Death2Drugs Posted September 3, 2012 Share Posted September 3, 2012 Is this serious? No no my friend. You're thanking way outside the box. It's good to think outside the box once in a while, but this is improbable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Algonquin Assassin Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 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. I didn't realize NYC had a desert to lack? Anyway in some ways I hope LS is the only city. I always felt R* spread things too thinly in SA. I would've taken a MUCH better rendition of LS with surrounding countryside than the compacted state we got. Even if it's just one city I think the map will be so vast people will eventually forget about other cities after a while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jokesminus Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 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. I didn't realize NYC had a desert to lack? Anyway in some ways I hope LS is the only city. I always felt R* spread things too thinly in SA. I would've taken a MUCH better rendition of LS with surrounding countryside than the compacted state we got. Even if it's just one city I think the map will be so vast people will eventually forget about other cities after a while. But what if they made this game not so thin and added the other cities but they had the same feel as Los santos does in the trailer lived in and feeling real. I don't think San Andreas was thinned out or cramped it was what it was for that generation it was a masterpiece. No matter what you or anyone else will say for me I still stand by the fact that if it's one city then they should have stuck with vice city. No matter what they do to San Andreas they screwed themselves over with that those other cities are and always should be included in San Andreas. Not this constant need to keep changing it by all means make the city larger. But come on don't take 75% away and expect people to be happy with small towns and countryside because I'm sorry if that's the case it will always feel like its lacking what was once there. Kind of like what happened with GTA IV and the features people are what they are and after being offered one thing then given a watered down version which is still a hd era Los santos a hd era San Andreas no matter what way you think about it. You and all fans are getting a watered down hd era San Andreas. Should have stuck with vice city no matter what this game will not have the massive change GTA 3 libertys city had when GTA IV came round. So there you go you got a watered down version of a hd era Los santos and San Andreas. No matter what we all know next gen can handle the whole state and some so why not leave it till then when they could have given it justice. Marketing flaw give the fans gold then give them bronze later. Same as without jet packs and the fun stuff this game would fail because people want what San Andreas gave them and unfortunately the whole state was included in what people want. Not to mention the fact that San Andreas gave you the feeling of being away from what ever you wanted city's Los santos San fierro rivers sea but without feeling like it would take you literall hours to drive back. But still made you feel miles away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Choco Taco Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 Question about San Andreas... Did anyone think that the cities of San Fierro and Las Venturas were too small. (Just the city itself, not surrounding areas.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nun0567 Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 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. I didn't realize NYC had a desert to lack? Anyway in some ways I hope LS is the only city. I always felt R* spread things too thinly in SA. I would've taken a MUCH better rendition of LS with surrounding countryside than the compacted state we got. Even if it's just one city I think the map will be so vast people will eventually forget about other cities after a while. But what if they made this game not so thin and added the other cities but they had the same feel as Los santos does in the trailer lived in and feeling real. I don't think San Andreas was thinned out or cramped it was what it was for that generation it was a masterpiece. No matter what you or anyone else will say for me I still stand by the fact that if it's one city then they should have stuck with vice city. No matter what they do to San Andreas they screwed themselves over with that those other cities are and always should be included in San Andreas. Not this constant need to keep changing it by all means make the city larger. But come on don't take 75% away and expect people to be happy with small towns and countryside because I'm sorry if that's the case it will always feel like its lacking what was once there. Kind of like what happened with GTA IV and the features people are what they are and after being offered one thing then given a watered down version which is still a hd era Los santos a hd era San Andreas no matter what way you think about it. You and all fans are getting a watered down hd era San Andreas. Should have stuck with vice city no matter what this game will not have the massive change GTA 3 libertys city had when GTA IV came round. So there you go you got a watered down version of a hd era Los santos and San Andreas. No matter what we all know next gen can handle the whole state and some so why not leave it till then when they could have given it justice. Marketing flaw give the fans gold then give them bronze later. Same as without jet packs and the fun stuff this game would fail because people want what San Andreas gave them and unfortunately the whole state was included in what people want. Not to mention the fact that San Andreas gave you the feeling of being away from what ever you wanted city's Los santos San fierro rivers sea but without feeling like it would take you literall hours to drive back. But still made you feel miles away. My God, can't you use paragraphs? It's painfull to read that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_Mitch_Baker Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 @Taco: SF & LV are approx. the same size, LS feels bigger because it's more compact (more small streets instead of long straightaways) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
