Real time Economy and Crime

[Sergi]

Alot of people seem to have been severely unimpressed with how LC was portrayed. Yes the city was large and beautiful but it lacked life and a real sense of adventure as every area seemed to be nothing more then just different architecture in different areas. A concept that I think would really add serious depth to GTA is having a real time economy and crime system. Areas are classified as high class and low down due to the economy surrounding the areas. What if you could affect the whole enviroment.

 

Crime blotters are used in real life as things to help designate high crime areas. Imagine that there is 3 distinct levels used in every district. Green means the area is very safe and police response in these areas would be heavy. Think of a suburban area or a very high profile district such as a jewelery district. Then you have yellow which means the area is borderline. Some parts may be safer while others will be a little more dangerous. Police response would vary. Then of course you would have red areas which are the high profile areas such as various projects or gang infested areas. The enviroment and peds will adjust to how the area is.

 

The areas you perform crimes in will make the safeness go down and in turn cause businesses to leave or businesses will adjust to the changing enviroment. Now if you begin to do all this dirt in the high profile areas the more crime ridden areas may see a decrease in crime and genterfication may kick in. Also these areas are affected by how much cashflow is involved.

[Algonquin Assassin]

So something like True Crime: NYC where areas were represented by criminal presence in that particular area? If that's what you mean I definitely agree GTA would benefit from something like this.

[Sergi]

So something like True Crime: NYC where areas were represented by criminal presence in that particular area? If that's what you mean I definitely agree GTA would benefit from something like this.

Yeah something like that. It would add a constantly changing dynamic because the various criminal elements would be accessed at various levels and they constantly set up shop in new areas. People want that sense of danger well how much more dangerous could it get when walking through a red zone in a gang infested area knowing that the police presence is already non existent and peds in that area will be used to gunfights so police response will take more time. Think about if in SA when you went through Ganton a shootout occured but the police took time to come but when they come they come 4 or more cars deep and birdwatchers(police helicopters) and the SWAT team comes. The Wanted level system could also be revamped off this new system by having a new police response depending on area.

[NinjaWJ]

good idea!! really changes up gameplay. would make the game more dynamic

[Kwandilibro]

I'd rather have areas with a set danger level. If I understand correct, your idea would mean that areas like star Junction could suddenly become Ganto, provided the affluent businesses move out. Which, in reverse, would mean that a place that was meant to be dangerous like Firefly projects could suddenly become very safe, with heavy police patrole, providing the affluent businesses moved in. Which would be stupid, IMO.

 

I don't know, maybe I intrepeted that wrong.

 

However, varying police presence based on the "safeness" of a neighborhood, that would be nice.

[Sergi]

I'd rather have areas with a set danger level. If I understand correct, your idea would mean that areas like star Junction could suddenly become Ganto, provided the affluent businesses move out. Which, in reverse, would mean that a place that was meant to be dangerous like Firefly projects could suddenly become very safe, with heavy police patrole, providing the affluent businesses moved in. Which would be stupid, IMO.

 

I don't know, maybe I intrepeted that wrong.

 

However, varying police presence based on the "safeness" of a neighborhood, that would be nice.

How would it be stupid exactly? Times Square went a complete 180 from 1993-2003.In regards to the projects, genterfication has been happening in those areas for years. There's projects located right across the street from very affluent areas in NYC and rest assured the crime in that area is nowhere near as high as it would have been before that area across the street got new businesses. But also rest assured if people started wilding out in that area businesses would move out and things would get back to the way they were. That's the concept I'm speaking on. The amount of crimes commited and cashflow in that area is what would designate the areas.

[vans123]

R* wont do kind of this stuff started to be lazy when doing GTA editions i would sh*t my pants if they do something like this couse i call it impossible

[slyeagle]

i think this is a cool idea, it would take a lot of code but it is very doable.

 

[Kwandilibro]

I'd rather have areas with a set danger level. If I understand correct, your idea would mean that areas like star Junction could suddenly become Ganto, provided the affluent businesses move out. Which, in reverse, would mean that a place that was meant to be dangerous like Firefly projects could suddenly become very safe, with heavy police patrole, providing the affluent businesses moved in. Which would be stupid, IMO.

 

I don't know, maybe I intrepeted that wrong.

 

However, varying police presence based on the "safeness" of a neighborhood, that would be nice.

How would it be stupid exactly? Times Square went a complete 180 from 1993-2003.In regards to the projects, genterfication has been happening in those areas for years. There's projects located right across the street from very affluent areas in NYC and rest assured the crime in that area is nowhere near as high as it would have been before that area across the street got new businesses. But also rest assured if people started wilding out in that area businesses would move out and things would get back to the way they were. That's the concept I'm speaking on. The amount of crimes commited and cashflow in that area is what would designate the areas.

well, I know IRL gentrification and urban decay happen a lot, but not in the short amount of time GTA is usuallyy set in. Think- GTA IV took place over two months. A Neighborhood can't change that much over two months, it needs a few years. So although it would be an interesting feature, it's just unrealistic timewise.

 

It'd be kind of like building a skyscraper from nothing in two months. it's impossible.

[Official General]

I agree with the part about police responses and actions :

 

All areas will warrant swift, heavy and aggressive police action on wanted levels of 4 stars or more.

