What Makes a Good GTA Location?

[killdrivetheftvehicle]

What charasteristics does a good gta location have?

 

Consider the following

 

Physical:

• Size
• Surrounding cities
• Terrain

Weather:

• Humidity
• Severity of Storms
• Temperature

People:

• Population
• Traffic
• Criminal activity
• Police activity
• Culture diversity
• Language

Economy:

• Amount fo Foreign Direct Investment
• Amount of Business HQ's
• Technology
• Media Power

 

This is a thread that focuses on the characteristics of gta locations, and enables us to see, if some other locations that gta has not previously featured could become gta locations.

 

You don't have to include every listed charasteristic in your answer, and you are not limited to the charasteristics above.

Edited February 22, 2017 by killdrivetheftvehicle

[burger_mike]

Is this type of post fine?

 

Detail, ambient sounds (mainly white noise) that make it feel like a real alive city, GTA4 especially, GTAV wasn't that advanced in the sound design but it was ok.

[killdrivetheftvehicle]

type of post is okay, however I'm thinking about location, that meaning actual city that the gta counterpart is based on.

[DOUGL4S1]

For me it's the ambientation, in Vice City for example, the bright colors and visual effects gave the impression that you're in a warm tropical place just like Miami Liberty City feels like a cold place like NYC, while San Andreas' San Andreas made this very well, it was pretty clear that you left a hot dry desert and was now in a foggy and umid forest. For the map itself, it is if it can replicate most aspects of the city you're in. Vice City has tons of flashy hotels and big mansions, either from Cartel bosses or actors or whatever, while on the other side of the island, businessmen would be together with poor people and gangs. In Liberty City you almost felt suphocated from all those high skyscrapers in Algonquin full of flashy neon lights, reflective glass and tourists while it was sad walking around a poor and delapidated Bohan. in V it was pretty sad walking around Davis after a long walk on Vinewood Hills, and then you see Blane County, it just feels organic.

Edited February 23, 2017 by DOUGL4S1

[The BHD]

I'd say a place that was common in the pop culture of the decade the game takes place in, and a big size.
GTA 3 was excellent but you soon felt like you were going from one spot to the other too quickly. The third unlockable part of the city was too small and didn't feel much like a reward for playing the game.

Vice City was also pretty small but since it was in the 80's, a Miami-like city was obviously the best choice. I also think they made the right choice making the beach the first part and downtown the unlockable one.

I think San Andreas (from GTA San Andreas, I haven't played V) was the perfect one because it was so huge and because LA and Las Vegas were very relevant to the 90's setting.

I don't think an 80's San Francisco would make so much sense for example, it would be hard to pull off. But a 70's San Francisco would be more fitting.

 

The size is probably what's more important to make sure you don't get bored of the map and that the game has replay value. The choice of the location is important depending on the time setting.

About the weather I think it also depends on the time the game is set in. A 70's setting could have a more orange atmosphere and an 80's one could have a more pink atmosphere. About the storms I think they are important to get them right if the game has a rural setting. They didn't look good in GTA San Andreas but I watched some videos of the storms in GTA V as seen from the highways and I think they did an incredible job, they look amazing (actually now I'm not sure if they were the default ones or a mod).

Edited February 23, 2017 by SonicTheSexhog

[BrownBear]

The most important thing is recognition and relevance. GTA has to be set in a large city, which everyone knows and has a preconceived idea about, NY and LA are perfect examples. It needs to be a city which has a wealth of popular culture to reference and draw from. It also has to be relevant to the time period and current trends, which is why I would argue that Chicago would be a good choice due to it's presence in modern culture, particularly hip hop.

 

Uniqueness, visual appeal and atmosphere are all also important factors. It needs to be an interesting looking city, with recognisable architecture. When people think of San Francisco they think of hills, colourful houses and the Golden Gate bridge; LA people think of urban sprawl, palm trees and bungalow suburbs; NY towering skyscrapers, brown stone houses and high rise projects. When you drive around it needs to feel like you might've been there before in films and music videos. If it doesn't have a distinctive visual appeal, then it wouldn't be interesting to explore.

