Dangerous streets

[Markhayzy]

In gta 4 you could walk through supposedly 'bad' neighbourhoods like bohan without anyone bothering you. I'd like gta v to have a feeling of threat in these areas, you should be harrassed by gangsters, attempted muggings or hoods just starting sh*t coz you ain't from round there, (like in sa). Maybe until you get a rep so people won't f*ck with you

[JoyDivision]

i quite miss in GTA III where if you drove around hepburn heights criminals or gang members would pickpocket people and try and steal your car. that should be implemented again, but as a rarity.

[MARKUS.]

Well in some areas in iV some gang members ask you to get the f*ck out of there, later they start to kick the sh*t out of you. Like in Hove Beach

[Draigon]

Totally agree, that was one thing missing in IV, only time people would start a fight with you was when when pushed them, I would'nt want it to be over the top in V but i think the odd mugging or carjacking would be a nice addition.

[Rauland]

I remember I left the game running in IV and some people in a gang started attacking me without me provoking them.

 

 

[Johnny_Cash1983]

 

i quite miss in GTA III where if you drove around hepburn heights criminals or gang members would pickpocket people and try and steal your car. that should be implemented again, but as a rarity.

this.

i just miss when it was like this

if anybody remember the red t shirt guy and his green t shirt cousin should be back and the peds which start to say pece a sh*t

[mcmurda]

Group of gangsters walking around. One of them is walking a pitbull. You start a fight with him and he sends the dog at ya. f*ckin Siiiiiick.

[JimJones]

The only time gangsters approached you is if you disturbed their immediate space. When I first got tbogt i just left luis in brooker in the middle of the projects, nobody did sh*t lol.

[thekenny5217]

i liked how people in gta 3 would jack you for your ride

[Honest Bill]

I like this sort of thing to an extent, but it needs to be balanced. I don't want to get attacked too often otherwise it becomes annoying when you are in the mood for doing something else. But i do agree that there should at least be some areas about which entering would make you at least a little bit apprehensive.

[Chm0]

 

Great idea... they must add some random gang fights on the streets , carjackings , shop robberies

[AtomicPunk]

Gang areas are fine and I like to exterminate the vermin. What I don't understand is why a lot of people here want a gang simulator. GTA has never been about that. Gangbangers are scumbags--just rejects who cannot live in a civilised world. What's cool about that and how would that lend to the story in any GTA? A gangster and a little gang-banger are two different things.

I would like to see random crimes and rewards for catching a mugger or whatever--just clothes-line them when they run by or chase after them and tackle them. Getting car-jacked definitely needs to come back. I would like to see robberies and home invasions.

[Gtaerix]

GTA is a game based about crime, and San Andreas is based around gangs.

[Official General]

 

Gang areas are fine and I like to exterminate the vermin. What I don't understand is why a lot of people here want a gang simulator. GTA has never been about that. Gangbangers are scumbags--just rejects who cannot live in a civilised world. What's cool about that and how would that lend to the story in any GTA? A gangster and a little gang-banger are two different things.

I would like to see random crimes and rewards for catching a mugger or whatever--just clothes-line them when they run by or chase after them and tackle them. Getting car-jacked definitely needs to come back. I would like to see robberies and home invasions.

@ AtomicPunk

 

Let remind you on what GTA is about...

 

GTA is about crime, namely organized crime - this can mean anything from Mafia to drug cartel, street gang or outlaw biker gang. It makes no difference how each criminal group is perceived by society, they are all essentially the same thing, which is a bunch of guys that band together and commit various crimes to make money and become wealthy and powerful. They all steal, rob, cheat, lie, assault and kill people. The Mafia are always portrayed as mobsters wearing smart suits with shades, driving limousines, smoking cigars, brotherhood rituals etc, and this may lead you to think they are "criminals with class and style". Well essentially, there is no such thing. They are a bunch of murderous, thieving, double-dealing maniacs and psychopaths, no different to the street gangbangers themselves. They are all vermin, but many people find certain crime groups cool, some people idolize the Mafia and YES some idolize street gangs, so deal with it.

 

I'm sorry but GTA is not always gonna be about the Mafia or whatever you want it to be. GTA is a crime simulator, whatever theme it takes on is subject to what the storyline is about and who the protagonist is. San Andreas can be considered a gang simulator because CJ belongs to a street gang and that is what SA was mostly about, 1990s LA-street gangs culture inspired it. Vice City can be considered a Mafia simulator because Tommy Vercetti is a Mafioso creating his own criminal empire in VC, inspired by the Mafia presence in 1980s South Florida. Whether someone thinks its cool, that is up to them and NOT you. But most importantly, GTA is a crime game about whatever Rockstar want it be, regardless of whether you hate whatever crime theme they choose.

