Omnia sunt Communia Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 I can understand why people would think that Vice City is going to be the next setting for Grand Theft Auto. But it doesn't seem likely. Dan Houser states, in this interview, that Liberty City was based off New York City, a location they hadn't done before: We just start knocking ideas around and talking about a few things. New York came out as the obvious place because we’d never done it before. In the old games [Liberty City] was just vaguely East Coast-ish. It wasn’t New York and it wasn’t trying to be. This means GTA IV is not a remake of GTA III. This also means GTA IV's Liberty City is not a remake of GTA III's Liberty City. We are not revisiting the original trilogy, we are starting fresh in a new location we haven't visited before. Let's take a look at the original trilogy (GTA III, VC & SA). People say that they are based on the original locations in GTA 1 (Liberty City, Vice City & San Andreas); which is partially true. Another thing we need to look at is the order those cities appeared in-game: Liberty City, San Andreas & Vice City. Notice anything strange? That's right, they're in a different order. Which means Rockstar weren't recreating GTA 1, they were simply using the same locations. Obvious locations which they had not used before in a 3D environment. The thing is, Vice City (Miami) has already been used in a 3D Grand Theft Auto. It's not like it was done badly, which is the reason why GTA IV was set in New York City, so why would Rockstar reuse the same setting twice? And that, my friends, is why I don't think GTA NeXt will be set in Vice City. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uNi Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 If you're going by re-used locations there's a lot of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich246 Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 I think it would be nice if they did London again, and maybe expanded to other parts of England too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chngdman Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 (edited) I'll be the first to assure you that Vice City is the Next GTA title in the IV canon. Liberty City was New York and then some last time. Orange stadium? That exists in Philadelphia. Flat iron building is in III as well. No dude, I'm sorry, we're fixated on it because we know this game has been heading where it is going since GTA 1. They wanted to do IV since 1. They wanted to do better than IV since 1. GTA 2 was just a bridge to GTA III because the technology wasn't there yet (unless you wanted Doom theft auto ) nor the money. They just couldnt. For obvious reasons. For the same reasong this NEW liberty city still is not the Liberty they want it to be - so - sorry - but V is going to be Liberty too. lol. And personally, I could not be happier that this title is the one to do this kind of a development scheme - it is quite fitting, indeed. Each GTA is a step toward what they want it to be - you have yet to see true liberty, vice, and san andreas. Each Rockstar game that comes out is a beta of the next... And yes, it is More than obvious that this is a remake of III and VC is next. All of the hints in the game, you will also fly from this liberty to the other cities most likely. It will feel like GTA 1 in 3d and still not be the end. Why do you think the radar and rest of the hud were dumbed down for IV? Why would they do away with the nice radars from VC/SA? Why not an even better one, after all, this is next gen! Oh, could it be because this is the remake of III and VC will have a nicer radar and many other features of IV are comparable in the same way? Like how claude and niko are good for nothing except being hitmen for scumbags? Yup. Edited January 14, 2009 by chngdman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magic_Al Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 Basically what Jacky Fiend said. The reason Rockstar returned to Liberty City is the same reason they probably won't return to Vice City or San Andreas. Liberty City in GTA III was not really finished because they'd made it a different way than they made later cities, and they wanted to go back and do it the way that worked in Vice City and San Andreas. In GTA III they hoped mixing things from different cities would make Liberty City sort of an Everycity. That turned out to be short-sighted, because the GTA series is so successful they've had the opportunity to create many cities. Why have a city that has some buildings from New York and some from Los Angeles, when you can do separate games that have whole cities based New York and Los Angeles? Now that the GTA series is so big, it made sense to go back to Liberty City and rebuild it entirely based on New York, not as an Everycity. By comparison, Vice City and San Andreas are already done. Rockstar isn't going to be interested in redoing those just to add more detail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chngdman Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 (edited) Magic, no offense, but I find that to be incredibly naive, or you didn't ever play GTA 1. Liberty, Vice, San Andreas IS GTA. Why do you think that billboard says fly to vice city for 100 dollars? It's because you WILL... There are many hints at that sh*t. They won't ditch the three locations. They are GTA. For very good reasons. Not the least of which is that those three places are the crime world. It makes sense to do just like they started out to do - which they