More Than Just San Andreas...

[zticky]

Bitch please, they're gonna put the whole f*cking world on that game!

[Dick Valor]

I doubt we'll get GTA: America until after the III-era cities get their HD rendition. My prediction:

 

Next gen:

GTA VI: Vice City

GTA VII: Las Venturas

 

Next next gen:

GTA VIII: LC, LS, VC, and LV return + two new cities (San Fierro and Carcer City) and the American countryside

GTA IX: Europe

 

Next next next gen:

GTA World: the neverending GTA MMO

 

One can dream...

[Mig10]

lock

[Gtaman_92]

They might do that in 20 years but for now its just san andreas.

[Sifu Chyaku]

They should make a GTA world consisting of all maps from previous GTA's. That'd be fun. Especially for next gen consoles and PC.

[Jokesminus]

Yea get over it we should all just be lucky that we are getting just Los santos and not the entire state of San Andreas. Forget the re imagined southern Cali forget that crap we should just be lucky to get Los santos forget the rest of the state after all I'd much prefer just Los Santos and mountains and countryside I'd much prefer just one city with a bit of countryside surrounding GTA IV with countryside. How original another USA city with countryside after all let's all forget the re imagined southern California R* statement and make it a real southern Cali game like after all we are the ones making GTA V let's make up what we want and believe in ourselves. No one has a clue what's in GTA so stop raining on people's parades. It's not a real true to life representation of southern Cali. So I'm in this boat forget the re imagined southern Cali make what R* said into whatever we want to believe then shove that down peoples throats telling them no to their beliefs lololol. So whatever I do what I want be lucky and just stick to whatever I fancy and I say XBOX 360 discs can't handle the entire state so just be lucky we got Los santos and countryside. We don't need anything else except another city with countryside very original oh and live with that it's just Los santos.

[Mbnffc]

that would be awesome but not in this gen

[Sneakerhead.]

I doubt we'll get GTA: America until after the III-era cities get their HD rendition. My prediction:

 

Next gen:

GTA VI: Vice City

GTA VII: Las Venturas

 

Next next gen:

GTA VIII: LC, LS, VC, and LV return + two new cities (San Fierro and Carcer City) and the American countryside

GTA IX: Europe

 

Next next next gen:

GTA World: the neverending GTA MMO

 

One can dream...

R* would be billionares from that "GTA: The world" sh*t.

[AZAZEL]

 

They're not even using all of San Andreas, let alone the other cities.

Really?

Rockstar never said such a thing.

People here just state their opinions as facts, it really annoys me, and don't get started with what they said at the official announcement.

Now that you've opened that can of worms (again), why don't you tell us what they said in the official announcement?

[Jokesminus]

Not even to mention the fact that I would much prefer to be ripped off by R* and given what was an entire state on the ps2 consoles and only given one city. Yaay corporate sh*t split what we had up the sad thing is people are more then happy for this I say I had it all before I want it again I pay for this not them. To those who state I'd rather have one full city then 3 half assed city's. Lool really what your saying is you would prefer to be ripped off charged 150 for three games you once had all in one on a console as old as the ps2. Cause in the end this generation can't handle anything like the graphics nowadays and and entire state oh no god it might blow up your console better settle for second best. One city and countryside oh thank you R* for ripping me off after all they did have a choice and they could have just stuck with vice city rather then break apart San Andreas RE IMAGINED SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GUYS NOT REAL TRUE TO LIFE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA TO ALL THIS DUMB ENOUGH TO NOT SEE ITS LIKE IMAGINING SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA WITH WHATEVER YOU LIKE IN THERE.

[zticky]

I doubt we'll get GTA: America until after the III-era cities get their HD rendition.  My prediction:

 

Next gen:

GTA VI: Vice City

GTA VII: Las Venturas 

 

Next next gen:

GTA VIII: LC, LS, VC, and LV return + two new cities (San Fierro and Carcer City) and the American countryside

GTA IX: Europe

 

Next next next gen:

GTA World: the neverending GTA MMO

 

One can dream...

R* would be billionares from that "GTA: The world" sh*t.

ooh , i was trying to ake fun of someone but people find that's it's a good idea !

[wwinterj]

Just by looking through the video and screen shoots that have been released I'm under the impression that GTA 5 may incorporate all the citys from the GTA 3 trilogy.

That's when I stopped reading. Not a chance.

[MIKON8ERISBACK]

EVERYONE, BE NICE! He's new to the Forums and hasn't read the facts regarding the separation of universes within different GTA eras.

