| //Section One: Anti-London Arguments Countered. Part 2. |
|---|
Now I have no problem with individuals preferring another location over London, nor even if they should dislike the idea. However if these people don not have valid reason for holding such views then I will attempt to educate their opinion with fact and logic. That is what this section is here for, it deals with any and all invalid, illogical or false ‘reason’ that anti-London idiots generally put forwards to substantiate their (utterly) fallacious claim that London is unsuitable as a basis for GTA.
This is the second of two such sections and it debases the following ‘arguments’: “Wasn’t the Getaway GTA London?!?!”, "Isn’t it the wrong side of the road?", "I though London didn’t have radio station?", "How can London fit with other GTA stories?".[/b] |
//“Wasn’t the Getaway GTA London?!?!”This one comes up all the time, it’s like the retards best friend. Now I’m not sure wether these mental midgets actually believe that The Getaway was part of the Grand Theft Auto franchise and was made by Rockstar games, or wether they are merely attempting to claim either: that Rockstar shouldn’t make a GTA based upon London because The Getaway was set there, or that a GTA London would “suck” because they thought The Getaway did. Whcichever it is is incorrect and irrelevant.
This section explains why The Getaway has f*ck all bearing on any prospective GTA: ‘London’.Some poor fools state that a GTA based around London would
‘suck’ because it would
“be just like The Getaway” which
‘sucks’.This is nonsense.Really, there is no logical reasoning behind this statement at all, it is completely false and slightly retarded.
A GTA based around London would neither be “just like The Getaway” nor ‘suck’ because of it.
Why?
Well first of all The Getaway has nothing at all to do with Grand Theft Auto.
The two games are made by completely different companies which are in no way related to each other.
Grand Theft Auto is made by Rockstar North.
The Getaway is made by Team Soho.
R* games is in no way related to Team Soho, who made The Getaway.
R* games had nothing to do whatsoever with the making of The Getaway.
Team Soho have nothing to do whatsoever with the making of GTA.
Again The Getaway has no bearing whatsoever on the outcome of a GTA set in London.
A GTA set in a London inspired city would be to The Getaway as True Crimes:Streets of L.A is to San Andreas, they may be based on the same location but they are totally different games made by completely different companies.The Getaways London is dead a GTA London would be alive and kicking.
As to why The Getaway
‘sucks’, is it because the game is set in London and London inherently
‘sucks’?
NO.The Getaway
‘sucks’ because it is not GTA.
The Getaway
‘sucks’ because it is a poorly crafted game.
The Getaway
‘sucks’ because it is realistic, because its streets are over congested and thus frustrating to drive around in. Imagine for a moment if SA adhered to reality and Los Santos’s freeways were congested to mimic those of Los Angeles (the city LS represents), that would ‘suck’. The Getaway
‘sucks’ because every time you crash your car, which happens often because of the over congested roads, the car is realistically damaged and you have to get another one. The Getaway
‘sucks’ because every time you run a red light or crash or disobey the road rules you are chased by police.
The Getaway
‘sucks’ because its version of London is a thin facade, there is nothing beyond the pixelated fronts of the cities buildings. The Getaways city has not been crafted as well as those of Grand Theft Auto, it lacks the level of interaction, in unique jumps, enterable buildings, people or general points of interest.
The Getaway
‘sucks’ because its inhabitants are bland automatons that lack the character of those of GTA cities.
The Getaway
‘sucks’ because its city is not really a crucial part of the game as the cities of GTA are, it is lifeless and uninteractive, it is just the backdrop for the story, not intrinsically a part of it.
The Getaway
‘sucks’ because its controls are unintuitive and clunky, both in car and on foot.
The Getaway
‘sucks’ because every time you get shot you have to lean up against a wall for five minutes to replenish your health while your enemies continue to shoot you and the game drags along.
The Getaway
‘sucks’ because it has no replay value.
The Getaway ‘sucks’ because it is not GTA and was not made by Rockstar games.Though personally I do not agree entirely that The Getaway
’sucks’, I feel that it is merely a totally ordinary game that is a let down because it is nothing like GTA. I personally believe that The Getaway is a far better game than True Crime: Streets of L.A which
‘sucked hard’ and was the most unfortunate waste of time and money I have ever made in my life. However my hatred of True Crime: L.A did not blunt my enjoyment of a GTA based around L.A and California, nor would your hatred of The Getaway blunt yours of a GTA based around London.
Id like to take a quote from
ign.com’s Getaway: Black Monday Reviewas I feel it perfectly sums up the deep and intrinsic differences between the GTA and Getaway franchises:
| QUOTE (ign.coms The Getaway: Black Monday Review) |
Unlike San Andreas and its ability to be good by offering every type of gameplay mechanic, regardless of how undeveloped it might be, Black Monday uses the nurtured storyline to funnel the action through linear environments. In one way, this creates a game that lacks the grand scale of its counterpart but delivers a more structured, believable experience where environment does not play as pivotal a role.
In Black Monday, London serves as a detailed set piece upon which the next series of unfortunate events plays out....So we're left with this huge city, but absolutely nothing to do in it. Why then did the team devote so much effort to painstakingly replicating that which can only be truly enjoyed through some trivial black cab, race, and free roam extras?
