Jump to content

Map Expansions?


FannoF

Recommended Posts

Jezus Holy Christ
9 hours ago, neo92boi said:

I’ve said it constantly. Rockstar loves Los Angeles they did LA 3 times as true LA,  2 times as Los Santos, and  3  times as San Andreas (California) totaling with 8 renditions (with 3 being direct representation): (GTA 1 - SA, Midnight Club 2  , Midnight Club LA, GTA : SA, LA NOIRE, GTA V) 

 

The math ain't mathing.

San Andreas in GTA (1997) was a San Francisco parody i don't know where you got LA from smfh. It only became a California parody in 3D universe.

Los Angeles has only made 2 appearances in GTA, both in 3D, and we haven't seen San Francisco (the original SA) in 20 years.

Edited by Jezus Holy Christ
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jezus Holy Christ said:

 

The math ain't mathing.

San Andreas in GTA (1997) was a San Francisco parody i don't know where you got LA from smfh. It only became a California parody in 3D universe.

Los Angeles has only made 2 appearances in GTA, both in 3D, and we haven't San Francisco (the original SA) in 20 years.

You’re right I forgot it was San Francisco. Still LA or the west coast has been dug into the ground, and NY kinda has as well. Chicago, Dallas, Atlanta, Philadelphia, Boston, Detroit, Houston, London (or the UK 🇬🇧 as a whole), South Africa, Australia, Tokyo, Dubai , Colombia,  or Jamaica would be good places to try as new settings. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, neo92boi said:

You’re right I forgot it was San Francisco. Still LA or the west coast has been dug into the ground, and NY kinda has as well. Chicago, Dallas, Atlanta, Philadelphia, Boston, Detroit, Houston, London (or the UK 🇬🇧 as a whole), South Africa, Australia, Tokyo, Dubai , Colombia,  or Jamaica would be good places to try as new settings. 

Chicago & Detroit could absolutely work , those other places?? Meh…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jezus Holy Christ
7 minutes ago, neo92boi said:

You’re right I forgot it was San Francisco. Still LA or the west coast has been dug into the ground

 

Not even close. There's a reason people keep calling Lucia the first female protagonist or the first "proper" one. Calling GTA 1 a west coast game is ridiculous and V, depending on how generous you are with definitions, could be called a Hollywood, LA, or SoCal game.

 

Putting the rest of my reply in spoiler because I don't want to go off-topic here:

 

Spoiler

Far as San Francisco and the bay area are concerned, Rockstar haven't even begun to scratch the surface. I loved San Fierro, but the SF parts of the San Andreas story didn't really necessitate that city. It was a cute detour and I loved it and I still do, but that was then and this is now.

 

Whether they take on the modern day crime-ridden post-gentrification SF, or the '70s bay area with active biker gangs in East Bay, active Mafia families and Chinese gangs in the peninsula and down south, active serial killers everywhere, and political conflicts that mirror the current times like Vice City's '80s did the Bush era, there's so much more to do there. More than I could list here.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, rjmthe2nd said:

I think after this they're going break the Three City cycle. We've gotten every city in the 3D era in the HD era.

 

No LV or SF because that's California and we were just there. VC and LS are both sunny, beach cities. My prediction is we will get a dark and gloomy location: Carcer City + surrounding area in GTA 7.

Also no LV or SF because  in HD era this cities was not even mentioned (as far as i remember). Vice City was mentioned from beginning (also GTA IV EFLC has Vice FM radio). 

 

Also i'm predicting some darker place in next GTA. Carcer City is very good hint, but seeing like city looks in Matrix, it could be again Liberty City or something like that (mostly urban area)

 

Spoiler

ofc in next GTA around 2040 year  :modkek:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Simsalabim22 said:

I know, that's what I said 😅 LV was confusing as a acronym for both Las Vegas and Las Venturas, my bad.

