A conference meeting at R*

[bobgtafan]

LA is 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.

That's the problem. They did a great job at LS already and the other two more interesting cities that could of been focused on aren't. The two cities that were kind of tacked onto SA are being ignored and we're just retrending old ground now. I mean seriously we've waited 3 years for Los Santos again. If someone would of said that two weeks ago I would of laughed my ass of, but now....

[Baron-Samedi]

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.

My only answer to that would be they keeping it secret and don't want to reveal to much, either that or they could just bring back the whole SA through DLC's..... and why would the states plates read SAN ANDREAS ? In Midnight club L.A the cars had los angeles plates

[mcstupidfun]

 

LA is 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.

That's the problem. They did a great job at LS already and the other two more interesting cities that could of been focused on aren't. The two cities that were kind of tacked onto SA are being ignored and we're just retrending old ground now. I mean seriously we've waited 3 years for Los Santos again. If someone would of said that two weeks ago I would of laughed my ass of, but now....

Los Santos looks huge and I see they captured the environment well and its looks great. I'm honestly not complaining yet. If they were going to do another city, I'd go with Miami and DC. They have their own identity and enough going on to be carry a story IMO. I think both suffer from being (relatively) small.

 

I'd love London, Paris, and Barcelona/Madrid put together with the south of France. Hell, Italy and Morocco would be great. Thanks to 360, they may have some limitations on what they can currently do.

 

Anyway, as long as the game is great (as I'm sure it will be), I have nothing else to ask for aside from it still being equally fun until the next game comes along, especially if its going to be a 4 year, next gen wait.

Edited November 4, 2011 by mcstupidfun

[OnlySurvivor]

 

That's the problem. They did a great job at LS already and the other two more interesting cities that could of been focused on aren't.

 

San Andreas barely scratched the surface, relatively speaking. The only way to remedy that is to make Los Santos the focal point of its own game (not the only city, just significantly the largest one).

 

 

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.

 

- Vegas: Someone else said it best, Vegas is a city in the middle of nowhere where people go to lose money. There's not a whole lot of depth to it.

 

 

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.

 

 

Honestly, I don't like to use this as an excuse, but you really need to see more of the game before you pass this judgment. It is many times more 'trailblazing' than Vice City, whichever way you quantify it.

 

Vice City wasn't trailblazing in my opinion. It was good, certainly, but it wouldn't have been nearly as good if it weren't for Scarface, Miami Vice and the like.

Edited November 4, 2011 by OnlySurvivor

[Brawly]

What if Los Santos is the same size as the entire San Andreas?

[mcstupidfun]

 

What if Los Santos is the same size as the entire San Andreas?

I agree with the original Los Santos being ridiculously condensed and I want that fixed but I'm not going for True Crime LA. It was beyond huge, a pain in the ass to travel across. The only + would be R* makes the city a character within itself.

 

Considering its one city, I am glad the planes are back (as I assume). Flying to mutliple cities is great but I'll let it off if LS has multiple airports or theres a strip in the rural area.

[bobgtafan]

Vegas. A city built by the mob, it's main attraction is gambling and prostitution ( a GTA stample) and has one of the highest unemployment rates in the nation and has suffered the most from the property bubble, all the while it's under riding economic asset, gambling, is becoming less relvent. You think that city isn't GTA material? I mean seriously most of the themes that GTA V's focused on; inequality, poverty, the finicinal crisis would be better examed in Vegas to begin with...come on now.

[mcstupidfun]

Vegas. A city built by the mob, it's main attraction is gambling and prostitution ( a GTA stample) and has one of the highest unemployment rates in the nation and has suffered the most from the property bubble, all the while it's under riding economic asset, gambling, is becoming less relvent. You think that city isn't GTA material? I mean seriously most of the themes that GTA V's focused on; inequality, poverty, the finicinal crisis would be better examed in Vegas to begin with...come on now.

Thats a fair point but going back to San Andreas, Venturas was boring. It was an airport and casinos. Nothing more and thats how most people feel about Vegas. Aside from that, Vegas is solely known for the strip (casinos, shows, partying).

[GTAlove]

Vegas. A city built by the mob, it's main attraction is gambling and prostitution ( a GTA stample) and has one of the highest unemployment rates in the nation and has suffered the most from the property bubble, all the while it's under riding economic asset, gambling, is becoming less relvent. You think that city isn't GTA material? I mean seriously most of the themes that GTA V's focused on; inequality, poverty, the finicinal crisis would be better examed in Vegas to begin with...come on now.

Sorry, they're not just gonna trash Los Santos and decide to do Las Venturas instead.