Had all that development time spent trying to unnecessarily emulate GTA's scope been diverted to establishing gameplay fundamentals that actually worked, Black Monday would be as good a game as it is a show. |
R* would not use the ‘Real’ London, they would BASE a city around its quirks and biggest, most famous features. Liberty is not literally New York, Vice is not Miami, Los Santos is not L.A but they are BASED around those real world locations.
R* did not make the Getaway, it is not part of the GTA series.FACT.
This
’argument’ is like saying “Mario 128 will suck because you thought Spyro The Dragon was turd..”, It’s baseless, get over it.
R* DID NOT MAKE THE GETAWAY. The Getaway has nothing to do with GTA and would have no bearing on a GTA based around London. FACT.//“But I did’nt like the GTA: 69 Mission Pack”Some people have a dislike for the GTA2 London 1969 expansion pack. That’s fine. However some of these people are idiots who think that their dislike of GTA2 London 1969 expansion pack was purely down to its setting which somehow serves to prove Londons inherrent ’suckiness’ or homsexuality.
This section offers a more logic led, sensible reason as to the reason that people may have found the GTA2 London 1969 expansion pack to be less developed and/or rewarding than other, full GTA installments.As is the nature of simple minds they often make simple prima facie evaluations based on the most basic, surface level, amount of
’logic’.
Ergo it is in a way understandable when said simple minds come to the conclusion that, becasuse they found the GTA2 London 1969 expansion pack to be the least effective and enjoyable instalment in the top down GTA franchise, it was because it was set in London and that therefore this is proof that London
’sucks’ or is
’gay’.
However due to the the basic, face value nature of this logic it is still highly flawed.
Like all the other supposed reasons why London would not work as a GTA location this argument is tenous to the point of being nonsense and is the result of said simple minds clutching at straws, to prevent the need to deal with anything that is new or in any way foreign.
You see when you claim that because London 1969
’sucked’ or was
’gay’ this proves that London is an unsuitable location to base a GTA installment around, your simple mind chooses to ignore a couple of key flaws in this logic.
Firstly you must realise that your assertion that the GTA2:London 1969 expansion pack
’sucked’ or was
’gay’ is purely your own personal assesment. Whislt you may hate the GTA2:London 1969 expansion pack there may well be other people out in the big wide world who enjoyed it and rate it highly amongst the GTA franchise. Whether they are few or many is moot as the bottom line is: when you say you dislike something you are simply stating your own opinion based upon your own personal preferences.
Personal preference along with personal annecdotes has no bearing whatsoever on reasoned, logical debate and serves to proove nothing. One mans meat is another mans potato.
Beyond that however in all of your simple minds surface level reasoning you failed to identify the key factor in why you found the GTA2: London 1969
expansion pack to be the least effective installment of the top down GTA series.
Whether through choice or the simple nature in which you feeble mind works you failed to correctly identify what exactly would have lead to the GTA2: London 1969
expansion pack being the least developed and effective installment in the top down GTA series.
Your ignorance and intolerance of the idea of anything outside of the good old US of A or the simple manner in which feeble mind functions latched onto the fact that the GTA2: London 1969
expansion pack was set in London as the ‘reason’ for its weaknesses.
However your ignorance and intolerance of the idea of anything outside of the good old US of A or the simple manner in which your brain functions conveninetly failed to recognise the more likely factor in the GTA2: London 1969
expansion packs ineffectiveness.
You see the key factor in making the GTA2: London 1969
expansion pack the least developed and enjoyable installment in the top down GTA series surely hasd to be the FACT that it was no more than an
expansion pack. Either you ignored this fact as it was conveninet to perpetuating you willfull ignorance or your simple brain failed to get that far when it drew its (erroneous) conclusion.
The FACT that London 1969 was an expansion pack,
a mere add-on, surely has more to do with the games comparitive shortcommings than its setting. As the London 1969 expansion pack was just that, an add-on to the full game GTA2, it was always going to be comparitevley weaker in content. London 1969 was never meant as a full game, it was an aperitiff to go with the premium cut that was GTA2. That is the reason it was less developed in terms of missions, characters, story, game space and gameplay
because it was an add on, an “expansion pack”. Not because it was set in London. It had less production put into it, less work and less developmenmt
because it was not meant as a stand alone, full game.
Beyond that true logic I would also like to point out that the GTA2: London 1969
expansion pack was not made by the same Rockstar North (formerly DMA) team that has all the other
full GTA installments (bar GTA:Adv and LCS:PSP). If one was being cynical one would propose that the involvement of the ‘B’ team could have also had more of a bearing upon the quality of the
expansion pack than its setting.
//“But English accents are “gay”I really have lost count of the times I’ve read on some idiot on these forums claiming that London is an untenable location for GTA due to English accents being ‘gay’. This is for those twats... Some people claim that London/Great Britain is an untenable location for an episode in the GTA franchise because they personally think that “English accents are f*cking annoying” or “f*cking gay”.
I’m sorry, what the f*ck is this?
Are you an idiot?
Are you racist?