[JoeJoeMcTwist]

were you high when you made this thread? keep dreamin'

[chimpsch89]

Not even to mention the fact that I would much prefer to be ripped off by R* and given what was an entire state on the ps2 consoles and only given one city. Yaay corporate sh*t split what we had up the sad thing is people are more then happy for this I say I had it all before I want it again I pay for this not them. To those who state I'd rather have one full city then 3 half assed city's. Lool really what your saying is you would prefer to be ripped off charged 150 for three games you once had all in one on a console as old as the ps2. Cause in the end this generation can't handle anything like the graphics nowadays and and entire state oh no god it might blow up your console better settle for second best. One city and countryside oh thank you R* for ripping me off after all they did have a choice and they could have just stuck with vice city rather then break apart San Andreas RE IMAGINED SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GUYS NOT REAL TRUE TO LIFE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA TO ALL THIS DUMB ENOUGH TO NOT SEE ITS LIKE IMAGINING SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA WITH WHATEVER YOU LIKE IN THERE.

so, you think the more cities there is, the better the game?

 

i think logic may be failing you.

 

so on that basis, san andreas is 3 times better than GTA IV?

 

i would go for quality over quantity any day.

 

i dont feel ripped off if there is one city

[Miss Darko]

 

EVERYONE, BE NICE! He's new to the Forums and hasn't read the facts regarding the separation of universes within different GTA eras.

That's not even the issue, really. All of those cities still exist in this era anyways, they'd just look different. The point is, such a feat is completely impossible in this generation. It is simply not going to happen, not even next-gen. The only way it could be attempted is if the cities were all ridiculously small and close to each other, but that would, well, be ridiculous. After all, Liberty City and Vice City are on the opposite side of the country from Los Santos, San Fierro, and Las Venturas. So there's gotta be at least three other cities between them.

 

Whenever people bring up this idea, many fantasies arise in my head. I'd love this game. But developers are always going to be limited by many things: time, budget, and hardware. The current hardware makes this impossible already. But even if we're looking into the far future, time and budget would be the primary limitations. R* are quite ambitious of course, and maybe one day it will happen. But now? Completely impossible. Even as a child I understood games could not encompass entire worlds to an accurate scale due to these limitations.

 

If a person is even going to entertain such ridiculous notions, they need to be reminded of what is possible and what is not possible very quickly and harshly, so that they may have more realistic expectations next time around, to avoid disappointment. I'm not saying to shoot down every radical idea or to destroy all fantasies, because those things are wonderful and are the crux of progression, but if you're going to seriously believe a game of this current hardware is going to contain upwards of 5-10 cities given R*'s take on scale and detail, you need to be reminded what reality is.

Edited September 3, 2012 by Mr. Darko

[InfernoV]

Welcome to gta forums just dont drop the soap and u should be ok!

Anywayssssssssssss

More then san andreas is impossible on this gen

[TheJasonGallant]

No, not the hole GTA universe. It wouldn't be possible. But, they said nothing about SF and LV... Why people are telling those cities are not going to be there if they don't know. Of curse they are probably not going to be there but who knows? They told Los Santos and surroundings... Maybe those cities will be there maybe not. You can't just get on to conclusions if you don't even know yourselft.

[Jokesminus]

Not even to mention the fact that I would much prefer to be ripped off by R* and given what was an entire state on the ps2 consoles and only given one city. Yaay corporate sh*t split what we had up the sad thing is people are more then happy for this I say I had it all before I want it again I pay for this not them. To those who state I'd rather have one full city then 3 half assed city's. Lool really what your saying is you would prefer to be ripped off charged 150 for three games you once had all in one on a console as old as the ps2. Cause in the end this generation can't handle anything like the graphics nowadays and and entire state oh no god it might blow up your console better settle for second best. One city and countryside oh thank you R* for ripping me off after all they did have a choice and they could have just stuck with vice city rather then break apart San Andreas RE IMAGINED SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GUYS NOT REAL TRUE TO LIFE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA TO ALL THIS DUMB ENOUGH TO NOT SEE ITS LIKE IMAGINING SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA WITH WHATEVER YOU LIKE IN THERE.

so, you think the more cities there is, the better the game?

 

i think logic may be failing you.

 

so on that basis, san andreas is 3 times better than GTA IV?

 

i would go for quality over quantity any day.