 

It also needs to be a city with a strong atmosphere and culture. It has to be a vibrant, diverse and troubled city. It has to be a city which can address all aspects of what life in a major city can be like. It needs a recognisable crime presence; everyone knows about street gangs in LA and mafia in NY, it needs to have this familiarity, which is why I think a city like San Francisco isn't ideal, as people don't associate it with crime.

Edited February 24, 2017 by BrownBear

[LincolnClay]

The most important thing is that you feel that you are there, and not just in a simulation of it.

 

I don't want to visit LA or NY because I feel like I've already been there.

[Osho]

I think the characters ( from npc's to the cast of the story ) are most important, along with the content and the amount of interaction and features available in the game. These are the oxygen of any GTA that the players need to keep their interest going in the open world.

 

Balance should be a strong focus here, giving proper time and attention to develop all these important parts of the game. You have a good GTA location when you have everything put together rightly. If developers only focus more on one thing ( story ) and less on the other(s), then the end result would be dull, unbalanced, uninteresting, and unsatisfactory GTA location like the Liberty city from GTA IV that is designed to cater for specific purpose, and not designed that provide satisfaction of an experience or a desire, when the potential for gameplay and content taken together that make them work more effectively as a location or worlds in the way 3D era brilliantly did.

[.Ryan.]

I think ambient sounds are an extremely important part. Whenever I free roam Liberty City (GTA IV) it feels like I'm in a real city with the sound of subway trains clattering against the rails, vendors trying to sell their products, car alarms etc. It's the most atmospheric city in the series because of how well ambience is created.

 

Of course layout, ped/traffic density etc play a role too, but ambience IMO is the biggest difference between a nailing bustling metropolis or having a ghost town at your hands.

[ViceBoy69]

I think GTAIV has it just right, sounds of the city, the peds moving around, the way the cars drive past you, the city feels alive.

GTA5 in some respects got it right, when you walk around at night and can hear the moan of the cars on the freeway and again the peds talking as they move past you, the cars spoil 5 for me they seem out of place at times.

After all this time ViceCity still has its own ambience, someone in another post said it was too quiet up by the golfclub at night, me personally love the atmosphere there, i always feel slightly edgy when i go there, ive played the game for years but i still feel like im being watched up there and some thing is going to jump out at me, its never happened yet.

I remember one time i was walking by the golfclub at night and one of the golfcarts with the old ladies in it appeared from nowhere, it gave me quite a start, i was like who plays golf at night lol.

[LincolnClay]

Another important thing is the sound, like my man MiamiViceCity just said. Even the things the pedestrians say to you randomly when you pass them. Makes the city feel alive, and not just full of aimless AI who are there as extras.

[TheOneLibertonian]

I think that a living, breathing world makes up for a good GTA location. The interaction with NPC's, the culture, the ambiance, the amount of detail, etc. One of the reasons why IV's rendition of Liberty City is felt more alive, and real than the other cities in the GTA universe. The 3D era had fun locations, but they are not as lively or as detailed as the cities in the HD era. The HD era provide a balance of making each city feel like the real thing, while making it fun, and viable worlds to explore in, while the 3D era cities are brilliant playgrounds to mess around with, but they don't really feel real, and alive in comparison to both Los Santos (V), and especially Liberty City (IV). Vice City was a brilliant location, especially due to the relevance of its time period. And the various inspirations from Scarface, and Miami Vice provide insight, and homage to the neon lighted, palm tree'd, pastel coloured world of Vice City. It is the best city in the 3D era, but I think that it did lack the many aspects of the HD era.

 

Liberty City (IV) in particular is a great GTA location because of how lively, and dynamic the world is. Each district, and boroughs have each distinct character within them. Hove Beach for example is a bustling area with Eastern European culture, while Beechwood City has a great number of Rastafarian culture. Also the way the NPC's interact with the player, and vice versa. A example is giving tramps, and beggars money, it's a small tiny detail, but it makes the city not just a a big, dull map with random people, but adds up to provide a more immersive experience.

 

Ambiance also make a city/town really helps to make a good GTA location. The ambiance in Liberty City (IV) is really good because of the game's representation of a replicated, condensed version of New York City with the charm, and self aware humor of the GTA series. The sounds of the city with sirens, and horns blaring, people reacting to the weather, random vehicular accidents, gang wars, the lighting that highlights various moods, the expansive public transport system, and more. Liberty City feels like a crowded, and large city that could believably can exist in the real world.

