Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Were multiple cities not possible?

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

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 May 2010

#61

Posted 19 June 2014 - 02:02 AM Edited by Arckle, 19 June 2014 - 02:07 AM.

 

 

 

 

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. 

 

 

 

Yet they have already gone against it by making Los Santos by itself in V you could easily say how could they make Los Santos without San Fierro or Las Venturas in V
You need to forget what it was like in San Andreas, after all this is a new 'universe'. As for Miami in modern times I couldn't see them doing that right after doing Los Angeles as I dont see how they would differ that much as opposed to Las Vegas or San Francisco would

  • Niko Vercetti 112 and Blood-Is-in-Diamond like this

Ben73
  • Ben73

    Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Dec 2012
  • Australia

#62

Posted 19 June 2014 - 02:35 AM

LS in V could have been heaps more interactive, but I'd prefer a pretty good detailed LS with good graphics over a basic detailed 3 cities with sh*tty graphics.

 

I don't know how many cities were possible if they wanted to keep V looking as good as it does. I'm not a computer engineer. Apparently half of this forum are though.

  • ViceCityStalker likes this

_Kindled_
  • _Kindled_

    ‘Be Yourself’ is about the worst advice you can give to people.

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 09 Jul 2013
  • United-States

#63

Posted 19 June 2014 - 02:53 AM

GTA IV was originally gonna have surrounding mountains, but due to something, it was cut. I would make sense if Rockstar originally had the idea of recreating LV and SF but remembered that LG had limitations. Limitations that kept them from doing so. Seeing how there is already so many details in the game, I don't blame them. 

 

I was originally unhappy that those cities (or at least one of them) were not featured in the game. But adding them would mean implementing different activities and nature. That would be stressful for Rockstar if they had to do that. But if they were to do it in a story DLC... that would make me happy.


AlasClarin
  • AlasClarin

    Mack Pimp

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Aug 2013
  • None

#64

Posted 19 June 2014 - 02:55 AM Edited by AlasClarin, 19 June 2014 - 02:56 AM.

 

It wasn't with these level of detail and graphics on PS3 / Xbox 360. On PC it was possible years ago... damn you consoles.


It has NOTHING to do with the consoles power, if it did, how do you explain other games with LARGER worlds than GTA? It's a development issue, back in 2004, Rockstar rushed San Fiero and parts of Las Venturas, and it certainly shows now, where as now, Rockstar consider they have a standard to deliver with their cit designs, again, it took them this long to just do Los Santos and the surrounding area in a quality they were satisfied with, imagine how much longer it would have taken if they decided to throw on an extra city or two.

 

It's not only the raw size of the map, it's the density, the amount of different models and details that would be required to be stored and to be streamed in real time. With their money they could hire tons of artists to model what they want, but there are more problems that we can't even really understand unless they gave me access to their source code to know how everything exactly works.

 

If you think hardware has nothing to do with this, then I assume that you won't expect multiple cities on a GTA never again, or a bigger map for instance, because as you say it would take like 10 years or so to do it, isn't it?

  • G.S.T likes this

BOSS 302
  • BOSS 302

    gnad1992

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2014
  • Brazil

#65

Posted 19 June 2014 - 02:57 AM Edited by BOSS 302, 19 June 2014 - 02:58 AM.

 

 

It wasn't with these level of detail and graphics on PS3 / Xbox 360. On PC it was possible years ago... damn you consoles.


It has NOTHING to do with the consoles power, if it did, how do you explain other games with LARGER worlds than GTA? It's a development issue, back in 2004, Rockstar rushed San Fiero and parts of Las Venturas, and it certainly shows now, where as now, Rockstar consider they have a standard to deliver with their cit designs, again, it took them this long to just do Los Santos and the surrounding area in a quality they were satisfied with, imagine how much longer it would have taken if they decided to throw on an extra city or two.

 

It's not only the raw size of the map, it's the density, the amount of different models and details that would be required to be stored and to be streamed in real time. With their money they could hire tons of artists to model what they want, but there are more problems that we can't even really understand unless they gave me access to their source code to know how everything exactly works.

