Algonquin Assassin Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 The thing with Vice City was that the city had too much useless space. The beach took may too much room in the first island. Same for the Country Club where we go... well, once in the whole game. And it was flat. LC in III was very well done IMO, with its tunnels, elevated train rails, hills in Shoreside Vale... I'm fairly certain Miami is actually mostly flat, so it was probably in R*'s best interest to get as close to the real world geography as much as possible. I agree about the beach. This has been one of my gripes ever since the game came out. Way too big. Anyway my point with that post is the map doesn't need to be as big as god himself. JC2 has one of the biggest maps ever made yet it's so boring, because of how lifeless it actually is. I'm hoping GTA V will be a commendable size, but with GTA IV and RDR detail to match. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand_Theft_Peanut Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 LV was so boring anyway why would anyone want it back, i remember the missions in that area were such a pain to complete and i hated every second in LV, the atmosphere was dead quiet. The only good thing about it was before the area was unlocked u could sneak into it and get 4 stars or whatever, it was fun to just run around from cops Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zeichef Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 LV was so boring anyway why would anyone want it back, i remember the missions in that area were such a pain to complete and i hated every second in LV, the atmosphere was dead quiet. The only good thing about it was before the area was unlocked u could sneak into it and get 4 stars or whatever, it was fun to just run around from cops LAS VEGAS' equivalent had a dead quiet atmosphere? Phew... that's a new one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tipper Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 Why are you people so interested in Las Venturas and San Fierro Personally I prefer San Francisco over Los Angeles and despite the fact that SA's rendition of SF wasn't very good, it still was my favourite city in SA, LS being my least favourite. That's why I'm not completely happy with the setting of V. In SA, they could please people who preferred LA as well as those who liked SF or LV better. If there is only one city in V, they could really please only those who prefer LA. If there make only LS, it'll always feel like they've taken two cities away from us. Like if I'm going north or north-west of LS and have to stop because of the water, I'll think "damn, there should be SF here". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AceRay Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 If there make only LS, it'll always feel like they've taken two cities away from us. Like if I'm going north or north-west of LS and have to stop because of the water, I'll think "damn, there should be SF here". Not really, the map will be so different, you won't even notice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finn 7 five 11 Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 The thing with Vice City was that the city had too much useless space. The beach took may too much room in the first island. Same for the Country Club where we go... well, once in the whole game. And it was flat. LC in III was very well done IMO, with its tunnels, elevated train rails, hills in Shoreside Vale... I'm fairly certain Miami is actually mostly flat, so it was probably in R*'s best interest to get as close to the real world geography as much as possible. I agree about the beach. This has been one of my gripes ever since the game came out. Way too big. Anyway my point with that post is the map doesn't need to be as big as god himself. JC2 has one of the biggest maps ever made yet it's so boring, because of how lifeless it actually is. I'm hoping GTA V will be a commendable size, but with GTA IV and RDR detail to match. Quality, with some Quantity, i don't want wasted space just to make it feel bigger, like 10miles of flat grass paddocks, that would be a waste. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Algonquin Assassin Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 If there make only LS, it'll always feel like they've taken two cities away from us. Like if I'm going north or north-west of LS and have to stop because of the water, I'll think "damn, there should be SF here". Not really, the map will be so different, you won't even notice. I agree. Apart from LS sharing similarities to the old LS the geography will be very different. SA was basically a highly condensed California and Nevada. If the map is a closer representation of Southern California like LC was of NYC odds are the geography will be different to SA. You could picture SF and LV being 100s of miles away though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand_Theft_Peanut Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 LV was so boring anyway why would anyone want it back, i remember the missions in that area were such a pain to complete and i hated every second in LV, the atmosphere was dead quiet. The only good thing about it was before the area was unlocked u could sneak into it and get 4 stars or whatever, it was fun to just run around from cops LAS VEGAS' equivalent had a dead quiet atmosphere? Phew... that's a new one. Las Vegas might not be dead quiet but im talking about in the game .... LV was so dead and there was sh*t all to do