GTA V Should Have Taken Place In Las Venturas

[zuckmeslow]

the game is about the "pursuit of the almighty dollar". the game introduces heists but it takes place in the wrong city. the game would have made more sense taking place in las venturas. we could have gotten a casino heist similar to oceans 11 which would have been more fun then a jewel store robbery. las vegas is known for its money, why even have these three living in los santos. trevor lives in the desert and has ron, a paranoid conspiracy theorist. why is ron not over in las venturas salivating about area 69 like marvin trill was. trevor should have been living in the las venturas desert with ron, franklin would have been living in the las venturas ghetto with the gangs because its not like the grove street families or ballas play a big enough part of the story to have frank living in los santos and michael should have been living in the wealthy side of las venturas somewhere close to the strip, retired and living a life of luxury while gambling his boredom away.

 

I could see all three living in las venturas much more than i could see them living in los santos. besides the fact that michael likes movies, its not like he needs los santos. las vegas is hot and michael could have a gambling addiction. wouldnt it have been better if michael lost all his money by gambling it away and/or angering a casino mob boss instead of knocking a damn house down and making madrazo and his poorly written mistress angry. frank and lamar seem like the type to live in vegas and party at the strip clubs and casinos, the whole gang aspect of gta v is so underused the game could have taken place anywhere with different gang names and still have the same story. trevor is the type of person to be living out in a trailer park in the desert, not an abandoned town in socal. area 69 would have been a much more interesting place than fort zancudo and might have even given us reason to care about merryweather.

 

It would not have taken too much console resources to do a las venturas the size of los santos and a massive open desert with small towns like paleto and grapeseed and lots of other good stuff.

 

The entire game could have been moved over to las venturas with some minor story tweaks. The whole meltdown and solomon richards thing could have been completely removed from the game as it adds nothing to the story other than some filler missions. Fib and the iaa could also be removed from the game. Focus on the pursuit of the almighty dollar, these three guys doing heists and dealing with issues of their own, the villain practocally writes himself, they piss of a mob boss who owns a casino and maybe include dave norton in there trying to get michael to stop. Have some real heat style tension and cut the filler, no stupid crate stacking mission, no yoga, no life invader and jay norris. Just a focused story on money and crime.

[happygrowls]

 

[The Dedito Gae]

i'm not gonna lie, i kinda hate you, but this would have been better.

 

sadly the word is "would"

[zuckmeslow]

i'm not gonna lie, i kinda hate you, but this would have been better.

sadly the word is "would"

You hate me? You hate me because i have different opinions from you. Very nice attitude. I feel sorry for the people who actually wrong you in this life if you hate me.

[Zello]

YES!!!!! This would have been a million times better than V

 

The whole Solomon Richards movie studio thing could have been replaced with some boxing! Franklin or Michael ends up managing a boxer like Floyd Mayweather and it leads up to a big event.

Edited June 9, 2015 by Zello

[Choco Taco]

Yep, the heist and "pursuit of the almighty dollar" theme, Ron, and the UFO/alien stuff would have been better suited for Las Venturas and area 69. It didn't make much sense for them to use those ideas for a game set in Los Santos. They really screwed up if they planned on going back to Las Venturas because they already used the best ideas for that location.

 

They actually wasted the heist and "pursuit of the almighty dollar" theme altogether since GTA V never felt like that.

[thafablifee46]

i agree with this soo much ! i have soo many reasons as to why it would work better than LS but ill keep them to myself for now

[SuperGTFan]

I wonder how LV look like in the HD world.

[Spaghetti Cat]

Idk basically your saying it's a story problem. Which it is, but I don't think changing the city would work. Vegas/Venturas would be a great second city. However, compared to Los Santos it's kinda small. Other than the casinos, what's there to do? You would still have the same problem of dead areas in the map. Unless you're planning on adding smaller cities as well. I would rather see a proper San Andreas remake with Venturas and Fiero in there with LS. Maybe have a character in each city.

[Theodore93]

What absolute twaddle.

 

Las Venturas is easily the least interesting city of the III era and I can't say I've ever understood the appeal of that flashy sh*thole in the middle of the desert. And just because it's full of casinos, doesn't make it the only place to steal money. The "pursuit of the almighty dollar" argument just doesn't hold up.

 

I for one am so glad they didn't go for that. Los Santos was a good choice although I believe R* still didn't do LA justice. It way too small.

