[JurzeeDee]

Who agrees that Rockstar should NOT have made the decision to re-create Liberty City to Pattern NYC. I truly believe avoiding Liberty City (in the makeover department) would have saved alot of face for Rockstar. Instead of going back and f*ckin with it in IV. I understand that developers in prior games have bigger expectations for their environments in future titles. Meaning Rockstar North PROBABLY DID NOT want to make Liberty City look the way it did in III. I'm sure they wanted a NYC originally but didnt have the space for it on disc. Thus settling for what they had and releasing it. Well...surely I'm not the only one who took one glance at GTA IV and said: "Where in the HELL is Liberty City and what did they do to it!!??" For me it makes me question the prioritization of whoever made the final decision. Because frankly I don't think the "gutting" of an entire environment needed to be done.

[lzw3]

I think it was a great map, but I would've rathered a map like SA with different environments (desert, forest etc.)

[Official General]

QUOTE (JurzeeDee @ Wednesday, Jun 6 2012, 00:42)

Who agrees that Rockstar should NOT have made the decision to re-create Liberty City to Pattern NYC. I truly believe avoiding Liberty City (in the makeover department) would have saved alot of face for Rockstar. Instead of going back and f*ckin with it in IV. I understand that developers in prior games have bigger expectations for their environments in future titles. Meaning Rockstar North PROBABLY DID NOT want to make Liberty City look the way it did in III. I'm sure they wanted a NYC originally but didnt have the space for it on disc. Thus settling for what they had and releasing it. Well...surely I'm not the only one who took one glance at GTA IV and said: "Where in the HELL is Liberty City and what did they do to it!!??" For me it makes me question the prioritization of whoever made the final decision. Because frankly I don't think the "gutting" of an entire environment needed to be done.

I think you are talking a pile of sh*t. Liberty City in GTA IV was the most visually realistic re-creation of New York City ever seen in a video game, it was a stunning achievement by Rockstar to make it the way they did. I was so happy when I found out that GTA IV was gonna be set in a more proper New York-based location. Its just a shame Rockstar did not give us more great things to do in such a huge, detailed and stunning looking environment.

[JurzeeDee]

QUOTE (Official General @ Wednesday, Jun 6 2012, 02:01)

QUOTE (JurzeeDee @ Wednesday, Jun 6 2012, 00:42) Who agrees that Rockstar should NOT have made the decision to re-create Liberty City to Pattern NYC.  I truly believe avoiding Liberty City (in the makeover department) would have saved alot of face for Rockstar.  Instead of going back and f*ckin with it in IV.  I understand that developers in prior games have bigger expectations for their environments in future titles.  Meaning Rockstar North PROBABLY DID NOT want to make Liberty City look the way it did in III.  I'm sure they wanted a NYC originally but didnt have the space for it on disc.  Thus settling for what they had and releasing it.  Well...surely I'm not the only one who took one glance at GTA IV and said: "Where in the HELL is Liberty City and what did they do to it!!??"  For me it makes me question the prioritization of whoever made the final decision.  Because frankly I don't think the "gutting" of an entire environment needed to be done. I think you are talking a pile of sh*t. Liberty City in GTA IV was the most visually realistic re-creation of New York City ever seen in a video game, it was a stunning achievement by Rockstar to make it the way they did. I was so happy when I found out that GTA IV was gonna be set in a more proper New York-based location. Its just a shame Rockstar did not give us more great things to do in such a huge, detailed and stunning looking environment.

U reenforced my point exactly. Its too big and too empty. Which was the original problem for GTA III - too empty. But instead of working with what they had....they recreated it. Of course it was a great achievement for R* to make a nice looking NYC - but they didnt have to "reinvent the wheel". It was fine the way it was. And so what ur saying to me....is U as a gamer would rather pay for eye candy than game play? Alot of what made R* so great (to me) was their originality and creativity. I just got the impression that they were "ashamed" of their previous creation (GTA III) and got rid of it to make room for NYC and slap a bunch of Liberty City stickers all over it. And i said it before...they probably DID want it to look like NYC all along. But jesus they didnt need to trade eyecandy for gameplay. Just think of all the more possibilities for gameplay had they kept the environment the same as GTA III.