 

In hindsight, a world full of life, and atmosphere that compliments the city is what makes a good GTA location. However you need the right ingredients, but you need the recipe to properly work in order to make a detailed, and bustling world.

 

 

This picture shows Star Junction as a bustling,and crowded area in Liberty City. Also the rain, and the lights compliment the atmosphere,and ambiance.

 

 

Middle Park during the afternoon is perfectly described in this picture. A place of green, a place of recreation, and a place of distinction. Shows the city in a different mood.

 

 

The picture depicts interaction with NPC's. It shows Niko giving a beggar money late in the night. Look closely to the trash bins, you can see flies flying around it, and in-game you can hear them buzzing. Traffic at night is not as many as in the day. Proving that the world is very dynamic.

 

 

NPC's interacting with other NPC's. The picture shows that a hoodlum is getting arrested by a Police Officer at Outlook Park. The picture proves that the game can be dynamic too without the player's input.

Edited February 24, 2017 by TheOneLibertonian

[DOUGL4S1]

 

NPC's interacting with other NPC's. The picture shows that a hoodlum is getting arrested by a Police Officer at Outlook Park. The picture proves that the game can be dynamic too without the player's input.

I think this is from one of Brucie's exotic imports.

[TheOneLibertonian]

 

 

NPC's interacting with other NPC's. The picture shows that a hoodlum is getting arrested by a Police Officer at Outlook Park. The picture proves that the game can be dynamic too without the player's input.

I think this is from one of Brucie's exotic imports.

 

It is, you can see the NRG 900, and the blip on the map during the mission. Even if it is scripted during the side mission, in which it does obviously, you can still find other NPC's getting arrested, and chased by the police randomly around Liberty City, which makes the world more dynamic, and proves my point of Liberty City is a prime example of what makes a good GTA location.

 

Also you can see drivers getting pulled over by cops at various parts of the map, mostly seen at East Borough Bridge on the road to Algonquin.

Edited March 1, 2017 by TheOneLibertonian

[DOUGL4S1]

 

 

-Image-

 

NPC's interacting with other NPC's. The picture shows that a hoodlum is getting arrested by a Police Officer at Outlook Park. The picture proves that the game can be dynamic too without the player's input.

I think this is from one of Brucie's exotic imports.

 

It is, you can see the NRG 900, and the blip on the map during the mission. Even if it is scripted during the side mission, in which it does obviously, you can still find other NPC's getting arrested, and chased by the police randomly around Liberty City, which makes the world more dynamic, and proves my point of Liberty City is a prime example of what makes a good GTA location.

 

Also you can see drivers getting pulled over by cops at various parts of the map, mostly seen at East Borough Bridge on the road to Algonquin.

 

At first I tought you had the Simple Native Trainer installed and that was a saved bike, but then it hit me.

[Osho]

Crimes.

Its been over 12 years now and one thing I wanted to experience was a more dangerous, violent and seriously crime-ridden cities ( or locations ) within a GTA universe.

Insread of that, a GTA that feels safe to walk around and enjoys a much lower crime rate policy seems to be adopted in HD GTA's, focusing on bowling and minigames nonsense, rather than providing a wider variety of crimes.

GTA 2 was amazing in this regard, that made me a lot more hopeful for seeing a more improved and better version with better hardware and technology in future.

Despite featuring many gangs in Liberty city, they don't completely integrated them with the gameplay, and just used as mere criminals for showpiece to make their presence count, but not really felt in any meaningful way.

Rockstar should stop making daily life simulators featuring pointless minigames and friendship activities to enjoy, and start focusing more on making every street count in providing many variety of crimes and criminals. That's what GTA is all about, and not about stupid bowling.

[.Ryan.]

 

 

 

NPC's interacting with other NPC's. The picture shows that a hoodlum is getting arrested by a Police Officer at Outlook Park. The picture proves that the game can be dynamic too without the player's input.

 

I think this is from one of Brucie's exotic imports.

 

It is, you can see the NRG 900, and the blip on the map during the mission. Even if it is scripted during the side mission, in which it does obviously, you can still find other NPC's getting arrested, and chased by the police randomly around Liberty City, which makes the world more dynamic, and proves my point of Liberty City is a prime example of what makes a good GTA location.