What if I said American accents were “f*cking ‘gay’”? Would that offend you? Would you think that made me sound like I hated Americans and was thus, by definition, a racist? On top of that would my use of the word ‘gay’ (referring to its context as a definition for homosexuality) as a derogatory insult make you think that I was homophobic? Would my prejudiced bullsh*t statement which belied that I was both a homophobe and a racist make you view me as a bigot? Would my highly bigoted and ignorant remarks make you consider me personally to be ignorant? Would my ignorance make you think that I was an irrational moron and that my views were based upon prejudice, absent of any fact and thus
worthless?Would the irrational and prejudiced nature of my remarks make you believe that they were the bi product of an irrational, ever so slightly retarded mind? Would your judgements leave you of the opinion that I would be unable to comprehend anything that I had just read in the precluding paragraph?
Good because now you know how I feel every time I see some intellectually challenged child tell me that the way that I pronunciate my native language was inherently flawed and in some bizarre way related to my sexual orientation.
Besides the complete f*cking idiocy of this
attempt at reasoning how does the fact that
you personally have some irrational dislike of British accents negate every single of the many benefits as a setting London brings to the table?
It doesn’t.
I personally don’t think twice about the way I or anybody else talks, my first thought simply computes where on earth the person originates from.
Myself along with the rest of the Brits that make up 25% of GTA’s buyers and the rest of the world outside of the U.S that, combined, makes up half of GTA’s market have been playing the games no problem to date listening to accents that are alien to our ears.
London still has much to offer to GTA wether
you personally think I talk funny or not and besides
at least half the market doesn’t give a toss about accents anyway.
To sum this up I would like to pull an quote from and American member (so it would seem that not even all Americans share your irrational prejudice) who contributed to this thread;
: llewlyn’s post:| QUOTE (llewlyn @ Dec 8 2004, 17:55 ) |
| 2- If you can't understand someone else who's clearly speaking the same language, that's because you're slow. And it's your problem and only affects you. People of normal intelligence can handle hearing slightly different vowels. American southerners are harder to understand to people from the north than British people. |
Sounds spot on to me, if you have problems understanding someone who is speaking the same language as you then you are clearly a moron. Furthermore, if you simply decide that you ‘hate’ English accents then you are not only a moron you are also, by definition, a racist.
So once again see llewlyn’s post;If you can't understand someone else who's clearly speaking the same language, that's because you're slow. And it's your problem and only affects you. People of normal intelligence can handle hearing slightly different vowels.FACT.
//“But you drive on the ‘wrong’ side of the road, moving the on screen vehicle to a slightly different point is beyond my mental capabilities”Many members seem to be against the idea of a London set game as driving on the left hand side of the road would somehow ruin the game. Now I really don’t get this one as if you play GTA anything like I do you generally ignore road protocol but if I want this thread to be definitive then I have to deal with this *ahem* ‘argument’, so here goes...First of all it isn’t the ‘wrong’ side of the road, it is the
other side of the road. There’s nothing ‘wrong’ about it. Glad we’ve got that cleared up. The
other side of the road.
Now I tend to have a problem with this one, it’s not insulting or racist in any way like some of the other so called reasons that a GTA based on London couldn’t work but it really doesn’t make any sense to me.
First of all like many of the arguments that are put forwards against London it is based entirely upon one individuals personal preference and is not supported by facts, thus being practically worthless. However it exists and has to be dealt with.
I tend to believe that those that bring up this argument more than likely can’t drive on the ‘right’ side of the road either, I suspect that they are kids who have no concept of driving outside of Gran Turismo. This is no more a reason against a London setting than the accents or The Getaway, if this is the best you can do you should simply give up.
As I mention above the first thing you need to realise here is that this is simply your personal preference and it thus counts for nothing. You have not gone through any process of reasoning to come to the conclusion that driving on the left would ruin the game, you simply don’t like the idea.
Looking at this issue from a rational point of view what credence does it have? What problems would driving on the left hand side of the road really cause?
In reality the problem with driving on the opposite side of the road than that which you have learnt to drive on are related to how you have learnt to operate a car (or automobile for you yanks). You see in real life everything switches sides, the gears, the steering wheel and the mirrors, you also have to pay attention to the flow of traffic differently as you are now facing in a different direction. Saying that if you can break past your dogma it isn’t that difficult, I say that from personal experience, as irrelevant as it is.
However none of these problems are present in GTA.
In GTA all you need to pay attention to when driving are two things, the control pad and the TV screen. Irrespective of whether in game traffic flow is left or right sided these things stay the same, all that changes is a minor detail on screen, position car to left or right of road. No impact is made on anything else or the gameplay, if you struggle with this then am afraid you must be some kind of moron.
Myself and
millions like me in the UK have happily been playing along on GTA driving on the other side of the road without any problems whatsoever and I refuse to believe that the piece of land that we are born in or lines on the map somehow make us more adaptable people, so what’s your problem here if it isn’t some kind of mental deficiency?
To control your vehicle in GTA all you do is press buttons on a control pad whilst looking at a TV screen neither of which have changed in anyway since you played GTA driving on the ‘right’ side of the road.
