Why rockstar didn't make gta 1 reboot

[mustafa the king 0]

I see gta 1 reboot is good idea for new universe like 2d universe or 3d universe or gta 1 characters be in 3d or HD universe 👍👍

[Helegad 688]

They did, and it was called GTA III and GTA IV.

[RetroMystic 366]

As Helegad said GTA III and GTA IV are reboots, but I'd go a step further and say pretty much every GTA that comes after 2 is a reboot.

[Sektor 87]

GTA1 has Liberty City, Vice City and San Andreas and there have already been newer games featuring those cities. London and Anywhere City haven't made it into a newer GTA game yet, so one can hope.

Edited June 18 by Sektor

[Helegad 688]

Rockstar's re-use of GTA 2 assets and the pill icon is quite interesting though, because it's for no obvious reason. Having said that, the wacky GTA Online sh*t like flying cars and orbital cannons wouldn't look so out of place in a game that features lines of Elvis impersonators, an electrical-arcing gun, and somebody who is completely f*cked in the head and living in an asylum for a boss. The implications of continuity in canon here are fun to think about.

Edited June 18 by Helegad

[Am Shaegar 1,085]

4 hours ago, Sektor said:

London and Anywhere City haven't made it into a newer GTA game yet, so one can hope.

But why has no one converted GTA 2 to a new engine with new improvements ? I always wondered why do the modders ignore GTA 2 among all the total conversations taking place. Is it not possible? I want to play GTA 2 with HD graphics and RAGE engine.

[∴ 8,178]

I suppose R* prioritised moving forwards rather than revisiting old classics in this case. Except for the already 3D remasters we've received, I don't think they're too fond of looking backwards. Modders on the other hand obviously have free reign over what projects they choose to undertake but if there's no real demand for it, I don't think they'd bother unless it was more of a pet project.