 

If you think hardware has nothing to do with this, then I assume that you won't expect multiple cities on a GTA never again, or a bigger map for instance, because as you say it would take like 10 years or so to do it, isn't it?

 

 

-removed-


Dark Bordeus
  • Dark Bordeus

    The biggest scumbag in the world

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Oct 2012
  • Canada

#66

Posted 19 June 2014 - 03:28 AM

I remember in an official interview, Dan Houser (or another R* executive) said that multiple cities really stretched and dispersed people's focus in San Andreas. In order to show three cities, the team had to really push thier resources and in the end the 3 cities weren't as distinct or realistic as intended. They abandoned multiple cities for GTAV so that all the resources could be concentrated on one city and thus make that city as good as possible.

 

I disagree though, I think SA was done well for the time. SF felt like San Fransico with the trams and the inclined streets. LV felt like Vegas, with the endless casinos and lights.

 

Again, the truthfulness of this is up to you to decide. Is it just a cover-up answer for "we were too lazy to do multiple cities" or not.

  • ViceCityStalker likes this

BlackNoise
  • BlackNoise

    Ghetto Star

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Nov 2011
  • None

#67

Posted 19 June 2014 - 03:51 AM

I've been to all three too many times to count and I promise LS was the only one that gave me that feeling back when SA released. SF just didn't feel like Frisco and I lived there for years. LV was a complete joke. R* only paid attention to the most stereotypical aspects that people think about when it comes to SF and LV. They don't want to do that anymore. 

 

A proper SF would be it's own game, and the same could be said for LV. It's not about laziness, and I'm not sure how much of it has to do with console tech, but it doesn't matter. To do them properly, it would either take a ridiculously long time(more $$$), or more artists(more $$$). Why would they do that? 

  • fac316 likes this

Fuzzknuckles
  • Fuzzknuckles

    Chronic Ape

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 10 Apr 2004
  • None

#68

Posted 19 June 2014 - 07:31 AM

 

 

I enjoy playing V after the story a lot more than IV. I love buying/modding cars, exploring, and using my imagination just like when I was twelve when I was playing GTA III and Vice City over ten years ago. You can really got lost in it if you have an imagination.


As for the imagination thing, well unfortunately that's not for me when playing games (I save creativity for my other hobbies). I'd rather just have better features in the game. As of now, I go on rampages, run from the cops, die, rinse and repeat.

You would think after SA and RDR, R* would be masters at creating a terrific free roam, packed with fun and repeatable side activities.

 

 

@ bish0p2004

 

I totally agree with you here. I sometimes like to use my imagination in GTA and roleplay. However it's all well and good saying, "use your imagination", but when you don't have enough decent features in a free roam game, there is not really much left to the imagination to be used in the first place. GTA V does not even provide me with enough decent features and content to use my imagination to have fun outside of the story. To be honest the game just needs much better features and content, this imagination excuse aint cutting it for me.

 

You are going to be hugely disappointed by Watch Dogs. 

  • Delta India Echo likes this

ViceCityStalker
  • ViceCityStalker

    Balls Deep Inside Candy Suxxx

  • Members
  • Joined: 24 Nov 2013
  • South-Africa

#69

Posted 19 June 2014 - 07:59 AM

f*ck what science says I could of done with another detailed if even smaller city directly North of Paleto Bay,I dunno what it is but it`s just Steve Mcqueen cool to travel from one city to another.


Official General
  • Official General

    You gotta always carry heat in these Vice City streets

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2010

#70

Posted 19 June 2014 - 12:32 PM Edited by Official General, 19 June 2014 - 01:26 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. 

