Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Were multiple cities not possible?

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

    Night Light OutlawS MC President

  • Members
  • Joined: 14 Sep 2012
  • Netherlands

#121

Posted 23 June 2014 - 05:51 AM Edited by ivarblaauw, 23 June 2014 - 06:22 AM.

 


 

And possibly Eastern San Andreas with Las Venturas and surrounding desert (for now Bone County as said in 3D universe), with influences of Monument Valley, Death Valley, Grand Canyon and Route 66 (R* would probably call this Route 69...). Although it is unknown if Las Venturas is in San Andreas. There is a chance that it has it's own state.

 

 

Las Venturas most likely does belong to a separate state from San Andreas, but with its close proximity to the border (as is the case with RealLife Las Vegas) can easily be incorporated and excepted in the San Andreas Region.

 

The Grand Canyon is in Arizona, and lies far beyond the scope of what i personally expect to be portrayed.

 

I think they would probably call it Route 68 :p

 

Well... in GTA San Andreas they also featured influences from the Grand Canyon. I also said influences, because just a desert would be... yeah... boring. Expect something like Mexico in Red Dead Redemption. Multiple different deserts in close proximity to each other. 

 

Route 68 is already in GTA V. Everyone thinks it is based of Route 66, it is not xD It is based of California State Route 86. 
This is why Route 66 will probably get another name instead of Rotue 68. 

Yeah I did my research xD And put WAY to much time in that... 

 

 

 

And in the end, people wouldn't even complain about not having multiple cities if San Andreas didn't have it. But GTA V ISN'T San Andreas 2 so stop expecting it to have everything it had. GTA V may lack a lot of things from SA but what people seem to ignore is the fact that it added more than it lacked. So let GTA V just stand alone instead of forcing it to stand behind San Andreas' shadow and expect it to rise above it. 

 

* Yeah that's just another game of ifs and buts. No one really gives a f*ck at the end of the day, the bottom line is San Andreas did have multiple cities and it did a great job of it for it's time, so many GTA fans expected GTA V to measure up to that in some way. For V, that did not have to be also about multiple cities, but Rockstar could not even get LS right and fully realize it's potential, so it's no surprise that people are crying out for multiple cities. 

 

* No one ever said that GTA V is San Andreas 2, and no one ever said that they wanted it to be either. But with the HD and more advanced console technology now being fully utilized, many of us were understandably expecting GTA V to have everything SA had and more. We even expected it to have all the stuff seen in IV and more too, but IV ended even having more than V in certain areas like interiors and side missions to do with crime !

 

* GTA V may have added more stuff to the series as a whole, but to be honest, a lot of the stuff that V added was largely useless bullsh*t. Yoga, triathlon, towing trucks, dreaming about shooting aliens, detailed, but boring underwater section, huge map with hardly anything going on and disproportionate natural terrain, poorly implemented wildlife, useless businesses, it was all so mediocre. 

 

* Sorry, but nobody forced V to be behind SA's shadow. That's the fault of Rockstar for not being able to make such a great game out of V that would have made GTA fans forget about SA in a minute. You just seem bitter at the fact that a 10-year old, last-gen game like SA can still put a very more recent-gen, HD game like V to shame. 

You know that at first GTA V was supposed to have multiple cities right? They went off this idea for whatever reason... But in some postcards you can still see Northern San Andreas etc.

Probably they went off the idea because they couldn't finish it on time or just changed their business plan. Probably the last one. 
Why sell a game for 60 dollars with multiple cities, if you could sell it in multiple parts (DLC/Add ons, whatever you want to call it) for more.

Everything points that there would have been multiple cities in the game. Paleto and Red county are mentioned multiple times, San Fierro is mentioned multiple times. Northern San Andreas is mentioned and SEEN on post cards of Paleto. 
Also, pedestrians sometimes have conversations about San Fierro or Northern San Andreas and they act like Northern San Andreas is already there.

 

So, they probably cut it from the game to sell later on and to release the game sooner. Probably Northern San Andreas wasn't close to being finished. Now they have the time, and the money, to do that.

