Would you rather have LS, LV and SF

[MosquitoSmasher]

I thought this could maybe be a interesting discussion. I keep seeing that people hope that Rockstar has a surprise in store or us and that it's San Fierro and Las venturas in GTA V, but i think we all really know that won't happen. Now my question is....if you could choose betweeen having LV and SF, but no countryside. So nothing of the stuff the previews spoke of, about almost feeling like they are in Skyrim, a very different atmosphere, rivers, waterfalls, mountains, hills and wildlife. Would you have that removed to have two extra cities? I sure wouldn't. Because as great as that sound, eventually it will just be more cityscape and no nature at all, no countryside at all. It's eventually going to feel like GTA IV, where it was just nothing but buildings, but lacking in real variety.

 

But i bet there are people that really don't care all that incredibly much about a countryside. So maybe this is a interesting thing to create a poll for. IMO the countryside is going to bring a huge change to GTA V, sure SA had it, but it didn't have animals. Basically it's like you are getting a big piece of RDR in your GTA experience. Would you choose that over two other cities? I would. I'm a huge explorer myself in lots of games, i love to just walk around and observe things, watch all kinds of happenings...all of that would be lost with no countryside.

[Honest Bill]

I prefer to have the countryside. I missed the diversity of having countryside and small towns. It's all about variety and all those different 'vibes' one gets from the different atmospheres.

 

Not that the three cities without countryside wouldn't be cool too. That would provide a bit of diversity, but it could never give you that feeling that you are in a real place.

[Official General]

No disrespect bro, but this is a very silly thing to discuss.

 

Even if Las Venturas and San Fierro were included in GTA V along with Los Santos, all 3 cities would have to be separated by some kind of countryside and wilderness with some considerable distance. There is no way you could have all 3 cities nearby each other, that would geographically inaccurate and unrealistic in a huge way.

 

It would make no sense at all.

 

 

[MosquitoSmasher]

 

I prefer to have the countryside. I missed the diversity of having countryside and small towns. It's all about variety and all those different 'vibes' one gets from the different atmospheres.

 

Not that the three cities without countryside wouldn't be cool too. That would provide a bit of diversity, but it could never give you that feeling that you are in a real place.

Exactly man, i 100% agree with that. I loved that about SA. When i was tired of the streets and the big buildings, i just went into the countryside, to the smaller places and just had fun around there. Now there will be so much to see and do in the countryside, especially with wildlife to hunt or just to simply observe. The possibilities and amounts of fun for multiplayer are going to be limitless too if you ask me. It's exactly how i believe CVG described it...how the demo started with Franklin in the countryside, beautiful views and simply not what you'd expect from a GTA game, i f*cking love it.

 

 

Edited May 8, 2013 by MosquitoSmasher

[loki18760]

I prefer the country side. I think that it was something that added hours to SA for me. I spend more time roaming the country side in a hydrolic equipped rancher and small towns then I ever spent In LV.

[Honest Bill]

No disrespect bro, but this is a very silly thing to discuss.

 

Even if Las Venturas and San Fierro were included in GTA V along with Los Santos, all 3 cities would have to be separated by some kind of countryside and wilderness with some considerable distance. There is no way you could have all 3 cities nearby each other, that would geographically inaccurate and unrealistic in a huge way. It would make no sense at all.

 

I really don't understand what you are getting at.

I suppose you could just access them via airports.

[Dick Valor]

It's unanimous! (big surprise)

[MosquitoSmasher]

No disrespect bro, but this is a very silly thing to discuss.

 

Even if Las Venturas and San Fierro were included in GTA V along with Los Santos, all 3 cities would have to be separated by some kind of countryside and wilderness with some considerable distance. There is no way you could have all 3 cities nearby each other, that would geographically inaccurate and unrealistic in a huge way.

 

It would make no sense at all.

You should see it like GTA IV. Going from one location to the other by bridge, in this case it would be two big cities. See it like that.

[Official General]

No disrespect bro, but this is a very silly thing to discuss.

