Jump to content

The London Dossier

Medallion Man

Recommended Posts

Medallion Man


The London Tourist Board Proudly Present:
user posted image
FACTS: The London Dossier
A Brief Introduction.

The main purpose of this thread is to be the DEFINITIVE discussion/promotion topic for the inclusion of a London inspired setting in the next GTA.


Basically the aims of this thread are three fold:


• Firstly: It was initially intended as a means for me to disprove all those claiming that London is an unsuitable location for a city in/the next GTA to be based around. It was and is naturally successful on that score as any such claims are completely fallacious in nature. Besides the fact that London has already been used as inspiration for an installment in the GTA franchise, by definition, proves that it is suitable. QED.


• Secondly: This thread is here to explain the reasons why I truly believe that London is the ideal candidate for basing the next GTA around. The opinion section. My reasoning is based around what I see from GTA cities to date and is totally logic-led in nature. My reasons for thinking the way I do are never any less than reasonable.


• Thirdly, finally and most importantly at this point: This thread is also here to act as a guide to London, to its sights, not always salubrious and its people, not always saintly. Basically to let the otherwise uninformed in on what to expect from any GTA based around London/the UK and just what London/the UK has to offer the series. To jump to this section of the thread, the Tourist Information Index: click here.


The thread contents is split into sections to make it easier for you to find whatever you came into this thread for. There's a lot of content to cover, this should help you cover it..


London on Wikepedia link. If you want to know more about London you might want to check out London on Wikepedia.

As well as dealing with the arguments this initial post serves as a hub for the rest of the thread.The following is a table of contents/index that should help you find what you are looking for. The table is an index of the points of interest of this thread, giving a description and link to some of the threads more noteworthy posts.
//Section One: Anti London Arguments Countered.
If you are opposed to or unsure of the idea of the next GTA game containing a city based upon London, the chances are that each and every one of your perceived 'reasons' as to why such a location would be unviable (would "suck"), have been dealt with in this section.


Please refer to this section if you believe that you have some 'reason' that a London inspired setting would not work, would "suck", or be "gay" in the next GTA game.

Post Description and Link Pg No. Summary of Post
The Arguments-Part One-This Post 1 This initial post deals with so called anti-London 'arguments'. This post is split up in to three sections. Part one deals with the following anti-London 'arguments':(mostly ignorant misconceptions) "London is too small", "London is mono-cultured", "London is crime free","London has no gangsta's", "In London guns are illegal and in GTA laws count", "London is just boring castles and palaces and no skyscrapers"
The Arguments-Part Deux-Click Here 1 This is the second section of the initial post. This section also deals with anti-London 'arguments'. The 'arguments' dealt with in this section are generally the more irrational arguments, some of these arguments are racist, some of these arguments are based upon personal preference but not one of them is based on any facts or the process of reason. Part Deux of the arguments deals with the following anti-London arguments:"It wuld BeE jUs leik TeH gEtwaY cuz R* dEEt MAke tAhT", "bud I dun lide da GTA 69", "British accents are GAY111", "Rong Seid of Teh RowD", "London has No Music", "London can't fit in with the rest of GTA's stories".
Further Considerations-Click Here 1 This is the third section of the initial post. This section looks beyond the anti-London arguments, which have by now been nullified and deals with some further considerations. This post looks at what it is needed from a GTA location, what it is exactly that makes a good GTA location, explains why London is the superior choice for the next GTA, explains why real world statistics are of very little relevance to GTA, looks at some story approaches for employing a London setting with various other locales, Looks at what time period would get the best out of a London setting and finally looks at some of the films that could be used to give R* inspiration for a London GTA.
The Conclusion-Click Here 1 This is the final section of the initial post. This is the end of the first post in this thread and is thus the conclusion. You all know what a conclusion is, it’s the bit at the end where everything gets summed up and you are told what you will realise if you read this thread properly, that there is no better location for the next GTA than London.FACT!
//Section Two: Why London?
This section contains reasoning and argument as to just why I believe that a move for GTA away from the United States is not only beneficial but also necessary to the continued quality and success of the series.


This section explains my opinion: why I see London as the ideal candidate city for the next GTA installment to be based around and why yet another U.S inspired GTA would, like, totally suck.

Post Description and Link Pg No. Summary of Post
Unfamiliar Familiarity-Click Here 6 This post details further some of the reasons why London is an ideal city for inspiring a future GTA location. This post talks about how though London is extremely different to any city in the U.S it still has many similarities with U.S cities and why this make it the ideal location for the next GTA
London Vs Everywhere Else-Click Here 6 This post is a rather excellent post by farrugia in which he puts forwards some very well reasoned points as to just why London is the ideal location for the next GTA to be based around. farrugia weighs up the pro’s and con’s of every location imaginable and comes to the conclusion that London is the best place for GTA4. Read his post to find out why...
//Section Three: Tourist Information.
This section is perfectly explained by its title: Tourist information. For those of you who are unfamiliar with Londons sights, sounds and people, this section covers them in detail. The section will cover well known locations that would have to be included in a twisted GTA London to capture the atmosphere of the city and also delves into Londons underbelly...The section will also introduce you to the gangs and cultures of the city, to help you better form your opinions based around reality, if you need to of course.


This section of the Dossier takes you on a guided tour of London. The section will take you to some of londons tourist sights as well locations you’d be best to avoid after dark. You’ll also meet some of the gangs and people of the city in this section.

Post Description and Link Pg No. Summary of Post
Gangs of Lowdown Town-Click Here 5 This post is an overview of the types of gang we could expect to see in any GTA: ‘London’, gangs like the Yardies, Triads, Russian Mafia and Cockney Firms.
Tourist Information Index-Click Here 18 This post is crucial reading for those that want to know what to expect from a GTA London as well as those who are prepared to inform their opinion before the espouse it. The index for posts all about London.
The GTA-London Checklist-Click Here 7 The GTA-London Checklist A.K.A what can be done in GTA and can it be done in London and a London set GTA. Simple.
Emphasis on Architecture-Click Here 6 This post is a short post that uses some photo’s to illustrate and emphasise the sheer diversity present in London architecture.
Joey’s Revenge-Click Here N/A This post was the original companion piece to this thread. Joey’s Revenge is a story based around Joey Leone from GTA3 that is intended to give a simple insight into how a London inspired setting could fit into a global set GTA and the existing GTA mythos. The post is a simple story outline detailing Joey Leone’s flight from Liberty to London in the aftermath of GTA3 and how he set out to regain control of Liberty City
Addendum:Topic Guidelines, The Purpose of this Thread.
This section acts as a guide to the thread. This section contains posting “guidelines” and an extended introduction to the thread. It’s that simple, please read these guidelines before you post so that you can contribute in a completely worthwhile fashion to this topic. Basically I don’t want it to turn into some petty flame-fest. Even if I am flame retardant.
Topic Guidelines, Please Read
Before I start I want to make a point of stating that you shouldn’t take this thread literally insofar as we all know that Rockstar are far more likely to create a game city based upon London than attempt to faithfully-recreate it; when I speak of London I am more than likely speaking of a city inspired by it; nor am I necessarily suggesting that ‘London’ would be the only city in GTAIV, but merely that it should be in there in the first place; I would also like to point out that, whilst it may be true that I am a Londoner, this is not the sole reason that I believe that London is the ideal place for GTAIV, reading the thread will bear this out and any assertion to the contrary is no more than ad hominem. Please read the thread properly before you contribute.
London is a suitable GTA location.
Before I start dealing with the fallacious anti-London arguments I would like to briefly explain the fundemental fact that London is and always will be a suitable basis of inspiration for GTA. Logic. I will also explain why personal preference has no bearing on this fact.

//Is London Suitable as a Basis of Inspiration for GTA? Why is personal preference irrelevant?

Fundamentally the answer to the question of whether or not London is a suitable location to take as a basis of inspiration for GTA or not the answer is: yes it is.




Well the fact is this: London has been used as a basis of inspiration for gta, ergo London is suitable as a basis of inspiration for GTA; therefore there are no reasons to claim that London is unsuitable as a basis of inspiration for GTA.


This is pure logic, supportable by the fact of reality (that London has been used as a basis of inspiration for gta) and it is binding.


Beyond that it has everything else needed from a GTA location (large city, cars, crime gangs, shootings etc), which will be dealt with in the rest of this thread; that is irrelevant however, as the above principle is binding and proof positive of London’s suitability as a basis of inspiration for GTA.


Now that being the case I’d like to touch upon individual personal preference and explain why it has no bearing on London’s (or anywhere else for that matter) suitability as a prospective GTA location.


Now imbecile X might ask “but I don’t like it, does this not make it unsuitable?”


The answer to his question is: no.


Let me explain...


When I say: “London has been used as a basis of inspiration for gta, ergo London is suitable as a basis of inspiration for GTA; therefore there are no reasons to claim that London is unsuitable as a basis of inspiration for GTA.” I am making a statement of fact, no less; it is supported by reality, it is purest logic, it proves London’s suitability, it is universally binding.


When Imbecile X says: “I don’t like cheese.” he does no more than state his personal opinion; it is his own personal preference, no more, it is relevant only to him.


The fact that Imbecile X “doesn’t like cheese” does not mean that cheese is unfit for human consumption.


Neither does it negate the fact that someone else does “like” cheese.


Personal preference affects only the individual: yours does not over rule mine, neither does mine over rule yours (unless yours is based upon fallacies).


Personal preference has no bearing on these realities, neither does it have any bearing on the suitability of London as a basis of inspiration for GTA.


London has been used as a basis of inspiration for gta, ergo London is suitable as a basis of inspiration for GTA; therefore there are no reasons to claim that London is unsuitable as a basis of inspiration for GTA.


London is suitable as a basis of inspiration for GTA.


Now that we have that sorted out I will go on to first: deal with any invalid reason that individuals might suggest that London is unsuitable as a basis of inspiration for GTA or why they might misguidedly dislike the idea, and second: explain why I personally believe that London is the best place for GTAIV.



//Section One: Anti-London Arguments Countered. Part 1.
Now I have no problem with individuals preferring another location over London, nor even if they should dislike the idea. However if these people don not have valid reason for holding such views then I will attempt to educate their opinion with fact and logic. That is what this section is here for, it deals with any and all invalid, illogical or false ‘reason’ that anti-London idiots generally put forwards to substantiate their (utterly) fallacious claim that London is unsuitable as a basis for GTA.


This is the first of two such sections and it debases the following ‘arguments’: “Isn’t London small?”, “London isn’t a melting pot”, “Isn’t London crime free, Isn’t GTA a crime statistic simulator?”, "Aren’t there no gangs in London", "In London guns are illegal and in GTA laws count", "What about sky-scrapers?”

// London: BIG.

Bizzarely, some people think that London is small. This was one of the first 'reasons' I ever saw presented as to why London was unsuitable for GTA: that it is "small". Now that's weird because London is bigger than any city in the U.S, in terms of land mass, all of them.


This section sets the record straight and states the facts to show just how huge London really is.


Before I start I am not claiming that London is the ideal candidate for the next GTA city to be based around purely because it is an extremely large city, nor am I pretending that it has the worlds highest population. I also know that certain cities in the world (generally the third world) have larger populations than London, though it still possess a larger population than most and is pretty much the worlds largest city in terms of land mass.