Also we have GTA Online, which is supposed to be alive and kicking for an eternity. The fanbase is already shrinking rapidly. To counter this, they must release something new... They do that by releasing GTA V for New generation and free dlc, but this will only expand the life of GTA Online and GTA V for about a year (and a half). Not any longer. 
They must come up with something new to release withing a year and a half... This will probably be a map add on. It is highly anticipated and would boost sales of GTA V copies and the Add on with tens of millions. especially if you can buy it as a stand alone or retail version (like EfLC). 

 

Also, Cash cards bring tens of millions of dollars to Rockstar, they won't just let go of this "free" money.


Budweiser Addict
  • Budweiser Addict

    That's, just, like, your opinion man

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Feb 2012

#122

Posted 23 June 2014 - 02:18 PM

While you've made a good point in this and other threads ivarblaauw, I can't see Rockstar doing Northern San Andreas as a DLC. Nor do I see any previously unseen HD era settings as DLC. I think at best we'll see Liberty City, or at a strech North Yankton, as DLC for V.

I just think putting so many resources into researching a new setting just for a DLC that's bound not to sell as much as a full game, is far from a good fianancial decision. I hope I'm proved wrong, but I don't see any settings made from scratch in a V DLC.

Mr. New Vegas
  • Mr. New Vegas

    Square Civilian

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Dec 2013

#123

Posted 23 June 2014 - 06:47 PM

My problem with GTA V wasn't that it only had one city. I mean, Vice City only had two.

 

It was more to do with the fact that compared to San Andreas, it felt like one big lifeless area, you say they were going for a realistic LA? Well that's bollocks to me, because LS in GTA V is about as lively as a picture... of a dead body.

 

Take LA in San Andreas, it was four completely different areas, with different cars, peds, stores, gyms, gangs* so it felt alive. The scale and whatnot isn't important because San Andreas was completely unrealistic and also proven in this thread - a lot smaller than we think. However, there was SO much more to do in each of the 4 areas in San Andreas that it added so much depth and made you - the player feel apart of the city.

 

GTA V's Los Santos felt like a map made for a virtual tourist simulator, looks like a beautiful ocean, but the more you keep playing, the more you realise it has the depth of a puddle.

 

*Gangs - Another very important part of the GTA Series completely irrelevant in GTA V, heart of LA... how realistic.

  • Official General likes this

Twilight Sky
  • Twilight Sky

    Driftin' at the apex, sliding into 1rst.

  • Members
  • Joined: 28 May 2014
  • United-States

#124

Posted 23 June 2014 - 07:41 PM

I'm fine with one city. It feels like forever going from the airport all the way to the northern tip of GTAV.


Choco Taco
  • Choco Taco

    .

  • Members
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011

#125

Posted 23 June 2014 - 08:02 PM

I'm fine with one city. It feels like forever going from the airport all the way to the northern tip of GTAV.

 

The problem is there's no reason to travel to the northern tip of the map.  Like I've already said - Paleto needed an airport, a safehouse and some activities unique to the area.

 

In San Andreas, you had a reason to travel across the map.


chrisscorsese88
  • chrisscorsese88

    A Survivor is Born

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Jan 2014
  • United-States

#126

Posted 23 June 2014 - 10:00 PM

 

I'm fine with one city. It feels like forever going from the airport all the way to the northern tip of GTAV.

 

The problem is there's no reason to travel to the northern tip of the map.  Like I've already said - Paleto needed an airport, a safehouse and some activities unique to the area.

 

In San Andreas, you had a reason to travel across the map.

 

 

I was thinking this as well, Paleto Bay might be alright when it comes to scenery, but what's the point in going there with absolutely nothing to do up there? Like you said, in SA you had a reason to travel across the map, but in V the only time I really go up that way is if I'm running from the cops in my sports car and I want to take the highway. Other than that, I rarely go up there.


Official General
  • Official General

    I'm from Broker, LC, we always carry heat around here.

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2010
  • None

#127

Posted 24 June 2014 - 12:03 AM

I've got to ask then Official General, why are you so dead set on every GTA from this point on being in a present day setting? You're obviously a fan of both VC and SA, which have both shown that GTA can be much more than just a "here and now" thing. Look at Vice City, while I do feel that a modern VC can work, you can see that in the 80's it had the best it did to offer.

Then look at the way they handled SF and LV in San Andreas. They simply did not work in the 90's and obviously just got tacked on to give the map more variety, both would have been better suited to the past.