 

Also you can see drivers getting pulled over by cops at various parts of the map, mostly seen at East Borough Bridge on the road to Algonquin.

It's a common sight around Bohan. I also like when they get arrested they're actually placed into the back of cop car.

 

In other GTA games the police A.I isn't smart enough to perform a similar task so they usually just use unnecessary force (like killing) against NPCs.

 

Glad GTA IV took a step in the right direction. Too bad GTA V's police A.I went backwards where every NPC must be killed for the smallest thing. Kind of like the peds calling the cops for standing near them.

 

So I guess another thing that makes for a good location is realistic and believable police and ped A.I.

[Jimmy]

I believe that the first and foremost thing to a good GTA Location involves a location that hasn't been over-used in the past few years.

[slimeball supreme]

Crimes.

 

It's been over 12 years now and one thing I wanted to experience was a more dangerous, violent and seriously crime-ridden cities (or locations) within a GTA universe.

Insread of that, a GTA that feels safe to walk around and enjoys a much lower crime rate policy seems to be adopted in HD GTA's, focusing on bowling and minigames nonsense, rather than providing a wider variety of crimes.

GTA 2 was amazing in this regard, that made me a lot more hopeful for seeing a more improved and better version with better hardware and technology in future.

Despite featuring many gangs in Liberty city, they don't completely integrated them with the gameplay, and just used as mere criminals for showpiece to make their presence count, but not really felt in any meaningful way.

Rockstar should stop making daily life simulators featuring pointless minigames and friendship activities to enjoy, and start focusing more on making every street count in providing many variety of crimes and criminals. That's what GTA is all about, and not about stupid bowling.

 

 

not every city and every part of a city is crime ridden and filled with gangs

 

why would gang members just start sh*t in the street for no reason? why would gangbangers or mobsters war with rival gang members in the middle of populated streets, especially in cities with relatively low crime rates in the canon (a la liberty city or los santos)? why would there be constant robberies and crime in a realistic setting?

 

you could maybe make a case for this in parts of these games (parts like south LS or the more crime ridden parts of alderney for example) but really the threatening presence of gang members and the occasional foot/car chase through the streets always just felt better. and even then, in gta iv and sometimes in v, standing around in gang territory will get you hassled by gang members, pushing you around and insulting you (and this eventually boiling into a fight)

 

watch dogs 2 had gang fights in the middle of the city, huge sprawling explosions and such. imo it got out of hand after a while and didnt really make sense, especially when three gangs just started fighting in the middle of downtown san francisco. it may just be me, but ive always found more substance and art in making immersive locations with all sorts of different things happening, without constant gunfire in the background. even if you disagree, there are plenty of other games in and out of the genre that do this and will continue to do this, so there's that.

 

also, gta isnt 'about' one thing. whatever it's 'about', it's not havoc in the streets. but thats just me

Edited March 2, 2017 by Mr. Fartenhate

[Osho]

not every city and every part of a city is crime ridden and filled with gangs 02 why would gang members just start sh*t in the street for no reason?

You need to first and foremost read carefully before shoehorning your own interpretation and mislead other readers in the wrong direction.

Nowhere I said - "every city and every part of a city is crime ridden and filled with gangs"

But they are also not meant to be used as "mere criminals for showpiece to make their presence count", but should be used in a more "serious", and "meaningful way". Since 1999, we're watching them doing nothing other than firing shots at the player, which makes them no different than cops who are also doing nothing new in all these years, other than chasing us and showing their agression every time a star flashes on the screen.

 

Rockstar is selling very narrow definitions and ideas of crime and criminals ( outside the story ) in HD GTA's - rehashing the same thing over and over again.

And its not even realistic in the manner Rockstar seems to approach them that you are defending the crappy and bland take of GTA IV on crimes, having several types of mafia and various other gangs in the game, for what?

 

Niko will work for the cops as a vigilante. He can steal cars and sell them to Steve. He will become a delivery boy for Little Jacob. He can pass time playing QUB3D. He can kill pigeons as a hired gunman but Rockstar can't make him to think about running his own crime empire and start taking over other businesses ( like Dimitri does and grew powerful based on what the game reports about him ) which should come naturally as you gain more experience and grow in power as you climb up the criminal ladder, and esp, after becoming so powerful that you single handedly wipe out majority of the criminals in the story.