[bobgtafan]

Vegas. A city built by the mob, it's main attraction is gambling and prostitution ( a GTA stample) and has one of the highest unemployment rates in the nation and has suffered the most from the property bubble, all the while it's under riding economic asset, gambling, is becoming less relvent. You think that city isn't GTA material? I mean seriously most of the themes that GTA V's focused on; inequality, poverty, the finicinal crisis would be better examed in Vegas to begin with...come on now.

Thats a fair point but going back to San Andreas, Venturas was boring. It was an airport and casinos. Nothing more and thats how most people feel about Vegas. Aside from that, Vegas is solely known for the strip (casinos, shows, partying).

Yes Vegas was boring in SA, all the more reason that should be the city being redone if anything.

[OnlySurvivor]

 

Vegas. A city built by the mob, it's main attraction is gambling and prostitution ( a GTA stample) and has one of the highest unemployment rates in the nation and has suffered the most from the property bubble, all the while it's under riding economic asset, gambling, is becoming less relvent. You think that city isn't GTA material? I mean seriously most of the themes that GTA V's focused on; inequality, poverty, the finicinal crisis would be better examed in Vegas to begin with...come on now.

Weren't you the one complaining that V has only one major city? Vegas is in the middle of nowhere, so it's pretty much guaranteed to be the only major city. It's also completely landlocked, which means for the first time since GTA2 it will be without boats. You still haven't explained why it's a better idea than LA. As you've sure enough seen in the trailer Los Santos has its fair share of economic problems as well.

 

If V were to take place in Vegas we'd be having this same argument, except you would be complaining that it doesn't take place in LA.

 

 

What if Los Santos is the same size as the entire San Andreas?

 

What if I told you that it is

Edited November 4, 2011 by OnlySurvivor

[Little William]

You know what, just tell R* not to make GTA V. Just turn GTA: SA into HD version, make the map ten times bigger and we play as CJ again (Hooray). I guess that way everyone will be happy.

[GTAknowledge]

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.

 

Is this the first GTA to use 1 city (or island) only?

 

Vice had 2, SA had 3 and IV had 3.

 

 

I would much rather have 3 medium sized cities than 1 very large city.

 

 

It looks like the majority of the city is just houses (like the real LA). I only counted around 6 tall city building and the rest were small. Looks like around 75+% of the map will be residential areas and the country side.

[bobgtafan]

Vegas. A city built by the mob, it's main attraction is gambling and prostitution ( a GTA stample) and has one of the highest unemployment rates in the nation and has suffered the most from the property bubble, all the while it's under riding economic asset, gambling, is becoming less relvent. You think that city isn't GTA material? I mean seriously most of the themes that GTA V's focused on; inequality, poverty, the finicinal crisis would be better examed in Vegas to begin with...come on now.

Weren't you the one complaining that V has only one major city? Vegas is in the middle of nowhere, so it's pretty much guaranteed to be the only major city. It's also completely landlocked, which means for the first time since GTA2 it will be without boats. You still haven't explained why it's a better idea than LA. As you've sure enough seen in the trailer Los Santos has its fair share of economic problems as well.

 

If V were to take place in Vegas we'd be having this same argument, except you would be complaining that it doesn't take place in LA.

 

 

What if Los Santos is the same size as the entire San Andreas?

 

What if I told you that it is

Havn't you noticed me pointing out Los Santos has been their done that properly in a GTA game? I've also already said that I can settle for one city and the countryside around it if it's a city we haven't been to or that hasn't been done properly like London or Vegas. I would be this mad right now only if it were Vice City or Liberty City again to be honest. Also Vegas basically on the Colorado so it's not like you couldn't have boats and Lake Meed is actually pretty big spot for boating. Listen the bottom line is this.

 

 

We've already been to Southern California

Southern California took up the plurality if not majority of gameplay time most people spent in GTA SA

A plurality of SA's missions took place in Southern California

We've had 6 contemparory GTA's now (contem. at time of release and including DLCs)

GTA IV has already touched on and satired the recession themes and that was further done with the two DLC

When people said they wanted San Andreas they meant the 3 big cities plus countryside. If they wanted just Los Santos then everyone would of just been asking for that, but almost no one was

There were other places that could of been done instead

We've waited 3 years for news of GTA V and it's Los Santos again

Now we still have to wait another 5 years for any hope of a new location instead of a remake of a previous location

Other places like Vegas or Texas could better do the major themes of greed and inequaltiy shown in the trailer

[Phoenix345]

i dont see what you guys are complaining about... i mean i was a little dissapointed when i saw the other cities wouldn't be returning but now i finnaly see the real picture...

 

ITS A BRAND NEW GTA :DDDD

 

And Los Santos looks better than ever and they say its gonna be HUGE... idk about u guys but in the GTA world: Bigger is Always Better

 

plus look at the giganitc country side and im sure there will be dozens of small town to explore...