[lzw3]

QUOTE (JurzeeDee @ Wednesday, Jun 6 2012, 12:13)

It's too big and too empty.

What the actual f*ck? Are you joking? the map was tiny and they managed to fit a trailer load of awesome sh*t all over the joint.

[JurzeeDee]

QUOTE (lzw3 @ Wednesday, Jun 6 2012, 01:50)

I think it was a great map, but I would've rathered a map like SA with different environments (desert, forest etc.)

I think SA was alot more abundant given the fact it takes place in California which is home to many different landscapes (so to speak). Very natural and less colonized u know.

[Magic_Al]

Remember GTA III followed GTA2 which had "Anywhere City". The attitude was more toward it being a generic fantasy city. It didn't matter if the city was full of stuff that didn't belong in New York at all. In GTA IV that did matter because it was trying to be more specific like GTA SA and VC.

[JurzeeDee]

QUOTE (lzw3 @ Wednesday, Jun 6 2012, 02:23)

QUOTE (JurzeeDee @ Wednesday, Jun 6 2012, 12:13) It's too big and too empty. What the actual f*ck? Are you joking? the map was tiny and they managed to fit a trailer load of awesome sh*t all over the joint.

Yea lets add a whole sh*t ton of buildings so we can sky dive off them and eat hot dogs. Look im only sayin; its Liberty City...not New York City. How would you feel if Vice City was totally trashed and rebuilt with NON of the originality it once had. As oppose to Refurbishing it with next gen graphics cards?

[Official General]

QUOTE (JurzeeDee @ Wednesday, Jun 6 2012, 02:13)

QUOTE (Official General @ Wednesday, Jun 6 2012, 02:01) QUOTE (JurzeeDee @ Wednesday, Jun 6 2012, 00:42) Who agrees that Rockstar should NOT have made the decision to re-create Liberty City to Pattern NYC.   I truly believe avoiding Liberty City (in the makeover department) would have saved alot of face for Rockstar.   Instead of going back and f*ckin with it in IV.  I understand that developers in prior games have bigger expectations for their environments in future titles.   Meaning Rockstar North PROBABLY DID NOT want to make Liberty City look the way it did in III.   I'm sure they wanted a NYC originally but didnt have the space for it on disc.   Thus settling for what they had and releasing it.   Well...surely I'm not the only one who took one glance at GTA IV and said: "Where in the HELL is Liberty City and what did they do to it!!??"  For me it makes me question the prioritization of whoever made the final decision.   Because frankly I don't think the "gutting" of an entire environment needed to be done. I think you are talking a pile of sh*t. Liberty City in GTA IV was the most visually realistic re-creation of New York City ever seen in a video game, it was a stunning achievement by Rockstar to make it the way they did. I was so happy when I found out that GTA IV was gonna be set in a more proper New York-based location. Its just a shame Rockstar did not give us more great things to do in such a huge, detailed and stunning looking environment. U reenforced my point exactly. Its too big and too empty. Which was the original problem for GTA III - too empty. But instead of working with what they had....they recreated it. Of course it was a great achievement for R* to make a nice looking NYC - but they didnt have to "reinvent the wheel". It was fine the way it was. And so what ur saying to me....is U as a gamer would rather pay for eye candy than game play? Alot of what made R* so great (to me) was their originality and creativity. I just got the impression that they were "ashamed" of their previous creation (GTA III) and got rid of it to make room for NYC and slap a bunch of Liberty City stickers all over it. And i said it before...they probably DID want it to look like NYC all along. But jesus they didnt need to trade eyecandy for gameplay. Just think of all the more possibilities for gameplay had they kept the environment the same as GTA III.

