Algonquin Assassin Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 (edited) I think you're wrong about that... After SA was released people were expecting the next GTA (IV in this case) to be at least the same size if not bigger than SA... Then R* said, ok we make it smaller because it will be next gen graphics and new engine which they started from scratch... Now with V the best move would be to make again a release with more than one city to match up SA. Thats why i said games shouldn't go backwards. Am not bitching or anything and never said i wont buy it if its only LS. Yes the map will be big, stuffed with beaches, hills and so but most of the action takes place in cities. Those extra areas are there to connect the cities... Uhm, where did you see a statement that the map will be bigger that SA? except the R* announcement which does not imply it is bigger than SA but bigger... whatever that means No I was mainly talking the OP. Not you when I said people wouldn't buy it for not having SF and LV. I see your point, but I think the lack of SF and LV will slowly get forgotten. Judging by the trailer the shear scope and size will probably be enourmous enough where it doesn't even need SF and LV. I can understand how people have an attachment to these cities, but I feel the map will make up for it somehow and R* would know this. We have to remember it's not a remake of SA. R* can basically do what they like. They haven't promised "SA part 2". They're doing a re-imagining of LA, its surrounding areas and basically "Southern California" which personally has me more excited thinking about what else there could be in store outside of LS. Edited November 5, 2011 by Miamivicecity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uzi 9mm Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 (edited) If SA was the best or the shi*t then its only fair and square that for a next GTA like V to be better, bigger and more quality... Games shouldn't go backwards The thing is though it's been reported that map will be much bigger than SA and I have no doubt it'll be of better quality too. This may sound harsh, but anyone thinking of not buying it because of not having SF and LV needs to grow up. There's a difference being disappointed and carrying on like a child. Where have you heard this? Can you post a link aswell? There's been several threads on it already. Some are ranging from being atleast 2x bigger than RDR (Which itself is bigger than SA) and some people have calculated it to be 85 square miles. I do believe it'll be a bigger map than SA anyway. GTA IV wasn't that much smaller and it didn't even have countryside. This does. Those threads are pure speculation or wishful thinking That's what I thought too. I'm sure the only solid facts we've had so far is the description R* have given on their site, that and trailer is all we know as fact. I do think the game will feature the other 2 cities though...the PS3 and 360 are capable of handling what the PS2 did, despite the new physics and graphical upgrade. And I still stick with this for ground evidence that other cities will feature: R* already stated, before GTA4 was released, that the inclusion of planes would take away the sense of realisim, due to the fact that one city alone wouldn't require that need. This was in response to complaints about aircraft not being added to GTA4, aside from helicopters. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the same rule still stand? I think so. And I saw a jet plane moving at some speed in the trailer, I think it's safe to say there will be another city with another airport to fly to, they don't really have airports in the countryside...and I doubt R* will put 2 airports in one city. Trust me, other cities wwill be in GTA5. Edited November 5, 2011 by uzi 9mm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveb07 Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 I think you're wrong about that... After SA was released people were expecting the next GTA (IV in this case) to be at least the same size if not bigger than SA... Then R* said, ok we make it smaller because it will be next gen graphics and new engine which they started from scratch... Now with V the best move would be to make again a release with more than one city to match up SA. Thats why i said games shouldn't go backwards. Am not bitching or anything and never said i wont buy it if its only LS. Yes the map will be big, stuffed with beaches, hills and so but most of the action takes place in cities. Those extra areas are there to connect the cities... Uhm, where did you see a statement that the map will be bigger that SA? except the R* announcement which does not imply it is bigger than SA but bigger... whatever that means No I was mainly talking the OP. Not you when I said people wouldn't buy it for not having SF and LV. I see your point, but I think the lack of SF and LV will slowly get forgotten. Judging by the trailer the shear scope and size will probably be enourmous enough where it doesn't even need SF and LV. I can understand how people have an attachment to these cities, but I feel the map will make up for it somehow and R* would know this. We have to remember it's not a remake of SA. R* can basically do what they like. They haven't promised "SA part 2". They're doing a re-imagining of LA, its