what's with different eras?

[annie_himself]

Yea doing SA again was stupid. New Orleans or DC would've been so much better. But no lets appeal to the 13 year old crowd.

[The Pizza Delivery Guy]

Yea doing SA again was stupid. New Orleans or DC would've been so much better. But no lets appeal to the 13 year old crowd.

Because redoing Liberty City totally wasn't the same thing.

[nic_23]

you never know we may see a vicecity modern day on ps4 but yeah i get what you mean and there is obviously different eras for liberty city because of the release dates.

[Algonquin Assassin]

Because if everything stayed the same it would become too contrived? I'm not talking about physical locations, but just think of al the loose ends over the years. By starting with a clean slate it resets everything which is probably alot easier than old stories spilling over into a new vision of the same location.

 

It's like alot of comics, tv shows, movies etc. Take the Batman universe for example and how many depictions of Batman there has been, Gotham City, The Joker etc. It's not all inline with the original from the 40s.

 

As for why R* seem to have no need to segregate themselves from these locations, GTA has always been a parody of the American way of life and undoubtfully LA, NYC and Miami are the cornerstones.in that regard. I'd love for them to try Boston, Chicago, Detroit etc or somewhere in a new country, but LC, LS and VC have been so etched into the GTA fabric anywhere else may come across as less "GTA".

 

Wdll that's my take on it.

Edited March 19, 2013 by Miamivicecity

[JaggySnake]

People would probably throw a sh*t fit if it wasn't either one. San Andreas is the odd one out with only one game based on it. We'll get V then VI based on Vice City (next gen) as it's the only one not being made in the HD era (IV/V so far). After that they will probably look at doing all 3 in 1. Liberty City, Vice City and San Andreas in one game (don't expect this until at least ~2020/2021 with PS5/Xbox 1080). If they don't do that then they'll base it on another city in the USA. There are still plenty they can use.

[shattered-minds]

I think it's more so the fact that they wanted a proper version of these cities. Do them some justice. My opinion of course.

Very True, I just don't like the fact that they completly forget everything that's previously happened in the city.

 

Claude was the biggest bad ass and would have gotten so many wanted stars.

 

And gta IV just forgot about him.

 

and now gta V will forget all about CJ or GFS's and everything that went down.

It's not they have 'forgotten' the events or characters in SA or III but they never happened or existed in that world. So there is nothing for them to forget.

 

It's in the same line of thought as Spider-Man takes place in NYC and so does Cloverfield*. So why does each film forget what happened in each film? Because even though they are both set in NYC, they are different NYCs in different universes. The exact same way III and IV are both based in LC, but different LCs in different universes.

 

If IV was to be set in the same world as III, then they wouldn't be able to redesign LC the way they did, as it wouldn't make sense that in the time between them LC has gotten bigger, got a completely different lay out and is basically a different city.

 

If that is still hard to comprehend just picture it as; they are both in the same world, they're just in 2 different cities that just happen to be called Liberty City.

 

 

*Yes, I know they are two very different films but its just to show the concept of "same city, different universe".

[customkingpimp]

dont like it, dont play, simple as that.

[Travís.]

thanks to everyone that made me understand without being a complete douche

[Miss Darko]

@shattered-minds

I think you're on the right track, but I believe there's a better example. Take the Batman movies, the reasoning being that we're talking about a single franchise as opposed to completely different films. These are in fact part of the same franchise... they have the same locations and even characters. I'm sure this doesn't come as much of a surprise but hey, I'm covering all ends, here.

 

So we have Tim Burton's Batman movies, and Christopher Nolans' trilogy (let's pretend the Schumacher movies don't exist for a moment... or always), specifically Burton's first Batman film, Batman (1989), and Nolan's second, The Dark Knight (2008). Like between GTA: SA and GTA: V, these contain the same locations. They have even more in common as well, as they always contain several of the same characters and a conflict between Batman and The Joker. And yet these have nothing to do with each other. The Dark Knight, of course, does not mention any of the events that occurred in Batman (1989), and it would be pretty weird if it did ("Hey Bruce, remember when we fought The Joker before, but he was different?"). It does mention events from its precursor, Batman Begins, though. But it's part of that particular continuity. That said, there are occasional easter eggs, and even some of Danny Elfman's motifs in the 1989 Batman film found themselves found themselves in Han Zimmer's score for the Dark Knight trilogy, as subtle call-backs.

 

We call this a reboot. These two films (and their respective series) are wholly independent from one another, but certain staples remain, such as the setting, characters, and certain brands, and they are nevertheless part of the same franchise. GTA IV was a reboot, just as III was a reboot before that. Settings, brands, and some characters that were not represented graphically pass on through the generational leap, but these are fairly different interpretations of these things as they were before, and it tells a wholly independent story. V is a continuation of this 'reboot'.