Edited April 28, 2012 by Official General

[Algonquin Assassin]

I like this sort of thing to an extent, but it needs to be balanced. I don't want to get attacked too often otherwise it becomes annoying when you are in the mood for doing something else. But i do agree that there should at least be some areas about which entering would make you at least a little bit apprehensive.

I agree. It shouldn't be like the GTA III era when it becomes annoying though. I said this the other day, but there should be more of an intimidation factor. GTA IV done this quite well IMO where gang members would trash talk, but certain areas should make you think of avoiding them.

 

 

[Official General]

 

I like this sort of thing to an extent, but it needs to be balanced. I don't want to get attacked too often otherwise it becomes annoying when you are in the mood for doing something else. But i do agree that there should at least be some areas about which entering would make you at least a little bit apprehensive.

I agree. It shouldn't be like the GTA III era when it becomes annoying though. I said this the other day, but there should be more of an intimidation factor. GTA IV done this quite well IMO where gang members would trash talk, but certain areas should make you think of avoiding them.

Not quite. GTA IV did a great job of creating areas in Liberty City that felt very intimidating and dangerous. A good example the Firefly Projects in Broker, that place looked like pure trouble and danger, it looked like a typical inner-city New York ghetto that was teeming with fully-armed black gang members. Other areas of Broker (Beechwood City, Schottler), South Bohan and North Holland/Northwood looked very tough and rough too. And I really like the way gang members were not so easily distinguishable and only pulled out their guns or weapons when attacked or provoked, that was very realistic. As far as the look goes for rough, dangerous areas, yes IV succeeded indeed.

 

But did these rough areas in IV feel dangerous ? Certainly not. It was this extreme lack of random crimes and violence happening in the streets of the bad neighborhoods in LC and Alderney that caused IV to fail on this. The worst areas in IV just felt too safe, there was simply almost nothing really bad going on to make one feel like avoiding them. If I wanted to see havoc in the streets in IV, I had to start it or police would get involved. Other than that, not much happened in IV's bad areas apart from minor fistfights. In Vice City you instantly knew you were in Little Havana or Little Haiti, because you hear and see random gunfights erupt between rival Cuban and Haitian gangs all day and night, and in San Andreas rival gangs had shoot-outs in the hood any time you set foot in there, you just knew it was best avoided. IV did not give me that feel, and I missed that.

Edited April 28, 2012 by Official General

[whittle13]

There should be random events like in RDR.

Like if you go to a dark ally at night someone could try to mug you or beat you up. you can either run away, kill him or call the cops and they will come and arrest him.

Or if you see a bitch getting raped behind a dumpster you can either beat up the guy save and the hoe, call the cops or do nothing and film it on your phone!

[Algonquin Assassin]

I like this sort of thing to an extent, but it needs to be balanced. I don't want to get attacked too often otherwise it becomes annoying when you are in the mood for doing something else. But i do agree that there should at least be some areas about which entering would make you at least a little bit apprehensive.

I agree. It shouldn't be like the GTA III era when it becomes annoying though. I said this the other day, but there should be more of an intimidation factor. GTA IV done this quite well IMO where gang members would trash talk, but certain areas should make you think of avoiding them.

Not quite. GTA IV did a great job of creating areas in Liberty City that felt very intimidating and dangerous. A good example the Firefly Projects in Broker, that place looked like pure trouble and danger, it looked like a typical inner-city New York ghetto that was teeming with fully-armed black gang members. Other areas of Broker (Beechwood City, Schottler), South Bohan and North Holland/Northwood looked very tough and rough too. And I really like the way gang members were not so easily distinguishable and only pulled out their guns or weapons when attacked or provoked, that was very realistic. As far as the look goes for roigh, dangerous areas, yes IV succeeded indeed.

 

But did these rough areas in IV feel dangerous ? Certainly not. It was this extreme lack of random crimes and violence happening in the streets of the bad neighborhoods in LC and Alderney that caused IV to fail on this. The worst areas in IV just felt too safe, there simply almost nothing really bad going on to make one feel like avoiding them.

That's what I'm saying General. The ghetto areas should feel dangerous where we want to avoid them in fear of our heads getting kicked in. I agree though the worst areas in LC even at 2am felt like Star Junction in broad daylight.

 

There should be random fist fights outside of bars, clubs, basketball courts, back alleys, drug deals, murder scenes, domestic disputes, muggings, car jackings etc. Given how RDR expanded on random events stuff like this shouldn't be a problem.

[urbanfire]

I really liked the riots back in SA. People would be stealing TVs, lighting up cars, running like psychotic patients. It really felt dangerous at the time, where I had genuine concern for my life, and I was thankful that it was limited to just the ghettos of LS. The only other time I truly felt scared was when I drove back to portland in GTA 3 knowing there were Mafia wielding shotguns that can blow your vehicle in 3 shots.

