Another city or Not?

[zainzombie]

Nope just small towns in the countryside.

[GamerToons]

Nope just small towns in the countryside.

Small towns are still cities.

 

So the answer is yes.

[e1999KrayzieBone]

 

I voted yes because we know there will be scattered cities and towns.

 

Will there be a Las Venturas or a San Fierro? No

 

We already know there is a Sandy Shores in the game... that is technically a second city.

 

Rephrase your poll otherwise everyone voting NO is wrong.

It's about a major city. Sandy Shore and all other towns are... TOWNS, not cities.

He never once said Major City in the poll.

 

He simply said "Another City"

 

Not my problem that he sucks at making polls.

 

Also Town are small cities.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town

 

Every town is technically a city, but not every city is a town.

 

Failed again. Anyone voting NO is wrong because we already know there are other cities.

It's not your problem that he sucks at making polls, but it is your problem that you weren't able to understand his original query's intent through the context of his post, and instead turned to wikipedia definitions to defend your argument that the question should be taken literally.

 

Original poster asked:

 

Okay let's just settle this. Do you think there will be another city or not? Simply vote yes or no and we'll see who's right when the game is finally out. Personally I see LV being somewhat possible so I voted yes.

 

By mentioning Las Venturas, a large city from SA, you should have been able to figure out that by "city" he meant "large city." Most people who take the time to register on gtaforums.com and have been around as long as him are informed enough to know that Sandy Shores exists, therefore him asking if other small population settlements exist (but phrasing it as a "city") would be totally unnecessary for him to ask.

 

I think most people knew what the poster was trying to inquire about, but you took his question literally without figuring in his intentions, which were stated in context in his original post, and then started calling out everyone who says "no" as being wrong.

 

If anyone is going to be wrong (and we won't know for sure until a later date, possibly 9/17/13), it is most likely that it will be the people that said "yes."

 

Thank You.

[ainsz]

Speculating is fun, but speculating about something that isn't there for 100% is not fun...

How can you speculate on something that is 100% confirmed?

No, but then why bother creating this topic

Ah, I misread your post - sorry. I made the poll because the idea of another city being featured was something that people have been discussing a lot in certain topics and I wanted to see how the opinions split.

[ainsz]

 

Do many of you actually know what a city is? Next youll be saying dilimore was a city...

Traditionally in the UK, a settlement is given city status if it has a cathedral. A city called Southwell is very near to me and it must have a population of less than 20,000.

 

But yes to clarify, by city I mean a large urban area that is around the size of GTA V's LS. Sandy Shores doesn't come close to this.

 

Edit: Damn, I meant add this to my previous post.

[GamerToons]

 

I voted yes because we know there will be scattered cities and towns.

 

Will there be a Las Venturas or a San Fierro? No

 

We already know there is a Sandy Shores in the game... that is technically a second city.

 

Rephrase your poll otherwise everyone voting NO is wrong.

It's about a major city. Sandy Shore and all other towns are... TOWNS, not cities.

He never once said Major City in the poll.

 

He simply said "Another City"

 

Not my problem that he sucks at making polls.

 

Also Town are small cities.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town

 

Every town is technically a city, but not every city is a town.

 

Failed again. Anyone voting NO is wrong because we already know there are other cities.

It's not your problem that he sucks at making polls, but it is your problem that you weren't able to understand his original query's intent through the context of his post, and instead turned to wikipedia definitions to defend your argument that the question should be taken literally.

 

Original poster asked:

 

Okay let's just settle this. Do you think there will be another city or not? Simply vote yes or no and we'll see who's right when the game is finally out. Personally I see LV being somewhat possible so I voted yes.

 

By mentioning Las Venturas, a large city from SA, you should have been able to figure out that by "city" he meant "large city." Most people who take the time to register on gtaforums.com and have been around as long as him are informed enough to know that Sandy Shores exists, therefore him asking if other small population settlements exist (but phrasing it as a "city") would be totally unnecessary for him to ask.

