Faithful Recreation vs Originality

[jnzooger]

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

LCS, VCS, and CtW had no realism at all. So to put it quite simply, you are mistaken here.

 

And a "whore" is someone who sells themself, not someone that enjoys something.

[HbKYolrr]

like it has been mentioned before rockstar has showed they can make a real location recognizable (especially people like me, who have been to new york) yet in their own way to create a good gameplay experience.

 

so for that reason i say a real location would be the best way to go.

[Secura]

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

LCS, VCS, and CtW had no realism at all. So to put it quite simply, you are mistaken here.

 

And a "whore" is someone who sells themself, not someone that enjoys something.

Thank you, this guy doesn't seem to understand a damn thing he's saying, either that or he has multiple personality syndrome.

[Akavari]

Let's see Carcer City as a recreation of Philadelphia and neighboring Camden!

[Nebby]

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

LCS, VCS, and CtW had no realism at all. So to put it quite simply, you are mistaken here.

 

And a "whore" is someone who sells themself, not someone that enjoys something.

Thank you, this guy doesn't seem to understand a damn thing he's saying, either that or he has multiple personality syndrome.

That's actually very offensive. What if I really did? How would you feel then? That's harassment. Just letting you know..

 

And I did not call you an eleven year old troll, I said it toward's a group of people that I did not specify, so it could be toward's anyone.

 

Also, I realized after I posted that, that there are in fact other game's that Rockstar had made after San Andreas, but I simply did not feel like editing it.

 

Also, get back on topic.

[EternalAgony]

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

LCS, VCS, and CtW had no realism at all. So to put it quite simply, you are mistaken here.

 

And a "whore" is someone who sells themself, not someone that enjoys something.

Thank you, this guy doesn't seem to understand a damn thing he's saying, either that or he has multiple personality syndrome.

That's actually very offensive. What if I really did? How would you feel then? That's harassment. Just letting you know..

 

And I did not call you an eleven year old troll, I said it toward's a group of people that I did not specify, so it could be toward's anyone.

 

Also, I realized after I posted that, that there are in fact other game's that Rockstar had made after San Andreas, but I simply did not feel like editing it.

 

Also, get back on topic.

R*'s games has realism, but that doesn't make them a realism whore. Saint's Row has realism right? You get shot, you take damage. Cars have traction/the ability to drive.

In both games, there are unrealistic elements. That's why its called a game. To put it simply, the only difference between R* and THQ is that R* adds a bit more realism, and THQ goes for less.

And Meth0d, you did insult him. Can all of you calm down and stop fighting- please?

[Trideez]

Yeah I definitely prefer a city based on a real life location.

[gtathebest4ever]

I think the similarity between GTAIV's LC and real-life New York City was perfect. It was bascially as close as they could get to real-life NYC at the scale they were working on. I don't want the next location (whatever it might be) to be larger than LC, so that basically means I don't want copy/pasted cities, I want classic Rockstar recreations of them.

[Slamman]

the Liberty City as New York City is a homage, this should be known by all, anyone with more then a passing curious interest in GTA gaming, it's no secret as such. It's also not being said that any other GTA will be that homage, other then what we've seen because of the the nature of a place like California or Florida, but as a highly fictional setting, the LC of GTA 3 is three main Cities so there's no direct hint I felt. It was a natural process of creation for LC and GTA 3. I feel my lack of experience in GTA 1 and 2 hurts my impression of pre-guessing, but again, it's DMA, Direct Mind Access and not Rockstar Games as it stands, since the Housers moved in from BMG Music Group.

[Claude speed GTA III Fan]

i prefer imaginary city

the liberty city version of grand theft auto 4 was very bad, ugly, and not good at all, i prefer the versions of iii and lcs better, that's why if they make a real vice city or san andreas it will be very ugly city with the lack of country side and desert

[_GTAFREAK_]

 

i prefer imaginary city

the liberty city version of grand theft auto 4 was very bad, ugly, and not good at all, i prefer the versions of iii and lcs better, that's why if they make a real vice city or san andreas it will be very ugly city with the lack of country side and desert

Well, if you excuse me, I think you're wrong, but that's your opinion anyway...

The LCS and III cities weren't imaginary as you said, they were based of NYC, just like IV. The only thing that differentiates the III-era LC and the IV era LC is its quality in details, the level of detail is very high around this newer LC, and also it highlights and recreates the NYC feeling way much more than the III-era LC, which this was basically the goal of R* by recreating LC again, but this time, with better quality, so the players could finally have that NYC feeling while playing IV, which it CLEARLY didn't happened by the GTAIII and LCS times...

Got it?

[InstantCClassic]

Texas or Arizona.

[jnzooger]

i prefer imaginary city

the liberty city version of grand theft auto 4 was very bad, ugly, and not good at all, i prefer the versions of iii and lcs better, that's why if they make a real vice city or san andreas it will be very ugly city with the lack of country side and desert

Well, if you excuse me, I think you're wrong, but that's your opinion anyway...