 

Now I understand that the OP does actually understand all of this, at least to some degree. But what's important is what significance "reboot" has and why it can sometimes be necessary. In GTA's case, R* wanted to start things fresh again, and they will likely do so again in the future. If you don't remove the baggage of previous iterations eventually, it will start to clog up things. We see Claude, CJ, and Tommy and their friends again and again, each time they're getting older, less relevant, and more out of place. We find ourselves wondering why the areas surrounding Los Santos in V are completely different, even though CJ exists here too and is able to recall a time before the mountains and buildings shifted themselves on their own. So, they reboot it each generation (or at least that's what they've done so far). They exist in their own time and place, and we can revisit them whenever we want, but each new take is fresh and I think that's what keeps GTA interesting.

 

That said, new locations are hopefully in the pipeline and will be necessary at some point. But GTA is about Americana, the culture of the US at it is advertised to the rest of the world through its films and other media, for better and worse. NYC, Miami, and LA are the biggest cornerstones of that, so it makes sense that they return to those often. There's other options as well, but they can only get more obscure from there. I think we will see some new stuff in the future, but for now R* is going to focus on giving these beloved locations the right treatment... while also striving to keep the series fresh in other ways. Ultimately, this is why we don't see our old favorite characters over and over again.

[shattered-minds]

 

@shattered-minds

I think you're on the right track, but I believe there's a better example. Take the Batman movies, the reasoning being that we're talking about a single franchise as opposed to completely different films. These are in fact part of the same franchise... they have the same locations and even characters. I'm sure this doesn't come as much of a surprise but hey, I'm covering all ends, here.

 

So we have Tim Burton's Batman movies, and Christopher Nolans' trilogy (let's pretend the Schumacher movies don't exist for a moment... or always), specifically Burton's first Batman film, Batman (1989), and Nolan's second, The Dark Knight (2008). Like between GTA: SA and GTA: V, these contain the same locations. They have even more in common as well, as they always contain several of the same characters and a conflict between Batman and The Joker. And yet these have nothing to do with each other. The Dark Knight, of course, does not mention any of the events that occurred in Batman (1989), and it would be pretty weird if it did ("Hey Bruce, remember when we fought The Joker before, but he was different?"). It does mention events from its precursor, Batman Begins, though. But it's part of that particular continuity. That said, there are occasional easter eggs, and even some of Danny Elfman's motifs in the 1989 Batman film found themselves found themselves in Han Zimmer's score for the Dark Knight trilogy, as subtle call-backs.

 

We call this a reboot. These two films (and their respective series) are wholly independent from one another, but certain staples remain, such as the setting, characters, and certain brands, and they are nevertheless part of the same franchise. GTA IV was a reboot, just as III was a reboot before that. Settings, brands, and some characters that were not represented graphically pass on through the generational leap, but these are fairly different interpretations of these things as they were before, and it tells a wholly independent story. V is a continuation of this 'reboot'.

 

Now I understand that the OP does actually understand all of this, at least to some degree. But what's important is what significance "reboot" has and why it can sometimes be necessary. In GTA's case, R* wanted to start things fresh again, and they will likely do so again in the future. If you don't remove the baggage of previous iterations eventually, it will start to clog up things. We see Claude, CJ, and Tommy and their friends again and again, each time they're getting older, less relevant, and more out of place. We find ourselves wondering why the areas surrounding Los Santos in V are completely different, even though CJ exists here too and is able to recall a time before the mountains and buildings shifted themselves on their own. So, they reboot it each generation (or at least that's what they've done so far). They exist in their own time and place, and we can revisit them whenever we want, but each new take is fresh and I think that's what keeps GTA interesting.

 

That said, new locations are hopefully in the pipeline and will be necessary at some point. But GTA is about Americana, the culture of the US at it is advertised to the rest of the world through its films and other media, for better and worse. NYC, Miami, and LA are the biggest cornerstones of that, so it makes sense that they return to those often. There's other options as well, but they can only get more obscure from there. I think we will see some new stuff in the future, but for now R* is going to focus on giving these beloved locations the right treatment... while also striving to keep the series fresh in other ways. Ultimately, this is why we don't see our old favorite characters over and over again.

You know, I never considered the GTA 'universes' as reboots. As a reboot suggests using the same characters as the previous iteration and also (generally speaking) contains an origin story. That's why I didn't compare the Spider-Man trilogy and the recent reboot. I figured with the numbering of GTA games also suggests a sequel rather than reboot.

 

Saying that though, Your Batman example is better than mine. But I focused on NYC being used in films as is it one city that has played host to numerous unrelated stories with completely separate characters and events. I admit it still probably wasn't the best example of that.