Liberty City in GTA IV was excellent, it definitely needed that refurbishment, HD-style. The Liberty City in GTA III looked and felt good enough for its time. But looking back at now, the Liberty City in III was very limited and restricted in terms of its design. Plus the LC in III just felt like a generic big U.S. city with no real character or identity to it. Some people prefer that, but most were happy that IV's LC was a realistic New York City re-creation. Yeah Rockstar said many times that they were not happy with the LC in III and that they had always wanted to do a proper NYC-inspired LC. I don't see what you are getting at, because you are only stating the obvious, Rockstar said this already. If there were more fun and interesting things to do and see in IV's LC then it would have been crazy epic.

[JurzeeDee]

QUOTE (Official General @ Wednesday, Jun 6 2012, 02:42)

QUOTE (JurzeeDee @ Wednesday, Jun 6 2012, 02:13) QUOTE (Official General @ Wednesday, Jun 6 2012, 02:01) QUOTE (JurzeeDee @ Wednesday, Jun 6 2012, 00:42) Who agrees that Rockstar should NOT have made the decision to re-create Liberty City to Pattern NYC.   I truly believe avoiding Liberty City (in the makeover department) would have saved alot of face for Rockstar.   Instead of going back and f*ckin with it in IV.  I understand that developers in prior games have bigger expectations for their environments in future titles.   Meaning Rockstar North PROBABLY DID NOT want to make Liberty City look the way it did in III.   I'm sure they wanted a NYC originally but didnt have the space for it on disc.   Thus settling for what they had and releasing it.   Well...surely I'm not the only one who took one glance at GTA IV and said: "Where in the HELL is Liberty City and what did they do to it!!??"  For me it makes me question the prioritization of whoever made the final decision.   Because frankly I don't think the "gutting" of an entire environment needed to be done. I think you are talking a pile of sh*t. Liberty City in GTA IV was the most visually realistic re-creation of New York City ever seen in a video game, it was a stunning achievement by Rockstar to make it the way they did. I was so happy when I found out that GTA IV was gonna be set in a more proper New York-based location. Its just a shame Rockstar did not give us more great things to do in such a huge, detailed and stunning looking environment. U reenforced my point exactly. Its too big and too empty. Which was the original problem for GTA III - too empty. But instead of working with what they had....they recreated it. Of course it was a great achievement for R* to make a nice looking NYC - but they didnt have to "reinvent the wheel". It was fine the way it was. And so what ur saying to me....is U as a gamer would rather pay for eye candy than game play? Alot of what made R* so great (to me) was their originality and creativity. I just got the impression that they were "ashamed" of their previous creation (GTA III) and got rid of it to make room for NYC and slap a bunch of Liberty City stickers all over it. And i said it before...they probably DID want it to look like NYC all along. But jesus they didnt need to trade eyecandy for gameplay. Just think of all the more possibilities for gameplay had they kept the environment the same as GTA III. Liberty City in GTA IV was excellent, it definitely needed that refurbishment, HD-style. The Liberty City in GTA III looked and felt good enough for its time. But looking back at now, the Liberty City in III was very limited and restricted in terms of its design. Plus the LC in III just felt like a generic big U.S. city with no real character or identity to it. Some people prefer that, but most were happy that IV's LC was a realistic New York City re-creation. Yeah Rockstar said many times that they were not happy with the LC in III and that they had always wanted to do a proper NYC-inspired LC. I don't see what you are getting at, because you are only stating the obvious, Rockstar said this already. If there were more fun and interesting things to do and see in IV's LC then it would have been crazy epic.

What made Vice City and SA so (indirectly) great...was that they were Miami "Inspired" Scarface "Inspired". It wasnt exactly the same but ppl got the drift. Whether u or I like it or not...Rockstar had itches in different areas than their fans did. I was completely content with their games in terms of "size of map". Now I'm just overwhelmed. U are too. U cant tell me u wanna go hop on GTA IV right now because thats a bullsh*t lie. But im still playin GTA VC. ON PS2!!

