A conference meeting at R*

[bobgtafan]

Clearly you're being sarcastic in what you think went on in this apparent ''conference meeting''. Obviously their motives behind using just one major city instead of 3 wasn't meant to take away from the game. If you actually read what they said it wasn't just Los Santos, they clearly said Los Santos and the surrounding hills and country side, They will basically do SoCal, which is a massive MASSIVE area.

 

There are so many other communities and towns they can possibly put into this map with MUCH greater detail making it actually feel bigger and more realistic. Think about it, if they decided to do 3 major cities the level of detail within the cities would be a huge downgrade compared to what they could do with a more scaled down area.

 

So think about it people, doing All of So Cal makes A LOT more sense than doing 3 major cities. On this generation of consoles (which they probably could not handle all that detail and the massive map it would need to even make it feel like 3 separate cities). Believe me, i too was disappointed when i discovered only one city was being developed but after i thought about it this seemed like a lot more logical. I'm convinced the map will be bigger than San Andreas, or at the very least just as big. Which is more than enough when flying planes or going on a big road trip or whatever. Remember the level of detail needed to make a city is much more complex than doing country side or small communities obviously. So the fact it's only one city won't make it a smaller map, it will just make it more diverse with countryside landscape, mountains and maybe even some lakes and forests.

 

Sorry for the rant, had to get it off my chest, seen too many people complaining about the game ''only'' having one city when in reality it's much bigger than that. It will be a fantastic game.

It's not just that's it's one city and that by basing the game off of a different region they could of had 3 Alderney sized cities. (Or three Vice City sized ones like San Andreas.) It's the fact it's one city in a region they've already done, in a time period (present day upon release) that they've done 6 times in games and DLC. It's not even the fact it's San Andreas again. It's the fact that out of San Andreas they choose Los Santos! Come on Las Vegas was sitting right there! Or what about 70's San Francisco?! This sh*t writes itself! I mean there were many mistakes along that line of thinking of the new location but to me Los Santos is the straw that's broke the camels back.

[The Hitch]

By the way being the "biggest GTA yet" doesnt neccesarily mean it will be that big.

 

I used to measure distances on San Andreas by doing the fly car cheat then fly from a-b and the stunt info would tell me the distance. Ddon't know if everyone did that or not and Im a fool acting like I discovered something by saying that, but looking at a few comments they had the distances wrong.

 

San Andreas was 5.5km by 5.5km.

 

It seemed bigger due to everything being so compact and very low visibilty.

 

For example the San Ferreiro sky scrapers would cease to be visible just over 1km away. Also the roads between the city would go around the country side rather than through it, so people would think they are covering a longer distance, especially if they tried to go through the country and got lost.

 

There was actually a point from which you could see both SF and LS. if you used the roads they seemed so far away but if you used say a jet pack you could see they were a lot closer.

 

Anyway the point im making is that Liberty City in GTA IV wasn't much smaller though it seems so maybe because everything was so similar, whereas in San Andreas every few 100m brought a new culture - deserts forests mountains, ghettos, mansions etc.

 

And of course in IV the water took up a bigger part, but I doubt that going from the West of New Aldreney to the Airport would be any less than 4km.

 

 

So Los Santos in this game doesnt neccesarily have to be so huge to be the biggest game created.

 

Having said that, the mountains look very detailed and if there is some significant space on the otherside of them- rather than water which would be very unnatural, then this could be some very big land mass yet.

[Walshy1093]

 

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?

 

Where have you been the last couple of years? Haven't you played RDR? LA Noire? Just Cause? Test Drive? Even Far Cry 2 was bigger than SA. You can see from the screenshot that has been posted in this thread that it's pretty much guaranteed its going to be bigger than any previous GTA.

 

I don't see what the problem with only having Los Santos is anyway, it looks like the map will be a hell of a lot more diverse than the IV map which consisted pretty much of just built up areas. All we've seen is one trailer; give it some time before you all start having hissy fits about not getting all three cities.

