thatstupidbug Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 And one question - If you are redoing Los Santos, then how does Carl fit(exist) in the continuity if this is part of the new era? simply, he doesn't exist. why it is so difficult to understand? this is a WHOLE new universe!!! An alternative universe where some things are the same (lazlow and his career trought V-rock and chatterbox), and other things simply are no longer present in that world. other references are simply easter-egg, like the action figure of tommy, lance and J.E.Cash in san andreas... or you think it is possible, in 1992, to have a figure the protagonist of manhunt (set in mid-2000's) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abottig Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 And one question - If you are redoing Los Santos, then how does Carl fit(exist) in the continuity if this is part of the new era? simply, he doesn't exist. why it is so difficult to understand? this is a WHOLE new universe!!! An alternative universe where some things are the same (lazlow and his career trought V-rock and chatterbox), and other things simply are no longer present in that world. other references are simply easter-egg, like the action figure of tommy, lance and J.E.Cash in san andreas... or you think it is possible, in 1992, to have a figure the protagonist of manhunt (set in mid-2000's) I remember having this argument when IV was announced. Some people just don't get it. New number, new cannon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxvayne Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 (edited) And one question - If you are redoing Los Santos, then how does Carl fit(exist) in the continuity if this is part of the new era? simply, he doesn't exist. why it is so difficult to understand? this is a WHOLE new universe!!! An alternative universe where some things are the same (lazlow and his career trought V-rock and chatterbox), and other things simply are no longer present in that world. other references are simply easter-egg, like the action figure of tommy, lance and J.E.Cash in san andreas... or you think it is possible, in 1992, to have a figure the protagonist of manhunt (set in mid-2000's) That was a question to Only Survivors post if you read correctly before hand. And 4's continuity doesn't even make sense with Lazlow, V-Rock, Fernando if you think about it. But I won't open those can of worms now. Edited November 9, 2011 by Maxvayne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxvayne Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 And one question - If you are redoing Los Santos, then how does Carl fit(exist) in the continuity if this is part of the new era? simply, he doesn't exist. why it is so difficult to understand? this is a WHOLE new universe!!! An alternative universe where some things are the same (lazlow and his career trought V-rock and chatterbox), and other things simply are no longer present in that world. other references are simply easter-egg, like the action figure of tommy, lance and J.E.Cash in san andreas... or you think it is possible, in 1992, to have a figure the protagonist of manhunt (set in mid-2000's) I remember having this argument when IV was announced. Some people just don't get it. New number, new cannon. I don't get you agreeing with a guys tangent if you read the post I was replying to? Seriously, how old are you guys? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theworldfamous Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 I'm not ruling out more cities. In San Andreas mt. Chilliad was closer to San Fierro than to Los Santos. Then again, I'd rather have one large city that doesn't feel scaled down like in they were in SA. I think that's what they're going for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
herounderfireza Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 To me Southern California would be sufficient. People nag about how they want 3 cities again, and I admit, San Andreas was the best game in my opinion. You had the freedom to go out and explore. I spent more time in San Adreas going to every corner of the map, and just enjoy it. I liked the different areas like the countryside with the farmers etc. In GTA IV I was just doing the missions, and getting them over with. Exploring the city just wasn't that much fun for me. So I agree that 3 cities would've been exciting, but to be honest it has already been done... and just leave it at that. When Rockstar says "Southern California" it includes a number of places. The biggest of them are Los Santos yes, but they could also include San Diego. There are a number of smaller towns and areas that could also be included in the map. They could've gone so far as to border the map with Mexico (this could also create a number of missions, especially if they added a town or 2 within Mexico, drug trafficking etc.) With the farmland they showed and the workers on it (we can assume they're hispanic, not to be a racist but the majority of manual labourers are hispanic in that region). Los Santos would provide more content for us to use on it's own anyway. IF they really make the game interesting by buying houses, and bring the gym back (I know it's in the trailer, but if they actually make it usable). I did like the idea of gymming in San Andreas, but to be honest at the end of the storyline when CJ runs so slow because I haven't been to the gym in ages, it started to irritate me. Not to mention the hours it took to get him buffed up. It's fun at first, but after a while it's boring. Whatever Rockstar decided, I'm still going to love the game. From what I've seen just in the trailer (the dog, the jet ski etc.) there's going to be a lot of things we can use and explore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlademanX Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 Yep no new locations till next generation probably. Even if theres no next gen till 2016 abouts, They might re do Vice City. That was a funny story. But like the guy said you dont need anyone more than the Producer, Exec, Director and president to decide which direction they should go? Secondly if you really want your work mates inputs all you need to do is schedule a meeting with the lead designers and creative people and their teams and get hands up votes. But these days most companies dont do all that. They could have asked their fans and had a vote what the fans wanted. But its corporate investment and time. Companies tend to do what they want,. Based on their OWN research on the web. San Andreas seemed to be the most popular choice. Based on what ive found it IS the most popular choice. 3 cities would have been nice but time constraints, and hardware limitations play a big role. Even PS4 will have its limitations at one point and suffer similar faith. Its up to Hardware and Software developers to up the game for the next gen so we can get the games we all dream of. But with that comes More work and more money and more staff is required. More resources are needed. The list goes on.... you might actually end up waiting double time for games to release next gen! So best be happy with whats available now! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CookPassBabtridge Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 If someone high up at R* is making dickish decisions at the start of each project, (which it had felt like to me since IV) then it doesnt matter how long they spend on the game or what hardware its built on. A handful of people will call the shots and it gets made, end of story. If this game is as huge as its been advertised as, then the only thing limiting 3 cities is the decision to remake SoCal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobgtafan Posted November 10, 2012 Author Share Posted November 10, 2012 I'm bumping this thread because I feel it fits into the general discussion we've been having concerning GTA V and it's quality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobgtafan Posted September 25, 2013 Author Share Posted September 25, 2013 I am bumming this topic, given the failure of GTA V as a game, let's re discuss. Is it because they set the game in an area that in real life is over 500 sq miles and in game does not even include Orange County, let alone the fact you can so quickly transverse the city. If you know anything about the real LA then this GTA game is a hollow representation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnGazman Posted September 25, 2013 Share Posted September 25, 2013 (edited) 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? Because this isn't a remake of San Andreas. It's GTA V, and we've just come away from Liberty City. We needed something different. As for why we only have Los Santos; because developing a game that looks this good takes a lot of time and massive budget, perhaps? Or, as noted above, because this isn't meant to be a flat-out remake of San Andreas. I am bumming this topic, given the failure of GTA V as a game GTA V hasn't failed as a game. It's playable, therefore, it is a game. Edited September 25, 2013 by JohnGazman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mdgrncw Posted September 25, 2013 Share Posted September 25, 2013 Its not a failure though. There is nothing to discuss. Some people like the game, some people don't. To each his own. There is no debate to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfernoV Posted September 25, 2013 Share Posted September 25, 2013 WHY f*ckIN BUMP THIS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now