 

im sure when the map is released everyone will shut up and be amazing by what we are dealing with here

 

 

Its R* guys they wont let us down... I can put money on that

[OnlySurvivor]

Havn't you noticed me pointing out Los Santos has been their done that properly in a GTA game? I've also already said that I can settle for one city and the countryside around it if it's a city we haven't been to or that hasn't been done properly like London or Vegas. I would be this mad right now only if it were Vice City or Liberty City again to be honest. Also Vegas basically on the Colorado so it's not like you couldn't have boats and Lake Meed is actually pretty big spot for boating. Listen the bottom line is this.

 

 

We've already been to Southern California

Southern California took up the plurality if not majority of gameplay time most people spent in GTA SA

A plurality of SA's missions took place in Southern California

We've had 6 contemparory GTA's now (contem. at time of release and including DLCs)

GTA IV has already touched on and satired the recession themes and that was further done with the two DLC

When people said they wanted San Andreas they meant the 3 big cities plus countryside. If they wanted just Los Santos then everyone would of just been asking for that, but almost no one was

There were other places that could of been done instead

We've waited 3 years for news of GTA V and it's Los Santos again

Now we still have to wait another 5 years for any hope of a new location instead of a remake of a previous location

Other places like Vegas or Texas could better do the major themes of greed and inequaltiy shown in the trailer

You really think that San Andreas' Los Santos was good enough? You've never been to Los Angeles have you

 

 

Let's take a different tack on this. The version of L.A. featured in GTA:SA was massively, massively condensed. They really had to hack L.A. to pieces in order to come up with something that would fit into one corner of the playing area. Even though I don't live in L.A. (hell, not even in the U.S.) and don't know L.A. half as well some people here, I know that there are a quite a few significant landmarks (Farmer's Market, La Brea Tar Pits, Disneyland, Universal Studios, Hollywood Bowl and many, many others) that didn't make it into the final cut of Los Santos in GTA:SA. And stuff that did make it in was cut down, compressed, rearranged and massively compromised in order to make it work. True, L.S. was never intended to represent L.A. street for street, it only had to have the right feel. And that was enough for the story that was to be told with it. But it doesn't change the fact that it was completely and brutally butchered to put it into GTA:SA. (Not that SA wasn't a bad game or that LS was a bad city. I like GTA:SA.)

 

In GTA:V, Los Santos now gets a whole game to itself. It too will not be a street by street representation of the real life city. But nor is it going to be a rehash of GTA:SA's version of L.S. But it is going to take centre stage. L.A. will still be massively condensed, but now they have much more area to play with, so it won't be compressed quite as much. They are going to be able to get a hell of a lot more of L.A. into the new L.S. This rendition of Los Santos is going to be an entirely new city. It will be as different from GTA:SA as GTA:IV's Liberty City was different to GTA:III (albeit that in GTA:III LC wasn't intended to be a direct representation of NYC, but I digress).

 

Furthermore, I think it unlikely that GTA:V will be focusing on L.A.'s street gang culture. In GTA:SA, it was central to the plot and the lead characters. GTA:V may possibly have some street gang elements in it, but they are more likely to take a back seat to what ever the central plot is likely to be.

 

Overall, GTA:V is not going to be GTA:SA mk2. It's going to be it's own game with it's own identity. It may not be what everyone wants. But Rockstar do prefer to let their creativity do their talking. They will give us a game that breaks new ground and is able to stand in it's own right.

 

GTA:V is going to be different in so many ways to GTA:SA. Deal with it.

 

Peace.

[mcstupidfun]

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.

 

Is this the first GTA to use 1 city (or island) only?

 

Vice had 2, SA had 3 and IV had 3.

 

 

I would much rather have 3 medium sized cities than 1 very large city.

 

 

It looks like the majority of the city is just houses (like the real LA). I only counted around 6 tall city building and the rest were small. Looks like around 75+% of the map will be residential areas and the country side.

The lack of skyscrapers is what Los Angeles is. It has a small downtown area compared to other major cities. The city is so spread out, there's no need to build up and I think entertainment is its main industry.

[Over_the_hill]

You know what, just tell R* not to make GTA V. Just turn GTA: SA into HD version, make the map ten times bigger and we play as CJ again (Hooray). I guess that way everyone will be happy.

I'd be disappointed actually.

[mcstupidfun]

Vegas. A city built by the mob, it's main attraction is gambling and prostitution ( a GTA stample) and has one of the highest unemployment rates in the nation and has suffered the most from the property bubble, all the while it's under riding economic asset, gambling, is becoming less relvent. You think that city isn't GTA material? I mean seriously most of the themes that GTA V's focused on; inequality, poverty, the finicinal crisis would be better examed in Vegas to begin with...come on now.