 

Wealtheir neighbourhoods and areas - Very fast police response times once alerted on a 2-star wanted level. For more serious crimes, police arrive in very large numbers and are much more heavily armed, also much more aggressive.

 

Middle-income/working class neighbourhoods - Once alerted on a 2-star wanted level, the police arrive quick enough, but not very fast. Arrives in average-sized squads and is fairly aggressive.

 

Poorer areas and ghettoes - Police take their time in arriving, once alerted, even on a 3-star wanted level. Do not often come in big squads. Normally armed with basic police weapons. Only will be very aggressive and larger if wanted level is high and back up is called.

 

I like the idea of that.

 

I do agree with Kwandilibro on this - I think the gentrification idea is going a bit too far, and it will also complicated the game even further for many people. It sounds like an interesting idea, but I genuinely feel dont think GTA needs it.

Edited August 17, 2010 by Official General

[Sergi]

I'd rather have areas with a set danger level. If I understand correct, your idea would mean that areas like star Junction could suddenly become Ganto, provided the affluent businesses move out. Which, in reverse, would mean that a place that was meant to be dangerous like Firefly projects could suddenly become very safe, with heavy police patrole, providing the affluent businesses moved in. Which would be stupid, IMO.

 

I don't know, maybe I intrepeted that wrong.

 

However, varying police presence based on the "safeness" of a neighborhood, that would be nice.

How would it be stupid exactly? Times Square went a complete 180 from 1993-2003.In regards to the projects, genterfication has been happening in those areas for years. There's projects located right across the street from very affluent areas in NYC and rest assured the crime in that area is nowhere near as high as it would have been before that area across the street got new businesses. But also rest assured if people started wilding out in that area businesses would move out and things would get back to the way they were. That's the concept I'm speaking on. The amount of crimes commited and cashflow in that area is what would designate the areas.

well, I know IRL gentrification and urban decay happen a lot, but not in the short amount of time GTA is usuallyy set in. Think- GTA IV took place over two months. A Neighborhood can't change that much over two months, it needs a few years. So although it would be an interesting feature, it's just unrealistic timewise.

 

It'd be kind of like building a skyscraper from nothing in two months. it's impossible.

It's also unrealistic time wise that a day can happen in 48 minutes in GTA. It's also unrealistic timewise that while a storyline may take place over 2 months the ammount of time that actually passes while you're playing the game in the game world extends well beyond the stroyline. So I don't think time and realism is that much of a factor when time and realism isn't done in a realistic way in the 1st place. And with this component an area wouldn't just change in a short amount of time. For an area to go from Green to Red it would take a whole hell of a lot of criminal activity to occur in that area for the are to become crime ridden.

[General Goose]

Yeah, different areas need to make gangs, peds and police behave and respond differently. I agree with that. But the player shouldn't be able to change a neighbourhood. It's just unrealistic, in my view.

[Sergi]

Yeah, different areas need to make gangs, peds and police behave and respond differently. I agree with that. But the player shouldn't be able to change a neighbourhood. It's just unrealistic, in my view.

Then you obviously don't understand how police designate high crime areas, how areas can go from high value to low value in 40 years and vice versa. Take white flight for instance. The houses the whites were living in were upsclae or just seperated from black people. Once black people were able to move into these areas what did the white people do? They left and the value of the area went down and soon enough crime started happening. Public housing didn't start out as low income apartments for mainly minorities with the perception of them being high crime places with drugs and gangs. Projects were at 1 point for mixed income families mainly white and then once more and more black people moved in and crime started happening white people left.

 

Areas shift like that in real life for the same exact reasons I stated with the OP. Just in real life it takes a decade or more for areas to really go from high or medium value and not much crime to low value and crime and vice versa. However as I stated it would just be an interesting concept that would always add value to the game especially once you've beaten the stroyline as well as those times when you're still playing the storyline but want to do side activities as well. Then again I'm basing this idea off my hope that Empire Building and or Gang Control is in the game. Say if it's set in Vinewood as some recent rumors suggest then a highly updated Los Santos will be there as well and be the same size of LC at least. That would include Vincewood, Los Santos, Ganton and other areas surrounding LA and LA County. Gangs are spread around all over LA so think of how it would be in LS. High crime areas such as how South Central used to be has gotten genterfication and is called South LA for a reason now because it's nowhere near as bad as it used to be. But the gang problem will continue to get worse because there's always a sh*t in crime every decade. The early 90s were more dangerous then the mid and late 90s. The early 00s were more dangerous then the mid and late 00s. The early 2010s have already been deadly. Chicago alone has had numerous occasions of 30+ shootings a night.

 

That's what I'm getting at for this concept. If you and your gang or crew or even soldiers that work for you begin doing crime in areas others organizations may begin to try to move into that area and then certain areas will begin to get safer over time and then value goes up in that area. If Empire Building is in there it would add that depth that so many want by say if you purchased a building say a store in a more broken down area at a low price but then another area gets more dangerous and your area gets safer and you sell the store at a higher price.

[General Goose]

Well, obviously, if there are gang war concepts or a story or empire building heralds a neighbourhood changing, then so be it. But the player alone should not be able to change it in their random antics, that was what I was referring to, and sorry if that was not what you were referring to.

 

However, I don't want to see the whole character, wealth or demographics of a neighbourhood changing just because of a players actions.