Re-using LS and LC for GTA VI

[Jabalous]

nah, I'd not like maps to be reused with the same layout and design. But hey, it's better not go back to LC or LS anytime soon. There are many other interesting places to reimagine and explore, right? And I also don't buy into this 'all cities in a single map' because it'd be too big for no reason, at least story wise.

Edited August 23, 2019 by Jabalous

[B_E_N_1992]

On 8/23/2019 at 11:06 PM, Jabalous said:

nah, I'd not like maps to be reused with the same layout and design. But hey, it's better not go back to LC or LS anytime soon. There are many other interesting places to reimagine and explore, right? And I also don't buy into this 'all cities in a single map' because it'd be too big for no reason, at least story wise.

All cities in a single map..

 

Just like in RDR2, the original RDR map wasn’t used for the singleplayer story apart from near the end.

 

Online used it though.

 

So you could have “All cities in one map”, but the single player would focus in VC and LC. 

 

Online would branch out to the other cities, providing a decade of online content (or 45 years to the Benzes, hehe joke).

 

 

[Kris194]

Why would they re-use LC and LS in GTA VI? It doesn't make sense. Not to mention, that LC never seemed to be considered for GTA VI, only maybe as a DLC for GTA V/GTA Online. Rockstar is not Activision, that re-used even motion capture for in-game cutscene Do not forget, that this game overall is in development since at least 5 years. It makes even less sense once you will recall what Dan Houser said last year

 

Quote

Dan Houser is "thankful" he’s not releasing Grand Theft Auto 6 in the age of Trump. “It’s really unclear what we would even do with it, let alone how upset people would get with whatever we did,” says the co-founder of Rockstar Games. "Both intense liberal progression and intense conservatism are both very militant, and very angry. It is scary but it’s also strange, and yet both of them seem occasionally to veer towards the absurd. It’s hard to satirise for those reasons. Some of the stuff you see is straightforwardly beyond satire. It would be out of date within two minutes, everything is changing so fast."

And it makes even less sense if it takes action in 80s in Vice City. GTA VI won't be any prequel to GTA IV/GTA VI like RDR 2 is to RDR and that's why they "re-used" map from RDR in RDR 2 because it really makes sense story wise. I would rather believe in "Project Americas" rumor than this. It might seem too good to be true and simply crazy but hey, it's Rockstar, you never know with them, especially if RDR 2 was their last big game for this generation of consoles. GTA Online is still cash cow so they can have a lot of time for everything they want to do and what PS5/Scarlett will be able to handle and set the crossbar for like another 10 years or so. GTA V was very ambitious game, RDR 2 is even more ambitious. We can just imagine how ambitious will be GTA VI, I would say expect unexpected, that's what we should learn over all these years. Anyone expected RDR 2 map to be that big, let's say back in 2015 or Rockstar to spent 5 years on VO and motion capture? Nope. Overall, over 3000 employees worked on this fantastic game and we can expect even more to work on GTA VI.

Edited August 27, 2019 by Kris194

[Jabalous]

37 minutes ago, B_E_N_1992 said:

All cities in a single map..

 

Just like in RDR2, the original RDR map wasn’t used for the singleplayer story apart from near the end.

 

Online used it though.

 

So you could have “All cities in one map”, but the single player would focus in VC and LC. 

 

Online would branch out to the other cities, providing a decade of online content (or 45 years to the Benzes, hehe joke).

 

 

Well, you said it, the old map was used to tell a lengthy story in the Epilogue chapters. It works and makes sense to be included in the game for this reason alone. This in no way can be compared to the effort that will be gone into rebuilding and repurposing LC and LS to only serve as background maps without a story context. I agree that one day we might see R* expanding maps, but that'd work for Online, and even in that frame, there are challenges on how it's going to work. One challenge is how these maps will be connected in a believable way. Do players buy a ticket a fly there? Do you move to a different session/lobby when you travel to another map? This could divide the player base and isolate them from on-the-fly interaction with each other. And before it is mentioned, I do not think they will be connected by land as this will literally force R* to nearly re-imagine the whole of USA so that the travel distances and barriers between cities look natural and believable, or at least this is how R* always likes to do it . We could be looking into a map size that is beyond playable with travel distances that will isolate players. There are specific themes, certain atmosphere and look for every R*'s title, so combining all these vastly different cities together could invalidate that particular purpose.