[Miamivicecity]

Give me GTA IV's LC any day. Besides didn't R* already "work with what they had" in LCS?

What else could they do? I didn't want to play in a slighty updated map that I already had two times before. I'm glad R* redesigned LC to give it a more NYC flavour.

GTA III era fanboys .

This post has been edited by Miamivicecity on Wednesday, Jun 6 2012, 04:43

[Linki]

"U cant tell me u wanna go hop on GTA IV right now because thats a bullsh*t lie. But im still playin GTA VC. ON PS2!!"

This is one of the most ignorant claims I've heard. You're actually saying that it's an impossibility that people enjoy playing GTAIV today? Just because you don't?
Did your mother raise you saying you were more special than the other kids too?

Funnily enough, I'm trying to hold off playing GTAIV for a while, so then when I play it again it will feel all new and exciting. That's right, I'm finding it very hard to not play it. So that just confirms you being full of sh*t, friend.

[Miamivicecity]

QUOTE (Linki @ Wednesday, Jun 6 2012, 16:01)

"U cant tell me u wanna go hop on GTA IV right now because thats a bullsh*t lie. But im still playin GTA VC. ON PS2!!" This is one of the most ignorant claims I've heard. You're actually saying that it's an impossibility that people enjoy playing GTAIV today? Just because you don't? Did your mother raise you saying you were more special than the other kids too? Funnily enough, I'm trying to hold off playing GTAIV for a while, so then when I play it again it will feel all new and exciting. That's right, I'm finding it very hard to not play it. So that just confirms you being full of sh*t, friend.

Also speaking as a hardcore VC fan I was playing GTA IV a couple of days ago and haven't played VC in god knows how long.

That's right I'm still playing GTA IV ON 360.

[Carbine23]

Yes its probably the most realistic re creation of New York City but in reality it looks nothing like NYC and i would know cause i pretty much live there. The map was good but Rockstar could've waited down the road to re-create it then they could've maybe added Long Island, Upstate, Staten Island & maybe could've had a more realistic sized Brooklyn & Bronx. I know that Rockstar wanted to have their own twist on NYC but......Coney Island under the Brooklyn Bridge? Really? When in reality its 20-30 minutes. Come on

[Miamivicecity]

QUOTE (Carbine23 @ Wednesday, Jun 6 2012, 17:11)

Yes its probably the most realistic re creation of New York City but in reality it looks nothing like NYC and i would know cause i pretty much live there. The map was good but Rockstar could've waited down the road to re-create it then they could've maybe added Long Island, Upstate, Staten Island & maybe could've had a more realistic sized Brooklyn & Bronx. I know that Rockstar wanted to have their own twist on NYC but......Coney Island under the Brooklyn Bridge? Really? When in reality its 20-30 minutes. Come on

Bare in mind R*'s intention wasn't to re-create NYC block by block.

I know I don't really have word over you since I'm from the other side of the globe, but to me from what I've always seen of NYC through the media R* got the general look pretty well spot on even if it's not exact.

This post has been edited by Miamivicecity on Wednesday, Jun 6 2012, 06:22

[Carbine23]

QUOTE (Miamivicecity @ Wednesday, Jun 6 2012, 01:18)

QUOTE (Carbine23 @ Wednesday, Jun 6 2012, 17:11) Yes its probably the most realistic re creation of New York City but in reality it looks nothing like NYC and i would know cause i pretty much live there. The map was good but Rockstar could've waited down the road to re-create it then they could've maybe added Long Island, Upstate, Staten Island & maybe could've had a more realistic sized Brooklyn & Bronx. I know that Rockstar wanted to have their own twist on NYC but......Coney Island under the Brooklyn Bridge? Really? When in reality its 20-30 minutes. Come on Bare in mind R*'s intention wasn't to re-create NYC block by block.