All I am doing here is proving that London is more than big enough to base an interesting, diverse GTA city around.


Size is of course a factor when considering prospective GTA locations, generally the larger a city is the more diverse it is in terms of both architecture and in the ethnicity of it’s inhabitants, there are of course exceptions to that rule but London is not one of them. In Londons case it’s size is due to it’s age and it’s global lure; over the centuries it has grown outward and attracted more and more people from all corners of the world who flock there in search of what they believe to be a better life.


As I say Londons sheer size, as well as her age, has made her a city that is arguably the most diverse in the world in terms of architectural variety, with ancient structures that are millennia old along with progressive modern architecture and skyscrapers. Additionally all of these factors which are directly related to the cities size are also linked to it’s propensity for breeding crime; due to her size and what that size has led to London has always attracted ethnic migrants who come in search of a better life but often find themselves with nothing but broken dreams in an unforgiving foreign city, which can lead them to turn to crime. All of this will be dealt with in more detail shortly but it is linked to the factor of size and merits a mention here.


Beyond all of that it goes without saying that we all want an expansive playground in the next GTA...


The claim that London is "too small and boring for GTA"is a complete fallacy.


London is and always has been one of the biggest , most important and well known cities on this planet; it is a Global City. The Getaways London is but a small, incomplete section of the city. I know, I live here.


City Size Comparisons :

City Population Land Area (Square Miles)
London 7,593,300 620 sq mi
U.S Cities
New York (LC) 8,091,700 303 sq mi
Los Angeles (LS) 3,485,398 469 sq mi
Chicago 2,783,726 227 sq mi
Philadelphia 1,479,339 135 sq mi
Detroit 911,402 139 sq mi
San Francisco (SF) 751,682 47 sq mi
Boston 581,616 48 sq mi
Seattle 569,101 84 sq mi
Washington D.C 563,384 61 sq mi
Las Vegas (LV) 517,017 113 sq mi
New Orleans 469,032 181 sq mi
Miami (VC) 376,815 36 sq mi
Buffalo 350,000
Global Cities
Moscow 9,000,000
Tokyo 8,294,200
Hong Kong 6,843,000
Rio De Janeiro 5,547,033
Sydney 3,713,500
Toronto 2,400,000
(Yellow=London, Green=Already used in GTA)


Figures from infoplease.com


Here I must make a point of stating that the population figures above a for the city limits as are the land mass figures, this is because those figures are directly representative of the city proper. Urban Agglomerate/Metropolitan figures take into account surrounding areas and cities and are thus missrepresentative of a cities true size. GTA games are more focused upon the city than the suburbs.


All this is of course besides the point as GTA is not a population statistic simulator and sheer population size is not one of the most important factors in ascertaining the potential of a Location to inspire the next GTA.


More important than population is Londons sheer size in Land mass, it makes London the diverse city it is and gives R* a lot to work with when building a large playground for the player.


As I say there are many more important factors to consider regarding prospective GTA locations than sheer size.remember I am not pretending that London has the largest population I am merely making the point that it is more than big enough to base a GTA location around as at 620square miles and a population of nearly 8 million it is one of the very largest cities in the world in any terms.


London is and always has been one of the worlds very largest cities. If London is not a large enough city to base a GTA location around then nowhere in the world is. FACT.


// Multi-Cultural London: The World In One City.

Looking at the existing GTA games it would seem that ethnic diversity is a key requirement for a prospective GTA location as it determines the variety of a cities gangs scene. For some reason some people seek to fallaciously claim that “only U.S cities are ethnic/cultural melting pots” or that “London has no ethnic diversity”. This is odd because London is one of the most ethnically diverse cities on the planet.


This section sets the record straight and states the facts to show just how ethnically diverse a multi-cultured melting pot London is.


London is one of the most ethnically diverse and richly multi-cultural cities in the world, as the following statistics bear out:


London Population Ethnic Breakdown

London Total Population: 7,593,300

Ethnicity Population
White British 4,288,193
Total Ethnic Minorities 3,305,107
White Irish 220,000
Other white: non-British (Russian, Eastern Europeans etc) 595,000
Black African 378,686
Black Caribbean 343,543
Black other 60,245
Indian 436,780
Pakistani 142,724
Bangladeshi 154,199
Chinese 80,327
Other Asian(Japanese, Korean etc) 133,400
All Others(South Americans, Australian, American etc) 113,319



Meaning that almost half of Londons population is made up of ethnic minorities at 3,305,107. A population that is bigger than the total population of all but two U.S cities: NY and L.A


Furthermore: over 300 languages are spoken in London, making it the most linguistically diverse city in the world.


Just from personal experience I know we have;



Jamaican and people of Caribbean origin




Eastern Europeans ie Ukrainians/Russians/Poles

Balkan europeans ie Kosovans/Albanians

South Americans i.e Brazilians/Colombians

Yiddish (Jews) communities


and not forgetting plenty of Irish, all living in London. That’s simply an ad hoc list from personal knowledge, if there is a nationality in the world it most likely has ex-patriots living in London today.


London simply IS one of the most ethnically diverse, multi-cultural centres on the planet.


London is full of rich cultural enclaves like Brick Lane, Chinatown and Little Venice, areas of London like Brent and Newham are already minority Boroughs. Much of the city is heading towards becoming predominantly minority areas, in areas such as the East End, from Whitechapel to Ilford you are more likely to meet someone from an ethnic minority than an Englishman.





Children from ethnic minorities will be in the majority in London's schools within a few years as accelerating population shifts transform the composition of the capital.


Figures released yesterday show that the proportion of whites living in London fell by almost 8 per cent during the 1990s because of an influx of new residents.


In a decade of unprecedented population change, large numbers of Africans, Bangladeshis and Sri Lankans arrived in the fastest-growing city in Western Europe.


In Newham and Brent, ethnic minority groups outnumber white people.


One of the most striking trends has been the doubling of the capital's black African community to 370,000, with large increases in the numbers of people born in such countries as Nigeria, Somalia, Ghana and Kenya. The trend indicates that black Africans will shortly pass Indians (437,000) as the most numerous ethnic group in the city.


Over the period the number of Bangladeshis rose by nearly three-quarters and Pakistanis by more than half, while the much smaller South American community trebled.


A total of 58 per cent of Londoners describe themselves as Christian, 8.5 per cent (607,000) as Muslim, 4 per cent (292,000) as Hindu, 2.1 per cent (150,000) as Jewish and 1.5 per cent (104,000) as Sikh. More than one million (16 per cent) had no religion.

Whilst addressing the multi-cultural factor I would like to point out that Londons sheer ethno-cultural diversity is one of the key reasons that I believe it is the ideal candidate for the next GTA.


Why Is Multi-Cultural/Ethnic Diversity Important in GTA?

Ethnic diversity is something which has made GTA as interesting as it is and remains one of the more important factors when considering prospective GTA locations. The depth and variety of cultures present in any candidate city dictates the depth and variety of the characters and gangs that could be present in a GTA location based around them.


In a city that is predominantly mono-cultured you will end up with characters and gangs that are predominantly mono-cultured and thus bland and uninteresting, each gang or character would be variations on one, narrow, theme.


In a city that is multi-cultural with a wide and diverse range of ethnicities present you will end up with characters that are equally diverse and gangs that are directly representative of the many cultures that are present and in conflict in that city.


Ergo a game set in a city that has a large and diverse spectrum of ethnicities will produce a game that is far more colourful and varied than a game set in a city that is dominated by one indigenous culture.


That is why Londons rich multi-cultural nature makes her a more interesting location than a more predominantly mono-cultured city (i.e Mexico City) as it gives more options to Rockstar when designing the gangs and characters that will drive the game.


London is as ethnically diverse a melting pot as ANY other city in the world. FACT


// Crime: The Reality/ Why It Is Irrelevant.

This section deals with several popular misconceptions, the first being that crime rates are the most important factor in deciding GTA locations (it isn't); the second, that the U.S.A is the most crime ridden place on the planet (it isn't); the third, that the UK is crime free (it isn't); and finally, that GTA is a realistic crime simulator that tracks the number of ingame kills and keeps them in line with the corresponding real life figures from warzone U.S.A (it doesn't).


This section sets the record straight on crime, using facts to prove that crime is not an important factor when deciding GTA locations, that the U.S.A is far from the most crime ridden country, that crime exists in the UK and using logic to explain that GTA is not in any way bound by real world crime rates.


Before I prove and explain just why real world crime rates are an irrelevance to GTA I would like to set the record straight on crime, including its level of prevalence in both Great Britain and the U.S.A.


The FACTS about crime.


Some people claim that the U.S.A has the highest level of crime in the world. This claim is false. The reality (as shown here) is that Dominica has the highest level of crime in the world.


The fact is: the U.S has the 8th highest crime rate in the world, not the highest.


Some people claim that the UK has a low level of crime and that the U.S.A's crime level is higher. This claim is false. The reality (as shown here) is that the UK has a higher overall level of crime than the U.S.A.


The fact is: the UK has a higher overall level of crime than the U.S and you are more likely to be a victim of crime in the UK than the U.S.


Furthermore: the rate of car crime in the UK (the crime from which Grand Theft Auto takes its name) is substantially higher than that of the U.S. (As shown here).


"People living in England and Wales are at greater risk of falling victim to crime than citizens of most other industrialised nations...England and Wales were second only to Australia in the examination of "victimisation rates"...The percentage of the population which suffered "contact crime" in England and Wales was 3.6 per cent, compared with 1.9 per cent in the United States and 0.4 per cent in Japan...People in England and Wales were at greater risk than anywhere else of having their cars stolen: 2.6 per cent fell victim to vehicle theft. The average rate was 1.2 per cent and the Japanese were least likely to have their cars stolen with a victim rate of just 0.1 per cent."


user posted image


Some people claim that the U.S.A has the highest murder rate in the world and that, as murder is the specific crime with the most relevance to GTA (or so they claim), this makes the U.S.A the 'best' place for GTA. This claim is false. The reality (as shown here) is that there are 23nations with higher murder rates than the U.S.A.


The fact is: the U.S has the 23rd highest murder rate in the world, not the highest.


Other people claim that it is murder rates with fire arms that are more important and that the U.S has more of those than anywhere else. Again: this claim is false.The reality (as shown here) is that there are 3nations with higher substantially higher fire arm murder rates than the U.S.A.


The fact is: South Africa has the highest fire arm murder rate in the world, not the U.S.


So: people that claim that the U.S.A has higher crime levels than anywhere else are patently incorrect, the claim is a falsehood, it is bullsh*t and the idea that GTA is/should be set in the U.S.A, because of its having the highest crime rates, is fundamentally disproven. Equally disproven is any claim that the UK is an unsuitable setting for GTA on the grounds that it has a low crime rate, the fact is: the UK's overall crime rate is higher than that of the U.S, as are its car theft levels.


Furthermore: Londons' organised criminal gangs have consistently pulled off bigger, more audacious, heists than any gang in the U.S ever has; from the Mafia to the Crips, none of them have pulled a heist that can compare to those taken down by London mobs. Londons organised gangs have a tradition of pulling off the worlds biggest and audacious robberies, in heists like the recent record breaking £53 million ($92.6 million USD) Securitas Depot Heist or the The 1983 Brinks Mat Robbery before it. Many of these heists, like the £200 million Millennium Dome Diamond heist are more audacious even than the wildest fantasies of Hollywood's finest scriptwriters, yet they actually happen in London.