significantother Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 (edited) Perhaps it's just an added touch of realism. In real life, you can commonly see license plates from different states in California (where san andreas is based on), e.g. a new york license plate. You can also see them in other states of course, so perhaps it's just a new feature. That's just my speculation though. Edited September 4, 2012 by yoshiandluigi3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 No, it will be only Los Santos but bigger than Liberty City and San Andreas. Choco Taco made a topic about this. The city itself seems to be smaller than Liberty City but the surroundings will be most likely incredible huge. I would say all in all the map will be 2-3 times bigger than GTA IV's Liberty City. Here's Choco Taco's topic: http://www.gtaforums.com/index.php?showtopic=521397 GTAForums Crew Chat Thread - The Sharks Chat Thread - Leone Family Mafia Chat Thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Choco Taco Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 @Taco: SF & LV are approx. the same size, LS feels bigger because it's more compact (more small streets instead of long straightaways) I know, but did you think they were too small? I didn't. I feel they could have been a little smaller without affecting gameplay or atmosphere. That supports my belief that they can still be in this game. They don't need to be big. They can be a good bit smaller than Los Santos and still be an acceptable size. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kill Frenzy! Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 Probably Vice City will come back after V, it´s obvious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chimpsch89 Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 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. i think you have misunderstood what i was trying to say. san andreas is definitely my favourite GTA game. im not questioning how good it was. i dont think the three cities were half assed, i think they were all amazing. i like it so much that i still play it now more than any other game i have. i just think that if they make los santos amazing in this game, then there may not be a need for LV and SF. i would actually love it if the other two cities were included but i wont feel ripped off if they arent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Algonquin Assassin Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 But what if they made this game not so thin and added the other cities but they had the same feel as Los santos does in the trailer lived in and feeling real. I don't think San Andreas was thinned out or cramped it was what it was for that generation it was a masterpiece. No matter what you or anyone else will say for me I still stand by the fact that if it's one city then they should have stuck with vice city. No matter what they do to San Andreas they screwed themselves over with that those other cities are and always should be included in San Andreas. Not this constant need to keep changing it by all means make the city larger. But come on don't take 75% away and expect people to be happy with small towns and countryside because I'm sorry if that's the case it will always feel like its lacking what was once there. Kind of like what happened with GTA IV and the features people are what they are and after being offered one thing then given a watered down version which is still a hd era Los santos a hd era San Andreas no matter what way you think about it. You and all fans are getting a watered down hd era San Andreas. Should have stuck with vice city no matter what this game will not have the massive change GTA 3 libertys city had when GTA IV came round. So there you go you got a watered down version of a hd era Los santos and San Andreas. No matter what we all know next gen can handle the whole state and some so why not leave it till then when they could have given it justice. Marketing flaw give the fans gold then give them bronze later. Same as without jet packs and the fun stuff this game would fail because people want what San Andreas gave them and unfortunately the whole state was included in what people want. Not to mention the fact that San Andreas gave you the feeling of being away from what ever you wanted city's Los santos San fierro rivers sea but without feeling like it would take you literall hours to drive back. But still made you feel miles away. I don't mean to be a grammar nazi, but could you atleast you paragraphs? It's very hard to read. Anyway what are you talking about a watered down HD LS? Just looking at the trailer it already looks like a much better rendition of LA than LS was in SA. If all you want is a HD SA I think you'll be very disappointed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jokesminus Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 But what if they made this game not so thin and added the other cities but they had the same feel as Los santos does in the trailer lived in and feeling real. I don't think San Andreas was thinned out or cramped it was what it was for that generation it was a masterpiece. No matter what you or anyone else will say for me I still stand by the fact that if it's one city then they should have stuck