Thats a fair point but going back to San Andreas, Venturas was boring. It was an airport and casinos. Nothing more and thats how most people feel about Vegas. Aside from that, Vegas is solely known for the strip (casinos, shows, partying).

Yes Vegas was boring in SA, all the more reason that should be the city being redone if anything.

IMO, I don't know if there is enough potential in the city for me to find it worthwhile. Maybe that stems from me not liking Vegas and thinking its an overrated desert town.

[the_mannn]

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.

On the other side it is like saying That GTA IV is only going to feature the 1st island from GTA 3, Or the next GTA is only going to be the 1st part of Gta Vice city.

[bobgtafan]

@ OnlySurvivor

 

Yea one little problem with that analysis. It could be applied to any GTA city.

 

"O well real New York is so big, and in GTA 4 they left out so much, if we just redid it from a new focus of the crime scene and added some countryside I'm sure no one would care"

 

Now if GTA V was in Liberty City again under the same foundation you just laid out with that quote this forum would be full of people ready to boycott R*. Who cares if LA was condensded the overall soul of the place was captured and it was just as detailed as Vice. I could care less if the prospective within Southern California has changed, because at the end of the day it's still Southern California, a place we've explored in detail before.

[73duster]

I never thought i's see so many ungrateful people complain so much over finally getting another GTA game. This is the single most successful game franchise of all time. The mere photo depicting GTAV with a trailer date took the gaming world by storm, in a way that every other entertainment company WISHED it could. Instead of celebration with some fun debate about the trailer, it's a bunch of rediculous nitpicking and insane expectations at what we should get for 60 dollars. Forgetting that you can't even fill most cars gas tanks for that amount, much less pay your cable bill. It's embarrassing, and i hope Rockstar stays away from this forum.

[Jeeebuuus]

I'm sure they asked each other at some point,

"Don't you think SA fans expect at least everything in the map to be close to the original but expanded and more detailed?"

I can't imagine the deciding voice to say,

"Naw, lets take a big gamble do it like we want to."

But the thing is that they are so talented and creative that you know whatever they made will be out of this world.

[OnlySurvivor]

@ OnlySurvivor

 

Yea one little problem with that analysis. It could be applied to any GTA city.

 

"O well real New York is so big, and in GTA 4 they left out so much, if we just redid it from a new focus of the crime scene and added some countryside I'm sure no one would care"

 

Now if GTA V was in Liberty City again under the same foundation you just laid out with that quote this forum would be full of people ready to boycott R*. Who cares if LA was condensded the overall soul of the place was captured and it was just as detailed as Vice. I could care less if the prospective within Southern California has changed, because at the end of the day it's still Southern California, a place we've explored in detail before.

Los Santos was the most inaccurate out of all of the San Andreas cities. So much had to be taken out and rearranged from it it isn't even funny anymore. And we've already explored Las Vegas in detail, no?

[OGCFB]

Lets be clear it's a reimagined southern California lets see what happens.

[Killer.Khan]

Some people are so damn spoiled! Be lucky we got an announcement (much less a TRAILER) as soon as we did. On that note thank you for the trailer/announcement R*. I'm sure you have a few surprises in store for us! Can't wait for the next trailer!

[LCstuntman]

One thing that doesn't make sense to me... there has to be more than one island to be able to make the player unlock the maps, right? Unless theres lots of countryside towns that are blocked off via islands?

[Filipenis]

Oh my god you guys are being b****es right now!

 

For your own sake so that you don't go insane. Stop crying. THERE HAS ONLY BEEN 1 SINGLE TRAILER RELEASED AND YOU GUYS ARE ALREADY CRYING. THIS GAME IS GOING TO BE THE sh*t. STOP BLAMING LIMITATIONS THEY WILL FIND A WAY AROUND IT ROCKSTAR ALMOST NEVER DISSAPOINTS!!

 

[Gezim]

If there is no SF or LV I will be extremely disappointed.

 

If I wanted one big detailed city I would go play IV. It's not San Andreas if you don't f*cking include all three cities.

[LCstuntman]

If there is no SF or LV I will be extremely disappointed.

 

If I wanted one big detailed city I would go play IV. It's not San Andreas if you don't f*cking include all three cities.

They didn't say it was San Andreas. All they said was that it would be Los Santos and the surrounding countryside.

 

GTA Fans just assume everything, "OMG IN THE TRAILER THERE WAS LOS SANTOS, THEREFORE THE WHOLE SA MUST BE IN IT, WHICH MEANS THE WHOLE UNITED STATES WILL BE IN IT" "OH YEAH I HEARD AUSTRALIA WAS IN AS WELL" "YEAH AND CANADA"

 

And then they get pissed about how disappointed they are when it was all random speculation they came up with without any facts what so ever.