To read more about how Londons criminal underworld consistently pull of grander heists than their U.S counter parts- click here.


Crime isn't something to be celebrated, it isn't a good thing to live in a country with high crime rates and crime rates are irrelevant to GTA, that's not the point: the point is that people who go around stating that there is more crime in the U.S than anywhere else (or even Britain), are simply ignoring the facts.


However, as I say, people who go on about real world crime levels are missing the point, it is an irrelevant debate...


Why real world crime rates are irrelevant.

The FACT is that real world crime rates are irrelevant to the suitability of GTA locations, two main factors prove this to be the case.


Firstly: as we have already seen, there are plenty of places with higher crime rates than the U.S.A, yet the recent GTA's have been set in the U.S.A. If crime rates, either overall or specific, were the most important factor then this would not be the case.


This is pretty straightforwards logic: supposing that overall crime rate was the key factor when deciding GTA locations, then the location with the highest overall crime rate would be selected. However, the fact is that, the country with the highest overall crime rate (Dominica) has not been chosen; the fact is that the country with the 8th highest overall crime rate (U.S.A) was. Ergo the overall level of crime is obviously not a very important factor when deciding where to set GTA.


Equally: supposing that murder rate was the key factor when deciding GTA locations then the location with the highest homicide rate would be selected. The fact is that the country with the highest homicide rate (Colombia) has not been chosen; the fact is that the country with the 23rd highest homicide rate (U.S.A) was. Ergo the homicide level is obviously not a very important factor when deciding where to set GTA.


Secondly: GTA exaggerates reality and crime beyond all corresponding real world proportions. GTA is not based upon, let alone bound by, real world crime statistics.


In GTA:SA my legitimate kill are up in the THOUSANDS. Since when did a homie in da hood in real South Central L.A go and kill thousands of people?! Let alone get away with it?! Real world crime rates clearly have no bearing WHATSOEVER on how we play GTA.


If you stand on a street corner in Los Santos you'll see a mugging a murder, gun fights etc every couple of minutes, if you stand on a street corner in the most violent area of Los Angeles all day long you're unlikely to see any of that. Compare the murder rate in your SA to those of the real L.A, hell my CJ's killed thousands, that's hardly realistic now is it?!


GTA is NOT real life, the U.S and it's cities are NOT warzones, Brooklyn is NOT Baghdad, L.A is NOT the Lebanon. Once again GTA is a twisted and exaggerated cartoon take on crime and violence.


Taking the game and setting it in a country with a lower murder rate will not mean that R* will impose a cap on how many people you can kill in the game to keep it directly representative of the real world murder statistics. They haven't done so already, if they had you wouldn't be able to kill more than a couple of people in any location to date. Just because London may have a lower crime rate than another given location this will not affect the gameplay in any way, the game will not suddenly stop you from killing anyone else once you reach a real world crime limit.


Setting a game in London will not mean that you are unable to kill, maim and cause as much general mayhem as you do in any other GTA to date.


The only logical conclusion that can be drawn is that there is more to what makes a good GTA location than crime or homicide rates, ergo crime rates (which, nonetheless, have been proven to be high in the UK) are an irrelevance.


There is crime in London. That is all that matters.


// Londons 400 gangs.

Apparently, according to some, there are no gangs in London. This is incorrect. There are gangs in London. Plenty.


This section sets the record straight on London’s many gangs, detailing facts about the many and varied criminal gangs that are present on her streets.


No gangs in London you say.


Oh but there are says I. Plenty. I can prove it to you.


According to this article which points to a police report that states that there are over 400 different gangs of varying degrees of organisation and size active in London today in a £25($46)billion industry. 400, enough for you?


As is the nature of large cities and the circumstances that they create for their inhabitants they are natural breeding grounds for crime. Crime is inherent in all major cities globally, it is part of their natural fabric. This was established in the previous section of this thread.


So if crime is a natural side effect of large grouping of people some of those people must be perpetrating said crime, in which case they are by definition criminals.


If Crime is an inherent part of the fabric of the city then so too must be criminals as they are the ones committing the crimes.


As is the nature of the beast criminals will form together to make groups of criminals, due to shared aims and values will come together for their common good. These groups of criminals will have a level of organisation and a hierarchy and will organise their crimes, by definition making them organised criminals. Organised criminals that work together in groups. Or gangs.


So; if crime and criminals are inherent parts of the fabric of the city then so two are groups of criminals or gangs.


Therefore gangs are also an inherent part of the fabric of the city Anywhere in the world that there are large urban groupings of people (cities) that are governed by laws there are people that make a living by generally breaking those laws and supplying the demand for illegal desires. London is no exception.


However unlike most cities outside of the U.S the sheer variety of gangs in London is quite exceptional, this is due to the factor of ethnic diversity as mentioned earlier.


Living in London I know there are plenty of gangs; Cockney Firms, Tongs, Triads, Yardies, Russian Mafia, Eastern European human traffickers ie Albanians, Turkish Mafia drug runners, South American drug runners, Black street/drug gangs, Skinhead National Front hooligans, Romany (irish) Gypsies, asian religious extremist gangs ie Sikhs, Hindus and not forgetting Chavscum (middle class kids who think they are Gangstas, see Ali G).


Plus all the Usual bent cop’s and corrupt businessmen and politicians, found in major cities.


A game set in London would enable R* to maintain the range and diversity of gangs present in GTA, thus keeping the game as colourful and interesting as possible. Unlike a game set in a mono-cultured city dominated by a couple of indigenous gangs that are a variation on a theme a game set in London would bring many totally contrasting types of gang to the fore. Additionally and unlike another game set in the U.S, a game set in London/UK would bring to the franchise a whole new set of gangs and attitudes rather than more variations on the same old same old hood$ and Mafia themes.


Beyond these facts it stands to logical reason that a city with a population of seven and a half million people will contain more poor people driven to crime and more ‘bad eggs’ on the whole than a city of less than one million inhabitants.


Please see page 5 for an in-depth breakdown of some of the gangs currently active in London.


To read about how Londons criminal underworld consistently pull of grander heists than their U.S counter parts- click here.


London contains MORE than enough criminal gangs, both organised and street level to base a GTA game around. FACT.


// Criminals: Break Laws!!! Including Gun Laws.

Some people choose to state that London/Great Britain is an unsuitable location for GTA to be based around as guns are illegal in the U.K. It is correct that that most guns are illegal in London. However, of course to state that London is unviable as guns are illegal there, is to fail to acknowledge that GTA is a game based upon the criminal perpetration of illegality and thus is quite ironic.


This section explains why gun laws are an irrelevance to criminals (i.e because they break laws), proves that guns are available to and used by criminals in London and that there is an armed police force in London.


Most guns are illegal in Great Britain.


However as I say above to use this as a means to promote the idea that London/The UK is an unviable location for GTA is quite the irony.


You see you must be aware of this by now but illegal pursuits are what GTA is fundamentally built around. In GTA we play the role of a criminal and more or less everything that we make our criminal do is inherently illegal. Infact when you take all that into account then it suits the game that our character owning and using firearms is totally illegal, infact the fact that this is so makes the prospect appeal to me all the more.


Like I say in GTA we control a criminal.


Well guess what?!


Criminals in London use guns.


So you see in a game where we control a criminal guns being illegal is an irrelevance, criminals don’t abide by laws, hence their being criminals!


Londons criminals have ready access to and use guns, this is pure fact.

Availability of guns in the UK


Criminals use guns in London, therefore in a GTA game where you control a criminal in London you can use guns. Simple


The game wouldn’t work any differently than it does now; use use the gun to kill people you get a wanted level, the more you kill with that gun the more your wanted level goes up. Exactly the same as in San Adreas or any other GTA game.


The only difference to the game between a GTA set in the U.S or a game set in the UK would be how you procure your firearms and the difference would be purely cosmetic, not affecting how we play the game at all. Naturally seeing as most guns are illegal over the counter in the UK Ammunation would have to go out the window. Instead we would need to go to an arms dealer to get hold of an arsenal of shooters.


In gameplay terms nothing need change at all, getting hold of weapons would be achieved by exactly the same means: Drive to location x (arms dealers garage in place of ammunation) and purchase weapon. Simple and exactly the same, having no affect whatsoever on how we play the game, all that would change would be the interior where we buy the weapons, which is not necessarily a bad thing. In place of Ammunation guy we get a crazy cockney or Jamaican gun dealer. Nothing really changes at all, we don’t have to do anything differently.


Infact the more you think about this being the method of acquiring guns in GTA London it begs the question as to whether the inclusion of such a dealer in SA (Emmet) was pure coincidence or a preparation for GTA London...?


Other ways of getting guns would remain like those found in military grounds or in gangs warehouses etc.


Besides GTA’s weapon procurement is hardly realistic at all, in the states only exceptionally stupid criminals would buy a gun that they intended to use on a killing spree from a licensed and fully traceable registered retailer! (Ammunation.) Equally I am sure that it is extremely rare to come across an abandoned AK-47 or flamethrower floating around in mid air in a magically illuminated circle even in America!


As far as beat bobbies not carrying guns goes well that is totally correct; beat bobbies (or foot patrol officers) do not carry firearms in the U.K.


However there are armed police in the UK that do carry firearms and they are quite a common sight in the capital these days.


If you take a stroll around London you are likely to encounter armed police with SMG’s they are there, they always have been because of the terrorism threat.


There are armed patrol units in London, this is pure fact.


The way that the police would react to you using firearms need not be changed in the next GTA, all that would happen, as does to date, would be that if you pull a firearm on an officer you receive a two star wanted level and police patrol cars complete with armed officers would be dispatched to your location, exactly the same as what happens in GTA to date.


All that needs to change is the reaction of the beat bobbies, they would naturally run away, that’s it, the rest of the game would remain the same; Acquire weapons by going to a given location and pick them up, use said weapon and acquire a wanted star which brings the attention of the police force, continue to use the weapon/use weapon against police and armed police and eventually special forces will be dispatched to deal with you. The same as always.


The Getaway worked armed police into the picture with no difficulty at all and unlike some have claimed this in no way entailed an ‘Americanisation’ as there are armed police on duty and on response in London all the time


Guns ARE available to and in use by criminals in London. FACT.


Armed police use guns in London. FACT.


//"What about sky-scrapers?”

Some people claim that London is a “boring” city visually because “all the buildings are old”. This is incorrect: London is an extremely diverse and varied city visually due to the fact that her buildings are extremely varied, far more varied than any city in the U.S. Visually London is pretty unique in the world in the way it combines the historical with the cutting edge.


This section explains that London has both historical architecture (reaching back millennia in some cases) that sits along side the most progressive and modern buildings, including modern skyscrapers.


The most unique facet of London is undoubtedly her physical form which is totally unlike that of any other city anywhere in the world and it directly illustrates the story of the city from it’s rich past to it’s diverse multi cultured inhabitants.


One of the things I love about SA is its Diversity, the difference between each city and then the countryside and the hick backwaters. To keep the series new this is the key factor. For GTA: Diversity=Freshness.


