but it would lose the charm of the other cities shown previously.
I kinda misinterpreted that. What do I mean is that these cities have their own unique quirkiness, and charm. But not the impact, or appeal to the masses. Honestly, I'd still love a GTA set in other cities rather than the ones we've been in. I'd love a GTA in Boston, with involvment from the Irish Mob in the MA area. Also the homage to films will be there too. Boston is no stranger to mass media. Like most US cities are. I am not completely against the idea of re-using cities, in fact I do support it. Exploring new territory for Rockstar can prove that they can characterize, and do these never visited cities justice. A non US GTA might be too far-fetched, and would stray away from the themes, and messages that most GTA games have. But I loved exploring new worlds, new places that I have not seen in various forms of media that much. One of the reasons why I liked Sleeping Dogs' Hong Kong is that it has that distinct Asian, and Oriental feel to it. The Night Market was a highlight in that game, it was an environment I never usually see in video games, but it felt alive, full of people, it was amazing just walking at Night with all the neon lighting that Hong Kong has to offer. It felt vastly different to the US cities we see in GTA. Rockstar knows how to make a city justice, even Max Payne 3's Sau Paulo is full of character considering it is a 20+ hour shooter, and Rockstar did an amazing job with the world building.
But like I have said before, IV's Liberty City, and V's Los Santos might be rehashed from the 3D era, but in some way it did not really bother me. IV's LC is different in character to III's LC. Both renditions have their own uniqueness, and distinction that seperates the latter from the former. Sure, the landmarks are similar, the architecture are similar, but the time periods that these games are set in are completely/somewhat different. III, and IV are set in the same decade. 2001, and 2008 respectively. But despite the small gap in between the setting of the two games. Their approach to characterizing a modern-day New York are very different, III's society has that paranoia of the spread of the internet. The Y2K boom that started at the millenium, while IV sees people coming into grips with it, and dealing with the war on terror. Each rendition have their own effects to the boom of society in their respective universe, as well as real life problems too. There are similarities too, with Niko, and Claude being freelance hitmen hired by numerous respective criminal organizations, and follows their journey into a city they are stranger to. GTA III was basically Rockstar experimenting with a idea that has not been done before commercially, while IV was them refining, and almost perfected the formula of a sprawling, giant open world that the genre that they dominate. Essentially, they have their own similarities, but each with their own distinction to separate one rendition to another. I think that kinda proves my point.