GTA 6 Speculation & Discussion [Part 5]

[DarkDayz]

16 minutes ago, Patrizio said:

 

Chicago and Las Vegas I would be very happy with. Grit and glamour. Old and the new .

 

7 minutes ago, RenegadeAngel said:

If they could somehow throw San-Fierro in there as well, it would make for a dream map!

 

If it's not VC I will hold you both personally responsible. 

[Patrizio]

8 minutes ago, darkdayz said:

 

 

If it's not VC I will hold you both personally responsible. 

 

For me they now must have multi cities. Only two I think, but they need to be two distinct locations. In order to keep the series both new and yet familiar, they've got two options:

 

A) Vice State + fictional Colombia

B) Chicago and Las Vegas

 

There is arguably a:

 

C) Las Venturas and San Fierro

 

But sadly I think that ship has sailed for VI - they won't do back to back San Andreas, so to speak. I also feel Chicago is the only major US city that has world appeal that they haven't "done" yet, even if it would be similar to Liberty, it could still hold its own.

[DarkDayz]

21 minutes ago, Patrizio said:

 

For me they now must have multi cities. Only two I think, but they need to be two distinct locations. In order to keep the series both new and yet familiar, they've got two options:

 

A) Vice State + fictional Colombia

B) Chicago and Las Vegas

 

There is arguably a:

 

C) Las Venturas and San Fierro

 

But sadly I think that ship has sailed for VI - they won't do back to back San Andreas, so to speak. I also feel Chicago is the only major US city that has world appeal that they haven't "done" yet, even if it would be similar to Liberty, it could still hold its own.

 

I don't think they need two cities at all. Because of how they scaled LC and LS for the HD era, it makes it very difficult for them to do that. The land mass in between would need to be massive, unless of course it's separated by water. In which case you can bend the truth a bit more. Which is why for me it has to be VC and an island anything south/south east of Miami. My money is on Cuba. Maybe even Jamaica, I know Jacob is rumoured to return.

 

Geographically Chicago and Las Vegas are too far apart for it to make sense. If they ever make a multiple city GTA with Las Vegas in, you can guarantee the other city will probably be San Fran, because geographically it makes sense.

 

Colombia is also 5x the size of Florida. So that also doesn't make sense to me also as it would drawf the focal point of the game.

 

Chicago as the city. I don't know. For me it's too similar to NY and has no distinct personality in modern times. I feel like we'd have to go back to the 20's for them to fully realise Chicago in true Rockstar fashion. Chicago would make a great location for an LA Noire sequel though!

 

Edited January 14, 2021 by darkdayz

[DeltaV20]

Rockstar is saving LV and SF for gta 7 and 8 imo , and maybe that's why gta V SP didn't got any expansions of SF and LV 

[EGA_6]

I feel like Rockstar might want to go back to Liberty City after VI. They could then include the countryside they had in mind for IV and add other surrounding areas. Although I would prefer Chicago, Las Vegas, or San Francisco.

Edited January 14, 2021 by EliteGamer_6

[skau]

gta 6 will be set in india mark my words

 

[Orthur]

9 minutes ago, skau said:

gta 6 will be set in india mark my words

 

The story will revolve around the bikers : 

[Niccky]

For everyone in here who wants gta Vice city 2, If the map has a another country/island then what difference would it make if it were set in modern times anyway? Most of countries of the Caribbean are stuck in the 80s development wise and having another country in the game would gta a new feeling. 

[DeltaV20]

14 minutes ago, Orthur The Boah said:

The story will revolve around the bikers : 

yeh sab marengai 

[EGA_6]

21 minutes ago, Orthur The Boah said:

The story will revolve around the bikers : 

Mumbai's Lost MC!

[Patrizio]

46 minutes ago, darkdayz said:

 

I don't think they need two cities at all. Because of how they scaled LC and LS for the HD era, it makes it very difficult for them to do that. The land mass in between would need to be massive, unless of course it's separated by water. In which case you can bend the truth a bit more. Which is why for me it has to be VC and an island anything south/south east of Miami. My money is on Cuba. Maybe even Jamaica, I know Jacob is rumoured to return.