I feel the only reason that Rockstar set IV and V in the present day is because New York and Los Angeles, being the culture capitals of America, will always be relevant.

The bottom line is that single city or not, if Rockstar has to go back in time to make a single city feel like it's important, they should do it. I don't feel that cell phones, and a bunch of jokes about reality TV and c*nts who sit all day in front of a computer are required to make the GTA experience feel like GTA. And the way that society is going down the toilet it's pretty much the only types of satire and culture we're going to be seeing if we stick to the 21st century every game.

 

I don't know, I just don't wanna play GTA in past eras, modern-day just seems more appealing to me. If Rockstar just quit their bullsh*t, recent obsession with stupid parodies of popular American culture and corny-ass, generic Hollywood traits, to focus mainly on the essential themes of GTA like  organized crime, gangs, the drug trade etc, then maybe a modern GTA would work so well. 

 

I love the 1980s Cocaine Cowboy era of Miami, but that was covered in Vice City already, and it was so brilliantly that there would be no point in revisiting that era again in a new VC. I thought SF and LC worked well in SA, they were just different cities to visit and go to, it's the variety that won me over. The 1970s is best used for a New York setting as far as organized crime and gangs is concerned, and that setting has already been used in GTA IV. San Francisco in the 1970s just don't appeal to me - there was no significant Mafia presence there, the Black and Hispanic gang culture was not yet fully developed there at the time, to me there was not much to it. 


_Kindled_
  • _Kindled_

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

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

#128

Posted 24 June 2014 - 01:33 AM


And in the end, people wouldn't even complain about not having multiple cities if San Andreas didn't have it. But GTA V ISN'T San Andreas 2 so stop expecting it to have everything it had. GTA V may lack a lot of things from SA but what people seem to ignore is the fact that it added more than it lacked. So let GTA V just stand alone instead of forcing it to stand behind San Andreas' shadow and expect it to rise above it. 

 
* Yeah that's just another game of ifs and buts. No one really gives a f*ck at the end of the day, the bottom line is San Andreas did have multiple cities and it did a great job of it for it's time, so many GTA fans expected GTA V to measure up to that in some way. For V, that did not have to be also about multiple cities, but Rockstar could not even get LS right and fully realize it's potential, so it's no surprise that people are crying out for multiple cities. 
 
* No one ever said that GTA V is San Andreas 2, and no one ever said that they wanted it to be either. But with the HD and more advanced console technology now being fully utilized, many of us were understandably expecting GTA V to have everything SA had and more. We even expected it to have all the stuff seen in IV and more too, but IV ended even having more than V in certain areas like interiors and side missions to do with crime !
 
* GTA V may have added more stuff to the series as a whole, but to be honest, a lot of the stuff that V added was largely useless bullsh*t. Yoga, triathlon, towing trucks, dreaming about shooting aliens, detailed, but boring underwater section, huge map with hardly anything going on and disproportionate natural terrain, poorly implemented wildlife, useless businesses, it was all so mediocre. 
 
* Sorry, but nobody forced V to be behind SA's shadow. That's the fault of Rockstar for not being able to make such a great game out of V that would have made GTA fans forget about SA in a minute. You just seem bitter at the fact that a 10-year old, last-gen game like SA can still put a very more recent-gen, HD game like V to shame. 
You're stupid if you think any if that. Firstly, GTA SA lacks so many things that makes V put it to shame. It sounds like you just can't be grateful with what Rockstar has spent five years working on. If you were ashamed of GTA V, fine. Go make an actual good open world game (with all the things that you wanted from SA and excluding from what we have now) and see if it gets nearly the amount of reception that V received. And if you think that V was actual sh*t, just go take a look at what critic reviews say. It is indeed the most recent expensively developed, and enjoyed video game. Watch what you type.

Official General
  • Official General

    I'm from Broker, LC, we always carry heat around here.

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2010
  • None

#129

Posted 24 June 2014 - 09:59 AM Edited by Official General, 24 June 2014 - 05:14 PM.

 

 

And in the end, people wouldn't even complain about not having multiple cities if San Andreas didn't have it. But GTA V ISN'T San Andreas 2 so stop expecting it to have everything it had. GTA V may lack a lot of things from SA but what people seem to ignore is the fact that it added more than it lacked. So let GTA V just stand alone instead of forcing it to stand behind San Andreas' shadow and expect it to rise above it. 