 

 

 

Yet they have already gone against it by making Los Santos by itself in V you could easily say how could they make Los Santos without San Fierro or Las Venturas in V
You need to forget what it was like in San Andreas, after all this is a new 'universe'. As for Miami in modern times I couldn't see them doing that right after doing Los Angeles as I dont see how they would differ that much as opposed to Las Vegas or San Francisco would

 

 

Yes, Rockstar made Los Santos by itself because it's based on LA. When it came to those three cities, Rockstar were always much more likely to do a single city based on LA, than a single city based on San Francisco (San Fierro) or Las Vegas (Las Venturas), because LA has the most to offer in every way for a prime GTA setting, it's got the popular culture, the glamour, the high crime rate and huge well-known gang scene, it's got everything. So really, I'm not too surprised that Rockstar chose to do Los Santos on it's own. San Fierro on it's own would seem pretty boring - San Francisco is not as well-known as LA, and it's local gang and organized crime scene is not exactly world-notorious either. Las Vegas with it's history of Mafia associations could be done by itself as Las Venturas, but let's face it, the Mafia there are hardly mentioned or talked about these days, and it's possible that they may even be extinct out there. Other than that, LV would have not much else to offer apart from crimes to do with gambling and casinos, so I can't see that working as just one city. But this is just my opinion, even if I strongly believe in it. 

 

The only thing Miami and LA have in common is the bright, sunny weather and palm trees. Even then, Miami has a sub-tropical climate and appearance, which LA does not have. LA has more of a warm and dry Mediterranean climate and appearance. The two cities have completely different physical looks, structure and layout. Miami is positioned on both islands and a strip on the mainland separated by many lakes, rivers, swamps, and lagoons, while LA is surrounded by mountainous areas and dry, semi-desert. On top of that, Miami and LA have very different social setting, cultures, nightlife and demographics, apart from the fact that they both have huge Latino populations, and there are big differences there too - Miami is well-known for it's Cubans and LA is well-known for it's Mexicans. The gang and organized crime scene in Miami is very different to the one in LA too, street gang culture in Miami is nothing like LA's Bloods, Crips, or Surenos. The two cities are completely different places. 

 

@ Fuzz

 

You are going to be hugely disappointed by Watch Dogs. 

 

To be honest, my intrigue and hype for Watch Dogs has already died down a long time ago bro. I have extensively looked at and read official reviews and personal accounts of WD, and that pretty much did it for me. I'm still gonna play it when I get the chance just to see for myself if I like it, but that won't be until I get a PS4, and that won't be until later this year. 

  • Fuzzknuckles, kingcs and Delta India Echo like this

fac316
  • fac316

    Playa

  • Members
  • Joined: 15 Oct 2012

#71

Posted 19 June 2014 - 01:09 PM

If you take out all that stuff from the ocean, the sewers, subway, the in-game online + TV and the yoga, You bet we woulda got another city.


ivarblaauw
  • ivarblaauw

    Night Light OutlawS MC President

  • Members
  • Joined: 14 Sep 2012
  • Netherlands

#72

Posted 19 June 2014 - 01:17 PM Edited by ivarblaauw, 19 June 2014 - 01:22 PM.

http://gtaforums.com...s/?p=1065618027

 

there is all the information you need. 

 

and to give an answer:

money, RAM and hdd space are all big factors here.

 

RAM because the memory is almost at it's maximum in GTA V for the old consoles.

HDD Space because models, utilities, code etc.

Money because why would you create a giant map, if you could divide it up in multiple parts, have more time to work on it + make them more in depth and release them and cash in once again...


Fuzzknuckles
  • Fuzzknuckles

    Chronic Ape

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 10 Apr 2004
  • None

#73

Posted 19 June 2014 - 01:23 PM

 

@ Fuzz

 

You are going to be hugely disappointed by Watch Dogs. 

 

To be honest, my intrigue and hype for Watch Dogs has already died down a long time ago bro. I have extensively looked at and read official reviews and personal accounts of WD, and that pretty much did it for me. I'm still gonna play it when I get the chance just to see for myself if I like it, but that won't be until I get a PS4, and that won't be until later this year. 

 

Very wise choice. I expected so much, and it delivered very little. To be honest, I think I'm suffering the same disappointment you had for V. V delivered for me by the truck load, but Watch Dogs... man, they didn't even have the ball, let alone drop it. 

