focus more on a 10/10 with gameplay and graphics. The PS3/360 couldn't handle three large cities with the graphics GTA V has. The game is already too big for some player's systems.

 

The current gen will allow Rockstar to expand if they want. San Andreas wasn't on the same level graphically as Vice City or GTA 3, but Rockstar made up for it with the amazing gameplay and storyline.


one55
  • one55

    Nigguh!

  • Members
  • Joined: 27 Aug 2013
  • Scotland

#12

Posted 18 June 2014 - 12:31 PM

of course it's possible. they just chose not to include multiple cities for whatever reason. get over it. 


poklane
  • poklane

    So now what?

  • Members
  • Joined: 06 Jun 2012
  • Netherlands

#13

Posted 18 June 2014 - 12:48 PM

I rather get 1 big city (GTA V Los Santos) than 3 average/small cities (GTA SA San Andreas, San Fierro and Las Venturas).

  • Fuzzknuckles, GroundZero, Detective Phelps and 1 other like this

Official General
  • Official General

    You gotta always carry heat in these Vice City streets

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2010

#14

Posted 18 June 2014 - 01:31 PM Edited by Official General, 18 June 2014 - 01:55 PM.

I would take one city and great graphics over 3 cities and subpar graphics. Call me a graphics whore all you want.

 

This would not have been a problem with me if the city of Los Santos in GTA V had : 

 

* Much more interiors to interact with like fast-food outlets, restaurants, bars, nightclubs, hospitals, malls and more. 

 

* More things to do within the city relating to crime especially, and socializing, not just simple leisure activities.

 

* More visible action and crime in streets, especially in the hood, like random gang shootouts or drive-bys not connected to player activity.

 

* Been slightly more spread out in size, and had a better balance and mix of various districts - not enough middle class areas.

 

We got none of this, and it's a great shame because LS in V does look amazingly created for most part. But LS just looks like a very attractive-looking house on the outside with a very empty hollow, nothing to see or do on the inside. If Rockstar could not even do that with just the one city in V, then they were much better off downgrading the graphics and effects to give us 3 different cities with lots of fun, interesting things to do and see, and also many, but simply-designed interiors. I'd have rather had that, than what we got with LS now. 

 

Just my opinion. 

  • Choco Taco, HUGOHL, bish0p2004 and 6 others like this

Toshio_maxoS
  • Toshio_maxoS

    Heisenberg's pal™

  • Members
  • Joined: 28 Feb 2012
  • Red-Cross

#15

Posted 18 June 2014 - 01:46 PM

 

I would take one city and great graphics over 3 cities and subpar graphics. Call me a graphics whore all you want.

 

This would not have been a problem with me if the city of Los Santos in GTA V had : 

 

* Much more interiors to interact with like fast-food outlets, restaurants, bars, nightclubs, hospitals, malls and more. 

 

* More things to do within the city relating to crime especially, and socializing, not just simple leisure activities.

 

* More visible action and crime in streets, especially in the hood, like random gang shootouts or drive-bys not connected to player activity.

 

* Been slightly more spread out in size, and had a better balance and mix of various districts - not enough middle class areas.

 

We got none of this, and it's a great shame because LS in V does look amazingly created for most part. But LS just looks like an very attractive house on the outside with a very empty hollow, nothing inside. If Rockstar could not even do that with just the one city in V, then they were much better of downgrading the graphics and giving us 3 different cities with lots of fun, interesting things to do and see, and also many, but simple-designed interiors. 

 

Just my opinion. 

 

 

I belive all the new things to do in Los Santos will come in Next-Gen Version.

Let's hope for a city to reach in 5 min fly from Los Santos in next DLC. (Probably not, but the hope dies last.)

  • Official General likes this

Arckle
  • Arckle

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 May 2010

#16

Posted 18 June 2014 - 01:49 PM

So they could use the other settings like San Ferrio and Las Venturas for future Gta games


burnzy187
  • burnzy187

    Trick

  • Members
  • Joined: 27 Dec 2010
  • None

#17

Posted 18 June 2014 - 01:55 PM

San Andreas was actually kinda small when i was a kid i taught it would take me a hour to drive around the map , the map would feel weird with muiltiple citys because of draw distance just look at this , 

  • The7thOne likes this

Official General
  • Official General

    You gotta always carry heat in these Vice City streets

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2010

#18

Posted 18 June 2014 - 01:58 PM Edited by Official General, 18 June 2014 - 02:00 PM.