have not yet - which I won't elaborate on here for a few reasons. You will see another Liberty in GTA V. You will see another Vice, another San Andreas, 2 more, at the very least. And Vice City is hailed as a rush-job masterpiece. It truly was the worst city of them all. (1/4 of the map was beach, empty. Most of the map was utter sh*t, fun yes, as well put together as III LC? f*ck no. Rushed. And San Andreas? Man, you KNOW that's not the last you are seeing of that place, come on) I actually wouldn't be surprised though if San Andreas ended up the exact same layout using the old map as 1rst level DistanceLOD so why would Rockstar reuse the same setting twice? Number one, it is the same location as III - it shares the name and many landmarks share the name - it is the same f*cking place. Whether they did an ass job the first time it went 3D or not. Whether they knew Liberty was New York then or not. For two, this is the 4th time they've used liberty city. This will be the 4th time they used Vice City as well. Once again: GTA IS Vice City, Liberty City, San Andreas. Since Day 1. Knowing rockstar, they only said what you quoted because they didn't want to admit Liberty City was such a bad New York - old or not. However, yea, plenty of east coast landmarks, like that stadium in philly. Edited January 14, 2009 by chngdman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omnia sunt Communia Posted January 14, 2009 Author Share Posted January 14, 2009 (edited) Why do you think that billboard says fly to vice city for 100 dollars? It's because you WILL... I just had to point out the flaw in this statement, before I carried on: The billboards at Fracis International Airport also offer flights to Los Santos and Las Venturas, does that mean we're going to go there in the next Grand Theft Auto title too? No. They are just advertising flights, to make the world seem more real. And as for Liberty City (IV) and Liberty City (III) being the same place; they're not. Dan Houser, himself, said that. Why are you arguing with him? The man who makes the decisions in-regards to Grand Theft Auto? Would you argue with J.K. Rowling about Harry Potter? No. Because she has absolute control over that universe, just like Dan Houser has with the GTA universe. If GTA IS Liberty City, Vice City and San Andreas; explain GTA London. Oh, AND GTA 2. Throws your whole formula out the window. Edited January 14, 2009 by Jacky Fiend Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanilla Shake Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 (edited) You are right about the billboards in IV. They were there to help make the game feel like a real world by mentioning the other cities. The cities were also mentioned on the in-game TV, the radio, the in-game internet, etc. Same goes for them bringing back brands such as Sprunk, eCola, Burger Shot, etc. I just feel that a completely redesigned Vice City set in 2009 would be perfect for the next Grand Theft Auto title. I don't care about going in order or anything, as a matter of fact I could give a flying f*ck about San Andreas being remodeled. Vice City is the only location I want redone. After that, bring the series to a different city, like London. Edited January 14, 2009 by Vanilla Shake TC718 / <629 / CF5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Playstation_Loyalist Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 They can do a remake of Vice City. Connections are everywhere. There are some things that relate the storyline from the past to the present story. This means that IV is not the lone story in-game (from what I heared from Jan Gravelli's dialogues, he might have some history about his life from unmentioned cities. I guess there's more to GTA IV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magic_Al Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 I think the references to Vice City and San Andreas in IV are looking backward, not forward. Rockstar is proud of their past work and it's proof how great those cities were that their names can substitute for Miami, Los Angeles, Las Vegas, and San Francisco when GTA IV's story calls for out-of-town references. Remember GTA III mentioned Miami? No need for Miami after we've been to Vice City. It could be Rockstar will revisit these cities again but I think they'll try very hard to come up with a different idea first. It seems like so much work to just "up-res" something they've already done. That's not creative, it's janitorial. They can't do the same thing over and over year after year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chngdman Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 They can't do the same thing over and over year after year. But... ummm... they have been doing the same thing for years Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Playstation_Loyalist Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 They can't do the same thing over and over year after year. But... ummm... they have been doing the same thing for years Yeah. Rockstar is already doing (and screwing) things for GTA all over again until IV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William. Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 I agree with you Jacky Fiend. Lots of people are set on the reason that Rockstar recreated the GTA III Liberty City to make it 'more like New York City, since GTA III didn't really let off the vibes of NYC'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Playstation_Loyalist Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 I agree with you Jacky Fiend. Lots of people are set on the reason that Rockstar recreated the GTA III Liberty City to make it 'more like New York City, since GTA III didn't really let off the vibes of NYC'. Actually, you're quite derailed. Liberty City in III is a combination of Boston, NYC, Philadelphia, and other else. That's why it didn't got the "vibe" of NYC. So, yeah. MEH. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omnia sunt Communia Posted January 14, 2009 Author Share Posted January 14, 2009 They can't do the same thing over and over year after year. But... ummm... they have been doing the same thing for years No they haven't: 1997 - GTA 1 (Liberty City, Vice City, San Andreas) 1999 - GTA London 69/61 1999 - GTA 2 (Anywhere City) 2001 - GTA III (Liberty City - based off The East Coast) 2002 - GTA Vice City (based off Miami) 2004 - GTA San Andreas (based off Los Angeles, San Francisco & Las Vegas) 2008 - GTA IV (Liberty City - based off New York City) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William. Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 I agree with you Jacky Fiend. Lots of people are set on the reason that Rockstar recreated the GTA III Liberty City to make it 'more like New York City, since GTA III didn't really let off the vibes of NYC'. Actually, you're quite derailed. Liberty City in III is a combination of Boston, NYC, Philadelphia, and other else. That's why it didn't got the "vibe" of NYC. So, yeah. MEH. Wow, you aren't too smart. How am I derailed? I never said I thought like that. Back then, lots of people thought that GTA III was based off NYC. And in early '08, people thought of how GTA IV LC is a remake of GTA III LC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chngdman Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 (edited) They can't do the same thing over and over year after year. But... ummm... they have been doing the same thing for years No they haven't: 1997 - GTA 1 (Liberty City, Vice City, San Andreas) 1999 - GTA London 69/61 1999 - GTA 2 (Anywhere City) 2001 - GTA III (Liberty City - based off The East Coast) 2002 - GTA Vice City (based off Miami AND MAINLAND FLORIDA <--fixed) 2004 - GTA San Andreas (based off Los Angeles, San Francisco & Las Vegas) 2008 - GTA IV (Liberty City - based off New York City) 2009 - GTA Chinatown Wars Liberty City, LA Noire, Manhunt 3 2010 - GTA IV: Vice City, Bully 2 2011 - Midnight Club game, and exclusive PS3 title 2012 - GTA IV: San Andreas You tell me they haven't and then post proof I am right. Thanks! Please, tell me, how long have you been following the series, and how adamantly? If GTA IS Liberty City, Vice City and San Andreas; explain GTA London. Oh, AND GTA 2. Throws your whole formula out the window. They did those expansions for money - just money - for renderware and PS2 SDK. And GTA 2 was in demand. Edited January 14, 2009 by chngdman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RidingHigh Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 We can't judge where they will go next by where they've been in the past. Nobody was expecting them to go back to Liberty City for IV. And you definitely can't judge by billboards and adds, thats just silly. R* will likely want to pick a new location, something totally different. Why would they want to keep going back and forth between ideas they've already done, when there's thousands of big crime ridden cites to chose from? I'm sure with the technology they now have they will look for a city where they can get the most out of their resources. Vice City isn't really a place where they can push their graphics engine to the limit, it's main feature is hotels and a beach. Not much for them to work with there. Animating grains of sand? Nah... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chngdman Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 (edited) Nobody was expecting them to go back to Liberty City for IV. And you definitely can't judge by billboards and adds, thats just silly. I did... I knew it was going to be Liberty... I could tell by the way everything went back to III style in the teaser stuff... IV and all of that... And there was this guy on a news site way before the game came out named scott who told all about new york... And I can also tell, more than obviously, the other two cities will be the next in this series. Maybe other places in side-games, but GTA is these three cities, as outlined in chronology above. They will use the same formula because it makes sense. You get your generic sh*t that is found all over the world in Liberty, you get your tropical sh*t in Vice City, and now you've got all your normal and tropic sh*t, so it takes way less time to make the rest that SA needs... Cactus, etc. I can't believe people are so dense - or disconnected with what GTA is - that they don't see it coming... I guess you just gotta pay attention. I can't be 100 percent sure, but I'll be told-ya-so-ing when VC drops next year Edited January 14, 2009 by chngdman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omnia sunt Communia Posted January 14, 2009 Author Share Posted January 14, 2009 (edited) They can't do the same thing over and over year after year. But... ummm... they have been doing the same thing for years No they haven't: 1997 - GTA 1 (Liberty City, Vice City, San Andreas) 1999 - GTA London 69/61 1999 - GTA 2 (Anywhere City) 2001 - GTA III (Liberty City - based off The East Coast) 2002 - GTA Vice City (based off Miami AND MAINLAND FLORIDA <--fixed) 2004 - GTA San Andreas (based off Los Angeles, San Francisco & Las Vegas) 