Well London is a microcosm of this. A city with two millennia (2000 years) worth of history and change. It is unique to the world in its diversity, what other city has both castles and skyscrapers? Unlike Paris or Rome it is a progressive city not rooted to the past and unlike US cities it has a diverse history. Only 200 years ago most US cities were little more than wood built cattle towns, Londoners and London money meanwhile were building the world.


Infact with regards to U.S cities, the only ones that would really bring any freshness to the series as physical settings would be Washington D.C and thats mainly a political centre or New Orleans and that is more well known for mardi gras than murder rates.


Most major U.S cities are built to the same formula and are identical on the most fundamental level ie Skyscrapers downtown, slums/projects for the poor, industrial areas and then the moneyed areas, the suburbs where the well off live. It is because they all evolved around the same time and have very little history. The lack of history means that there was very little existing architecture when modern buildings were constructed. Planners had a blank canvas.


When I say this I do not mean that they are identical at the surface level I am talking about them on the most fundamental and basic/reduced, city planning/architectural level. Like I say many of them grew at around the same time and they are pretty much all based around the same successful formula of the‘Chicago School’

The buildings are basically the same, the only difference regarding a visual setting would come from the geographical setting and we have already covered most of these, hills, desert, tropical etc. The only man made physical differences in architecture would be how big or pointy the skyscrapers are.


London Meanwhile has structures dating back to Roman times and modern structures under construction right now. It is completely diverse as it has grown and evolved over 2000 years. No two areas of London are the same, Medieval architecture can be found standing next to modern. Sometimes these contrasts are violent.


Look at the contrast between St.Pauls Cathedral and the shimmering glass and steel Cathedrals to Capitalism that are the Docklands Skyscrapers. Now imagine a crown jewels heist side missions arc, etc.


I can be pretty confident when I say London also contains more variety in its architecture and layout than any other city on earth. London’s streets have evolved of two millennia from the Roman occupation right down to modern construction underway as we speak. A game based on London would bring us a city that would be more visually rich and varied than any that the series has shown us to date.


See page 6 for a more detailed explanation of this argument as well as pictures that back it up.


London is at least as and arguably more interesting and varied a physical setting as any of the cities used to date and as any other. FACT.



user posted image
Edited by Medallion Man
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just read this post also and I agree entirely.


Im british (i'm from up north though) and it kind of annoys me the way England is a stereotype in certain ways, and I think your post sums it up well.


Although I would be biased to say use my own area for the next game (as many people have on here), I must admit London would be the most sensible and realistically ideal choice, because of it's culture and it's diversity.


While I also think your idea of returning to USA is good, I would much prefer London on it's own as I think R* would get away with it. As long as it keeps the GTA feel and makes the city it's own while capturing the culture of London also.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being a Londoner, an East End Cockney one at that, i can clarify that this man knows his stuff. This needs to be slapped on every ignorant American's head who STILL believes the bowler hat and tea stereotypes.



Good Job


(btw i love Americans really)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess it doesn't help that in Lit classes on campuses all around the US, all anybody reads about England are stories about rich English landowners at the turn of the century.


What a bunch of rot.


Thinking that about England is like thinking all of Ireland is a peaceful land of rolling green hills, and people getting drunk.


But, you know, people go by what they know. I'm an American kid ... Welsh/Irish American to be a little more detailed ... the fact is, I live in a pretty sheltered, semi-rural/semi-suburban area of New York. To a worldwide degree, nothing interesting goes on here. But upstate NY is actually pretty packed with mafia interests, bosnian and black street gangs and more.


Hell, I know of Irish street gangs still running around.


So yeah, I totally see what you fellows are saying about prejudging any given place before you really get a hands on for it.


London seems like a good place. After all, Grand Theft Auto 1 was Liberty City, Vice City and San Andreas. The next game in the series was Grand Theft Auto: London, which was just an expansion of GTA1. Actually, London does make a pretty logical next step in the GTA series.


And of course, Rockstar North are located in Scotland, so it's likely quite a few of them have some idea of this fact.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Medallion Man


//Section One: Anti-London Arguments Countered. Part 2.
Now I have no problem with individuals preferring another location over London, nor even if they should dislike the idea. However if these people don not have valid reason for holding such views then I will attempt to educate their opinion with fact and logic. That is what this section is here for, it deals with any and all invalid, illogical or false ‘reason’ that anti-London idiots generally put forwards to substantiate their (utterly) fallacious claim that London is unsuitable as a basis for GTA.


This is the second of two such sections and it debases the following ‘arguments’: “Wasn’t the Getaway GTA London?!?!”, "Isn’t it the wrong side of the road?", "I though London didn’t have radio station?", "How can London fit with other GTA stories?".[/b]

//“Wasn’t the Getaway GTA London?!?!”

This one comes up all the time, it’s like the retards best friend. Now I’m not sure wether these mental midgets actually believe that The Getaway was part of the Grand Theft Auto franchise and was made by Rockstar games, or wether they are merely attempting to claim either: that Rockstar shouldn’t make a GTA based upon London because The Getaway was set there, or that a GTA London would “suck” because they thought The Getaway did. Whcichever it is is incorrect and irrelevant.


This section explains why The Getaway has f*ck all bearing on any prospective GTA: ‘London’.


Some poor fools state that a GTA based around London would ‘suck’ because it would “be just like The Getaway” which ‘sucks’.


This is nonsense.


Really, there is no logical reasoning behind this statement at all, it is completely false and slightly retarded.


A GTA based around London would neither be “just like The Getaway” nor ‘suck’ because of it.




Well first of all The Getaway has nothing at all to do with Grand Theft Auto.


The two games are made by completely different companies which are in no way related to each other.


Grand Theft Auto is made by Rockstar North.


The Getaway is made by Team Soho.


R* games is in no way related to Team Soho, who made The Getaway.


R* games had nothing to do whatsoever with the making of The Getaway.


Team Soho have nothing to do whatsoever with the making of GTA.


Again The Getaway has no bearing whatsoever on the outcome of a GTA set in London.


A GTA set in a London inspired city would be to The Getaway as True Crimes:Streets of L.A is to San Andreas, they may be based on the same location but they are totally different games made by completely different companies.


The Getaways London is dead a GTA London would be alive and kicking.


As to why The Getaway ‘sucks’, is it because the game is set in London and London inherently ‘sucks’?




The Getaway ‘sucks’ because it is not GTA.


The Getaway ‘sucks’ because it is a poorly crafted game.


The Getaway ‘sucks’ because it is realistic, because its streets are over congested and thus frustrating to drive around in. Imagine for a moment if SA adhered to reality and Los Santos’s freeways were congested to mimic those of Los Angeles (the city LS represents), that would ‘suck’. The Getaway ‘sucks’ because every time you crash your car, which happens often because of the over congested roads, the car is realistically damaged and you have to get another one. The Getaway ‘sucks’ because every time you run a red light or crash or disobey the road rules you are chased by police.


The Getaway ‘sucks’ because its version of London is a thin facade, there is nothing beyond the pixelated fronts of the cities buildings. The Getaways city has not been crafted as well as those of Grand Theft Auto, it lacks the level of interaction, in unique jumps, enterable buildings, people or general points of interest.


The Getaway ‘sucks’ because its inhabitants are bland automatons that lack the character of those of GTA cities.


The Getaway ‘sucks’ because its city is not really a crucial part of the game as the cities of GTA are, it is lifeless and uninteractive, it is just the backdrop for the story, not intrinsically a part of it.


The Getaway ‘sucks’ because its controls are unintuitive and clunky, both in car and on foot.


The Getaway ‘sucks’ because every time you get shot you have to lean up against a wall for five minutes to replenish your health while your enemies continue to shoot you and the game drags along.


The Getaway ‘sucks’ because it has no replay value.


The Getaway ‘sucks’ because it is not GTA and was not made by Rockstar games.


Though personally I do not agree entirely that The Getaway ’sucks’, I feel that it is merely a totally ordinary game that is a let down because it is nothing like GTA. I personally believe that The Getaway is a far better game than True Crime: Streets of L.A which ‘sucked hard’ and was the most unfortunate waste of time and money I have ever made in my life. However my hatred of True Crime: L.A did not blunt my enjoyment of a GTA based around L.A and California, nor would your hatred of The Getaway blunt yours of a GTA based around London.


Id like to take a quote from ign.com’s Getaway: Black Monday Reviewas I feel it perfectly sums up the deep and intrinsic differences between the GTA and Getaway franchises:


Unlike San Andreas and its ability to be good by offering every type of gameplay mechanic, regardless of how undeveloped it might be, Black Monday uses the nurtured storyline to funnel the action through linear environments. In one way, this creates a game that lacks the grand scale of its counterpart but delivers a more structured, believable experience where environment does not play as pivotal a role.


In Black Monday, London serves as a detailed set piece upon which the next series of unfortunate events plays out....So we're left with this huge city, but absolutely nothing to do in it. Why then did the team devote so much effort to painstakingly replicating that which can only be truly enjoyed through some trivial black cab, race, and free roam extras?


Had all that development time spent trying to unnecessarily emulate GTA's scope been diverted to establishing gameplay fundamentals that actually worked, Black Monday would be as good a game as it is a show.

R* would not use the ‘Real’ London, they would BASE a city around its quirks and biggest, most famous features. Liberty is not literally New York, Vice is not Miami, Los Santos is not L.A but they are BASED around those real world locations.


R* did not make the Getaway, it is not part of the GTA series.FACT.


This ’argument’ is like saying “Mario 128 will suck because you thought Spyro The Dragon was turd..”, It’s baseless, get over it.


R* DID NOT MAKE THE GETAWAY. The Getaway has nothing to do with GTA and would have no bearing on a GTA based around London. FACT.


//“But I did’nt like the GTA: 69 Mission Pack”

Some people have a dislike for the GTA2 London 1969 expansion pack. That’s fine. However some of these people are idiots who think that their dislike of GTA2 London 1969 expansion pack was purely down to its setting which somehow serves to prove Londons inherrent ’suckiness’ or homsexuality.


This section offers a more logic led, sensible reason as to the reason that people may have found the GTA2 London 1969 expansion pack to be less developed and/or rewarding than other, full GTA installments.


As is the nature of simple minds they often make simple prima facie evaluations based on the most basic, surface level, amount of ’logic’.


Ergo it is in a way understandable when said simple minds come to the conclusion that, becasuse they found the GTA2 London 1969 expansion pack to be the least effective and enjoyable instalment in the top down GTA franchise, it was because it was set in London and that therefore this is proof that London ’sucks’ or is ’gay’.


However due to the the basic, face value nature of this logic it is still highly flawed.


Like all the other supposed reasons why London would not work as a GTA location this argument is tenous to the point of being nonsense and is the result of said simple minds clutching at straws, to prevent the need to deal with anything that is new or in any way foreign.


You see when you claim that because London 1969 ’sucked’ or was ’gay’ this proves that London is an unsuitable location to base a GTA installment around, your simple mind chooses to ignore a couple of key flaws in this logic.