Personally I can happily switch between GTA and The Getaway without any confusion at all over which side of the road to drive on so I guess that makes me some kind of genius.
Irrespective of all this however what I am unable to understand more than anything else here is how you play GTA to make road rules any kind of a problem to you.
You see when I play GTA I tend to drive on whichever side of the road there is no traffic on it at that time, left or right, or failing that I’m swerving all over the pavement or surrounding countryside.
Since when did correct road protocol have any bearing on a GTA game?
Why would that change with a GTA London?
So the final solution for you in event of a GTA London would be; drive on the pavement if you lack the brainpower to adjust to driving on the opposite side of the road, this is GTA after all.
//“Is the radio invented in London?”A common fear of many of the U.S members of this site is that moving GTA out of the U.S would mean that the games soundtrack would change beyond recognition. They also often seem to believe that British artists do not make any modern music and that a GTA London would “be all classical music n’ stuff”. Clearly those people need to have me bounce another dose of reality upside their heads so that the can become enlightened by the truth of the matter.
This section is about music.This old chestnut is another one I see time and time again that moving the game out of the U.S will mean that the soundtrack will change beyond American recognition. Well there’s two things to say to this firstly that U.S music is listened to GLOBALLY, infact in London if you were to turn on the radio there is as much chance that a U.S track would come on as a U.K one and other than that you need to open your mind Cletus. I’m British but I would not argue against a GTA: Tokyo simply because I am unfamiliar with Japanese music, if anything I would be intrigued as to what new sounds the creative minds of Japans musical artists had to offer me.
But again I would say that it’s about 50/50 over here between U.S and homegrown music so with regards to a GTA London this argument again does not stand up. Obviously there would be stations that played purely British music, you could have a 60’s station and a 70’s rock station, a punk station and an old school acid house station as well as stations playing contemporary dnb, Jungle and garage as well as stations playing contemporary U.S music and return of other stations like a K-Jah London. The soundtrack of a U.K game would be just as strong and varied as a U.S one, if you listen to music over there we listen to it over here, plus we listen to our own artists also.
Beyond this fact another is that the GTA soundtracks have already made large use of British music with tracks by artists such as; Iron Maiden, Ozzy Osbourne, The Who, The Stone Roses, Spandau Ballet, Rod Stewart, Roxy Music, MSX was U.K etc even more is non U.S like the whole of K-Jah for example. Another thing to remember here is that music is personal preference, If YOU do not like something that does not mean that everyone else agrees with you. I much prefer dnb and Jungle to Hip-ety Hop-scotch, but that is simply my personal preference, you might prefer country and western Cletus and that dude over there might prefer motown, this is no argument.
Of course beyond all of this we will be talking about PS3 and Blu Ray discs so conceivably a 50/50 UK/U.S soundtrack for GTA:NXT could contain more U.S music than any GTA so far. Beyond that if the PS3 had the facility you could listen to YOUR OWN music in the next GTA anyway.
Certainly the soundtrack
could be an issue with some locations outside of the U.S, namely all of those cities that are in countries where the first language is not English. In case of somewhere like Mexico City for example there would naturally be stations that focused on the U.S and other western popular music but there would also need to be many stations that catered for the indigenous esperanto musical taste (think Espantosa from Vice) and generally speaking the DJ’s would need to speak mostly in Spanish. Which is seen as a problem by some. Wiping out all national identity in such places and committing a wholesale Anglicanisation would risk destroying the unique feel that attracted us to such locales in the first place.
London being the capital of England and the home of the English language would not have this problem however as (most of) the DJ’s talk English.
Personally I’d love to see a modern day or fairly recent take on London (for more reasons than just the soundtrack) and I’d look forwards to a gem of a soundtrack full of Drum and Bass, Garage, Prodigy, Oasis and plenty of old fashioned UK led rock and roll...
American music is listened to globally and is certainly common on Londons radio stations. The soundtracks of GTA have already contained much British music. Moving to a London setting would NOT mean that the soundtrack’s feel would become totally alien. FACT.//“It can’t be London, cuz I can’t imagine it.”This one’s funny. Some idiots have such feeble minds that they cannot imagine things.
This section tells them that that’s their problem.I really am sorry, I feel bad for you that you posess a simple mind and lack any kind of an imagination as a result but I really cannot see what that has to do with Londons viability as a setting for GTA.
This one comes up all the time: “ I downt want it in London cuz I carnt emajin it...”
All this serves to do is prove my point; that only ignorants and imbecilles choose to dispute Londons viability as a setting for a future GTA to be based around.
The ignorants opose it as they are ignorants, whether through lack of knowledge or through complicit ignorance drawn from their fear and hatred of the world outside of the US. The ignorants may be able to imagine GTA set outside of the US and they may see the logical truth in Londons imense potential yet their xenophobia means that they will never acknowledge this to be the case.
The imbecilles opose it as they naturally are also ignorant, they are imbeciles and lack the capacity to see and comprehend the facts and realities of the matter.
Those that pull the “bud I kant emajeen it” card are generally imbeciles.
So there you go, If you can’t imagine a GTA set in a London inspired setting that is proof of one thing and one thing only; your feeble brain.