2008 - GTA IV (Liberty City - based off New York City) 2009 - GTA Chinatown Wars Liberty City, LA Noire, Manhunt 3 2010 - GTA IV: Vice City, Bully 2 2011 - Midnight Club game, and exclusive PS3 title 2012 - GTA IV: San Andreas You tell me they haven't and then post proof I am right. Thanks! That's an invalid argument, as you're simply creating false information to claim your points. Who do you think you are, Jack Thompson? If you read my post clearly you will notice that the only repetition of location appears between Liberty City (I) and Liberty City (IV) & Vice City (I) and Vice City (VC). Not even San Andreas was the same as it's first generation counterpart. Your argument has no proof, no credibility, no nothing. Please, tell me, how long have you been following the series, and how adamantly? I've have been playing the Grand Theft Auto game since 1997, when the original GTA 1 came out. Don't try and bring longevity into this, because you are not going to win. If GTA IS Liberty City, Vice City and San Andreas; explain GTA London. Oh, AND GTA 2. Throws your whole formula out the window. They did those expansions for money - just money - for renderware and PS2 SDK. And GTA 2 was in demand. GTA 2 was in demand? Where do you have proof for this? As far as I can tell GTA 2 was simply Rockstar creating another Grand Theft Auto title. There was no demand for a "futuristic sanbox adventure game" because they had created the genre themselves, pretty much. You're just creating silly little arguments to support your otherwise fact-less argument. If you can show me some proof that those games were made for money, then I'd happily accept. But since there is no such evidence; your argument fails. Rockstar themselves have already claimed that they used New York City because they hadn't used it before. What makes you, a person on an internet forum, think you know better than Rockstar themselves? Edited January 14, 2009 by Jacky Fiend Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GTASIX Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 He said IIIs city wasnt based off new york but theres clearly stuff inspired from it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omnia sunt Communia Posted January 14, 2009 Author Share Posted January 14, 2009 He said IIIs city wasnt based off new york but theres clearly stuff inspired from it. Yes, like Rockstar said: It was based off the East-Coast, which means it has elements of New York and several other cities East-Coast cities. Liberty City (circa-GTA IV) is based solely off New York City. Which is a location they hadn't done before (they'd done East-Coast, not New York City though). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flesh-n-Bone Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 Rockstar have been using the same cities for a few times now. Liberty City has been used 5 times: I, III, Advance, LCS and IV. Vice City was done in the titular game as well as an old GTA1 rendition then they improved the Miami vibe in Vice City Stories (IMO at least). That's enough of these two cities. San Andreas should be revisited once again and then it's time to move on into new ideas and unused cities, there are plenty in USA alone like Chicago and so on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omnia sunt Communia Posted January 14, 2009 Author Share Posted January 14, 2009 While Liberty City may have been used five times now, it has seen three different incarnations: GTA 1 and GTA IV's versions were based-off New York City whereas GTA 3's version was based off multiple cities from the east-coast (maybe an attempt at making a 3D version of Anywhere City?). Vice City has seen two incarnations; GTA 1's and Vice City's. Both were based off Miami. San Andreas has also seen two version, again; GTA 1's and San Andreas'. With the latter being based off three different cities rather than the one. If we look at it in this way: New York City: 2 (GTA 1 & GTA IV) Miami: 3 (GTA 1, VC & VCS) San Fransisco: 2 (GTA 1 & SA) East-Coast: 3 (GTA 3, ADV & LCS) London: 1 (GTA London) Los Angeles: 1 (SA) Las Vegas: 1 (SA) We see that Rockstar have never reused an location for more than two generations, why would they start now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KevinR1990 Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 What everybody else has been saying. The GTA III canon Liberty City was not based on New York City. Dan Houser has personally said that it was a composite "East Coast" city. It was based as much on Boston, Philadelphia, and other Northeastern cities as it was on New York. Liberty City was only shoehorned into the New York role by later games in the III canon, and it was a rather awkward fit. That is the reason why Rockstar redesigned Liberty City - because they had never done New York properly. Also, to that guy who keeps saying, "GTA: neXt has to follow the LC/VC/SA pattern; it always has," I have some questions. First, as somebody pointed out before me, the pattern in the original game was Liberty City, then San Andreas, then finally Vice City. How come San Andreas didn't come out before Vice City? Second, the San Andreas in GTA1 was based solely on San Francisco. The San Andreas in GTA: SA, meanwhile, was based on the entire state of California and parts of Nevada, with the cities of Los Angeles and Las Vegas getting just as much screen time as San Francisco. Third, the Liberty City in GTA1 was based firmly on New York City, while the Liberty City in III, as stated earlier, was a generic East Coast locale. Fourth, what do you