 

Geographically Chicago and Las Vegas are too far apart for it to make sense. If they ever make a multiple city GTA with Las Vegas in, you can guarantee the other city will probably be San Fran, because geographically it makes sense.

 

Colombia is also 5x the size of Florida. So that also doesn't make sense to me also as it would drawf the focal point of the game.

 

Chicago as the city. I don't know. For me it's too similar to NY and has no distinct personality in modern times. I feel like we'd have to go back to the 20's for them to fully realise Chicago in true Rockstar fashion. Chicago would make a great location for an LA Noire sequel though!

 

 

Great post . Have to disagree with you on a few things.

 

After IV and V, RDR and RDR2, a single city location wouldn't be justified. Especially after ten years between V and VI. A single city and countryside was trialled in V and most felt it didn't work. To return to a single city or a single city and countryside would basically send a message of: "we'll do multi locations for RDR, but not for GTA anymore, SA was a one off and that's it." It'll turn a lot of fans off, in my opinion. The GTA spark will start to die especially with such long gaps between. Eventually the fanbase will age and the Zoomers won't remember the 3D era that made the series.  I don't think they would have three cities, like SA again, but two? Yes.

 

Why? Some fans want a new location. Some want an old one. If they did, for arguments sake, Chicago, some would be delighted. Others would be furious that Vice City wasn't done and likely wouldn't be again and vice versa. Two cities allows them to feature a  new location and an old. It pleases both. This worked in San Andreas. Los Santos could hold its it but perhaps not LV and SF - so to have a multi city location again allows them to do this.

 

Regarding Chicago and Vegas being too far apart? In real life of course yes. But I'll leave it to Rockstar to figure out the scale. The locations in RDR2 in real life are huge distances from each other, but Rockstar managed to make the scale work. I'm sure they could do it again with GTA. I mention Chicago and Vegas for two reasons particularly:

 

A) Chicago is the only major US city they've never parodied.

B) LV is an old city that many loved but couldn't feature on its own

C) From the 1940s to the 1980s, the Chicago Mafia more or less ran Vegas.

 

Therefore they could please fans with a past setting, a new city and old favourite that have a vastly different theme. This would again liekly be a Mafia story but it could provide the grit and the glamour that different types of fans want. It could help appeal to a lot. I agree with you that Chicago has less appeal today. I'd argue the same for most places too. So I'd suggest a past setting in general. I do agree it appears very similar to NY hence why I think putting in conjunction with LV gives it a nice contrast.

 

Regarding Colombia, I imagine they would make a fictionalized latin American country/Caribbean island based on a mixture of Colombia and the Caribbean. They would scale it down massively of course, the same way US states were scaled down massively in RDR2. I say Colombia as Rockstar will have been wondering how to do another 80s Vice City and keep it fresh. Rockstar need their pop culture influences and Narcos is just that.

 

Regarding a sequel to LA Noire? Chicago Noire? Fantastic idea. Agree with you on that .

 

[MarshDanni]

2 minutes ago, Patrizio said:

Regarding a sequel to LA Noire? Chicago Noire? Fantastic idea. Agree with you on that .

 

 

Woah, haven't even thought of that. That sounds literally amazing! Now I'm sad because I don't think it's gonna happen tho

 

Can't put Shark Cards in a Noire game...

 

Or can you...

[Patrizio]

1 minute ago, MarshDanni said:

 

Woah, haven't even thought of that. That sounds literally amazing! Now I'm sad because I don't think it's gonna happen tho

 

Can't put Shark Cards in a Noire game...

 

Or can you...

I can't take credit for that idea - that's @darkdayz who gets that!

 

But yeah it would. Can't see it happening though... oh for the days when Rockstar did games other than GTA or RDR.

[17th]

57 minutes ago, EliteGamer_6 said:

I feel like Rockstar might want to go back to Liberty City after VI. They could then include the countryside they had in mind for IV and add other surrounding areas. Although I would prefer Chicago, Las Vegas, or San Francisco.