 

Also, whoever mentioned that it's likely that the other cities will be features as DLC doesn't have much knowledge on the amount of memory these maps take up. If you think that a whole new city is going to be sold as additional content to download then I think you should remember that a lot of the disk space is currently used for the map which is one of the reasons it has been seen to be limited in size in some past games, among other limitations. If they were to release other cities then this would mean other characters and new storylines which means you'd basically be downloading a whole new GTA which I cannot see happening. Maybe the next two games will focus on one of the other two cities each with reference to each other. GTA III, Vice City and San Andreas were all in the same 'universe' so I could see them doing this again...

[jdrandall38]

I am 100% with you...

 

If Rock* was planing on doing just one city again, wouldn't the logical choice be Vice City? Why wasn't it? And if we are headed to Los Santos only, why not call it GTA: Los Santos? I was excited to see the first 3 seconds of the trailer though. Sunset on the Beach...I was thinking VICE CITY! Then comes the damn LS/LA skyline. I was thinking "Oh my god you are kidding me!" Then it goes on. I then realize this isn't SA, its only Los Santos. Then I became even more so frustrated. Los Angeles has been done to death by video games, not just Rockstar. But in Rockstars 3 of there last 4 games took place in Los Angeles! Why aren't they sick of it yet? Rebuilding the same town again?! Come on!

 

 

I will still buy the game but Im even more disappointed now than I was watching the GTA IV trailer...

 

 

There better be mad detail and unbelievable gameplay.

[bobgtafan]

I am 100% with you...

 

If Rock* was planing on doing just one city again, wouldn't the logical choice be Vice City? Why wasn't it? And if we are headed to Los Santos only, why not call it GTA: Los Santos? I was excited to see the first 3 seconds of the trailer though. Sunset on the Beach...I was thinking VICE CITY! Then comes the damn LS/LA skyline. I was thinking "Oh my god you are kidding me!" Then it goes on. I then realize this isn't SA, its only Los Santos. Then I became even more so frustrated. Los Angeles has been done to death by video games, not just Rockstar. But in Rockstars 3 of there last 4 games took place in Los Angeles! Why aren't they sick of it yet? Rebuilding the same town again?! Come on!

 

 

I will still buy the game but Im even more disappointed now than I was watching the GTA IV trailer...

 

 

There better be mad detail and unbelievable gameplay.

I feel you man, I think we all had alternative locations (even in San Andreas) that we would of preferred.

[bucsfan]

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!

Exactly. Atleast this time around they can concentrate on putting more life into LS.

 

This was one of my gripes with the SA map. The 3 cities suffered, because R* spread it out over a compressed state. Yeah some people wont like me saying this, but GTA IV's LC I feel had more heart and soul than all 3 cities in SA. Even GTA III's LC and VC did IMO.

 

ccrogers15: GTA IV's map really wasn't that much smaller than SA and it was just an urban environment. R* have already made a bigger map than SA and it was in RDR.

 

GTA V has every chance to be bigger than SA was. Besides we don't what R* have in store for us outside of LS' city limits in terms of towns, or even smaller cities. I'm assuming the reason R* have apparently chosen LS is because generally it was the most popular city from SA and obviously they've taken notice of the bitching and moaning about the lack of countryside in GTA IV, so that's what they've given people.

 

With what the current gen consoles have proven to be able to do a map with city plus surrounding areas can easily topple the size of SA, because when you think about it the SA map really isn't that big. R* have already map a map bigger than SA with RDR and it's a well known fact.

 

SA fanboys seem to be running scared at the prospect their precious SA may not be the biggest GTA any more. Get over it.

That's not it at all. San Andreas was my favorite location in any rockstar game and it's not because it was the biggest. It's because you could drive from one city, go through some countryside or desert and end up in a completely new city and new environment. We already got a huge L.A. with L.A. Noire, at least 1 more city would be nice. When we get in our planes, where are we supposed to fly to? What's the point of countryside if there isn't something beyond it? I'm sure the game's going to be great, but it's a little disappointing that they might be taking away 2/3 of many fans' favorite location just to make 1/3 of it huge. It's not San Andreas without San Fierro and Las Venturas.