 

Even if Las Venturas and San Fierro were included in GTA V along with Los Santos, all 3 cities would have to be separated by some kind of countryside and wilderness with some considerable distance. There is no way you could have all 3 cities nearby each other, that would geographically inaccurate and unrealistic in a huge way. It would make no sense at all.

 

I really don't understand what you are getting at.

I suppose you could just access them via airports.

That's highly unlikely, and very implausible in a GTA game to have 3 big cities where the player needs a plane to travel between them.

 

Nope, what the OP is suggesting wouldn't even make sense in the first place.

[Nidgeweasel]

But there would be no seperation between them which would just be stupid.Also you couldn't really have airtravel etc. because we all know Los Santos,San Fierro and Las Venturas are three cities that,together with the wilderness seperating them is the one state of San Andreas and even if you had these three cities binded by countryside,you can't explore it which is just sly.

[YoungChrist]

SF kinda sucked anyways..... Just as a city, there were some good missions in that city but the city itself was lacklustre. Rockstar tried to do something too big and skimped a little on the other cities. Cant say it wouldnt be nice to see Las Venturas come back though.

[Official General]

 

No disrespect bro, but this is a very silly thing to discuss.

 

Even if Las Venturas and San Fierro were included in GTA V along with Los Santos, all 3 cities would have to be separated by some kind of countryside and wilderness with some considerable distance. There is no way you could have all 3 cities nearby each other, that would geographically inaccurate and unrealistic in a huge way.

 

It would make no sense at all.

You should see it like GTA IV. Going from one location to the other by bridge, in this case it would be two big cities. See it like that.

No, no no. You just don't seem to get it.

 

GTA IV had two big cities close by each other, because the game's locations were geographically accurate re-creations of their real-life counterparts. Liberty City is obviously based on New York City and Alderney was based on a number of New Jersey cities that are very, very close by to New York City in real life (Jersey City, Newark etc), and there is no countryside between or separating these places at all.

 

That was the reason why there was no countryside in IV in the first place. Since IV was only based on NYC and a small part of NJ, there was no real need to have any kind of major countryside in the game. This was another reason why there was no planes in IV too, we would fly over the city and no countryside or wilderness. These are all very understandable and valid reasons for Rockstar doing this, but many people for some reason just don't get it or understand it, when it's very clear and easy to see.

 

Like I said, this thread makes no sense at all.

Edited May 8, 2013 by Official General

[S1LV3R_W0LF]

If only LS, SF and LV as you say ... how would you travel from one to another without country side? Or you mean 3 separated towns you could chose from? Or get into a plane in a terminal and go there? GTA SA was cool because it had those 3 cities but mainly all the country side separated them. GTAIV wasn't so fun too me as SA was, even with the better graphics and content because it was just a concrete jungle with similar streets over and over.

[Capricornus]

Even if all of this was never announced, I would have still preferred LS and the countryside over LS, LV and SF with no countryside. I love GTA SA and its my favorite one thus far, but SF and LV were a bit boring. Of course, R* could have really upped the ante in GTA V with these 3 cities, but even back in GTA SA I heavily favored LS and the countryside over the other 2 cities. Being that we have the countryside returning in GTA V along with just LS, I am more than satisfied with that.

[Fisciletti]

LS and countryside, of course. It would feel more realistic.

[Honest Bill]

No disrespect bro, but this is a very silly thing to discuss.

 

Even if Las Venturas and San Fierro were included in GTA V along with Los Santos, all 3 cities would have to be separated by some kind of countryside and wilderness with some considerable distance. There is no way you could have all 3 cities nearby each other, that would geographically inaccurate and unrealistic in a huge way. It would make no sense at all.

 

I really don't understand what you are getting at.

I suppose you could just access them via airports.

That's highly unlikely, and very implausible in a GTA game to have 3 big cities where the player needs a plane to travel between them.

 

Nope, what the OP is suggesting wouldn't even make sense in the first place.

Sure it's unlikely. But that's not to say it couldn't be done and made to work.

 

GTA obviously hasn't done it since the old 'top-downs' and most likely won't again, that's for sure.