there so stop hating i am entitled to my opinion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Algonquin Assassin Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 I thought LV was great. When I was rolling in the money no where else felt appropriate to be in. Never really liked SF though. Always thought it was a gloomy sh*t hole IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrcTOtheJ Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 Odds are it’s just some liquored store in some little desert town, nothing more really. Honestly I just hope there’s a lot of desert. Honestly I’d rather see a San Diego based city than SF or LV, it’d fit the bill of So Cal, and I’d just prefer it my self, I wasn’t to impressed by SF and while I liked LV, I’ve had my fill of Vegas based areas. (Though if it by some flaw of logic was in the game I’d be ok with it, more for me to enjoy even if it wasn’t my first choice.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kesta195 Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 I thought LV was great. When I was rolling in the money no where else felt appropriate to be in. Never really liked SF though. Always thought it was a gloomy sh*t hole IMO. Have to agree there. SF was my least favourite, it was just dull, too small and always foggy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kill Frenzy! Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 I thought LV was great. When I was rolling in the money no where else felt appropriate to be in. Never really liked SF though. Always thought it was a gloomy sh*t hole IMO. You´re saying 2/4 nonsense, you´re saying that SF "WAS" a gloomy sh*t hole, but that doesn´t mean if SF will be included in V that it´s going to be a gloomy sh*t hole again? but SF will not be included, so i really don´t care. And what you were saying of LV, that´s correct, i went in red, playing in the casinos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jokesminus Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 (edited) This is why I think we will never see SF/LV at all outside of GTA V. First off if going by what people have said so far it has taken 4 years to create just Los Santos and surrounding hills and countryside. So by going off that 4 years to create each city means at least 4 years per add on I.E GTA V San Fierro/LV. That means at least 12 years before seeing a Vice City or a full San Andreas In games. Impossible end of story. Second off they could have been making them as DLC in these past 4 years as well as GTA V. Again impossible here is why R* already said they are making ther DLCS smaller and cheaper. From $20-$10 dont you think it would cost them a lot more to create them as DLC for $10. Impossible again that would also mean it would be R* North creating 3 different games over the past 4 years 1 GTA V and two other cities as DLC impossible as R* also have other games ongoing and need to be involved in soon to be released games. So maybe we will see them after GTA V release again impossible maybe 4 years after the release. So heres the summary we wont be seeing the other cities in San Andreas they will be swept away and forgotten. As they will have to say sorry Vice City fans we decided to only make Los Santos and we decided to make the other cities in seperate games you will be seeing Vice city in 12 years after we finish SF/LV spin offs. Impossible they will upset a lot of Vice City fans. The other cities are not swept away and forgotten about they are referenced alot in GTA IV so they do exist so how do they exist if we wont see them in GTA V or outside of GTA V for a long time. Its all impossible they cant be swept away it would take too long to create a seperate game for each city. Oh and not forgetting upsetting a lot of Vice City fans i for one would like to see Vice City sometime before 12 years is up. They will not be making them seperately from GTA V they exist in the GTA IV HD WORLD. Why I say this is you really think they would create San Andreas Los Santos and then go back to San Andreas repeatedly for the next 8 years for the add ons. They certainly cant just sweep them away and forget them as they exist in the HD GTA IV ERA. They also wouldnt stop creating San Andreas to make a Vice City then go back to San Andreas again. We simply have to except we are gonna get these cities in GTA V or we can pretty much kiss them good bye. It would end up with San Andreas not being a state and being Los Santos and mixed up cities that get swept away for each new gen of console. IMPOSSIBLE AGAIN. So we wont be seeing those cities in GTA V or after at least not for a few years anyways. Unless us as gamers would love to keep revisiting San Andreas over and over again for the next 8 years. Its simply better and easier to put them in GTA V and move on to Vice City as I would love to see Vice City again. I do not think R* are ones to say I know you fans had a whole San Andreas on PS2 but we decided to split them up take a very long time to create them and get even more money out of you. Nor do I think R* are ones to keep creating different parts of San Andreas for the next 8 years. That would also end up going into the next gen years oh and the fact they exist in the GTA IV HD WORLD and cannot be ever swept away. If they wanted to do that they could have just said SF/LV is over and not referenced it at all in the GTA IV world. They also could have been truthfull and said sorry SF/LV are dead and will not ever appear again. But they didnt and that would upset a lot of fans who want those