 

I feel like you're being super reductive to make your point. Saying a combination of LV + SF would be exactly the same as V and VI is just silliness. SF and LV are super unique cities and their rural surrounds could easily be different enough from V's Southern SA, and could tell entirely different stories. The entire world is just mountains, deserts and forests if we're just being reductive 🤷🏻‍♂️

Which is in other words being super reductive of the fact that I ain't wrong(and while I likely ain't fully right.)

you cannot deny the fact it will be the same.

and Fatigue will hit players way faster this time around, as well as the next time around.

 

Years ago it was a discussion of Northern Midwest vs Vice City.

(which many will confuse for Folly, when the reality is, people still desire someplace new.)

 

With LV/SF it would be the same, the only difference is that the location in the desert is just larger. Diamond casinos being all over the place, more modern and artisticly shaped/molded tech buildings (which, let's be honest. will just be expanded Lifeinvader offices, except much more expanded and higher res.)

 

And More Sand, More Trees. and one Giant Sphere to top off this place we've been to before. (the only minor difference is the local culture. yet still West Coast, still V with minor updates to modern times)

 

Which is to say, alot will be the same.

(and the culture or landscape only changes as much as the people living there actually do. which they don't, not like actually going to another state or nation.)

Which in comparison, yes, you are the one being super reductive.

 

While VI will do well, and we all will have a blast. as the year turns, and online and PC arrives.

Mark it well, Fatigue is gonna set faster this time around. (but the only good thing, is that acceptance will set even faster. Cause everyone now expects a 10 year ballpark/cycle before the next GTA)

 

But going back to the west coast so soon will be a detriment and the same thing all over. (which is what most who wanted a new city, wished to avoid)

  • KEKW 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Jezus Holy Christ said:

 

  Hide contents

 

Whether they take on the modern day crime-ridden post-gentrification SF, or the '70s bay area with active biker gangs in East Bay, active Mafia families and Chinese gangs in the peninsula and down south, active serial killers everywhere, and political conflicts that mirror the current times like Vice City's '80s did the Bush era, there's so much more to do there. More than I could list here.

 

This would be my dream GTA. But lets face it, the modern Rockstar seem to want to keep GTA modern. I doubt any main releases (and it looks like spin-off GTA's are dead anyway) from here on will be period pieces. Everything will be based the year it's set.

 

BUT, I also think that this sort of setting would be amazing in an L.A Noire spiritual sequel. Being a cop hunting the crazies of the Bay Area definitely compliments the setting better than playing as one of the crazies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, HOW'S ANNIE? said:

This would be my dream GTA. But lets face it, the modern Rockstar seem to want to keep GTA modern. I doubt any main releases (and it looks like spin-off GTA's are dead anyway) from here on will be period pieces. Everything will be based the year it's set.

 

BUT, I also think that this sort of setting would be amazing in an L.A Noire spiritual sequel. Being a cop hunting the crazies of the Bay Area definitely compliments the setting better than playing as one of the crazies.

We Could never know with R* for sure.

Maybe one day they'll get fatigued with modern day and either set another GTA in a Timeperiod/Subtitle Game.

 

But yeah, with no end in sight, we just gotta hope they want to surprise us.

 

It maybe Copium, but maybe in a decade or so, they will offer a Timeperiod DLC working off of whatever that location will be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, rjmthe2nd said:

I think after this they're going break the Three City cycle. We've gotten every city in the 3D era in the HD era.

 

No LV or SF because that's California and we were just there. VC and LS are both sunny, beach cities. My prediction is we will get a dark and gloomy location: Carcer City + surrounding area in GTA 7.

I think they should go international after this.

 

Rockstar is an English company and it would be fun to see a game set in London and its surrounding areas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

possumbasement

I think by the time we get VII or the fabled VI Online "map expansions", a new location should be introduced or at the very least something that isnt LS/VC/LC. Chicago (Carcer City), Las Vegas (Las Venturas), and San Fransisco (San Fierro) come to mind, but there are certainly other places you could take either VI Online or VII. Liberty City is nice, but IV still feels modern enough to the point that I'm not dying for it to be remade in the new game. I'd like R* to explore some parts of the U.S. that they haven't for a while. (And I'm a native of Chicago so a game set there would be awesome. Watch Dogs was okay, but the map didn't feel that connected to the real Chicago in the way R* designs their maps.) 

