Why fanboys believe the GTA World is only LS, LC, and San Andreas

[DoubleOGJohnson]

I notice that an extremist faction in the fanbase seems to be extremely hostile and negative to any fan conception of GTA being in a new location. They act like it's blasphemy for fans to suggest any location besides what has ALREADY been created by Rockstar. They have this belief that GTA World is LC, VC, and San Andreas and that argument has been their crutch for shooting down any concept threads about GTA in any new American city/state. This sh*t is super retarded, and handicaps the future of the franchise.

 

First and foremost the LCPD database in GTA 4 had criminals listed as being born in "Texas", the "Midwest", and "Carcer City". Another state called North Yankton is mentioned in GTA V. The argument of LS, LC, and SA being the world doesn't add up and is non factual garbage. If you're a punk who hates new places or afraid of venturing to a new place then just say so, Ill respect you more. It's time that we start a Phobia Anonymous for people who hate new places. At least be honest when holding a franchise back, you don't have to create BS excuses for it. Add your name below and come clean and say the pledge:

 

 

 

Hello, my name is [insert Name] and I am scared of new places. My world is LC, SA, and VC because I am closed minded, weak, and uninventive. But today is my day to join Phobia Anonymous. Today I am making my confession, coming clean, and admitting my problem to the world.

Edited October 26, 2013 by DoubleOGJohnson

[GtaIvFanboy]

Well i Personally would Not Mind A New Location but if people think there is no need to add Another Location to the Gta Universe then that's their Opinion and im cool with that.

[Andreas]

You are talking about a group that is the minority of the fanbase. It's not like the vast majority of GTA fans want Grand Theft Auto to stay in Liberty City, Vice City and San Andreas forever. Furthermore, those were not the only cities Rockstar created for the series. GTA2 took place in Aynwhere City, whilst the original GTA had DLCs that took place in London in the 1960's.

 

The GTA series is not meant to be for three cities, and three cities only. It can take place in other places of the planet too, if it fits the requirements of a typical GTA city. Rockstar re-made Liberty City and Los Santos in the HD-era, because they thought that those areas did not get the attention they deserved when they were created at first in the 2D- and 3D-era. I can see them re-doing Vice City too in the next GTA game to give it a HD rendition like the cities in GTA IV and GTAV. And that is not a bad thing at all, because the only thing that really match between each rendition is the name of the city. There are only very few similarities other than that, though. If Rockstar North were to create another game after the next GTA, then the odds for an entirely new city are not bad at all.

Edited October 26, 2013 by Andreas.

[universetwisters]

Funny you should try to rally up support for new locations while bashing North Yankton in another thread:

 

 

I'm surprised that people actually want North Yankton, there is NOTHING there. It's North Dakota, one of the most irrelevant states in America. ND is so irrelevant that they dont even have a professional sports team. And then you turn around and see people shooting down ideas and being negative about GTA 6 being in a new place like Chicago or Texas or Philly yet are calling for a North Dakota map. Same guys complaining about the Midwest and East Coast being too dark and cold now want a DLC in snowy North Dakota? WTF?? Argggh, the anti-progressive, unimaginative, reactionary sentiment in the fanbase towards possible locations kills me!!! People would have laughed at the thought of ND being in GTA had it not been included in GTA V. Now it's "cool"? Reactionary fans. SMH

 

Anyway.......if Rockstar does make a North Dakota DLC, the only good news is that it would destroy that stupid, archaic, and super limited fanboy argument about the "GTA World" only being LC, VC, and SA. I'm tired of people using that sh*t as a crutch for why the series hasn't expanded to new places. So a North Yankton DLC could be a gift and a curse I guess. Cant believe though that out of ALL THE PLACES in the Midwest we get North Dakota in GTA.

[Tycek]

Because some people believe GTA World should contain only LC, LS, SA and Chicago counterpart

[Pooyan Cyrus]

I believe GTA takes place in the America. Carcer City, North Yankton, the Midwest and many other places are parts of this fictional USA-based country.

However, fans never appreciate new places. As you see, when I re-used San Fierro as location for my concept, it had way more responses and views than "Ultimate" concept which uses many new states.

[Pooyan Cyrus]

Sorry for double posting:

 

Known Places in GTA world are

New York (State) = State of Liberty

Detroit (City) = Probably Carcer City

California (State)= San Andreas

Nevada (State)= Robada

North Dakota (City)= North Yankton

Florida (State)= Florida

Texas (City)= Texas

London (City)= London

Anywhere City

 

Places I expect to see

Illinois or at least Chicago

Re-made Vice City, Las Venturas or San Fierro

Seattle

Washington DC

[Tycek]

There are more known places than you think, but it all depends on the era.