surrounding areas and basically "Southern California" which personally has me more excited thinking about what else there could be in store outside of LS. Very good point! None said we had a promised SA 2 remake or whatever. Am looking forward to the game either way but i just find it mean of R* to put San Andreas license plates, flying jets and other little hints towards more cities. I think they expected the fanbase to devour the trailer. Not to mention that announcement somewhat ambiguous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Algonquin Assassin Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 Very good point! None said we had a promised SA 2 remake or whatever. Am looking forward to the game either way but i just find it mean of R* to put San Andreas license plates, flying jets and other little hints towards more cities. I think they expected the fanbase to devour the trailer. Not to mention that announcement somewhat ambiguous. The thing is there could be other cities in place of SF and LV, but it's probably unlikely. I think R* are fixed on giving LS the GTA IV LC treatment and giving it the best make over they can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-Malo94 Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 You know damn well that you're still gonna buy it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finn 7 five 11 Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 Remember San Andreas reveal trailer #1? It only showed Los Santos and look what we got, and it was in some ways similar to the new trailer, with a few shots of the vinewood sign and some of the countryside.\ Nothing wrong with one city, especially if there is loads of countryside around it, Los Santos was my favorite city in San Andreas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miamiguy Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 Sorry for being kind of offtopic, where is this picture from? Im a Titanic fan, and would just like to know. But on topic, mr miamivice seems to be one of the smartest and most realistic thinking guys here. SA is like a little kids dream...it had too much IMO. One city is enough, countryside is what matters, the atmosphere and etc. As for planes, they might have a verdant meadows like airport also near by, not just the LS airport. Then again i now suspect we wont be able to fly all the planes, only the small ones. Bigger will circle around the map and maybe even go out to sea and not come back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Zoidberg Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 I hope they include an Anaheim region based area in GTA:V. I WANT TO GO TO GLORY HOLE THEME PARK!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveb07 Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 You know damn well that you're still gonna buy it... This is what happens when people have no idea what to post... Just because some are disappointed doesn't mean they're not gonna buy the game. Am sure they will. There is no reason not to. At least not from only one trailer... Be constructive, please! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldboy76 Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 People are never happy when GTA 4 came out: There is no Countryside and the city is too small GTA 5: There is only 1 city and too much countryside, we want more city -.- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-Malo94 Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 You know damn well that you're still gonna buy it... This is what happens when people have no idea what to post... Just because some are disappointed doesn't mean they're not gonna buy the game. Am sure they will. There is no reason not to. At least not from only one trailer... Be constructive, please! I guess you must be quite bored too if you feel the need to pretend you're a moderator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveb07 Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 You know damn well that you're still gonna buy it... This is what happens when people have no idea what to post... Just because some are disappointed doesn't mean they're not gonna buy the game. Am sure they will. There is no reason not to. At least not from only one trailer... Be constructive, please! I guess you must be quite bored too if you feel the need to pretend you're a moderator. I don't need to be a mod or pretend for that matter, to have common sense... something you obviously don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marlowe. Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 (edited) I don't think people realise just how big Los Angeles and the neighbouring suburbs actually are. Pretty big, and when the time comes for the map to be revealed, I doubt there'll too many complaints. There are also several identical topics relating to Los Santos, already. All are a bit too premature, if you ask me. Edited November 5, 2011 by Marlowe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-Malo94 Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 You know damn well that you're still gonna buy it... This is what happens when people have no idea what to post... Just because some are disappointed doesn't mean they're not gonna buy the game. Am sure they will. There is no reason not to. At least not from only one trailer... Be constructive, please! I guess you must be quite bored too if you feel the need to pretend you're a moderator. I don't need to be a mod or pretend for that matter, to have common sense... something you obviously don't. alright don't get your panties in a bunch. I'm not even trying to start anything here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldboy76 Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 I don't think people realise just how big Los Angeles and the neighbouring suburbs actually are. Pretty big, and when the time comer for the map to be revealed, I doubt there'll too many complaints. There are also several identical topics relating to Los Santos, already. All are a bit too premature, if you ask me. people are always complaining. If you don't like it go play Saints row Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionist Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 Sorry for being kind of offtopic, where is this picture from? Im a Titanic fan, and would just like to know. I'd like to know aswell. 99 year old newspapers usually age poorly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SheHePaedo Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 So far a few websites, IGN, N4G.. have given out info that the new GTA5.. wont be like san andreas with a state wide multi city, but just one big los santos, a added big ass area of vinewood, and then some outer areas like a the mountain and whatever what not crap. to me thats lame.. no san fierro, no las vanturas, no area 51? i'll be even more not likely to buy this game since i guess "the new approach" is realism like part 4.. Stop complaining. In Rockstar we trust. V will not only be the best GTA by far but also one of the greatest games ever made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveb07 Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 This is a forum people... dislikes can also be posted about a game not only likes. If someone says he/she has a problem with a specific part of the game then so be it. Yes some will complain, some not and other don't care. It is normal, lol! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobgtafan Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 I'm glad it's gonna be like this. It wont have a story that mashes together into a jumbled mess trying to give 3 cities important roles in the game. I think the map will blow everyones' mind regardless if LS is the only city. I find it ironic people bitched about being stuck in a city in GTA IV. Now R* have given people what they wanted (countryside) and people are complaining about cities again. R* will never win with most fans. This is part of the reason I think SA spoilt far too many people. Nothing since will ever be good enough to measure up to the "mighty" SA. So what should that tell Rockstar? If most fans REALLY love San Andreas over IV and what they did with that, that should effect their delevopment decisions. People still aren't asking for more depth, they're asking for 3 major cities a min. They aren't asking for one city they're asking for whole states and regions. Spoiled? How about SA set the bar that needs to be met and until we do we're just wasting time and stagnating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveb07 Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 I'm glad it's gonna be like this. It wont have a story that mashes together into a jumbled mess trying to give 3 cities important roles in the game. I think the map will blow everyones' mind regardless if LS is the only city. I find it ironic people bitched about being stuck in a city in GTA IV. Now R* have given people what they wanted (countryside) and people are complaining about cities again. R* will never win with most fans. This is part of the reason I think SA spoilt far too many people. Nothing since will ever be good enough to measure up to the "mighty" SA. So what should that tell Rockstar? If most fans REALLY love San Andreas over IV and what they did with that, that should effect their delevopment decisions. People still aren't asking for more depth, they're asking for 3 major cities a min. They aren't asking for one city they're asking for whole states and regions. Spoiled? How about SA set the bar that needs to be met and until we do we're just wasting time and stagnating. That was what i tried to say as well... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucky Sevens Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 I think peoples concern with there maybe being only one city is the lack of variety compared to multiple cities. As long as Los Santos doesn't feel the same around every corner (i.e. Liberty City), then I'm sure most will be happy. The L.A remake from L.A Noire was quite huge and impressive looking. With GTA V being reported as R*'s biggest map yet, and the detail I've seen from the trailer, I'm happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-Malo94 Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 I think peoples concern with there maybe being only one city is the lack of variety compared to multiple cities. As long as Los Santos doesn't feel the same around every corner (i.e. Liberty City), then I'm sure most will be happy. The L.A remake from L.A Noire was quite huge and impressive looking. With GTA