How would Rockstar explain this?

[MrPhillips]

Hypothetically speaking, if Rockstar decides to add more cities on GTA VI map (Liberty City and Vice City) and connect them by land, how would they explain such a landmass appearing out of nowhere in HD universe? I saw many people arguing that next game will have these 2 cities connected, and their argument is that they already done it with RDR 2. But RDR 1 was already connected with land, they just extended it.

 

What do you think, should they connect the land and pretend nothing happened, or introduce 4k universe, and how would they explain the landmass appearing out of nowhere?

[Jabalous]

No, I believe that they will not have a map in which two or more land-connected cities are geographically very far apart. A multi-city map would most likely be focused on a certain geographical location similar to the 2004 San Andreas map, so think Fierro and Venturas, Vice and the Caribbean, or other similar examples. And let's hypothetically say there's an LC-VC map, what do you mean by explaining how the in-between landmass came from? What's there that needs to be explained? 

 

Red Dead is another franchise and therefore it has a different approach and philosophy in the map creation. 

Edited November 23, 2019 by Jabalous

[HOW'S ANNIE?]

Well, in part it hit me today. If the leak about VC and LC being in the one game is true, I can bet bottom dollar one of two things. Either (1) LC is online only. Be it a separate lobby or just a piece of the map that only loads online. Or (2) It's inclusion in the game is designed purely to be built opon in Online, as opposed to a massive part of the story (e.g. New Austin in RDR 2)

 

Either one of these options doesn't necessarily mean we will see a massive landmass connecting the two cities. Honestly it isn't overly different to the rumour that includes a South American country as a separate island.

[billiejoearmstrong8]

I don't think they'd ever have two cities from opposite ends of the country connected by land, you'd have to travel by air and skip the journey or something instead. I think it's highly unlikely that they'll even do more than one city.

 

But even if they did do that it wouldn't need explaining because it's fiction and they have artistic license to do it.

[MrPhillips]

42 minutes ago, billiejoearmstrong8 said:

it wouldn't need explaining because it's fiction

My thinking is that even the fiction needs to have some level of sense. 

[el carlitos]

If we would get a a new GTA Online, lets call it GTA 6 Online or GTA Online 2 and they would keep Los Santos and add both cities I guess that we wouldn't get an explanation  but the unofficial explanation would be that this is the map of new GTA universe... the 4k Universe and its not conected in any way to the HD universe. Everything else wouldn't be logic. And yes good fiction also needs logic. I guess this answers your question. Topic can be closed xD

Edited November 23, 2019 by el carlitos

[billiejoearmstrong8]

10 minutes ago, MrPhillips said:

My thinking is that even the fiction needs to have some level of sense. 

It does but it's a game that already depicts US cities/states as small islands surrounded by infinite ocean so some suspension of disbelief when it comes to geography is a precedent that's already been set.

[universetwisters]

The water is just the rest of america that's irrelevant to the plot and they didn't bother modelling. Problem solved.

Source - Some gameinformer interview about GTA 5 I think

[MojoGamer]

1 number, letter and word

4k Era!

Mind f*cked!

6 hours ago, MrPhillips said:

Hypothetically speaking, if Rockstar decides to add more cities on GTA VI map (Liberty City and Vice City) and connect them by land, how would they explain such a landmass appearing out of nowhere in HD universe? I saw many people arguing that next game will have these 2 cities connected, and their argument is that they already done it with RDR 2. But RDR 1 was already connected with land, they just extended it.

 

What do you think, should they connect the land and pretend nothing happened, or introduce 4k universe, and how would they explain the landmass appearing out of nowhere?

N Rdr was connected by Rivers, lol

Gta SA was connected by mid to long bridges, so i think Gta 6  will too

Edited November 23, 2019 by MojoGamer

[MrPhillips]

32 minutes ago, MojoGamer said:

Gta SA was connected by mid to long bridges, so i think Gta 6  will too

No, you don't understand. 

[MojoGamer]

2 hours ago, MrPhillips said:

No, you don't understand. 

No need to understand, when it is obvious on the map. 

The beta map to Rdr2 wasnt connected by land at all, it was divided and replaced with rivers later on.

Hell even Mexico is divided by a river in Rdr.

R* is more logical then Minecraft so they wont connect lands without something to divide them by.

As for AI traffic they are just bots who will just drive on over, unless theyare Rdr Cops who sh*t their pants seeing Rdr2 land

Edited November 23, 2019 by MojoGamer

[XXVIII]

The 4K Era, beaming with exultation language from the beholders’ frozen jaws... would have very much explaining to do. However, even after a physical stretch of 70-90 years, the global expedition would still chamber many secrets, albeit having found so many roads that have been and will be written by custom art; custom characters that have/will be under center as Google Maps’ lens throws a look their way. 
 