So they could use the other settings like San Ferrio and Las Venturas for future Gta games

 

Nah, I cannot see that working for just one separate GTA game. They would have to connect San Fierro and Las Venturas in some way with Los Santos and the surrounding San Andreas region. That would work as an expansion pack of some form yes, but not as a separate game. The new-gen versions of  V would be a great opportunity to implement an expansion pack to include SF and LV - if Rockstar don't do that, then it's a big waste. 


Fuzzknuckles
  • Fuzzknuckles

    Chronic Ape

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 10 Apr 2004
  • None

#19

Posted 18 June 2014 - 02:00 PM

 

So they could use the other settings like San Ferrio and Las Venturas for future Gta games

 

 

Nah, I cannot see that working for just one separate GTA game. They would have to connect San Fierro and Las Venturas in some way with Los Santos and the surrounding San Andreas region. That would work as an expansion pack of some form yes, but not as a separate game. 

 

And let's be honest, the next GTA game, if we even get one, is going to be Vice City. It just has to be. 

  • Official General, GroundZero, Taki Owaki and 3 others like this

Arckle
  • Arckle

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 May 2010

#20

Posted 18 June 2014 - 02:02 PM

 

So they could use the other settings like San Ferrio and Las Venturas for future Gta games

 

Nah, I cannot see that working for just one separate GTA game. They would have to connect San Fierro and Las Venturas in some way with Los Santos and the surrounding San Andreas region. That would work as an expansion pack of some form yes, but not as a separate game. The new-gen versions of  V would be a great opportunity to implement an expansion pack to include SF and LV - if Rockstar don't do that, then it's a big waste. 

 

I meant both as separate settings for separate future GTA games


Official General
  • Official General

    You gotta always carry heat in these Vice City streets

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2010

#21

Posted 18 June 2014 - 02:02 PM Edited by Official General, 18 June 2014 - 02:05 PM.

 

 

So they could use the other settings like San Ferrio and Las Venturas for future Gta games

 

 

Nah, I cannot see that working for just one separate GTA game. They would have to connect San Fierro and Las Venturas in some way with Los Santos and the surrounding San Andreas region. That would work as an expansion pack of some form yes, but not as a separate game. 

 

And let's be honest, the next GTA game, if we even get one, is going to be Vice City. It just has to be. 

 

 

@ Fuzz

 

This indeed  :^:

 

If there is gonna be a new, separate GTA title anytime soon, it has to be set in Vice City. And to be honest, a new VC game is exactly what I would prefer to see in the next GTA.

 

@ Arckle

 

I meant both as separate settings for separate future GTA games

 

That's exactly what I meant too. I can't see it working without having to connect the two cities to Los Santos, so it would have to be an expansion pack to V, not a new set of separate games altogether. Rockstar could do whatever they want at the end of the day, but personally I don't see them doing what you suggested. 


Fuzzknuckles
  • Fuzzknuckles

    Chronic Ape

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 10 Apr 2004
  • None

#22

Posted 18 June 2014 - 02:04 PM

 

 

 

So they could use the other settings like San Ferrio and Las Venturas for future Gta games

 

 

Nah, I cannot see that working for just one separate GTA game. They would have to connect San Fierro and Las Venturas in some way with Los Santos and the surrounding San Andreas region. That would work as an expansion pack of some form yes, but not as a separate game. 

 

And let's be honest, the next GTA game, if we even get one, is going to be Vice City. It just has to be. 

 

 

@ Fuzz

 

This indeed  :^:

 

If there is gonna be a new, separate GTA title anytime soon, it has to be set in Vice City. And to be honest, a new VC game is exactly what I would prefer to see in the next GTA.

 

I found V very impressive, so I'm thinking that they may be able to sway me with a new VC (it's my least favourite), even with an 80s setting. Time will tell. 

