Would you rather have LS, LV and SF

[zalanith]

null

 

L.S + 1 city(w/e city - size doesnt matter) + c.side

[tinman187]

That vibe of being in the middle of nowhere, far away from the city, with a body in the trunk, listening to crazy morons on talk radio is just so much awesome. Countryside with one city is better. It balance's everything out. I'd rather have a well done city with a well done countryside than 3 half done cities.

[sivaG]

I'm waiting for this game mainly to explore the wildlife and the countryside. And those who want LS, SF and LV, you can play San Andreas.

[d3ex2]

Give up on SF/LV already, fs! It's only Los Santos and Blaine County (possibly San Diego).

 

It will be a long ass time until Rockstar fully remake the entire state of San Andreas if they ever do.

[Buffalo Soldier]

No. Because SF is the most pointless and dull city that Grand Theft Auto has ever seen - and I'm glad it's not returning.

 

Hope they go back to LV though sometime.

[gta5freemode4eva]

In the words of Freddie Mercury... I WANT IT ALL, I WANT IT ALL, I WANT IT ALL...

 

AND I WANT IT NOWWWWW!!!!!! guitar... *******

[Squidgyone]

Imagine if you put the game in, then load it up. When you first start your parachuting from a plane into a casino plaza in the middle of las venturas? How much would that blow everyone's minds

[MosquitoSmasher]

Imagine if you put the game in, then load it up. When you first start your parachuting from a plane into a casino plaza in the middle of las venturas? How much would that blow everyone's minds

Would be incredible, just f*cking awesome. Problem is, this stuff would have been spoiled by the warez folks, the pirates that download it a week or so before its official release. The forums would be notified of this in no time, shame..i know.

 

And Official General

 

I said jeez, because you were just nitpicking in a unneeded way. The question was simple...no need to over analyze it or say it wouldn't make sense. I clearly wasn't asking if it would make sense. So again.....i just wanted to know how bad people wanted the two other cities and if they were willing to sacrifice the big open nature area for it. I know it wouldn't make sense...BUT it's not about that.

[Peregrin Brandytook]

I would rather have the countryside I love the vibe

[giant1987]

No Discussion

 

COUNTRYSIDE WINS!!!

[aldisdzerve]

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.

Well I liked map, but not the game.

I dont like those horses.

if they would add dirtbike (sanchez from GTA4) cheat I would love the game.

I was playing RDR and all the time thinking o my god - those trails would be so fun on dirtbike.

but horse.. Meh.

it took me 12months to finish rdr story bcz I hate horses. I was doing missions only and was I hoping game ends soon all the time.

havent put disk in since then..

 

GTA without guns would work for me, but not without cars.

[nealmac]

I voted on the 3 cities. Because that way, there'd HAVE to be a bit of countryside.

[Official General]

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.

I never said anythung about half-assed cities.

 

What I actually meant, was that if Los Santos and it's surrounding areas remained the same as it looks now, and if SF and LV were added to more countryside and wilderness all of similar detail to GTA V, most people would love it and prefer it.

 

@ killahmatic

 

I have no idea at what you are getting at, I did not say that NYC anfd NJ were not separated in GTA IV.

[Official General]

I voted on the 3 cities. Because that way, there'd HAVE to be a bit of countryside.

This is the point I made to the OP, but he still don't seem to understand it

[DeafMetal]

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.

Well I liked map, but not the game.

I dont like those horses.

if they would add dirtbike (sanchez from GTA4) cheat I would love the game.

I was playing RDR and all the time thinking o my god - those trails would be so fun on dirtbike.

but horse.. Meh.

it took me 12months to finish rdr story bcz I hate horses. I was doing missions only and was I hoping game ends soon all the time.

havent put disk in since then..

 

GTA without guns would work for me, but not without cars.

Then why did you buy a Western game if you don't like Westerns? Seriously lol that's like buying a sports game if you hate sports.

 

OP: With no countryside, it's just GTA IV 2.0 as far as I'm concerned.

[zeppelincheetah]

Definitely countryside. I missed that so much in GTA IV + EPs. I want some breathing room where you can drive for miles and miles without an annoying traffic grid holding you back.

[Johan]

I'd get bored of just seeing the city over and over again, I'm glad there's only Los Santos and the Countryside otherwise I'd stop exploring an hour into the game

[GTAgamersquirrel]

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.

Well I liked map, but not the game.

I dont like those horses.

if they would add dirtbike (sanchez from GTA4) cheat I would love the game.

I was playing RDR and all the time thinking o my god - those trails would be so fun on dirtbike.

but horse.. Meh.

it took me 12months to finish rdr story bcz I hate horses. I was doing missions only and was I hoping game ends soon all the time.

havent put disk in since then..

 

GTA without guns would work for me, but not without cars.

I'm glad I wasn't the only one who thought it would be badass to tear up those trails in RDR with a Sanchez!

[KINGDW510]

Countryside is COO and it adds a dimention, but do we really need that much countryside? I'd rather drive thru the country to get to another city I hate going thru county to see more country

[ChronoStinger]

...i seriously do not understand those 30 people, who voted "Los Santos, Las Venturas, San Fierro and no countryside"! sorry, but thats just beyond of what i can comprehend...

[Kifflom112]

I'm sorry but Los Santos and the countryside is enough for me. I don't care about San Fierro or Las Ventures.

[TargetTango]

I'm tired of cities. Give me some countryside!

[Official General]

 

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.

Well I liked map, but not the game.

I dont like those horses.

if they would add dirtbike (sanchez from GTA4) cheat I would love the game.