Edited June 10, 2015 by Waldie

[beretta-gt88]

V needs San Fierro badly, LS is getting so boring

[cp1dell]

Idk basically your saying it's a story problem. Which it is, but I don't think changing the city would work. Vegas/Venturas would be a great second city. However, compared to Los Santos it's kinda small. Other than the casinos, what's there to do? You would still have the same problem of dead areas in the map. Unless you're planning on adding smaller cities as well. I would rather see a proper San Andreas remake with Venturas and Fiero in there with LS. Maybe have a character in each city.

People need to stop saying "Oh it's too small" or "It can't stand on it's own, it needs another city in the game."

 

The same could have been said for Los Santos, but they made it work. Hell, I do remember people complaining about the exact thing before V was released; that it should have been the whole state, not just LS. Everyone seems to have it set in their heads that if the game takes place in a city Rockstar has done in a previous-era game, it's going to be the same exact city.

 

But that hasn't been the case for the past two games, so why keep assuming that? They're so much different from their 3D-Era counterparts. If they reuse a city, it's going to get a complete makeover and they're going to design it in a way so it can work on its own. Why is that so hard to understand?

[zuckmeslow]

Idk basically your saying it's a story problem. Which it is, but I don't think changing the city would work. Vegas/Venturas would be a great second city. However, compared to Los Santos it's kinda small. Other than the casinos, what's there to do? You would still have the same problem of dead areas in the map. Unless you're planning on adding smaller cities as well. I would rather see a proper San Andreas remake with Venturas and Fiero in there with LS. Maybe have a character in each city.

 

 

Las vegas is a huge city. It might not be as big as los angeles but we could have gotten a decent sized las venturas with many interiors like the casinos and malls. Out in the desert there are towns. There is only one city in gta v regardless.

 

Las vegas itself is a city full of different activities besides casinos. Everything los santos has in V, las venturas could have.

 

This is my las venturas map i made awhile back, this is the layout im talking about

 

 

What absolute twaddle.

 

Las Venturas is easily the least interesting city of the III era and I can't say I've ever understood the appeal of that flashy sh*thole in the middle of the desert. And just because it's full of casinos, doesn't make it the only place to steal money. The "pursuit of the almighty dollar" argument just doesn't hold up.

 

I for one am so glad they didn't go for that. Los Santos was a good choice although I believe R* still didn't do LA justice. It way too small.

I never said its the only place to steal money, i said it makes more sense than los santos. Las vegas is a city centered around money, los angeles is a city centered around entertainment. I understand if the focus of the game was on the whole solomon richards and movie studio thing, but its not.

[cp1dell]

I feel like everyone has more of a problem with GTA V's description, than the actual game itself. Everyone is so hung up on the fact that it was marketed as "The pursuit of the almighty dollar." The back of the case describes it as the the trio teaming up, and committing a series of heists so they can set themselves up for life - but we know that's not what the game is about.

 

It's like if someone told you that you were getting a nice 2015 Dodge Challenger, but instead you got a nice 2015 Dodge Charger. Okay yeah f*ck the person who told you that you were getting something different, but are you going to complain the whole time that you were going to get something else and ignore the fact that what you got was still good?

 

What I'm trying to say is it seems like Rockstar's marketing team is to blame. If the game wasn't advertised the way it was, and actually advertised as what the real story was like, there wouldn't be people complaining as much.

 

EDIT: I don't know a whole lot about cars, so it might not be a perfect analogy - so try not to ignore the point I'm trying to make, and pick apart an analogy.

Edited June 10, 2015 by cp1dell

[zuckmeslow]

I feel like everyone has more of a problem with GTA V's description, than the actual game itself. Everyone is so hung up on the fact that it was marketed as "The pursuit of the almighty dollar." The back of the case describes it as the the trio teaming up, and committing a series of heists so they can set themselves up for life - but we know that's not what the game is about.

 

It's like if someone told you that you were getting a nice 2015 Dodge Challenger, but instead you got a nice 2015 Dodge Charger. Okay yeah f*ck the person who told you that you were getting something different, but are you going to complain the whole time that you were going to get something else and ignore the fact that what you got was still good?

 

What I'm trying to say is it seems like Rockstar's marketing team is to blame. If the game wasn't advertised the way it was, and actually advertised as what the real story was like, there wouldn't be people complaining as much.

I dont have a problem with the games description. I have a problem with the game itself, it is poorly written, rushed and has horrible character developement with a wasted story line. It is is a fun open world video game but a horrible grand theft auto. Regardless of what they advertised it as, its a mess of childish humor and characters that have no depth.

[sillkent]

why not have both Los Santos AND Las Venturas?

[Theodore93]

Las vegas is a huge city. It might not be as big as los angeles but we could have gotten a decent sized las venturas with many interiors like the casinos and malls. Out in the desert there are towns. There is only one city in gta v regardless.