with vice city. No matter what they do to San Andreas they screwed themselves over with that those other cities are and always should be included in San Andreas. Not this constant need to keep changing it by all means make the city larger. But come on don't take 75% away and expect people to be happy with small towns and countryside because I'm sorry if that's the case it will always feel like its lacking what was once there. Kind of like what happened with GTA IV and the features people are what they are and after being offered one thing then given a watered down version which is still a hd era Los santos a hd era San Andreas no matter what way you think about it. You and all fans are getting a watered down hd era San Andreas. Should have stuck with vice city no matter what this game will not have the massive change GTA 3 libertys city had when GTA IV came round. So there you go you got a watered down version of a hd era Los santos and San Andreas. No matter what we all know next gen can handle the whole state and some so why not leave it till then when they could have given it justice. Marketing flaw give the fans gold then give them bronze later. Same as without jet packs and the fun stuff this game would fail because people want what San Andreas gave them and unfortunately the whole state was included in what people want. Not to mention the fact that San Andreas gave you the feeling of being away from what ever you wanted city's Los santos San fierro rivers sea but without feeling like it would take you literall hours to drive back. But still made you feel miles away. I don't mean to be a grammar nazi, but could you atleast you paragraphs? It's very hard to read. Anyway what are you talking about a watered down HD LS? Just looking at the trailer it already looks like a much better rendition of LA than LS was in SA. If all you want is a HD SA I think you'll be very disappointed. You don't want to be a grammar nazi but your going to anyways and sorry I'm not gonna use paragraphs because you can't be bothered to read. If you can read what I wrote then it can't be that bad anyways. Nah sorry to say but we are gonna get a watered down San Andreas no matter what after all it is Los santos again so therefore Los santos it is again therefore being a hd version of what city yes that's right los santos. Only this time you get to bathe I the glory of a remade Los santos San Andreas but with just one city this time round then maybe next gen we will get all the state again. Lool not cool at all should have just stuck with vice city least that could have stayed one city. I would have waited for San Andreas on next gen if it hadn't have been split up and watered down. What they are basically saying is we can't do the entire state this time so we are gonna make the city a bit bigger change everything around and give you some countryside. Well I say thanks for the remake and failed should had stuck with vice city. After all fans are gonna buy this game and go looking for places that used to be there. Like in GTA IV in Alderney there is those apartments that claude use to save his game in in GTA 3. No matter what way you argue this it is a remake only your getting under half the deal this time round. Kind of like R* is smoothing over those city's with do not exist till next generation or maybe never. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theworldfamous Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 But what if they made this game not so thin and added the other cities but they had the same feel as Los santos does in the trailer lived in and feeling real. I don't think San Andreas was thinned out or cramped it was what it was for that generation it was a masterpiece. No matter what you or anyone else will say for me I still stand by the fact that if it's one city then they should have stuck with vice city. No matter what they do to San Andreas they screwed themselves over with that those other cities are and always should be included in San Andreas. Not this constant need to keep changing it by all means make the city larger. But come on don't take 75% away and expect people to be happy with small towns and countryside because I'm sorry if that's the case it will always feel like its lacking what was once there. Kind of like what happened with GTA IV and the features people are what they are and after being offered one thing then given a watered down version which is still a hd era Los santos a hd era San Andreas no matter what way you think about it. You and all fans are getting a watered down hd era San Andreas. Should have stuck with vice city no matter what this game will not have the massive change GTA 3 libertys city had when GTA IV came round. So there you go you got a watered down version of a hd era Los santos and San Andreas. No matter what we all know next gen can handle the whole state and some so why not leave it till then when they could have given it justice. Marketing flaw give the fans gold then give them bronze later. Same as without jet packs and the fun stuff this game would fail because people want what San Andreas gave them and unfortunately the whole state was included in what people want. Not to mention the fact that San Andreas gave you the feeling of being away from what ever you wanted city's Los santos San fierro rivers sea but without feeling like it would take you literall hours to drive back. But still made you feel miles away. I don't mean to be a grammar nazi, but could you atleast you paragraphs? It's very hard to read. Anyway what are you talking about a watered down HD LS? Just looking at the trailer it already looks like a much better rendition of LA than LS was in SA. If all you want is a HD SA I think you'll be very disappointed. You don't want to be a grammar nazi but your going to anyways and sorry I'm not gonna use paragraphs because you can't be