GTA VII will be released probably around 2037 so it will be 30 years without LC, 7 years from III to IV feels like nothing 

[EGA_6]

4 minutes ago, 17th said:

GTA VII will be released probably around 2037 so it will be 30 years without LC, 7 years from III to IV feels like nothing 

Exactly. Also, many of the online players probably haven't even played it. People born today would be 15-17 yrs old and would probably be allowed by their parents to play the game lmao. So I strongly believe that LC with surrounding areas will be the location for VII. That is not obviuosly the main reason to visit it but they could include those areas that they scrapped from IV and add more stuff.

Edited January 14, 2021 by EliteGamer_6

[Patrizio]

8 minutes ago, EliteGamer_6 said:

Exactly. Also, many of the online players probably haven't even played it. People born today would be 15-17 yrs old and would probably be allowed by their parents to play the game lmao. So I strongly believe that LC with surrounding areas will be the location for VII. That is not obviuosly the main reason to visit it but they could include those areas that they scrapped from IV and add more stuff.

You are right that come 2023, when VI is likely to be released, it would be 15 years since IV's LC (good God I can't believe that) but it would only have been one game ago. In that sense I think it'd be far too soon. Give me Chicago before Liberty again.

Edited January 14, 2021 by Patrizio

[DarkDayz]

41 minutes ago, Patrizio said:

 

Great post . Have to disagree with you on a few things.

 

After IV and V, RDR and RDR2, a single city location wouldn't be justified. Especially after ten years between V and VI. A single city and countryside was trialled in V and most felt it didn't work. To return to a single city or a single city and countryside would basically send a message of: "we'll do multi locations for RDR, but not for GTA anymore, SA was a one off and that's it." It'll turn a lot of fans off, in my opinion. The GTA spark will start to die especially with such long gaps between. Eventually the fanbase will age and the Zoomers won't remember the 3D era that made the series.  I don't think they would have three cities, like SA again, but two? Yes.

 

Why? Some fans want a new location. Some want an old one. If they did, for arguments sake, Chicago, some would be delighted. Others would be furious that Vice City wasn't done and likely wouldn't be again and vice versa. Two cities allows them to feature a  new location and an old. It pleases both. This worked in San Andreas. Los Santos could hold its it but perhaps not LV and SF - so to have a multi city location again allows them to do this.

 

Regarding Chicago and Vegas being too far apart? In real life of course yes. But I'll leave it to Rockstar to figure out the scale. The locations in RDR2 in real life are huge distances from each other, but Rockstar managed to make the scale work. I'm sure they could do it again with GTA. I mention Chicago and Vegas for two reasons particularly:

 

A) Chicago is the only major US city they've never parodied.

B) LV is an old city that many loved but couldn't feature on its own

C) From the 1940s to the 1980s, the Chicago Mafia more or less ran Vegas.

 

Therefore they could please fans with a past setting, a new city and old favourite that have a vastly different theme. This would again liekly be a Mafia story but it could provide the grit and the glamour that different types of fans want. It could help appeal to a lot. I agree with you that Chicago has less appeal today. I'd argue the same for most places too. So I'd suggest a past setting in general. I do agree it appears very similar to NY hence why I think putting in conjunction with LV gives it a nice contrast.

 

Regarding Colombia, I imagine they would make a fictionalized latin American country/Caribbean island based on a mixture of Colombia and the Caribbean. They would scale it down massively of course, the same way US states were scaled down massively in RDR2. I say Colombia as Rockstar will have been wondering how to do another 80s Vice City and keep it fresh. Rockstar need their pop culture influences and Narcos is just that.

 

Regarding a sequel to LA Noire? Chicago Noire? Fantastic idea. Agree with you on that .

 

 

Yeah, totally see your point. However, I think realism is the desire. They could have quite easily after San Andreas gone with more cities than was in that game. But instead, they built LC and LS to a more realistic scale. in LS they included smaller settlements outside the city. Same for RDR2, big city with smaller settlements. Yes there's Guarma, but that is a closed off section of the game - in many ways similar to North Yankton. It really has no detail outside of the playable area. So I think, if they are going to expand their maps further than they have done in GTA IV and V, it will be in terms of scale of the main city and level of detail in the surrounding areas. I do not think they are going to settle for current game scale but more of it. I also do not think they are too bothered about what we want. They pissed enough of us off last time when we expected VC.

 

That being said, I believe they can do a bit of both. South America is in many ways similar to how RDR2 is designed, lots of greenery, so I believe they could incorporate one of those islands as the second location without it requiring the level of work that would be required for a second city.