Las vegas itself is a city full of different activities besides casinos. Everything los santos has in V, las venturas could have.

 

Why would you assume we'd get many interiors? We hardly got any in V - or activities for that matter. And Los Angeles, as you said is even bigger than Vegas, yet we still ended up getting a city that was about the same size as Liberty City, only not as interesting.

 

 

I feel like everyone has more of a problem with GTA V's description, than the actual game itself. Everyone is so hung up on the fact that it was marketed as "The pursuit of the almighty dollar." The back of the case describes it as the the trio teaming up, and committing a series of heists so they can set themselves up for life - but we know that's not what the game is about.

 

What I'm trying to say is it seems like Rockstar's marketing team is to blame. If the game wasn't advertised the way it was, and actually advertised as what the real story was like, there wouldn't be people complaining as much.

 

I agree. As good as the games are, I've often felt that the previews and such hype give an inaccurate impression of them.

Edited June 10, 2015 by Waldie

[zuckmeslow]

why not have both Los Santos AND Las Venturas?

 

Console limitations

 

 

Las vegas is a huge city. It might not be as big as los angeles but we could have gotten a decent sized las venturas with many interiors like the casinos and malls. Out in the desert there are towns. There is only one city in gta v regardless.

 

Las vegas itself is a city full of different activities besides casinos. Everything los santos has in V, las venturas could have.

 

Why would you assume we'd get many interiors? We hardly got any in V - or activities for that matter. And Los Angeles, as you said is even bigger than Vegas, yet we still ended up getting a city that was about the same size as Liberty City, only not as interesting.

Los santos has alot of huge mountains and a ridiculously detailed ocean floor. Las venturas does not need huge chilliad style mountain and it does not need an ocean floor. Without that interiors would not be an issue

[cp1dell]

its a mess of childish humor and characters that have no depth.

 

Well that's just not true, doc.

 

But lets talk about the lack of character development.

 

Yeah, Michael, Trevor, and Franklin never evolve much from the people they are in the beginning of the game. I still remember when that gameplay trailer for GTA V came out, the lady narrating it at some point says: "But don't forget, these men are dangerous criminals" or something along those lines, before the video presented something else. I'm not exactly sure, but that line hit me a certain way. It was odd hearing the protagonists described as dangerous crooks, instead of - well, being referred to as the main cast as usual.

 

Michael, Trevor, and Franklin are bad people. They're scum. Some more than others. But they know this, and they know they can't escape the kind of person they are. It's like someone complaining that Dutch in Red Dead Redemption never developed or changed after all those years. That he was still a killer.

 

They know who they are, and they don't bother trying to change that. All they want is money, to engage in chaos for some excitement, or to move up in the criminal-world.

Edited June 10, 2015 by cp1dell

[zuckmeslow]

 

its a mess of childish humor and characters that have no depth.

 

Well that's just not true, doc.

 

But lets talk about the lack of character development.

 

Yeah, Michael, Trevor, and Franklin never evolve much from the people they are in the beginning of the game. I still remember when that gameplay trailer for GTA V came out, the lady narrating it at some point says: "But don't forget, these men are dangerous criminals" or something along those lines, before the video presented something else. I'm not exactly sure, but that line hit me a certain way. It was odd hearing the protagonists described as dangerous crooks, instead of - well, being referred to as the main cast as usual.

 

Michael, Trevor, and Franklin are bad people. They're scum. Some more than others. But they know this, and they know they can't escape the kind of person they are. It's like someone complaining that Dutch in Red Dead Redemption never developed or changed after all those years. That he was still a killer.

 

They know who they are, and they don't bother trying to change that. All they want is money, to engage in chaos for some excitement, or to move up in the criminal-world.

Im not talking about michael, franklin and trevor. Im talking about every other character

 

there was a new character introduced after every mission, but no depth was added to that character.

i felt nothing for simeon, he was in 2 missions thats it

who the hell was tanisha. wtf was the point of having her in the campaign if she shows up for 2 cutscenes and just drops off the face of the world.

i didnt even know who agent sanchez was until i replayed the game.

 

and what the hell was up with this madrazo guy, hes built up as the main antagonist and then becomes a flaccid background character that causes no more trouble for the protagonists.

 

the side character where criminally underused. ron would have been one of the most fun characters to do missions for. ron is a paranoid conspiracy theorist who has his own freaking radio show and you mean to tell me he doesnt give out a single mission. wasted potential. he could have sent one of the protags to go look for ghosts or aliens, go explore fort zancudo or the abandoned hotel at sandy shores. he could have given out fun missions but instead, we have to walk around the map looking for spaceship parts for this hippie guy if we wanted get a space ship buggy. really? what is this legend of zelda. why do i have to walk around getting parts. i thought this was grand theft auto, the revolutionary game series..

