Faithful Recreation vs Originality

[Algonquin Assassin]

As most of us have been speculating about GTA V's location the obvious two locations have been VC and SA. As has been the tradition of the GTA series R* uses real life locations and creates them in their own way. Now the reason I brought this topic up is because I was thinking of GTA II. For those of us who have played GTA II we would know that it's set in "Anywhere City".

 

Anywhere City was just a city which wasn't based on any city in particular and we could basically imagine it as any city we liked.

 

So I guess my question is would you prefer a faithful recreation similar to LC in GTA IV where it closely resembled NYC, or let R* explore their creative side and make something for us that is largely original even if it had sprinkles of influences of existing cities/states?

[kmanmx]

I prefer a real location. It's more exciting to play in a real location. It's adds a lot to the story and gameplay i think.

 

Besides, Liberty City in GTA4 showed it was possible to copy a city enough so that it was recognizeable, yet also changed and editted in favour of gameplay. I think this is a good route to go down.

[van Reusemaijer]

Should be nice!

[Ispintechno]

 

I prefer a real location. It's more exciting to play in a real location. It's adds a lot to the story and gameplay i think.

 

Besides, Liberty City in GTA4 showed it was possible to copy a city enough so that it was recognizeable, yet also changed and editted in favour of gameplay. I think this is a good route to go down.

I think I agree with you but would word it as in not a faithful recreation. GTA4's Liberty city was undeniably New York-like with a non-faithful amount of creativity for scale and gameplay. This I like very much.

 

Imagine GTA using LA Noires faithful map. That would pretty much suck balls IMO. Not to mention it spaces interesting map features to far away making things repetitive as it is in the real world and to slow too change into something else and exciting.

I love faithful landmarks, but don't like faithful scale. I'd like a bunch of different fun things slammed into one map.

[Nebby]

Besides, Liberty City in GTA4 showed it was possible to copy a city enough so that it was recognizeable, yet also changed and editted in favour of gameplay. I think this is a good route to go down.

Exactly my thought's.

 

But, to be honest...Rockstar is now a realism whore. SO, with this said, I wouldn't expect them to do something like that. I think they're going to stick with copying other cities.

[Sinister Assassin]

Ide like recreated cities with originally designed countryside and rural areas. I want it to look really good though. I want life like dense forests

[annie_himself]

Liberty City, Vice City, San Andreas > Port Carverton

[meson1]

The reason Rockstar base their maps on real life cities is because it helps the audience, the player, identify with it. This familiarity makes it easier to create an atmosphere and a feel.

 

You lose all that by trying to create an all new fictional city.

 

As mentioned above, they stopped attempting to create a fully fictional cities after Anywhere City.

 

They even learnt from GTA III's Liberty City, which was an amalgam of east coast cities, that it's actually better to create any given location based on just one real life counterpart.

[Secura]

Besides, Liberty City in GTA4 showed it was possible to copy a city enough so that it was recognizeable, yet also changed and editted in favour of gameplay. I think this is a good route to go down.

Exactly my thought's.

 

But, to be honest...Rockstar is now a realism whore. SO, with this said, I wouldn't expect them to do something like that. I think they're going to stick with copying other cities.

R* has never been a realism whore. Just because IV has better graphics and animation doesn't mean that It's the most realistic. I think many SA fanboys see IV as more realistic because It lacks so many features that SA possessed but by that Logic III must be the most realistic R* game ever.... *Facepalm*.

[Original Light]

Besides, Liberty City in GTA4 showed it was possible to copy a city enough so that it was recognizeable, yet also changed and editted in favour of gameplay. I think this is a good route to go down.

Exactly my thought's.

 

But, to be honest...Rockstar is now a realism whore. SO, with this said, I wouldn't expect them to do something like that. I think they're going to stick with copying other cities.

R* has never been a realism whore. Just because IV has better graphics and animation doesn't mean that It's the most realistic. I think many SA fanboys see IV as more realistic because It lacks so many features that SA possessed but by that Logic III must be the most realistic R* game ever.... *Facepalm*.

Why can't we have a little sillyness, and a little realism? Best of both worlds.

