Do you think the next GTA should be larger than SA

[bobgtafan]

Liberty City was about the size of SA and then when you add details it was larger. So do you think that the next GTA should be just one city and the size of Liberty or should it be mulitpe cities and ____ times bigger than Liberty City was.

[Omnia sunt Communia]

I really, really don't care. San Andreas was interesting, but I got a bit tired and driving from city to city at some point. The countryside/desert was fun - for a while. But getting stranded with no car and having to run back to civilization for three in-game days was just dull and uninteresting.

 

Liberty City was a decent size. I had fun exploring it. Something the same size as Liberty City from GTA IV with the same level of detail would be perfect. I don't really care either way though. It's not the size that matters, it's how they use it.

[bobgtafan]

I really, really don't care. San Andreas was interesting, but I got a bit tired and driving from city to city at some point. The countryside/desert was fun - for a while. But getting stranded with no car and having to run back to civilization for three in-game days was just dull and uninteresting.

 

Liberty City was a decent size. I had fun exploring it. Something the same size as Liberty City from GTA IV with the same level of detail would be perfect. I don't really care either way though. It's not the size that matters, it's how they use it.

When you get stranded its best to do two things. Cheat code for a vechice or just reload your game. I pretty much don't use cheats so you know how that goes. They should had added a teleport to road feature at least. But I loved the drive between cities. The only part I didn't like was for a mission when they make us use Ceaser's slow ass car. I had a helicopter.....

 

Anyway other than that I love the countryside because there's so much to explore. Of course whenever R* makes a GTA the city is always interesting and well used. But after a while you still need a different environment to explore and travel. Plus I think muliptle cities would add realism in a way. So I pretty much want the next GTA to be about 2 times bigger. R* has shown they can do a really detailed city. Now it's time to take it up a notch to a state level again. O and argeed bigger isn't always better. It's what you do with what you got.....Of course if it's 3 inches.......

[Omnia sunt Communia]

Ironic then, considering most people's favourite (Vice City) had the smallest landmass of an Grand Theft Auto to date.

 

I also found this quite funny:

 

 

They should had added a teleport to road feature at least... Plus I think muliptle cities would add realism in a way.

 

Contradicting statements or what?

Edited June 13, 2009 by Jacky Fiend

[Sergi]

 

Ironic then, considering most people's favourite (Vice City) had the smallest landmass of an Grand Theft Auto to date.

And you can confirm ? Fanboyism. People are mixed between III,VC and SA and while on this forum a small majority may be VC you can't prove VC is the overall favorite.

 

Anyways I'd like a GTA much larger then SA in scale. It's a logical next step in terms of play area. I stand behind the notion R* should use originality and creativity and create their very own original city, cities or state and not base them off real life places as VC, SA and IV blatantly did. III was a mix between numerous East coast and Mid West cities but it was completely original and didn't look like any real life ciy. On the area though I think another logical step for GTA would be wider transportation. We saw cabs in IV so why not make planes useable? R* can easily create a state with 2 or 3 major cities the size of IV LC with current technology and should be able to do countryside and other areas as well as smaller cities and counties. Hell originally IV was going to be based on the entire NY State. People could have the choice of driving between places or flying planes. Maybe you could own a personal jet collection later in the game. also you could catch coach rides between cities and catch planes rides similar to taxi rides in IV. Just think how beautiful it would be flying in the air in real time in 1st person view looking out the window.

Edited June 13, 2009 by Sergi

[bobgtafan]

 

Ironic then, considering most people's favourite (Vice City) had the smallest landmass of an Grand Theft Auto to date.

 

I also found this quite funny:

 

 

They should had added a teleport to road feature at least... Plus I think muliptle cities would add realism in a way.

 

Contradicting statements or what?

If Vice is EVERYONE's favorite then why does SA have 21.5 million in sales and Vice has 17.5 and SA was considered better rated. I think that SA is loved by more people. No matter what the people on the site think SA was better recevied and liked by the people who bought the game. But I'm not going to agrue about which one was better with a fanboy Jacky. And not even that Vice was not the smallest landmass. GTA's 3 Liberty City was. Also realism isn't always better. But in the case for more cities it is but walking for long periods of time? No.

