For those who are worried about only 1 city...

[dontdieb4september]

From the CVG mapping.. it seems when you study the roads there will be atleast 6 smaller towns or cities if not more.. No idea how they managed to get such detailed road markings but.

 

http://i.imgur.com/oiVfLNF.jpg

[Zulu412]

From the CVG mapping.. it seems when you study the roads there will be atleast 6 smaller towns or cities if not more.. No idea how they managed to get such detailed road markings but.

 

http://i.imgur.com/oiVfLNF.jpg

Cuz they just guess. this could be totally different in game. granted, it looks great...but it could be way off.

Anyone can throw that together in a paint program & write "franklins house" or whatever.

someone could copy that & slap the word zoo somewhere in there...doesn't mean it's accurate

[MrSpooge]

SF and LV honestly felt tacked on in SA. I would rather R* focus their attention on one very detailed city and make towns more interesting.

I'm going to go a little off topic and say something slightly controversial.

 

GTA:SA is undoubtedly a great game, but the story could have arguably been so much better if SF and LV hadn't been included. It would have meant that the story could have been really focused on the street gangs and more of the game world could have been a much larger Los Santos with more of the districts and areas of L.A. better represented. I think it would have lead to a much better atmosphere and a much gritter, focused and brutal storyline about the realities of gang life. I think all the mucking about in San Fierro, the desert and Las Venturas distracted from what could have been a much better story.

 

Still, GTA:SA is what it is, and it will go down as one of the all time greatest games.

 

If anything, it's GTA:V's focus on heists that would have benefited from having additional cities.

 

But c'est la vie.

100% Agree, they really did feel like they were thrown in there.. It was my least favorite part of the Map, though this Gen they could do so much more.. Either way I am actually happier with the Wide Open Spaces. I've always loved to just Ride the Mountains on the Dirt Bikes and ATVs. Races will be a blast and hopefully Multiplayer Races will be as well. Along with everything else obviously. haha.

[FranticFatality]

It's funny how people think that because a city is smaller than another, it's automatically crap (LS smaller than LC).

 

Not only is that so not true, but it has been confirmed that there's towns around the damn map anyway. Fans need to chill.

[latigreblue]

Sorry but this is just another brainwashing thread. Does Rockstar really need you guys to be telling people to lower their expectations? Cause that's what you're basically saying. Based on what I've seen so far, they will pull this off.

 

If you are of the mentality that this is another shot em up game then you will say stuff like San Fierro and Las Venturas felt tacked on.

 

We take ourselves so seriously and Rockstar manages to turn that spotlight on our lives and values and show that how ridiculous we can be. That's a big part of what the GTA games are about for me.

 

The name of the game was called GTA: San Andreas, a state which a parody of the state of California. California markets itself on its diversity - beaches, forests, mountains, deserts, celebrities, music, famous landmarks and locations, vineyards and wine country, homes of the rich and the famous, award shows. What they won't market but what they are known for are the drugs, the cults, the gangs, the violence, the weirdness and corrupt cops, among other things. Las Venturas was put in because of the desert. Deserts have connotations of places for introspection, aliens, area 51, and that weekend trip with with your friends or your family on your way to Vegas.

 

If Los Santos is the size of the five islands in GTA IV then seriously I don't have a problem with that. Rockstar knows how to bring a city to life. Honestly, San Fierro was my favorite of the cities and I would have liked to have seen an updated version of it. Those little towns all over had no character. There was nothing compelling about them. But I do feel positve that they would have fixed this. I suppose that it's the mindset - in the first city traditionally you knew you had something else, something different to look forward to when you unlocked the new area. With just one city, no matter how big it is, I'm just afraid that I'll be saying, "so this is it".

 

Finally, I find this constant reference to RDR's setting to be irrelevant. Small towns with about 15 old buildings are what I expected to find. Wide, open spaces with wild, dangerous animals are what I expected to find. In a turn of the century Western game, I don't think anyone was expecting large cities.

Edited May 30, 2013 by latigreblue

[Algonquin Assassin]

It's funny how people think that because a city is smaller than another, it's automatically crap (LS smaller than LC).

 

Not only is that so not true, but it has been confirmed that there's towns around the damn map anyway. Fans need to chill.

Good things come in small packages aka VC.

[Official General]

The thing is, most of the screens of the rural towns don't look in any way larger than the bland towns in San Andreas.

 

An Alderney sized city would have been enough for me, and I don't see why it couldn't/can't be done.

I agree

 

I'd wanna see a San Diego-based city at least.

[MrSpooge]

Sorry but this is just another brainwashing thread. Does Rockstar really need you guys to be telling people to lower their expectations? Cause that's what you're basically saying. Based on what I've seen so far, they will pull this off.

 

If you are of the mentality that this is another shot em up game then you will say stuff like San Fierro and Las Venturas felt tacked on.

