Jump to content

Tell me whats Wrong with just having Southern Cali


skillz7855

Recommended Posts

 

Until and unless Rockstar radically changes what the GTA games are about and how they're evolving, there is no new Vice City game to be made.

 

Miami is only relevant from an 80s cocaine-mythology perspective. What are they going to do, have more Miami Vice suits in different colors from before? New Scarface references? More Phil Collins songs? You can only tell the same story so many times.

 

If in the future they decide they want to get even more serious with the storytelling style, and focus less on the mixed slapstick/dirty-words lampooning, but more consistently on their subtler style of satirizing the American Dream, then they have the narrative flexibility to start dealing with deeper and less cartoonish stories in smaller American cities like Miami. But even then, places like San Francisco (60s counterculture), Las Vegas (the Mob and casinos), Houston (oil boom, border issues), Detroit (urban breakdown and renewal), Washington DC (politics of any era), New Orleans (Katrina aftermath), and even regions like the Pacific Northwest have a lot broader potential than Miami, which had exactly one already-used noteworthy historical period.

 

Conversely, if they want to keep going bigger and grander, while still staying in an English environment, they pretty much only have London to move on to, and that means leaving the critiques of American culture behind and taking on some new themes.

 

Think about it -- Rockstar knows there's a big San Andreas fanbase and a big Vice City fanbase, and when it was time to think about V, they chose San Andreas. Los Angeles has resonance in any historical era that also has automobiles. Miami has resonance in the 80s, period. Do people really think Rockstar didn't consider this?

 

I get that some people love Vice City, but Rockstar isn't going to spend years of effort and millions of development dollars on a fanservice project that could completely derail the financial future of their company.

 

I'd love to read some concrete ideas about how they could make a viable new game set in a newly-designed Miami-based setting, rather than another bunch of content-free posts repeating "V Y U NO VICE CITY?" Who knows, since Rockstar almost certainly poke their heads in here from time to time, maybe the Vice fans could actually do something that might spark a new viable game idea rather than just complaining that Rockstar doesn't know how to make a GTA game properly.

 

For anyone still not getting my point, I offer this... the Miami Wikipedia page, unlike the pages for many other cities, has no section discussing contemporary crime or social problems. But they have this:

 

 

In 2008, Forbes magazine ranked Miami "America's Cleanest City", for its year-round good air quality, vast green spaces, clean drinking water, clean streets and city-wide recycling programs.

 

There aren't enough David Caruso jokes in the world to make a contemporary Vice City game work.

 

I post this not to anger or depress people, but because I'm eager to be proven wrong.

I find that this adequately explains why they may have chosen to not return to Vice City/Miami. As you say, Miami had a spell in the 80's such that it created enough pop culture reference material that enabled a worldwide audience to identify with the location during said time period. But since the 80's Miami hasn't really been on the pop culture scene in a big enough way.

 

So after GTA:IV's Liberty City, short of a return to London, or adding a whole new city to the GTAverse, the only real option left was to return to San Andreas.

 

But GTA:IV had raised the bar. It had raised the bar very high. Doing the whole of San Andreas at GTA:IV levels of quality would be impossible within a reasonable timescale (remember that the most time spent on a GTA is creating and refining the playing area). And remember that whole of SA had already been done just before the current GTA:IV. Rockstar are not one to do same ol', same ol'.

 

It makes sense to pick one of the San Andrean cities on which to focus. In my book, any one of the three of LS, LV and SF would have been great candidates. Obviously, there has been a creative decision to return to Los Santos. But it's quite interesting that they've expanded it to the greater Southern California area. I think it's a great choice.

 

It also provides an opportunity to feature smaller cities like San Diego and maybe Palm Springs or something like that. Being smaller than places like LA, SF and LV means they are not obliged to make them as ambitiously large.

Edited by meson1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Halo_Override
I post this not to anger or depress people, but because I'm eager to be proven wrong.

If you were so eager, you shouldn't have used such a good argument. icon14.gif

(hat tip)

This is about as much a reply to my post as your last attempt was tbh.

Your post was "why not somewhere else?"