 

i dont feel ripped off if there is one city

Yes San Andreas is three times better that's why I keeps me coming back for me it had three different cities with different feels I felt away from one city while being in another. I felt miles away I personally think your logic is flawed one reason why I still have GTA San Andreas on my pc and sold GTA IV years ago it bored the crap outta me. With its lack of things to do and it's overall graphics over features rubbish after All what's gonna last longer a linear shoot em up or a big assed game with tons of features and places to explore. It's great that a game like call of duty I finish in 4 hours and fallout I finish in months how wierd not about graphics about me spending time exploring I never felt ripped off after playing fallout I can tell you. Not like buying a shoot em up with linear gameplay. Kind of like GTA IV I admit it didn't take 4hours to complete but it ended with me feeling ripped off of features areas and gameplay there was nothin to do nowhere to explore just he same old crap. So you are asking for the same old crap again but with countryside no thanks. I would rather them do vice city then to split San Andreas up because offering me 100% then taking it away and giving me 25% sucks. But obviously not for you and in your case it's obvious you think R* couldn't create all those city's in one game at the same graphically stunning vision. Oh how little faith you have but anyways anything to say R* failed with San Andreas because three half assed cities just wasn't good enough for you well they where for me and hundreds of other GTA fans out there. So for me I just want San Andreas but re mastered and changed up a bit coz changed up abit doesn't mean it will fail nor feel like San Andreas mark 2 cause it's a different time and a different story so there you go. Your probably most upset because they didn't go to different city so if they can change Los santos then that's good enough for you well not for me because I got offered the gold in 2004. Now I feel like I'm being offered bronze.

[Grand Cannon]

Seems legit.

[Jokesminus]

Welcome to gta forums just dont drop the soap and u should be ok!

Anywayssssssssssss

More then san andreas is impossible on this gen

Then why not do vice city answer that why do San Andreas but split it up. Coz next gen will be able to handle the whole entire state of San Andreas so why choose to split it up. Just does not make sense other then to rip off fans and make them pay for them in seperate games

[Miss Darko]

 

So for me I just want San Andreas but re mastered and changed up a bit coz changed up abit doesn't mean it will fail nor feel like San Andreas mark 2 cause it's a different time and a different story so there you go. Your probably most upset because they didn't go to different city so if they can change Los santos then that's good enough for you well not for me because I got offered the gold in 2004. Now I feel like I'm being offered bronze.

The problem with this is that such a thing would look ridiculous in this gen. And I'm not just saying aesthetically. It just would not have the same impact it had before.

 

And here's the thing. GTA IV's gameplay was objectively better than San Andreas', but it lacked the feature-rich aspects of SA. It had better physics, better gun-play, better driving, better sound, better pretty much everything when it came to quality. And the story was more solid and tonally consistent. But it had to turn back the dial in other areas, otherwise R* would be putting themselves into a corner, people expecting more and more each time. But more isn't necessarily better, despite what you may believe.

 

GTA V, however, appears to be taking the aspects that made GTA IV great and bringing back many of the things that made SA great as well. However, having all 3 cities from before doesn't sound possible to me, given how R* seems to want to put more effort in making these worlds convincing. And, to stay on-topic, having all the cities introduced so far in the GTA series is something I'm sure we can agree would be impossible.

 

GTA SA was great for its time but, having seen GTA IV's Liberty City, the world no longer seems very... 'real' It is great, but lacks life, detail, and a convincing scale. And only one of the cities was very interesting: Los Santos. But I do love exploration and so I didn't mind, and I still don't really mind. But I don't think that's the path GTA V should take. I think GTA IV was a step in the right direction, and GTA V will be a step further. It will be a big world, R* have said it's the biggest they've made so far. It certainly is big enough that they decided extremely fast jets would be necessary. There's a lot we've yet to see, and I'm convinced we're being offered gold this time around as well.

[73duster]

Everybody seems so sure about what will or won't be included in GTAV. We don't know if it IS going to be more than just Los Santos, or not. Either way, i'm sure that Rockstar understands that fans want MORE in terms of environment, and their statements regarding the importance of planes in the game are confirmation that the map WILL be quite big. How big? All we know for now is that it will be their LARGEST map yet. In fact, their emphasis on making such a clear and precise statement leads me to believe it will surprise most people. I don't think they would have said that if the map was just slightly larger than their next largest map,and that's enough for me.

Edited September 3, 2012 by 73duster

[redx165]

So for me I just want San Andreas but re mastered and changed up a bit coz changed up abit doesn't mean it will fail nor feel like San Andreas mark 2 cause it's a different time and a different story so there you go. Your probably most upset because they didn't go to different city so if they can change Los santos then that's good enough for you well not for me because I got offered the gold in 2004. Now I feel like I'm being offered bronze.

