[GTAboyWonder]

QUOTE (Dystopia @ Wednesday, Jun 20 2012, 11:35)

QUOTE (Miamivicecity @ Wednesday, Jun 20 2012, 04:13) QUOTE (whatsstrength @ Wednesday, Jun 20 2012, 14:41) I hated that IV had just tall buildings with no personality for over a third of the map NYC is full of tall buildings. LC wouldn't have been a faithful recreation of NYC if the map wasn't fall of them. R* even said they wanted it to feel more like a vertical city. I agree LS seems to be vibrant and colourful, but that's the theme it's going for. LC was never meant to feel like a cheerful and happy place. It was meant to be dark, cold and full of tall/gray buildings. I loved how for LC they took the mass buildings and vertical theme from NYC, really capturing it. I have never been to NYC, so it was a really cool experience for me, and I would expect it to be the same for others who haven't been as well. The verticle asset really made you feel small, and human and not invincible to everything, which is something I don't think GTA has captured before. It succeded there for me becoming one of the reasons why it's my more prefered GTA title. I've always wanted to go to LA over everything in America, I have no idea of the culture or the lifestyle that people have there, so it will be really interesting for me to play V now. As long as they get the time and place and the theme right, i'm sure they can pull off another great rendition of a real place like IV did. This is ultimately very important now because they are taking a more realistic approach to the development of the world.

I used to live in Manhattan. i loved New York, and IV captured the vibe real well

This post has been edited by GTAboyWonder on Wednesday, Jun 20 2012, 18:20

[asitsaysinthebook]

QUOTE (Isuck100% @ Tuesday, Jun 19 2012, 20:53)

The game is GTA V, not "Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas II".

This.

[chitoryu12]

QUOTE (GTAboyWonder @ Wednesday, Jun 20 2012, 17:25)

Stop, please just stop... Stop making these, "I WANNZ SUN FEEAERO ANN LAWS VINCHURAZ IN SUN UNDRAYIZ BECUZ GTASA WAZ DA ONLY GTA EVAR MAID" topics. Get over it. There's no CJ and/or III era resemblance in V. Was there any III era or Old Liberty City buildings in IV? NO! GTA V is in the IV era, not III era.

I think I found the only two brain cells on this forum.

[nkjellman]

There is a chance that other cities can be done. Reason's why:
1. GTA SA's first trailer only showed LS. It could be the same with V.
2. Rockstar could of confirmed that LS and the surrounding hills and countryside are in. They could of confirmed that there there, but they could be keeping quiet about SF and LV.
3. They could use DLC to make it. It can be in its own map or added to the current map. But I can see two Episodic DLC's, one in SF, and the other in LV. But there is a chance they will be like IV.

It would be impressive to see all the cities but there is a 60% chance that its only what as been confirmed so far.

[Sean5]

QUOTE (Bluedonut1 @ Tuesday, Jun 19 2012, 23:58)

QUOTE (r34ld34l @ Tuesday, Jun 19 2012, 14:43) QUOTE (Colonel Dre @ Tuesday, Jun 19 2012, 20:55) QUOTE (leyja @ Tuesday, Jun 19 2012, 20:40) if they use double layered bluray discs for the ps3 version they can however xbox and multiple discs ugh Maps barely take up any room. It's the audio and animations that take up the room No. Textures take up the most space. So if bigger map, more textures. You don't want repetive textures, do you? Anim in GTA IV, is like 700MB While Audio 6GB Textures is a little more than 6GB, I think. That is for PC, consoles no idea. IV on consoles took up 6.4GB on the NTSC versions and 6.6GB on the PAL versions. I think that the audio quality was increased and the texture resolutions were increased for the PC versions. The highest I've seen a single disc hold on the Xbox 360 is 7.8GB. Red Dead Redemption holds 6.7GB and Max Payne 3 holds 7.7GB on disc 1 and 7.4GB on disc 2. Xbox 360 game discs hold 9GB of data and Playstation 3 game discs hold 25GB of data.

where do you get your data? Xbox disks hold a max of roughly 8.5GB (on a dual layered DVD) and PS3 disks can hold a max of 50GB (dual layered blue ray disk)
Why do you think PS3 exclusives look so much better? They ain't watered down to fit on the disk

[canttakemyid]

Disc space will be a non-factor. If R* doesn't "water down" games to fit them in a 4 year time margin, they certainly won't water them down to fit on 1 disc margin....multiple discs. Nuff said.

Back On Topic:
The next trailer will settle this. There is no evidence (not even the release statement) whatsoever on whether or not LS is the only city. We can't even conclude it as improbable that other cities are in GTAV given that the release only says "heads to LS..." and we all know that GTA can head to a number of places.

[Mr.Moffat]

QUOTE (nkjellman @ Wednesday, Jun 20 2012, 23:14)

There is a chance that other cities can be done. Reason's why: 1. GTA SA's first trailer only showed LS. It could be the same with V. 2. Rockstar could of confirmed that LS and the surrounding hills and countryside are in. They could of confirmed that there there, but they could be keeping quiet about SF and LV. 3. They could use DLC to make it. It can be in its own map or added to the current map. But I can see two Episodic DLC's, one in SF, and the other in LV. But there is a chance they will be like IV. It would be impressive to see all the cities but there is a 60% chance that its only what as been confirmed so far.