 

My copypasted reply was all about "why not somewhere else". Yes, it was Vice-heavy, but it also dealt with a lot of other cities, including some of the ones you've mentioned. In short: because no cities in America are as significant globally as New York and Los Angeles, that's why. I made that point pretty clear.

 

Your retort that I didn't read your comment or respond to your questions is flat wrong. Anyone who cares can go back, read both, and decide for themselves.

 

I replied to your comment in the first place because it was worth replying to, unlike many. But if you don't want to debate, fine with me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I post this not to anger or depress people, but because I'm eager to be proven wrong.

If you were so eager, you shouldn't have used such a good argument. icon14.gif

(hat tip)

This is about as much a reply to my post as your last attempt was tbh.

Your post was "why not somewhere else?"

 

My copypasted reply was all about "why not somewhere else". Yes, it was Vice-heavy, but it also dealt with a lot of other cities, including some of the ones you've mentioned. In short: because no cities in America are as significant globally as New York and Los Angeles, that's why. I made that point pretty clear.

 

Your retort that I didn't read your comment or respond to your questions is flat wrong. Anyone who cares can go back, read both, and decide for themselves.

 

I replied to your comment in the first place because it was worth replying to, unlike many. But if you don't want to debate, fine with me.

What do you mean if I don't want to debate?

 

I provided proof that your claim about crime in Miami has no basis in fact. Which you totally ignored.

 

The question your post was answering was "Why not Vice City?"

 

The question I asked was "Why Los Santos?"

 

You never answered it at all.

 

Boston not significant globally? Yeah right. There are plenty of cities they could have chosen. I'm not even saying I don't want Los Santos. I know wherever the game is based it'll be great. But Rockstar knew that fans would associate Los Santos with San Andreas, so it creates a headache of expectation. I don't see why they did that. They can't just keep using the same cities forever surely. At some point they'll have to branch out again.

Edited by sabbathfan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Yeah it's sad how many people are stuck in the III era, I liked it as much as the next guy, but things have gotten better IMO.

 

Anyhow I'm glad that it's only LS and southern SA, it gives them more of a focus on the one city and country side surrounding it so it'd look amazing, like LC in IV. I mean SA's map was great back in it's day, but even then there's no denying that it's cities suffered a bit because there was three of them, so I hope that SF and LV come later as there own games.

 

So this is IMO one of the best moves R* could have made, LS has a load of potentail on it's own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Halo_Override

 

I post this not to anger or depress people, but because I'm eager to be proven wrong.

If you were so eager, you shouldn't have used such a good argument. icon14.gif

(hat tip)

This is about as much a reply to my post as your last attempt was tbh.

Your post was "why not somewhere else?"

 

My copypasted reply was all about "why not somewhere else". Yes, it was Vice-heavy, but it also dealt with a lot of other cities, including some of the ones you've mentioned. In short: because no cities in America are as significant globally as New York and Los Angeles, that's why. I made that point pretty clear.

 

Your retort that I didn't read your comment or respond to your questions is flat wrong. Anyone who cares can go back, read both, and decide for themselves.

 

I replied to your comment in the first place because it was worth replying to, unlike many. But if you don't want to debate, fine with me.

What do you mean if I don't want to debate?

 

I provided proof that your claim about crime in Miami has no basis in fact. Which you totally ignored.

 

The question your post was answering was "Why not Vice City?"

 

The question I asked was "Why Los Santos?"

 

You never answered it at all.

 

Boston not significant globally? Yeah right. There are plenty of cities they could have chosen. I'm not even saying I don't want Los Santos. I know wherever the game is based it'll be great. But Rockstar knew that fans would associate Los Santos with San Andreas, so it creates a headache of expectation. I don't see why they did that. They can't just keep using the same cities forever surely. At some point they'll have to branch out again.

I answered "why Los Santos" in exactly the same way I answered "why not another city". It's basically the same question. But I'll do it again, if it'll make you happy.

 

1) Los Santos is Los Angeles.

2) Probably two-thirds of all the movies, television, and music we all consume in North America comes from either New York or Los Angeles.

