Jump to content

Niko, Roman, Brucie dead?


gtafreak103

Recommended Posts

leik oh em jeez!

 

No, Dumbass.

I gave out my opinion on this thread not pointing out to anyone in particular, and then you came with the "Oh you sound like someone who started playing GTA in San Andreas, hurr, durr, I know more of GTA than you hurr, durr, I'm an oldfag hurr, durr" go back to 4chan, bitch.

So I call you out on something that I see, inform you that everyone else probably sees you the same way, and THEN you argue with everything I say, because you're mad at me? Your immaturity stands out even more when you do something like that. For the sake of this topic, and the future of this forum, please just PM me if you have any more sh*t to talk. That way an attempt can be made to get this thread back on topic. smile.gif

Edited by leik oh em jeez!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, Dumbass.

I gave out my opinion on this thread not pointing out to anyone in particular, and then you came with the "Oh you sound like someone who started playing GTA in San Andreas, hurr, durr, I know more of GTA than you hurr, durr, I'm an oldfag hurr, durr" go back to 4chan, bitch.

So I call you out on something that I see, inform you that everyone else probably sees you the same way, and THEN you argue with everything I say, because your mad at me? Your immaturity stands out even more when you do something like that. For the sake of this topic, and the future of this forum, please just PM me if you have any more sh*t to talk. That way an attempt can be made to get this thread back on topic. smile.gif

Love how trolls always have to have the last word, with something like "Oh lets not destroy the forum, PM me if you want, I'll save the thread".

 

I'm still waiting for you to point out, how saying that R* follows no logic in "eras", not being about numbers or system, and about the characters fitting or not, makes me someone who started playing GTA in San Andreas, and, even if I did (I didn't, but you probably are too dumb to realize that the guy on my DP is from GTA 2) what would be the problem? how was that supposed to help the discussion?

 

You're a troll dude, anyone can see this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

leik oh em jeez!

You refuse, fine. I'll continue this spamfest with you so I don't have to keep the spam to PM and on topic replies here, since I know you'll end up continuing to spam here anyways. So I'll start out with off topic to get it over with. Trying to stay on topic and avoid spam and flame wars does not equal troll. I'm sorry, it just doesn't.

 

 

And back on topic I'll go.

Now, I'll explain even deeper since you're too much of a f*cktard to read into my posts and actually comprehend them without me spelling out every f*cking word for you.

There are two points in GTA's history where a roman numeral or numbered game brought a new era. GTA III, and GTA IV. While Wikipedia lists GTA 2 alone it's own era, it's generally accepted as part of the original GTA's era. You can't really even consider it an era if it's only one game. Keep in mind that the "eras" entered in Wikipedia were not put there by Rockstar, but by users. With that said, GTA & GTA 2 took place in the same era, were released on PC & Playstation, and ran on the same basic engine.

 

With GTA III, Rockstar brought new life to Liberty City name, but used a completely new city, ran on a new engine, and was released on a new console. With the updated engine, the old city didn't translate well to 3D, and starting a new era, or "universe" gave Rockstar the creative freedom to completely redesign the city to suit the new game and hardware.

 

GTA IV was part of a new era because of the same reasons. To make the city interesting again, it needed to be redesigned. With it already being a new era since SA, Rockstar has no reason to abandon IV's universe.

 

New eras start with new consoles on new engines, when the city being used has already been done in the current era.

With III and IV they had every reason in the world to start new eras, yet they have NONE for V. Use some logic when you're trying to argue a point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man, you're so dense.

 

Tell me, who did gave you inside info that "New Engines = New Eras"?

Because you're backing your whole argument into the idea that a new engine define a new era, where did that come from? This is your TAKE on it, your OPINION on it, nothing more.

 

Here is MY OPINION, since you're too dense to understand it without trying to put your tiny weeny on the table and act like "Oh I know more of GTA than you hurr durr".

 

R* uses the term ERA loosely.

GTA 3 and Vice City shared some characters but nothing special, since both games had the same "humor" going on, the characters fit. It was a nice "homage" to the old game.

When GTA San Andreas hit as the "last GTA on the Playstation 2" R* felt the need to pay some homage to the series so far, bringing back a lot of old characters. And it makes sense, the same way that Final Fantasy IX played homage to the style of the old games, or Metal Gear Solid 4 tried to fit all the old characters in the game... Developers usually like to do this sort of homage.

 

Then, GTA IV came and these character didn't fit. They were overdone already, their back-stories were already explored. So R* decided to simply start GTA IV from the scratch. It has nothing to do with the engine used, or anything. It's simply that they felt that the game would be better if it was "brand new". New style, new humor and so on.

 

Will GTA V feature GTA IV characters? I don't know. And there is no logic behind trying to guess it by using things like "Game Engine", "Roman Numeral", "Console being released on". R* uses the term "Era" loosely, if they feel that the game can be better by featuring old characters, they will feature it and that's the end.

 

Eras in GTA works the same way that "Eras" in Legend of Zelda, if it fits it fits, if it doesn't, they try something entirely new. Many writers uses these things loosely, Tarantino is the one who I can recall now.