[_GTAFREAK_]

I prefer the "reality-based" locations, just like the most of the GTAs... even though it isn't a block-by-block recreation of real life cities, I like it that way!

[mantis117]

I would like to see a contemporary reimagining of San Andreas or Vice City. Like IV was a much better and more faithful recreation of New York than it was in III. But honestly i think whatever R* are working on will be great and i'll be perfectly happy with something new and fresh.

[_GTAFREAK_]

 

I would like to see a contemporary reimagining of San Andreas or Vice City. Like IV was a much better and more faithful recreation of New York than it was in III. But honestly i think whatever R* are working on will be great and i'll be perfectly happy with something new and fresh.

Yeah, that's right... I think the same way you do: SA or VC are my top favorite locations, although a new one would be very interesting as well!

Whatever R* is "cooking" for us, it is going to be just damn nice for sure!

[Nebby]

Besides, Liberty City in GTA4 showed it was possible to copy a city enough so that it was recognizeable, yet also changed and editted in favour of gameplay. I think this is a good route to go down.

Exactly my thought's.

 

But, to be honest...Rockstar is now a realism whore. SO, with this said, I wouldn't expect them to do something like that. I think they're going to stick with copying other cities.

R* has never been a realism whore. Just because IV has better graphics and animation doesn't mean that It's the most realistic. I think many SA fanboys see IV as more realistic because It lacks so many features that SA possessed but by that Logic III must be the most realistic R* game ever.... *Facepalm*.

I never stated that they were always a realism whore, I in fact stated that

"Rockstar is now a realism whore."

 

[EternalAgony]

Besides, Liberty City in GTA4 showed it was possible to copy a city enough so that it was recognizeable, yet also changed and editted in favour of gameplay. I think this is a good route to go down.

Exactly my thought's.

 

But, to be honest...Rockstar is now a realism whore. SO, with this said, I wouldn't expect them to do something like that. I think they're going to stick with copying other cities.

R* has never been a realism whore. Just because IV has better graphics and animation doesn't mean that It's the most realistic. I think many SA fanboys see IV as more realistic because It lacks so many features that SA possessed but by that Logic III must be the most realistic R* game ever.... *Facepalm*.

I never stated that they were always a realism whore, I in fact stated that

"Rockstar is now a realism whore."

How can Rockstar now be a realism whore? You must have played TBOGT or Chinatown Wars, both of which had similar over-the-top, unrealistic gameplay.

Just because they set the game in a more true to life location, with more realistic elements added doesn't make Rockstar obsessive.

[Secura]

Besides, Liberty City in GTA4 showed it was possible to copy a city enough so that it was recognizeable, yet also changed and editted in favour of gameplay. I think this is a good route to go down.

Exactly my thought's.

 

But, to be honest...Rockstar is now a realism whore. SO, with this said, I wouldn't expect them to do something like that. I think they're going to stick with copying other cities.

R* has never been a realism whore. Just because IV has better graphics and animation doesn't mean that It's the most realistic. I think many SA fanboys see IV as more realistic because It lacks so many features that SA possessed but by that Logic III must be the most realistic R* game ever.... *Facepalm*.

I never stated that they were always a realism whore, I in fact stated that

"Rockstar is now a realism whore."

I made this post on September 3rd 2011 up to this point they've yet to become a realism whore. Please try to find a better comeback.

[TellEmRye]

I wouldn't be happy if R* created another 'anywhere city', I much prefer it to be recognisable.

[AndrefromEstonia]

Firstly, R* puts more effort into realism, so recreations they will be. And i think GTA2 was like in the future settings. There by, they didn't use a real city.

[Nebby]

Besides, Liberty City in GTA4 showed it was possible to copy a city enough so that it was recognizeable, yet also changed and editted in favour of gameplay. I think this is a good route to go down.

Exactly my thought's.

 

But, to be honest...Rockstar is now a realism whore. SO, with this said, I wouldn't expect them to do something like that. I think they're going to stick with copying other cities.

R* has never been a realism whore. Just because IV has better graphics and animation doesn't mean that It's the most realistic. I think many SA fanboys see IV as more realistic because It lacks so many features that SA possessed but by that Logic III must be the most realistic R* game ever.... *Facepalm*.