Firstly you must realise that your assertion that the GTA2:London 1969 expansion pack ’sucked’ or was ’gay’ is purely your own personal assesment. Whislt you may hate the GTA2:London 1969 expansion pack there may well be other people out in the big wide world who enjoyed it and rate it highly amongst the GTA franchise. Whether they are few or many is moot as the bottom line is: when you say you dislike something you are simply stating your own opinion based upon your own personal preferences.


Personal preference along with personal annecdotes has no bearing whatsoever on reasoned, logical debate and serves to proove nothing. One mans meat is another mans potato.


Beyond that however in all of your simple minds surface level reasoning you failed to identify the key factor in why you found the GTA2: London 1969 expansion pack to be the least effective installment of the top down GTA series.


Whether through choice or the simple nature in which you feeble mind works you failed to correctly identify what exactly would have lead to the GTA2: London 1969 expansion pack being the least developed and effective installment in the top down GTA series.


Your ignorance and intolerance of the idea of anything outside of the good old US of A or the simple manner in which feeble mind functions latched onto the fact that the GTA2: London 1969 expansion pack was set in London as the ‘reason’ for its weaknesses.


However your ignorance and intolerance of the idea of anything outside of the good old US of A or the simple manner in which your brain functions conveninetly failed to recognise the more likely factor in the GTA2: London 1969 expansion packs ineffectiveness.


You see the key factor in making the GTA2: London 1969 expansion pack the least developed and enjoyable installment in the top down GTA series surely hasd to be the FACT that it was no more than an expansion pack. Either you ignored this fact as it was conveninet to perpetuating you willfull ignorance or your simple brain failed to get that far when it drew its (erroneous) conclusion.


The FACT that London 1969 was an expansion pack, a mere add-on, surely has more to do with the games comparitive shortcommings than its setting. As the London 1969 expansion pack was just that, an add-on to the full game GTA2, it was always going to be comparitevley weaker in content. London 1969 was never meant as a full game, it was an aperitiff to go with the premium cut that was GTA2. That is the reason it was less developed in terms of missions, characters, story, game space and gameplay because it was an add on, an “expansion pack”. Not because it was set in London. It had less production put into it, less work and less developmenmt because it was not meant as a stand alone, full game.


Beyond that true logic I would also like to point out that the GTA2: London 1969 expansion pack was not made by the same Rockstar North (formerly DMA) team that has all the other full GTA installments (bar GTA:Adv and LCS:PSP). If one was being cynical one would propose that the involvement of the ‘B’ team could have also had more of a bearing upon the quality of the expansion pack than its setting.


//“But English accents are “gay”

I really have lost count of the times I’ve read on some idiot on these forums claiming that London is an untenable location for GTA due to English accents being ‘gay’. This is for those twats...


Some people claim that London/Great Britain is an untenable location for an episode in the GTA franchise because they personally think that “English accents are f*cking annoying” or “f*cking gay”.


I’m sorry, what the f*ck is this?


Are you an idiot?


Are you racist?


What if I said American accents were “f*cking ‘gay’”? Would that offend you? Would you think that made me sound like I hated Americans and was thus, by definition, a racist? On top of that would my use of the word ‘gay’ (referring to its context as a definition for homosexuality) as a derogatory insult make you think that I was homophobic? Would my prejudiced bullsh*t statement which belied that I was both a homophobe and a racist make you view me as a bigot? Would my highly bigoted and ignorant remarks make you consider me personally to be ignorant? Would my ignorance make you think that I was an irrational moron and that my views were based upon prejudice, absent of any fact and thus worthless?


Would the irrational and prejudiced nature of my remarks make you believe that they were the bi product of an irrational, ever so slightly retarded mind? Would your judgements leave you of the opinion that I would be unable to comprehend anything that I had just read in the precluding paragraph?


Good because now you know how I feel every time I see some intellectually challenged child tell me that the way that I pronunciate my native language was inherently flawed and in some bizarre way related to my sexual orientation.


Besides the complete f*cking idiocy of this attempt at reasoning how does the fact that you personally have some irrational dislike of British accents negate every single of the many benefits as a setting London brings to the table?


It doesn’t.


I personally don’t think twice about the way I or anybody else talks, my first thought simply computes where on earth the person originates from.


Myself along with the rest of the Brits that make up 25% of GTA’s buyers and the rest of the world outside of the U.S that, combined, makes up half of GTA’s market have been playing the games no problem to date listening to accents that are alien to our ears.


London still has much to offer to GTA wether you personally think I talk funny or not and besides at least half the market doesn’t give a toss about accents anyway.


To sum this up I would like to pull an quote from and American member (so it would seem that not even all Americans share your irrational prejudice) who contributed to this thread; : llewlyn’s post:


2- If you can't understand someone else who's clearly speaking the same language, that's because you're slow. And it's your problem and only affects you. People of normal intelligence can handle hearing slightly different vowels. American southerners are harder to understand to people from the north than British people.

Sounds spot on to me, if you have problems understanding someone who is speaking the same language as you then you are clearly a moron. Furthermore, if you simply decide that you ‘hate’ English accents then you are not only a moron you are also, by definition, a racist.


So once again see llewlyn’s post;If you can't understand someone else who's clearly speaking the same language, that's because you're slow. And it's your problem and only affects you. People of normal intelligence can handle hearing slightly different vowels.FACT.


//“But you drive on the ‘wrong’ side of the road, moving the on screen vehicle to a slightly different point is beyond my mental capabilities”

Many members seem to be against the idea of a London set game as driving on the left hand side of the road would somehow ruin the game. Now I really don’t get this one as if you play GTA anything like I do you generally ignore road protocol but if I want this thread to be definitive then I have to deal with this *ahem* ‘argument’, so here goes...


First of all it isn’t the ‘wrong’ side of the road, it is the other side of the road. There’s nothing ‘wrong’ about it. Glad we’ve got that cleared up. The other side of the road.


Now I tend to have a problem with this one, it’s not insulting or racist in any way like some of the other so called reasons that a GTA based on London couldn’t work but it really doesn’t make any sense to me.


First of all like many of the arguments that are put forwards against London it is based entirely upon one individuals personal preference and is not supported by facts, thus being practically worthless. However it exists and has to be dealt with.


I tend to believe that those that bring up this argument more than likely can’t drive on the ‘right’ side of the road either, I suspect that they are kids who have no concept of driving outside of Gran Turismo. This is no more a reason against a London setting than the accents or The Getaway, if this is the best you can do you should simply give up.


As I mention above the first thing you need to realise here is that this is simply your personal preference and it thus counts for nothing. You have not gone through any process of reasoning to come to the conclusion that driving on the left would ruin the game, you simply don’t like the idea.


Looking at this issue from a rational point of view what credence does it have? What problems would driving on the left hand side of the road really cause?


In reality the problem with driving on the opposite side of the road than that which you have learnt to drive on are related to how you have learnt to operate a car (or automobile for you yanks). You see in real life everything switches sides, the gears, the steering wheel and the mirrors, you also have to pay attention to the flow of traffic differently as you are now facing in a different direction. Saying that if you can break past your dogma it isn’t that difficult, I say that from personal experience, as irrelevant as it is.


However none of these problems are present in GTA.


In GTA all you need to pay attention to when driving are two things, the control pad and the TV screen. Irrespective of whether in game traffic flow is left or right sided these things stay the same, all that changes is a minor detail on screen, position car to left or right of road. No impact is made on anything else or the gameplay, if you struggle with this then am afraid you must be some kind of moron.


Myself and millions like me in the UK have happily been playing along on GTA driving on the other side of the road without any problems whatsoever and I refuse to believe that the piece of land that we are born in or lines on the map somehow make us more adaptable people, so what’s your problem here if it isn’t some kind of mental deficiency?


To control your vehicle in GTA all you do is press buttons on a control pad whilst looking at a TV screen neither of which have changed in anyway since you played GTA driving on the ‘right’ side of the road.


Personally I can happily switch between GTA and The Getaway without any confusion at all over which side of the road to drive on so I guess that makes me some kind of genius.


Irrespective of all this however what I am unable to understand more than anything else here is how you play GTA to make road rules any kind of a problem to you.


You see when I play GTA I tend to drive on whichever side of the road there is no traffic on it at that time, left or right, or failing that I’m swerving all over the pavement or surrounding countryside.


Since when did correct road protocol have any bearing on a GTA game?


Why would that change with a GTA London?


So the final solution for you in event of a GTA London would be; drive on the pavement if you lack the brainpower to adjust to driving on the opposite side of the road, this is GTA after all.


//“Is the radio invented in London?”

A common fear of many of the U.S members of this site is that moving GTA out of the U.S would mean that the games soundtrack would change beyond recognition. They also often seem to believe that British artists do not make any modern music and that a GTA London would “be all classical music n’ stuff”. Clearly those people need to have me bounce another dose of reality upside their heads so that the can become enlightened by the truth of the matter.


This section is about music.


This old chestnut is another one I see time and time again that moving the game out of the U.S will mean that the soundtrack will change beyond American recognition. Well there’s two things to say to this firstly that U.S music is listened to GLOBALLY, infact in London if you were to turn on the radio there is as much chance that a U.S track would come on as a U.K one and other than that you need to open your mind Cletus. I’m British but I would not argue against a GTA: Tokyo simply because I am unfamiliar with Japanese music, if anything I would be intrigued as to what new sounds the creative minds of Japans musical artists had to offer me.


But again I would say that it’s about 50/50 over here between U.S and homegrown music so with regards to a GTA London this argument again does not stand up. Obviously there would be stations that played purely British music, you could have a 60’s station and a 70’s rock station, a punk station and an old school acid house station as well as stations playing contemporary dnb, Jungle and garage as well as stations playing contemporary U.S music and return of other stations like a K-Jah London. The soundtrack of a U.K game would be just as strong and varied as a U.S one, if you listen to music over there we listen to it over here, plus we listen to our own artists also.


Beyond this fact another is that the GTA soundtracks have already made large use of British music with tracks by artists such as; Iron Maiden, Ozzy Osbourne, The Who, The Stone Roses, Spandau Ballet, Rod Stewart, Roxy Music, MSX was U.K etc even more is non U.S like the whole of K-Jah for example. Another thing to remember here is that music is personal preference, If YOU do not like something that does not mean that everyone else agrees with you. I much prefer dnb and Jungle to Hip-ety Hop-scotch, but that is simply my personal preference, you might prefer country and western Cletus and that dude over there might prefer motown, this is no argument.


Of course beyond all of this we will be talking about PS3 and Blu Ray discs so conceivably a 50/50 UK/U.S soundtrack for GTA:NXT could contain more U.S music than any GTA so far. Beyond that if the PS3 had the facility you could listen to YOUR OWN music in the next GTA anyway.


Certainly the soundtrack could be an issue with some locations outside of the U.S, namely all of those cities that are in countries where the first language is not English. In case of somewhere like Mexico City for example there would naturally be stations that focused on the U.S and other western popular music but there would also need to be many stations that catered for the indigenous esperanto musical taste (think Espantosa from Vice) and generally speaking the DJ’s would need to speak mostly in Spanish. Which is seen as a problem by some. Wiping out all national identity in such places and committing a wholesale Anglicanisation would risk destroying the unique feel that attracted us to such locales in the first place.


London being the capital of England and the home of the English language would not have this problem however as (most of) the DJ’s talk English.