 

That's not to say it's not worth playing - it is, definitely, but it's incredibly empty. Good interiors, and quite a few of them, but that doesn't balance the emptiness of the world. If you felt V had not enough life, WD will feel like an actual grave yard. 

  • Official General, kingcs, fac316 and 1 other like this

killahmatic
  • killahmatic

    JB

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2008
  • None

#74

Posted 19 June 2014 - 02:38 PM

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.

 

You're right, I can make the detail argument. There is so much that goes into every little thing, whereas in SA there wasn't hardly anything. Better graphics take up a lot more space. and the size of the island does aswell. 


Official General
  • Official General

    You gotta always carry heat in these Vice City streets

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2010

#75

Posted 19 June 2014 - 03:11 PM Edited by Official General, 19 June 2014 - 03:24 PM.

 

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.

 

You're right, I can make the detail argument. There is so much that goes into every little thing, whereas in SA there wasn't hardly anything. Better graphics take up a lot more space. and the size of the island does aswell. 

 

 

@ killahmatic

 

But that's the biggest part of the problem with GTA V. LS in V had so much beautiful detail in the visuals and exteriors, but not much in terms of content, it felt quite hollow and empty as far as immersion and interaction is concerned. Not enough interiors, and not enough fun and interesting things to do within LS other than leisure activities. SA may have had much lesser graphics and detail for it's time, but in terms of good, decent content, it offered a ton of it, and many people prefer that in GTA over just eye candy alone. 

  • thekillerdonuts likes this

bish0p2004
  • bish0p2004

    Mack Pimp

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Jul 2013

#76

Posted 19 June 2014 - 03:22 PM


 


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.

 
You're right, I can make the detail argument. There is so much that goes into every little thing, whereas in SA there wasn't hardly anything. Better graphics take up a lot more space. and the size of the island does aswell. 
 
 
@ killahmatic
 
But that's the biggest part of the problem with GTA V. LS in V had so much detail in the visuals and exteriors, but not much in terms of content, it felt quite hollow and empty as far as immersion and interaction is concerned. Not enough interiors, and not enough fun and interesting things to do within LS other than leisure activities. SA may have had much lesser graphics and detail for it's time, but in terms of good, decent content, it offered a ton of it, and many people prefer that in GTA over just eye candy alone. 

But with the release of this game, more people seem to be going on about how beautiful and detailed the game...which I will admit, the game is beautifully done. But honestly, this is the only consistent compliments I see about the game.

Maybe gaming is all about graphics and online now. It's funny because a few years ago, being a graphics whore was actually considered to be a negative thing.

I mean, even in this thread, people just one more of the same pretty things to look at and couldnt care less about actual content and features.

I used to be excited for the future of games and I couldn't wait to see the improvements in graphics, features AND A.I., but the only big improvements I'm seeing is in how pretty the graphics are.
  • Official General, Osho, thekillerdonuts and 1 other like this

Official General
  • Official General

    You gotta always carry heat in these Vice City streets

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2010

#77

Posted 19 June 2014 - 03:31 PM Edited by Official General, 19 June 2014 - 03:36 PM.

But with the release of this game, more people seem to be going on about how beautiful and detailed the game...which I will admit, the game is beautifully done. But honestly, this is the only consistent compliments I see about the game.


I mean, even in this thread, people just one more of the same pretty things to look at and couldnt care less about actual content and features.

 

Exactly. I hear defenders of V harp on and on about the stunning, beautiful visual detail of the game's graphics in order to demonstrate why it's better than it's last-gen counterpart San Andreas. They completely forget just how huge the scale of what decent, good gameplay content and features that were offered in SA for the player to enjoy - it was like being totally spoiled for choice in a grand banquet. Here in V, we find ourselves scraping the bottom of trays for whatever goodness we can get out of the game in terms of features and content. All of this nice detail don't mean sh*t if it's not backed up by a decent amount of fun and interesting things to do. GTA IV was lacking in many areas, yet it still managed to provide us with a decent amount of fun and interesting things to see and do, along with other content - more so than V did. 