 

There's also a long list of major cities they haven't done. I'm not sure what you mean by 'major', there are 39 cities above Miami in population and they've only done a few of them. Like I said before a Mafia story in that era of Chicago would be great - would it be a GTA - I don't think so, it's more suited to other IP they own.

 

[Patrizio]

28 minutes ago, darkdayz said:

 

Yeah, totally see your point. However, I think realism is the desire. They could have quite easily after San Andreas gone with more cities than was in that game. But instead, they built LC and LS to a more realistic scale. in LS they included smaller settlements outside the city. Same for RDR2, big city with smaller settlements. Yes there's Guarma, but that is a closed off section of the game - in many ways similar to North Yankton. It really has no detail outside of the playable area. So I think, if they are going to expand their maps further than they have done in GTA IV and V, it will be in terms of scale of the main city and level of detail in the surrounding areas. I do not think they are going to settle for current game scale but more of it. I also do not think they are too bothered about what we want. They pissed enough of us off last time when we expected VC.

 

That being said, I believe they can do a bit of both. South America is in many ways similar to how RDR2 is designed, lots of greenery, so I believe they could incorporate one of those islands as the second location without it requiring the level of work that would be required for a second city.

 

There's also a long list of major cities they haven't done. I'm not sure what you mean by 'major', there are 39 cities above Miami in population and they've only done a few of them. Like I said before a Mafia story in that era of Chicago would be great - would it be a GTA - I don't think so, it's more suited to other IP they own.

 

 

I understand your argument about realism. I'd like to think with new consoles and ten years of preparation they could pull of two different cities with countryside and small towns in between. In my opinion, a single city location again would be a disappointment. I'd buy it - don't get me wrong. But it comes across a bit unambitious and "resigned to the fact" in my opinion.

 

Regarding Chicago, what I mean about major is in terms of their cultural and global appeal. I see you're also from the UK. I reckon if you asked the average Brit what were major US cities they'd say:

 

New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, San Franciso, Las Vegas, and Washington DC. Possibly then Boston, Philadelphia and San Diego. Out of all of those I'd say Chicago could hold its own in a game (as a single location, even though I don't want that..) as could NYC and LA. Chicago to me is the one major, MAJOR US city they haven't done. Regarding an other IP I see your point but I'd just find it sad if we have a never ending cycle of LC, LS and VC - y'know? VC needs its turn but then they shouldn't shy away from other major US locations. Chicago being the the big one missing.

 

Regarding Miami's size - point taken. Its less relevant now than it was in the past but Vice City has become a staple of GTA lore and canon and that's why it should remain. It has a cultural recognition and unlike other major cities mentioned is tropical and therefore provides a different feel  that other cities can't do (in before VC is too much like LS!).

Edited January 14, 2021 by Patrizio

[Orthur]

[Dr. Ugs]

The moment when R* releases GTA VI in San Andreas again. 

Edited January 14, 2021 by AntonGandonBF3

[Gentlebreeze]

Quote

(in before VC is too much like LS!).

 

LS was most likely featured in GTA V due to LA Noire, LA Midnight Club, etc. Might as well do Los Santos especially when you have the references and people already working on it.

 

Now we have RDR 2 and GTA Online with the Caribbean islands featured so I wouldn't be surprised if Vice City were to show up in GTA VI.

[PIEMONTE]

3 hours ago, RenegadeAngel said:

If they could somehow throw San-Fierro in there as well, it would make for a dream map!

for real it'd be nice to have cool sh*t like that in the HD era

[DeltaV20]

39 minutes ago, Orthur The Boah said:

All those 1000 pages for Vice city was for this ?
 

[Frivolous_Raven]

2 hours ago, darkdayz said:

 

Yeah, totally see your point. However, I think realism is the desire. They could have quite easily after San Andreas gone with more cities than was in that game. But instead, they built LC and LS to a more realistic scale. in LS they included smaller settlements outside the city. Same for RDR2, big city with smaller settlements. Yes there's Guarma, but that is a closed off section of the game - in many ways similar to North Yankton. It really has no detail outside of the playable area. So I think, if they are going to expand their maps further than they have done in GTA IV and V, it will be in terms of scale of the main city and level of detail in the surrounding areas. I do not think they are going to settle for current game scale but more of it. I also do not think they are too bothered about what we want. They pissed enough of us off last time when we expected VC.