 

I think most people knew what the poster was trying to inquire about, but you took his question literally without figuring in his intentions, which were stated in context in his original post, and then started calling out everyone who says "no" as being wrong.

 

If anyone is going to be wrong (and we won't know for sure until a later date, possibly 9/17/13), it is most likely that it will be the people that said "yes."

 

Thank You.

Oh I see... now we are supposed to guess the intent of the OP rather than take him literally.

 

That makes a lot of sense....

 

[GamerToons]

 

I voted yes because we know there will be scattered cities and towns.

 

Will there be a Las Venturas or a San Fierro? No

 

We already know there is a Sandy Shores in the game... that is technically a second city.

 

Rephrase your poll otherwise everyone voting NO is wrong.

It's about a major city. Sandy Shore and all other towns are... TOWNS, not cities.

Pfft

 

All towns are cities. Not all cities are towns.

 

You basically just said "Squares are NOT rectangles"

 

Look it up.

[SheHePaedo]

TBH, recently I have thought there may be a SLIGHT possibility of LV appearing, because:

-They are hiding the entire north end of the map

-There are numerous highways/railways running to this area

-The game centres around money. Las Vegas is money in city form.

-Los Santos is a 'decent size', but not big enough to warrant being the only city in this massive expanse.

 

And most importantly:

-They gave a valid reason for not including properties, then it turned out this was a lie and properties were in the game (they weren't added just because everyone moaned, believe me). They have given a 'valid reason' for not including multiple cities, but now we know that they lie to build hype.

+1

 

RS showing the map of most of LS convinced that for me. LV and a ski resort please. Only cause I'm greedy.

[Dope_0110]

 

Oh I see... now we are supposed to guess the intent of the OP rather than take him literally.

 

That makes a lot of sense....

 

 

No, you're not supposed to guess. You're supposed to understand what it is based on common sense rather than taking it literally. Everyone knows there will be small towns and he obviously implies to having another city, even using the word city and LV as an example.

 

 

Pfft

 

All towns are cities. Not all cities are towns.

 

You basically just said "Squares are NOT rectangles"

 

Look it up.

 

First of all, a rectangle and a square ARE two different things. Get your math straight.

 

And so are towns and cities. You don't call Los Angeles or New York a town, ever. Nor do you normally call small town a city like you could call a square rectangle.

Edited June 3, 2013 by Dope_0110

[ChatterBoxFM]

TBH, recently I have thought there may be a SLIGHT possibility of LV appearing, because:

-They are hiding the entire north end of the map

-There are numerous highways/railways running to this area

-The game centres around money. Las Vegas is money in city form.

-Los Santos is a 'decent size', but not big enough to warrant being the only city in this massive expanse.

 

And most importantly:

-They gave a valid reason for not including properties, then it turned out this was a lie and properties were in the game (they weren't added just because everyone moaned, believe me). They have given a 'valid reason' for not including multiple cities, but now we know that they lie to build hype.

+1

 

RS showing the map of most of LS convinced that for me. LV and a ski resort please. Only cause I'm greedy.

ive been thinking the same thing forever now

[justgettinridiculous]

This world -- the range of height and between north and south and east and west -- is huge, and it's a real strength. It felt California. Oceans are there and tall hills are there. We wanted those in the game. For us, this kind of world, that was a big properly-realized L.A. and a huge slab of regionally appropriate countryside, felt like the most interesting match to do something new with. Doing other cities just didn't seem appealing. Doing small towns is very appealing. There's a bunch of small towns and villages and whatnot in there to discover and play around in. Doing other cities, though, felt like it was going to create problems we didn't need. It wasn't going to add to the experience. Of course you could do a game with a bunch of cities now that could be pretty interesting, but we didn't think that was going to be this game. This map is going to be spectacular to people when they start exploring and playing around with it.