[Triple Penetration]

It's completely making sense, I desperately wanted Modern Miami, but R* HAD to do Los Santos.

 

Why not make game with a map that has been done at least 2 times before - in L.A. Noire, Midnight Club L.A. and add some mountains, cars from IV and rebadge everything to GTA universe and it will sell more than IV.

 

I'm not hating, I'm putting conclusions in sarcastic note.

[GoonOnFire]

Honestly I think it might as well be a new map, although it does reuse the location, I have a feeling it with be so big and feel so full that it will not be a disappointment.

 

 

I guess what I'm trying to say is- Rockstar hasn't gotten to be this big by luck....they know what they're doing.

[Deffpony]

I too was very disapointed by the prospect of only one city. But from some of the footage I am thinking that they did some amazing things with the map.

 

SA was huge and awesome. But honestly there were alot of areas where I never really went unless necessary.

 

SF was a nice break-up of the map. But other than that it was boring. The shipyard was the best part.

 

LV was a cool rendition of Vegas but it seems kinda empty IMO.

 

Mount chiliad was awesome. But after exploring it once I never went back.

 

LS was the best part of the map IMO.

 

I think that in V they will have much more detail where it matters and less "filler" content.

The city will be like IV, very dense and full of secrets. The surrounding suburbs will not be copy and past neighborhoods but an in depth interactable enviroment. And the countryside will probably outdo RDR and Just Cause 2.

 

Call me an optimist but I think they know what they are doing.My only fear is regarding how they will close off portions of the map and integrate boats. If the water is only on one side of the map what will be the point of driving a boat out to nowhere.

 

They say its the biggest map yet. SA was huge but had alot of emptiness. Im hoping that V will be a hybrid of SA and IV... vast but dense.

[sumone]

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!

Dont blame xbox for this, there are enough players of gta that wont care about it.

It's just the mistake from r*

[Killer.Khan]

Why is everyone complaining? Obviously R* isn't going to have one restricted area. To me it looks like there's additional countryside, vineyards, mountains to explore etcc...

 

Calm down and stop worrying!

[bobgtafan]

What I'm still waiting on is for anyone to answer my question on why going to Los Santos again was a good idea compared to alternatives...

[MA3LK]

Rockstar really need to do a preview of the game quick, I really hope its SA but even if its LS im still going to buy it no matter.

[Snake Without a Tongue]

I hate to jump on this pussy parade, but why not Las Venturas? LA has been done in various forms a million times before. Las Vegas would've been... less done before.

[Algonquin Assassin]

 

That's not it at all. San Andreas was my favorite location in any rockstar game and it's not because it was the biggest. It's because you could drive from one city, go through some countryside or desert and end up in a completely new city and new environment. We already got a huge L.A. with L.A. Noire, at least 1 more city would be nice. When we get in our planes, where are we supposed to fly to? What's the point of countryside if there isn't something beyond it? I'm sure the game's going to be great, but it's a little disappointing that they might be taking away 2/3 of many fans' favorite location just to make 1/3 of it huge. It's not San Andreas without San Fierro and Las Venturas.

I see your point, but like I said how do we know what R* have in store for us outside of LS's city limits? Of course I wouldn't be expecting something to be the size and scope of what LS is looking to be, but there's every chance of seeing places we've never seen before.

 

Lets remember it's not a remake of SA. It's a new rendition and re-imagining. There's no written rule R* have to follow.

[Halo_Override]

I am 100% with you...

 

If Rock* was planing on doing just one city again, wouldn't the logical choice be Vice City? Why wasn't it?

Because New York and Los Angeles are globally significant cities, and Miami -- outside of the 80s cocaine culture -- is not. So doing a game set in present-day Miami, in which Miami is supposed to represent American culture in general, makes very little sense.

 

Vice City was not made because multiple generations of people from all around the world have dreamed of someday going there and making it big. Vice City was made because people liked Scarface and Miami Vice. Why would anyone make that game twice?