 

But no just connecting three cities with bridges wouldn't work at all. That would just be one big city.

[MosquitoSmasher]

No disrespect bro, but this is a very silly thing to discuss.

 

Even if Las Venturas and San Fierro were included in GTA V along with Los Santos, all 3 cities would have to be separated by some kind of countryside and wilderness with some considerable distance. There is no way you could have all 3 cities nearby each other, that would geographically inaccurate and unrealistic in a huge way.

 

It would make no sense at all.

You should see it like GTA IV. Going from one location to the other by bridge, in this case it would be two big cities. See it like that.

No, no no. You just don't seem to get it.

 

GTA IV had two big cities close by each other, because the game's locations were geographically accurate re-creations of their real-life counterparts. Liberty City is obviously based on New York City and Alderney was based on a number of New Jersey cities that are very, very close by to New York City in real life (Jersey City, Newark etc), and there is no countryside between or separating these places at all.

 

That was the reason why there was no countryside in IV in the first place. Since IV was only based on NYC and a small part of NJ, there was no real need to have any kind of major countryside in the game. This was another reason why there was no planes in IV too, we would fly over the city and no countryside or wilderness. These are all very understandable and valid reasons for Rockstar doing this, but many people for some reason just don't get it or understand it, when it's very clear and easy to see.

 

Like I said, this thread makes no sense at all.

Jeez dude, what is it with you?

 

Let's just then put it this way. You'd have to travel all the way down there but Rockstar would have limited the player by not letting them going off the road into the countryside. Invisible walls if you will, good now? I know damn well that it wouldn't make sense what i first said how the cities would be connected, it was only a 'what if' scenario thing. I was just curious how bad people really want LV and SF.

[Official General]

SF kinda sucked anyways..... Just as a city, there were some good missions in that city but the city itself was lacklustre. Rockstar tried to do something too big and skimped a little on the other cities. Cant say it wouldnt be nice to see Las Venturas come back though.

I kinda agree with you there. Rockstar could have done much more with San Fierro. For instance, we could have been given the options to take over gang territories in San Fierro by starting gang wars with the established gangs there.

[EvilFuture]

Man, I will spend most of my time in the countryside. The city is fun, but it gets boring after a while. It seems like there is just so much more to explore out in the countryside. I liked LS and the countryside in the original SA better than I liked LV and SF. lol

[DarkDayz]

The vision of what SF and LV COULD look like based on Los Santos and the surroundings is far greater than any half assed version with all three and a small distance in between. I think we'll see something to do with them in game, on the TV or something. Just to add the woah factor, without them putting it in as somewhere to visit.

[Official General]

 

No disrespect bro, but this is a very silly thing to discuss.

 

Even if Las Venturas and San Fierro were included in GTA V along with Los Santos, all 3 cities would have to be separated by some kind of countryside and wilderness with some considerable distance. There is no way you could have all 3 cities nearby each other, that would geographically inaccurate and unrealistic in a huge way.

 

It would make no sense at all.

You should see it like GTA IV. Going from one location to the other by bridge, in this case it would be two big cities. See it like that.

No, no no. You just don't seem to get it.

 

GTA IV had two big cities close by each other, because the game's locations were geographically accurate re-creations of their real-life counterparts. Liberty City is obviously based on New York City and Alderney was based on a number of New Jersey cities that are very, very close by to New York City in real life (Jersey City, Newark etc), and there is no countryside between or separating these places at all.

 

That was the reason why there was no countryside in IV in the first place. Since IV was only based on NYC and a small part of NJ, there was no real need to have any kind of major countryside in the game. This was another reason why there was no planes in IV too, we would fly over the city and no countryside or wilderness. These are all very understandable and valid reasons for Rockstar doing this, but many people for some reason just don't get it or understand it, when it's very clear and easy to see.

 

Like I said, this thread makes no sense at all.

Jeez dude, what is it with you?

 

Let's just then put it this way. You'd have to travel all the way down there but Rockstar would have limited the player by not letting them going off the road into the countryside. Invisible walls if you will, good now? I know damn well that it wouldn't make sense what i first said how the cities would be connected, it was only a 'what if' scenario thing. I was just curious how bad people really want LV and SF.