I never stated that they were always a realism whore, I in fact stated that

"Rockstar is now a realism whore."

I made this post on September 3rd 2011 up to this point they've yet to become a realism whore. Please try to find a better comeback.

I do not understand what you mean by "comeback". This isn't a rap battle. And it's obvious that Rockstar is more into realism than over the top game's like Saint's Row. It's just a fact. Imagine how you felt the first time you watched IV's trailer. It felt almost real, did it not? That's the type of effect they want people to have with there product's.

[Kirsty]

I prefer recreations as close as possible to existing cities.

 

It's not all about realism IMO. Cities can have certain groups or cultures, so basing a game off this means Rockstar can easily mock them or make a spoof out of it. If a city is completely original, where would they base the stories from? It's also fun to see how different landmarks etc that are well recognised are interpreted, like the Statue of Happiness.

[D- Ice]

Great topic man.

Since the GTA 3 Generation and the New GTA 4, R* has been using "Real" Cities, and I think most people here are banking on it for the next game, as they think that's the trend now with GTA.

However, infact R* has been seemlessly switching between fictional and real cities since the very first games - GTA 1 and GTA London 1969 and 1961. Also arguably, GTA 3's LC is just a generic East Coast US City, and Vice City is just a generic Florida city - "Real" Cities only started with SA.

 

As for my preferance, I'd definately say they should use a fictional city. I always found them far more interesting, original and exciting than semi-fictional cities based on real-life ones.

Despite it's breath-taking graphics, enourmous size and very faithful recreation, I found GTA 4's LC the most boring, uninteresting and tiresome GTA setting yet. While GTA 2's Anywhere City was by far the most interesting and exciting I found despite it's horrendous top-view graphics which never really allowed you to be fully immersed in it.

 

Fictional Cities allow the developers to really have full creative freedom without the constraints of basing it on a real city. They can really create an atmosphere as thick and immersive as they want.

Since they can create a completely original city, it will also be extremely fascinating as now one would know what to expect, unlike real life cities - especially main US ones which we've all seen a million times before thanks to Hollywood and the mass media.

 

Finally, just as you said, players can also imagine the City to be anywhere they want. To me in GTA 2, the Commercial Sector resembled Manhatten, NYC, and Tokyo, whereas the Residential Sector some backwater Midwest trailer-park area in the US, some third-world corporate-built community haven for employees with the Zaibatsu area, and some generic US housing projects. The Industrial Sector was reminiscent of any major industrial area - whether communist Russia thanks to the Russian Mafia gang there, or maybe somewhere in the West thanks to the rebellion of the Hare Krishnas against it.

This all just made you want to explore the areas a lot more as you really don't know what to expect.

 

Also the ridiculously high violence and masses of casualties in any GTA game will be a lot more believable - who will believe 40 guys beng killed in a drug deal right in the middle of NYC... the very next day 30 AK-wielding Mafia guys being gunned down as revenge for some pathetic gang disagreement.

 

So I' definately say completely fictional cities are the best.

 

 

[Magic_Al]

The shift from fictional locations to fictionalized locations is accompanied by the shift from original music to licensed music. Both changes allow the game to borrow emotions you already have in addition to creating emotions from scratch.

 

The cities are still intended to be completely fictional. That's why all the place names are different. That's why I really dislike reality mods that change LCPD to NYPD or whatever. It breaks the game world to do that. The sights and sounds are meant to affect the right brain, but if you bring in names then that's bringing unwanted baggage into the left brain.

[visionist]

That's why I really dislike reality mods that change LCPD to NYPD or whatever. It breaks the game world to do that. The sights and sounds are meant to affect the right brain, but if you bring in names then that's bringing unwanted baggage into the left brain.

+1 I agree absolutely. I remember an interview with Sam Houser who said "GTA IV's Liberty City is more akin to the New York we all know and Love from Hollywood Movies, rather than the real thing- everything is just that little bit larger than life". Whilst I agree with the intentions behind his idea, I felt that he was wrong about Liberty City; it's not a larger than life New York, but a distinctly watered-down one, in my opinion.