  • Official General likes this

ChrisMathers3501
  • ChrisMathers3501

    Mack Pimp

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Jul 2008

#23

Posted 18 June 2014 - 02:09 PM

Ever heard of graphics?

Ever since Doom 3.  Ever heard of content?


Phoenix_Poop
  • Phoenix_Poop

    Player hater or hater player, or what?

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Oct 2013
  • Sweden

#24

Posted 18 June 2014 - 02:10 PM Edited by Phoenix_Shit, 18 June 2014 - 02:11 PM.

R' themselfs said that back in 02' days when they where developing GTA SA, it did not take as much as effort as it does now with their modern games such as RDR and IV. But back in 2002, R* proabably thought that they worked their asses off for GTA San andreas, when looking at now when developing GTA V took more than half the work they put into SA. Its life, and how things change. Lets just accept it instead of arguing


GourangaMaster
  • GourangaMaster

    ▲▲▼▼◄►◄►BA

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Nov 2011

#25

Posted 18 June 2014 - 02:14 PM

Game informer -

When asked why they chose to make one large city instead of making two or three, Houser says it was a
design decision primarily driven on making the best possible experience.
"The bottom line was building one city and doing it properly. You have to spend a lot of your city
budget time and money making L.A. To split that into two, you would lose what L.A. is".


Arckle
  • Arckle

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 May 2010

#26

Posted 18 June 2014 - 02:41 PM Edited by Arckle, 18 June 2014 - 02:41 PM.

 

That's exactly what I meant too. I can't see it working without having to connect the two cities to Los Santos, so it would have to be an expansion pack to V, not a new set of separate games altogether. Rockstar could do whatever they want at the end of the day, but personally I don't see them doing what you suggested. 

 

 

I dont see why they would have to connect them at all, also it makes sense for them to  expand on either San Ferrio or Las Venturas rather than making a new Liberty City or even a Vice City which wouldnt really work assuming that it would be in a modern Setting


universetwisters
  • universetwisters

    Ich liebe dich alle.

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

#27

Posted 18 June 2014 - 03:07 PM

They had other cities. Sandy Shores, Paleto Bay, etc.

  • hornedturtle likes this

Detective Phelps
  • Detective Phelps

    F*ck the 4th amendment!

  • Members
  • Joined: 27 Jul 2013
  • United-States
  • Helpfulness Award [GTA V section - Reporting]

#28

Posted 18 June 2014 - 03:20 PM

They had other cities. Sandy Shores, Paleto Bay, etc.

I think you're talking about other settlements. ;)

  • JRock462 likes this

Official General
  • Official General

    You gotta always carry heat in these Vice City streets

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2010

#29

Posted 18 June 2014 - 03:25 PM

 

 

That's exactly what I meant too. I can't see it working without having to connect the two cities to Los Santos, so it would have to be an expansion pack to V, not a new set of separate games altogether. Rockstar could do whatever they want at the end of the day, but personally I don't see them doing what you suggested. 

 

 

I dont see why they would have to connect them at all, also it makes sense for them to  expand on either San Ferrio or Las Venturas rather than making a new Liberty City or even a Vice City which wouldnt really work assuming that it would be in a modern Setting

 

 

Because SF and LV are both in the same state as LS. All 3 cities have a history of being connected in GTA because of SA. I cannot see Rockstar going against that by making a completely new game for SF and LV. It's still possible, but I personally doubt it. 

 

Vice City would definitely work in a modern day setting, Miami is still a city that's poppin' in big way in terms of everything to offer a prime GTA setting. Don't even start to tell me that bullsh*t about "VC won't work unless it's set in the 1980s, and it's already been done", because I strongly disagree with that. Not everything about VC or Miami for that matter must revolve around the 1980s. 

 

 

They had other cities. Sandy Shores, Paleto Bay, etc.

 

Lol that's joke right ?


universetwisters
  • universetwisters

    Ich liebe dich alle.

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

#30

Posted 18 June 2014 - 03:31 PM

 

They had other cities. Sandy Shores, Paleto Bay, etc.

I think you're talking about other settlements. ;)

 

 

What's the difference? They're both cities/towns in their own right, just much smaller.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users