A conference meeting at R*

[bobgtafan]

So let me get this straight. They were all sitting around a conference table talking about ideas for a future GTA game and someone said, "Hey guys let's go back to San Andreas".

 

So then I know a dissenting voice was like, "Hey maybe we should stop reusing locations and do a new one."

That guy was ignored.

 

Then someone else spoke up and said,"Hey you know what fans would love? Only ONE major city!" And everyone except the dissenting voice from earlier agreed. Now the dissenter he still had another opnion. I know he said something like, "Wait the reason so many people want San Andreas is for the three major cities, just one misses the point." He was ignored again.

 

So now you all were trying to decide which city to do and someone spoke up and said, "Hey let's redo Los Santos! The city the plurality of San Andreas took place in!" Now at this point dissenter was just furious and ranting, "THE f*ck?! Who just wants one city again?! Especially one we've already done in vast detail?!" And the only answer must of been, "It's ok we'll make up for it with depth."

 

I can't understand Rockstar's motivations behind doing this. I can understand going back to San Andreas. I can understand using the Modern Era. I can understand having only one major city. But really? Los Santos? With that said, I have a question for you. Why would Rockstar do this? Why have only Los Santos?

 

(For the sake of argument we're going to assume Southern California is the only area sense that's basically what they've already said in the GTA V annoucument on their website.)

[Duxfever]

I understand your pain, yet they say this will be their biggest map yet.

 

 

[NYC PATROL]

If the V map / land mass isnt close to the size of San Andreas' ps2 map then imo it wasnt worth it to do 1 city. BUT once

again I say, prove me wrong Rockstar!

 

 

Though this picture sure does make V look gigantic, but 2 other cities would have been nice.

 

Edited November 3, 2011 by NYC PATROL

[jogy]

I understand your pain, yet they say this will be their biggest map yet.

This could be the Mother of all GTA's :-)

[Barguast]

I was thinking along these lines earlier, trying to work out their motivations for picking 1/3 of an area they'd already used in a single previous-generation game. The only thing I can think of is.... future DLC?

[bobgtafan]

I understand your pain, yet they say this will be their biggest map yet.

Thanks, and I get that, but the whole point of countryside is to link one major city with the other. Ahh well guess I'll just keep waiting for GTA VI now.

[Bomberlegend]

The other thing is, with the amount of outcry (looking at R* comments section, its like finding a needle in a haystack in terms of people supporting just Los Santos) R* will not just have one city. They want to outdo themselves.

 

But knowing these fans, nothing will make them happy.

[Kwandilibro]

The only answer I can really give is that LA is massive, so the surrounding areas wouldn't really be that small. Anyway, R* seemed to focus on LS in SA anyway. I'd rather a full SA, but I guess R* has other plans.

[GTAlove]

This game is going to be EPIC! I can't wait to go to the movie studios and buy houses! Who knows, maybe we could even see some celebrities?

[Duxfever]

I understand your pain, yet they say this will be their biggest map yet.

Thanks, and I get that, but the whole point of countryside is to link one major city with the other. Ahh well guess I'll just keep waiting for GTA VI now.

Sure. I thought that too with the linking thing. I'm still confused on how it will work out.

 

Will you still purchase the game?

[TruXter]

I understand your pain, yet they say this will be their biggest map yet.

who is "they" ?

 

and who confirmed only los santos ?

[cherrycola]

San Andreas' LS was not vastly detailed. Stop lying.

 

The reason they chose LA as the location (and not SF, LV) is that there is no other American city more interesting in a modern setting than NY and LA. SF used to be hot in the 60's, LV is a place in the desert where you go to play poker.

[Duxfever]

I understand your pain, yet they say this will be their biggest map yet.

who is "they" ?

 

and who confirmed only los santos ?

Rockstar http://www.rockstargames.com/newswire/arti...nouncement.html

[GTAlove]

San Andreas' LS was not vastly detailed. Stop lying.

 

The reason they chose LA as the location (and not SF, LV) is that there is no other American city more interesting in a modern setting than NY and LA. SF used to be hot in the 60's, LV is a place in the desert where you go to play poker.

Exactly! These people are going to be the same ones who will rush out and buy the game the first day it comes out. They're just being stubborn and irritating.

[crapmadgig]

That's probably cuz of the Xbox 360, we would need 5 discs to fit the three cities in the game.

Unless of course a miracle happens and GTA full San Andreas is announced soon.