 

It is a strange topic though. Because I 'get it' I understand it and don't think past past it. But once you start to dissect the idea it becomes more and more absurd.

 

The III, IV & V suggest sequel. But it's more similar to a reboot, but still really isn't a reboot as it's a different story with different characters and are completely unrelated so they're not really rebooting anything.

 

A similar example would be if Final Fantasy 15 took place in say Gaia from FF7. It looked different and still had all of the same places. But the events in FF7 never happened and has a cast of completely different characters. It wouldn't be a sequel, it wouldn't be a reboot. Then what would it be?

 

I think the best way to describe it is visually. Rather than having one timeline going:

 

[VC>SA>III>IV>V]

 

You have two unrelated timelines running in parallel:

[VC>SA>II]

[iV>V] (If they are related. We don't know yet)

 

But yeah, the concept is somewhere between sequel and reboot. You just have to think of the 'eras' as completely different entities.

Edited March 19, 2013 by shattered-minds

[annie_himself]

Yea doing SA again was stupid. New Orleans or DC would've been so much better. But no lets appeal to the 13 year old crowd.

Because redoing Liberty City totally wasn't the same thing.

It was the same thing but at least they did the city "justice" as people like to claim. San Andreas was done "justice." Time to switch it up.

[GTA-Addicted]

Yea doing SA again was stupid. New Orleans or DC would've been so much better. But no lets appeal to the 13 year old crowd.

Because redoing Liberty City totally wasn't the same thing.

It was the same thing but at least they did the city "justice" as people like to claim. San Andreas was done "justice." Time to switch it up.

San Andreas was, Los Santos wasn't... that's why they did a remake, to give Santos some justice.

The title is GTA V, not San Andreas 2

[Red XIII]

Yea doing SA again was stupid. New Orleans or DC would've been so much better. But no lets appeal to the 13 year old crowd.

how does recreating los santos appeal to 13 year olds?, if anything the 13 year olds are the ones who constantly moan about retarded bullsh*t.

[grandthefthoughto]

I don't understand the complete different eras.

 

I mean 2 different liberty cities and two different san andreas?

I think this is so annoying, especially since theres no returning characters when it's the same city.

 

Can't R* come up with anything new?

there's a whole world they can base there game on, but instead they recreate the same city and act like the previous characters don't exist at all.

 

Please enlighten me on why this is happening, because quite frankly I don't want to get dissapointed by GTA V because it's the same city but has very few similarities.

the fact that gtav's los santos is completely different to the ps2's los santos means that rockstar ARE doing something new, rather than re-using the old map or characters (how can you complain they aren't doing anything new AND ask for characters to return - contradiction in terms, no?)

 

one of the reasons (and problems for future gta's) i feel gtav is set in (los santos) LA is that are only so many 'iconic' cities to set such a game in (gta is largely about american culture and as such i think it's highly unlikely a future game will take place outside the US), i mean really how many cities in the states have the 'icon' status LA and New York have?

[killdrivetheftvehicle]

I think the different "eras" or "universes" are there not only to make a difference between hardware and graphics. R* is trying to appeal to new audiences as well as hard core fans. To start anew makes it more accessible for the newcomers, because you don't have to buy the previous installments to enjoy the newest one to the full.

 

I understand the frustration of the new fans, because they are young, and a year is realtively longer period the younger you are, because the young don't have that many obligations in life. If there is someting interesting that they want to do, and it takes many years to become accessible, they become frustrated while waiting. So don't be angry at the young. After ten years they will become as busy as you in their many obligations, and won't have the time to wait around.

 

@OP: If this did not answer the question you had, please stop making these threads, because one is enough, and quite frankly it is not that interesting to us hard core gamers, that you encounter through these fan-sites.

 

EDIT: I agree with ACUK82. These cities are ICONIC American Cities. If R* doesn't do them, someone else will. But now the situation is different: GTA has become a MAJOR Brand on it's own. Now R* can make GTA anywhere it likes, just like they parodied CSI

Edited March 19, 2013 by killdrivetheftvehicle

[Rock Howard]

Seriously, do people here just drop logic?

Yes... yes they do.

[ACUK82]

Rockstar use cities that sell. Who wants to play GTA Housten or GTA Chicago? Nobody. Who wants to play New York and LA? Everybody.

[sundeep273]

the os1 gtas had liberty city vice city and san andreas , they had this all planned out ages agooooooooooooooo

[Travís.]

Rockstar use cities that sell. Who wants to play GTA Housten or GTA Chicago? Nobody. Who wants to play New York and LA? Everybody.

I know, But there's other countries then america..