 

That being said, I believe they can do a bit of both. South America is in many ways similar to how RDR2 is designed, lots of greenery, so I believe they could incorporate one of those islands as the second location without it requiring the level of work that would be required for a second city.

 

There's also a long list of major cities they haven't done. I'm not sure what you mean by 'major', there are 39 cities above Miami in population and they've only done a few of them. Like I said before a Mafia story in that era of Chicago would be great - would it be a GTA - I don't think so, it's more suited to other IP they own.

 

Yep, I'm going to agree with this one... I feel like R* tries to expand more in realism and scale than quantity. I do believe we'll get one city, but bigger, denser, more detailed, immersive, and interactive than ever. The quality over quantity way, I feel like that is more like R*.  

Ok, RDR2 had more towns... but those are towns, come on, Rhodes, Valentine, Armadillo, those are a 1 street town, you can't compare that to LC, VC, LS, which are huge metropolitan areas. 

That's my 2 cents on the matter.

[JGGA]

everytime someone says GTA 6 will be set in multiple cities i always think on this map that someone made several years ago. its perfect scaled, i doubt that the ps5 can't handle this especially if wee consider that GTA 5 Los Santos was  originally designed for the PS3 & XBOX 360. GTA 6 is heavily rumoured to be set in VC but i  don't  like the idea of having just one city again. i mean south florida is beautiful but is basically beaches,swamps and flat land. think of RDR 2 it had everything swamps,desert,snowy mountains and rivers the amount of variety wee had was just out of this world. just imagine the amount of details and secrets rockstar put in their games in such a vast map 

Spoiler

 

[KingAJ032304]

45 minutes ago, JGGA said:

everytime someone says GTA 6 will be set in multiple cities i always think on this map that someone made several years ago. its perfect scaled, i doubt that the ps5 can't handle this especially if wee consider that GTA 5 Los Santos was  originally designed for the PS3 & XBOX 360. GTA 6 is heavily rumoured to be set in VC but i  don't  like the idea of having just one city again. i mean south florida is beautiful but is basically beaches,swamps and flat land. think of RDR 2 it had everything swamps,desert,snowy mountains and rivers the amount of variety wee had was just out of this world. just imagine the amount of details and secrets rockstar put in their games in such a vast map 

  Hide contents

 

How many km you reckon that'll be?

[JGGA]

Just now, KingAJ032304 said:

How many km you reckon that'll be?

1000-1300km2 roughly the same size of just cause 3 map (way more detailed considering wee are talking about a next gen game)

Edited January 14, 2021 by JGGA

[KingAJ032304]

5 minutes ago, JGGA said:

1000-1300km2 roughly the same size of just cause 3 map (way more detailed considering wee are talking about a Rockstar game)

FTFY

[Gentlebreeze]

2 hours ago, JGGA said:

everytime someone says GTA 6 will be set in multiple cities i always think on this map that someone made several years ago. its perfect scaled, i doubt that the ps5 can't handle this especially if wee consider that GTA 5 Los Santos was  originally designed for the PS3 & XBOX 360. GTA 6 is heavily rumoured to be set in VC but i  don't  like the idea of having just one city again. i mean south florida is beautiful but is basically beaches,swamps and flat land. think of RDR 2 it had everything swamps,desert,snowy mountains and rivers the amount of variety wee had was just out of this world. just imagine the amount of details and secrets rockstar put in their games in such a vast map 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

 

Vice City will have a small map then they can add Liberty City, small Islands such as Jamaica, Cuba, Puerto Rico, etc. Those could be really small islands and maybe include every island in the Caribbean and some of those have mountains. 

[KingAJ032304]

11 minutes ago, Black_Jesus said:

 

 

Vice City will have a small map then they can add Liberty City, small Islands such as Jamaica, Cuba, Puerto Rico, etc. Those could be really small islands and maybe include every island in the Caribbean and some of those have mountains. 

Yeah but stuff like that won't be preset until AT LEAST GTA 8!