 

R* can only make the cities bigger and more detailed in my eyes. Countryside is not the magic gameplay pill all the SA fanboys would have us believe.

[Secura]

Besides, Liberty City in GTA4 showed it was possible to copy a city enough so that it was recognizeable, yet also changed and editted in favour of gameplay. I think this is a good route to go down.

Exactly my thought's.

 

But, to be honest...Rockstar is now a realism whore. SO, with this said, I wouldn't expect them to do something like that. I think they're going to stick with copying other cities.

R* has never been a realism whore. Just because IV has better graphics and animation doesn't mean that It's the most realistic. I think many SA fanboys see IV as more realistic because It lacks so many features that SA possessed but by that Logic III must be the most realistic R* game ever.... *Facepalm*.

I never stated that they were always a realism whore, I in fact stated that

"Rockstar is now a realism whore."

I made this post on September 3rd 2011 up to this point they've yet to become a realism whore. Please try to find a better comeback.

I do not understand what you mean by "comeback". This isn't a rap battle. And it's obvious that Rockstar is more into realism than over the top game's like Saint's Row. It's just a fact. Imagine how you felt the first time you watched IV's trailer. It felt almost real, did it not? That's the type of effect they want people to have with there product's.

Just because R* doesn't allow a naked fat guy with a huge dildo pilot a fighter jet doesn't mean they are any more realistic then they've ever been before. IV has better graphics and animation because It's a next gen game, You can still go on a Rocket launcher Rampage, drive sports cars down an airport runway at 200 MPH with the SWAT chasing after you pulling off sweet stunts as you go and you can have huge helicopter dog fights 1000's of feet above NYC. They are not realism whores *Epic Facepalm*.

[DTroll]

Besides, Liberty City in GTA4 showed it was possible to copy a city enough so that it was recognizeable, yet also changed and editted in favour of gameplay. I think this is a good route to go down.

Exactly my thought's.

 

But, to be honest...Rockstar is now a realism whore. SO, with this said, I wouldn't expect them to do something like that. I think they're going to stick with copying other cities.

R* has never been a realism whore. Just because IV has better graphics and animation doesn't mean that It's the most realistic. I think many SA fanboys see IV as more realistic because It lacks so many features that SA possessed but by that Logic III must be the most realistic R* game ever.... *Facepalm*.

I never stated that they were always a realism whore, I in fact stated that

"Rockstar is now a realism whore."

I made this post on September 3rd 2011 up to this point they've yet to become a realism whore. Please try to find a better comeback.

I do not understand what you mean by "comeback". This isn't a rap battle. And it's obvious that Rockstar is more into realism than over the top game's like Saint's Row. It's just a fact. Imagine how you felt the first time you watched IV's trailer. It felt almost real, did it not? That's the type of effect they want people to have with there product's.

Just because R* doesn't allow a naked fat guy with a huge dildo pilot a fighter jet doesn't mean they are any more realistic then they've ever been before. IV has better graphics and animation because It's a next gen game, You can still go on a Rocket launcher Rampage, drive sports cars down an airport runway at 200 MPH with the SWAT chasing after you pulling off sweet stunts as you go and you can have huge helicopter dog fights 1000's of feet above NYC. They are not realism whores *Epic Facepalm*.

+1 ^

[Finn 7 five 11]

Besides, Liberty City in GTA4 showed it was possible to copy a city enough so that it was recognizeable, yet also changed and editted in favour of gameplay. I think this is a good route to go down.

Exactly my thought's.

 

But, to be honest...Rockstar is now a realism whore. SO, with this said, I wouldn't expect them to do something like that. I think they're going to stick with copying other cities.

R* has never been a realism whore. Just because IV has better graphics and animation doesn't mean that It's the most realistic. I think many SA fanboys see IV as more realistic because It lacks so many features that SA possessed but by that Logic III must be the most realistic R* game ever.... *Facepalm*.

I never stated that they were always a realism whore, I in fact stated that

"Rockstar is now a realism whore."

I made this post on September 3rd 2011 up to this point they've yet to become a realism whore. Please try to find a better comeback.