 

So in short, all this Era stuff is pointless. It was just a figure of speech by R*.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ThEtRuThSANANDREAS69
leik oh em jeez! and ratone stop posting forever

instead of bitching post something productive.

 

ratone- best post on this entire thread i completely agree

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People need to stop looking for these patterns. Patterns do not predict future grand theft auto cities, content or storyline.

 

Rockstar constantly change the rules, because they killed off the III era characters in IV that doesnt mean that they'll do the same with IV-V.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

leik oh em jeez!

You see Ratone? Now we know just how misinformed, or simply uninformed you are. Rockstar doesn't use the term 'era' loosely, in fact they don't use it at all, so please stop spreading bullsh*t pretending that it's facts.

 

You STILL missed my entire point. I wasn't basing my argument on patterns, only pointing them out because they helped it, I based my argument on logic. Rockstar started new eras when they NEEDED to. They don't need to now. There's no simpler way to put it, if you still don't understand that, you're f*cking retarded.

 

Vice City wasn't "paying homage" to the game that was released just a YEAR earlier. It was continuing the same era, universe, cannon, alternate reality, whatever you want to call it. And it did so because it made it easier for Rockstar, and they had no reason to change it at the time.

 

Now, if you want to argue about the very existence of eras within the GTA series, start a new topic somewhere to discuss it, but that argument doesn't belong here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You see Ratone? Now we know just how misinformed, or simply uninformed you are. Rockstar doesn't use the term 'era' loosely, in fact they don't use it at all, so please stop spreading bullsh*t pretending that it's facts.

 

Rockstar started new eras when they NEEDED to. They don't need to now.

Vice City wasn't "paying homage" to the game that was released just a YEAR earlier.

And it did so because it made it easier for Rockstar,

and they had no reason to change it at the time.

 

you see? You make a lot of assumptions and state it as facts.

 

 

Now, if you want to argue about the very existence of eras within the GTA series, start a new topic somewhere  to discuss it, but that argument doesn't belong here.

You're not a mod.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

leik oh em jeez!

-Rockstar needed to create a new alternate reality with III and IV to give them the creative freedom to redesign the city. This is not an assumption, it is FACT.

-Vice City was released in 2002, one year after GTA III in 2001. This is FACT. Out of the two options of 'paying homage to' vs 'reusing because it's easier' reusing is the obvious choice from a designer, developer, or writer's point of view. Paying homage to a year old game doesn't exactly make sense.

-Reusing an already existing alternate reality is easier than creating a new one from scratch. This is FACT.

Rockstar has no reason to start a new era with V. This is also FACT. The only reason they NEED to start one is if they're redesigning a city that's already been used in the current era.

 

See all FACT. Only one minor assumption, because it's the only thing that makes sense through logical thinking.

 

 

I don't have to be a moderator to tell you what is considered on topic and off topic.

Now please stop with the flaming and stay on topic.

Edited by leik oh em jeez!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

-Rockstar needed to create a new alternate reality with III and IV to give them the creative freedom to redesign the city. This is not an assumption, it is FACT.

Partially Agree, they could've redesigned the city and have some character cameos going on, the cityscape is not always connected to the characters and storylines.

But I do agree that they felt like they needed freedom and decided to start from the scratch. This, ironically, is my point all along: R* decides when to start from the scratch and when to have characters coming back.

 

 

-Vice City was released in 2002, one year after GTA III in 2001. This is FACT. Out of the two options of 'paying homage to' vs 'reusing because it's easier' reusing is the obvious choice from a designer or developer, or writer's point of view. Paying homage to a year old game doesn't exactly make sense.

Disagree, While your logic is correct: Reusing is Easier. You can't apply it to GTA Game as far as the STORYLINE goes. If they're reusing things in GTA III and Vice City, then this means that GTA III is on the same universe as GTA I, right? The El Burro character is on both games. Now, this is obviously a "stretching" to show you that this isn't a "FACT".

 

All the things "reused" in GTA Vice City from GTA III aren't really groundbreaking or needed, they are nods to the people who played the third one. Do you disagree? Please, tell me what was reused from GTA III in Vice City that you think is "groundbreaking" and makes "continuity/same universe" something that makes difference.

 

And actually this logic of "reusing is easier" go against your argument that "since they're reusing the vehicles, old characters will show up", not really. They may be reusing the vehicles because its easier and save time. Now, reusing the characters means writing new lines, being careful to not f*ck up with continuity and hiring the same voice actors... What usually means that the actor will ask for a bigger pay this time.

 

 

 

-Reusing an already existing alternate reality is easier than creating a new one from scratch. This is FACT.

Rockstar has no reason to start a new era with V. This is also FACT. The only reason they NEED to start one is if they're redesigning a city that's already been used in the current era.

1) Reusing an existing reality is not always easier than creating a new one from the scratch, mind you. Some cases it is, some cases it isn't.

2) GTA reality, what it is? Is GTA a game series that has a very deep intricate web of crime families, characters and plots that go from one game to the next? Would you like GTA San Andreas less, if you didn't knew Ken Rosenberg destiny? Do people enjoy Vice City less because they have no idea what really happened to Tony after the game? I gotta tell you, no. GTA games are pretty self-contained, in the sense that every game stands by itself.