  • Like 2
  • YEE 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, rjmthe2nd said:

I think after this they're going break the Three City cycle. We've gotten every city in the 3D era in the HD era.

 

No LV or SF because that's California and we were just there. VC and LS are both sunny, beach cities. My prediction is we will get a dark and gloomy location: Carcer City + surrounding area in GTA 7.

 

7 hours ago, Leonida Man said:

you know what wasn't explored properly? Every place that isn't NY, LA or Miami.

We are another 15 years away from the next entry and we've already* had HD renditions of the big GTA three cities, let's get out of the cycle for once. 

 

Yeah no way, if they’re going to do the originals before moving on to something new we still have San Fierro and Las Venturas. Having a game in Los Santos doesn’t check off “oh okay we did San Andreas!” What?

 

And I can’t believe I’m having this conversation for the umpteenth time, ten years later. Doing Vice City, San Fierro, or Las Venturas isn’t a rehash or “being stuck in a cycle.” Apart from the name and what they’re based on, the HD era maps are completely different from their 3D counterparts. A “true vision” if you will. If you honestly believe GTA VI’s Vice City is just “oh man I can’t believe we’re getting a game in Vice City, we already had one!” Than don’t even get GTA VI, just play Vice City if it’s “just the same map again.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember hearing that the end goal for Rockstar was to have all the HD maps in one online open world so we could hop around and play in the world they created. Would be amazing if done right. Drive to the airport and buy a plane ticket and fly down the runway. Let that be the cutscenes that transition into the new server kinda thing. We could have Liberty City, Los Santos, Vice, Las Venturas, San Fiero and then even new locations after the existing worlds are redone in HD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, cp1dell said:

 

Yeah no way, if they’re going to do the originals before moving on to something new we still have San Fierro and Las Venturas. Having a game in Los Santos doesn’t check off “oh okay we did San Andreas!” What?

 

And I can’t believe I’m having this conversation for the umpteenth time, ten years later. Doing Vice City, San Fierro, or Las Venturas isn’t a rehash or “being stuck in a cycle.” Apart from the name and what they’re based on, the HD era maps are completely different from their 3D counterparts. A “true vision” if you will. If you honestly believe GTA VI’s Vice City is just “oh man I can’t believe we’re getting a game in Vice City, we already had one!” Than don’t even get GTA VI, just play Vice City if it’s “just the same map again.”

 

 

You're going to be disappointed when they go somewhere else. I have no evidence but I'm usually always right when making GTA predictions as weird as that sounds.

 

I have a post on here I've been trying to find from 2021 where I described a dream I had of a SURPRISE GTA 6 reveal. Narrator of the trailer in my dream mentioned female protagonist in VC (we had zero proof of this being true prior to 2022). People in the street were surprised the game was revealed publicly on times square esque screen.

 

that kind of matches what happened whether that be the leaked gameplay or the trailer that released early.

 

I Know it sounds cringe but it happened. Im going to look for the thread and post..

 

EDIT: couldn't find it. Why isn't there a post history feature that tracks all of your posts?

 

 

Edited by rjmthe2nd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

TheGreatLeone
On 12/12/2023 at 4:09 PM, FannoF said:

Seeing the LV license plate in the GTAO dlc made me wonder, how big is the chance we get a Las Venturas expansion in VI? 
 

Like, rational me is thinking the chance is 0, because when I look at the VI map so far, it seems impossible they’ve spent any time at all working on a LV expansion, so if they started after the release they would just be better off making a completely new game. 
 

But emotional me is thinking Jason Schreier said there will be expansions and therefore a LV expansion would definitely be possible. 

huh?

 

venturas is in different state all together. and not san andreas. the hd universe is different

 

you cant just make venturas dlc because then you will have to make deserts as well

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, cp1dell said:

 

Yeah no way, if they’re going to do the originals before moving on to something new we still have San Fierro and Las Venturas. Having a game in Los Santos doesn’t check off “oh okay we did San Andreas!” What?