  • fac316, Osho, thekillerdonuts and 1 other like this

fac316
  • fac316

    Playa

  • Members
  • Joined: 15 Oct 2012

#78

Posted 19 June 2014 - 03:36 PM

 

But with the release of this game, more people seem to be going on about how beautiful and detailed the game...which I will admit, the game is beautifully done. But honestly, this is the only consistent compliments I see about the game.


I mean, even in this thread, people just one more of the same pretty things to look at and couldnt care less about actual content and features.

 

Exactly. I hear defenders of V harp on and on about the stunning, beautiful visual detail of the game's graphics in order to demonstrate why it's better than it's last-gen counterpart San Andreas. They completely forget just how huge the scale of what decent, good gameplay content and features that were offered in SA for the player to enjoy - it was like being totally spoiled for choice in a grand banquet. Here in V, we find ourselves scraping the trays for whatever goodness we can get out of the game in terms of features and content. All of this nice detail don't mean sh*t if it's not backed up by a decent amount of fun and interesting things to do. GTA IV was lacking in many areas, yet it still managed to provide us with a decent amount of fun and interesting things to see and do, along with other content - more so than V did. 

 

I feel like with the HD era, they're moving away from crime and becoming more like the Sims: Crime edition. Sure features like the internet & TV are great, but how much memory wasted on that could've been used for gameplay (like actual minigames, don't give me towing).

  • Official General and bish0p2004 like this

Osho
  • Osho

    The Jackal

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Nov 2012
  • None

#79

Posted 19 June 2014 - 04:54 PM

Good to still find people who are not easily distracted by graphics that don't relate to specifically the "gameplay", and its here where the game stumbles, esp. after playing through previous games, the overall content turns out to be underdone.

New players to the series probably wouldn't notice the differences, if they didn't spend that much time, deep into playing the classics to understand the problems actually.

OT:
Looking at the level of dedication and time invested by Rockstar to make the game with such details with the available power of the hardware, I'm good with just one detailed city and the map.
Perhaps, with the next gen we would possibly see even more better versions of both, map and the cities to appreciate, that can easily cover the broad scope of details without much problems, esp. on consoles.
  • Official General and fac316 like this

Phoenix_Poop
  • Phoenix_Poop

    Player hater or hater player, or what?

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Oct 2013
  • Sweden

#80

Posted 19 June 2014 - 05:08 PM

 Personally I dont give graphics so much sh*t, but if a game has graphics that look like they are from decades ago, I will turn my system off, take that game and smash it (just kiddin for you all Captain Obvious' out there)

  • G.S.T likes this

Bucky914
  • Bucky914

    Thug

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Feb 2011
  • None

#81

Posted 19 June 2014 - 05:12 PM

Graphics are important, but they don't make or break a game most of the time. I felt that GTA V was a much better GTA game than IV, but still not what the 3D era was in terms of what makes a great GTA game. It's a fantastic game, but not the best in terms of GTA.


Dope_0110
  • Dope_0110

    Gangsta

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 May 2013

#82

Posted 19 June 2014 - 05:51 PM

It wasnt possible for two reasons:

1. Disc space - the game already takes a lot and they had to cut many corners and a whole city with thousands of textures for buildings, peds, sounds for ambient, peds... it takes a lot of space. It is X360's fault mostly as it is more limited than PS3 in those terms.

2. Time - they had the game in development for a long time and had to release it on previous generation of consoles. Plus a new city or two would take at least one to two more years of development, and then the story would have to include them too, so that's even more work.


Official General
  • Official General

    You gotta always carry heat in these Vice City streets

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2010

#83

Posted 19 June 2014 - 06:37 PM

Good to still find people who are not easily distracted by graphics that don't relate to specifically the "gameplay", and its here where the game stumbles, esp. after playing through previous games, the overall content turns out to be underdone.

New players to the series probably wouldn't notice the differences, if they didn't spend that much time, deep into playing the classics to understand the problems actually.