V being reported as R*'s biggest map yet, and the detail I've seen from the trailer, I'm happy. my thoughts exactly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmarn Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 We don't know, pages and stuff are just drawing conclusions. There's no real announcement of this yet. We'll just wait for more trailers and real statements from R* themselves. remember, these pages also said that the protagonist is Tommy Vercetti. I KNOW that won't happen. I just do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-Malo94 Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 What I don't understand is how can people be complaining already when SO LITTLE has been confirmed yet. As far as map size goes R* set the bar with RDR. Just because it might not be there cities this time doesn't mean that the environment won't be huge and immersive. When people compare it with SA, saying how boring and homogeneous Los Santos was, they need to take in consideration that this was a game from 2004!!!. I seriously doubt R* will be selling us a half-assed game here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
junkpile Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 So far a few websites, IGN, N4G.. have given out info that the new GTA5.. wont be like san andreas with a state wide multi city, but just one big los santos, a added big ass area of vinewood, and then some outer areas like a the mountain and whatever what not crap. to me thats lame.. no san fierro, no las vanturas, no area 51? i'll be even more not likely to buy this game since i guess "the new approach" is realism like part 4.. are you upset? good. who gives a f*ck? take the game for what it is or leave it. can't see how people don't appreciate what they see in the trailer. this game will kick the sh*t out of any other gta. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LucasV Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 (edited) it is unlikely that Rockstar would be able to create a game on the scale as San Andreas without sacrificing some of the detail that GTA IV had. GTA San Andreas had a new engine (both RenderWare, I know, but not exactly the same) with better graphics and the game included a huge map with three big cities. GTA San Andreas (October 26, 2004) was released two years after GTA Vice City (October 27, 2002). Now it has been already more than three years since the release of GTA IV (October 30, 2008), so I think it was very logical to expect a game on the scale of San Andreas with multiple cities. Why was Rockstar able to do the trick with the PS2 but couldn't repeat it with the successors, the current-gen PS3 and Xbox 360? I also want to say that many people drew their conclusions too fast. "That's a number plate with San Andreas? The game is located in San Andreas, consisting of Los Santos, San Fierro and Las Venturas. That's a mountain? It's the Mount Chiliad, so we will see the Badlands area and probably San Fierro and the rest of San Andreas. That's a bridge? It's the Golden Gate Bridge in San Fierro. That picture with the hookers must be taken in Nevada outside of Las Venturas, that interstate highway leads to another city, this F-16 must be from the military base in San Fierro", and on and on. The trailer only showed Los Santos and surrounding countryside, thus they should've said: Los Santos is confirmed and San Fierro and Las Venturas in GTA V is a possibility, in stead of being hundred percent sure that it will be a remake of San Andreas from GTA San Andreas. Maybe a person sees things that aren't there when he expects or hopes for something. When Rockstar wrote "Grand Theft Auto V heads to the city of Los Santos and surrounding hills, countryside and beaches" and "in a re-imagined, present day Southern California" the chance that San Fierro and Las Venturas will get showed in the upcoming trailers got really, really small, because San Francisco is located in Northern California and Las Vegas in Southern Nevada. The words "heads to" and "located in' probably mean heads only to and only located in, though there is a minority here that believes otherwise. Anyway, when Rockstar wrote that official statement on their Newswire, a lot of people said "I knew it all along that GTA V is located in Los Santos and Los Santos only, the rumors pointed that way anyway", "I like one city better than multiple cities" and "It will be the largest and most ambitious game made by Rockstar, let's focus on that". I found those comments a little phoney to be honest. This poll shows that before the announcement of the trailer most people thought that GTA V was set in San Andreas. When the trailer was announced and the five dollar logo was shown, another poll was posted and Vice City logically got les votes, but San Andreas (325 votes) still got much more votes than Los Santos (188 votes). And, even more interesting, a new poll was posted after the trailer (!) and Los Santos + San Fierro + Las Venturas got 75% of the votes and Los Santos 25%. And now so many people are telling me that they knew it all along. Also, now a lot of people pretend that one city is the best decision. Come on, why must we always react happy when Rockstar makes a decision? I think we should be more critical and say we're disappointed when we are. Two or three large cities