The 4K Era could not begin to articulate itself, because real life never will. Complex is the name of the game.

Edited November 24, 2019 by XXVIII
I revised the final sentence.

[Zello]

By focusing on only one city or cities that are actually within believable distance. We don't need multiple city maps that don't make any sense at all.

[GTAhare]

Based on some of the mission dialogue in GTA 5 the actual canonical cities are much bigger than the maps you play in in the GTA games. Similar to how in canon you probably take on only a few enemies where in game you take on entire gangs, it can be presumed that you’re playing in highly condensed versions of the cities of and if Rockstar wants they could expand or change them in the future without having to explain anything. Even Liberty City, which feels more believable than Los Santos, is still too small and it makes no sense how it’s just an island surrounded by miles of ocean. You hear on the radio other areas referenced but they’re not in game. That’s because the city you play in isn’t actually the canonical or dream Liberty City. There’s only so much time and bandwidth to make cities in games

[CrimsonFolo]

They dont need to explain it imo. Let's look at GTA 4 and TBOGT + TLAD. The two expansion packs have unique weapons and vehicles even though all 3 games take place at the same time and you explore all the islands. It doesnt make sense that you wouldn't see a particular vehicle in one game but not the other but they did it anyway.

 

If they need to, they can just paste it really and dont need to give any explanation. Having ocean is an easier barrier and a better one then having impassable mountains or automatic death barrier

[MrPhillips]

On 11/29/2019 at 10:58 AM, The FoolYT said:

They dont need to explain it imo. Let's look at GTA 4 and TBOGT + TLAD. The two expansion packs have unique weapons and vehicles even though all 3 games take place at the same time and you explore all the islands. It doesnt make sense that you wouldn't see a particular vehicle in one game but not the other but they did it anyway.

 

If they need to, they can just paste it really and dont need to give any explanation. Having ocean is an easier barrier and a better one then having impassable mountains or automatic death barrier

Your comparison is just not matching. You can't compare weapons and vehicles to land appearing out of nowhere. Land is a bigger thing. It needs explanation, from my point of view.

[Algonquin Assassin]

I really think if Liberty City and Vice City are in GTA VI they would still be their own "islands", but the only way to get to the other is by going to the airport and catching a plane. Like in San Andreas when we go to Liberty City or GTA V when we go to North Yankton.

 

There would be a cutscene and in the background the map's being loading then we arrive at the airport and that's how we would travel between the two cities. I can't see R* abandoning their "island" approach in favour of landlocking while there's an abundance of air transport and I definitely can't see cities that are at opposite ends and 100s of miles apart in real life sharing the same map. They got away with it in San Andreas due to the limitations at the time and even though the map was severely inaccurate in terms of scale and geographical proximity it somehow worked.

 

I don't think they would necessarily have to connect the cities by land and it would still give them the opportunity to flesh out each location to its fullest 

[Jakub1904]

15 minutes ago, SonOfLiberty said:

I really think if Liberty City and Vice City are in GTA VI they would still be their own "islands", but the only way to get to the other is by going to the airport and catching a plane. Like in San Andreas when we go to Liberty City or GTA V when we go to North Yankton.

 

There would be a cutscene and in the background the map's being loading then we arrive at the airport and that's how we would travel between the two cities. I can't see R* abandoning their "island" approach in favour of landlocking while there's an abundance of air transport and I definitely can't see cities that are at opposite ends and 100s of miles apart in real life sharing the same map. They got away with it in San Andreas due to the limitations at the time and even though the map was severely inaccurate in terms of scale and geographical proximity it somehow worked.

 

I don't think they would necessarily have to connect the cities by land and it would still give them the opportunity to flesh out each location to its fullest 

I don't get it, who cares if a map in a videogame is inaccurate in terms of scale and geographical proximity? As you wrote, it worked in San Andreas, for me it's still easily the best map from the series.

[Algonquin Assassin]

31 minutes ago, Jakub1904 said:

I don't get it, who cares if a map in a videogame is inaccurate in terms of scale and geographical proximity? As you wrote, it worked in San Andreas, for me it's still easily the best map from the series.

I probably should've elaborated. It may have worked for San Andreas, but that was 15 years ago when the technology was a lot more archaic and R* had to come up with compromises. Since the HD era the cities are a lot more like their real life counterparts. Sure they're still scaled, but I think the maps are a lot more realistic than they used to be.

 

Having two cities that are supposed to be several states apart share the same physical space would be silly IMO. In San Andreas the illusion wasn't quite as broken because L.A and San Franscisco are atleast in the same state and Las Vegas is a only a 3 hour drive from L.A.