Personally I’d love to see a modern day or fairly recent take on London (for more reasons than just the soundtrack) and I’d look forwards to a gem of a soundtrack full of Drum and Bass, Garage, Prodigy, Oasis and plenty of old fashioned UK led rock and roll...


American music is listened to globally and is certainly common on Londons radio stations. The soundtracks of GTA have already contained much British music. Moving to a London setting would NOT mean that the soundtrack’s feel would become totally alien. FACT.


//“It can’t be London, cuz I can’t imagine it.”

This one’s funny. Some idiots have such feeble minds that they cannot imagine things.


This section tells them that that’s their problem.

I really am sorry, I feel bad for you that you posess a simple mind and lack any kind of an imagination as a result but I really cannot see what that has to do with Londons viability as a setting for GTA.


This one comes up all the time: “ I downt want it in London cuz I carnt emajin it...”


All this serves to do is prove my point; that only ignorants and imbecilles choose to dispute Londons viability as a setting for a future GTA to be based around.


The ignorants opose it as they are ignorants, whether through lack of knowledge or through complicit ignorance drawn from their fear and hatred of the world outside of the US. The ignorants may be able to imagine GTA set outside of the US and they may see the logical truth in Londons imense potential yet their xenophobia means that they will never acknowledge this to be the case.


The imbecilles opose it as they naturally are also ignorant, they are imbeciles and lack the capacity to see and comprehend the facts and realities of the matter.


Those that pull the “bud I kant emajeen it” card are generally imbeciles.


So there you go, If you can’t imagine a GTA set in a London inspired setting that is proof of one thing and one thing only; your feeble brain.

Your lack of an imagination has no bearing on Londons viability and imense potential as a prospective GTA inspiration, all it has a bearing on is your level of stupidity. Handle it.


There is logic behind the reasons why London works as a GTA inspiration, however, there is no logicwhatsoever behind your assertion that London is unviable simply bacuase you cannot personally imagine a GTA game being set there.


Again:Your inability to imagine something, whilst unsurprising, is of total irrelevance to Londons validity and feasibility as a prospective GTA4 location.


Grow an imagination or shut up.


//How can London fit in with the existing stories?!”

The nature of the beast is such that many of the members of this forum have a reluctance to let go of the past or their favourite GTA characters, nostalgia clouds their judgement and they believe that each GTA installment needs to have Claude and CJ and Tommy and everyone else aunt popping up all over the place.


Due to the generally unimaginative nature of this desire the people that have it are generally of the opinion that it is impossible for existing characters to show up in a GTA set in a London inspired setting. If you think that way then this section is for you...

I’ll try to break this to you as gently as possible but; If you cannot see a way to tie in characters from previous games that is because you are un-imaginative. There are MANY ways to tie London into the existing GTA universe and It does not simply have to be Kent Paul. For one Example Donald Love could be operating out of his companies London subsidiary, Tommy Vercetti and his mob could be going into partnership with an East End Firm on a new super casino, Wuzi Mu could be sent to sort out problems amongst the Triads or for another example check here: Joey Leone Story


Beyond all that however there why shouldn’t R* start a fresh and separate arc of stories complete with new, different and equally colourful characters? Indeed Sam Houser (president of Rockstar Games) has stated that GTA San Andreas was to mark the end of the GTA3 trilogy.

It was really important for us to do this trilogy. A fictional New York in a contemporary setting, Miami in the '80s, and a '90s Cali - that was the trilogy.


In which case it looks as though Rockstar’s intention is to head in a new, fresh, direction and I’m on track with that idea so I might just point the way; what better place to start than London?


I’m not against having cameos from well known and well loved GTA faces, far from it infact, but I’m in favour of a fresh start, new characters in a new location in a new country.


Though to re-emphasise:


A London inspired city could easily tie in with the stories and characters of previous GTA games. FACT.

Further Considerations
This section moves beyond the anti-London arguments which have by now been comprehensively dealt with and nullified. The content of this section is miscellaneous and deals with various concerns such as prerequisites when considering prospective GTA locations to a few of my personal views on how Rockstar could tackle a future London inspired GTA as well as mentioning noteworthy London gangland films.
The Prerequisites: Why London
This section looks at what factors need to be present in a location for it to be suitable to have a GTA setting based around it. To begin with it details the most basic, fundamental requirements and then it looks at what factors are necessary for the location to be a success. This section also details just why London is the ideal candidate for the next GTA to be based around, explaining the advantages it has over other prospective locations.
If one looks at the locations of GTA series thus far what is apparent is that each of the settings for the games used (with the exception of GTA2) have all been inspired by real world locations. As such it is fair t presume that the next GTA will follow suit.


If that is the case then it is only natural that we are drawn to speculate on what cities around the world could, should and would make suitable locations for the next GTA.


Looking at GTA locations on the most basic level there are relatively few prerequisites that need to be present for any given location to be a feasible option. GTA is basically a game centred around crime, cars and gangs.


So,what is it that a prospective GTA location fundamentally (on the most basic level) needs to be a feasible setting?





• you could also argue that it needs to meet a certain size threshold.


When thinking about it like that the list of feasible candidate cities is almost endless, many cities meet those criteria, London certainly does, Mexico City does also, hell so do Mumbai and Timbuktu no doubt.


As explained earlier in the ‘Rich+Poor=Crime’ section of this thread, these few key factors are present in all major cities. Cities are large urban groupings of people, as such they always contain rich and poor, the rich run the city and the poor flock there to work for them. In such large groups of people it is natural that there will be both the successful and the less successful, as such there will always be crime. Poor and rich become naturally segregated by their ability or inability to be selective towards housing and schooling and the poor become trapped in a ghettoised self perpetuating circle. Some will turn to crime to escape from poverty and to service the cities vices. Due to human nature as well as the practicality of ‘strength in numbers’ there will always be a ganging up of groups of people and a hierarchical structure.


Crime is present in all cities.


Gangs are present in all cities.


Cars are present in all cities.


So using those few requirements there are plenty of cities that R* could take inspiration from to base its cities around.


However that does not mean that there are plenty of cities that R* should base their GTA locations around. Could does not equal should.


So once you move beyond the basics it is clear that more factors should come into play when considering which cities are best suited as GTA locations.


What factors should we then turn to? Statistics?

The first place that many people on here seem to turn to next is the statistics books, when they see that many locations are suitable on the factors of crime and size they decide that the way to tell which city would be most suitable or is the best they turn to the statistics. They will compare the population size and the rate of murders and decide that, due location X having two more murders last year and one million more inhabitants than location Y, location X is clearly superior. More is better right?


Wrong! As is also explained earlier in the thread at several points GTA is not a simulation, of anything. GTA does not realistically recreate a cities crime statistics down to the finest minutiae nor accurately maintain a cities population via a meticulous population birth and death monitoring engine. GTA is a cartoon, it is the antithesis of reality. GTA exaggerates crime and pays no attention to a population stat. GTA is not bound by statistics.


Simply because location X had ten more murders in it than London in 2003 and Location Y is home to a million more people does not mean that these locations are superior to London, nor does it mean that R* would suddenly impose a limit to the amount of murder and mayhem you could perpetrate in GTA to keep in line with real world statistics. As is clear, GTA is not a simulation, it is an exaggeration. GTA exaggerates crime, as long as it is present at a reasonable level then that is enough.


So seeing as the quality of a GTA location extends beyond pure statistics what criteria should be considered to separate the ideal from the feasible?


Looking back at all the GTA locations used they all have two factors in common that make them perfect locations for GTA; They are well recognisable, global cities that have a unique but easily identified atmosphere, when in Vice you know that it is based upon Miami, if you are in Liberty you know that it is based upon New York.Cities like New York and San Francisco have been used by GTA so far because their merits extend beyond crime rates to the unique and instantly recognisable atmosphere they possess. This is opposed to second string cities like Seattle or Colorado or Springfield that nobody outside of the people that live there would know or recognise anything about.


Secondly they are all home to a multi-cultural, ethnically diverse population which leads to a colourful and equally diverse gamut of characters and gangs.


These are the key factors to consider when looking at potential GTA locations to judge which is superior and they are the reasons why London is the ideal candidate.


As is clear to anyone with a reasoned mind, crime and gangs are present in all major cities. However not all major cities are international in aspect and not all major cities are home to multi ethnic populations. London is, as the rest of this thread shows.


The first factor; GTA locations needing to be INTERNATIONAL in aspect with a globally recognised image and atmosphere that screams at you so you get the vibe of that city is what eliminates setting the game in yet another U.S location. As I have stated earlier; with the exception of Washington D.C all the globally recognisable cities with instantly recognisable landmarks and atmosphere have all been used up. Apart from the people that live in them no one would recognise Detroit or Boston or Denver if they came and relocated stone by stone on top of their heads. So this factor pretty much eliminates another U.S location, if you add to it that nothing would change in terms of gangs or culture or the fundamental style of the cities you begin to realise that going back the states again would simply be the same thing, the same tired jokes, the same familiar gangs i.e The Mafia, Gangbangers, Hispanics but on top of all that it would be set in some nondescript location that nobody outside of the states will have heard of or know anything about.


London on the other hand is and always has been a globally famous city, with recognisable features and it’s own special atmosphere. However there are other options that also tick this box, cities such as Rio or Tokyo for example are also world renowned and uniquely recognisable.


The fact is GTA is bombastic in nature, as such it’s locations need to have a high profile. The locations for GTA need to have an instantly recognisable image, flavour and atmosphere, London does, many cities do not not.


However many of these cities do not put a tick in the second box, failing to meet the multi-cultural, ethnic diversity requirements. Why is this important? Well in a multi cultured city R* will be able to paint a rich canvas full of colourful and diverse characters that inhabit areas of the cities that they have given a sense of their culture making it a home away from home. A multi cultured city is more interesting physically and biologically. A mono cultured city on the other hand would restrict R*’s palette of available colours, characters in Tokyo for example would need to be predominately cut from a Japanese, Yakuza coloured cloth. The selection of a more mono-cultured city would risk a bland and boring location and game whereas London is the ideal city to carry forwards the colourful and interestingly diverse theme of GTA’s cities and characters to date.


Finally the factor that eventually leaves London as the ideal location for the next GTA is dictated by the nature of an anglo dominated planet. GTA is a brand which is designed by westerners for westerners(Americans and Brits make up three quarters of the GTA market) as such GTA needs to be predominantly English language. This is the only real problem when considering more exotic locales such as Tokyo, Moscow, Rio or Mexico; the language barrier. Now what is unique about these cities is almost totally and intrinsically linked to their cultural identity. The Japanese-ness of Tokyo is where it’s appeal lies just as the Latino vibe is what makes locations such as Rio or Mexico so appealing. However to sell the game to the western, english speaking market a full scale anglicanisation would need to take place. Sure Espantosa was fine in Vice but it was only one station of many, yet in a latin american game it would need to be the dominant influence on the radio, sure you could change the DJ’s so they were speaking English but this anglicanisation would have to extend to the pedestrians and to the signage of the city. he risk of this wholesale anglicanisation is that somewhere along the way the unique atmosphere of these foreign locales, the very thing that attracted us to them in the first place, would be lost. All we would end up with then would be a giant Chinatown or Little Mexico and a game that felt just the same as the others.


