[Tipper]

I didn't say none, I said not enough.

[ynashimitsu]

QUOTE (Tipper @ Friday, Apr 13 2012, 22:56)

I didn't say none, I said not enough.

well ok then




now getting back to the topic I believe R* decide on LS because it has been working with the city of LA for a long time. I mean, Midnight Club LA was out the same year GTA IV was, then we had LA Noire and then we had RDR.... wait I'm not saying it is LA.. but it has deserts and forests and things we see in LA. So I believe they are polishing LA to its best. Taking advantages of things they used in their recent past games.

[Degrees]

QUOTE (Zeichef @ Friday, Apr 13 2012, 17:28)

QUOTE (Degrees @ Friday, Apr 13 2012, 17:09) QUOTE (interpolfan11 @ Friday, Apr 13 2012, 16:52) QUOTE (Degrees @ Friday, Apr 13 2012, 08:48) QUOTE (FCM @ Friday, Apr 13 2012, 16:45) QUOTE (ynashimitsu @ Friday, Apr 13 2012, 12:22) How Rio ain't that iconic? It has one of the 7 wonders in the world, it is the most visited city in the southern hemisphere (so more visited than Sydney) and it has 2014 world cup and 2016 olympics, biggest canaval, biggest new year festival, it has rock in rio and it has many historical buildings and castles. And now you say it isn't that iconic? Yeah, yeah, it's good to be proud of his country, but no one cares about Rio on a GTA forum. Grand Theft Auto isn't a satire of the Brazilian society, it's a satire of the American society. I care about Rio looks like a nice place and hot women. But that won't make it a good GTA locale. Well I wasn't personally think of Rio I actually agree with people who are saying it should stay in America. But huge crime rate and pretty nice culture they're having the Olympics next. Also a huge divide between rich and poor. Different areas like beaches and forests etc etc. Were you really born and raised in London? Your english seem a little off.

Yes. I get my words mixed up and I don't read through my posts.

[Halo_Override]

Every location thread breaks down into a couple of clearly delineated camps: the people who focus on what makes a city viable as a GTA game location based on what GTA games are generally about and the series history, and the people who are upset that their favorite city and/or the city they live in isn't on that list.

Rockstar decided on Los Santos because they belong to the first group of people.

[73duster]

I believe that at some point, Rockstar will just create an entire map that is unique, and completely fabricated from scratch. They can always use different cities as examples to build the ultimate map. They might just create a map large enough that you could have different climates depending on whether you are north or south. It's way past time we get a large snowy climate to explore, and creating a completely fictional map that is not modeled after a real place, let's Rockstar build a map that contains multiple climates.

[Dick Valor]

QUOTE (73duster @ Saturday, Apr 14 2012, 03:02)

I believe that at some point, Rockstar will just create an entire map that is unique, and completely fabricated from scratch. They can always use different cities as examples to build the ultimate map. They might just create a map large enough that you could have different climates depending on whether you are north or south. It's way past time we get a large snowy climate to explore, and creating a completely fictional map that is not modeled after a real place, let's Rockstar build a map that contains multiple climates.

@ Halo_Overide Exactly. Thank you.

@73 duster Never going to happen. SR is based on no city in particular and sells maybe 1/4 of the copies a GTA game based on L.A. or NY sells. Real spaces sell; imaginary places do not. Plenty of people that have never been to these cities are drawn to GTA for this reason alone. Unless it's a fantasy or sci fi setting, who wants to visit a place completely pulled out of some developer's ass?

[FCM]

QUOTE (Halo_Override @ Saturday, Apr 14 2012, 02:43)

Every location thread breaks down into a couple of clearly delineated camps: the people who focus on what makes a city viable as a GTA game location based on what GTA games are generally about and the series history, and the people who are upset that their favorite city and/or the city they live in isn't on that list. Rockstar decided on Los Santos because they belong to the first group of people.

/Thread

[73duster]

QUOTE (Dick Valor @ Saturday, Apr 14 2012, 03:15)

QUOTE (73duster @ Saturday, Apr 14 2012, 03:02) I believe that at some point, Rockstar will just create an entire map that is unique, and completely fabricated from scratch. They can always use different cities as examples to build the ultimate map. They might just create a map large enough that you could have different climates depending on whether you are north or south. It's way past time we get a large snowy climate to explore, and creating a completely fictional map that is not modeled after a real place, let's Rockstar build a map that contains multiple climates. @ Halo_Overide Exactly. Thank you. @73 duster Never going to happen. SR is based on no city in particular and sells maybe 1/4 of the copies a GTA game based on L.A. or NY sells. Real spaces sell; imaginary places do not. Plenty of people that have never been to these cities are drawn to GTA for this reason alone. Unless it's a fantasy or sci fi setting, who wants to visit a place completely pulled out of some developer's ass?

SR does'nt have GTA'S success, but there are MANY reasons as to why that is the case. Simply blaming the fact that it is a fictional city is not really accurate. SR is just a flat out inferior game all around. The city does'nt suck because it's fictional, it sucks because it is lifeless and dark. We can't relate to it because it feels cartoonish and unrealistic. The entire game is WAY over the top, like the younger brother of a popular student who will do anything to be like the older brother. If the map were a carbon copy of a real city, it would STILL suck. Furthermore, there is'nt anything to back up your claim that the sole reason GTA outsells SR is simply because it's based on actual places. It may be your opinion, but thats not a fact.