 

[MrPhillips]

58 minutes ago, SonOfLiberty said:

They got away with it in San Andreas

Yed, but San Andreas was a first game featuring all 3 cities in 3D universe. Imagine that they connect Liberty City and Vice City in HD universe by land, then those who played GTA IV would ask themselves how did the land appeared out of nowhere between Vice City and Liberty City in GTA VI after 10-15 years. I am writing this since i think that you guys did not understand fully my topic, and what i was trying to say. There are no 3D universe map that connected cities that were previously just islands in 3D universe.

[Algonquin Assassin]

11 minutes ago, MrPhillips said:

Yed, but San Andreas was a first game featuring all 3 cities in 3D universe. Imagine that they connect Liberty City and Vice City in HD universe by land, then those who played GTA IV would ask themselves how did the land appeared out of nowhere between Vice City and Liberty City in GTA VI after 10-15 years. I am writing this since i think that you guys did not understand fully my topic, and what i was trying to say. There are no 3D universe map that connected cities that were previously just islands in 3D universe.

Nah I get what you mean. I agree it would be stupid to have a piece of land connecting Liberty City that previously wasn't there. This is why I suggested the plane thing above if R* were going to go down this route. It would be far less intrusive logic if you get me. 

[Jakub1904]

33 minutes ago, SonOfLiberty said:

I probably should've elaborated. It may have worked for San Andreas, but that was 15 years ago when the technology was a lot more archaic and R* had to come up with compromises. Since the HD era the cities are a lot more like their real life counterparts. Sure they're still scaled, but I think the maps are a lot more realistic than they used to be.

 

Having two cities that are supposed to be several states apart share the same physical space would be silly IMO. In San Andreas the illusion wasn't quite as broken because L.A and San Franscisco are atleast in the same state and Las Vegas is a only a 3 hour drive from L.A.

 

Sure, they had to come up with compromises in San Andreas, but I wouldn't say the compromises were made while designing the map. The game had outdated physics, graphics, voice design but the map was mindblowingly huge and varied for that time. 

 

I might've sounded a bit aggresive in the first post, so sorry for that  All I am saying is that if I had to choose between two options:

1. VC + LC not connected with land + a forced cutscene when travelling between them

2. VC + LC connected with land, a highway connecting them and a lot of smaller cities, villages, mountains and other biomes inbetween (eventually a third bigger city based on Philadelphia for example),

 

then it's definitely option 2 for me. I mean, a cutscene with loading when travelling between locations? That is exactly what was happening a lot of years back when the hardware wasn't good enough. I really doubt they would do something like that.

 

EDIT: As for the land appearing out of nowhere, we don't even know yet if the next GTA belongs to the HD universe.

 

 

Edited November 30, 2019 by Jakub1904

[Algonquin Assassin]

8 minutes ago, Jakub1904 said:

I might've sounded a bit aggresive in the first post, so sorry for that

 

It's cool. I didn't even think it was that aggressive lol. 

 

8 minutes ago, Jakub1904 said:

All I am saying is that if I had to choose between two options:

1. VC + LC not connected with land + a forced cutscene when travelling between them

2. VC + LC connected with land, a highway connecting them and a lot of smaller cities, villages, mountains and other biomes inbetween (eventually a third bigger city based on Philadelphia for example),

 

then it's definitely option 2 for me. I mean, a cutscene with loading when travelling between locations? That is exactly what was happening a lot of years back when the hardware wasn't good enough. I really doubt they would do something like that.

 

EDIT: As for the land appearing out of nowhere, we don't even know yet if the next GTA belongs to the HD universe.

 

 

Now I get you and yeah no one knows if GTA VI will be in the HD era/universe. Though I would be a tad disappointed in Vice City was skipped over in the HD era/universe to start a new one, but yeah who knows. 

[Jabalous]

7 minutes ago, MrPhillips said:

Yed, but San Andreas was a first game featuring all 3 cities in 3D universe. Imagine that they connect Liberty City and Vice City in HD universe by land, then those who played GTA IV would ask themselves how did the land appeared out of nowhere between Vice City and Liberty City in GTA VI after 10-15 years. I am writing this since i think that you guys did not understand fully my topic, and what i was trying to say. There are no 3D universe map that connected cities that were previously just islands in 3D universe.

Do no take this 'universe' thing too literally as it's merely a concept that is primarily driven by the differences in the hardware. If, as an example, R* decides to re-imagine the whole state of New York in which Liberty City would be a part of, then so be it and there'd be nothing that needs to explained in this instance. It's simply the fact that they'd have a better hardware to work with that will enable them to create a more detailed version of Liberty City, which will certainly be different than IV's version in many aspects, and its surroundings. There's absolutely no obligation to stick with the IV version for any reason since the hardware is now much more advanced to allow for many modifications, improvements and expansions. Call it the 1D universe, the HDDDDD universe, the 100K universe, or whatever as no body would care and there's no logical reason to do so in the first place

 

[CrimsonFolo]

4 hours ago, MrPhillips said:

Your comparison is just not matching. You can't compare weapons and vehicles to land appearing out of nowhere. Land is a bigger thing. It needs explanation, from my point of view.