 

Carcer city is located in Liberty State,

North Dakota isn't city, but State, similar to Yankton. There is city Ludendorff based on Bismarck.

Texas is a state, not city.

There is also midwest containing Chicago and Minneapolis, but it's more of a general direction than name of the state.

[universetwisters]

 

North Dakota isn't city, but State, similar to Yankton. There is city Ludendorff based on Bismarck.

I doubt Ludendorff is based on Bismark. Ludendorff is a small town, whereas Bismark is a city. The only similarities they have are names of Germanic origin and that's really about it.

[Aintgottime2bleed]

I think liberty city is getting old ( gta 1, 3, lcs, 4 ), i really dont care which city etc. aslong if its combined ( like gta sa map ). I like palm trees + casino + desert + big city's and some forest. Vice city based setting would be nice too.

[Algonquin Assassin]

 

Funny you should try to rally up support for new locations while bashing North Yankton in another thread:

 

 

I'm surprised that people actually want North Yankton, there is NOTHING there. It's North Dakota, one of the most irrelevant states in America. ND is so irrelevant that they dont even have a professional sports team. And then you turn around and see people shooting down ideas and being negative about GTA 6 being in a new place like Chicago or Texas or Philly yet are calling for a North Dakota map. Same guys complaining about the Midwest and East Coast being too dark and cold now want a DLC in snowy North Dakota? WTF?? Argggh, the anti-progressive, unimaginative, reactionary sentiment in the fanbase towards possible locations kills me!!! People would have laughed at the thought of ND being in GTA had it not been included in GTA V. Now it's "cool"? Reactionary fans. SMH

 

Anyway.......if Rockstar does make a North Dakota DLC, the only good news is that it would destroy that stupid, archaic, and super limited fanboy argument about the "GTA World" only being LC, VC, and SA. I'm tired of people using that sh*t as a crutch for why the series hasn't expanded to new places. So a North Yankton DLC could be a gift and a curse I guess. Cant believe though that out of ALL THE PLACES in the Midwest we get North Dakota in GTA.

 

 

Because he's a hypocrite. He whines about people not wanting new locations and when they throw support for a new location he's the first one to moan.

 

He's just a selfish, dictating idiot. Nothing's changed in 6 years.

[Lock n' Stock]

Because he's a hypocrite. He whines about people not wanting new locations and when they throw support for a new location he's the first one to moan.

 

 

He's just a selfish, dictating idiot. Nothing's changed in 6 years.

[universetwisters]

 

 

Because he's a hypocrite. He whines about people not wanting new locations and when they throw support for a new location he's the first one to moan.

 

He's just a selfish, dictating idiot. Nothing's changed in 6 years.

 

 

He was here for 6 years? I never ever would've imagined. Looks like one of your garden variety San Andreas fanboys that joined last week.

[ObsydianRaven]

I definitely do not want to see Vice City, Las Venturas or San Fierro again. No matter how greatly you expand the location or how well accurate to the cities they're based off, they're still the same old places we've seen before. If the next GTA is one of the locations we've seen before then I didn't think this series is worth bothering with anymore.

 

The amount of people who say they want another 80's Vice City game again says a lot about how this generation of gamers are afraid to go outside the box and see something new and different.

Edited October 28, 2013 by sethpenguin

[DoubleOGJohnson]

Fanboys know that it would require more work from Rockstar to create a new location than rehash an old location. And according to them, it's blasphemy and taboo for fans to question anything Rockstar does, make demands to Rockstars, or put any kind of pressure on Rockstar. And asking for a new city falls under the category of "making demands and applying pressure on Rockstar". Fanboys don't want it because in their sick mind, fans would be "ungrateful" to the Rockstar "Gods" if we ask them to do something new. Fanboys always wanna preserve the status quo, keep sh*t the same, and would just rather sit back and let Rockstar do whatever they want EVEN if that means the same cities over and over again.

 

They used Los Angeles 4 times in the last decade (San Andreas, LA Noire, Midnight Club, & GTA V), how much research do you think it REALLY took for GTA 5? Im talking about the REAL time it took and not the time they held back the game and milked it for anticipation. How much REAL time did it take to create Los Santos after LA was done 3 other times before? Probably not a lot. But a new place takes REAL time and effort and force Rockstar to make an ACTUAL progressive effort. That's the type of stuff fanboys don't want, they want everything to be easy on Rockstar, and let laziness, stagnation, and lack of accountability continue to preserve the GTA "status quo".