3) New York and Los Angeles are America's Alpha Global cities when it comes to culture (LA is a bit further down when it comes to overall economic influence, but still).

4) One of the major themes of GTA is satirizing American culture.

5) Lots of other American cities are interesting, but none of them are as influential.

6) Therefore, LA and NYC are the two logical first choices for GTA games.

7) They just did New York.

8) That leaves Los Angeles.

 

I completely agree with you that it would be fun to have GTA games that were set in other cities. But unless R* alters what they want the themes of these games to be about, it's not likely to happen. Because no other American cities have that kind of global cultural influence.

 

(For instance, I'd love to see a GTA set in New Orleans. That's a city people have heard of because of Katrina, and it's come to symbolize a lot about poor government, the divide between rich and poor, etc. Plus it's historically pretty significant -- especially music-wise -- and it would be really interesting to look at visually. My hope is that a future GTA might take place there. But I think it's a long shot.)

 

My Miami/Wikipedia thing was just a punchline at the end of a long comment. My argument doesn't depend on it, so it you want to consider it "debunked`, go ahead. My point about Miami not being a significant contemporary cultural force still stands.

 

If you have interesting concepts for how to set a GTA story in Miami or Boston or any other second-tier American city and make it work for a global GTA audience in a way that lives up to the same standards, I'm sure that would be interesting, and if you post them I will definitely read them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NOTHING (SIMPLE AS THAT)

 

LOS SANTOS IS A BIG PLACE AND "V" WILL ALSO HAS SURROUNDING HILLS COUNTRYSIDES AND BEACHES.

 

I'M SATISFIED WITH R* CHOICE, WHY HAVE 3 SMALL CITIES WHEN YOU COULD HAVE 1 BIG CITY. (BETTER CHOICE IN MY OPINION)

Edited by Crakbone335
Link to comment
Share on other sites

NOTHING (SIMPLE AS THAT)

 

LOS SANTOS IS A BIG PLACE AND "V" WILL ALSO HAS SURROUNDING HILLS COUNTRYSIDES AND BEACHES.

 

I'M SATISFIED WITH R* CHOICE, WHY HAVE 3 SMALL CITIES WHEN YOU COULD HAVE 1 BIG CITY. (BETTER CHOICE IN MY OPINION)

Could you please not post in all caps, it's a bit annoying, I'm not trying to play fake mod or anything, I'm just speaking for the comunity.

 

Halo_Override You have to have the best argument on this whole topic, I 100% agree, on top of the reasons I gave in my first post here.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It isn't just Los Santos. It's a re-imagining of Southern California. Who knows what this could hold? I'm sure there will be some mini cities too. I swear that most people WANT to hate this game. Everyone seems to be bitching about everything. CALM DOWN!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

mahalomenehune

hi everyone,

Like most of you, I've been a GTA fan since GTA 3. However, I was really turned away from the series after GTA 4. There was too much realism, no planes, and no countryside. Besides, New York has been done too many times in video games. If Rockstar chooses once again to feature only one city, I just don't think I'm going to buy the game. But, there is good news. If you want to experience a big-a** country side, a big-a** city, a few medium-sized cities, HUNDREDS OF TOWNS, an entire COUNTRY to explore (like 16 times the size of San Andreas), and the most beautiful scenery you've ever seen in a game (with HD graphics), go and play Just Cause 2. Avalanche (the creators of JC 2) picked up where Rockstar left off with San Andreas. Just Cause 2 was pure fun, and at this point, I'm looking more forward to Just Cause 3 then GTA 5.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It isn't just Los Santos. It's a re-imagining of Southern California. Who knows what this could hold? I'm sure there will be some mini cities too. I swear that most people WANT to hate this game. Everyone seems to be bitching about everything. CALM DOWN!