 

Also I love the way Sergi is thinking....ah the dreams.....If only they would come true......( no sarcasm)

Edited June 13, 2009 by bobgtafan

[Algonquin Assassin]

To be honest I don't think the maps will get significantly larger. GTA IV's LC IMO was the perfect size.

 

Although I wouldn't mind seeing more diversity in the landscape, like SA had.

 

[CryptReaperDorian]

Ironic then, considering most people's favourite (Vice City) had the smallest landmass of an Grand Theft Auto to date.

 

I also found this quite funny:

 

 

They should had added a teleport to road feature at least... Plus I think muliptle cities would add realism in a way.

 

Contradicting statements or what?

If Vice is EVERYONE's favorite then why does SA have 21.5 million in sales and Vice has 17.5 and SA was considered better rated. I think that SA is loved by more people. No matter what the people on the site think SA was better recevied and liked by the people who bought the game. But I'm not going to agrue about which one was better with a fanboy Jacky. And not even that Vice was not the smallest landmass. GTA's 3 Liberty City was. Also realism isn't always better. But in the case for more cities it is but walking for long periods of time? No.

 

Also I love the way Sergi is thinking....ah the dreams.....If only they would come true......( no sarcasm)

You are correct that GTA III's LC is smaller than VC. GTA III's LC, however, felt quite a bit larger than VC as it was three major islands instead of two and lots of VC consisted of beaches.

 

Also, GTA IV's LC was never going to be the size of the real NYC.

 

GTA IV's map (LC and Alderney): 10.5 square miles

 

NYC: over 400 square miles

 

GTA SA's map wasn't only larger than GTA IV's map by area of landmass, but it also had a lot higher elevation and a much deeper depth.

 

Another note: When talking about GTA IV's map, you have to remember it isn't only LC.

[trickstar34]

Ironic then, considering most people's favourite (Vice City) had the smallest landmass of an Grand Theft Auto to date.

 

I also found this quite funny:

 

 

They should had added a teleport to road feature at least... Plus I think muliptle cities would add realism in a way.

 

Contradicting statements or what?

Remember that the first games on a console are always the test, just like GTA 3, then 3 years later they made a game with the size of at least 5 times the size of that city, and I believe they can do the same in this generation, it may take a longer release like SA, but it will be worth the wait.

[Insane Brandon]

City size means nothing to me. I would much rather have a small city with interiors for every building and lots of detail. Every house and store should have people in it and be able to be robbed. There should be more locations on the map like malls and stadiums.

[bobgtafan]

 

Ironic then, considering most people's favourite (Vice City) had the smallest landmass of an Grand Theft Auto to date.

 

I also found this quite funny:

 

 

They should had added a teleport to road feature at least... Plus I think muliptle cities would add realism in a way.

 

Contradicting statements or what?

If Vice is EVERYONE's favorite then why does SA have 21.5 million in sales and Vice has 17.5 and SA was considered better rated. I think that SA is loved by more people. No matter what the people on the site think SA was better recevied and liked by the people who bought the game. But I'm not going to agrue about which one was better with a fanboy Jacky. And not even that Vice was not the smallest landmass. GTA's 3 Liberty City was. Also realism isn't always better. But in the case for more cities it is but walking for long periods of time? No.

 

Also I love the way Sergi is thinking....ah the dreams.....If only they would come true......( no sarcasm)

You are correct that GTA III's LC is smaller than VC. GTA III's LC, however, felt quite a bit larger than VC as it was three major islands instead of two and lots of VC consisted of beaches.

 

Also, GTA IV's LC was never going to be the size of the real NYC.

 

GTA IV's map (LC and Alderney): 10.5 square miles

 

NYC: over 400 square miles

 

GTA SA's map wasn't only larger than GTA IV's map by area of landmass, but it also had a lot higher elevation and a much deeper depth.

 

Another note: When talking about GTA IV's map, you have to remember it isn't only LC.

Nope R* said the amount of detail in the world along with the size and the fact that to land is wasted makes Liberty larger than SA. Remember half of SA was just wasteland regardless if I liked it our not. Also to Brandon R* said when they made Vice City the reason they don't have every internor is because in their words it would be boring. O by the way when you say Liberty City that means the Liberty City metro in this case and that automatically includes Alderney State.