Your lack of an imagination has no bearing on Londons viability and imense potential as a prospective GTA inspiration, all it has a bearing on is your level of stupidity. Handle it.
There is logic behind the reasons why London works as a GTA inspiration, however, there is no logicwhatsoever behind your assertion that London is unviable simply bacuase you cannot personally imagine a GTA game being set there.
Again:Your inability to imagine something, whilst unsurprising, is of total irrelevance to Londons validity and feasibility as a prospective GTA4 location.
Grow an imagination or shut up.//How can London fit in with the existing stories?!”The nature of the beast is such that many of the members of this forum have a reluctance to let go of the past or their favourite GTA characters, nostalgia clouds their judgement and they believe that each GTA installment needs to have Claude and CJ and Tommy and everyone else aunt popping up all over the place.
Due to the generally unimaginative nature of this desire the people that have it are generally of the opinion that it is impossible for existing characters to show up in a GTA set in a London inspired setting. If you think that way then this section is for you...I’ll try to break this to you as gently as possible but;
If you cannot see a way to tie in characters from previous games that is because you are un-imaginative. There are
MANY ways to tie London into the existing GTA universe and It does not simply have to be Kent Paul. For one Example Donald Love could be operating out of his companies London subsidiary, Tommy Vercetti and his mob could be going into partnership with an East End Firm on a new super casino, Wuzi Mu could be sent to sort out problems amongst the Triads or for another example check here:
Joey Leone StoryBeyond all that however there why shouldn’t R* start a fresh and separate arc of stories complete with new, different and equally colourful characters? Indeed Sam Houser (president of Rockstar Games) has stated that GTA San Andreas was to mark the end of the GTA3 trilogy.
| QUOTE (Sam Houser in Game Informer Magazine) |
| It was really important for us to do this trilogy. A fictional New York in a contemporary setting, Miami in the '80s, and a '90s Cali - that was the trilogy. |
Source:GTA4.NetIn which case it looks as though Rockstar’s intention is to head in a new, fresh, direction and I’m on track with that idea so I might just point the way; what better place to start than London?
I’m not against having cameos from well known and well loved GTA faces, far from it infact, but I’m in favour of a fresh start,
new characters in a
new location in a
new country.
Though to re-emphasise:
A London inspired city could easily tie in with the stories and characters of previous GTA games. FACT.| Further Considerations |
|---|
| This section moves beyond the anti-London arguments which have by now been comprehensively dealt with and nullified. The content of this section is miscellaneous and deals with various concerns such as prerequisites when considering prospective GTA locations to a few of my personal views on how Rockstar could tackle a future London inspired GTA as well as mentioning noteworthy London gangland films. |
| The Prerequisites: Why London |
|---|
| This section looks at what factors need to be present in a location for it to be suitable to have a GTA setting based around it. To begin with it details the most basic, fundamental requirements and then it looks at what factors are necessary for the location to be a success. This section also details just why London is the ideal candidate for the next GTA to be based around, explaining the advantages it has over other prospective locations. |
If one looks at the locations of GTA series thus far what is apparent is that each of the settings for the games used (with the exception of GTA2) have all been inspired by real world locations. As such it is fair t presume that the next GTA will follow suit.
If that is the case then it is only natural that we are drawn to speculate on what cities around the world could, should and would make suitable locations for the next GTA.
Looking at GTA locations on the most basic level there are relatively few prerequisites that need to be present for any given location to be a feasible option. GTA is basically a game centred around crime, cars and gangs.
So,what is it that a prospective GTA location fundamentally (on the most basic level) needs to be a feasible setting?
•Crime
•Gangs
•Cars
• you could also argue that it needs to meet a certain size threshold.
When thinking about it like that the list of feasible candidate cities is almost endless, many cities meet those criteria, London certainly does, Mexico City does also, hell so do Mumbai and Timbuktu no doubt.
As explained earlier in the ‘Rich+Poor=Crime’ section of this thread, these few key factors are present in all major cities. Cities are large urban groupings of people, as such they
always contain rich and poor, the rich run the city and the poor flock there to work for them. In such large groups of people it is
natural that there will be both the successful and the less successful, as such there will
always be crime. Poor and rich become naturally segregated by their ability or inability to be selective towards housing and schooling and the poor become trapped in a ghettoised self perpetuating circle. Some will turn to crime to escape from poverty and to service the cities vices. Due to human nature as well as the practicality of ‘strength in numbers’ there will always be a ganging up of groups of people and a hierarchical structure.
Crime is present in all cities.
Gangs are present in all cities.
Cars are present in all cities.
So using those few requirements there are plenty of cities that R*
could take inspiration from to base its cities around.
However that does not mean that there are plenty of cities that R*
should base their GTA locations around. Could does not equal should.
So once you move beyond the basics it is clear that more factors should come into play when considering which cities are best suited as GTA locations.
What factors should we then turn to? Statistics?The first place that many people on here seem to turn to next is the statistics books, when they see that many locations are suitable on the factors of crime and size they decide that the way to tell which city would be most suitable or is
the best they turn to the statistics. They will compare the population size and the rate of murders and decide that, due location X having two more murders last year and one million more inhabitants than location Y, location X is clearly superior. More is better right?