Yeah I'm sure there will be smaller towns and some suburbs that are different cities technically, but are part of the greater Los Santos area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

You hit the nail on the head. I believe that this is the biggest problem right now. People think that V's LS will be an HD redo of SA's when infact it will be much different, Larger, More detailed and more true to real life L.A. I just hate when you hear people say "R* was just lazy and cut out 2/3 of SA and are only giving us LS." When in reality they werent lazy at all. And they didnt cut out any of SA. They redesigned SA and are focusing on the new LS. The other 2 cities might come later. But for now im glad they chose to focus on making only LS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

You hit the nail on the head. I believe that this is the biggest problem right now. People think that V's LS will be an HD redo of SA's when infact it will be much different, Larger, More detailed and more true to real life L.A. I just hate when you hear people say "R* was just lazy and cut out 2/3 of SA and are only giving us LS." When in reality they werent lazy at all. And they didnt cut out any of SA. They redesigned SA and are focusing on the new LS. The other 2 cities might come later. But for now im glad they chose to focus on making only LS.

I don't think anyone here is dumb enough to actually think that the LS in V will be the same one as in SA. Anyway I don't mind at all that it's just LS on its own this time, what was shown in the trailer looks to be more than enough to satisfy me. If the next trailer does show another city I'll be very happy but I'm not expecting it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The sad part is that for the cultural themes Rockstar is going for Vegas would be a better location. Vegas has a higher unemployment rate, higher foreclosure rate, legal prostitution, Area 51 to the north, gambling mecca built by the mob, drug trafficing, corruption, and a declining economic base...what the f*ck, Vegas is a near perfect representation of American society only to the extreme. It's a mirror of the rest of the nation from basically the 80s until today. A GTA that would take place in 2007-2008 would be the best satire on American society today I can imagine. But they set it in LA so yea...

 

Also some of you are missing the point. People are mad that it's San Andreas again. They're also mad even further that out of all the cites and the regions around them to focus on they choose Los Santos which the plurality of SA took place in. Think of it this way. We've waited 3 years for a region we've played in for 6 years now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The sad part is that for the cultural themes Rockstar is going for Vegas would be a better location. Vegas has a higher unemployment rate, higher foreclosure rate, legal prostitution, Area 51 to the north, gambling mecca built by the mob, drug trafficing, corruption, and a declining economic base...what the f*ck, Vegas is a near perfect representation of American society only to the extreme. It's a mirror of the rest of the nation from basically the 80s until today. A GTA that would take place in 2007-2008 would be the best satire on American society today I can imagine. But they set it in LA so yea...

 

Also some of you are missing the point. People are mad that it's San Andreas again. They're also mad even further that out of all the cites and the regions around them to focus on they choose Los Santos which the plurality of SA took place in. Think of it this way. We've waited 3 years for a region we've played in for 6 years now.

Honestly though, there is only so much you could do in Las Vegas, compared to Los Angeles. In LA you have gangs, celebrities, a MUCH bigger drug trafficking ring, a MUCH bigger sex/slave trafficking ring, and to top it off, LA has always had an up and down construction scene with buildings and what not. Vegas doesn't nearly have as much of that, and like I said there's only so much you can do with flashing lights from The Strip and what not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Halo_Override
The sad part is that for the cultural themes Rockstar is going for Vegas would be a better location. Vegas has a higher unemployment rate, higher foreclosure rate, legal prostitution, Area 51 to the north, gambling mecca built by the mob, drug trafficing, corruption, and a declining economic base...what the f*ck, Vegas is a near perfect representation of American society only to the extreme. It's a mirror of the rest of the nation from basically the 80s until today. A GTA that would take place in 2007-2008 would be the best satire on American society today I can imagine. But they set it in LA so yea...

 

Also some of you are missing the point. People are mad that it's San Andreas again. They're also mad even further that out of all the cites and the regions around them to focus on they choose Los Santos which the plurality of SA took place in. Think of it this way. We've waited 3 years for a region we've played in for 6 years now.

Agreed that Vegas could make a good contemporary stand-alone setting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The sad part is that for the cultural themes Rockstar is going for Vegas would be a better location. Vegas has a higher unemployment rate, higher foreclosure rate, legal prostitution, Area 51 to the north, gambling mecca built by the mob, drug trafficing, corruption, and a declining economic base...what the f*ck, Vegas is a near perfect representation of American society only to the extreme. It's a mirror of the rest of the nation from basically the 80s until today. A GTA that would take place in 2007-2008 would be the best satire on American society today I can imagine. But they set it in LA so yea...

