Would a completely new location finally make people leave the past in

[woggleman]

It seems these days that GTA fans have a bad case of nostalgia. IV was slammed because it wasn't San Andreas 2.0 and V gets slammed because it is not IV on the west coast and I think a big part of this is this that they take place in locations R has done before. I think their recreations of New York and LA or both great but maybe it is time for R to move the franchise to somewhere it has never been before. If they do Vice City for VI people will just compare it to the PS2 game and criticize it like they do with V and San Andreas. The same thing will happen if they do Venturas or San Fierro

 

If they do a new location like a game based on The South or a game based on 1970s Chicago and Detroit I people for the most part will judge them on their own merits because it would be starting fresh and it will send the message that the series truly is moving forward. It will also help creativity at R because it will be a fresh start.

[universetwisters]

Screw those places. Want a fresh start? Try Augusta, Maine. How many people heard of Augusta?

 

If Rockstar is going to make a new place, then let them start with the most redundant place on the map.

[HOW'S ANNIE?]

Nope. The terrible stain that SA has left on the series won't ever come out. Until we get another 90's gangbanger story with jetpacks and pink afros there's no chance that the bitching will end.

 

And even then we'll hear people complain that it "don't got dat SA feel".

[Blennerville]

San Andreas was very heavily focused on Los Santos and the culture of 90's gangland in that area.

A lot of people completely forget about San Fierro and Las Venturas when they talk about the 3 GTA locations that are Liberty City, Vice City and San Andreas. They call GTA5's map San Andreas even though it only makes up a part of it.

 

San Fierro + Las venturas were never given a lot of focus in SA, they were a minor element, they were just thrown in.

 

Therefore I think a future game set in San Fierro on its own, or San Fierro + Las Venturas together would show then in a better light and they would feel fresh. With a 70's setting it think they could be great (both should be done together imo) and I also feel they are the most likely location for the next game.

 

I would also love a GTA in the South as some point - going from the Texas/Mexico to New Orelanes, Mississippi, Lousiana etc... could be great.

 

 

70's chicago + detroit is a duller location and would probably be too similar to New York. People, me included, dont want to see a location like that for a good long while. (but when we do go back to one, then Chicago + detroit would be good - take a break from Liberty City)

 

 

 

With regard to people beaching about "it not San Andreas 2.0", - GTA5 did not deliever on its potential - it could have been so much more.

 

 

I think part of the problem is the modern day setting - imo no GTA should be set in modern day. GTA5 should have been set in the late 90's or early/mid 00's (if they didnt want to do 80's Los Santos) - it was a mistake not to imo.

 

Vice City has to be done during the 80's and i think R* knows that.

[Zello]

Nope. The terrible stain that SA has left on the series won't ever come out. Until we get another 90's gangbanger story with jetpacks and pink afros there's no chance that the bitching will end.

 

And even then we'll hear people complain that it "don't got dat SA feel".

Its like they think its 1992 and the best thing you can hope for is a gold chain and a pager - Playboy X

 

I think that a new setting could help the series and give it a new start LC,VC, and LS are fine but lets explore this fine country many great places here for a GTA game in Murica. Im pretty much tired of being on the East and West Coasts its time to go to the Heartland As much as people want to hold on to the past and good memories they will always complain.