dukee152 Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 I mean sure it was nice having san fierro las venturas and los santos but these cities were not really that detailed so it is better to just have 1 huge city with a bunch of small towns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Staten Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 If GTA is not going to be annualized anytime soon I'll stick with COD for the rest of my life. So what you're saying is that if you don't get the chance to buy GTA more often, you'll never buy GTA again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jokesminus Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 (edited) I mean sure it was nice having san fierro las venturas and los santos but these cities were not really that detailed so it is better to just have 1 huge city with a bunch of small towns. You are a person comparing GTA V to GTA San Andreas saying that we cant possibly have three cities as it would end up being not as detailed which is impossible again. They wouldnt make them less detailed just because there is three cities thats like saying half of Red Dead is less detailed then the rest of the map. You are also in the I would prefer to pay $180 and wait 8 years for each city to have there own game. Which would end up with you waiting 12 years for GTA Vice City and would end up not having SF/LV at all. As R* woud not wanna keep revisiting different parts of San Andreas and next gen would kick in before the the 4 years is up. Your are comparing a PS2 game to a PS3 game. Edited January 14, 2012 by Jokesminus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Valor Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 (edited) But in the end there are only references to SF/LV Los Santos, Vice City and Liberty City. Those are the cities we will be seeing or we will never see again. To do spin offs I.E GTA V SF/LV we would be waiting a long time to see Vice city and for each of those cities in there own games. I do not see R* keep going back to San Andreas to create different parts of San Andreas and I also dont see fans being happy with seeing San Andreas for the next 8 years. Plus it would end up going into next gen they exist in the GTA IV HD WORLD so they have to be done and I dont think fans would be happy with paying $180 and waiting another 8 years for three games that completes the San Andreas state we all saw on the PS2. Saying we wont see SF/LV is like saying we wont ever see Vice City again. So what would you prefer the whole San Andreas in GTA V and have R* move on to Vice City. Or have them do 3 games before Vice City taking $180 and 8 years to create and a 12 year wait for Vice City. I don't get it... why can't LV or SF get their own games and why, if they were to get their own games, would they necessarily come in succession? GTA VI could easily feature VC, then VII could be based on LV, then VIII on London, then IX on SF, etc. Your reasoning here is presumptuous and unfounded. You need to forget the III era as, in this era, LV may not even be part of the state of San Andreas anymore (considering it's real life counterpart is not in Cali). So be prepared for anything, it's R*. Just LS now does not mean we won't see VC for 12 years or that we will never see SF/LV again. That's just silly. Also, V featuring all three cities with IV's detail may be less feasible than you think. LS and the immediate surrounding mountains alone will be the size of IV, then SF and LV and their respective metropolitan areas would add up to another IV, then you'd need a vast sprawl of countryside so the cities aren't right next to each other. To not seem silly like SA, V would have to be like 6-8X the size of IV. I don't see this happening. Edited January 14, 2012 by Dick Valor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jokesminus Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 I don't get it... why can't LV or SF get their own games and why, if they were to get their own games, would they necessarily come in succession? GTA VI could easily feature VC, then VII could be based on LV, then VIII on London, then IX on SF, etc. Your reasoning here is presumptuous and unfounded. You need to forget the III era as, in this era, LV may not even be part of the state of San Andreas anymore (considering it's real life counterpart is not in Cali). So be prepared for anything, it's R*. Just LS now does not mean we won't see VC for 12 years or that we will never see SF/LV again. That's just silly. Also, V featuring all three cities with IV's detail may be less feasible than you think. LS and the immediate surrounding mountains alone will be the size of IV, then SF and LV and their respective metropolitan areas would add up to another IV, then you'd need a vast sprawl of countryside so the cities aren't right next to each other. To not seem silly like SA, V would have to be like 6-8X the size of IV. I don't see this happening. Because 4 years it has taken to create just Los Santos and surrounding hills and countryside. Taking things off that would mean a further 4 years per city they could make a Vice City straight after GTA V but that would end in 4 years from now for Vice City then 4 years later SF then another 4 Years after for LV. It is way more then possible for GTA V to include SF/LV 25gb blu ray disc loads of space R* never said they wouldnt make GTA on one disc for Xbox did they. 4 Years per city is a long time to wait for a San Andreas we had on PS2. Not so unfounded now is it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dansgas1000 Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 JC2 had too much quantity and less quality so quality Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AB0333 Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 I'll take quality with a dash of quantity. Astagfrullah you need to quit weed! Haha just joking Anywayz, its quality for me. I'd rather V be like IV than SanAndreas. Astagfirullah hahaha loool For first time in life, quantity. Thanks to quantity, San Andreas is the game I played it waaay more than I will ever play IV or any other GTA so far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jokesminus Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 Its also stupid to sit there and make harsh remarks about the old San Andreas it worked well last time the sales speak a thousand words more then your calling it stupid. Its more then possible to double the old San Andreas considering Red Dead is about 22sq miles. I did the measurements myself using the in game miles and walking across the map a few extra square miles to take it up to 28sq miles and presto you get a double the size San Andreas. After all GTA V is gonna be there biggest game so far and it wouldnt even have to be 6-8 times bigger then GTA IV. Thats crazy talk double the size of the old San Andreas is about right and they already did 22sq miles in Red Dead compared to the 13.9sq miles of the old San Andreas. Even if they stayed the same size as Red Dead it would still be one and three quarters the size of San Andreas tell me now how its impossible to not see SF/LV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mafiahitman14 Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 i think we would see both in the game since next gen consoles could probably support the graphics and the amount and detail. and you guys probably know that pc can support any game no matter what because you just have to upgrade the processor ,graphic card and ram. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vormek Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 (edited) Why the f*ck do we have to choose one or the other? How about the lazy game companies actually give us something more than the bare minimum? Come on dude, that's not nice at all. Rockstar work their ass off every day to bring us a wonderful game. They're not lazy at all. I bet they work 10 - 12 hours a day. Instead of doing what COD does, releasing a new game every year which is identical to the previous one, Rockstar employees are working their asses off to create a brand new game, different city, different graphics, different characters, different missions, different environment, different vehicles, new awesome features etc etc. See the difference between GTA 3 and Vice City? The difference between Vice City and San Andreas? The difference between San Andreas and IV? Rockstar create new original games for every release! It takes time and effort! They cannot be lazy. They simply don't want to release new identical games every year like the COD franchise. Edited January 14, 2012 by Vormek Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Valor Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 I don't get it... why can't LV or SF get their own games and why, if they were to get their own games, would they necessarily come in succession? GTA VI could easily feature VC, then VII could be based on LV, then VIII on London, then IX on SF, etc. Your reasoning here is presumptuous and unfounded. You need to forget the III era as, in this era, LV may not even be part of the state of San Andreas anymore (considering it's real life counterpart is not in Cali). So be prepared for anything, it's R*. Just LS now does not mean we won't see VC for 12 years or that we will never see SF/LV again. That's just silly. Also, V featuring all three cities with IV's detail may be less feasible than you think. LS and the immediate surrounding mountains alone will be the size of IV, then SF and LV and their respective metropolitan areas would add up to another IV, then you'd need a vast sprawl of countryside so the cities aren't right next to each other. To not seem silly like SA, V would have to be like 6-8X the size of IV. I don't see this happening. Because 4 years it has taken to create just Los Santos and surrounding hills and countryside. Taking things off that would mean a further 4 years per city they could make a Vice City straight after GTA V but that would end in 4 years from now for Vice City then 4 years later SF then another 4 Years after for LV. It is way more then possible for GTA V to include SF/LV 25gb blu ray disc loads of space R* never said they wouldnt make GTA on one disc for Xbox did they. 4 Years per city is a long time to wait for a San Andreas we had on PS2. Not so unfounded now is it We're still talking about R* here, and they may have a vision for V and future GTA games that extends beyond catering to SA nostalgia (i.e., making SA 2.0). Plus, they want to milk the franchise and make as much money as possible--oen city at a time is very sustainable. They may feel that each city merits its own game. LS can certainly hold its own better than LC or VC IMHO. Plus, the lack of any new information on V suggests R* has no qualms making fans play the waiting game. So, yeah... still unfounded. Also, your theory contradicts R*'s official press statement on V's Southern California setting. That said, I don't blame you for wanting them all in one game, hell, I'd eventually love a GTA with all of SA + LC and VC. Doesn't mean it's gonna happen, however. Like I said, you shouldn't allow your expectations to be based on III-era GTA. We didn't see Shoreside Vale in IV, so why expect SF or LV in V? Like IV, V will NOT be a remake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hayden11 Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 If GTA is not going to be annualized anytime soon I'll stick with COD for the rest of my life. I'm sorry but that is one of the most hilarious posts I've seen on an internet forum. I, for one, am glad GTA isn't "annualized" - just look at the reception FIFA gets from its 'die-hard' fans every year, its pitiful. The fact that R* spend a respectable amount of time building their games and franchises means they obviously have more time to get more things right, and more importantly the basic things right. The games that are annualised are just littered with easy-to-avoid bugs and unnecessary glitches as a result of the developers rushing to feed the consumers - at least, that's how it seems to me. Moreover, the uncertainty of a following game sparks excitement (for me, anyway) in anticipation. So, a GTA release every year would be one of the worst moves R* would ever make in my opinion. I always thought GTA was quite a relaxed experience compared to the likes of FIFA, as I mentioned before, and Call Of Duty. It's a completely different genre, and it's a completely different situation in terms of when episodes will, and should be released. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GANGSTA26-VERCETTI Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 Quality. Quantity and quality meet in the last installment of system. e.g. San Andreas was the final installment in the ps2 and included the quality developed from Gta III and the quantity that the last installment would require to show for the sake of the system. The main thing to build is the quality for ideas are infinite. Now we will hopefully see a more developed AI system, and the way the physics work. Don't squeeze the tit too fast, leave some for later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I like GTA and Saints Row Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 If GTA is not going to be annualized anytime soon I'll stick with COD for the rest of my life. Yeah....I'm having a hard time believing this isn't a troll post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coin-god Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 If GTA is not going to be annualized anytime soon I'll stick with COD for the rest of my life. Do it. Who cares. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gtaghost22 Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 Quality.. For sure. I want GTA V to have a big DETAILED map.. If the map is only a little bit bigger than GTA IV map but more DETAILED then thats fine with me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hazelnot Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 I really hope they only do LS in V, so quality. Also, the Xbox is holding R* down as much as the PS3. They're just weak old hardware. The disk size is not important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GTAknowledge Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 GTA SA quantity or more. GTA IV detail or more. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand_Theft_Peanut Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 Quality is the obvious answer i cant understand why u would want a HUGE MAP with nothing to do in it..... theres no replay value in that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MyDog Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 What would you like to have, a handful of gold or a dumpster of sh*t? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dansgas1000 Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 Why the f*ck do we have to choose one or the other? How about the lazy game companies actually give us something more than the bare minimum? Come on dude, that's not nice at all. Rockstar work their ass off every day to bring us a wonderful game. They're not lazy at all. I bet they work 10 - 12 hours a day. Instead of doing what COD does, releasing a new game every year which is identical to the previous one, Rockstar employees are working their asses off to create a brand new game, different city, different graphics, different characters, different missions, different environment, different vehicles, new awesome features etc etc. See the difference between GTA 3 and Vice City? The difference between Vice City and San Andreas? The difference between San Andreas and IV? Rockstar create new original games for every release! It takes time and effort! They cannot be lazy. They simply don't want to release new identical games every year like the COD franchise. Exactly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikecyclexxx Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 But this is the problem GTA III world is dead in the GTA IV world there is no reference to Shoreside Vale or any other location in GTA III in GTA IV. But there are references to SF/LV, Vice City in GTA IV these are the locations we will see again if there are new locations they will likely be implemented in GTA V secretly or announced as a new location. Seeing these other San Andreas locations outside of GTA V is impossible heres why. You sir, make a very very valid point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoanCrawford Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 Quantity is much more important than quality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Algonquin Assassin Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 What would you like to have, a handful of gold or a dumpster of sh*t? This man speaks the truth. Though it is R*, so quality is what you can come to expect from them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triple Vacuum Seal Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 GTA SA quantity or more.GTA IV detail or more. . This. Forget all of that "disc space" bs. It's called 2 disc. After a 4 year wait with an already developed RAGE engine, there is no excuse for GTAV having to choose one over the other. I didn't vote because they both go hand an hand. Quality may seem like a knee-jerk answer but if the game is the same size as GTA4 or only slightly larger, then the gamer will have not much to do after growing numb to the quality (as with GTA4) which decreases replay-ability and we will need a GTAV to keep us occupied for an even longer wait than 4years if the following GTA is likely coming on next gen consoles. "shut up, sit down, relax" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AceRay Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 GTA SA quantity or more.GTA IV detail or more. . This. Forget all of that "disc space" bs. It's called 2 disc. After a 4 year wait with an already developed RAGE engine, there is no excuse for GTAV having to choose one over the other. I didn't vote because they both go hand an hand. Quality may seem like a knee-jerk answer but if the game is the same size as GTA4 or only slightly larger, then the gamer will have not much to do after growing numb to the quality (as with GTA4) which decreases replay-ability and we will need a GTAV to keep us occupied for an even longer wait than 4years if the following GTA is likely coming on next gen consoles. How does Bigger map size automatically equal more replayability? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gtasadude Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 (edited) I believe you shouldn't think of this as a question of quality vs quantity. Both need work in harmony in order for a product to be of high quality. GTA V would not be a high quality game if the map were the size of a mini golf course, you need both high production standards and the right amount of content for GTA to be great. Edited January 16, 2012 by gtasadude Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ColeIsaac Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 It's not an either or. We had both quality and quantity in San Andreas, they can do it again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AceRay Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 We had both quality and quantity in San Andreas, they can do it again. Bwah ha ha ha *cries* ha ha ha ha heh heh heh *rolls on floor laughing* oh my god. I haven't laughed like that in ages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oglevempire Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 More into quantity over here! No matter what or how they're going to script the game, it'd be much better than GTA San Andreas. So quality is a 100 percent. Although quantity is the whole point of San Andreas, in my opinion. It's a large state, filled with a lot of deserts which you can explore when you're in your 'Freeroam' time. A lot of unique places, a lot of spots you can check out, big cities. Quantity or no GTA! <3 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