 

And by the way, the 3 antagonists are poorly written and barely have developement. Stretch, devin and wai cheng or whatever his name is are terrible and are a complete let down from previous gta antagonists.

 

Edited June 10, 2015 by zuckmeslow

[Raavi]

Vegas really isn't all that great of a place for a main city for a game the likes of GTA. Aside from the Strip, there really isn't a lot that stands out. So in-game it would have to be dense and would have to rely VERY heavily on enterable buildings, quite literally would need to make most buildings enterable and multiple-tiered to have that be interesting. Now don't get me wrong, I'd personally love a GTA world that wasn't just mostly comprised of facades, however Vegas being really only the Strip and surroundings that would interesting from a game-world design POV, wouldn't be the place for it.

[A.O.D.88]

The whole "pursuit of the almighty dollar" is nothing but a bad joke in regard to the so called central theme of V when we can't even buy luxury homes after we become millionaires after the story.

 

Plus Michael and especially Trevor did the big score on UD more for the pure action and making history by hitting the supposedly impossible to hit Union Depository than for the actual "pursuit of the dollar"

 

Man Rockstar ain't what they used to be! Onlinestar is more appropriate.

[Osho]

People being STILL defensive is absolutely hilarious. I agree wholeheartedly with OP.

[universetwisters]

GTA V should have taken place in Falls Church, Virginia. But hey, you know the song.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EM_p1Az05Jo

[Son of Zeus]

Hmm it would've been good to see Area 69 and all spooky things return IMO.

 

But when it comes to conspiracies, nobody can beat The Truth.

 

But if GTA V would've been in Las Venturas, people would've bitched and moaned about how there's no mountain to do stunts and how there are no forests.

 

"Why u do dis Cockstar!"...."The map sucks!!" and so on.

Edited June 10, 2015 by Son of Zeus

[Mintal]

Vegas really isn't all that great of a place for a main city for a game the likes of GTA. Aside from the Strip, there really isn't a lot that stands out. So in-game it would have to be dense and would have to rely VERY heavily on enterable buildings, quite literally would need to make most buildings enterable and multiple-tiered to have that be interesting. Now don't get me wrong, I'd personally love a GTA world that wasn't just mostly comprised of facades, however Vegas being really only the Strip and surroundings that would interesting from a game-world design POV, wouldn't be the place for it.

 

This.

 

Of course I would like to go back to Las Venturas, but there should at least be another city aside from it (San Fierro), respectively the rest of San Andreas (maybe except Los Santos and Blaine County). I think I'd get an epileptic shock if I always have to travel through a shiny, colourful city for the whole time of the game, and the countryside JUST being a huge desert would be boring IMO.

 

Pursuit of the allmighty dollar fits to Los Santos, in Venturas it would be kinda stale in my opinion.

Edited June 10, 2015 by Mintal

[Shadowfennekin]

I don't think Las Venturas could carry a game all by itself.

 

I think the location is perfect as is. I would like a HD Venturas though

[PhillBellic]

Personally, they should have set V in Vice City and it's surrounding regions, and save the combined LS, SF, LV, and interconnecting countryside for VI.

[lolznc]

I have no problem with V being just in LS. I'd rather have 1 good city (which LS is, that cannot be denied, but not as good as LC) than a repeat of SA, with 3 far too small cities. And of all of SA's cities, I find LV really boring. Just like I find the real Las Vegas really boring. Sure, a HD version of the strip would be nice, but really LV (real and game) is just a bunch of casinos in a desert. I would rather have San Fierro. At least the surrounding countryside is more exciting than that around Venturas.

 

Plus, I still don't see why people are still complaining about R*'s choice. I like Los Santos. Sure, the marketing team messed up the description a bit but we have a good city. And I like the fact that we don't see all of the HD San Andreas. Anyway, Vegas isn't in California so Las Venturas shouldn't be in San Andreas state. I'm hoping for either VC or SF in VI, and I'm perectly happy with LS being in V. I like the one city + countryside idea, as long as there are plenty of small-ish towns in the next game as well I'm happy.

[The Dedito Gae]

You hate me? You hate me because i have different opinions from you. Very nice attitude. I feel sorry for the people who actually wrong you in this life if you hate me.

i "kinda" hate you, that's because no one likes a whiner.

 

Vegas really isn't all that great of a place for a main city for a game the likes of GTA....

what?

there was a time from the 70's to 80's that the mobsters ruled the city from the inside, that would be really interesting to see in gta.

Edited June 10, 2015 by Midnight Hitman