[Rainbow Party]

It's not just the fanbase, it's just that GTA games haven't been in different places so far so we just asume the next will once again recycle an old city.

[Algonquin Assassin]

Fanboys know that it would require more work from Rockstar to create a new location than rehash an old location. And according to them, it's blasphemy and taboo for fans to question anything Rockstar does, make demands to Rockstars, or put any kind of pressure on Rockstar. And asking for a new city falls under the category of "making demands and applying pressure on Rockstar". Fanboys don't want it because in their sick mind, fans would be "ungrateful" to the Rockstar "Gods" if we ask them to do something new. Fanboys always wanna preserve the status quo, keep sh*t the same, and would just rather sit back and let Rockstar do whatever they want EVEN if that means the same cities over and over again.

 

They used Los Angeles 4 times in the last decade (San Andreas, LA Noire, Midnight Club, & GTA V), how much research do you think it REALLY took for GTA 5? Im talking about the REAL time it took and not the time they held back the game and milked it for anticipation. How much REAL time did it take to create Los Santos after LA was done 3 other times before? Probably not a lot. But a new place takes REAL time and effort and force Rockstar to make an ACTUAL progressive effort. That's the type of stuff fanboys don't want, they want everything to be easy on Rockstar, and let laziness, stagnation, and lack of accountability continue to preserve the GTA "status quo".

 

Why can't you get your view across without throwing around the "fanboy" label? I'd have more respect for you if you weren't such a self absorbed asshole.

[Andreas]

They used Los Angeles 4 times in the last decade (San Andreas, LA Noire, Midnight Club, & GTA V), how much research do you think it REALLY took for GTA 5? Im talking about the REAL time it took and not the time they held back the game and milked it for anticipation. How much REAL time did it take to create Los Santos after LA was done 3 other times before? Probably not a lot. But a new place takes REAL time and effort and force Rockstar to make an ACTUAL progressive effort. That's the type of stuff fanboys don't want, they want everything to be easy on Rockstar, and let laziness, stagnation, and lack of accountability continue to preserve the GTA "status quo".

You are always calling out "fanboys" for thinking this, for saying that, for liking this, and so forth. Yet, all I can say is that the people you want to call out are CLEARLY a very small minority; they aren't even worth to mention nor worth to pay attention to. I have no idea what you are trying to do, but whatever it is, it's a huge waste of time. Now to the actual topic at hand...

 

San Andreas' Los Angeles is not compareable to the cities in the other games you have mentioned. Plus, L.A. Noire's version of LA was set in the late 1940's, making it even less compareable to the other games' renditions of the city. And you forget about the fact that it was Team Bondi who originally developed the game. Rockstar had a contract with them ever since back in 2006 to publish the game. Later then, they even helped in the development because it took way too long already. The city is still a creation by Team Bondi, not Rockstar as you claim. The closest you can get to is if you compare Midnight Club: Los Angles to GTAV, but again, these cities aren't really compareable with each other, either. Rockstar still had to do lots of extra research, which resulted in making over 250,000 photos of the real life city and its surroundings for V! Another thing you fail to realize is that V's map isn't only Los Santos. It has surroundings that are clearly bigger than the city itself. And they had to do research (including photos) for them as well.

 

You assume that if you re-create a city you have already done in the past, then the work is only very small compared to the work you have to do when creating an entire city from scratch. That is absolutely not true, the effort is still big, it's bigger than you can possibly imagine. So, if Rockstar were to create Vice City for GTAVI, they would have to do lots of work despite the fact that they already have done the city in the original GTA, in GTA Vice City and Vice City Stories. Because this time, they would have to do the city in HD and it'd more than likely match the real life counterpart rather than the last couple of renditions.

Edited October 31, 2013 by Andreas.

[Algonquin Assassin]

Bravo. In addition to what you said Andreas two out of the four of those LA based games aren't even apart of the GTA series so I have no idea what point DoubleOGJohnson was trying to get across.

 

He seems to forget different R* studios do different amounts of work on each game. For instance MC:LA which is the closest to GTA V in term of location was developed by R* San Diego and R* London for the PSP version so R* North still had to make the map from scratch for GTA V.

Thus they needed to do their own research.

 

 

Also I agree that a new VC would still take a lot of effort as R* North would probably add more like the Everglades, maybe Orlando, some Carribean Islands/Cuba etc. I couldn't see them just doing VC itself.