cities. Edited January 14, 2012 by Jokesminus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hayze Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 This is why I think we will never see SF/LV at all outside of GTA V. First off if going by what people have said so far it has taken 4 years to create just Los Santos and surrounding hills and countryside. So by going off that 4 years to create each city means at least 4 years per add on I.E GTA V San Fierro/LV. That means at least 12 years before seeing a Vice City or a full San Andreas In games. Impossible end of story. Second off they could have been making them as DLC in these past 4 years as well as GTA V. Again impossible here is why R* already said they are making ther DLCS smaller and cheaper. From $20-$10 dont you think it would cost them a lot more to create them as DLC for $10. Impossible again that would also mean it would be R* North creating 3 different games over the past 4 years 1 GTA V and two other cities as DLC impossible as R* also have other games ongoing and need to be involved in soon to be released games. So maybe we will see them after GTA V release again impossible maybe 4 years after the release. So heres the summary we wont be seeing the other cities in San Andreas they will be swept away and forgotten. As they will have to say sorry Vice City fans we decided to only make Los Santos and we decided to make the other cities in seperate games you will be seeing Vice city in 12 years after we finish SF/LV spin offs. Impossible they will upset a lot of Vice City fans. The other cities are not swept away and forgotten about they are referenced alot in GTA IV so they do exist so how do they exist if we wont see them in GTA V or outside of GTA V for a long time. Its all impossible they cant be swept away it would take too long to create a seperate game for each city. Oh and not forgetting upsetting a lot of Vice City fans i for one would like to see Vice City sometime before 12 years is up. They will not be making them seperately from GTA V they exist in the GTA IV HD WORLD. Why I say this is you really think they would create San Andreas Los Santos and then go back to San Andreas repeatedly for the next 8 years for the add ons. They certainly cant just sweep them away and forget them as they exist in the HD GTA IV ERA. They also wouldnt stop creating San Andreas to make a Vice City then go back to San Andreas again. We simply have to except we are gonna get these cities in GTA V or we can pretty much kiss them good bye. It would end up with San Andreas not being a state and being Los Santos and mixed up cities that get swept away for each new gen of console. IMPOSSIBLE AGAIN. So we wont be seeing those cities in GTA V or after at least not for a few years anyways. Unless us as gamers would love to keep revisiting San Andreas over and over again for the next 8 years. Its simply better and easier to put them in GTA V and move on to Vice City as I would love to see Vice City again. I do not think R* are ones to say I know you fans had a whole San Andreas on PS2 but we decided to split them up take a very long time to create them and get even more money out of you. Nor do I think R* are ones to keep creating different parts of San Andreas for the next 8 years. That would also end up going into the next gen years oh and the fact they exist in the GTA IV HD WORLD and cannot be ever swept away. If they wanted to do that they could have just said SF/LV is over and not referenced it at all in the GTA IV world. They also could have been truthfull and said sorry SF/LV are dead and will not ever appear again. But they didnt and that would upset a lot of fans who want those cities. GTA V isn't the only game R* North was working on for the past 4 years but I'm sure you know that already. So its not like it took them 4 years to just create Los Santos and the surrounding areas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GRINCH ASS BITCH Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 The real question is "Why IS this enough evidence for LV?" As far as I know, Las Vegas isn't the only city on earth that has liquor stores. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slamman Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 I heard people claim it looks marginally like LV in the "pyramid" shape building, but still the surrounding were obscured, and some thing it's not a building but it could be desert or a mountain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BTNH Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 To be honest I'm very much over the strong possibility San Fierro and Las Venturas may not be featured. At the end of the day I am certain this will be a massive game and bigger than San Andreas. Will I feel nostalgic when I eventually play the game and not visiting these areas? Sure, but at the end of the day this game will be amazing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackass2009 Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 Although no one seems to look at the alcohol market named Liquor ACE (seems like a "casino theme" to me). ACE and the Liqour store are two seperate things. If they weren't, they'd be on the same sign. Who's to say that ACE isn't an acronym for something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Valor Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 This is why I think we will never see SF/LV at all outside of GTA V. First off if going by what people have said so far it has taken 4 years to create just Los Santos and surrounding hills