London has none of these problems, it is globally recognisable and has a unique atmosphere that is also globally recognisable. It is as richly multi cultured and ethnically diverse as anywhere else in the world and finally it’s uniqueness would not need to be jeopardised by a wholesale Anglicanisation as it is the birthplace of the English language and Anglican culture.



Statistics and why they are irrelevant.
I have mentioned statistics throughout this thread and made a point of pointing out that by the cartoon over the top nature of GTA they are largely irrelevant. This section briefly re-emphasises the point.
I feel it is important at this point for me to emphasise the fact that GTA is an exaggerated over the top cartoon.


GTA tackles the world and twists it.


GTA is in now way based upon reality and it is in no way bound by it.


Just because some obscure city somewhere in the world is home to fifty gagillion people or had ten billion murders by guns in it yesterday does not meant that it is the best location for GTA.


Al that is important that a certain threshold of size is met and that there is a certain level of crime.


GTA is not a real life crime simulator or there would be caps on the amount of kills our character could make. If you believe that a London game would change this then you are clearly under the misconception that GTA realistically simulates crime and murders and thus that hoods in South Central L.A are and do frequently kill thousands of people and getaway with doing so. Just because London had 10 less murders in it last year than location x does not mean that you would be able to kill less people in a GTA set in a London inspired setting, GTA has no rules and obeys a very thin, stretched and twisted notion of reality. A GTA set in London would change the gameplay of GTA in no way because it has lower statistics than somewhere else.


It would however bring a totally new and fresh spin to the GTA franchise and bring us (in the parlance of our times) one kick ass motherf*cker of a game.



Various approaches to employing London as a GTA setting.
I have mentioned statistics throughout this thread and made a point of pointing out that by the cartoon over the top nature of GTA they are largely irrelevant. This section briefly re-emphasises the point.

Seeing as London is the capital of Great Britain and not the 51st state the most logical and straightforward approach would be to set the city as part of a GTA: UK. The way I see this working best is as follows: You begin the game incarcerated in a maximum security prison in the north of England. You spend a period of a couple of hours real time (5-10% mission time) in the prison choosing either the path of gaining favour with the screws or the cons. If you take the con route you will make associations with powerful criminals on the inside and even build your own crew. The con path ends in a prison riot where YOU take control of the prison and make your escape.


Either way the prison plays out you end up escaping across the northern moors to Steel City which is a northern industrial city based on Sheffield. The city is in the grip of an escalating riot as the factories are closed and the disenfranchised workers form gangs. The crisis escalates to the point where the city is abandoned to the gangs by the government and cordoned off by the army. The city basically turns into something akin to Carcer City in Manhunt, a no go zone controlled by gangs. Here you and your crew become the most powerful gang in the city.


Once you complete the Steel City section you branch out to the London inspired city and become involved in the many faceted gang scene in the capital. Other cities to include could be Liverpool and Glasgow parodies.


This is the option I favour personally but I do not see R* taking this route due to the noise that comes from the direction of American Xenophobes.


GTA: Europe

This is what I see as the most likely choice that R* would take for the next GTA game and obviously London, as the EU’s biggest city would have to be included.


The way I would do GTA: Europe would be to start it in London due to the fact that it would not be a totally alien environment for U.S gamers, with the same language and some similar buildings i.e Skyscrapers and then to branch out onto the continent and it’s more alien environment (to American Xenophobes).


The European cities I would include would be; Amsterdam for obvious reasons, Milan not Rome as more mafia business goes on in the industrial centre of Italy than in it’s tourist attraction capital, possibly also Sicily and also I would suck Moscow over from the east.


GTA: Global: Drug Trade or Russian Mafia Saga

This is a strong outside bet for GTA:NXT, the global approach. This will be the approach that R* take if they are scared of the minority group that the American Xenophobes comprise, if they fear that taking the game away from the U.S. Will HoodyG and his internet OG’s, pimps and playa’s play the game if it leaves the U.S. (personally I would suggest they would quickly cave in and buy it, but...)


To state as fact that R* FEAR this group is to fail to give them due credit however as similar morons made similar noises about CJ being a brother, naturally only time will tell.


London would fit in here as it is one of the primary hubs for global criminal and drugs rings. Other cities could include anywhere, from Hong Kong to Colombia to Chicago.


Other than the global drugs trade R* could take the game global by focusing on the Russian Mafia telling the story of how it expanded on the breakdown of the Soviet Union and grew to where it is today having global influence from Moscow around the Globe. London could also fit in here as the Russian mafia is heavily involved in Londons underworld, infact a suspected Russian mafiosi, Roman Abramovich has bought one of Londons football teams (Chelsea).


Of course R* could decide to go back and focus on one city again, in which case London is one HELL of a BIG and DIVERSE playground to base it on...



This section details my personal opinions on what time period would best serve a GTA based around London and the reasoning behind my conclusions. To be brief I personally believe that the present day or recent past are the ideal periods to bring the best out of a London inspired setting. Read on for my reasons...
Personally I truly believe that London is a more suitable and interesting location for the GTA franchise if the game is set in the present day than back in 1969 due to the reasons of diversity that I have brought up on this thread. Whilst a 1960’s set game would open up various interesting stylistic approaches, London in the 60’s was MUCH less ethnically diverse and largely mono cultured. As a result the gang scene was less varied, it was really still just rival London firms in the 60’s.


Beyond the gang scene the city was also less diverse on an architectural level and was still rooted to the past and tradition. So all things considered I would prefer a city based on present day London or a generation game approach where the story is told in different era’s with the city changing to suit than have the game restricted to an east end gang war. One way to play out the modern day story could be to show a traditional English/London crime crime family despairing at the way crime in the city was being taken over by foreign gangs.


However beyond that, which is a reasoned personal preference, present day London is certainly a more saleable location to the more small minded American demographic than that of the swinging 60’s.


So I believe that London due to the factor of diversity is a more suitable location for GTA in the present than the past.



Suggested Viewing
Obviously to date R* have taken much inspiration for their games from films and people often refer to films that could be relevant to for a GTA London inspired setting. The section briefly mentions some of the films that I would suggest would be relevant source material for a GTA London, but of course R* know al about them I’m sure. If you’ve not seen them though these are films I would recommend to get an idea of the flavour of Londons criminal underbelly...
The Long Good Friday

This film is the pinnacle of British gangster films as far as I am concerned and is certainly the top of the pile when it comes to London gang films.


It stars Bob Hoskins as Harold Shand, the fictional head of the most powerful East End firm in London in the early 1980’s. The film tells the story of how Harold Loses control of the town he thought he owned, as a series of events play out over the course of good friday. It’s a masterpiece of suspense that shows Guy Ritchie how you should make a gangland film.


Mona Lisa

This is another film starring Bob Hoskins and it gives an insight into the seedy underbelly of Londons vice trade. Hoskins character get caught up with a high end call girl and her private search to find a missing friend.


Smaller in scope than the Long Good Friday and more visceral, almost Taxi Driver esque. It also features Michael Caine.


Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels and Snatch

Everybody knows Lock, Stock and Snatch Guy Ritchies slick, black comedy takes on small time hoods in London.


Sexy Beast

Ray Winstone stars in this film which tells the story of a former face gone straight who is forced into taking one last job by his former colleague. This film is darkly comic and as much a romance as a gang film. Highly recommended.


Get Carter (the original)

Seen by many as the seminal British gangster film starring Michael Caine in his pomp. This film tells the tale of a 1960’s Gangland face who is forced to return to his former stamping ground in Newcastle to uncover a trail of betrayal.


Not really a London gang film but it is required viewing as a seminal British film and one of Caines best.



This film focuses upon the culture of the football hooligan and is a fair insight into hooligan gangs for those who have no concept of them.


Football Factory

Similar to I.D in that it deals with the skinhead football hooligan lifestyle. Co-financed by R* and starring our own Kent Paul (Danny Dyer) its also worth a butchers.

The Conclusion
The bit at the end where everything is added up and evaluated and I tell you what you should have worked out for yourself by now. London IS totally and ideally suited for having a GTA city based around it but not only that it is possibly the most ideal location for the next GTA
Again as I told you at the beginning, not one of the factors or arguments brought up in this argument should be taken as the reason that GTA should move to London. However, when you weigh everything brought up here in the round and acknowledge the full spectrum of benefits the location would bring to the GTA series it becomes clear that it is supportably the ideal location for the next GTA to be built around.



At 620 square miles with a population of nearly 8 million people London is more than big enough for a GTA city to be based around.


Multi-Cultural Ethnic Diversity

With nearly half of Londons population of 8 Million being made up of non-indigenous ethnic minorities London would provide R* with as many possibilities for a colourful and varied palette of characters and gangs as any other city in the world and more so than most.



London contains more than enough violent crime for R* to base their criminal oriented game there. Remember GTA is not a real world crime rate statistic simulator, it has not and never will set a cap on the number of crimes that you can perpetrate to stay representative of real world crime figures. The sole purpose of GTA is not to realistically simulate factual crime rates. If it was you wouldn’t be able to kill anyone after the first handful of missions even if it were set in Soweto. The cities of the U.S are NOT warzones whereas the cities in GTA are.

GTA ain’t real life, foo’!



London is home to more than 400 different gangs of various levels of organisation and power. Due to Londons multi-cultured nature these gangs are widely diverse in terms of ethnicity and thus maintain the series wide colour and range of characters.



Guns are used by both criminals and armed police in London. Nothing would change gameplay wise because of guns being illegal in the UK, after all since when did we stick to laws when playing GTA. GTA is based around crime, in it you control a criminal, criminals do illegal things hence guns being illegal in the UK is irrelevant.


Physical Setting

Do to the combination of Londons age and the progressive outlook of the city London is arguably the most architecturally diverse city on the planet.


London has the rich and poor, the crime, the gangs, the unique, globally recognisable atmosphere, the size and the diversity required for a GTA setting, those things are factually indisputable.


London is THE location for GTA4.




user posted image
Edited by Medallion Man
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to ruin the post but isn't there more people in new york, chicago, L.A., San Fransisco and tokyo? I know that there is like about 1 million people in Las Vegas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brother Marcus

I think he's on about the city limits and not other areas which would make the population seem bigger. According to the 2000 US census, the population of Las Vegas was actually 478,434

Link to comment
Share on other sites

london will not be the next gta, Its not the population, its becuase london is not interesting, there is not enough going on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a post! Great stuff there medalion man couldnt have said it better myself (I wouldnt have reserached it that well! lol). It is the history of London/Britain that makes this country so unique. Its also very true that tourists only see the charming side of London with their well spoken actor/tour guide. Id love to see one of those open top tour buses end up in Harlsden or in on of those realy crappy estates around the center, can just see the tourists being welcomed by "Yes blad, let me see that camera!". Plus with London you can still have the sterotyical jokes about Americans! Any Londoner whos been around the tourist areas can tell the tourists apart because so many of them comply with their sterotypes!


American tourists: BIG cameras, with ridiculously long lenses. Normaly in parties of 4 or 5. One big fat jolly man with a bit of a middle aged beard going on, he carries the big camera. Two kids of teenage years, at least one of them looks totaly pissed off! And Americans always seem to have these weird rain cover things that look like bin bags that have been opened up at both ends and have had a hood attached!