[CryptReaperDorian]

Ironic then, considering most people's favourite (Vice City) had the smallest landmass of an Grand Theft Auto to date.

 

I also found this quite funny:

 

 

They should had added a teleport to road feature at least... Plus I think muliptle cities would add realism in a way.

 

Contradicting statements or what?

If Vice is EVERYONE's favorite then why does SA have 21.5 million in sales and Vice has 17.5 and SA was considered better rated. I think that SA is loved by more people. No matter what the people on the site think SA was better recevied and liked by the people who bought the game. But I'm not going to agrue about which one was better with a fanboy Jacky. And not even that Vice was not the smallest landmass. GTA's 3 Liberty City was. Also realism isn't always better. But in the case for more cities it is but walking for long periods of time? No.

 

Also I love the way Sergi is thinking....ah the dreams.....If only they would come true......( no sarcasm)

You are correct that GTA III's LC is smaller than VC. GTA III's LC, however, felt quite a bit larger than VC as it was three major islands instead of two and lots of VC consisted of beaches.

 

Also, GTA IV's LC was never going to be the size of the real NYC.

 

GTA IV's map (LC and Alderney): 10.5 square miles

 

NYC: over 400 square miles

 

GTA SA's map wasn't only larger than GTA IV's map by area of landmass, but it also had a lot higher elevation and a much deeper depth.

 

Another note: When talking about GTA IV's map, you have to remember it isn't only LC.

Nope R* said the amount of detail in the world along with the size and the fact that to land is wasted makes Liberty larger than SA. Remember half of SA was just wasteland regardless if I liked it our not. Also to Brandon R* said when they made Vice City the reason they don't have every internor is because in their words it would be boring. O by the way when you say Liberty City that means the Liberty City metro in this case and that automatically includes Alderney State.

It depends what you consider wasted space. IMO, huge skyscrapers that you can't enter or interact with are a waste of space. I love all GTA games, but I believe GTA IV had more wasted space than GTA SA. In GTA IV you were pretty much limited to roads and if you drove on a beach or in Middle Park there were not many, if any, off-road vehicles. So that makes off-roading pretty useless. GTA SA had more specialized vehicles for different terrains and you weren't restricted to roads almost every minute of your gameplay. While GTA IV was amazing, I would consider it as a more cementbox game (a sandbox game that consists of a lot more of cement than soil or sand).

 

In the end of the day it's how you use the enviroment which decides what is wasted space. There is no definite answer to what is wasted space because it's all a part of a person's mind.

[bobgtafan]

Ironic then, considering most people's favourite (Vice City) had the smallest landmass of an Grand Theft Auto to date.

 

I also found this quite funny:

 

 

They should had added a teleport to road feature at least... Plus I think muliptle cities would add realism in a way.

 

Contradicting statements or what?

If Vice is EVERYONE's favorite then why does SA have 21.5 million in sales and Vice has 17.5 and SA was considered better rated. I think that SA is loved by more people. No matter what the people on the site think SA was better recevied and liked by the people who bought the game. But I'm not going to agrue about which one was better with a fanboy Jacky. And not even that Vice was not the smallest landmass. GTA's 3 Liberty City was. Also realism isn't always better. But in the case for more cities it is but walking for long periods of time? No.

 

Also I love the way Sergi is thinking....ah the dreams.....If only they would come true......( no sarcasm)

You are correct that GTA III's LC is smaller than VC. GTA III's LC, however, felt quite a bit larger than VC as it was three major islands instead of two and lots of VC consisted of beaches.

 

Also, GTA IV's LC was never going to be the size of the real NYC.

 

GTA IV's map (LC and Alderney): 10.5 square miles

 

NYC: over 400 square miles

 

GTA SA's map wasn't only larger than GTA IV's map by area of landmass, but it also had a lot higher elevation and a much deeper depth.

 

Another note: When talking about GTA IV's map, you have to remember it isn't only LC.

Nope R* said the amount of detail in the world along with the size and the fact that to land is wasted makes Liberty larger than SA. Remember half of SA was just wasteland regardless if I liked it our not. Also to Brandon R* said when they made Vice City the reason they don't have every internor is because in their words it would be boring. O by the way when you say Liberty City that means the Liberty City metro in this case and that automatically includes Alderney State.