bothered to read. If you can read what I wrote then it can't be that bad anyways. Nah sorry to say but we are gonna get a watered down San Andreas no matter what after all it is Los santos again so therefore Los santos it is again therefore being a hd version of what city yes that's right los santos. Only this time you get to bathe I the glory of a remade Los santos San Andreas but with just one city this time round then maybe next gen we will get all the state again. Lool not cool at all should have just stuck with vice city least that could have stayed one city. I would have waited for San Andreas on next gen if it hadn't have been split up and watered down. What they are basically saying is we can't do the entire state this time so we are gonna make the city a bit bigger change everything around and give you some countryside. Well I say thanks for the remake and failed should had stuck with vice city. After all fans are gonna buy this game and go looking for places that used to be there. Like in GTA IV in Alderney there is those apartments that claude use to save his game in in GTA 3. No matter what way you argue this it is a remake only your getting under half the deal this time round. Kind of like R* is smoothing over those city's with do not exist till next generation or maybe never. no seriously dude.. use paragraphs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt4936 Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 Probably Vice City will come back after V, it´s obvious. Sorry, but I do not think it is obvious. The locations aren't following the same order as the III era and there are also two more cities which haven't made an appearance again (LV and SF from the III era.) The developers probably haven't even thought about the next location considering that V is still in development. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jokesminus Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 no seriously dude.. use paragraphs. Nope not gonna happen jeez I mean seriously have you never read a book last time I checked a book didn't have bullet point paragraphs in it. I say seriously read a book and get used to reading long paragraphs. I'm not gonna dumb down my feelings for a few people who cannot read properly. Writing comes from the writer not the reader. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt4936 Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 no seriously dude.. use paragraphs. Nope not gonna happen jeez I mean seriously have you never read a book last time I checked a book didn't have bullet point paragraphs in it. I say seriously read a book and get used to reading long paragraphs. I'm not gonna dumb down my feelings for a few people who cannot read properly. Writing comes from the writer not the reader. You did it! Some non fiction books have bullet points but what they were saying was just paragraphs, not a big block of text. Another thing is that ALL books have paragraphs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FromGTAwithLove5 Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 Probably Vice City will come back after V, it´s obvious. Sorry, but I do not think it is obvious. The locations aren't following the same order as the III era and there are also two more cities which haven't made an appearance again (LV and SF from the III era.) The developers probably haven't even thought about the next location considering that V is still in development. He was being sarcastic (i hope) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_Mitch_Baker Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 @jokesminus: The advice really is for your own benefit, nobody reads a wall of text like that (and why waste your time writing all that when literally nobody will read it?) Paragraphs aren't hard, just give the Enter key some attention Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jokesminus Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 @jokesminus: The advice really is for your own benefit, nobody reads a wall of text like that (and why waste your time writing all that when literally nobody will read it?) Paragraphs aren't hard, just give the Enter key some attention One would agree but seriously I write for those who read and some did read only to be grammar nazis. So in the end some did read and if some did read then I got my word across didn't I so to be a grammar nazi after reading doesn't make sense. When they still went through it and saw my point but felt the need to say I cannot read unless in paragraphs. I writer writes for the readers that bother to read. If the reader does not read then the writer will only write for those that read. The writer does not dumb down for the reader but rather sparks them to take the time to read. If the reader cannot be bothered to read ten the writer does not write for them. Last but not least the writer will always get some reader who criticise but to criticise the reader has to read. We all must face critics that's life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_Mitch_Baker Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 @J-: And yet you've suddenly started using paragraphs, so you do see their point. You're not writing a poignant novel here, it's an internet post directed at a sea of kids. And to be fair, writing with sentence structure isn't dumbing it down for people, it shows you know how to write properly (not that I'm a grammar nazi, I could care less about spelling or punctuation, but a wall of text just looks like hell visually and strains the eyes) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Algonquin Assassin Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 (edited) But what if they made this game not so thin and added the other cities but they had the same feel as Los santos does in the trailer lived in and feeling real. I don't think San Andreas