Wrong! As is also explained earlier in the thread at several points GTA is not a simulation, of anything. GTA does not realistically recreate a cities crime statistics down to the finest minutiae nor accurately maintain a cities population via a meticulous population birth and death monitoring engine. GTA is a cartoon, it is the antithesis of reality. GTA exaggerates crime and pays no attention to a population stat. GTA is not bound by statistics.
Simply because location X had ten more murders in it than London in 2003 and Location Y is home to a million more people does not mean that these locations are superior to London, nor does it mean that R* would suddenly impose a limit to the amount of murder and mayhem you could perpetrate in GTA to keep in line with real world statistics. As is clear, GTA is not a simulation, it is an exaggeration. GTA
exaggerates crime, as long as it is present at a
reasonable level then that is enough.
So seeing as the quality of a GTA location extends beyond pure statistics what criteria should be considered to separate the ideal from the feasible?Looking back at all the GTA locations used they all have two factors in common that make them perfect locations for GTA; They are well recognisable, global cities that have a unique but easily identified atmosphere, when in Vice you
know that it is based upon Miami, if you are in Liberty you
know that it is based upon New York.Cities like New York and San Francisco have been used by GTA so far because their merits extend beyond crime rates to the unique and instantly recognisable atmosphere they possess. This is opposed to second string cities like Seattle or Colorado or Springfield that nobody outside of the people that live there would know or recognise anything about.
Secondly they are all home to a multi-cultural, ethnically diverse population which leads to a colourful and equally diverse gamut of characters and gangs.
These are the key factors to consider when looking at potential GTA locations to judge which is superior and they are the reasons why London is the ideal candidate.
As is clear to anyone with a reasoned mind, crime and gangs are present in all major cities. However not all major cities are international in aspect and not all major cities are home to multi ethnic populations. London is, as the rest of this thread shows.
The first factor; GTA locations needing to be [b]INTERNATIONAL in aspect with a globally recognised image and atmosphere that screams at you so you
get the vibe of that city is what eliminates setting the game in
yet another U.S location. As I have stated earlier; with the exception of Washington D.C all the globally recognisable cities with instantly recognisable landmarks and atmosphere have all been used up. Apart from the people that live in them no one would recognise Detroit or Boston or Denver if they came and relocated stone by stone on top of their heads. So this factor pretty much eliminates another U.S location, if you add to it that nothing would change in terms of gangs or culture or the fundamental style of the cities you begin to realise that going back the states again would simply be the same thing, the same tired jokes, the same familiar gangs i.e The Mafia, Gangbangers, Hispanics but on top of all that it would be set in some nondescript location that nobody outside of the states will have heard of or know anything about.
London on the other hand is and always has been a globally famous city, with recognisable features and it’s own special atmosphere. However there are other options that also tick this box, cities such as Rio or Tokyo for example are also world renowned and uniquely recognisable.
The fact is GTA is bombastic in nature, as such it’s locations need to have a high profile. The locations for GTA need to have an instantly recognisable image, flavour and atmosphere, London does, many cities do not not.However many of these cities do not put a tick in the second box, failing to meet the multi-cultural, ethnic diversity requirements. Why is this important? Well in a multi cultured city R* will be able to paint a rich canvas full of colourful and diverse characters that inhabit areas of the cities that they have given a sense of their culture making it a home away from home. A multi cultured city is more interesting physically and biologically. A mono cultured city on the other hand would restrict R*’s palette of available colours, characters in Tokyo for example would need to be predominately cut from a Japanese, Yakuza coloured cloth. The selection of a more mono-cultured city would risk a
bland and boring location and game whereas London is the ideal city to carry forwards the
colourful and
interestingly diverse theme of GTA’s cities and characters to date.
Finally the factor that eventually leaves London as the
ideal location for the next GTA is dictated by the nature of an anglo dominated planet. GTA is a brand which is designed by westerners for westerners(Americans and Brits make up three quarters of the GTA market) as such GTA needs to be predominantly English language. This is the only real problem when considering more exotic locales such as Tokyo, Moscow, Rio or Mexico; the language barrier. Now what is unique about these cities is almost totally and intrinsically linked to their cultural identity. The Japanese-ness of Tokyo is where it’s appeal lies just as the Latino vibe is what makes locations such as Rio or Mexico so appealing. However to sell the game to the western, english speaking market a full scale anglicanisation would need to take place. Sure Espantosa was fine in Vice but it was only one station of many, yet in a latin american game it would need to be the dominant influence on the radio, sure you could change the DJ’s so they were speaking English but this anglicanisation would have to extend to the pedestrians and to the signage of the city. he risk of this wholesale anglicanisation is that somewhere along the way the unique atmosphere of these foreign locales, the very thing that attracted us to them in the first place, would be lost. All we would end up with then would be a giant Chinatown or Little Mexico and a game that felt just the same as the others.