make of the London expansions for GTA1 and the futuristic "Anywhere City" in GTA2? Oh wait, you claim that Rockstar only made them because they needed the money. Okay then, why did they bother to put CG cutscenes with voice actors in the London expansions, when the original did not feature them? Also, how much money did Rockstar have when they made GTAIII? I don't recall GTA2 being a huge hit, so they must have made III for the money as well. Fifth, I do believe that the Stories games present a little problem for your argument. They only covered Liberty City and Vice City, and then the GTA series went back to Liberty City for IV. Shouldn't Rockstar have released SAS before IV? (No, this is not an argument about whether or not they should make SAS. There are other threads for that.) Finally, is it really that great of an idea for Rockstar to keep reusing the same cities over and over again, rather than creating new ones? To keep going back to Liberty City, Vice City and San Andreas would show a lack of originality and creativity on Rockstar's part, and would cause gamers to start abandoning the "same old, same old" of the GTA series. Just askin'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldage Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 While Liberty City may have been used five times now, it has seen three different incarnations: GTA 1 and GTA IV's versions were based-off New York City whereas GTA 3's version was based off multiple cities from the east-coast (maybe an attempt at making a 3D version of Anywhere City?). Vice City has seen two incarnations; GTA 1's and Vice City's. Both were based off Miami. San Andreas has also seen two version, again; GTA 1's and San Andreas'. With the latter being based off three different cities rather than the one. If we look at it in this way: New York City: 2 (GTA 1 & GTA IV) Miami: 3 (GTA 1, VC & VCS) San Fransisco: 2 (GTA 1 & SA) East-Coast: 3 (GTA 3, ADV & LCS) London: 1 (GTA London) Los Angeles: 1 (SA) Las Vegas: 1 (SA) We see that Rockstar have never reused an location for more than two generations, why would they start now? That list is true, so they'll take vice city for the next one ...I think.... Though I'd want to see SA again, or any other city in that size. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omnia sunt Communia Posted January 14, 2009 Author Share Posted January 14, 2009 (edited) The entire argument that Rockstar/DMA made GTA London and/or GTA 2 for money is ridiculous. Of course they did! Don't forget that Rockstar is a game development company. A company's primary goal is to make profit, not art. Every Grand Theft Auto game produced by Rockstar, wait no - every game produced by Rockstar, was made for the sole purpose of generating revenue. If Rockstar were to rehash their settings every generation, then we'd end up with a gaming series not unlike EA's sport franchises. The same game, repackaged year-in, year-out, with a few minor alterations and slightly updated graphics. People do not buy every single one of these games, the smart ones will wait a few years, possibly buying their titles every two or more years. Because they know that there's no real difference between games. Also, how many stories can Rockstar squeeze out of the same setting? We've already seen one interesting and varied story to come out of New York City, with another two on their way (TLAD and CTW). It wont be long before Rockstar would star running out of storylines, and that would result in them having to reuse the same storylines of previous games. I don't know about you, but I would not pay good money for GTA III 2. That list is true, so they'll take vice city for the next one ...I think....Though I'd want to see SA again, or any other city in that size. You completely missed the point of my post. I was displaying the fact that Rockstar have no reused the same location in more than two canons/generations. I already pointed out, in that list, that Vice City/Miami has been used twice. What part of that was so difficult to divulge? Edited January 14, 2009 by Jacky Fiend Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ObsydianRaven Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 If we look at it in this way: New York City: 2 (GTA 1 & GTA IV) Miami: 3 (GTA 1, VC & VCS) San Fransisco: 2 (GTA 1 & SA) East-Coast: 3 (GTA 3, ADV & LCS) London: 1 (GTA London) Los Angeles: 1 (SA) Las Vegas: 1 (SA) We see that Rockstar have never reused an location for more than two generations, why would they start now? I cant belive that Rockstar hasn't considered making a location based on Boston or Chicago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpx Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 If we look at it in this way: New York City: 2 (GTA 1 & GTA IV) Miami: 3 (GTA 1, VC & VCS) San Fransisco: 2 (GTA 1 & SA) East-Coast: 3 (GTA 3, ADV & LCS) London: 1 (GTA London) Los Angeles: 1 (SA) Las Vegas: 1 (SA) We see that Rockstar have never reused an location for more than two generations, why would they start now? wasn't gta 3 in new york too? (at least parts of it) because staunton island reminds me a lot on manhattan (which is part of new york as you know). and overall many parts of gta 3 can be also seen in gta 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William. Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 Liberty City has been used 5 times: I, III, Advance, LCS and IV. You forgot about Chinatown Wars, so it was used 6 times. So New York City was used three times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now