Jump to content

Why is it called GTA V then?


crapmadgig

Recommended Posts

I was surprised about that too.

 

But, eventually, i think that they named it that way, to somehow symbolize the "leap" between IV to V. The leap in graphics, the leap in gameplay and so forth.

That's the only reason i can think of. confused.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because they are the creators and developers of this game and can do whatever they wish to.

Plus, if I remember correctly, the "eras" were a fan created thing. I am agreeing with them most of the time, but that does not mean that Rockstar does as well.

Woah hardass, we're not saying that what Rockstar is doing is bad, we're just a bit curious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

What the hell, it's only in LS? God dammit. Source?

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

Well now my excitement is extremely low. Don't even know if I want to buy it now. They better make it really good, this is the most disappointing bullsh*t ever.

Stop complaining. It's not going to be the half-assed LS from San Andreas. I'm tired of all these people saying theyre not gonna buy the game, you know damn well you're going to anyways, stop being a drama queen.

 

 

And I seriously doubt they're going to bring the other cities by DLC... what the hell? Everybody needs to stop acting like they know everything about the game for f*ck's sake sarcasm.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

C'mon guys, seriously? What do you want? Need For Speed naming standards? biggrin.gif

 

Summarizing what I've seen here (tl;dr) I could catch 3 simple reasons:

 

- GTA5 is called so for the same reason GTA4 wasn't called GTA Liberty City

- GTA5 is following a different story from GTA4 (don't argue, just deal with it)

- GTA5 is called so because Rockstar wanted it

 

But I can add my own opinion: it can't be called GTA Los Santos because it's not only Los Santos, but also surrounding areas. This doesn't mean it'll include San Fierro or Las Venturas (they've already mentioned the opposite), but maybe we'll found some neighbor towns like Blueberry, Dillimore, Montgomery and Palomino Creek from GTASA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GTA V is actually Grand Theft Auto Vietnam tounge.gif

I was kind of hoping R* will bring us to some place different...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because they don't want people to find out they're reusing the same map from L.A. Noire.

Or even the map from Midnight Club: Los Angeles. This is the fourth iteration of LA by Rockstar, the third one this very generation. Why Rockstar, Why? If you are just going to remake single cities, then you should have done Vice City. Atleast Miami hasn't been done to death like New York or Los Angeles

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think SA was called GTA IV when it was first announced too. What we are calling GTA V will probably get another name and then the real GTA V will be for the next console generation. Am I the only one who remembers how this works? It is just convenient to call the next one by whatever the next number would be before we know the title.

 

And keep in mind that Rockstar did not say there would be no San Fierro or Los Venturas. Yesterday they confirmed that both of those cities would be in GTA V according to IGN. We really just don't know yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because they don't want people to find out they're reusing the same map from L.A. Noire.

Or even the map from Midnight Club: Los Angeles. This is the fourth iteration of LA by Rockstar, the third one this very generation. Why Rockstar, Why? If you are just going to remake single cities, then you should have done Vice City. Atleast Miami hasn't been done to death like New York or Los Angeles

With all the respect, they can't reuse LA Noire map because it was made to be an accurate LA in the past. They needed to make at least some tweaks to reach an acceptable result, and it could take more work.

 

Another thing, GTA5's Los Santos seems to be closer to the real LA than the LA from Midnight Club. Just saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Halo_Override
Because they don't want people to find out they're reusing the same map from L.A. Noire.

Or even the map from Midnight Club: Los Angeles. This is the fourth iteration of LA by Rockstar, the third one this very generation. Why Rockstar, Why? If you are just going to remake single cities, then you should have done Vice City. Atleast Miami hasn't been done to death like New York or Los Angeles

California is globally relevant.

 

Florida is primarily relevant to Floridians, Cubans, Quebecois, and the Republican party.

 

Vice City was an aberration. Its success was based on era, not geography.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Halo_Override
I think SA was called GTA IV when it was first announced too. What we are calling GTA V will probably get another name and then the real GTA V will be for the next console generation. Am I the only one who remembers how this works? It is just convenient to call the next one by whatever the next number would be before we know the title.

 

And keep in mind that Rockstar did not say there would be no San Fierro or Los Venturas. Yesterday they confirmed that both of those cities would be in GTA V according to IGN. We really just don't know yet.