London has none of these problems, it is globally recognisable and has a unique atmosphere that is also globally recognisable. It is as richly multi cultured and ethnically diverse as anywhere else in the world and finally it’s uniqueness would not need to be jeopardised by a wholesale Anglicanisation as it is the birthplace of the English language and Anglican culture.
| Statistics and why they are irrelevant. |
|---|
| I have mentioned statistics throughout this thread and made a point of pointing out that by the cartoon over the top nature of GTA they are largely irrelevant. This section briefly re-emphasises the point. |
I feel it is important at this point for me to emphasise the fact that GTA is an exaggerated over the top cartoon.
GTA tackles the world and twists it.
GTA is in now way based upon reality and it is in no way bound by it.
Just because some obscure city somewhere in the world is home to fifty gagillion people or had ten billion murders by guns in it yesterday does not meant that it is the best location for GTA.
Al that is important that a certain threshold of size is met and that there is a certain level of crime.
GTA is not a real life crime simulator or there would be caps on the amount of kills our character could make. If you believe that a London game would change this then you are clearly under the misconception that GTA realistically simulates crime and murders and thus that hoods in South Central L.A are and do frequently kill thousands of people and getaway with doing so. Just because London had 10 less murders in it last year than location x does not mean that you would be able to kill less people in a GTA set in a London inspired setting, GTA has no rules and obeys a very thin, stretched and twisted notion of reality. A GTA set in London would change the gameplay of GTA in no way because it has lower statistics than somewhere else.
It would however bring a totally new and fresh spin to the GTA franchise and bring us (in the parlance of our times) one kick ass motherf*cker of a game.
| Various approaches to employing London as a GTA setting. |
|---|
| I have mentioned statistics throughout this thread and made a point of pointing out that by the cartoon over the top nature of GTA they are largely irrelevant. This section briefly re-emphasises the point. |
GTA: UKSeeing as London is the capital of Great Britain and not the 51st state the most logical and straightforward approach would be to set the city as part of a GTA: UK. The way I see this working best is as follows: You begin the game incarcerated in a maximum security prison in the north of England. You spend a period of a couple of hours real time (5-10% mission time) in the prison choosing either the path of gaining favour with the screws or the cons. If you take the con route you will make associations with powerful criminals on the inside and even build your own crew. The con path ends in a prison riot where YOU take control of the prison and make your escape.
Either way the prison plays out you end up escaping across the northern moors to Steel City which is a northern industrial city based on Sheffield. The city is in the grip of an escalating riot as the factories are closed and the disenfranchised workers form gangs. The crisis escalates to the point where the city is abandoned to the gangs by the government and cordoned off by the army. The city basically turns into something akin to Carcer City in Manhunt, a no go zone controlled by gangs. Here you and your crew become the most powerful gang in the city.
Once you complete the Steel City section you branch out to the London inspired city and become involved in the many faceted gang scene in the capital. Other cities to include could be Liverpool and Glasgow parodies.
This is the option I favour personally but I do not see R* taking this route due to the noise that comes from the direction of American Xenophobes.
GTA: EuropeThis is what I see as the most likely choice that R* would take for the next GTA game and obviously London, as the EU’s biggest city would have to be included.
The way I would do GTA: Europe would be to start it in London due to the fact that it would not be a totally alien environment for U.S gamers, with the same language and some similar buildings i.e Skyscrapers and then to branch out onto the continent and it’s more alien environment (to American Xenophobes).
The European cities I would include would be; Amsterdam for obvious reasons, Milan not Rome as more mafia business goes on in the industrial centre of Italy than in it’s tourist attraction capital, possibly also Sicily and also I would suck Moscow over from the east.
GTA: Global: Drug Trade or Russian Mafia SagaThis is a strong outside bet for GTA:NXT, the global approach. This will be the approach that R* take if they are scared of the minority group that the American Xenophobes comprise, if they fear that taking the game away from the U.S. Will HoodyG and his internet OG’s, pimps and playa’s play the game if it leaves the U.S. (personally I would suggest they would quickly cave in and buy it, but...)
To state as fact that R* FEAR this group is to fail to give them due credit however as similar morons made similar noises about CJ being a brother, naturally only time will tell.
London would fit in here as it is one of the primary hubs for global criminal and drugs rings. Other cities could include anywhere, from Hong Kong to Colombia to Chicago.
Other than the global drugs trade R* could take the game global by focusing on the Russian Mafia telling the story of how it expanded on the breakdown of the Soviet Union and grew to where it is today having global influence from Moscow around the Globe. London could also fit in here as the Russian mafia is heavily involved in Londons underworld, infact a suspected Russian mafiosi, Roman Abramovich has bought one of Londons football teams (Chelsea).
Of course R* could decide to go back and focus on one city again, in which case London is one HELL of a BIG and DIVERSE playground to base it on...
| Yesterday?Today?Tomorrow? |
|---|
| This section details my personal opinions on what time period would best serve a GTA based around London and the reasoning behind my conclusions. To be brief I personally believe that the present day or recent past are the ideal periods to bring the best out of a London inspired setting. Read on for my reasons... |
Personally I truly believe that London is a more suitable and interesting location for the GTA franchise if the game is set in the present day than back in 1969 due to the reasons of diversity that I have brought up on this thread. Whilst a 1960’s set game would open up various interesting stylistic approaches, London in the 60’s was MUCH less ethnically diverse and largely mono cultured. As a result the gang scene was less varied, it was really still just rival London firms in the 60’s.