Vehicles are a pretty big point, weapons not so much.

 

Also they've always redone the previous GTAs before anyway. Gta san Andrea's map is different from GTA V. They could easily remake a map and no one would be bothered too much. Only time it would maybe require an explanation is let's say they did a DLC for gta v and they decided to add a chunk of land on. Then it may be sensible for an explanation otherwise it's a separate game, then its whatever 

 

[MrPhillips]

4 hours ago, Jakub1904 said:

EDIT: As for the land appearing out of nowhere, we don't even know yet if the next GTA belongs to the HD universe.

That's why i said that introducing 4K universe should give Rockstar a freedom to connect all cities and do whatever they want through story.

4 hours ago, Jabalous said:

Do no take this 'universe' thing too literally as it's merely a concept that is primarily driven by the differences in the hardware. If, as an example, R* decides to re-imagine the whole state of New York in which Liberty City would be a part of, then so be it and there'd be nothing that needs to explained in this instance. It's simply the fact that they'd have a better hardware to work with that will enable them to create a more detailed version of Liberty City, which will certainly be different than IV's version in many aspects, and its surroundings. There's absolutely no obligation to stick with the IV version for any reason since the hardware is now much more advanced to allow for many modifications, improvements and expansions. Call it the 1D universe, the HDDDDD universe, the 100K universe, or whatever as no body would care and there's no logical reason to do so in the first place

 

I would partially agree on this. 2D, 3D and HD universe are more than this. They are universes in which story of GTA, Manhunt and Bully takes place (3D) and GTA IV to GTA V takes place. There are a various story, brand, and other connections that make the games belong to specific universe. So it's not like you just said, but hardware limits do play a role. There is logical reason, and true GTA fans like me and the 90% of the forum knows these things. 2D universe, 3D universe and HD universe are a BIG thing, and not something that "does not make sense" like you said. 

[Len Lfc]

On 11/23/2019 at 2:35 PM, MrPhillips said:

Hypothetically speaking, if Rockstar decides to add more cities on GTA VI map (Liberty City and Vice City) and connect them by land, how would they explain such a landmass appearing out of nowhere in HD universe? I saw many people arguing that next game will have these 2 cities connected, and their argument is that they already done it with RDR 2. But RDR 1 was already connected with land, they just extended it.

 

What do you think, should they connect the land and pretend nothing happened, or introduce 4k universe, and how would they explain the landmass appearing out of nowhere?

They same way they explain it in RDR2. They won't, but rather just pretend it was always there. It's a video game, at the end of the day. So it wouldn't really matter.

[MrPhillips]

Just now, Len Lfc said:

They same way they explain it in RDR2. They won't, but rather just pretend it was always there. It's a video game, at the end of the day. So it wouldn't really matter.

RDR map was landlocked before RDR 2. So it's not the same.

[Jabalous]

30 minutes ago, MrPhillips said:

That's why i said that introducing 4K universe should give Rockstar a freedom to connect all cities and do whatever they want through story.

I would partially agree on this. 2D, 3D and HD universe are more than this. They are universes in which story of GTA, Manhunt and Bully takes place (3D) and GTA IV to GTA V takes place. There are a various story, brand, and other connections that make the games belong to specific universe. So it's not like you just said, but hardware limits do play a role. There is logical reason, and true GTA fans like me and the 90% of the forum knows these things. 2D universe, 3D universe and HD universe are a BIG thing, and not something that "does not make sense" like you said. 

The fact that these supposed universes share the same brands, celebrities, city names, landmarks and so on is an evidence that they all take in the same universe, otherwise they shouldn't share any of that. Eventually this would depend on what you mean by a universe. Mount Chiliad existed in 2004's San Andreas and it looked very different in 2013's San Andreas and no body asked why because it's clear that it's simply a matter of technological constraints. There'd be no need to explain why Liberty City is suddenly surrounded by small towns and countryside. It'd simply be an expansion to the Grand Theft Auto universe which would serve the story that R* would be telling and the vision of the new game. If you'd like to pretend that it'd then be taking place in the 1000K universe, so be it. For me, I'd pretend that it'd be taking place in the 2D-3D-HD universe, because why not, and I'm still one of those 'true' GTA fans.

Edited November 30, 2019 by Jabalous

[MrPhillips]

6 minutes ago, Jabalous said:

Mount Chiliad existed in 2004's San Andreas and it looked very different in 2013's San Andreas and no body asked why because it's clear that it's simply a matter of technological constraints.

No, nobody asked why because it is in different universe. Gta SA is in 3D universe and GTA V is in HD universe.