 

Rockstar chose to make a living, breathing, beautifully detailed replica of New York city as a backdrop for telling a story about a character trying to make the right decisions and yet ends up going back from where he started after completing the story, and spending 30 hours in the game.

They completely wasted the potential of running your own criminal empire by reimagining the Liberty city, instead of making a GTA III clone.

Even GTA III seems more realistic in the way gangs react to Claude after you betray them in the story, making those locations dangerous for Claude.

The modern LC feels a lot safer and crime free place in comparison, despite having so many gangs in the game. You don't even get the impression that Dimitri's power exists somewhere in the city despite being told to become powerful in the game. Its all in the cutscenes, the locations themselves lack danger and risks when it comes to crimes.

Not everything needs to match with the realism of its counterpart. New York may not be as dangerous as I wish Liberty city was, but that's what video game is all about. The developers can use the real life settings and location in many ways for a fictional crime game, rather than focusing more on making GTA a realistic take of the world.

This is why I like Saints Row 1 and 2 because they allow us to live in the fantasy world of criminals much better way than what Rickstar is still struggling to offer.

 

gta isnt 'about' one thing. whatever it's 'about', it's not havoc in the streets. but thats just me

Yeah right, that's why 3D GTA's miserably flopped and has no contribution in making what GTA is all about today, because whatever it's 'about', it was certainly not causing havoc in the streets and mayhem in the world.

[.Ryan.]

Even GTA III seems more realistic in the way gangs react to Claude after you betray them in the story, making those locations dangerous for Claude.

 

No it's not at all. How is it "realistic" if Claude's driving through St Marks (for example) and random members of the Leones start unloading for no reason despite having no idea who they're shooting at? Do these guys have a sixth sense or something?

 

Even just walking around the thought that every single member of the gang would know who Claude is absurd so they become immediately hostile.

 

I understand opposing gangs being more hostile towards Tommy and CJ due to their status where it's more likely even just foot soldiers would know who they are, but Claude's just a hired gun without any power to speak of where rival gangs would attack him on site.

 

The GTA IV gangs still react to Niko if he does something to provoke them, but they're not kamikaze nut jobs like the gangs in GTA III and you think that seems "more realistic" lol.

[LincolnClay]

 

Even GTA III seems more realistic in the way gangs react to Claude after you betray them in the story, making those locations dangerous for Claude.

 

No it's not at all. How is it "realistic" if Claude's driving through St Marks (for example) and random members of the Leones start unloading for no reason despite having no idea who they're shooting at? Do these guys have a sixth sense or something?

Even just walking around the thought that every single member of the gang would know who Claude is absurd so they become immediately hostile.

I understand opposing gangs being more hostile towards Tommy and CJ due to their status where it's more likely even just foot soldiers would know who they are, but Claude's just a hired gun without any power to speak of where rival gangs would attack him on site.

The GTA IV gangs still react to Niko if he does something to provoke them, but they're not kamikaze nut jobs like the gangs in GTA III and you think that seems "more realistic" lol.

One other thing I think makes a good location is that you don't feel like EVERYONE in the city is out to get you. I don't wanna walk only one block from my Safehouse and be randomly attacked by some gangsters. Yeah, I might screwed them over earlier in the the story, but they don't ALL know who I am, do they? The leader and his right hand men might, but the majority of the gang and the other associates won't recognise me unless I've encountered them earlier and they survived.

 

Edit: I do get your point, Osho, but I just don't like the idea of having an area being "locked" down and entering such area results in an attack. It's pretty annoying and repetitive tbh.

Edited March 2, 2017 by LincolnClay

[slimeball supreme]

your post is a mess so im just gonna answer you like this

 

 

 

not every city and every part of a city is crime ridden and filled with gangs 02 why would gang members just start sh*t in the street for no reason?

You need to first and foremost read carefully before shoehorning your own interpretation and mislead other readers in the wrong direction. It was kind of difficult to understand what you meant anyway, you kinda switched between a lot of different points.