 

We take ourselves so seriously and Rockstar manages to turn that spotlight on our lives and values and show that how ridiculous we can be.

 

The name of the game was called GTA: San Andreas, a state which a parody of the state of California. California markets itself on its diversity - beaches, forests, mountains, deserts, celebrities, music, famous landmarks and locations, vineyards and wine country, homes of the rich and the famous, award shows. What they won't market but what they are know for are the drugs, the cults, the gangs, the violence, the weirdness and corrupt cops, among other things. Las Venturas was put in because the desert. Deserts have connotations of a place for introspection, aliens, area 51, and that weekend trip with with your friends or your family on your way to Vegas.

 

If Los Santos is the size of the five islands in GTA: IV then seriously I don't have a problem with that. Rockstar knows how to bring a city to life. Honestly, San Fierro was my favorite of the cities and I would have liked to have seen an updated version of it. Those little towns all over had no character. There was nothing compelling about them. But I do feel positve that they would have fixed this. I suppose that it's the mindset - in the first city traditionally you knew you had something else, something different to look forward to when you unlocked the new area. With just one city, no matter how big it is, I'm just afraid that I'll be saying, "so this is it".

 

Finally, I find this constant reference to RDR's setting to be irrelevant. Small towns with about 15 old buildings are what I expected to find. Wide, open spaces with wild, dangerous animals are what I expected to find. In a turn of the century Western game, I don't think anyone was expecting large cities.

Sounds like your literally in love with yourself, thinking Rockstar reads every word you say Let people bitch and whine, V will be Perfect.

[latigreblue]

Sounds like your literally in love with yourself, thinking Rockstar reads every word you say Let people bitch and whine, V will be Perfect.

Nothing wrong with being in love with oneself, you should try it - you would like it. Last time I checked, this is not Rockstargames.com, why would I be expecting them to read my post here? You're projecting your aspirations perhaps? I don't think that any game is perfect but Rockstar does make damn fine ones.

[MrSpooge]

Sounds like your literally in love with yourself, thinking Rockstar reads every word you say Let people bitch and whine, V will be Perfect.

Nothing wrong with being in love with oneself, you should try it - you would like it. Last time I checked, this is not Rockstargames.com, why would I be expecting them to read my post here? You're projecting your aspirations perhaps? I don't think that any game is perfect but Rockstar does make damn fine ones.

Eh I let other people do that for me.. wait, saying that means.. I do love myself, oh my god I am.. f*cking awesome. I believe though, you'll find V to be.. Perfect

[ECDT1089]

Just because there is only 1 city (Los Santos), doesn't necessarily mean the rest of the map will be an open wasteland. I'm 99% positive there will be SEVERAL towns. What's wrong with TOWNS? We already know there will be a Sandy Shores town. We only got a glimpse of it in one of the trailers, but towns can be large enough to be interesting.

I don't know if THIS area is in Sandy Shores, or another town, but it reminds me a lot about San Andreas.

http://media.gtanet.com/gallery/gta-5-scre.../fullsize/1.jpg

 

Also, Red Dead Redemption was entirely made up of towns. RDR was a GREAT game, in spite of not having a huge metropolis. GTAV does have Los Santos, and I believe that there will be towns that are decently sized spread throughout the countryside. They will probably be slightly larger than the towns we saw in RDR.

I really don't see why people are so bent out of shape that there wasn't another huge city in addition to LS. There is going to be a bit of everything, and these small towns are going to be great to explore. I don't remember anyone complaining about not having larger towns, or even a city in RDR. Rockstar knows how to make interesting environments, and I can't wait to check out these towns.

Excellent post, man. This is why I'm more than satisfied with the size of LS.

[brwhizz]

I'm actually one of, admittedly very few, people who would rather grand theft auto focused on a simpler setting, such as a village or a hamlet. With a population of about 100, everyone would know your character's name, including the local vicar, greengrocer and cobbler. Just imagine how cosy it would all feel, and how wonderfully amusing it would be to steal the vicar's bicycle and lunch after a bit of an argument

Edited May 31, 2013 by brwhizz

[ALeSsAnDrO]

I'm actually one of, admittedly very few, people who would rather grand theft auto focused on a simpler setting, such as a village or a hamlet. With a population of about 100, everyone would know your character's name, including the local vicar, greengrocer and cobbler. Just imagine how cosy it would all feel, and how wonderfully amusing it would be to steal the vicar's bicycle and lunch after a bit of an argument

That's what games like Skyrim are for.

The thing is, this is still an action game. The player is supposed to have a huge urban playground to wreak havoc with. Total mindless mayhem.

Peds don't have unique names, you can't have elaborate dialogs with them, if you kill one, it will just respawn. It's a lot more generic, but that's the price to pay for being an action game.