Hence why i said "I know Rockstar wanted to have their own twist on NYC"
I said i liked that they did Liberty City, it was the greatest news to me when i heard GTA4 was taken place in a NYC modeled City. But after a few years have passed & technology getting better, they could've saved Liberty City and done something much more with it if they had waited

[Miamivicecity]

QUOTE (Carbine23 @ Wednesday, Jun 6 2012, 17:20)

QUOTE (Miamivicecity @ Wednesday, Jun 6 2012, 01:18) QUOTE (Carbine23 @ Wednesday, Jun 6 2012, 17:11) Yes its probably the most realistic re creation of New York City but in reality it looks nothing like NYC and i would know cause i pretty much live there. The map was good but Rockstar could've waited down the road to re-create it then they could've maybe added Long Island, Upstate, Staten Island & maybe could've had a more realistic sized Brooklyn & Bronx. I know that Rockstar wanted to have their own twist on NYC but......Coney Island under the Brooklyn Bridge? Really? When in reality its 20-30 minutes. Come on Bare in mind R*'s intention wasn't to re-create NYC block by block. Hence why i said "I know Rockstar wanted to have their own twist on NYC" I said i liked that they did Liberty City, it was the greatest news to me when i heard GTA4 was taken place in a NYC modeled City. But after a few years have passed & technology getting better, they could've saved Liberty City and done something much more with it if they had waited

We'll probably say the same thing about GTA V. I'd say it would be a few generations before we get 100% accurate cities.

In saying that condensing isn't always bad IMO. I typically find games that use real world maps very tedious to get around in and hard to memorize. London in The Getaway absolutely blew chunks because of this.

Even LA Noire as much as I loved it. LA was really hard to get around because it was more accurate of that time setting. Now imagine a more truer to real life NYC?

I mean sure it probably sounds good in theory, but in practice it's entirely different. It was the best R* could do at the time without making the city a nightmare to navigate.

[Carbine23]

Yeah your right in a way. The Getaway was a pain in the ass but it didn't come with a map of london unless you searched one up on the Internet. NYC would be easy for me cause ik it well and have been around it my whole life.

[Official General]

QUOTE (JurzeeDee @ Wednesday, Jun 6 2012, 02:52)

U cant tell me u wanna go hop on GTA IV right now because thats a bullsh*t lie. But im still playin GTA VC. ON PS2!!

@ JurzeeDee

Oh really ?? And you know what goes on in my head do you ?? Well let me correct you. I play GTA IV and the Episodes all the time when I wanna play GTA, its the only GTA game I'm actually playing right now. Believe it or not Vice City is my favourite GTA of the all, but I just can't play it again because the graphics and physics would look and feel very outdated to me, and I'm too used to the newer advanced technical features of GTA IV. So no, it is not a lie I do hop on my PS3 and play GTA IV quite a lot. There is nothing wrong with GTA IV's Liberty City, for me it was near-perfect - I just wish that there had been more fun and interesting things to do and see in the place, in addition to what was in the game already.

@ Carbine23

Ok you are from New York City, but I have been to New York City many times myself, so I can still have a small right to say that my views on this subject hold some validity. To me, Liberty City in GTA IV looked very much like NYC in many areas. Like Miami said, Rockstar never intended to re-create NYC block for block in its exact, real-life size. But I will say though, what I did not like about IV's LC was that Manhattan (Algonquin) was bigger than Brooklyn (Broker) and Queens (Dukes), because in real life Manhattan is very much smaller than the two. I wished Broker and Dukes were much bigger places, there could have been so much more Rockstar could have put into them. They should have also put in a sports stadium too.

This post has been edited by Official General on Wednesday, Jun 6 2012, 13:39

[DaWiesel]

Seriously, IV's LC beats III's LC anytime. IV's LC is simply better because of the detail R* has put in GTA IV. It's what I call a living city, for it's time atleast. It's also my favourite GTA city, but will probably be beaten by V's LS.