I do not understand what you mean by "comeback". This isn't a rap battle. And it's obvious that Rockstar is more into realism than over the top game's like Saint's Row. It's just a fact. Imagine how you felt the first time you watched IV's trailer. It felt almost real, did it not? That's the type of effect they want people to have with there product's.

Just because R* doesn't allow a naked fat guy with a huge dildo pilot a fighter jet doesn't mean they are any more realistic then they've ever been before. IV has better graphics and animation because It's a next gen game, You can still go on a Rocket launcher Rampage, drive sports cars down an airport runway at 200 MPH with the SWAT chasing after you pulling off sweet stunts as you go and you can have huge helicopter dog fights 1000's of feet above NYC. They are not realism whores *Epic Facepalm*.

Yeah to me it seems like Meth0d was proven wrong and then decided to change his view on what he originally meant.

First you start by saying the are a Realism whore, which they are most definitely not.

Then you say that IV is very realistic.

Then you digress to the point where you say "it is more realistic than Saints Row"

So really you don't have much of a point.

----------------------------------------------------

 

Anyway!

It is much easier to base the game off a real life city, or several cities incorporating their features in game, they seem to enjoy making mock versions of real life building and locations.

It is also much easier to create an atmosphere in a location that exists in real life, it is more difficult to start from scratch.

[Nebby]

Besides, Liberty City in GTA4 showed it was possible to copy a city enough so that it was recognizeable, yet also changed and editted in favour of gameplay. I think this is a good route to go down.

Exactly my thought's.

 

But, to be honest...Rockstar is now a realism whore. SO, with this said, I wouldn't expect them to do something like that. I think they're going to stick with copying other cities.

R* has never been a realism whore. Just because IV has better graphics and animation doesn't mean that It's the most realistic. I think many SA fanboys see IV as more realistic because It lacks so many features that SA possessed but by that Logic III must be the most realistic R* game ever.... *Facepalm*.

I never stated that they were always a realism whore, I in fact stated that

"Rockstar is now a realism whore."

I made this post on September 3rd 2011 up to this point they've yet to become a realism whore. Please try to find a better comeback.

I do not understand what you mean by "comeback". This isn't a rap battle. And it's obvious that Rockstar is more into realism than over the top game's like Saint's Row. It's just a fact. Imagine how you felt the first time you watched IV's trailer. It felt almost real, did it not? That's the type of effect they want people to have with there product's.

Just because R* doesn't allow a naked fat guy with a huge dildo pilot a fighter jet doesn't mean they are any more realistic then they've ever been before. IV has better graphics and animation because It's a next gen game, You can still go on a Rocket launcher Rampage, drive sports cars down an airport runway at 200 MPH with the SWAT chasing after you pulling off sweet stunts as you go and you can have huge helicopter dog fights 1000's of feet above NYC. They are not realism whores *Epic Facepalm*.

Yeah to me it seems like Meth0d was proven wrong and then decided to change his view on what he originally meant.

First you start by saying the are a Realism whore, which they are most definitely not.

Then you say that IV is very realistic.

Then you digress to the point where you say "it is more realistic than Saints Row"

So really you don't have much of a point.

----------------------------------------------------

 

Anyway!

It is much easier to base the game off a real life city, or several cities incorporating their features in game, they seem to enjoy making mock versions of real life building and locations.

It is also much easier to create an atmosphere in a location that exists in real life, it is more difficult to start from scratch.

No..I didn't really honestly change my opinion, I just figured I can't win against a bunch of 11 year old troll's, so I gave up.

 

And how is Rockstar not a realism whore?

 

All of there game's since San Andreas have been highly realistic, therefor, they like there game's to seem as real as possible.

 

So, yes, they like a lot of realism.

 

Go look up the definition of "whore" which mean's someone like's a lot of something...

[Secura]

Besides, Liberty City in GTA4 showed it was possible to copy a city enough so that it was recognizeable, yet also changed and editted in favour of gameplay. I think this is a good route to go down.

Exactly my thought's.

 

But, to be honest...Rockstar is now a realism whore. SO, with this said, I wouldn't expect them to do something like that. I think they're going to stick with copying other cities.