 
* Yeah that's just another game of ifs and buts. No one really gives a f*ck at the end of the day, the bottom line is San Andreas did have multiple cities and it did a great job of it for it's time, so many GTA fans expected GTA V to measure up to that in some way. For V, that did not have to be also about multiple cities, but Rockstar could not even get LS right and fully realize it's potential, so it's no surprise that people are crying out for multiple cities. 
 
* No one ever said that GTA V is San Andreas 2, and no one ever said that they wanted it to be either. But with the HD and more advanced console technology now being fully utilized, many of us were understandably expecting GTA V to have everything SA had and more. We even expected it to have all the stuff seen in IV and more too, but IV ended even having more than V in certain areas like interiors and side missions to do with crime !
 
* GTA V may have added more stuff to the series as a whole, but to be honest, a lot of the stuff that V added was largely useless bullsh*t. Yoga, triathlon, towing trucks, dreaming about shooting aliens, detailed, but boring underwater section, huge map with hardly anything going on and disproportionate natural terrain, poorly implemented wildlife, useless businesses, it was all so mediocre. 
 
* Sorry, but nobody forced V to be behind SA's shadow. That's the fault of Rockstar for not being able to make such a great game out of V that would have made GTA fans forget about SA in a minute. You just seem bitter at the fact that a 10-year old, last-gen game like SA can still put a very more recent-gen, HD game like V to shame. 
You're stupid if you think any if that. Firstly, GTA SA lacks so many things that makes V put it to shame. It sounds like you just can't be grateful with what Rockstar has spent five years working on. If you were ashamed of GTA V, fine. Go make an actual good open world game (with all the things that you wanted from SA and excluding from what we have now) and see if it gets nearly the amount of reception that V received. And if you think that V was actual sh*t, just go take a look at what critic reviews say. It is indeed the most recent expensively developed, and enjoyed video game. Watch what you type.
 

 
@ Kindled
 
* Stupid for having my own opinion ? Ok then. Well, I say you're even more stupid for you having your own opinions. 
 
 * I don't give a f*ck if Rockstar spent 5 years working on the game - all the more reason for V to be much better than it is now. 
 
* I still think SA puts V to shame, whatever you say won't change my mind. How ya like me now ? 
 
* No I won't make an open-world game, that's Rockstar's job. I cannot do it, hence why as a customer, I pay them to make me an open-world game that I can enjoy. If was a PC gamer and I knew how to mod (but I don't) then I can assure you I would be ready to make my own version of V, trust me on that. 
 
* I don't care what the critics and reviews say. It's clear that V was gonna get great reviews and scores, it's still GTA. But the thing is, I'm not part of a herd of sheep like you are, I have my own mind. I don't just roll with the rest of the crowd, if I don't like something, then I don't like it - I'm not gonna like it simply because the majority does. Many people have felt V was a letdown, if you wanna be ignorant to that fact, then whatever.
 
* I don't give a f*ck if V was the most expensive video game either - frankly some of it was a great waste of money from what I can see of the end product to be honest. 

* Watch what I type ? Ha ha get lost.

  • TheOtherRyan likes this

_Kindled_
  • _Kindled_

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

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

#130

Posted 24 June 2014 - 11:41 AM Edited by _Kindled_, 24 June 2014 - 11:47 AM.

 

 

You just seem bitter at the fact that a 10-year old, last-gen game like SA can still put a very more recent-gen, HD game like V to shame. 

 

Opinion? Sounds like a "hear me out, because I'm always right" deliberation. 

 

My problem with you is not that you have your own opinion, you've made your point a long time ago that you don't like V as much But why stay here bitching about it? Stop intentionally being the minority, as you see, there are a lot other people that like it. 

 

But if you simply cannot comprehend that, then here's your one-way ticket to paradise.

 

 

Spoiler


Twilight Sky
  • Twilight Sky

    Driftin' at the apex, sliding into 1rst.

  • Members
  • Joined: 28 May 2014
  • United-States

#131

Posted 24 June 2014 - 11:54 AM

Last

 

 

I'm fine with one city. It feels like forever going from the airport all the way to the northern tip of GTAV.