was thinned out or cramped it was what it was for that generation it was a masterpiece. No matter what you or anyone else will say for me I still stand by the fact that if it's one city then they should have stuck with vice city. No matter what they do to San Andreas they screwed themselves over with that those other cities are and always should be included in San Andreas. Not this constant need to keep changing it by all means make the city larger. But come on don't take 75% away and expect people to be happy with small towns and countryside because I'm sorry if that's the case it will always feel like its lacking what was once there. Kind of like what happened with GTA IV and the features people are what they are and after being offered one thing then given a watered down version which is still a hd era Los santos a hd era San Andreas no matter what way you think about it. You and all fans are getting a watered down hd era San Andreas. Should have stuck with vice city no matter what this game will not have the massive change GTA 3 libertys city had when GTA IV came round. So there you go you got a watered down version of a hd era Los santos and San Andreas. No matter what we all know next gen can handle the whole state and some so why not leave it till then when they could have given it justice. Marketing flaw give the fans gold then give them bronze later. Same as without jet packs and the fun stuff this game would fail because people want what San Andreas gave them and unfortunately the whole state was included in what people want. Not to mention the fact that San Andreas gave you the feeling of being away from what ever you wanted city's Los santos San fierro rivers sea but without feeling like it would take you literall hours to drive back. But still made you feel miles away. I don't mean to be a grammar nazi, but could you atleast you paragraphs? It's very hard to read. Anyway what are you talking about a watered down HD LS? Just looking at the trailer it already looks like a much better rendition of LA than LS was in SA. If all you want is a HD SA I think you'll be very disappointed. You don't want to be a grammar nazi but your going to anyways and sorry I'm not gonna use paragraphs because you can't be bothered to read. If you can read what I wrote then it can't be that bad anyways. Nah sorry to say but we are gonna get a watered down San Andreas no matter what after all it is Los santos again so therefore Los santos it is again therefore being a hd version of what city yes that's right los santos. Only this time you get to bathe I the glory of a remade Los santos San Andreas but with just one city this time round then maybe next gen we will get all the state again. Lool not cool at all should have just stuck with vice city least that could have stayed one city. I would have waited for San Andreas on next gen if it hadn't have been split up and watered down. What they are basically saying is we can't do the entire state this time so we are gonna make the city a bit bigger change everything around and give you some countryside. Well I say thanks for the remake and failed should had stuck with vice city. After all fans are gonna buy this game and go looking for places that used to be there. Like in GTA IV in Alderney there is those apartments that claude use to save his game in in GTA 3. No matter what way you argue this it is a remake only your getting under half the deal this time round. Kind of like R* is smoothing over those city's with do not exist till next generation or maybe never. GTA V isn't a HD remake of SA in the same way GTA IV wasn't a HD remake of GTA III. It'll be a much more geographically correct Southern California like GTA IV was of NYC. The sooner people like you get it through your head GTA V has sweet f*ck all to do with SA the better. Edited September 5, 2012 by Miamivicecity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jokesminus Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 @J-: And yet you've suddenly started using paragraphs, so you do see their point. You're not writing a poignant novel here, it's an internet post directed at a sea of kids. And to be fair, writing with sentence structure isn't dumbing it down for people, it shows you know how to write properly (not that I'm a grammar nazi, I could care less about spelling or punctuation, but a wall of text just looks like hell visually and strains the eyes) Then the reader must get a softer screen to show the writers writing without burning your eyes. Fair play as one has said the writer must face criticism thats life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebig Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 I think the next logical step in the evolution of the map would be putting whole San Andreas in one game, with the three big cities and other little cities , all as detailed and big as Los Santos will be in this game. You can imagine that that will be a massive map already (say up to 5 times GTA V). So I think it will take some time until they include every GTA city in one game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jokesminus Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 @miamivicecity Oh but you are so wrong this has to do with it being San Andreas after all what state is Los santos in yes correct San Andreas. I am here in the hope R* does put those other city's in GTA V untill then I wait. In the end you are mistaken do not go around telling people lies when you are the on mistaken in all ways. Point one: RE IMAGINED SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA R*s own statement to reimagine one has to start again and imagine a place so far from what it looks like in the real world. End of that arguement not I repeat not a real true to life southern California. Point two: San Andreas will always be called San Andreas after the 3 era so it is