[mrmojo_prime]

100% with Rockstar going with Los Santos only

 

To hell with all the doubters their dispair and their moaning. It seems some are like spoilt little brats crying cuase they didn't get as much presents as the last time. some people just need to get over themselfs, its not like most of us here could do any better then Rockstar. They will make the game to how they think will play best, and they haven't got that formula wrong yet.

 

 

[Gtaerix]

It's going to be a great game, please stop finding small, tiny reasons to bash the game.

[Halo_Override]

What I'm still waiting on is for anyone to answer my question on why going to Los Santos again was a good idea compared to alternatives...

You'll have to go on waiting, then. Because very reasonable answers have been given a dozen times by different people across multiple threads, and you don't seem especially interested in hearing them.

[OnlySurvivor]

 

What I'm still waiting on is for anyone to answer my question on why going to Los Santos again was a good idea compared to alternatives...

Grand Theft Auto: Jim Thorpe just didn't go over well in our marketing research tests.

 

I'm curious as to what your "alternatives" are.

[bobgtafan]

It's going to be a great game, please stop finding small, tiny reasons to bash the game.

Did you just state the the same time setting, region, city, and asethics of a game are small things? Really? You're going to stick with that?

 

@miamivice

 

I get what your saying, but the real problem boils down to this. They're going back to Southern California, a region from San Andreas the best selling GTA and from what I can tell the most liked. That said why? The point for going back to Liberty made sense, because it wasn't really New York. But come on, even in interviews Rockstar admitted the only reason they went back their was because of that. Los Santos? That's a different story. We all know that's Los Angeles, a city almost as used as New York in popular culture and other games. The real question is what happened to that rockstar trail blazing. We all remember Vice City. We all remember how before Vice the 80s revivial really wasn't even happening. Hell go back and read the interviews before Vice and even R* admits that no one really even liked the 80s before Vice and yet they did it. They went to a weird era and with a new fresh look and Vice is , as a result, one of the best games ever made.

 

So now the question becomes, why did they just go with the easy choice? They could of trail blazed like they did with Vice, or RDR or even L.A. Noire era wise and yet they didn't. They're just doing another comtemporary game in a region we all know way to well. I mean think of the other options they had. The 60's in the South, the 70's in the rust belt, the 80's during the crack epidemic, or even a game in the future.

 

Some of you all keep wondering why some of us are so disapppointed and the reason is simple. This isn't trailblazing.

[Killer.Khan]

Who really cares?

 

Rockstar has always surprised us. I'm confident that this game will be a success.

[GTAFanaticGTA]

Amazes me people are getting so emotional WITHOUT even knowing any details. We saw a small trailed for crying out loud lol.

[NotoriousKiller]

If it's not big, detailed and made extremely well it's an absolute failure. They say this is going to be the big one yet don't even include the full SA.

[bobgtafan]

What I'm still waiting on is for anyone to answer my question on why going to Los Santos again was a good idea compared to alternatives...

Grand Theft Auto: Jim Thorpe just didn't go over well in our marketing research tests.

 

I'm curious as to what your "alternatives" are.

60s South, 70's San Fierro, 80's Rust Belt during the crack epidemic, 90s don't need to be redone, 2000s don't need to be redone, 2010s Texas or the South, or the Rust Belt, or Vegas etc. Or somewhere in the future. THe list goes on and on.

[OnlySurvivor]

 

It's going to be a great game, please stop finding small, tiny reasons to bash the game.

Did you just state the the same time setting, region, city, and asethics of a game are small things? Really? You're going to stick with that?

 

@miamivice

 

I get what your saying, but the real problem boils down to this. They're going back to Southern California, a region from San Andreas the best selling GTA and from what I can tell the most liked. That said why? The point for going back to Liberty made sense, because it wasn't really New York. But come on, even in interviews Rockstar admitted the only reason they went back their was because of that. Los Santos? That's a different story. We all know that's Los Angeles, a city almost as used as New York in popular culture and other games. The real question is what happened to that rockstar trail blazing. We all remember Vice City. We all remember how before Vice the 80s revivial really wasn't even happening. Hell go back and read the interviews before Vice and even R* admits that no one really even liked the 80s before Vice and yet they did it. They went to a weird era and with a new fresh look and Vice is , as a result, one of the best games ever made.

