grope_4_that_date Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 Ok, San Andreas will not be the next GTA. It's stupid! Here are my reasons: In stores... NEVER 1. Time Gap- San Andreas came out in 2004! That was only five years ago. The success of San Andreas was record breaking. It is the most successful game of it's generation. Rockstar is more creative than this, guys. They don't have to rewrite old ideas. 2. Graphics ImprovementThe only thing different would be the graphics. All the major landmarks were covered! Do you want Rockstar to make another San Andreas every five years, because it will have a graphics update? 3. "The Order" Rockstar isn't going back to old places, but if they are, why would they go to San Andreas first? People will complain that they've skipped Vice City. Plus, GTA3 was released in 2001, which was about eight years ago. So in between GTA3 and GTA4, there were about 4 GTA franchises (two if you only count Vice and SA). Regarding GTA4, San Andreas was the last franchise, so do you really think they'd do it next? 4. Repeating ThingsRockstar said they don't like re-doing cities (you know what I mean). Everyone keeps saying this, but everyone keeps ignoring it. They said something like "we spend year buidling these places, we don't wanna redo them... blah blah blah." Well, if they did San Andreas again... I only did this because there was a 'f-ck' London, 'f-ck Vice' and 'f-ck' Chicago thread...(so someone needs to make a 'f-ck' France one) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
socal000 Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 I completely agree with every point you make. Best thread ever. Thank you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ObsydianRaven Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 I agree with you %100 just like Social said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxopower Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 I agree too. But I don’t want to close the possibility of Rockstar making a GTA with just one of the cities (like GTA Los Santos) or maybe just the cost (GTA LS and SF). But I can’t really see them making a new GTA SA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duxfever Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 I fifth that. If anything, they should seriously go northwest . I mean not because I live there or any anything but there's been lots of crime here lately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dademo Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 •2. Graphics Improvement The only thing different would be the graphics. All the major landmarks were covered! Do you want Rockstar to make another San Andreas every five years, because it will have a graphics update? sound good to me, I love San Andreas and with a graphics update it would just be amazing, especially over XBL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cilogy Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 I'm quite sick of people making this "not f-ckin' [location]" threads. Consolidate it into a "cities that people don't f-ckin' want" thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DX2069 Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 (edited) im sorry sir but ur gonna have to get over the fact that the next gta is going to be in SA Edited December 7, 2009 by DX2069 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
socal000 Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 im sorry sir but ur gonna have to get over the fact that the next gta is going to be in SA Proof please?...None? oh, so why do you say that then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jnzooger Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 3. "The Order" Rockstar isn't going back to old places, but if they are, why would they go to San Andreas first? People will complain that they've skipped Vice City. Plus, GTA3 was released in 2001, which was about eight years ago. So in between GTA3 and GTA4, there were about 4 GTA franchises (two if you only count Vice and SA). Regarding GTA4, San Andreas was the last franchise, so do you really think they'd do it next? If you want to talk about order, then people should complain about GTA3-era's order. Anyone that really knows GTA, knows that GTA3 wasn't the first GTA. GTA1 did NOT go LC->VC->SA, it went LC->SA->VC. So if the next GTA were to be SA, they would actually be going back to the right order. Also, counting GTAIII, there were 6 game in the GTA3-era. (III, VC, SA, Adv, LCS, and VCS) Thus between SA and IV, there were 2 LC games, and 1 VC game. Your argument for "The Order" is moot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grope_4_that_date Posted December 7, 2009 Author Share Posted December 7, 2009 im sorry sir but ur gonna have to get over the fact that the next gta is going to be in SA "Prior to its release, San Andreas was one of the most highly anticipated video games of 2004...with an average review score of 95%...Common praises were made about the game's open-endedness, the size of the state of San Andreas, and the engaging storyline and voice acting." IGN rated the game a 9.9/10 (the highest score it has ever awarded to a PlayStation 2 game), calling it "the defining piece of software." GameSpot rated the game 9.6/10, giving it an Editor's Choice award. 1UP.com network gave San Andreas an A rating Official U.S. PlayStation Magazine gave a score of 10/10 After reading that I thought to myself: With all their success in making this game, would they reall want to do it all again? They accomplished so much in developing that game; therefore, I think they accomplished the concept of San Andreas itself. There is no need to going back...it was perfect. Well, there is no need to going back so quickly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ViceCity09 Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 I'm all for new cities but they should do Vice City and San Andreas againt with next gen, forget about this "they captured the feeling crap" they could do ten times better. Anway most people would want a Vice City and San Andreas re-done so why would Rockstar ignore them all? I would love a gta in he North-West with the mountains. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmurray01 Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 I would actually like another GTA SA. But with different cars, better graphics and different story line. Just keep the city, I always loved the San Andreas location. A good amount of country to hop in your Ranger and do some off-roading, the city to hop in your sedan and enjoy the ride and OF COURSE the air ports to hop in your Cheetah and floor it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ViceCity09 Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 Apart from all of this bullsh*t about capturing the feeling, can someone tell me anything bad about the actual location of San Andreas because I can't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Interrobangin Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 Apart from all of this bullsh*t about capturing the feeling, can someone tell me anything bad about the actual location of San Andreas because I can't. It is too awesome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ViceCity09 Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 Apart from all of this bullsh*t about capturing the feeling, can someone tell me anything bad about the actual location of San Andreas because I can't. It is too awesome. Exactly lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grope_4_that_date Posted December 8, 2009 Author Share Posted December 8, 2009 Apart from all of this bullsh*t about capturing the feeling, can someone tell me anything bad about the actual location of San Andreas because I can't. It's not going to happen! San Andreas was amazing! If Rockstar does it again, they'd have to make it better. Since San Andreas was already the best, it would already put Rockstar at a high standard, even before they start the game. I don't know how to make it any clearer. Whatever Rockstar does to a new San Andreas, people are just going to compare it to the old game. San Andreas wouldnt be like GTA3 was to GTA4. GTA3 looked like crap, the city looked nothing like New York. You look at GTA4, and you'd be 100% possitive it was based on New York City. Another San Andreas would not be a good choice for Rockstar, not yet. It's too recent, too well-remembered, and too-good. If he was alive, I'm sure Leonardo da Vinci could paint a better Mona Lisa if he could, with all the improvements in technology and art... But would he? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirPsychoSexy Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 I really couldn't care less. VC and San An will get old sometime, but not yet. Another game with those places wouldn't be old, unless, they do as grope says and just update the graphics. I mean, LC is about 75% of San An, and San An has to be bigger than that. If they redo any of the old places they have to totally redo them, make them bigger, better and deeper. Basically, if we get a new VC or a new San An, they won't look exactly like the old ones, similiar, with the same names of places, but more of it. They would be different, and that's why it wouldn't get old just yet. Would appreciate a new location too though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flesh-n-Bone Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 San Andreas is based on some of my favorite US cities so I'm all for a remake, but with Vice City, I don't know... I would not mind if SA was remade at the same time from someone else's point of view. That's how big my bias towards the culture and the location is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhoda Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 I do agree somewhat, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't like to see it. On the contrary, I'd be very interested in seeing it in full, true, next-generation gaming beauty. However greedy and selfish it may sound to refer to it as "next-gen" (five years isn't very long at all, certainly doesn't warrant a re-boot), I would personally love to see it. Bringing it back to my original point of agreeing with you though, I do believe R* can deliver so much more through original ideas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imeancomon Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 i hope we play as a gangsta in bompton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AntonYoung92 Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 i hope we play as a gangsta in bompton It's called Compton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imeancomon Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 thats what she said Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnthMUFC-Champs Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 Agreed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanManUtd Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 The thing is, San Andreas can have a completely new story without any feeling that it's just a remake into IV's physics. This can't be done with Vice City. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AntonYoung92 Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 thats what she said What the f*ck is that supposed to mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General Goose Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 The thing is, San Andreas can have a completely new story without any feeling that it's just a remake into IV's physics. This can't be done with Vice City. True dat. SA, even the cities, have waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more variety and potential then Vice Kity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AntonYoung92 Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 The thing is, San Andreas can have a completely new story without any feeling that it's just a remake into IV's physics. This can't be done with Vice City. True dat. SA, even the cities, have waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more variety and potential then Vice Kity. I agree, it wasn't the setting that made Vice City a great game, it was the storyline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilentSeas Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 The thing is, San Andreas can have a completely new story without any feeling that it's just a remake into IV's physics. This can't be done with Vice City. What do you mean that you can't make a new game without making it feel like a remake? I'm sure that R* could prevent VC from feeling like a remake just by redesigning the city just like they did with LC. I'm also sure that just by changing the era that its setting they would create a new atmosphere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ViceCity09 Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 Compare San Andreas graphics, physics and gameplay to GTA IV's graphics, physics and gameplay....nuff said... 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