It depends what you consider wasted space. IMO, huge skyscrapers that you can't enter or interact with are a waste of space. I love all GTA games, but I believe GTA IV had more wasted space than GTA SA. In GTA IV you were pretty much limited to roads and if you drove on a beach or in Middle Park there were not many, if any, off-road vehicles. So that makes off-roading pretty useless. GTA SA had more specialized vehicles for different terrains and you weren't restricted to roads almost every minute of your gameplay. While GTA IV was amazing, I would consider it as a more cementbox game (a sandbox game that consists of a lot more of cement than soil or sand).

 

In the end of the day it's how you use the enviroment which decides what is wasted space. There is no definite answer to what is wasted space because it's all a part of a person's mind.

You just took it to a whole new level....

[CryptReaperDorian]

It's possible that I might have taken it to a whole new level, but there are many factors that go into the space of the game. If you want Easter eggs on every block of the game, then you may find countryside wasted. However, if you just want to get away from crowded areas and be able to mess around without worrying about police then you may find large buildings and such as wasted space. The term "wasted space" is based on personal factors and just not on what the developers say.

 

Here is a major factor that goes with space. Does the game guide the player to visit or use an area? In GTA SA, R* does make use of most of the land they put in the game. Countryside has missions for Catalina, Are Going to San Fierro?, Body Harvest, etc. The desert has plenty of over-the-top missions from The Truth and Mike Toreno.

[Omnia sunt Communia]

 

Remember that the first games on a console are always the test, just like GTA 3, then 3 years later they made a game with the size of at least 5 times the size of that city, and I believe they can do the same in this generation, it may take a longer release like SA, but it will be worth the wait.

Why do people keep talking like this? Like the last generation of Grand Theft Auto games was the only and thus "definitive" series of games? People keep acting like this generation of games is going to copy the last generation simply because it's "always been like that."

 

Newsflash for you all, there were Grand Theft Auto games before GTA III. Four of them to be exact. GTA 1, GTA London '69, GTA London '61 and GTA 2 all came out before III, believe it or not.

 

Plus, if GTA IV was following the same pattern as GTA III, then don't you think we would of seen another game by now? Vice City was released only a year after III and considering the fact that GTA IV has been out little over a year now; don't you think we should be seeing another game by now?

 

Let's look at is this way:

 

GTA 1 era:

• GTA 1 (Liberty City/San Andreas/Vice City) 1997
• GTA London '69 (London) 1997
• GTA London '61 (London) 1997

GTA 2 era:

• GTA 2 (Anywhere City) 1999

GTA III era:

• GTA III (Liberty City) 2001
• GTA VC (Vice City) 2002
• GTA SA (Los Santos/San Fierro/Las Venturas) 2004
• GTA A (Liberty City) 2004
• GTA LCS (Liberty City) 2005
• GTA VCS (Vice City) 2006

GTA IV era:

• GTA IV (Liberty City) 2008
  • TL&D (Liberty City) 2008
  • BoGT (Liberty City) 2009
• GTA CTW (Liberty City) 2009

There's no correlation between the amount of time between titles, not too mention size and location. I doubt Rockstar are as predictable as most people on this forum would like to think.

[CryptReaperDorian]

@Jacky Fiend: I find it funny how you listed TLAD and TBOGT as expansions to GTA IV, which is correct, but you didn't list GTA L'69 and GTA L'61 as expansions to GTA(1) as that's what they are.

[Omnia sunt Communia]

@Jacky Fiend: I find it funny how you listed TLAD and TBOGT as expansions to GTA IV, which is correct, but you didn't list GTA L'69 and GTA L'61 as expansions to GTA(1) as that's what they are.

I don't see Grand Theft Auto London to be any different too Vice City, in terms of "game standing." Both Vice City and London are standalone games that use the same engine as the original game (GTA III and GTA 1 respectively) but use different settings and characters.

 

The Lost & Damned and Ballad of Gay Tony, however, are both set in the same place, time and using the same characters as GTA IV and have yet to be released on separate discs.