 

The problem is there's no reason to travel to the northern tip of the map.  Like I've already said - Paleto needed an airport, a safehouse and some activities unique to the area.

 

In San Andreas, you had a reason to travel across the map.

 

Yeah, there's no reason for you, but I love long rides.


Choco Taco
  • Choco Taco

    .

  • Members
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011

#132

Posted 24 June 2014 - 05:00 PM

Last

 

 

I'm fine with one city. It feels like forever going from the airport all the way to the northern tip of GTAV.

 

The problem is there's no reason to travel to the northern tip of the map.  Like I've already said - Paleto needed an airport, a safehouse and some activities unique to the area.

 

In San Andreas, you had a reason to travel across the map.

 

Yeah, there's no reason for you, but I love long rides.

 

I like long rides too, but I also like having a purpose to travel across the map rather than just driving in a huge pointless circle.  Travelling in San Andreas had a purpose.  Travelling in V doesn't.  Rockstar screwed up.


Official General
  • Official General

    I'm from Broker, LC, we always carry heat around here.

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2010
  • None

#133

Posted 24 June 2014 - 05:17 PM

Opinion? Sounds like a "hear me out, because I'm always right" deliberation. 

 

My problem with you is not that you have your own opinion, you've made your point a long time ago that you don't like V as much But why stay here bitching about it? Stop intentionally being the minority, as you see, there are a lot other people that like it. 

 

But if you simply cannot comprehend that, then here's your one-way ticket to paradise.

 

 

Those weren't my opinions, they were facts.

 

* GTA SA literally lacks so many things.

 

* Rockstar spent five years, yes that's been established.

 

* The reception that V had was a lot.

 

* You know where I'm going with this. 

 

 

It's a forum, I'm going nowhere and I'm gonna what I'm gonna say on here regardless of what bullsh*t you talk. So don't waste your time and energy. Either you constructively discuss GTA or like I said already, get lost.

 

The last reply your gonna get if you continue. 


_Kindled_
  • _Kindled_

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

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

#134

Posted 24 June 2014 - 05:34 PM Edited by _Kindled_, 04 July 2014 - 06:07 PM.

 

It's a forum, I'm going nowhere and I'm gonna what I'm gonna say on here regardless of what bullsh*t you talk. So don't waste your time and energy. Either you constructively discuss GTA or like I said already, get lost.

 

The last reply your gonna get if you continue. 

 

 

Spoiler

 

Bullsh*t? Bullsh*t defines every post you've made.

 

Constructive? Like you've had anything constructive to say about GTA so far in this thread.  

 

Yes, it is indeed a forum, but this thread has a topic title which you should read carefully, it doesn't mean you can make it you own.

 

But seriously though, it would be in your best interest to make sh*t constructive, or go to that thread which I linked for you before. 


AtomicPunk
  • AtomicPunk

    I'm your huckleberry

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Mar 2012

#135

Posted 03 July 2014 - 04:34 AM

 

What I don't get is why North Yankton wasn't in the mountains.

Isn't North Yankton based on North Dakota or some other mid-western state though?

Geographically speaking it wouldn't make any sense.

 

 

What I don't get is why North Yankton wasn't in the mountains.

Isn't North Yankton based on North Dakota or some other mid-western state though?

Geographically speaking it wouldn't make any sense.

 

R* could've based it on a town north of San An. Maybe called it something else, or they could've put their foot down and said that North Yankton isn't based on ND. Easy peezy

 


LightningLord
  • LightningLord

    \ (•◡•) /

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 11 Mar 2014
  • United-States
  • April Fools Winner 2015

#136

Posted 03 July 2014 - 05:03 AM Edited by LightningLord411, 03 July 2014 - 05:03 AM.

I hope we get to see a modern Vice City sometime in the future. Would love to see how much it's changed.

AlmightySo
  • AlmightySo

    Professional Hustler

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 29 Sep 2013
  • United-States

#137

Posted 03 July 2014 - 09:10 PM

Not with last gen consoles, XB1 and PS4 would defiantly handle multiple cities, i am 99% sure they're not adding multiple cities to GTA 5 on xb1 and ps4, but maybe GTA 6 will have multiple cities, because I doubt that will come out for last gens consoles...