 

http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/11/17/gta...stions-answered

 

It was a bit disappointing to learn that GTA V was going to have only one city - Los Santos - instead of the three seen in GTA: San Andreas. It sounded like Rockstar was sacrificing size for detail. That would be an understandable trade-off but, as a San Andreas fan, I was sad we won't be able to see San Fierro and Las Venturas updated with current-gen technology.

 

http://www.cinemablend.com/games/GTA-V-5-R...ited-49172.html

 

there will be no other city... sorry about it

[ainsz]

^^

Well I'll admit, that seems quite conclusive and looks as though it cancels out any chance of another city.

 

My last hope is that they lied, as they did regarding properties, customisation etc.

[Triple Vacuum Seal]

Though not probable, another city is possible. Possible enough for me to vote "yes". Until we see the whole map, we have nothing to debunk this rumor.

 

 

Even though they did not explicitly say just LS, R* did suggest that LS is the only city. However, R* also said "a few weeks time", "Spring 2013", "no properties", "no player customization", etc. So I take what they say with a grain of Salt and stick to what I see.

 

 

What do I see? Not much room to the south of LS for a San Diego based town. But I also see the possibility of a San Diego-based town (Los Puerta) to the north. It would coincide with the fact that we get a shot of the LP freeway sign going north. It would also explain why the Alamo Sea is to the north of LS despite being to the south IRL just above the US-Mexico border (Salton Sea). After all, R* did say "reimagined SoCal".

[drahc88]

This world -- the range of height and between north and south and east and west -- is huge, and it's a real strength. It felt California. Oceans are there and tall hills are there. We wanted those in the game. For us, this kind of world, that was a big properly-realized L.A. and a huge slab of regionally appropriate countryside, felt like the most interesting match to do something new with. Doing other cities just didn't seem appealing. Doing small towns is very appealing. There's a bunch of small towns and villages and whatnot in there to discover and play around in. Doing other cities, though, felt like it was going to create problems we didn't need. It wasn't going to add to the experience. Of course you could do a game with a bunch of cities now that could be pretty interesting, but we didn't think that was going to be this game. This map is going to be spectacular to people when they start exploring and playing around with it.

 

http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/11/17/gta...stions-answered

 

It was a bit disappointing to learn that GTA V was going to have only one city - Los Santos - instead of the three seen in GTA: San Andreas. It sounded like Rockstar was sacrificing size for detail. That would be an understandable trade-off but, as a San Andreas fan, I was sad we won't be able to see San Fierro and Las Venturas updated with current-gen technology.

 

http://www.cinemablend.com/games/GTA-V-5-R...ited-49172.html

 

tell me what another u.s. state is interesting because if gta witll be LA plus desert towns it'll be BORING! shouldve done other cities. because doing cities over and over again will be boring to death. gta 6, LA,vegas= gta 7. San Fran,LA,vegas. gta8, san diego..blabla.no right?

there pattern is small LA , san andreas , gta iv(NY) , GTA V(LA). u wont see another "upscaled NEW YORK" in gta 6, trust me. should've done another city. R* you made a mistake!

Edited June 3, 2013 by drahc88

[Triple Vacuum Seal]

could be? could be not? would it be more of an update/improvement if they added san franscicsco? instead of LA and vegas?

could be possible..but im pretty sure 2018 will include san diego. imagine the power of computer hardwares by then

That's what placates me at the end of the day. R* has a way of setting up its fan base for future GTAs. I interpreted the removal of common sense high-demand features from the series in IV -less properties, no garages, less clothing, no customization, less vehicles, no planes, less land, no countryside, etc.- as a move to set fans up for V. Kind of like appetizers before a meal, an intense workout before a nap, foreplay/teasing before intercourse, and so on and so forth.

 

Judging from the quality of this GTA without even playing it, the map size seems like the only major thing fans want improvement on. Most of our wishes have been granted. Disapproval over the map size could only lead to a massive map down the road. Especially considering how the next GTA will release deep into next gen.

[TheJasonGallant]

Yeah, but I'm talking about small cities.