[bobgtafan]

Well you know how he feels so much pride for good o London he has to list the DLC as full games. Don't blame him really. But since most GTA players want a state and R* planned to do a state at first but wanted to get the details of a city down first it's only common sense they would probably go bigger and do a state. Unless they trip us up again which is possible.

[Omnia sunt Communia]

Well you know how he feels so much pride for good o London he has to list the DLC as full games. Don't blame him really.

Did you read what I said? London was released as a separate game (utilizing different settings/stories/vehicles/sayings), on a separate disc. The Lost & Damned and Ballad of Gay Tony are pieces of downloadable content that are set in the same place, time, and use the same characters as GTA IV.

[CryptReaperDorian]

@Jacky Fiend:  I find it funny how you listed TLAD and TBOGT as expansions to GTA IV, which is correct, but you didn't list GTA L'69 and GTA L'61 as expansions to GTA(1) as that's what they are.

I don't see Grand Theft Auto London to be any different too Vice City, in terms of "game standing." Both Vice City and London are standalone games that use the same engine as the original game (GTA III and GTA 1 respectively) but use different settings and characters.

 

The Lost & Damned and Ballad of Gay Tony, however, are both set in the same place, time and using the same characters as GTA IV and have yet to be released on separate discs.

Well, they are considered to be expansion packs since they require the original GTA to play, but I get what you mean. It's dumb when somebody says TLAD is like a new game.

 

Here is a comparison of TLAD and GTA L'69.

 

TLAD:

1. Same map as GTA IV.

2. Same timeframe as GTA IV.

3. 23 new vehicles (one which isn't driveable)

4. 22 new missions

 

GTA L'69:

1. New city that GTA(1) didn't have.

2. Different timeframe than GTA(1).

3. 30 new vehicles.

4. 32 new missions.

 

While GTA L'69 and GTA L'61 are pretty much completely different than the original GTA, they still were made as expansions.

[Omnia sunt Communia]

The copy of Grand Theft Auto London I have doesn't require Grand Theft Auto 1 to play. Though the original version did; that was simply a hardware limitation (all games did it back then).

[DarrinPA]

Despite what Jacky says, I do believe that the next full GTA game will be bigger [in size - maybe, in detail and add ons - for sure] because they no longer have to put a lot of work into creating another game engine. And that's NOT just because it happened like that in the GTA3 "canon" but because it's common sense. Not having to do much work on something as demanding as the game engine can now leave more time for other stuff.

[bobgtafan]

The dreams I'm having of a state.....hell maybe the reason it's taking so long is because they are adding so much s***? Hell I bet 5 bucks that the next GTA will have these things.

 

A State ( technally GTA 4 had two but you get what I mean)

Planes

more tv stations

more internet

better peds

 

Some of those things are given but I think they are creating a State. It only makes sense.

[evog]

I don't care about the size of the next GTA, as long as it has lots of detail and interiors. But, yeah, a large map would be great!

[ScratchCard]

Ironic then, considering most people's favourite (Vice City) had the smallest landmass of an Grand Theft Auto to date.

 

I also found this quite funny:

 

 

They should had added a teleport to road feature at least... Plus I think muliptle cities would add realism in a way.

 

Contradicting statements or what?

Remember that the first games on a console are always the test, just like GTA 3, then 3 years later they made a game with the size of at least 5 times the size of that city, and I believe they can do the same in this generation, it may take a longer release like SA, but it will be worth the wait.

Well infact, VC is the location most people would like to see in the next GTA, just look at 'The Location' poll.

[Insane Brandon]

I don't care about the size of the next GTA, as long as it has lots of detail and interiors. But, yeah, a large map would be great!

Me too. Most of the space in San Andreas was wasted. I want to see detail. If the map is Vice City sized but every building has an interior and most buildings have a purpose I will be happy.

[macorules94]

hmm for me its a tie between multiple cities and countryside, and one city no countryside but bigger than LC

[Neehtils]

I would like a new and improve bigger Vice City.

[nerner]

Well if they are going to make it bigger then they might aswell have multiple cities and countryside.

[paul]

Yeah i would like to see a city bigger than IV's but without wasted spaces like the airport in singleplayer. I don't care if it has a countryside since in SA most of it was wasted space... let's see how the next GTA will be