The problem with this is that such a thing would look ridiculous in this gen. And I'm not just saying aesthetically. It just would not have the same impact it had before.

 

And here's the thing. GTA IV's gameplay was objectively better than San Andreas', but it lacked the feature-rich aspects of SA. It had better physics, better gun-play, better driving, better sound, better pretty much everything when it came to quality. And the story was more solid and tonally consistent. But it had to turn back the dial in other areas, otherwise R* would be putting themselves into a corner, people expecting more and more each time. But more isn't necessarily better, despite what you may believe.

 

GTA V, however, appears to be taking the aspects that made GTA IV great and bringing back many of the things that made SA great as well. However, having all 3 cities from before doesn't sound possible to me, given how R* seems to want to put more effort in making these worlds convincing. And, to stay on-topic, having all the cities introduced so far in the GTA series is something I'm sure we can agree would be impossible.

 

GTA SA was great for its time but, having seen GTA IV's Liberty City, the world no longer seems very... 'real' It is great, but lacks life, detail, and a convincing scale. And only one of the cities was very interesting: Los Santos. But I do love exploration and so I didn't mind, and I still don't really mind. But I don't think that's the path GTA V should take. I think GTA IV was a step in the right direction, and GTA V will be a step further. It will be a big world, R* have said it's the biggest they've made so far. It certainly is big enough that they decided extremely fast jets would be necessary. There's a lot we've yet to see, and I'm convinced we're being offered gold this time around as well.

Gunplay was better in SA. IV felt too slow and sloppy at best.

[Miss Darko]

My assumptions are primarily based around trying to be realistic. Two cities seems possible, but more than that seems like the map might start getting too crowded like SA was. And even there, just one city and a very large countryside sounds quite plausible as well. I'm assuming that's what it'll be. Am I right? I don't know... but I'd rather be pleasantly surprised than disappointed if I'm wrong. People just expect too much from their video games. I always try to be careful about what to expect, no matter what developer we're talking about.

 

@redx165

 

The pace was changed, but I think it was changed for the better. It feels more like a real gun fight would. You don't just stand around and shoot around at people in the open. You'll find yourself crouching behind cover and trying to pick people off one at a time. A lot of people say that Niko felt slow in the game but I think that's just the expectations that have arisen from the primitive animations of yesteryear. He moved like a real person while many video-game characters move like they're in fast-forward. And again, I'm not saying it was perfect. RDR was an improvement over IV, and I think V will be a further improvement over RDR.

Edited September 3, 2012 by Mr. Darko

[redx165]

My assumptions are primary based around trying to be realistic. Two cities seems possible, but more than that seems like the map might start getting too crowded like SA was. And even there, just one city and a very large countryside sounds quite plausible as well. I'm assuming that's what it'll be. Am I right? I don't know... but I'd rather be pleasantly surprised than disappointed if I'm wrong. People just expect too much from their video games. I always try to be careful about what to expect, no matter what developer we're talking about.

V needs about 2 Cities and 2-3 different countrysides. Maybe one desert and forest and two big cities plus small towns. IV lacked it. V needs it.

[Miss Darko]

Why does V need more than one city? I'd love if it did, but why would it need that?

[redx165]

Why does V need more than one city? I'd love if it did, but why would it need that?

Because it feels like you're more free.

[Miss Darko]

It seems like there could be many ways to make it seem more free. V already looks to have many different locations ranging from desert to forest. I'd say it already feels more free than GTA IV did. Again, I'm just playing devil's advocate here. I'd love to see tons of cities if I could, but I don't know if that would be possible. But I'd love to see what everyone thinks about this, and I think it pertains to this topic in a way as well. Ultimately, what does another city add to the game, other than being more buildings, that other types of environments do not?

[redx165]

It seems like there could be many ways to make it seem more free. V already looks to have many different locations ranging from desert to forest. I'd say it already feels more free than GTA IV did. Again, I'm just playing devil's advocate here. I'd love to see tons of cities if I could, but I don't know if that would be possible. But I'd love to see what everyone thinks about this, and I think it pertains to this topic in a way as well. Ultimately, what does another city add to the game, other than being more buildings, that other types of environments do not?

Well in SA there was a city for everyone. There was also a countryside for everyone too. If they add another city you have more to explore and it feels like it isn't just one city. Even if it's Los Santos and Countyside it will feel like it's just a game and not a GTA world like SA did.