 

Also some of you are missing the point. People are mad that it's San Andreas again. They're also mad even further that out of all the cites and the regions around them to focus on they choose Los Santos which the plurality of SA took place in. Think of it this way. We've waited 3 years for a region we've played in for 6 years now.

Agreed that Vegas could make a good contemporary stand-alone setting.

I'm not going to lie, I love of the idea of New Orleans to like you said. I wonder if R will ever move away from using these cultural focal points...in any case

 

@ The Nihlist- R* could simply exaggate the things like sex/drug trade in game. But I have a more important question. Why is that your name because that's a pretty f*cked up name...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Halo_Override
I'm not going to lie, I love of the idea of New Orleans to like you said. I wonder if R will ever move away from using these cultural focal points...in any case

The two most viable ways forward for them that I can think of are to either move to smaller US cities and get more beneath-the-surface about critiquing American society, or to go all-out and international and take it to London.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The sad part is that for the cultural themes Rockstar is going for Vegas would be a better location. Vegas has a higher unemployment rate, higher foreclosure rate, legal prostitution, Area 51 to the north, gambling mecca built by the mob, drug trafficing, corruption, and a declining economic base...what the f*ck, Vegas is a near perfect representation of American society only to the extreme. It's a mirror of the rest of the nation from basically the 80s until today. A GTA that would take place in 2007-2008 would be the best satire on American society today I can imagine. But they set it in LA so yea...

 

Also some of you are missing the point. People are mad that it's San Andreas again. They're also mad even further that out of all the cites and the regions around them to focus on they choose Los Santos which the plurality of SA took place in. Think of it this way. We've waited 3 years for a region we've played in for 6 years now.

Agreed that Vegas could make a good contemporary stand-alone setting.

I'm not going to lie, I love of the idea of New Orleans to like you said. I wonder if R will ever move away from using these cultural focal points...in any case

 

@ The Nihlist- R* could simply exaggate the things like sex/drug trade in game. But I have a more important question. Why is that your name because that's a pretty f*cked up name...

And yet even then, like I said, LA has all of that and more, and R* could exaggerate it just as they always do, to even more exaggerated proportions.

 

As for my name? I don't see what's f*cked with it? But I think that's something better left through PM, than a thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NOTHING (SIMPLE AS THAT)

 

LOS SANTOS IS A BIG PLACE AND "V" WILL ALSO HAS SURROUNDING HILLS COUNTRYSIDES AND BEACHES.

 

I'M SATISFIED WITH R* CHOICE, WHY HAVE 3 SMALL CITIES WHEN YOU COULD HAVE 1 BIG CITY. (BETTER CHOICE IN MY OPINION)

Could you please not post in all caps, it's a bit annoying, I'm not trying to play fake mod or anything, I'm just speaking for the comunity.

 

Halo_Override You have to have the best argument on this whole topic, I 100% agree, on top of the reasons I gave in my first post here.

Okay im sorry i wont do it anymore ( im a noob to fourms)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's nothing wrong with just having Southern California, as long as there's other places to visit, and experience,

 

i'll miss SF and LV if their not in it, but what i loved more about San Andreas compared to the other GTA's was the variety of places and locations you could visit, and travel through, the different atmosphere of locations,

 

If it's just Los Santos and not much else, i will feel disappointed, but if there's quite a bit outside of the city to see and do, then that's the San Andreas experience for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The sad part is that for the cultural themes Rockstar is going for Vegas would be a better location. Vegas has a higher unemployment rate, higher foreclosure rate, legal prostitution, Area 51 to the north, gambling mecca built by the mob, drug trafficing, corruption, and a declining economic base...what the f*ck, Vegas is a near perfect representation of American society only to the extreme. It's a mirror of the rest of the nation from basically the 80s until today. A GTA that would take place in 2007-2008 would be the best satire on American society today I can imagine. But they set it in LA so yea...