Perhaps you'd provide a link to any instance of Rockstar referring to the original San Andreas as "Grand Theft Auto IV"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's called GTA V because the IV cannon is OVER. Thank God, let's move on...

 

Also, Klebowitz, or whatever, isn't in the game! The bum just looks like him, kind of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

"They" said that because its LS and surrounding whatever...for right now..

 

"They" Didnt say its LS and surrounding whatever and thats what it is. No DLC,

no plans of doing anything else in the future..

 

They read these f*cking forums...they know how to mess with us

 

Remember people, back when GTA IV was announced, Rockstar maintained that the two DLCs were xbox exclusive.

 

All Micro$oft fanboys screamed with joy, making sure everyone knew that "the DLCs are NEVER coming to Ps3/pc."

 

We never heard from them again...

 

My point is Rockstar can be ambiguous at times. An exclusive could just mean "Timed" Exclusive, while a game containing X areas could also have Y and Z areas. In both cases not all of the facts are mentioned in one go, a marketing strategy Rockstar has been using in this ps3/360 era.

 

I reckon there will be multiple cities from southern California, especially San Diego. But alas, I do believe we have to say our last tributes to Las Venturus/San Fierro. Goodbye San Andreas. Hello "V"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, Klebowitz, or whatever, isn't in the game! The bum just looks like him, kind of.

Mayne it's just a cameo. But the story is completely new.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Canadien_Vader

Not sure exactly, but I'll ask the Rockstar team at the Christmas party later this year... They'll probably just say they can do whatever the hell they want though smile.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The Title

The title of the new Grand Theft Auto is "Grand Theft Auto V" (or "Grand Theft Auto 5"). Many fans speculated beforehand that it would be called "Grand Theft Auto: Place Name", as titles have taken this form in the past (e.g. with Grand Theft Auto: Vice City and Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas). The reason for this was that Vice City and San Andreas formed a trilogy with GTAIII, and thus were essentially expansions of the GTAIII world. Former Rockstar CEO, Terry Donovan, admitted that this was the plan from the beginning:

 

It was really important for us to do this trilogy. A fictional New York in a contemporary setting, Miami in the '80s, and a '90s Cali - that was the trilogy. That was the plan from a long time ago.

 

— Terry Donovan, Former R* CEO (talking to Game Informer)

There was never any indication that the next few games would follow the same pattern. Dan Houser told the Official PlayStation Magazine in 2007 (a year before GTAIV was released) that Rockstar had yet to make up their minds. He said: "to be honest with you, we haven't yet figured out if this [GTA IV] is going to be leading onto another bunch of games or not. We are just focusing on this at the moment."

 

The announcement of 'Grand Theft Auto V' doesn't necessarily mean that the game won't feature loose connections and returning characters from previous games. It's just a title, afterall.

http://www.gtav.net/info/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, we miss out on SF and LV, it's not so bad, SF is already busy being defaced by Driver, although I'm not sure why we have LA... I know that Noire was made by a seperate group but I'll still say they'd better not be reusing anything from Noire. LV will be awesome when they do it next, they'll probably really push to dazzle us with awesome lighting effects and deliver a game the current consoles cannot.

 

I've seen all I need to see in the trailer, we have lots of open land outside of the city, there's your profit. Now if I can just get some camouflage for MP... and get the noobs to turn off deathmatch blips.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, we miss out on SF and LV, it's not so bad, SF is already busy being defaced by Driver, although I'm not sure why we have LA... I know that Noire was made by a seperate group but I'll still say they'd better not be reusing anything from Noire. LV will be awesome when they do it next, they'll probably really push to dazzle us with awesome lighting effects and deliver a game the current consoles cannot.

 

I've seen all I need to see in the trailer, we have lots of open land outside of the city, there's your profit. Now if I can just get some camouflage for MP... and get the noobs to turn off deathmatch blips.

Southern California. Not just LA.

 

http://www.gtaforums.com/index.php?showtopic=491350

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It isn't called Grand Theft Auto: Los Santos because that would be bad marketing.

 

Imagine seeing a game in a store labelled Grand Theft Auto: The Saints. You'd be confused as heck, no? Because you would get the same reaction from any Spanish-speaker who hasn't played San Andreas.