[Death2Drugs]

QUOTE (73duster @ Saturday, Apr 14 2012, 03:02)

I believe that at some point, Rockstar will just create an entire map that is unique, and completely fabricated from scratch. They can always use different cities as examples to build the ultimate map. They might just create a map large enough that you could have different climates depending on whether you are north or south. It's way past time we get a large snowy climate to explore, and creating a completely fictional map that is not modeled after a real place, let's Rockstar build a map that contains multiple climates.

No, simply no. I don't want a city that's completely fictional. I can make much better connections with a setting that is based on a real-life city than one that is completely fictional.

[K-E316]

Los Angeles is the 2nd biggest city in the U.S after New York and it is also a very important one. Los Santos in GTA SA was too small and "ghetto" so I believe R* wants to give Los Santos the same justice Liberty City got. There was barely any "hollywood"/rich areas in the original and those things are important to L.A.

[Ziggy455]

Considering they saved the best for last in the old trilogy. What is not to say they would do a GTA VI VII and VIII for San Fierro, Las Venturas and Vice City?

[Death2Drugs]

QUOTE (K-E316 @ Saturday, Apr 14 2012, 03:49)

Los Angeles is the 2nd biggest city in the U.S after New York and it is also a very important one. Los Santos in GTA SA was too small and "ghetto" so I believe R* wants to give Los Santos the same justice Liberty City got. There was barely any "hollywood"/rich areas in the original and those things are important to L.A.

This. Los Santos really was basically one half rich and one half ghetto. Los Angeles has much more areas, including many middle-class areas. Los Santos had none. The San Fernando Valley, Orange County and San Gabriel Valley are all nice, suburban middle-class areas that are both a far cry from the luxurious areas of Hollywood, Beverly Hills and Santa Monica, but also the poor areas such as Compton, Watts, and Inglewood. And there's of course the glory hole theme park.

[Miamivicecity]

QUOTE (73duster @ Saturday, Apr 14 2012, 14:31)

SR does'nt have GTA'S success, but there are MANY reasons as to why that is the case. Simply blaming the fact that it is a fictional city is not really accurate. SR is just a flat out inferior game all around. The city does'nt suck because it's fictional, it sucks because it is lifeless and dark. We can't relate to it because it feels cartoonish and unrealistic. The entire game is WAY over the top, like the younger brother of a popular student who will do anything to be like the older brother. If the map were a carbon copy of a real city, it would STILL suck. Furthermore, there is'nt anything to back up your claim that the sole reason GTA outsells SR is simply because it's based on actual places. It may be your opinion, but thats not a fact.

I don't know about Steeleport in SRTT (which to me is a poor version of GTA IV's LC IMO), but I'm fairly sure Stilwater in the first 2 games is loosely based on Chicago.

[Sandreas]

Rockstar had did different games based on Los Angeles so why not go back to Los Santos that had plenty of Recreations of LA: Midnight Club LA and LA Noire. I figured Midnight Club LA the Complete Edition migjt resemble Los Santos.

[MrDanceWithLance]

To many GTA fans, GTA San Andreas was the best GTA game, and to some GTA fans, Los Santos was the best city. Out of all the locations in the GTA series, San Andreas is one of the least represented. Rockstar probably wanted to represent it again, so they brought GTA back to Los Santos. The fact that Los Santos was a popular location might have influenced their decision further.

[iamJack]

I think one of the reasons why I wouldn't have liked Vice City in GTA V is because the map in VC was so incredibly tiny, and of course GTA fans want a huuuuuuuuuge map, right?
But if they would've made it as big as Los Santos is going to be in V, it wouldn't even seem like Vice City...
I know what I'm explaining is hard to make out (I'm crap at explaining things lol) but oh well.
In short, the fans expectations of the map would've ruined the whole Vice City thing anyway.

[Miamivicecity]

QUOTE (iamJack @ Saturday, Apr 14 2012, 15:58)

I think one of the reasons why I wouldn't have liked Vice City in GTA V is because the map in VC was so incredibly tiny, and of course GTA fans want a huuuuuuuuuge map, right? But if they would've made it as big as Los Santos is going to be in V, it wouldn't even seem like Vice City... I know what I'm explaining is hard to make out (I'm crap at explaining things lol) but oh well. In short, the fans expectations of the map would've ruined the whole Vice City thing anyway.

GTA III's LC was pretty small, but in GTA IV LC was huge. There's no reason a new VC can't be sized up. I doubt Miami even ranks as one of the biggest cities in the world, but it must surely have some meat in it for a respectable sized map by today's standards.

[saintsrow]

I think it took very little convincing within the Rockstar North design offices to decide that doing a 6 to 12 month survey / capture of Los Angeles would be a pretty darn good idea, especially after spending one or two winters in (what I assume is) a cold, dreary place like Edinburgh, finishing GTA IV. Maybe it was the weather ....

[RipGore]

California is beautiful, active, fun. I LOVE CALI. ROCKSTAR LOVES CALI.

[gtafanny]

QUOTE (saintsrow @ Saturday, Apr 14 2012, 05:08)

I think it took very little convincing within the Rockstar North design offices to decide that doing a 6 to 12 month survey / capture of Los Angeles would be a pretty darn good idea, especially after spending one or two winters in (what I assume is) a cold, dreary place like Edinburgh, finishing GTA IV.  Maybe it was the weather ....

It's the weather, and that, I don't know, that magic. YEEEEEAAAAAHHHHHHHHH!!!!