Whats with the 'jeez' stuff ?

 

You have not made any real sense here to generate a proper discussion about this. Don't take it out on me just because I pointed out the flaws of this thread.

 

I'm sorry limited roads, invisible walls, that's all far-fetched nonsense. The bottom line is that 3 cities as big as LS, SF and LV cannot be connected together or be so close by together, because if that was the case, all 3 would classed as one city like Honest Bill said. As for plane rides there ? I can't see that ever happening, it's highly unlikely Rockstar would do that anyway, unless it's for a one-off mission like in SA.

 

I'm very sure most people would STILL want all 3 cities of LS, LV and SF in GTA V along with the countryside and wilderness. That's a no brainer.

Edited May 8, 2013 by Official General

[EvilFuture]

I'm very sure most people would still want all 3 cities of LS, LV and SF in GTA V along with the countryside and wilderness. That's a no brainer.

Actually dude, I don't agree with this. I'm perfectly happy with what we have now. I would rather have a full detailed Los Santos rather than 3 half assed cities.

[killahmatic]

Even if Las Venturas and San Fierro were included in GTA V along with Los Santos, all 3 cities would have to be separated by some kind of countryside and wilderness with some considerable distance. There is no way you could have all 3 cities nearby each other, that would geographically inaccurate and unrealistic in a huge way.

 

It would make no sense at all.

Clearly you forget the way New Jersey and New York were separated in IV.

 

They could just make them three separate islands

 

 

 

 

 

 

OT:

 

I'd rather have countryside. The city of San Fierro was pretty boring to me. Las Venturas was ok, but I found myself in Bone County and Tierra Robada way more than Venturas.

Although all GTA games NEED a city, and the city is a blast, I like getting out into the wilderness. I want to ride ATVs and dirtbikes on offroad trails, I want to take the Bandito across the desert, or drive a jeep up a mountain.

[Nemesis2252]

I would like LV and SF with countryside in between. from all the fan-made maps, los santos is less than a third of the overall map. ive always been more of a city man myself, and i still kinda fear the countryside will be desolate and lifeless in some parts. but, can only wait and see. i trust R* with the GTA franchise

[SkyReaper2014]

While I would like to have all 3, I wouldn't give up the countryside for it.

 

I've had enough of nothing but city in IV and now im ready for lots of countryside.

 

So Im going to say 'Los santos and countryside' IMO.

[Poedersuiker]

I rather have some sort of San Diego instead of a underwaterworld of this format.

Dont misread me, I'm really curious, but it seems a bit large.

[KINGDW510]

Id rather have more compact detailed countryside and 3 cities then basically LS and a countryside the size of rdr, but I would want sf and Oakland both in as a city, then hopefully they could put sideshows in the game that would be fun

[Memphys]

Countryside is boring. RDR has most boring map of all time. Nothing to do at all. In V will be the same.

[Dick Valor]

Countryside is boring. RDR has most boring map of all time. Nothing to do at all. In V will be the same.

Worst troll attempt ever.

[Algonquin Assassin]

 

I'm very sure most people would still want all 3 cities of LS, LV and SF in GTA V along with the countryside and wilderness. That's a no brainer.

Actually dude, I don't agree with this. I'm perfectly happy with what we have now. I would rather have a full detailed Los Santos rather than 3 half assed cities.

Agreed. I don't mind LS being the only major city at all. Thinking about it while SA was fine for 2004 it's kind of silly how compacted it is.

 

I guess LS will be situated at the bottom with the bulk of the countryside surrounding and the northern part.

 

I want that real isolation, "I hope my car doesn't break down out here" kind of feeling seeing the city lights of LS dwindle in the distance as I embark on a journey into the dark, cold dead of night out in the middle of some creepy forest and only the lights from my car, the moon and stars keeping me company.

 

GTA IV LC's is great, but it's time for some much needed countryside mayhem.

Edited May 8, 2013 by Miamivicecity