 

Los Santos is a fictional place, so nobody would know what the hell you're talking about. Grand Theft Auto: Vice City works because you immediately know it's the name of a city. Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas works because the San Andreas fault is an actual region in real life.

 

There's another second meaning as to why it's called GTA V, but it's hard to explain.

Picture a pink golfball in your mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

zeppelincheetah

this really does throw a wrench in the whole eras idea. it made sense with the "III" era - everything tied together in the same canon - being replaced by GTA IV. But IV was a location-specific entry in the series. There were other IV-era games but they all took place in Liberty City. I feel like there will be a big difference between IV and V but we just don't know it yet.

 

with GTA III Rockstar was focused on making GTA 3d and didn't really give the setting much thought, just as long as everything worked. Liberty City is the first level in GTA 1

 

in an interview I read recently - can't remember where - someone said they tried to do 80's miami as expansion to GTA 1 (which already had 1960's london expansions) but scrapped the idea until GTA: Vice City. They didn't do it in III 'cause they wanted to get the kinks out first.

 

San Andreas was obvious after that, they already did level 1 and 3 of GTA 1 so San Andreas is level 2. Sam Houser talks about "the trilogy" in interviews - these first three 3D GTAs.

 

Now we have IV Liberty City, V San Andreas (it takes place in San Andreas still, LS is in SA) and likely VI Vice City

 

There are two things that upset me about the setting. One is we've been there, done that in SA. Two is it confirms that we're going to go to Vice City again in GTA VI. There's no way they won't now, with a HD LC and HD SA that leaves HD VC. And it will be set in the 80's, of course as fans ask for. If GTA V's biggest change is intricate story with multiple characters, maybe GTA VI's change will be time. Part of it set in the 80's, part in modern day. Vice City wouldn't be just Miami, but a lot of wilderness in the everglades (complete with fan boats) as well. I would prefer if they tried another city. Why not Chicago or D.C. or Boston or Philly? I'd like to see them try international cities as well. They could still keep their brand names - ever heard of Americanization? fast food is worldwide. I'd like to play as an american in foreign cities. that way there could still be satire against americans. but we can also make fun of chinese, french, japanese, etc. i would LOVE for a GTA in Japan, that would be fun to make fun of!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because GTA SAN ANDREAS was already taken :-)

Thats my Logic smile.gif

 

personally i think all these people who support the one city statement are kind of ignorent in not questioning the Title because it seems to me to VERY out of place here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would prefer if they tried another city. Why not Chicago or D.C. or Boston or Philly? I'd like to see them try international cities as well. They could still keep their brand names - ever heard of Americanization? fast food is worldwide. I'd like to play as an american in foreign cities. that way there could still be satire against americans. but we can also make fun of chinese, french, japanese, etc. i would LOVE for a GTA in Japan, that would be fun to make fun of!

Chicago, D.C, Boston and Philly just don't have any particularly different "feel" that separates it from most American cities. Liberty City is based off of NY, so they have to do it just cuz its frikking NYC! But on a global scale, less people know Chicago, D.C, Boston and Philly as well as NY, LA and Miami (just because Miami has a HUGE influence on Latin America and gets a lot of international attention, though not much attention in the US; NY and LA is self-explicable). Now to international cities, that should be something Rockstar should head to next time. But I wouldn't say the whole game is in another country. If they did VI in Vice City, they could easily include Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Bahamas, Dominican Republic, especially considering it will probably be on a new console. That would be pretty cool, going from one island in the caribbean to another and exploring the different cultures that exist within that area, coupled with Vice City which is in America and if they want they could put Orlando, Tampa and the Everglades in there too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GTA V is a boring title. I was kind've hoping it was just temporary... but after the trailer, it looks like they're sticking with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

don't they add a number every generation or every 3 games or something like that? or is it a number every technological advancement?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3,5 years passes by, and we wait anxiously for the next gta to be revieled. If they rewieled a game called just GTA: Los Santos, I would feel as we have waited too long a time for just a semi-sequel. By naming it V Rockstar answers our calls, making the wait worthwhile and at the same time establishing there being a significant progress within the GTA franchise. Should they in stead have waited four more years to release a sequal to IV?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why was grand theft auto IV called grand theft auto IV, why not just Grand Theft Auto Liberty City?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.