Nowhere I said - "every city and every part of a city is crime ridden and filled with gangs" "[...] and start focusing more on making every street count in providing many variety of crimes and criminals. That's what GTA is all about, and not about stupid bowling."

But they are also not meant to be used as "mere criminals for showpiece to make their presence count", but should be used in a more "serious", and "meaningful way". Since 1999, we're watching them doing nothing other than firing shots at the player, which makes them no different than cops who are also doing nothing new in all these years, other than chasing us and showing their agression every time a star flashes on the screen. Again, I just told you they didn't and don't just do that. Maybe you should read my post?

 

Rockstar is selling very narrow definitions and ideas of crime and criminals ( outside the story ) in HD GTA's - rehashing the same thing over and over again.

And its not even realistic in the manner Rockstar seems to approach them that you are defending the crappy and bland take of GTA IV on crimes, having several types of mafia and various other gangs in the game, for what? But is that a bad thing? Why shouldn't there be a lot of gangs? Just because they don't murder indiscriminately doesn't mean they don't flesh out the world.

 

Niko will work for the cops as a vigilante. He can steal cars and sell them to Steve. He will become a delivery boy for Little Jacob. He can pass time playing QUB3D. He can kill pigeons as a hired gunman but Rockstar can't make him to think about running his own crime empire and start taking over other businesses ( like Dimitri does and grew powerful based on what the game reports about him ) which should come naturally as you gain more experience and grow in power as you climb up the criminal ladder, and esp, after becoming so powerful that you single handedly wipe out majority of the criminals in the story. But that's not what the story or character is about. Niko is a broken, struggling man from another world, seeing the craziness of a culture he doesn't understand from his own eyes. Why would Niko start a huge criminal organization like this? It makes no sense for the story or the character, and IV already toys with the bounds of ludo-narrative dissonance anyway.

 

Rockstar chose to make a living, breathing, beautifully detailed replica of New York city as a backdrop for telling a story about a character trying to make the right decisions and yet ends up going back from where he started after completing the story, and spending 30 hours in the game. I'm honestly not sure what you meant by this, but if you're trying to say that the story just takes him in a loop - well - that was kind of the moral and point of the story. Niko's struggle for the American Dream is a fruitless one, and crime in it's own sense only hurt him rather then help him. It's a grim redefinition of the premise and a beautiful deconstruction of what makes a GTA a GTA, particularly the old ones.

They completely wasted the potential of running your own criminal empire by reimagining the Liberty city, instead of making a GTA III clone. It's not a III clone. That's actually just a really dumb way of putting it.

Even GTA III seems more realistic in the way gangs react to Claude after you betray them in the story, making those locations dangerous for Claude. MVC already rebutted this point way better than I could've, so no comment here.

The modern LC feels a lot safer and crime free place in comparison, despite having so many gangs in the game. Kinda like real life? You don't even get the impression that Dimitri's power exists somewhere in the city despite being told to become powerful in the game. Its all in the cutscenes, the locations themselves lack danger and risks when it comes to crimes.

Not everything needs to match with the realism of its counterpart. But that's what they were going for. Are they not allowed to tackle a place like this with a realistic setting? New York may not be as dangerous as I wish Liberty city was, but that's what video game is all about. No it isn't. Video games (as a monolithic concept) aren't about one thing. The developers can use the real life settings and location in many ways for a fictional crime game, rather than focusing more on making GTA a realistic take of the world. But again, Niko's story made the realism aspect more feasible, and you can't really take it seriously if there's action on every street block.

This is why I like Saints Row 1 and 2 because they allow us to live in the fantasy world of criminals much better way than what Rickstar is still struggling to offer. Rickstar isn't and wasn't trying to make a crime fantasy with IV, and if you're looking for a fantasy you probably aren't playing the right game.

 

 

gta isnt 'about' one thing. whatever it's 'about', it's not havoc in the streets. but thats just me

Yeah right, that's why 3D GTA's miserably flopped and has no contribution in making what GTA is all about today, because whatever it's 'about', it was certainly not causing havoc in the streets and mayhem in the world.