 

In GTA IV the crimes were so subtle that they were almost sublime (hailed for being realistic but boring). I've never encountered gangs, only random pedestrians holding nothing more than a trivial pistol. I've never seen anyone shoplifting, killing others on the street, or even carjacking rich bastards. As for being the "Worst Place in America", I can see why it's a hit amongst migrants - its the safest place they've ever been.

Edited April 28, 2012 by urbanfire

[GrandTheftAuto 5SA]

In GTA III it was to much. the whole city wanted you dead but if they do like in SA but much better it would be perfect. In san andreas you sometimes though twice before driving into rival gang territory during a mission

[DonutPT]

Nice ideia.

[Algonquin Assassin]

In GTA III it was to much. the whole city wanted you dead but if they do like in SA but much better it would be perfect. In san andreas you sometimes though twice before driving into rival gang territory during a mission

Yeah I thought it was heavily exaggerated in GTA III. Atleast in SA it was really only the ghetto areas. Even in that case you could sometimes avoid small groups. In GTA III they were relentless madmen.

[Honest Bill]

I have to admit that Red Dead has given me some hope for GTAV. it's pretty easy to see how well the random encounters etc, would translate nicely to GTAV.

[EscoLehGo]

Gang areas are fine and I like to exterminate the vermin. What I don't understand is why a lot of people here want a gang simulator. GTA has never been about that. Gangbangers are scumbags--just rejects who cannot live in a civilised world. What's cool about that and how would that lend to the story in any GTA? A gangster and a little gang-banger are two different things.

 

You sound like Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity, "little gangbangers" are products of their environment. They are the direct result of generations of hopelessness, poverty and discrimination. You act like they could turn around and be wall street bankers if they chose to but just refuse because their stupid. It's much more complicated getting out of the hood then it seems to an outsider, there are a lot of financial and psychological factors involved. I hope R* captures the true dangerous, depressing nature of "the trap" better than they did with IV. It doesn't have to be the centerpiece of the story but a better depiction would be good.

[HOAXi]

In GTA III it was to much. the whole city wanted you dead but if they do like in SA but much better it would be perfect. In san andreas you sometimes though twice before driving into rival gang territory during a mission

Agree with you 99%.

The 1% is for V -violent gangs/territories don't need to be much better. A little is enough.

III was too much. I always ended up with starting over again. SA were addictive and so fun, and it still is. IV was a disappointment, especially on that part.

[_Jason_]

First thing I noticed missing in IV was the threat in certain areas.

[siloz141097]

GTA IV was missing random events in the street, whereas GTA III had probably a bit too much.

They need to get a good balance and different levels of crime in different areas. For example in richer areas, just general muggings and car jackings. In the more "ghetto" areas then gang fights (shootings/drive-bys (occasionally) and fist fights etc) being more prevailent. For it to work well as well there needs to be a vast range of crimes commited ranging from car highjacking and muggings to armed robberies of shops and houses. Police would also need to be involved with these so that if they are spotted then a chase could follow. Also in most GTA's if there ever was a car chase involving an NPC, then it would only include 1 or 2 police cars. It would be more interesting to see 5 or 6 police cars chasing someone if the incident was rather major. As I said before though, it cant happen more or less every couple of minutes, at certain times for example night time they need to occur more often as opposed to day time.

[dansgas1000]

In gta 4 you could walk through supposedly 'bad' neighbourhoods like bohan without anyone bothering you. I'd like gta v to have a feeling of threat in these areas, you should be harrassed by gangsters, attempted muggings or hoods just starting sh*t coz you ain't from round there, (like in sa). Maybe until you get a rep so people won't f*ck with you

I totally agree with this

[samyG]

Agreed. Hopefully they'll implement random events into the game where you come across situation such as street fights and gun fights. Like you drive to a bar in the middle of the hood, hang around for a while and suddenly a gun fight breaks out between two rival gang members.

[73duster]

Gang areas are fine and I like to exterminate the vermin. What I don't understand is why a lot of people here want a gang simulator. GTA has never been about that. Gangbangers are scumbags--just rejects who cannot live in a civilised world. What's cool about that and how would that lend to the story in any GTA? A gangster and a little gang-banger are two different things.

 

You sound like Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity, "little gangbangers" are products of their environment. They are the direct result of generations of hopelessness, poverty and discrimination. You act like they could turn around and be wall street bankers if they chose to but just refuse because their stupid. It's much more complicated getting out of the hood then it seems to an outsider, there are a lot of financial and psychological factors involved. I hope R* captures the true dangerous, depressing nature of "the trap" better than they did with IV. It doesn't have to be the centerpiece of the story but a better depiction would be good.

I agree. This poster is coming off as a completely ignorant fox news mouthpiece. He see's "gang" members as being worse than anything else. As if Italian or European mafia members are any better. I'm not defending "gangbangers", only pointing out that it is ridiculous to feign outrage over one group of organized criminals, and be perfectly fine with the whiter criminals of society.

I found San Andreas to be the best game in the series, just my opinion.