 

And I can’t believe I’m having this conversation for the umpteenth time, ten years later. Doing Vice City, San Fierro, or Las Venturas isn’t a rehash or “being stuck in a cycle.” Apart from the name and what they’re based on, the HD era maps are completely different from their 3D counterparts. A “true vision” if you will. If you honestly believe GTA VI’s Vice City is just “oh man I can’t believe we’re getting a game in Vice City, we already had one!” Than don’t even get GTA VI, just play Vice City if it’s “just the same map again.”

Huge lack of creativity and imagination. That's all you know and all you want. The huge number of people wanted GTAVI to be set in the 80s and I wonder where did they get that daring idea?

 

I want to see the world of GTA get bigger and how a new place would fit in the mythology. I'm not saying it's the same map again, but man... NY? You want a new story set in such niche, mysterious, never-seen-on-media place as is NY?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, rjmthe2nd said:

You're going to be disappointed when they go somewhere else. I have no evidence but I'm usually always right when making GTA predictions as weird as that sounds.

No—I won’t be. For the same reason I explained that I’m not disappointed we’re getting redos of 3D era cities. Aside from name and inspiration it’s still something new.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think adding cities over time is a pipe dream that Rockstar have had for a long time. Leslie Benzies talked about adding other cities to GTAO before the release of V and other than Cayo Perico nothing ever came to fruition. The way I figure it is they just have not been able to work out how to do it, and by that I mean how to monetize it.

 

It's an impossible task because making cities with the level of detail Rockstar like requires years and years of work, to only include it in a free online update seems like a massive waste. So do they also add story and start charging (more like Destiny 2 expansions) but then also split the online player base like they did with IV, RDR and Max Payne 3 expansions? I dunno. Why not just have smallish free-updates and move on to making another billion dollars with RDR3 five years later? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a dream scenario, they would totally add San Fierro and Las Venturas, especially since it looks like we'll be getting a GTA game every 10 years or so - but like others are saying, it takes years to make a map.

 

For reference, the first playable build of GTA V was in 2009, but even in the 2011 teaser you could see empty parts on the map, so it was still unfinished 2 years after they initially started development. With most of the map looking pretty much complete by 2012's trailer, you can chalk it up to being around 3 years just to make the map itself for the games.

 

However, I think "map expansions" will include buildings and/or areas under construction being completed. They've already experimented with this idea on GTA Online, with the casino remodel - but I think they'll go even bigger for that, with entire towns and cities transforming over the years following the release of the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

cousinletsgobowling

This is an interesting concept. I remember reading about rumors concerning the gta 6 map that it would include like the entire east coast of America. I read it was possible to drive from Liberty city to Vice.

 

Realistically I don't know if that would take too much effort but if anyone can do it, Rockstar can. 

 

I would like to see Rockstars version of Washington D.C included, maybe upstate NY (Liberty) including Niagara falls.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Dick Justice said:

I think adding cities over time is a pipe dream that Rockstar have had for a long time. Leslie Benzies talked about adding other cities to GTAO before the release of V and other than Cayo Perico nothing ever came to fruition. The way I figure it is they just have not been able to work out how to do it, and by that I mean how to monetize it.

 

It's an impossible task because making cities with the level of detail Rockstar like requires years and years of work, to only include it in a free online update seems like a massive waste. So do they also add story and start charging (more like Destiny 2 expansions) but then also split the online player base like they did with IV, RDR and Max Payne 3 expansions? I dunno. Why not just have smallish free-updates and move on to making another billion dollars with RDR3 five years later? 

I also think it's an impossible task. On top of building a map with Rockstar perfectionism and making it fit with the already existing one, you'll have to then populate with its own characteristic NPCs based on their demographics, cars, brands, random events, etc. If not, it's just a husk. And for that amount of work, you're better off making it its own installment. 

Just look at Cayo Perico: It's just vegetation, warehouses and the compound, and two types of NPCs.That's what they can realistically afford to do with map expansions. Empty islands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Leonida Man said:

Just look at Cayo Perico: It's just vegetation, warehouses and the compound, and two types of NPCs.That's what they can realistically afford to do with map expansions. Empty islands.