 

So now the question becomes, why did they just go with the easy choice? They could of trail blazed like they did with Vice, or RDR or even L.A. Noire era wise and yet they didn't. They're just doing another comtemporary game in a region we all know way to well. I mean think of the other options they had. The 60's in the South, the 70's in the rust belt, the 80's during the crack epidemic, or even a game in the future.

 

Some of you all keep wondering why some of us are so disapppointed and the reason is simple. This isn't trailblazing.

So your major gripe with it is that... it's not groundbreaking enough?

 

And yet you can't think of any ways to improve it?

 

After GTA III, Vice City was done because it was an homage to Scarface and Miami Vice, so it wasn't what I would call 'trailblazing'. Honestly, no one here expected it to turn out as well as it did.

 

 

60s South, 70's San Fierro, 80's Rust Belt during the crack epidemic, 90s don't need to be redone, 2000s don't need to be redone, 2010s Texas or the South, or the Rust Belt, or Vegas etc. Or somewhere in the future. THe list goes on and on.

 

 

- 60's South: What?

 

- 80's Rust Belt during the crack epidemic: This was a good one, but it becomes a problem when it starts to look too much like Liberty City. Also, the setting is not as easily recognizable, especially considering the changes Detroit has gone through since then.

 

- 70's San Fierro: This was considered. Basically it came down to 70's San Francisco, present day New England or present day Los Angeles. 70's San Francisco is famous for action movies such as Dirty Harry and Bullitt, but both Vice City and San Andreas depended heavily on film influences so it was decided upon to do something more original.

Edited November 4, 2011 by OnlySurvivor

[bobgtafan]

For a video game (and even just as a piece of media) Vice City was trailblazing, even within the GTA series Los Santos isn't. I've just given like 5 different things they could of done and I'm not going to lie, I wouldn't even mind if it was Los Santos but in a futuristic era in maybe a "War Day" style situation but it's not that California, it's regular current day Los Angeles, how trailblazing. And no that's one problem with it among many.

 

 

60s South, 70's San Fierro, 80's Rust Belt during the crack epidemic, 90s don't need to be redone, 2000s don't need to be redone, 2010s Texas or the South, or the Rust Belt, or Vegas etc. Or somewhere in the future. THe list goes on and on.

[Halo_Override]

What I'm still waiting on is for anyone to answer my question on why going to Los Santos again was a good idea compared to alternatives...

Grand Theft Auto: Jim Thorpe just didn't go over well in our marketing research tests.

 

I'm curious as to what your "alternatives" are.

60s South, 70's San Fierro, 80's Rust Belt during the crack epidemic, 90s don't need to be redone, 2000s don't need to be redone, 2010s Texas or the South, or the Rust Belt, or Vegas etc. Or somewhere in the future. THe list goes on and on.

Those would all be interesting settings for games, for certain. But except for 70s San Fierro -- America's hangover from the sixties' social revolution, at the symbolic epicenter of where it "all happened" -- none of them fit well with the GTA philosophy and theme of satirizing our collective love/hate relationship with American popular and political culture.

 

You can find organized crime, bad people, and social problems pretty much anywhere, but you need more than that for a GTA game.

[mcstupidfun]

LA and its bobblehead, botox, big tit culture is probably the easiest city to parody. Its just a sitting satire. Culturally, there's so much they can do with it in a comedic way.

 

They did a poor job of capturing NY IMO.

 

Regarding San Andreas, they did a great job capturing early 90s LA. SF was there to be there and LV was boring as hell. It just served as an airport and neighbor to the desert for me.

Edited November 4, 2011 by mcstupidfun

[DjMiikkii]

I think it was related to how much time it would have taken to re-create all three cities. JUST IMAGINE, it took them a good part of 3-4 years to do IV.