R* has never been a realism whore. Just because IV has better graphics and animation doesn't mean that It's the most realistic. I think many SA fanboys see IV as more realistic because It lacks so many features that SA possessed but by that Logic III must be the most realistic R* game ever.... *Facepalm*.

I never stated that they were always a realism whore, I in fact stated that

"Rockstar is now a realism whore."

I made this post on September 3rd 2011 up to this point they've yet to become a realism whore. Please try to find a better comeback.

I do not understand what you mean by "comeback". This isn't a rap battle. And it's obvious that Rockstar is more into realism than over the top game's like Saint's Row. It's just a fact. Imagine how you felt the first time you watched IV's trailer. It felt almost real, did it not? That's the type of effect they want people to have with there product's.

Just because R* doesn't allow a naked fat guy with a huge dildo pilot a fighter jet doesn't mean they are any more realistic then they've ever been before. IV has better graphics and animation because It's a next gen game, You can still go on a Rocket launcher Rampage, drive sports cars down an airport runway at 200 MPH with the SWAT chasing after you pulling off sweet stunts as you go and you can have huge helicopter dog fights 1000's of feet above NYC. They are not realism whores *Epic Facepalm*.

Yeah to me it seems like Meth0d was proven wrong and then decided to change his view on what he originally meant.

First you start by saying the are a Realism whore, which they are most definitely not.

Then you say that IV is very realistic.

Then you digress to the point where you say "it is more realistic than Saints Row"

So really you don't have much of a point.

----------------------------------------------------

 

Anyway!

It is much easier to base the game off a real life city, or several cities incorporating their features in game, they seem to enjoy making mock versions of real life building and locations.

It is also much easier to create an atmosphere in a location that exists in real life, it is more difficult to start from scratch.

No..I didn't really honestly change my opinion, I just figured I can't win against a bunch of 11 year old troll's, so I gave up.

 

And how is Rockstar not a realism whore?

 

All of there game's since San Andreas have been highly realistic, therefor, they like there game's to seem as real as possible.

 

So, yes, they like a lot of realism.

 

Go look up the definition of "whore" which mean's someone like's a lot of something...

You can't read. Give me one aspect of realisim in IV. It looks better than SA because it's a NEXT GEN CONSOLE game. SA was released on PS2/XBOX, IV was released on 360/PS3. Now correct me If I happen to be wrong but the last time I checked the 360 was more powerful than the XBOX and the PS3 was more powerful than the PS2, hence they could to do more with the game than they could previously. SR is mindless fun GTA has some semblance of a story behind it *FACE PALM*.

 

 

I'll list a few things that you can do in IV:

 

 

:Race across the city in a black hawk gunning down FBI teams and swerving in and out of skyscrapers

 

: Base jump from the empire state building in a sports car pulling of about ten flips in the process before ramming you car into a gas station blowing up with you jumping out seconds earlier just in time to watch the explosion engulf everything in it's path.

 

:Shoot down black hawks with you Rpgs and Blast Police boats out of the water with an RPG while trying to make it to Happiness Island.

 

So IV's realistic. I walk down the street with about 6000 rounds of ammo on me everyday, It's just my thing.

 

 

There isn't a face palm big enough for the Idiocy you clearly display. Or your a Troll in which case your a bigger Idiot.

[Nebby]

 

There isn't a face palm big enough for the Idiocy you clearly display.  Or your a Troll in which case your a bigger Idiot.

But, then again, you clearly are the one who is making insult's when I haven't said anything mean toward's you...Just trying to have a nice, simple proactive conversation, but you take it to name calling, which is completely uncalled for.

[Secura]

There isn't a face palm big enough for the Idiocy you clearly display.  Or your a Troll in which case your a bigger Idiot.

But, then again, you clearly are the one who is making insult's when I haven't said anything mean toward's you...Just trying to have a nice, simple proactive conversation, but you take it to name calling, which is completely uncalled for.

Because you refuse facts no matter how many times i show them to you. Stop defending something so stupid. First you act like IV is super realistic. And you called me an Eleven year old Troll. I'm not an idiot and as far as i am aware i don't suffer from short term memory loss. Stop lying through your teeth and changing your opinion to suit you.