Cayo Perico wasn't built as a traditional map expansion though? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, DUNK512 said:

Cayo Perico wasn't built as a traditional map expansion though? 

Traditional? Is the only one there is. :kekw:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DUNK512 said:

Cayo Perico wasn't built as a traditional map expansion though? 

No. It just reused a lot or already existing GTA V and RDR 2 assets and called it a day.

 

But in all honesty I don't think map expansions are out of the question. I think the main reason they never did for anything sufficient for GTA Online is because the game itself couldn't handle it. Look at all the issues a normal GTA Online update does to the game, let alone what getting a massive map expansion would do to it. It just wasn't built for it. However I think Rockstar have realised their mistakes and are planning to release something they can fluidly build upon for the next decade.

Edited by HOW'S ANNIE?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

CarcerCityMadMan

lc-zone.png

Not my map

 

This would be nice for a Liberty zone map expansion

Edited by CarcerCityMadMan
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/13/2023 at 4:49 AM, Jezus Holy Christ said:

 

The math ain't mathing.

San Andreas in GTA (1997) was a San Francisco parody i don't know where you got LA from smfh. It only became a California parody in 3D universe.

Los Angeles has only made 2 appearances in GTA, both in 3D, and we haven't seen San Francisco (the original SA) in 20 years.

yeah, I don't know what that guy talking about

 

2 hours ago, CarcerCityMadMan said:

lc-zone.png

Not my map

 

This would be nice for a Liberty zone map expansion

 

If this is GTA 7 I'm with it.

 

 

 

3 hours ago, HOW'S ANNIE? said:

No. It just reused a lot or already existing GTA V and RDR 2 assets and called it a day.

 

 

He's correct. It's supposed to be near Florida (Leonida) 

 

It being reused assets doesn't negate what he said.

 

It most likely will make an appearance.

 

 

 

EDIT: thought you quoted the comment below yours smh my mistake 

 

 

 

Edited by rjmthe2nd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There will certainly be larger location updates many years down the line.

What seems clearly most likely to me and thus something I would bet on is Cuba, since they could make it a substantial, yet still much smaller map than the main game, and then Liberty City since they already have the core.

 

3 years in, Cuba. 5/6 years in, Liberty City, then maybe Los Santos.

Quote me.

 

All in Online of course.

Edited by VickeX
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/13/2023 at 4:57 AM, neo92boi said:

I’ve said it constantly. Rockstar loves Los Angeles they did LA 3 times as true LA,  2 times as Los Santos, and  3  times as San Andreas (California) totaling with 8 renditions (with 3 being direct representation): (GTA 1 - SA, Midnight Club 2  , Midnight Club LA, GTA : SA, LA NOIRE, GTA V) 

 

They’ve done NYC (Liberty City) 6 1/12 times but only 3 times it was truly called NYC, three times as Liberty (with one only being a true rendition of NYC) and 2 out of the actual NYC depictions were not explorable or severely lacking. (GTA 1 - LC ( decent but still abysmal) , GTA III (not really NYC but kind of in spirit), GTA LCS (same as III) Midnight Club 1 ( only half of Manhattan), GTA IV (best representation of NYC ever besides Spiderman 1&2 and True Crimes : NY), Max Payne 1&2 (only as a setting, it was not explorable or visually scene) , GTA: CTW.
 

They’ve done Florida 4 times and 3 times as Vice City (Miami)  : GTA Vice City, GTA : VCS, Manhunt 2 ( Cottonmouth FL) , and GTA VI (poised to be the greatest representation of not only Miami but Florida as a whole in all video gaming and possibly media history.

 

Los Angeles should never EVER be touched again. NYC deserves a modern era return as MANY MANY things in NYC and about NYC was not explored or capable to be made due to limited technology, and VC is getting its well deserved return.  IMO, if they do ever go back to Liberty City it has to be the magnum opus , essentially the last Grand Theft Auto to be made. 
 

 

If we're talking about what is deserving return and what is not based on how many times it had appeared in the game, then Las Venturas and San Fierro would be like if they had ability to read your post: 👀 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.