what it is. Point three: R* have already said about why GTA 3 had to change in GTA IV because it did not fully represent what they wanted it to look like and that was New York City. Don't ask for the link just search I think it was around the same time as the questions about eras. Point four: Last time I looked vice city and the entire state of San Andreas did kind of correctly look like there true to life counterparts. Point five: Point taken about paragraphs when speaking to those who are grammar nazis. So here you go paragraphs easy to read just for you. X Point six: Do not go around telling people true to life southern California without forgetting the re imagined part then you end up looking like a fool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Algonquin Assassin Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 (edited) @miamivicecity Oh but you are so wrong this has to do with it being San Andreas after all what state is Los santos in yes correct San Andreas. I am here in the hope R* does put those other city's in GTA V untill then I wait. In the end you are mistaken do not go around telling people lies when you are the on mistaken in all ways. Point one: RE IMAGINED SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA R*s own statement to reimagine one has to start again and imagine a place so far from what it looks like in the real world. End of that arguement not I repeat not a real true to life southern California. Point two: San Andreas will always be called San Andreas after the 3 era so it is what it is. Point three: R* have already said about why GTA 3 had to change in GTA IV because it did not fully represent what they wanted it to look like and that was New York City. Don't ask for the link just search I think it was around the same time as the questions about eras. Point four: Last time I looked vice city and the entire state of San Andreas did kind of correctly look like there true to life counterparts. Point five: Point taken about paragraphs when speaking to those who are grammar nazis. So here you go paragraphs easy to read just for you. X Point six: Do not go around telling people true to life southern California without forgetting the re imagined part then you end up looking like a fool. I said more geographically correct. Not true to life which would mean they're modelling every nook and cranny which clearly they wont be. The only fool here is you buddy for pulling words out of thin air and twisting them around. Also why do you think they chose Southern California for their press release statement? You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out by "re-imagining" they mean they want to give it the same treatment as NYC and GTA IV. GTA IV's LC wasn't true to life as it missed Staten Island and landmarks such as Madison Square Garden yet it was NYC "re-imagined" in R*'s eyes. SA was a poor rendition of California with Nevada tagged on when you think about it. That's why I think they're only concentrating on a certain locale which SF and LV aren't apart of. It's not a HD remake, but rather much closer to the real thing than was possible in SA. Edited September 5, 2012 by Miamivicecity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theworldfamous Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 no seriously dude.. use paragraphs. Nope not gonna happen jeez I mean seriously have you never read a book last time I checked a book didn't have bullet point paragraphs in it. I say seriously read a book and get used to reading long paragraphs. I'm not gonna dumb down my feelings for a few people who cannot read properly. Writing comes from the writer not the reader. Jeez I mean.. like.. seriously.. dude.. like...totally.. whatever.. then..uh.. like.. don't.. dumb yourself like.. down, you know? And books are for pussies.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raynos Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 no seriously dude.. use paragraphs. Nope not gonna happen jeez I mean seriously have you never read a book last time I checked a book didn't have bullet point paragraphs in it. I say seriously read a book and get used to reading long paragraphs. I'm not gonna dumb down my feelings for a few people who cannot read properly. Writing comes from the writer not the reader. What sort of book are you reading? Every book i've read has clear paragraphs.. Statements don't endlessly run-on. Book format is slightly different from Essay format. Didn't you teacher ever deduct points for the lack of paragraphs. You're not writing a book here bud. Anyways, On Topic. I must agree with MiamiVC. GTA V MAP will be nothing like San Andrea. Ofcourse, Los Santos will have some common features but apart from that, It's a new map. Just like GTA 3 to GTA IV - Completely different! Thus, GTA SA to GTA V - should also be, Completely different. We are yet to find out what are Towns/Cities are in the game but we do know, it's a re-imagination of Southern California Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeJoeMcTwist Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 (edited) @Jokesminus - GTAV is gonna be way more amazing in its level of detail of LS than SA ever was. This is a quality game, all you seem to care about is quantity. I think this game is gonna be big enough and full of surprises. Treat it as a its own experience rather than compare it to what you think it should be in hopes of some latent sense of nostalgia. Edited September 5, 2012 by JoeJoeMcTwist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skillz7855 Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 Well since Rockstar said its their biggest even bigger than mcla which was over 100square milo SF LV and other cali cities is possible. Also u can tell from the screenshots that V ls looks nothing lilke SA ls 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