Ash_735
  • Ash_735

  • Members
  • Joined: 15 Nov 2005
  • None
  • Contribution Award [Mods]
    Most Knowledgeable [GTA] 2013
    Best Map 2013 "ViceCityStories PC Edition"

#138

Posted 04 July 2014 - 12:15 AM

Not with last gen consoles, XB1 and PS4 would defiantly handle multiple cities, i am 99% sure they're not adding multiple cities to GTA 5 on xb1 and ps4, but maybe GTA 6 will have multiple cities, because I doubt that will come out for last gens consoles...


Wrong again.

People really need to understand that MAP DESIGN and QUALITY is a MAN POWER problem. Seriously, you idiots never seen a game on last gen consoles that had maps multiple times bigger than GTAV? There were loads, size isn't an issue, quality standards are, Rockstar could have done a map like four times bigger and filled it with nothing but mountains, but they didn't because they like to focus on the small details, it took them this long to get a map out with the detail they were happy with.

Seriously, can we pin this in the OP? The retard level in this topic with people coming in being all "HURR DURR TEH CONSOLES IS TEH REASON CUZ I DUN READS", f*cking learn some sh*t about game design before you type that sh*t, each person that has said that I just look down upon now.
  • kj2022 likes this

Osho
  • Osho

    Old School RPG'er

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Nov 2012
  • None

#139

Posted 04 July 2014 - 04:04 AM

@ Ash_735
I agree.
Honestly, even I used to believe that probably most of the weird things are always caused by console limitations .. lol, since thats what generally comes to mind when we get dozens of the same opinions reading online, esp. the people ( incl. myself ) who don't possess enough knowledge, and in this case too.
Though, I will say, when people try to share their knowledge and sound advice, we should end all the doubts and stop repeating same things esp. after understanding it better by helpful contributions from Ash, and many other experts who are quite clear on the said subject from the beginning, as opposed to trying to confuse those who are more likely to get the wrong message.

THE_TREVALEV
  • THE_TREVALEV

    they eat da poo poo

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 18 Feb 2014
  • None

#140

Posted 04 July 2014 - 04:16 PM


And in the end, people wouldn't even complain about not having multiple cities if San Andreas didn't have it. But GTA V ISN'T San Andreas 2 so stop expecting it to have everything it had. GTA V may lack a lot of things from SA but what people seem to ignore is the fact that it added more than it lacked. So let GTA V just stand alone instead of forcing it to stand behind San Andreas' shadow and expect it to rise above it. 

 
* Yeah that's just another game of ifs and buts. No one really gives a f*ck at the end of the day, the bottom line is San Andreas did have multiple cities and it did a great job of it for it's time, so many GTA fans expected GTA V to measure up to that in some way. For V, that did not have to be also about multiple cities, but Rockstar could not even get LS right and fully realize it's potential, so it's no surprise that people are crying out for multiple cities. 
 
* No one ever said that GTA V is San Andreas 2, and no one ever said that they wanted it to be either. But with the HD and more advanced console technology now being fully utilized, many of us were understandably expecting GTA V to have everything SA had and more. We even expected it to have all the stuff seen in IV and more too, but IV ended even having more than V in certain areas like interiors and side missions to do with crime !
 
* GTA V may have added more stuff to the series as a whole, but to be honest, a lot of the stuff that V added was largely useless bullsh*t. Yoga, triathlon, towing trucks, dreaming about shooting aliens, detailed, but boring underwater section, huge map with hardly anything going on and disproportionate natural terrain, poorly implemented wildlife, useless businesses, it was all so mediocre. 
 
* Sorry, but nobody forced V to be behind SA's shadow. That's the fault of Rockstar for not being able to make such a great game out of V that would have made GTA fans forget about SA in a minute. You just seem bitter at the fact that a 10-year old, last-gen game like SA can still put a very more recent-gen, HD game like V to shame. 
Watch what you type.
tumblr_lwm1z6lkVK1qef6lgo2_500.png

_Kindled_
  • _Kindled_

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

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

#141

Posted 04 July 2014 - 06:05 PM

 

 

 

And in the end, people wouldn't even complain about not having multiple cities if San Andreas didn't have it. But GTA V ISN'T San Andreas 2 so stop expecting it to have everything it had. GTA V may lack a lot of things from SA but what people seem to ignore is the fact that it added more than it lacked. So let GTA V just stand alone instead of forcing it to stand behind San Andreas' shadow and expect it to rise above it. 