I was playing RDR and all the time thinking o my god - those trails would be so fun on dirtbike.

but horse.. Meh.

it took me 12months to finish rdr story bcz I hate horses. I was doing missions only and was I hoping game ends soon all the time.

havent put disk in since then..

 

GTA without guns would work for me, but not without cars.

Then why did you buy a Western game if you don't like Westerns? Seriously lol that's like buying a sports game if you hate sports.

 

OP: With no countryside, it's just GTA IV 2.0 as far as I'm concerned.

@ DeafMetal

 

I totally agree with you. He does sound quite stupid. Red Dead Redemption is clearly a classic, stunning and great game, but it's very likely that people who don't like Western-themed things would not like the game. He had no business buying the game. And him saying he don't like horses, is like saying, "I don't GTA like because I don't like cars, but I'll still buy it and play it".

 

 

@ aldisdzerve

 

That comment was very stupid indeed.

[DoubleOGJohnson]

GTA 3 and VC did not have countryside. When did it become mandatory for GTA's to have vast countryside? San Andreas had countryside because it represented an ENTIRE state. GTA 5 isn't an entire state. Where does this countryside entitlement come from? It was only in ONE game.

[Official General]

 

GTA 3 and VC did not have countryside. When did it become mandatory for GTA's to have vast countryside? San Andreas had countryside because it represented an ENTIRE state. GTA 5 isn't an entire state. Where does this countryside entitlement come from? It was only in ONE game.

In addition to this, the same people who moaned about no countryside being in GTA IV time and time again failed to understand or recognize that Rockstar had a very good reason to make it that way, and they stated it many times.

 

Rockstar did not want include countryside in IV, because the game was based on New York City and a few cities nearby in New Jersey. So in short, there was no real need for countryside in IV, it would not have fitted in with the predominant urban, concrete jungle atmosphere of the game, it would have just been wasted away.

 

But people still b*tch about IV having not countryside to this day, even when it's clear to see there was a good reason for it.

Edited May 9, 2013 by Official General

[wwinterj]

Los Santos and the countryside gets my vote. Despite how some folk think this isn't San Andreas. With R* putting focus on Los Santos and the countryside it allows things to be much more detailed and sets it apart from other GTA games. It also stops things becoming boring due to the dramatic change of scenes. R* have proved they can do deserts and countryside with Red Red Redemption. Place a GTA IV style city in the center of that and that would be awesome. That thought alone has me very much looking forward to GTA V.

[Algonquin Assassin]

GTA 3 and VC did not have countryside. When did it become mandatory for GTA's to have vast countryside? San Andreas had countryside because it represented an ENTIRE state. GTA 5 isn't an entire state. Where does this countryside entitlement come from? It was only in ONE game.

In addition to this, the same people who moaned about no countryside being in GTA IV time and time again failed to understand or recognize that Rockstar had a very good reason to make it that way, and they stated it many times.

 

Rockstar did not want include countryside in IV, because the game was based on New York City and a few cities nearby in New Jersey. So in short, there was no real need for countryside in IV, it would not have fitted in with the predominant urban, concrete jungle atmosphere of the game, it would have just been wasted away.

 

But still b*tch about IV having countryside to this day, even when it's clear to see there was a good reason for it.

Not only this, but as a foreigner when I think of NYC I don't think of vast forests, mountains, farmland etc. Of course with basic geography knowledge I know the state of NY has these geological features, but they're not apart of the predominant NYC cityscape.

 

I don't often agree with DoubleOGJohnson, but he's right in this case. GTA III and VC never had countyside. IMO it should depend on the setting.

 

Countryside in GTA IV as you say General would've wasted away as it would've been completely out of place.

[Official General]

 

GTA 3 and VC did not have countryside. When did it become mandatory for GTA's to have vast countryside? San Andreas had countryside because it represented an ENTIRE state. GTA 5 isn't an entire state. Where does this countryside entitlement come from? It was only in ONE game.

In addition to this, the same people who moaned about no countryside being in GTA IV time and time again failed to understand or recognize that Rockstar had a very good reason to make it that way, and they stated it many times.

 

Rockstar did not want include countryside in IV, because the game was based on New York City and a few cities nearby in New Jersey. So in short, there was no real need for countryside in IV, it would not have fitted in with the predominant urban, concrete jungle atmosphere of the game, it would have just been wasted away.

 

But still b*tch about IV having countryside to this day, even when it's clear to see there was a good reason for it.

Not only this, but as a foreigner when I think of NYC I don't think of vast forests, mountains, farmland etc. Of course with basic geography knowledge I know the state of NY has these geological features, but they're not apart of the predominant NYC cityscape.

 

I don't often agree with DoubleOGJohnson, but he's right in this case. GTA III and VC never had countyside. IMO it should depend on the setting.

 

Countryside in GTA IV as you say General would've wasted away as it would've been completely out of place.

Well at us three are certified to see the sense in all of this

 

I agree totally, when I think of New York City, I definitely don't think of vast countryside and wilderness to go with it. I've been to NYC and you need to travel many miles away from the city to see vast expanses of open country and wilderness.

 

I just cannot see what good or constructive use the countryside would have had for GTA IV, there would have been nothing much to do or see there in the game. In real life most of the wilderness around NYC and NJ is just plain, typical woodland with limited animal life that is not really that fascinating, compared to animal life seen in other parts of the USA like the western states (which RDR's location is based on).

Edited May 9, 2013 by Official General

[GTA fan from the United Kingdom]

No

[Vahnstad]

I think the countryside guaranteed us a lot of fun. It will be only LS as city. Still, i am a little bit disappointed about no 2nd city in the map. (San Diego, Las Vegas, San Francisco, Tijuana). SF in SA was bad, but i think if they made the city this time for the 2nd time, it will be another story. It will be much better.