[Triple Vacuum Seal]

 

Yeah, but I'm talking about small cities.

If San Diego/LP is in the game, it would be small. Probably the size of Alderney in IV which comes out to be around 1/3 the size of LS. The value of a San Diego parody town isn't based in it's size. It's more of a criminal and cultural significance. Much of which would even play out in the regions beyond the city limits. It's a massive US Navy hub (along with Norfolk), immigrant smuggling hub, drug trafficking hub, and has a large network of narcotrafficking/hit squad street gangs.

Edited June 3, 2013 by canttakemyid

[FurryPhilosifer]

I always think "oh another city would be cool but I doubt it'll happen" but even then, I think I'd just prefer a bigger Los Santos.

[ainsz]

 

Yeah, but I'm talking about small cities.

If San Diego/LP is in the game, it would be small. Probably the size of Alderney in IV which comes out to be around 1/3 the size of LS. The value of a San Diego parody town isn't based in it's size. It's more of a criminal and cultural significance. Much of which would even play out in the regions beyond the city limits. It's a massive US Navy hub (along with Norfolk), immigrant smuggling hub, drug trafficking hub, and has a large network of narcotrafficking/hit squad street gangs.

I'm really glad you said all that. As I don't know much about SD, I was thinking about what the city could possibly bring to a GTA. It actually sounds like a fitting location.

[Official General]

I interpreted the removal of common sense high-demand features from the series in IV -less properties, no garages, less clothing, no customization, less vehicles, no planes, less land, no countryside, etc.- as a move to set fans up for V. Kind of like appetizers before a meal, an intense workout before a nap, foreplay/teasing before intercourse, and so on and so forth.

 

 

If that is true, then that was pretty stupid of Rockstar.

 

Liberty City in GTA IV was their first opportunity to very realistically re-create New York City. This would have been the perfect location for all those great features to have been included in IV. NYC is still my favorite location for GTA, I just so wished I could have done a lot more in IV.

[tooformay]

 

dan houser has been quoted as saying los santos is the only city in the game... ive read it like 20x. what are you guys rambling on about?

And Dan Houser has been quoted by saying there isn't property buying nor character customization. They are hiding something, I don't believe it's another city but I wanted to point out you guys shouldn't believe what they said about half an year ago.

 

Honestly I think they're hiding snow-capped mountains (San Bernardino), small snowy village(s) near those mountains (Big Bear) and a ski resort. Plus a Catalina Island west to Los Santos.

[justgettinridiculous]

Though not probable, another city is possible. Possible enough for me to vote "yes". Until we see the whole map, we have nothing to debunk this rumor.

 

 

Even though they did not explicitly say just LS, R* did suggest that LS is the only city. However, R* also said "a few weeks time", "Spring 2013", "no properties", "no player customization", etc. So I take what they say with a grain of Salt and stick to what I see.

 

 

What do I see? Not much room to the south of LS for a San Diego based town. But I also see the possibility of a San Diego-based town (Los Puerta) to the north. It would coincide with the fact that we get a shot of the LP freeway sign going north. It would also explain why the Alamo Sea is to the north of LS despite being to the south IRL just above the US-Mexico border (Salton Sea). After all, R* did say "reimagined SoCal".

i couldnt find the link i was looking for so i posted those two. the link i was trying to find was one of the q and a's with houser. he specifically and in no uncertain terms said los santos is the only city in the game and then gave reasons why the didnt put other cities in the game. why do you think 2/3s of the poll said no there wont be other cities?lol its not that we dont want them. its because we arent getting them

[ChatterBoxFM]

dan houser has been quoted as saying los santos is the only city in the game... ive read it like 20x. what are you guys rambling on about?