 
* Yeah that's just another game of ifs and buts. No one really gives a f*ck at the end of the day, the bottom line is San Andreas did have multiple cities and it did a great job of it for it's time, so many GTA fans expected GTA V to measure up to that in some way. For V, that did not have to be also about multiple cities, but Rockstar could not even get LS right and fully realize it's potential, so it's no surprise that people are crying out for multiple cities. 
 
* No one ever said that GTA V is San Andreas 2, and no one ever said that they wanted it to be either. But with the HD and more advanced console technology now being fully utilized, many of us were understandably expecting GTA V to have everything SA had and more. We even expected it to have all the stuff seen in IV and more too, but IV ended even having more than V in certain areas like interiors and side missions to do with crime !
 
* GTA V may have added more stuff to the series as a whole, but to be honest, a lot of the stuff that V added was largely useless bullsh*t. Yoga, triathlon, towing trucks, dreaming about shooting aliens, detailed, but boring underwater section, huge map with hardly anything going on and disproportionate natural terrain, poorly implemented wildlife, useless businesses, it was all so mediocre. 
 
* Sorry, but nobody forced V to be behind SA's shadow. That's the fault of Rockstar for not being able to make such a great game out of V that would have made GTA fans forget about SA in a minute. You just seem bitter at the fact that a 10-year old, last-gen game like SA can still put a very more recent-gen, HD game like V to shame. 
Watch what you type.
tumblr_lwm1z6lkVK1qef6lgo2_500.png

 

It was a suggestion, and what a sad attempt to be funny.

  • Smaher. likes this

Lock N' Stock
  • Lock N' Stock

    U WOT M8

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

#142

Posted 04 July 2014 - 06:12 PM Edited by xXGst0395Xx, 04 July 2014 - 06:12 PM.

 

What I don't get is why North Yankton wasn't in the mountains.

Isn't North Yankton based on North Dakota or some other mid-western state though?

Geographically speaking it wouldn't make any sense.

 

That's true, I can't really see snowy land in a place that's based off Southern California, though it would have been cool to have the two areas combined. I just hope North Yankton is explorable eventually, I'm getting bored of Los Santos and Blane County.


THE_TREVALEV
  • THE_TREVALEV

    they eat da poo poo

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 18 Feb 2014
  • None

#143

Posted 04 July 2014 - 07:06 PM Edited by THE_TREVALEV, 04 July 2014 - 07:13 PM.

"Sad attempt"
Like all of your tough guy posts. Now please, be an asshole, make an insult regarding my intelligence, and then call me a troll, you predictable c*nt. I've seen your posts, and that's basically all you do. If someone disagrees with you, you call me a petty name, make some sh*tty little threat, and then possibly call them a troll. Now, you could say you don't care about others' opinions, but if you didn't, you wouldn't be taking time out of your day to threaten people on a forum. It's petty, pathetic habits, really.

_Kindled_
  • _Kindled_

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

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

#144

Posted 04 July 2014 - 07:13 PM

"Sad attempt"
Like all of your tough guy posts. Now please, be an asshole, make an insult regarding my intelligence, and then call me a troll, you predictable c*nt.

What intelligence? The imaginable one? 

  • Smaher. likes this

THE_TREVALEV
  • THE_TREVALEV

    they eat da poo poo

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 18 Feb 2014
  • None

#145

Posted 04 July 2014 - 07:20 PM


"Sad attempt"
Like all of your tough guy posts. Now please, be an asshole, make an insult regarding my intelligence, and then call me a troll, you predictable c*nt.

What intelligence? The imaginable one? 
There ya go!

~Tiger~
  • ~Tiger~

  • GTA Series Staff
  • Joined: 26 Jan 2014
  • None
  • Best Ledby 2015
    Best Ledby 2014
    Helpfulness Award [GTA V]
    Contribution Award [GTA V]

#146

Posted 04 July 2014 - 07:22 PM Edited by Barefoot Tiger, 04 July 2014 - 11:07 PM.

I'm not rescuing another trashed thread, this one has run it's course.

 

The members responsible for causing the closure of this topic received warnings

 

Closed





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users