OT:
Looking at the level of dedication and time invested by Rockstar to make the game with such details with the available power of the hardware, I'm good with just one detailed city and the map.
Perhaps, with the next gen we would possibly see even more better versions of both, map and the cities to appreciate, that can easily cover the broad scope of details without much problems, esp. on consoles.

 

The thing is, I'm actually a sucker for stunning looking, advanced graphics in video games. I'm easily impressed by all that stuff, and it's definitely one of the main things I look for in a game that catches my interest. 

 

However, I clearly understand that importance of gameplay holds sway over that of graphics. If I don't enjoy playing a game, all the pixels, polygons, and resolutions in the world won't make the slightest difference to me, I'd lose interest in the game very quickly. GTA V is without question  the best looking GTA ever so far, it looks amazing - but my interest in that game rapidly decreased once I had played it and realized how much of disappointment it was. 

 

GTA is the kind of game where great graphics are just a real nice bonus, just decent graphics is enough due to the very detailed and complex nature of it's free-roaming, open world environment with so many different objects and where so many things are happening on the screen at once. It's easy to forgive GTA for not having the best graphics, because of what it entails, as long as they are decent enough its all good. But the gameplay and content has to be on point, otherwise, it's just pointless showing us nice graphics. 


John Marston
  • John Marston

    Rat

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Jan 2012
  • Lithuania

#84

Posted 19 June 2014 - 06:37 PM Edited by John Marston, 19 June 2014 - 06:41 PM.

oh yeah? How about you multiply staff x3 times...

 

@AlienWillHeMonsta


TheMasterfocker
  • TheMasterfocker

    Public Enemy #1

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Jul 2012
  • United-States

#85

Posted 19 June 2014 - 07:57 PM

It wasnt possible for two reasons:

1. Disc space - the game already takes a lot and they had to cut many corners and a whole city with thousands of textures for buildings, peds, sounds for ambient, peds... it takes a lot of space. It is X360's fault mostly as it is more limited than PS3 in those terms.

2. Time - they had the game in development for a long time and had to release it on previous generation of consoles. Plus a new city or two would take at least one to two more years of development, and then the story would have to include them too, so that's even more work.


Thank god we don't have to be worried about that severely limited disc space anymore.

Blood-Is-in-Diamond
  • Blood-Is-in-Diamond

    AKA: BLOOD,BiiD or BloodMOND

  • Members
  • Joined: 21 Dec 2013
  • None

#86

Posted 19 June 2014 - 08:26 PM Edited by Blood-Is-in-Diamond, 19 June 2014 - 08:32 PM.

"GTA is 100yrs ahead of Every Openworld Game Franchises,with the exception of MAPS and the HD Era especially V proofed that"-Blood

Sidenote:TES and FC Games have Larger maps than any game in the GTA family,but when it comes to "DETAILS" and "LoD" GTA will always be king...

Neox
  • Neox

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 04 Jun 2013

#87

Posted 19 June 2014 - 08:47 PM

I really hope we get LC as DLC.


bish0p2004
  • bish0p2004

    Mack Pimp

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Jul 2013

#88

Posted 19 June 2014 - 09:04 PM

"GTA is 100yrs ahead of Every Openworld Game Franchises,with the exception of MAPS and the HD Era especially V proofed that"-Blood

Sidenote:TES and FC Games have Larger maps than any game in the GTA family,but when it comes to "DETAILS" and "LoD" GTA will always be king...


See, it's all about dem dere graphics, man.

Bucky914
  • Bucky914

    Thug

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Feb 2011
  • None

#89

Posted 19 June 2014 - 10:11 PM

I really hope we get LC as DLC.

I hardly see how that's possible, but it would be cool. I wouldn't get my hopes up.


A.O.D.88
  • A.O.D.88

    SP Gamer

  • Members
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2014
  • United-States

#90

Posted 20 June 2014 - 12:06 AM

With almost ten year old console hardware sorry but no way on the subway! GTA 6 would be possible to do that.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users