 

But anyways, Thanks Microsoft!!! I love that you limited this generation of GTA games' potential!

[TruXter]

I understand your pain, yet they say this will be their biggest map yet.

who is "they" ?

 

and who confirmed only los santos ?

Rockstar http://www.rockstargames.com/newswire/arti...nouncement.html

Is that just referring to that one trailer?

or there hidden text in there I don't see that says it for certain is going to be just Los santos ?

[johnny_zoo]

The design process is not how your're picturing it yes there is a discussion but it doesn't really involve more than 4 people. Dan and Sam Houser, The Benz and Aaron Garbut. Its not a consensus decision someone has to lead with the initial idea which is usually Sam or Dan(after all they are in chrage) if it was all design by committee then we'd have a sh*t game probably with no soul.

 

Of course features to include in the game can be discussed to a larger extent with other employees in a meeting, but the starting city and characters of choice or done by the main four guys.

 

They have one city I assume because of hardware limitations preventing them from having 3. They would have to have the same level of detail in EACH city think how much GB's that would take up on a disc I dont think the 360 is capable of that maybe the ps3 but Im not sure in this area.

[OnlySurvivor]

 

So let me get this straight. They were all sitting around a conference table talking about ideas for a future GTA game and someone said, "Hey guys let's go back to San Andreas".

 

So then I know a dissenting voice was like, "Hey maybe we should stop reusing locations and do a new one."

That guy was ignored.

 

Then someone else spoke up and said,"Hey you know what fans would love? Only ONE major city!" And everyone except the dissenting voice from earlier agreed. Now the dissenter he still had another opnion. I know he said something like, "Wait the reason so many people want San Andreas is for the three major cities, just one misses the point." He was ignored again.

 

So now you all were trying to decide which city to do and someone spoke up and said, "Hey let's redo Los Santos! The city the plurality of San Andreas took place in!" Now at this point dissenter was just furious and ranting, "THE f*ck?! Who just wants one city again?! Especially one we've already done in vast detail?!" And the only answer must of been, "It's ok we'll make up for it with depth."

 

I can't understand Rockstar's motivations behind doing this. I can understand going back to San Andreas. I can understand using the Modern Era. I can understand having only one major city. But really? Los Santos? With that said, I have a question for you. Why would Rockstar do this? Why have only Los Santos?

 

(For the sake of argument we're going to assume Southern California is the only area sense that's basically what they've already said in the GTA V annoucument on their website.)

Pretty cool story, have you ever considered becoming a full time writer?

 

And no, it went more like "If you had to choose one city to represent the United States, other than New York, which would it be?"

 

It's not a matter of "reusing locations" because this is Los Santos entirely redone from the ground up. Did you notice that the Griffith Park observatory is now in its correct location instead of the other side of the city? Saying that Los Santos is being "reused" from San Andreas is like saying Liberty City was "reused" from GTA III.

[Duxfever]

I understand your pain, yet they say this will be their biggest map yet.

who is "they" ?

 

and who confirmed only los santos ?

Rockstar http://www.rockstargames.com/newswire/arti...nouncement.html

Is that just referring to that one trailer?

or there hidden text in there I don't see that says it for certain is going to be just Los santos ?

Neither are valid choices.

[NYC PATROL]

 

They have one city I assume because of hardware limitations preventing them from having 3. They would have to have the same level of detail in EACH city think how much GB's that would take up on a disc I dont think the 360 is capable of that maybe the ps3 but Im not sure in this area.

If the reasoning behind 1 city truly is hardware limitation (kinda doubting that, they could have done 3 cities if

they had the time imo) then i say Bring on the Xbox 720 and PS4.

[NickA92]

Stop complaining! Since when did Rockstar make a game tailoring to your every desire?

If you really feel so strong about this, boycott the game or something.

I happen to know a lot of people are very happy with how GTA V is looking.

[MiamiVice1984]

They have confirmed that it will be the biggest R* game ever and they even confirmed that it will have Online/multiplayer.

 

BY R* THEMSELFES:

 

Developed by series creator Rockstar North, Grand Theft Auto V heads to the city of Los Santos and surrounding hills, countryside and beaches in the largest and most ambitious game Rockstar has yet created.

 

A bold new direction in open-world freedom, storytelling, mission-based gameplay and online multiplayer, Grand Theft Auto V focuses on the pursuit of the almighty dollar in a re-imagined, present day Southern California.

[awsomeking5]

So let me get this straight. They were all sitting around a conference table talking about ideas for a future GTA game and someone said, "Hey guys let's go back to San Andreas".