And Dan Houser has been quoted by saying there isn't property buying nor character customization. They are hiding something... ...I wanted to point out you guys shouldn't believe what they said about half an year ago.

this

[dxbrandon]

This world -- the range of height and between north and south and east and west -- is huge, and it's a real strength. It felt California. Oceans are there and tall hills are there. We wanted those in the game. For us, this kind of world, that was a big properly-realized L.A. and a huge slab of regionally appropriate countryside, felt like the most interesting match to do something new with. Doing other cities just didn't seem appealing. Doing small towns is very appealing. There's a bunch of small towns and villages and whatnot in there to discover and play around in. Doing other cities, though, felt like it was going to create problems we didn't need. It wasn't going to add to the experience. Of course you could do a game with a bunch of cities now that could be pretty interesting, but we didn't think that was going to be this game. This map is going to be spectacular to people when they start exploring and playing around with it.

 

http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/11/17/gta...stions-answered

 

It was a bit disappointing to learn that GTA V was going to have only one city - Los Santos - instead of the three seen in GTA: San Andreas. It sounded like Rockstar was sacrificing size for detail. That would be an understandable trade-off but, as a San Andreas fan, I was sad we won't be able to see San Fierro and Las Venturas updated with current-gen technology.

 

http://www.cinemablend.com/games/GTA-V-5-R...ited-49172.html

 

there will be no other city... sorry about it

This. I want small towns with different vibes instead of another city. Can't wait to see what they do with these small towns, going to be awesome with my favorite part of the map which is the country side.

[japse123]

LV or SF wont happen in V.

 

Face it people.

[Josh410]

Maybe Rockstar was been already working on SF/LV or maybe even a new city.

Oh I hope so, I want for the next gta, LV and SF or Washington D.C. O just all cities in one game

[hachiroku]

Think about this: Why did R* show the map of Los Santos in the blueprint? It's a crucial part of the map, and they never show these things.

 

Also, the city map was a little disapointting, just was ok, what every of us was expecting, and, maybe, not so big. They could show a random part of the countryside, and nobody would have complained, or they would have no revealed the entire city.

 

 

And still we have all the issue about highways and railways to go to... a farm? Please.

[ChatterBoxFM]

Maybe Rockstar was been already working on SF/LV or maybe even a new city.

Oh I hope so, I want for the next gta, LV and SF or Washington D.C. O just all cities in one game

New Austin & Mexico for VI!

[johnny_zoo]

Bad poll most people are voting for what they want rather than logically for the realistic option.

[Triple Vacuum Seal]

Though not probable, another city is possible.  Possible enough for me to vote "yes".  Until we see the whole map, we have nothing to debunk this rumor.

 

 

Even though they did not explicitly say just LS, R* did suggest that LS is the only city.  However, R* also said "a few weeks time", "Spring 2013", "no properties", "no player customization", etc.  So I take what they say with a grain of Salt and stick to what I see.

 

 

What do I see?  Not much room to the south of LS for a San Diego based town.  But I also see the possibility of a San Diego-based town (Los Puerta) to the north.  It would coincide with the fact that we get a shot of the LP freeway sign going north.  It would also explain why the Alamo Sea is to the north of LS despite being to the south IRL just above the US-Mexico border (Salton Sea).  After all, R* did say "reimagined SoCal".

i couldnt find the link i was looking for so i posted those two. the link i was trying to find was one of the q and a's with houser. he specifically and in no uncertain terms said los santos is the only city in the game and then gave reasons why the didnt put other cities in the game. why do you think 2/3s of the poll said no there wont be other cities?lol its not that we dont want them. its because we arent getting them

As much as we all want additional cities, my conclusion that another city is possible isn't based in this wishful thinking. In terms of mapping, I'm simply going by what's seen and not what's read. Sure I believe in some features I haven't actually seen such as customization and what not. That's because these features wouldn't be mentioned if V didn't have them. The map on the other hand, takes a bit of deductive reasoning. R* won't show off the whole map early on; so we have to do a bit of investigation and even speculate sometimes. I mentioned earlier that it's not probable but possible.

 

 

I'm just going on record and saying we'll get additional cities because it would be nice for the "I told you so" factor if it happens. It's not like I have to wear some scarlet letter if I'm wrong.