 

Also some of you are missing the point. People are mad that it's San Andreas again. They're also mad even further that out of all the cites and the regions around them to focus on they choose Los Santos which the plurality of SA took place in. Think of it this way. We've waited 3 years for a region we've played in for 6 years now.

Be honest. Outside of the Strip, what is there in Las Vegas? As far as I know (Which is little, at best) LV is a big town surrounded by the mohave Desert. Yes, Area 51 can be recreated and placed somewhere in the Mohave and can provide a welcome distraction to the town itself but I just can't see how that alone can warrant a game is big as GTA to be set in a town with some lightbulbs on it.

 

 

Anyway, some of you seem to be missing the point. The press release specifically says "....a re-imagined Southern California". San Francisco is in Northern California and Las Vegas is in a whole different state (Nevada). However, as mentioned before, SoCal is HUGE. We've got Anaheim, San Diego, blahblahblah along with the US-Mexico border. That's more than enough to play with and if R* do things properly we could still see multiple cities in V, just not SF and LV. It's still going to be f*cking good as hell though, trust me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Anyway, some of you seem to be missing the point. The press release specifically says "....a re-imagined Southern California". San Francisco is in Northern California and Las Vegas is in a whole different state (Nevada). However, as mentioned before, SoCal is HUGE. We've got Anaheim, San Diego, blahblahblah along with the US-Mexico border. That's more than enough to play with and if R* do things properly we could still see multiple cities in V, just not SF and LV. It's still going to be f*cking good as hell though, trust me.

I've been saying that all along. Just because SF and LV may not exist it doesn't mean they can't have something else in their place. Some people are acting like the world has come to an end. When one door closes another opens, so to speak. R* have not excplicity said LS is the only place we can go to.

 

Even still it doesn't bother me at all if LS is the only city. SF was boring as hell IMO and even if it was given a current gen make over I don't think I would really like it any different to what it was like in SA.

 

LV is defintely my favourite of the two and actually I liked it more than LS, but I would rather it be its own game in the 60s/70s when the mafia had a good strangle hold.

Edited by Miamivicecity
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyway, some of you seem to be missing the point. The press release specifically says "....a re-imagined Southern California". San Francisco is in Northern California and Las Vegas is in a whole different state (Nevada). However, as mentioned before, SoCal is HUGE. We've got Anaheim, San Diego, blahblahblah along with the US-Mexico border. That's more than enough to play with and if R* do things properly we could still see multiple cities in V, just not SF and LV. It's still going to be f*cking good as hell though, trust me.

I've been saying that all along. Just because SF and LV may not exist it doesn't mean they can't have something else in their place. Some people are acting like the world has come to an end. When one door closes another opens, so to speak. R* have not excplicity said LS is the only place we can go to.

 

Even still it doesn't bother me at all if LS is the only city. SF was boring as hell IMO and even if it was given a current gen make over I don't think I would really like it any different to what it was like in SA.

 

LV is defintely my favourite of the two and actually I liked it more than LS, but I would rather it be its own game in the 60s/70s when the mafia had a good strangle hold.

See I understand that Southern California is huge and (I think it might be larger than my state) but that's not my main point. My main point is that we shouldn't of gone back to San Andreas in the first place and that even San Franciso would of been better. By the way I don't feel like explaining more about Vegas in detail right now outside a few main things, let's just say I've been sold on the region from Fallout and reading some "The economist" reports on the place. It was a boom down, one of the fastest growing cities in America, the epicenter of everything wrong with our economic and social system, a city secular and yet still God fearing, and one that has a massive number of minorities and illegals (the largest amount in the nation) and yet remaining largely Anglo American in culture. The massive suburbs to the north are now becoming vacant and impoverished. Then the massive number of rich Californian's moving in for lower taxes and it's growing film industry

 

Then add Area 51, Hoover Dam, desert climate, Lake Meed and rich people's resorts, legal prostitution and slums so bad they've gone into the sewers. You know the hobos they showed in the GTA V trailer? Picture that right under your feet. Vegas is a far better city for a satire on American culture. But they're not doing that, they're going back to SoCal so yea...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NOTHING (SIMPLE AS THAT)

 

LOS SANTOS IS A BIG PLACE AND "V" WILL ALSO HAS SURROUNDING HILLS COUNTRYSIDES AND BEACHES.