and a lot of nature and towns between them would've been great. Being able to drive from one large city to another was one of the best aspects from San Andreas. I think roaming through Los Santos plus countryside will not capture that feeling. Of course, one detailed city is better than three undetailed cities. But three detailed cities are better than one detailed city, and I think three detailed cities wasn't wishful thinking. Yes, Rockstar said the game is going to be their "most ambitious game yet", "a radical reinvention" and all that. But that's all PR, man, what do you expect them to say? That it's a little bit the same like GTA IV? Edited November 5, 2011 by LucasV Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miamiguy Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 it is unlikely that Rockstar would be able to create a game on the scale as San Andreas without sacrificing some of the detail that GTA IV had. GTA San Andreas had a new engine with better graphics and the game included a huge map with three big cities. GTA San Andreas (October 26, 2004) was released two years after GTA Vice City (October 27, 2002). Now it has been already more than three years since the release of GTA IV (October 30, 2008), so I think it was very logical to expect a game on the scale of San Andreas with multiple cities. Why was Rockstar able to do the trick with the PS2 but not with the successors, the current-gen PS3 and Xbox 360? LOLWUT? SA had no new engine. It also had sh*ttier graphics then VC, way less detail also. Just watched VC gameplay, it has at least decent shadows. It has newspapers and carbagge flying around. You dont see details like that in SA im afraid. GTAV.net is right here. Its impossible to make a very large map with many citys on this gen consoles with good graphics. PS3 and Xbox 360 may be more powerful then PS2 and original Xbox, but nothing like that. This new engine and textures are too much for consoles right now. As i actually saw one guys review and gameplay of BF3, it was obvious how they had removed details and draw distance and stuff. Objects and buildings about 20 metres away had no or very bad textures, there were no shadows on guys that were on the ground while you were on top of a building. Lighting was way better on PC version as it was shown. One guy i know kept telling me, how Forza 3 and 4 are so awesome and have like over the edge graphics...yeah right. Only the cars are very detailed and have amazing graphics. The track and trackside are like from the year 2006 or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveb07 Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 it is unlikely that Rockstar would be able to create a game on the scale as San Andreas without sacrificing some of the detail that GTA IV had. GTA San Andreas had a new engine with better graphics and the game included a huge map with three big cities. GTA San Andreas (October 26, 2004) was released two years after GTA Vice City (October 27, 2002). Now it has been already more than three years since the release of GTA IV (October 30, 2008), so I think it was very logical to expect a game on the scale of San Andreas with multiple cities. Why was Rockstar able to do the trick with the PS2 but not with the successors, the current-gen PS3 and Xbox 360? LOLWUT? SA had no new engine. It also had sh*ttier graphics then VC, way less detail also. Just watched VC gameplay, it has at least decent shadows. It has newspapers and carbagge flying around. You dont see details like that in SA im afraid. GTAV.net is right here. Its impossible to make a very large map with many citys on this gen consoles with good graphics. PS3 and Xbox 360 may be more powerful then PS2 and original Xbox, but nothing like that. This new engine and textures are too much for consoles right now. As i actually saw one guys review and gameplay of BF3, it was obvious how they had removed details and draw distance and stuff. Objects and buildings about 20 metres away had no or very bad textures, there were no shadows on guys that were on the ground while you were on top of a building. Lighting was way better on PC version as it was shown. One guy i know kept telling me, how Forza 3 and 4 are so awesome and have like over the edge graphics...yeah right. Only the cars are very detailed and have amazing graphics. The track and trackside are like from the year 2006 or something. Your Forza example is bad... I don't think much has changed in terms of cars graphics from IV to V or building textures for that matter. The Rage engine is supposed to be updated and enhanced constantly which should make additions, possible. After all, graphics wise, GTA IV is not the best looking game out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inactive Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 I really think that the game includes more than one city. Just connect all those 'multiple city' rumors and you'll get why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveb07 Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 I really think that the game includes more than one city. Just connect all those 'multiple city' rumors and you'll get why. yeah... its just like R* to create a fuss, mass hysteria and angry fans with their teasing trailers lol 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