Beyond the gang scene the city was also less diverse on an architectural level and was still rooted to the past and tradition. So all things considered I would prefer a city based on present day London or a generation game approach where the story is told in different era’s with the city changing to suit than have the game restricted to an east end gang war. One way to play out the modern day story could be to show a traditional English/London crime crime family despairing at the way crime in the city was being taken over by foreign gangs.
However beyond that, which is a reasoned personal preference, present day London is certainly a more saleable location to the more small minded American demographic than that of the swinging 60’s.
So I believe that London due to the factor of diversity is a more suitable location for GTA in the present than the past.| Suggested Viewing |
|---|
| Obviously to date R* have taken much inspiration for their games from films and people often refer to films that could be relevant to for a GTA London inspired setting. The section briefly mentions some of the films that I would suggest would be relevant source material for a GTA London, but of course R* know al about them I’m sure. If you’ve not seen them though these are films I would recommend to get an idea of the flavour of Londons criminal underbelly... |
The Long Good FridayThis film is the pinnacle of British gangster films as far as I am concerned and is certainly the top of the pile when it comes to London gang films.
It stars Bob Hoskins as Harold Shand, the fictional head of the most powerful East End firm in London in the early 1980’s. The film tells the story of how Harold Loses control of the town he thought he owned, as a series of events play out over the course of good friday. It’s a masterpiece of suspense that shows Guy Ritchie how you should make a gangland film.
Mona LisaThis is another film starring Bob Hoskins and it gives an insight into the seedy underbelly of Londons vice trade. Hoskins character get caught up with a high end call girl and her private search to find a missing friend.
Smaller in scope than the Long Good Friday and more visceral, almost Taxi Driver esque. It also features Michael Caine.
Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels and SnatchEverybody knows Lock, Stock and Snatch Guy Ritchies slick, black comedy takes on small time hoods in London.
Sexy BeastRay Winstone stars in this film which tells the story of a former face gone straight who is forced into taking one last job by his former colleague. This film is darkly comic and as much a romance as a gang film. Highly recommended.
Get Carter (the original)Seen by many as the seminal British gangster film starring Michael Caine in his pomp. This film tells the tale of a 1960’s Gangland face who is forced to return to his former stamping ground in Newcastle to uncover a trail of betrayal.
Not really a London gang film but it is required viewing as a seminal British film and one of Caines best.
I.DThis film focuses upon the culture of the football hooligan and is a fair insight into hooligan gangs for those who have no concept of them.
Football FactorySimilar to I.D in that it deals with the skinhead football hooligan lifestyle. Co-financed by R* and starring our own Kent Paul (Danny Dyer) its also worth a butchers.
| The Conclusion |
|---|
| The bit at the end where everything is added up and evaluated and I tell you what you should have worked out for yourself by now. London IS totally and ideally suited for having a GTA city based around it but not only that it is possibly the most ideal location for the next GTA |
Again as I told you at the beginning, not one of the factors or arguments brought up in this argument should be taken as
the reason that GTA should move to London. However, when you weigh everything brought up here in the round and acknowledge the full spectrum of benefits the location would bring to the GTA series it becomes clear that it is supportably
the ideal location for the next GTA to be built around.
SizeAt 620 square miles with a population of nearly 8 million people London is more than big enough for a GTA city to be based around.
Multi-Cultural Ethnic DiversityWith nearly half of Londons population of 8 Million being made up of non-indigenous ethnic minorities London would provide R* with as many possibilities for a colourful and varied palette of characters and gangs as any other city in the world and more so than most.
CrimeLondon contains more than enough violent crime for R* to base their criminal oriented game there. Remember GTA is not a real world crime rate statistic simulator, it has not and never will set a cap on the number of crimes that you can perpetrate to stay representative of real world crime figures. The sole purpose of GTA is not to realistically simulate factual crime rates. If it was you wouldn’t be able to kill anyone after the first handful of missions even if it were set in Soweto. The cities of the U.S are NOT warzones whereas the cities in GTA are.
GTA ain’t real life, foo’!
GangsLondon is home to more than 400 different gangs of various levels of organisation and power. Due to Londons multi-cultured nature these gangs are widely diverse in terms of ethnicity and thus maintain the series wide colour and range of characters.
GunsGuns are used by both criminals and armed police in London. Nothing would change gameplay wise because of guns being illegal in the UK, after all since when did we stick to laws when playing GTA. GTA is based around crime, in it you control a criminal, criminals do illegal things hence guns being illegal in the UK is irrelevant.
Physical SettingDo to the combination of Londons age and the progressive outlook of the city London is arguably the most architecturally diverse city on the planet.
London has the rich and poor, the crime, the gangs, the unique, globally recognisable atmosphere, the size and the diversity required for a GTA setting, those things are factually indisputable.London is THE location for GTA4.
---
This post has been edited by Medallion Man on Dec 1 2005, 15:01
Grand Theft Auto V
Close Topic Options