 

I'M SATISFIED WITH R* CHOICE, WHY HAVE 3 SMALL CITIES WHEN YOU COULD HAVE 1 BIG CITY. (BETTER CHOICE IN MY OPINION)

Could you please not post in all caps, it's a bit annoying, I'm not trying to play fake mod or anything, I'm just speaking for the comunity.

 

Halo_Override You have to have the best argument on this whole topic, I 100% agree, on top of the reasons I gave in my first post here.

Okay im sorry i wont do it anymore ( im a noob to fourms)

No problem man, it's just a bit annoying. icon14.gif

 

Anyhow as for Vegas being a better location, I don't know, I mean Rockstar can blow things up to make it huge in crime like drug rings etc. but at the same time Vegas is just so...tame now-a-days unlike what it used to be like back when it was controlled be the Mafia back in the 50s-70s.

 

Then again I guess Rockstar could just make it a modern interpretation of what it would be like in this day and age, much the same as if they used VC, since it's just based off of a real life city, things can still be different.

 

Though I like the idea of Los Santos (or maybe more) even though I was pulling for VC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

annie_himself

 

(For instance, I'd love to see a GTA set in New Orleans. That's a city people have heard of because of Katrina, and it's come to symbolize a lot about poor government, the divide between rich and poor, etc. Plus it's historically pretty significant -- especially music-wise -- and it would be really interesting to look at visually. My hope is that a future GTA might take place there. But I think it's a long shot.)

 

 

It's been world famous since the technology in the early 1900s, Katrina didn't make it known, just relevant. I hope they do choose it in the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay here is my theory.

 

I could care less for SF. SF was boring and dull as hell. But I would love if they have included LV.

 

But I do think they will include smaller scaled down cities like San Diego. I actually think San Diego may be the beach part. Why? Because doesn't San Diego have way more beaches then LA?

 

Also what about orange county? R did say this will take place in southern California... They have not truly said it was exclusively LS....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

I absolutely agree with you here - I was initially wanting Grand Theft Auto V to be set in the whole of San Andreas, but now that I think about it more; that is probably too much like you said. I think Rockstar focussing on just one big, detailed city with surrounding countryside is easily the better option because then the game wouldn't feel rushed by not putting as much attention into one city as they do the other and vice versa. Rockstar just focussing on one city also allows them to pay more attention to detail, in my opinion.

 

I think it would be a good idea that Rockstar remake each of the three cities (Los Santos (already doing) San Fierro and Las Venturas) in separate games (not as downloadable content) - it wouldn't surprise me if Rockstar do redo San Fierro and Las Venturas in the same cannon as Grand Theft Auto V.

RE9mJnf.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

grandtheftrio27

Nothing is wrong with a huge Southern California.

That would be the best map ever and because i live in LA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sunrise Driver

 

We all wanted a new location. Not just a remake of Midnight CLub. Seriously people, Midnight CLub was a huge sprawling city, and I hate to think how similar GTA V will be.

I don't understand this argument. Midnight Club: LA was a racing game. We couldn't get out and explore the city ourselves. If anything it offered a completely different experience to what GTA V is likely to be.

 

Another thing to remember is Midnight Club: LA was a GPS representation of real life LA. LS is a fictional city based on LA.

 

Two qualities that set them apart. It's not going to be Midnight Club: LA's map recycled for GTA V. confused.gif

I wonder if R* bored making the same city for the third time in this generation? Or the love LA more than NY?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dijital Binali

To me, nothing is wrong with having just one city. I really liked having one city in GTA IV. I have already experienced the huge map and diversified missions of San Andreas in 2004. Now I want something different. I would be happy if the map size is as same as the map from GTA IV, but more detailed. It would be really nice if I can get in and out of most of the buildings in GTA V map. Ofcourse these buildings must have functions, not just the interiors.

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.