The LCS and III cities weren't imaginary as you said, they were based of NYC, just like IV. The only thing that differentiates the III-era LC and the IV era LC is its quality in details, the level of detail is very high around this newer LC, and also it highlights and recreates the NYC feeling way much more than the III-era LC, which this was basically the goal of R* by recreating LC again, but this time, with better quality, so the players could finally have that NYC feeling while playing IV, which it CLEARLY didn't happened by the GTAIII and LCS times...

Got it?

III's LC was an amalgamation of multiple east coast cities, including Boston, New York, and even Philadelphia.

 

Similarly, Carcer from Manhunt was an amalgamation of Rust Belt cities, including Chicago, Buffalo, Indianapolis, Cleveland, Milwaukee, and Detroit.

[CheesyJ]

I want to see the game in a real life location. The game has a large focus on realism; therefore it would probably not be as realistic if the game were to be located in some made up city.

[Slamman]

Realism will always be something GTA has over other games, but I believe Houser said he won't take it too far, because that inflames the NON GAMING press

[-Chewy-]

Recrations, I don't get the same feeling driving around Stilwater in Saints Row as I do driving around any GTA city

[heynowpoo]

I would definately 100% much rather the city to be based on a real city.

 

A real city like mentioned before, brings familiarity to players and each real life city has it's own unique culture and atmosphere, which therefore can be brought across into the game world. Also it's much more fun to play in a realistic city as it's like feeding a sort of desire or fun experiment - hard to explain - sort of like a 'fetish' like feeling as in you get to do what you want in the real city.

 

Everyone knows Los Angeles and it's usual landmarks, its general feel and look (even for people outside the US) and to be able to actually be immersed in there like a tourist virtually, but add on to that the incredible fun you have with fighter jets, speeding around everywhere, usual GTA stuff etc... it's just so much more fun and exciting.

 

I love seeing real life cities being recreated on a video game - I think mainly it's like a touristy sort of feel to it.

 

Anyway theres my little opinion lol

[TheGreene2010]

I would definately 100% much rather the city to be based on a real city.

 

A real city like mentioned before, brings familiarity to players and each real life city has it's own unique culture and atmosphere, which therefore can be brought across into the game world. Also it's much more fun to play in a realistic city as it's like feeding a sort of desire or fun experiment - hard to explain - sort of like a 'fetish' like feeling as in you get to do what you want in the real city.

 

Everyone knows Los Angeles and it's usual landmarks, its general feel and look (even for people outside the US) and to be able to actually be immersed in there like a tourist virtually, but add on to that the incredible fun you have with fighter jets, speeding around everywhere, usual GTA stuff etc... it's just so much more fun and exciting.

 

I love seeing real life cities being recreated on a video game - I think mainly it's like a touristy sort of feel to it.

 

Anyway theres my little opinion lol

Could not have said it better myself.

 

Here is hoping they put realistic traffic this time... but probably not.

[Magic_Al]

 

i prefer imaginary city

the liberty city version of grand theft auto 4 was very bad, ugly, and not good at all, i prefer the versions of iii and lcs better, that's why if they make a real vice city or san andreas it will be very ugly city with the lack of country side and desert

Well, if you excuse me, I think you're wrong, but that's your opinion anyway...

The LCS and III cities weren't imaginary as you said, they were based of NYC, just like IV. The only thing that differentiates the III-era LC and the IV era LC is its quality in details, the level of detail is very high around this newer LC, and also it highlights and recreates the NYC feeling way much more than the III-era LC, which this was basically the goal of R* by recreating LC again, but this time, with better quality, so the players could finally have that NYC feeling while playing IV, which it CLEARLY didn't happened by the GTAIII and LCS times...

Got it?

GTA III and GTA IV were both successful with atmosphere. GTA III was NOT intended to be New York, it was intended to be a generic East Coast city. Obviously New York dominates the idea of what an East Coast city is and has a large influence, but in GTA III they wanted it to be non-specific. It therefore felt generic, although amazing and cool, not a place with as much emotional resonance as a recognizably real location. Then they did Vice City and San Andreas and fell in love with the idea of recreating atmosphere by recreating environmental details in context, in other words by more faithfully copying locations even though the GTA universe is still completely fictional.

 

The recreated buildings in GTA do not represent themselves in reality. They are like famous actors playing architectural roles in a play of atmosphere. In GTA IV, the role of the fictional Rotterdam Tower is played by the Empire State Building, but the Rotterdam Tower does not represent the Empire State Building anymore than the Terminator represents Arnold Schwarzenegger.

[Halo_Override]

The recreated buildings in GTA do not represent themselves in reality. They are like famous actors playing architectural roles in a play of atmosphere. In GTA IV, the role of the fictional Rotterdam Tower is played by the Empire State Building, but the Rotterdam Tower does not represent the Empire State Building anymore than the Terminator represents Arnold Schwarzenegger.

This is a really interesting way to think of it.