No. One of the main points of the 3D GTA's was it's freedom. Not the freedom to kill and maim (which is hardly freedom anyway), but to do whatever you want. With San Andreas, your favorite GTA judging from your posts, you can do so many things. Race cars, race boats, take part in triathlons, bet and gamble, trick out cars, trick out yourself, and so much more. It wasn't just marketed on this murder frenzy, it was demonstrated by the lush landscapes and concrete jungles, the relatively detailed and beautiful work on the cities and their surroundings. Rockstar put love and effort into the game's world, into where you could go and what you could do. But do you want to degrade all this freedom and world building with the idea that it's just a backdrop for mayhem?

 

i really try/tried to be respectful but you make it really hard to do so

Edited March 2, 2017 by Mr. Fartenhate

[Osho]

I just don't like the idea of having an area being "locked" down and entering such area results in an attack.

Firstly, the gangs become hostile after you kill their leaders, or betray them after certain missions. Some people are just indulging in misleading others to defend IV by spreading wrong information about 3D GTA's. Don't fall into their bait.

 

Secondly, the game gives you a bulletproof Patriot in the mission Marked Man precisely for this reason.

Ray Machowski (via pager) -- Take care of my bulletproof Patriot... See you around in Miami.

This way R* gives you an hint when rewarding Claude for passing his missions.

You seem to be either unknown about this fact, or don't remember about this, just like many players didn't take Ray seriously to save the Patriot. There are other vehicles you can obtain in the game proofed with unique abilities that can help you as well. Take a look at metalmilitia89 profile who has compiled a complete list of special vehicles.

GTA III rewards you with good number of approaches and methods to overcome the dangers of entering into certain areas. Its realistic in concept, just not sophisticated in execution, which is why I think Rockstar lost a great potential in IV by focusing on pointless minigames.

 

E:typo

Edited March 2, 2017 by Osho

[LaBombaRomba]

-Iconic/memorable buildings

-Twisted or funny puns on location/building names (Metalife-Getalife)

-A part of it being a city. I simply can't imagine a GTA game being solely set in the coutryside/outback.

-Unique and varied enter-able buildings

-Easter eggs

-References

-Gangs

-The city area(s) itself needs to feel alive

-Peds that interact with you and other peds/little bits of detail that add to the immersion.

-Hidden vehicles

-Road rage

-Something the place itself is based is really iconic for, but a R* style twist/joke on it.

[LincolnClay]

 

I just don't like the idea of having an area being "locked" down and entering such area results in an attack.

Firstly, the gangs become hostile after you kill their leaders, or betray them after certain missions. Some people are just indulging in misleading others to defend IV by spreading wrong information about 3D GTA's. Don't fall into their bait.

Secondly, the game gives you a bulletproof Patriot in the mission Marked Man precisely for this reason.

Ray Machowski (via pager) -- Take care of my bulletproof Patriot... See you around in Miami.

This way R* gives you an hint when rewarding Claude for passing his missions.

You seem to be either unknown about this fact, or don't remember about this, just like many players didn't take Ray seriously to save the Patriot. There are other vehicles you can obtain in the game proofed with unique abilities that can help you as well. Take a look at metalmilitia89 profile who has compiled a complete list of special vehicles.

GTA III rewards you with good number of approaches and methods to overcome the dangers of entering into certain areas. Its realistic in concept, just not sophisticated in execution, which is why I think Rockstar lost a great potential in IV by focusing on pointless minigames.

E:typo

Actually, I had no idea why Ray gave me that Patriot, thanks for clearing that up. Just my opinion, I don't want to argue with anyone here over "what's the better GTA out of these two" because they're supposed to be different. Some people might not agree with me, that's fine, we all think differently about those things. Not everyone will like it. What I'm trying to say without saying anything negative is we all got our own opinions on something. And enforcing our opinions on others is not ok, to those who do that thing.

 

Getting that "little speech" out of the way, I think that replayability is big thing. I don't want to explore an empty countryside full of just grass and a few trees here and there. It gets boring after a while. I want to visit a location and be wowed by it every time, maybe not literally. I don't want to see everything there is to a map in one go. That's boring. And half is going to be unused anyway, so what's the point making 80% of the map just dirt and sand?

Edited March 2, 2017 by LincolnClay

[killdrivetheftvehicle]

I'm happy that you guys took the time an posted in my topic. However no-one seem to get the point of the thread. Which is LOCATION, it means the actual place that exists in real life, not the gta version of it.