skillz7855 Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 What really wrong with having a huge detailed Southern California(South San Andreas) when rockstar said its going to be there biggest most detailed city they have ever done. Since now they have are revamping actual locations of cities now more detailed and close to real life.It will take awhile to even finish a map like that since they would have to do a huge Bay Area from Northern Cali that could take awhile. Also Vegas too will take even longer that will game probably would come out Next Gen if those console can even take all that.So what I'm saying is they did the right move by doing a huge southern cali. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Mario_Man Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 Many people are stuck in the III era mindset, so they think that the map will be a direct copy/paste of 2004's San Andreas, only with San Fierro and Venturas cropped out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walkingsickness Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 (edited) What really wrong with having a huge detailed Southern California(South San Andreas) when rockstar said its going to be there biggest most detailed city they have ever done. Since now they have are revamping actual locations of cities now more detailed and close to real life.It will take awhile to even finish a map like that since they would have to do a huge Bay Area from Northern Cali that could take awhile. Also Vegas too will take even longer that will game probably would come out Next Gen if those console can even take all that.So what I'm saying is they did the right move by doing a huge southern cali. Nothing is wrong with it. I think people are not thinking bigger and better, thats all That being said...I think SF and LV will be in it.. Edited November 5, 2011 by walkingsickness Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skillz7855 Posted November 5, 2011 Author Share Posted November 5, 2011 Many people are stuck in the III era mindset, so they think that the map will be a direct copy/paste of 2004's San Andreas, only with San Fierro and Venturas cropped out. I wish people understood that we aren't going back to the same Los Santos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leik oh em jeez! Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 Many people feel limited by having only one city. It takes away from the game realism when you can't leave town and go somewhere else for a while. I personally loved the variety in San Andreas. sometimes I'd enjoy being in San Fierro, and sometimes I'd rather stay at the Air Strip. Multiple cities also gave the highways and aircraft reason to be in the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shortyduwaaap Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 What really wrong with having a huge detailed Southern California(South San Andreas) when rockstar said its going to be there biggest most detailed city they have ever done. Since now they have are revamping actual locations of cities now more detailed and close to real life.It will take awhile to even finish a map like that since they would have to do a huge Bay Area from Northern Cali that could take awhile. Also Vegas too will take even longer that will game probably would come out Next Gen if those console can even take all that.So what I'm saying is they did the right move by doing a huge southern cali. Nothing is wrong with it. I think people are not thinking bigger and better, thats all That being said...I think SF and LV will be in it.. bigger and better would be doing a city that hasn't been done... what if Rock* kept doing NY, MIA, LA, NY, LA... MIA, LA, NY... blah blah blah... DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-Malo94 Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 Many people are stuck in the III era mindset, so they think that the map will be a direct copy/paste of 2004's San Andreas, only with San Fierro and Venturas cropped out. I wish people understood that we aren't going back to the same Los Santos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tipper Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 Well, what about those like me who liked SF or LV better than LS in SA? It feels like they're giving us SA back but without our favourite parts. They can recreate LS and Southern California as awesome as they can, it won't compensate for the loss of two great cities that could perfectly be on the map. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XTREME0235 Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 People are just afraid of change, that's the main problem. Sometimes things have to change in order for a better outcome, I personally have no problem with it what so ever so long as it doesn't become a disappointment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DXfan01 Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 Many people feel limited by having only one city. It takes away from the game realism when you can't leave town and go somewhere else for a while. I personally loved the variety in San Andreas. sometimes I'd enjoy being in San Fierro, and sometimes I'd rather stay at the Air Strip. Multiple cities also gave the highways and aircraft reason to be in the game. Southern California has multiple cities! San Diego is just below the map. I'm not saying they're gonna have all of that, but SoCal is huge and there is a lot they can do with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CryptReaperDorian Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 A million other games have already made a very detailed or a scaled (one of realistic size) Los Angeles. The same goes for Las Vegas. I really think the game needs to have multiple cities so it doesn't seem like a slightly better remake of a million older games. I'd say this is where GTA SA did great since you were able to travel to other cities if you got bored of just one city. Hell, you didn't even need to be in a city! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skillz7855 Posted November 5, 2011 Author Share Posted November 5, 2011 Many people feel limited by having only one city. It takes away from the game realism when you can't leave town and go somewhere else for a while. I personally loved the variety in San Andreas. sometimes I'd enjoy being in San Fierro, and sometimes I'd rather stay at the Air Strip. Multiple cities also gave the highways and aircraft reason to be in the game. They said southern Cali do you not understand how big that is plus country and desert side and possibly San Diego that give it a reason to have highways and planes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adamcs Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 Many people are stuck in the III era mindset, so they think that the map will be a direct copy/paste of 2004's San Andreas, only with San Fierro and Venturas cropped out. Pretty much. "I can't wait to see Grove St! Maybe CJ will be there." "Oh look, there's Mt. Chiliad in the trailer.." People seem to be expecting GTA: San Andreas 2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kendoyanar Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 I think it's technically impossible to have all three big cities so they had to drop SF and LV out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Mario_Man Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 Well. I guess I'll toss my theory in. Perhaps the next 2 games in the "V" era will be based on San Fransico and Las Vegas, and their respective surroundings? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walkingsickness Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 What really wrong with having a huge detailed Southern California(South San Andreas) when rockstar said its going to be there biggest most detailed city they have ever done. Since now they have are revamping actual locations of cities now more detailed and close to real life.It will take awhile to even finish a map like that since they would have to do a huge Bay Area from Northern Cali that could take awhile. Also Vegas too will take even longer that will game probably would come out Next Gen if those console can even take all that.So what I'm saying is they did the right move by doing a huge southern cali. Nothing is wrong with it. I think people are not thinking bigger and better, thats all That being said...I think SF and LV will be in it.. bigger and better would be doing a city that hasn't been done... what if Rock* kept doing NY, MIA, LA, NY, LA... MIA, LA, NY... blah blah blah... DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT!!!!! GTA IV wasn't bigger and better than GTA III? In the literal sense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EscoLehGo Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 Many people feel limited by having only one city. It takes away from the game realism when you can't leave town and go somewhere else for a while. I personally loved the variety in San Andreas. sometimes I'd enjoy being in San Fierro, and sometimes I'd rather stay at the Air Strip. Multiple cities also gave the highways and aircraft reason to be in the game. They said southern Cali do you not understand how big that is plus country and desert side and possibly San Diego that give it a reason to have highways and planes. these guys keep bringing up san diego, san diego is a really wack choice for a video game city. i'd prefer just los santos with outlaying towns to los santos AND san diego, it's not really a stand alone place, especially in a video game setting. however, i'm one of those people that's hoping that LV and SF return, if they don't i'll probably still enjoy the game, but there's not enough evidence right now for me to completely rule them out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Osjov Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 maybe and maybe not SF AND LV are going to be DLC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skillz7855 Posted November 5, 2011 Author Share Posted November 5, 2011 A million other games have already made a very detailed or a scaled (one of realistic size) Los Angeles. The same goes for Las Vegas. I really think the game needs to have multiple cities so it doesn't seem like a slightly better remake of a million older games. I'd say this is where GTA SA did great since you were able to travel to other cities if you got bored of just one city. Hell, you didn't even need to be in a city! and how many of them where open world and freedom like GTA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GTAlove Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 Many people are stuck in the III era mindset, so they think that the map will be a direct copy/paste of 2004's San Andreas, only with San Fierro and Venturas cropped out. Exactly! They don't realize that there's more to Los Angeles than what we saw in the III era. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tipper Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 I think it's technically impossible to have all three big cities so they had to drop SF and LV out. A lot of people are expecting LS to be 3 times the size of LC. If that's correct, it's only logical that can make three cities the size of LC (and LC was really big and well detailed, so no problem) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finn 7 five 11 Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 People are just afraid of change, that's the main problem.Sometimes things have to change in order for a better outcome, I personally have no problem with it what so ever so long as it doesn't become a disappointment. Yep, word up, i sam still thinking there will be more than one city, or at least a largish town somewhere, but i am not overly fussed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-Malo94 Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 i don't think these people have played SA in a while either. I tried playing it last night, just exploring places but by now the wow-factor has worn off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jynxdays Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 I dont care if SF and LV aren't in it. Im fine with just Los Santos and some cool country on the side Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexhero12 Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 Fine its 3 cities, but its still 1 huge map! i don't see whats wrong with having a realy big map. its like having 3 cookies mashed into a big orgasmic cookie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunrise Driver Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 After watching 1 trailer, don't you want San Francisco in GTA V? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skillz7855 Posted November 5, 2011 Author Share Posted November 5, 2011 I think it's technically impossible to have all three big cities so they had to drop SF and LV out. A lot of people are expecting LS to be 3 times the size of LC. If that's correct, it's only logical that can make three cities the size of LC (and LC was really big and well detailed, so no problem) But they would have to capture the Bay area since there making the game look closer to real life. If they just have one city of the bay area like they did in the frist SA that would place would look very empty compared to real life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seVensantos Posted November 6, 2011 Share Posted November 6, 2011 ppl need 2 be patient - wait 2 see the neXt FEW trailers - & stop complaining & jumping 2 so many speculated conclusions of what is or isnt going 2 be in the game. ppl are getting e-violent & disrespectful over a game no one has played!?! unless you work 4 rockstar - you know nothing! eXcited 4 the game's eXistence. eXcited 4 whatever it contains whether its one city or one block. excited 2 view all of the trailers. this is a NEW era with a NEW game breaking NEW ground while utiliZing NEW technology. rockstar has always been consistent in giving ME what i want in gta. personally im fine with los santos & amaZing graphics. ive waited 7 years. why be stuck in the past? [/thevoiceofreason] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeM Posted November 6, 2011 Share Posted November 6, 2011 I was a bit disapointed with the lack of extra cities (if they arent any) but after looking into whats in South Cali, im confident it could be much bigger/better than SA was (and I love SA) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walkingsickness Posted November 6, 2011 Share Posted November 6, 2011 Also...does anyone remember the first San Andreas trailer? Did you see any of LV or SF in it?? Lets not jump to conclusions about what WE DONT KNOW because we are all talking as if we know the facts and we don't know sh*t 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