 

So then I know a dissenting voice was like, "Hey maybe we should stop reusing locations and do a new one."

That guy was ignored.

 

Then someone else spoke up and said,"Hey you know what fans would love? Only ONE major city!" And everyone except the dissenting voice from earlier agreed. Now the dissenter he still had another opnion. I know he said something like, "Wait the reason so many people want San Andreas is for the three major cities, just one misses the point." He was ignored again.

 

So now you all were trying to decide which city to do and someone spoke up and said, "Hey let's redo Los Santos! The city the plurality of San Andreas took place in!" Now at this point dissenter was just furious and ranting, "THE f*ck?! Who just wants one city again?! Especially one we've already done in vast detail?!" And the only answer must of been, "It's ok we'll make up for it with depth."

 

I can't understand Rockstar's motivations behind doing this. I can understand going back to San Andreas. I can understand using the Modern Era. I can understand having only one major city. But really? Los Santos? With that said, I have a question for you. Why would Rockstar do this? Why have only Los Santos?

 

(For the sake of argument we're going to assume Southern California is the only area sense that's basically what they've already said in the GTA V annoucument on their website.)

Calm down. Everyone would like to play a new and better improved version of each city, then eventually a new location, it no big deal, calm down.

[cherrycola]

San Andreas' LS was not vastly detailed. Stop lying.

 

The reason they chose LA as the location (and not SF, LV) is that there is no other American city more interesting in a modern setting than NY and LA. SF used to be hot in the 60's, LV is a place in the desert where you go to play poker.

Exactly! These people are going to be the same ones who will rush out and buy the game the first day it comes out. They're just being stubborn and irritating.

Probably, but I'm kind of hoping they'll just stick to SR or some other crap franchise from now on and leave GTA to people like us who appreciate it..

[nonspecific]

Don't forget that this isn't a remake, it's a mostly new map. There will more than likely be a number of new towns, villages and farms etc behind the hills and far away. The map will seem huge. I really don't know why people are getting so worked up about this. I just can't wait to explore!

[zippo55312]

San Andreas' LS was not vastly detailed. Stop lying.

 

The reason they chose LA as the location (and not SF, LV) is that there is no other American city more interesting in a modern setting than NY and LA. SF used to be hot in the 60's, LV is a place in the desert where you go to play poker.

Exactly! These people are going to be the same ones who will rush out and buy the game the first day it comes out. They're just being stubborn and irritating.

Probably, but I'm kind of hoping they'll just stick to SR or some other crap franchise from now on and leave GTA to people like us who appreciate it..

NO because if those people stop playing gta then rockstar doesn't get the budget to make good GTA games anymore.

[Dingdongs]

I was thinking along these lines earlier, trying to work out their motivations for picking 1/3 of an area they'd already used in a single previous-generation game. The only thing I can think of is.... future DLC?

This exactly.. the other cities will likely come out in the DLCs, and I have a good feeling we will see las venturas in this game since it was so miniscule in San Andreas

[ccrogers15]

gta sa will still be the biggest map. HOW can they make 1 city bigger then ALL of sanandreas? Sanandreas from ps2 was STILL bigger then the gta IV map. I dont think its possible. I have 50/50 faith with rockstar now. I had full faith until i found out its only los santos. Sanandreas is not the same with 1 city only. Liberty city got the same 3 islands that it had in gta 3 for 4. So... why cant 5 sanandreas get the same treatment. Whats next, vice city without the beach?

[GTAlove]

San Andreas' LS was not vastly detailed. Stop lying.

 

The reason they chose LA as the location (and not SF, LV) is that there is no other American city more interesting in a modern setting than NY and LA. SF used to be hot in the 60's, LV is a place in the desert where you go to play poker.

Exactly! These people are going to be the same ones who will rush out and buy the game the first day it comes out. They're just being stubborn and irritating.

Probably, but I'm kind of hoping they'll just stick to SR or some other crap franchise from now on and leave GTA to people like us who appreciate it..

NO because if those people stop playing gta then rockstar doesn't get the budget to make good GTA games anymore.

I'm not worried about that. This will be one of the biggest games of the year. R* will make tons of money off of it.

[Above]

I'm starting to believe that we won't see San Fierro and Las Venturas now. I just don't see the point in having a lot of countryside if it doesn't lead to anywhere. Seriosuly, who wants to drive away from the urban areas just to reach the end of the map in a countryside?