Ozzies: ALWAYS wear shorts (normaly khaki), whatever the weather, and they do actualy wear those hats with corks dangling off them! They always look like the whole groups going for a mssive hike up a mountain or something!


Japanese: Always in massive groups with loads of video cameras, they seem more intrested in filming whats going on and watching it later rather than watching it live!


And it works with Brits on holiday to: Pasty, Sunburnt, topless, drunk!


@comet, what do you base that on?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think everyone knows this if they've played the Getaway (gangs and crime) but most people just don't think London would be as exciting to New York hence the hostility.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see room for london, tokyo, and another american city.. That's how i think it will be. It's not that i have a problem with london..but the getaway just put a bad taste in my mouth concerning it. Plus, i don't wan't this gloomy, foggy city as the base for a game anyway.. Excellent post though.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

london will not be the next gta, Its not the population, its becuase london is not interesting, there is not enough going on.

Are you for real?


For your information London is just as, if not more interesting then any other city in the world, i should know, i live there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Medallion Man

Right this obviously STILL isn’t clear enough for some. Responses one by one.




Area69, BrotherMarcus is spot on about the population stats, they are for the city proper. Not the Urban Agglomeration. London doesn’t have a state to include in with it like NY.


London is one of the worlds Primo cities with the likes of NY,Moscow,Tokyo,Berlin Etc, its Europe’s largest.


Anyway like I’ve said GTA exaggerates the world, its a Cartoon.


Comet1440, if you’ve read my post properly it should be clear that london tick all the boxes. It is massive and diverse and therefore interesting. You can find whatever you want in London, bars, clubs, drugs, restaurants, casinos, brothels, strip joints (come and see soho), banks to rob, the underground, gyms, stadia, gangs, skyscrapers, castles, McDonalds,anything a growing GTA character needs to get by.


SimonBrown7 cheers Mate! and your spot on with the tourist stereotypes, they stick out a mile. The Americans even stand around in the rainmacks in summer and its 30 degrees. The sweats running off them but they were told that in London if it’s not foggy its raining, they gotta keep em on man! They could be tourist gangs! The Yanks armed with their BIG cameras Vs the Aussies armed with a 12 pack of Tinnies, Bonza!


MadeInThe80’s (so was I!), Liberty City was NY, we’ve been there. Trust me mate, London has everything NY does, just with a different flavour. Just like SteveShady says. (East, East, East London!)


Mugen. First Off the Getaway has nothing to do with R* and nothing to with GTA R* can take any location and make it work, I trust them.Besides, I said a REAL setting would not work, look a True Crime, I mean a fictional version of London.


Second, contrary to popular belief London doesn’t just have two types of weather: Fog and Rain. It’s miserable now but it’s November. London does have Summer time. Besides NY has very similar weather to London and that was GTA3. Everyone loves gritty when its NY but not London?!?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brother Marcus

Medallion Man, I think you find that you say one thing on these forums and poeple totally ignore it.


People ALWAYS mention the Getaway, the Getaway had no radar, you didn't know where you was going. The graphics were different, there was no GTA radio to listen too, the peds didn't say interesting things, the police didn't say funny stuff like "I'm not racist boy, you gonna die boy". The cars had totally different handling, the weather never changed. It only features Triads, a firm, and yardies. GTA: LONDON WOULD NOT BE THE GETAWAY. and the GETAWAY didn't feature the whole of London at all.


True Crime was a blatant rip off Grand Theft Auto, yet their game was crap. They set it in California (San Andreas) and it just wasn't good. The Getway wasn't a rip off, it tried its best on realism. If the the same company that made the Getaway set it in New York with the same things, it would be just the same. What makes GTA is all the humour and freedom that goes with it, it's actually company R*.


People also seem not to know the different between these games from reality too. I've never heard of an LA gangster thats jumped from one helicopter to another and took out a dozen mafia gangsters, let alone break into Area 51 take out the whole army, steal something top secret and fly away in a Jetpack. some of the mission in GTA: San Andreas were over the top, BUT EVERYTHING ABOUT GTA IS OVER THE TOP. That's what makes it good. San Andreas is interesting because R* created their own little world and made it interesting.



I'd like a GTA: UK myself, not just London. They could include the countryside, seaside towns, scottish highlands etc and let's not forget UK has other cities. City of Birmingham is twice the size of Las Vegas for example, there are many cities in the UK with a population of 500,000 in it's city. Glasgow has a population over a million for example.


People who say there is nothing to do in London. Let me tell you something, you haven't got a fkin clue. If there is nothing to do in London there is nothing to do anywhere you go. Even IF you've been there. London is so big you haven't see all of it, trust me. I'd live in London myself it's got everything I'd want, the bad thing is that it's too expensive. Houses in London cost a bomb. The average house price in London is £271,800, that's $503,895! we've talking the average house price.


London is 620 square miles compare that to New York City which is 320 square miles. London isn't small.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

An Medallion Man wins the next place on the SteveShady respect list, excellent stuff from him!


As these complaints or doubts over London / UK are spread over many different topics, i ask that if anyone has any, post them in THIS topic on the same board.


Hopefully medallion man, brother marcus, others and myself can pursuade you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

wow, i completely agree with this topic. I live just down the thames from london, just outside lakeside. If they do make a GTA in england i certainly hope that they make one with the outskirts too, maybe call it GTA:Thames or something and have all the big docks along the thames, like tilbury etc and eventually getting to the mouth and hopefully moving some of the cities on the south coast up to the end of the thames like Dover and that. - maybe bringing Ipswich down, though they aren't anywhere as big as London. A london based GTA should feature loads of interesting places, like others have been saying. Modern buildings (like that big glass 'testicle' building near central london) and ancient buildings (Tower of london) it also has loads of interesting stuff outside london (lakeside - largest retail area in europe, bluewater which is the largest shopping centre just across the river). I heard on the news that their thinking of building one of the huge casinos somewhere near london.

And also, it will provide R* with alot of material to attack the getaway with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i come from london too, and this is a very well put argument take the time to read it, took me a week to find the time but it was worth it

Link to comment
Share on other sites


I think London would be an excellent choice for the setting of the next GTA, and it only falls behind creating another Liberty City for me. The getaway was excellent for what it did have, however it was rather small, and GTA:London would be incredible smile.gif

and nice work finding all that info cookie.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice post, man. I think it's highly likely that the next GTA will have a London setting. GTA: London is next in line for a revamp and despite the rantings of a few uninformed naysayers, I personally think it would be a great setting for the next GTA.


There's plenty of material there for Rockstar to sink their teeth into, not to mention a whole new culture to satirize. I don't claim to be an expert on London and I've never visited the city, but I at least have a vague notion of what to expect there. There's tons of scenery...everything from Buckingham Palace and the Tower of London, down to the murky docks of the Thames River and the squalor of London's East End. And contrary to my fellow Americans' arguments, London is rife with gangs and crime, not to mention political dissidents. There would be no shortage of trouble for us to get into.


Just think of the vehicles we'd get to sample...Minis, Austin Healys, and double decker buses to name a few. Oh yeah, London has great potential indeed.


And if you want over-the-top, London's got its fair share of whackiness and the macabre. I'm sure Rockstar could throw some healthy jabs at the Royal Family, Freemasons, and even David Icke, the UK's real life (and inspiration for) "The Truth".


And going beyond the city itself, you've got a wealth of land to explore such as roaming countrysides, rolling hills, forests, moors, etc. They can even throw in a few castles (haunted castles for all you Ghost Hunters out there) to explore, possibly even purchase.


GTA: London, or whatever Rockstar chooses to call it this time around, would certainly be a sight to behold. I'd personally like to see a female lead character this time around. Perhaps a young female waif/pickpocket in the same vein as the Cockney Eliza Doolittle from Pygmalion, turned up a few notches on the anti-social meter of course.






Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rudde the Man

Holy Sh*T medallionmaan...... Thats some heavy promo. Before I read your thread I was completely against making the next GTA in a London-like city. But now that ive read this, im changing my mind. I really like the stuff that theres so many different cultures in London (making lots of gangs) but I just cant imagine a GTA where people drive on the wrong side of the road & talk English with the British accent. My ideal next GTA would be in a London-based city, which is still in the USA, so that the basics of GTA would remain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just cant imagine a GTA where people drive on the wrong side of the road & talk English with the British accent.

Glad you changed your mind, couple of points though, and ive saud these before.


Left side of the road? Right side? Who cares how often do you stick to it, and besides us Brits didnt find it difficult at all to drive on the right, piece of cake it is.


And accents wont make the game bad at all, personally I love the accent i have (the cockney one) and there are so many different ones, im sure you'll love it too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

gta like a mofo

i agree but to say gypsies are irish is wrong they first are a nomadic ppl who travel through out the uk and ireland and the vast majority of pikeys are born and currently reside in england [73% frg ststs] so in the eyes of the state they are british


Link to comment
Share on other sites

The person that said about the Irish gypsies probably got it off a film like Snatch, but i cant remember if he said "all gypsies are Irish" or "You can work for some Irish gypsies"


Anyway it doenst matter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It won't be London. It will hopefully be based on it though. People whinge that The Getaway ruined London. Rockstar would not recreate London...like they haven't recreated New York, Miami, LA etc. It's all based.


Yeah except for that one game back in the day for PSone. This is the next generation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rudde the Man


Left side of the road? Right side? Who cares how often do you stick to it, and besides us Brits didnt find it difficult at all to drive on the right, piece of cake it is.


And accents wont make the game bad at all, personally I love the accent i have (the cockney one) and there are so many different ones, im sure you'll love it too.

Hey ive played the Getaway and after playing it I couldnt drive properly in real life.

I guess the accents are okay, it just reminds too much of the Getaway, it really does leave a bad taste...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Medallion Man

Scrap Iron,cheers! Good stuff from you too, the stuff about the cars is spot on , a change of scenery is part of what the game needs now, also very interested on the street child idea. I too can see R* considering a female lead. They challenged the racists with CJ, why not the sexists next time out ?


Gta like a mofo you’re right on the gypsies, but GTA does play on stereotypes, and the stereotype for pikeys tends to be that they are paddies. Also I am sure that the majority of the Irish descended gypsies are very proud of thier heritage.


Ramirez thats right too, BASED on London. Be patient,read the thread, it’s in there.


On the ‘Wrong side of the road argument’: millions of Brits have managed to adapt for the series so far, as we do in real life when we go abroad. Its not that difficult. Besides as SteveShady knows, in GTA you can drive where you want, drive on the pavement if you dont like the road, then you yanks get to kill British peds!


Glad to see people can be converted by reasoned argument afterall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

alright first of all southside aka miami is ALOT bigger than that. I bet in NY you included Queens, BK, BX, Harlem, and all the other side areas. If you dont include them NY is alot smaller (altho still big). Same with MIA; its alot bigger than the number you put


second London is the gonna be the next city period so stop your crying. Its the last one that left in updating the series. It will problably be all of UK because of of San Andreas' state.


third as you see alot of people dont know about London and iits lifestyle. They know NY is whats up, they know MIA is murdaville, and they know killa cali is gangbangin for life. So lot of people think London is just full of tea drinking mothafuc*ers

Long time antagonizer/warezer/stupid person.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.