 

So yes, I still touch the point: R* didn't reused GTA III and Vice characters in San Andreas because it "easy". It was because they felt it would add something to the game. They may feel, or not, that using GTA IV characters in V add something to the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GrandTheftAuto101
Ratone is a troll

Is accusing someone of being a troll just the new way to voice disagreement?

You're a troll

Link to comment
Share on other sites

iGrandTheftAuto

Not sure if GTA V is a new era, but Niko, Roman, and especially Brucie were annoying.

Edited by iGrandTheftAuto
user posted image
Link to comment
Share on other sites

leik oh em jeez! and ratone stop posting forever

instead of bitching post something productive.

 

ratone- best post on this entire thread i completely agree

leik oh em jeez!, ratone and ThEtRuThSANANDREAS69 stop posting forever

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i posted this a while back, it also talks about the grafitti.

 

http://www.gtaforums.com/index.php?act=ST&f=239&t=492446

 

 

 

Basically... with the release of IV, the gta games have become a Multiverse.

 

 

 

 

 

the GTA III era games(III,VC,SA) take place in a alternate reality, separate from GTA:IV (the better graphics setting them apart from each other).

 

Nothing has Offically been said IF GTA: V is in the same as IV, or the III era (or possibly even separate from both).

But considering that V has the same graphics, it is implied that V will be the same reality as IV.

 

 

 

 

the III area character may not be "dead", but rockstar does not intend to use the III era reality for the games anymore.

they seem to want to start fresh, a new beginning.

added the link to the other thread, in that thread is a link to a interview with rockstar about the subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

leik oh em jeez!

Completely agree with garinhash. Like any good sequel, the GTA games make perfect sense as a stand alone game, but come together to form a bigger picture when you play more than one. Consider III, VC, SA, LCS, & VCS part of the same picture, then IV & V.

 

In the case of GTA games, it's easier to reuse the same reality when going to a new city and staying with the same game engine and release console. But with new engines and consoles comes new graphics, a major update in the style of the game. And since everything has to be recreated from scratch anyways, it then becomes easier to start a new reality so you can change a city, and it's history, without worrying about continuity.

 

Using the same game engine and consoles now, along with the fact that they haven't yet made a Los Santos in IV's reality means they have no reason to create a new one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Ratone you are banned from my topic Get out!

Care to elaborate why?

Pretty interesting to see many trolls coming here, dissing me without touching a single line of my arguments.

 

It's not about me being right or not, but I find it pretty interesting that this is the FIRST time this happens on this forum with me, and I've come to disagree with a lot of people. Pretty fishy.

Edited by Ratone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, Dumbass.

I gave out my opinion on this thread not pointing out to anyone in particular, and then you came with the "Oh you sound like someone who started playing GTA in San Andreas, hurr, durr, I know more of GTA than you hurr, durr, I'm an oldfag hurr, durr" go back to 4chan, bitch.

@Ratone This. leik em oh jeez is living proof. Now get out!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

No, Dumbass.

I gave out my opinion on this thread not pointing out to anyone in particular, and then you came with the "Oh you sound like someone who started playing GTA in San Andreas, hurr, durr, I know more of GTA than you hurr, durr, I'm an oldfag hurr, durr" go back to 4chan, bitch.

@Ratone This. leik em oh jeez is living proof. Now get out!

A guy dismisses my opinion with the "Oh you sound like" argument, and you think I'm the one who should get out? Yeah dude, right on.

 

Pretty fishy to see that many "board hoarders" trolling me on this thread, don't you think? I mean, I've disagreed with many people, but this is the first time I see so many "get out of here, go there, you should be banned" trolls focusing on me... Makes me wonder where they are coming from wink.gif

 

Oh and I'm pretty sure I saw another user, on this same thread, use the "@" to give me a single line answer... not sure why...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, Dumbass.

I gave out my opinion on this thread not pointing out to anyone in particular, and then you came with the "Oh you sound like someone who started playing GTA in San Andreas, hurr, durr, I know more of GTA than you hurr, durr, I'm an oldfag hurr, durr" go back to 4chan, bitch.

@Ratone This. leik em oh jeez is living proof. Now get out!

A guy dismisses my opinion with the "Oh you sound like" argument, and you think I'm the one who should get out? Yeah dude, right on.

 

Pretty fishy to see that many "board hoarders" trolling me on this thread, don't you think? I mean, I've disagreed with many people, but this is the first time I see so many "get out of here, go there, you should be banned" trolls focusing on me... Makes me wonder where they are coming from wink.gif

 

Oh and I'm pretty sure I saw another user, on this same thread, use the "@" to give me a single line answer... not sure why...

Who me? Yeah you are the one to get out, deal with it. Everyone back on topic. biggrin.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember in your first safehouse that grafitti of III era characters and that mural of III era charaters in Cerveza Heights. If V is set in a new era, doesn't that mean the IV characters are dead? mercie_blink.gif

If it's a seperate era, they aren't dead they simply aren't in existence as the era's are set in different 'universes' as Houser put it.

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.