and countryside. So by going off that 4 years to create each city means at least 4 years per add on I.E GTA V San Fierro/LV. That means at least 12 years before seeing a Vice City or a full San Andreas In games. Impossible end of story. Second off they could have been making them as DLC in these past 4 years as well as GTA V. Again impossible here is why R* already said they are making ther DLCS smaller and cheaper. From $20-$10 dont you think it would cost them a lot more to create them as DLC for $10. Impossible again that would also mean it would be R* North creating 3 different games over the past 4 years 1 GTA V and two other cities as DLC impossible as R* also have other games ongoing and need to be involved in soon to be released games. So maybe we will see them after GTA V release again impossible maybe 4 years after the release. So heres the summary we wont be seeing the other cities in San Andreas they will be swept away and forgotten. As they will have to say sorry Vice City fans we decided to only make Los Santos and we decided to make the other cities in seperate games you will be seeing Vice city in 12 years after we finish SF/LV spin offs. Impossible they will upset a lot of Vice City fans. The other cities are not swept away and forgotten about they are referenced alot in GTA IV so they do exist so how do they exist if we wont see them in GTA V or outside of GTA V for a long time. Its all impossible they cant be swept away it would take too long to create a seperate game for each city. Oh and not forgetting upsetting a lot of Vice City fans i for one would like to see Vice City sometime before 12 years is up. They will not be making them seperately from GTA V they exist in the GTA IV HD WORLD. Why I say this is you really think they would create San Andreas Los Santos and then go back to San Andreas repeatedly for the next 8 years for the add ons. They certainly cant just sweep them away and forget them as they exist in the HD GTA IV ERA. They also wouldnt stop creating San Andreas to make a Vice City then go back to San Andreas again. We simply have to except we are gonna get these cities in GTA V or we can pretty much kiss them good bye. It would end up with San Andreas not being a state and being Los Santos and mixed up cities that get swept away for each new gen of console. IMPOSSIBLE AGAIN. So we wont be seeing those cities in GTA V or after at least not for a few years anyways. Unless us as gamers would love to keep revisiting San Andreas over and over again for the next 8 years. Its simply better and easier to put them in GTA V and move on to Vice City as I would love to see Vice City again. I do not think R* are ones to say I know you fans had a whole San Andreas on PS2 but we decided to split them up take a very long time to create them and get even more money out of you. Nor do I think R* are ones to keep creating different parts of San Andreas for the next 8 years. That would also end up going into the next gen years oh and the fact they exist in the GTA IV HD WORLD and cannot be ever swept away. If they wanted to do that they could have just said SF/LV is over and not referenced it at all in the GTA IV world. They also could have been truthfull and said sorry SF/LV are dead and will not ever appear again. But they didnt and that would upset a lot of fans who want those cities. Your thoughts on this matter remain presumptive and unfounded. Even if LS, LV, and SF all get their own games, this does not mean they will be in succession. That assumption is so asinine, I can't believe you've written multiple posts of such considerable length just to convey the same nonsense. The next GTA could feature VC, then the one after than can feature LV. R* is not constrained by your option of "all SA in cities in one game OR all SA cities in successive games over the next 12 years OR VC is next and SF/LV are never touched again." As I have pointed out, there is another OBVIOUS possibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrandTheftAuto101 Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 I thought LV was great. When I was rolling in the money no where else felt appropriate to be in. Never really liked SF though. Always thought it was a gloomy sh*t hole IMO. Have to agree there. SF was my least favourite, it was just dull, too small and always foggy. foggy from the pot smoke Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lazlow54875 Posted January 17, 2012 Author Share Posted January 17, 2012 ACE and the Liqour store are two seperate things. If they weren't, they'd be on the same sign. Who's to say that ACE isn't an acronym for something? Look at the tall ACE Sign near the top left of the photo, you'll see the bottom text says "lottery tickets", which in turn allows for gambling, which is another reference to the Spade ace club and heart that I circled before. Both the text on LIQUOR and ACE are different shades of blue too, it is the same sign man. It reminds me of those random horse betting places located in forest towns of San Andreas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SmoothGetaway Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 The real question is "Why IS this enough evidence for LV?" As far as I know, Las Vegas isn't the only city on earth that has liquor stores. Because most people on this forum clearly haven't been to Vegas and can't differentiate between "that pyramid thing" (The Luxor Casino in downtown Vegas) and a pile of dirt out back behind the hooker liquor store. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chukkles Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 This is why I think we will never see SF/LV at all outside of GTA V. First off if going by what people have said so far it has taken 4 years to create just Los Santos and surrounding hills and countryside. So by going off that 4 years to create each city means at least 4 years per add on I.E GTA V San Fierro/LV. That means at least 12 years before seeing a Vice City or a full San Andreas In games. Impossible end of story. Second off they could have been making them as DLC in these past 4 years as well as GTA V. Again impossible here is why R* already said they are making ther DLCS smaller and cheaper. From $20-$10 dont you think it would cost them a lot more to create them as DLC for $10. Impossible again that would also mean it would be R* North creating 3 different games over the past 4 years 1 GTA V and two other cities as DLC impossible as R* also have other games ongoing and need to be involved in soon to be released games. So maybe we will see them after GTA V release again impossible maybe 4 years after the release. So heres the summary we wont be seeing the other cities in San Andreas they will be swept away and forgotten. As they will have to say sorry Vice City fans we decided to only make Los Santos and we decided to make the other cities in seperate games you will be seeing Vice city in 12 years after we finish SF/LV spin offs. Impossible they will upset a lot of Vice City fans. The other cities are not swept away and forgotten about they are referenced alot in GTA IV so they do exist so how do they exist if we wont see them in GTA V or outside of GTA V for a long time. Its all impossible they cant be swept away it would take too long to create a seperate game for each city. Oh and not forgetting upsetting a lot of Vice City fans i for one would like to see Vice City sometime before 12 years is up. They will not be making them seperately from GTA V they exist in the GTA IV HD WORLD. Why I say this is you really think they would create San Andreas Los Santos and then go back to San Andreas repeatedly for the next 8 years for the add ons. They certainly cant just sweep them away and forget them as they exist in the HD GTA IV ERA. They also wouldnt stop creating San Andreas to make a Vice City then go back to San Andreas again. We simply have to except we are gonna get these cities in GTA V or we can pretty much kiss them good bye. It would end up with San Andreas not being a state and being Los Santos and mixed up cities that get swept away for each new gen of console. IMPOSSIBLE AGAIN. So we wont be seeing those cities in GTA V or after at least not for a few years anyways. Unless us as gamers would love to keep revisiting San Andreas over and over again for the next 8 years. Its simply better and easier to put them in GTA V and move on to Vice City as I would love to see Vice City again. I do not think R* are ones to say I know you fans had a whole San Andreas on PS2 but we decided to split them up take a very long time to create them and get even more money out of you. Nor do I think R* are ones to keep creating different parts of San Andreas for the next 8 years. That would also end up going into the next gen years oh and the fact they exist in the GTA IV HD WORLD and cannot be ever swept away. If they wanted to do that they could have just said SF/LV is over and not referenced it at all in the GTA IV world. They also could have been truthfull and said sorry SF/LV are dead and will not ever appear again. But they didnt and that would upset a lot of fans who want those cities. Your thoughts on this matter remain presumptive and unfounded. Even if LS, LV, and SF all get their own games, this does not mean they will be in succession. That assumption is so asinine, I can't believe you've written multiple posts of such considerable length just to convey the same nonsense. The next GTA could feature VC, then the one after than can feature LV. R* is not constrained by your option of "all SA in cities in one game OR all SA cities in successive games over the next 12 years OR VC is next and SF/LV are never touched again." As I have pointed out, there is another OBVIOUS possibility. Would it be fair to say, this is South San Andreas? At some point the may make a game for Northern San Andreas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doland J. Trump Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 Off topic: What R* should do is make a GTA and it's set in san andreas (whole state) vice city and liberty city. Sure it would take a very long time to make (10 years perhaps) but just imagine flying from vice city to liberty city. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaBrat Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 (edited) Although no one seems to look at the alcohol market named Liquor ACE (seems like a "casino theme" to me). Seems like yet another pun to me. Liquor Ace = Lick her ass It's another stupid Rockstar joke, just like: Cluckin Bell = f*cking hell RC Goblin/RC Bandit = Arse goblin/arse bandit BF Injection = Beef injection Edited January 18, 2012 by LaBrat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SGT. Johnson Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 Off topic:What R* should do is make a GTA and it's set in san andreas (whole state) vice city and liberty city. Sure it would take a very long time to make (10 years perhaps) but just imagine flying from vice city to liberty city. Obvious dream is an obviouss dream! 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