1, SA had months before the first railer confirmed that there was 3 major cities, so it was'nt as surprise in trailer 2 so no
2, why would they do that? if they were going to confirm more major cities they would have and it would'nt be a surprise anyway because so many people still are grasping at hope, in terms of marketing there would'nt be any difference so it would make no sense to keep it a secret
3 dlc, im really against this idea for many reasons

1 why would they bother making 1 (never mind 2) MASSIVE cities that are both very different from each other with their own peds , emergency services etc plus country side/ desert for dlc? they'd have to put a lot of missions in to justify making these cities worthwhile and used which if they do why not just make it a full gta game? but if they only make 20 to 30 missions then those cities have gone to waste.

2, personally i would find it weird after a few months for the map to magically have more cities and storywise it would just be strange

3 economically its a bad idea to spend that much money and resources making cities as dlc considering for dlc to be fully effective it needs to be released witihn a few months of the games release, the dlc for IV did'nt sell well at all so no way in hell are they going to do 2 cities, plus its unfair to those who may not be able to download those maps and there are pleanty of people out there who are completly against dlc even when its a good deal such as epsisodes from lc and would just refuse to buy it out of some moral standing that they are being screwed.

[FilipinoGoblin]

QUOTE (Mr.Moffat @ Thursday, Jun 21 2012, 01:07)

QUOTE (nkjellman @ Wednesday, Jun 20 2012, 23:14) There is a chance that other cities can be done. Reason's why: 1. GTA SA's first trailer only showed LS. It could be the same with V. 2. Rockstar could of confirmed that LS and the surrounding hills and countryside are in. They could of confirmed that there there, but they could be keeping quiet about SF and LV. 3. They could use DLC to make it. It can be in its own map or added to the current map. But I can see two Episodic DLC's, one in SF, and the other in LV. But there is a chance they will be like IV. It would be impressive to see all the cities but there is a 60% chance that its only what as been confirmed so far. 1, SA had months before the first railer confirmed that there was 3 major cities, so it was'nt as surprise in trailer 2 so no 2, why would they do that? if they were going to confirm more major cities they would have and it would'nt be a surprise anyway because so many people still are grasping at hope, in terms of marketing there would'nt be any difference so it would make no sense to keep it a secret 3 dlc, im really against this idea for many reasons 1 why would they bother making 1 (never mind 2) MASSIVE cities that are both very different from each other with their own peds , emergency services etc plus country side/ desert for dlc? they'd have to put a lot of missions in to justify making these cities worthwhile and used which if they do why not just make it a full gta game? but if they only make 20 to 30 missions then those cities have gone to waste. 2, personally i would find it weird after a few months for the map to magically have more cities and storywise it would just be strange 3 economically its a bad idea to spend that much money and resources making cities as dlc considering for dlc to be fully effective it needs to be released witihn a few months of the games release, the dlc for IV did'nt sell well at all so no way in hell are they going to do 2 cities, plus its unfair to those who may not be able to download those maps and there are pleanty of people out there who are completly against dlc even when its a good deal such as epsisodes from lc and would just refuse to buy it out of some moral standing that they are being screwed.

While some of this guy's ideas are ridiculous and will NOT be implemented in my opinion, don't count out another city and area completely.

What areas are there to unlock? A desert with nothing in it? A forest? It's a good question that will probably be answered in the upcoming Trailer 2.

[canttakemyid]

QUOTE (Mr.Moffat @ Wednesday, Jun 20 2012, 21:07)

QUOTE (nkjellman @ Wednesday, Jun 20 2012, 23:14) There is a chance that other cities can be done. Reason's why: 1. GTA SA's first trailer only showed LS. It could be the same with V. 2. Rockstar could of confirmed that LS and the surrounding hills and countryside are in. They could of confirmed that there there, but they could be keeping quiet about SF and LV. 3. They could use DLC to make it. It can be in its own map or added to the current map. But I can see two Episodic DLC's, one in SF, and the other in LV. But there is a chance they will be like IV. It would be impressive to see all the cities but there is a 60% chance that its only what as been confirmed so far. 1, SA had months before the first railer confirmed that there was 3 major cities, so it was'nt as surprise in trailer 2 so no 2, why would they do that? if they were going to confirm more major cities they would have and it would'nt be a surprise anyway because so many people still are grasping at hope, in terms of marketing there would'nt be any difference so it would make no sense to keep it a secret 3 dlc, im really against this idea for many reasons 1 why would they bother making 1 (never mind 2) MASSIVE cities that are both very different from each other with their own peds , emergency services etc plus country side/ desert for dlc? they'd have to put a lot of missions in to justify making these cities worthwhile and used which if they do why not just make it a full gta game? but if they only make 20 to 30 missions then those cities have gone to waste. 2, personally i would find it weird after a few months for the map to magically have more cities and storywise it would just be strange 3 economically its a bad idea to spend that much money and resources making cities as dlc considering for dlc to be fully effective it needs to be released witihn a few months of the games release, the dlc for IV did'nt sell well at all so no way in hell are they going to do 2 cities, plus its unfair to those who may not be able to download those maps and there are pleanty of people out there who are completly against dlc even when its a good deal such as epsisodes from lc and would just refuse to buy it out of some moral standing that they are being screwed.

As much as I also disagree with the post you quoted in terms of LV and SF (San Diego and Tijuana are far more likely), I can't completely agree with you.

1. Whether or not it was a surprise is irrelevant. It's the general marketing strategy and trailer presentation format that we are looking at here.
2. Most people aren't grasping at hope. Most are too scared to be wrong or disappointed if LS turns out to be the only city, so it would a hype-intensifying surprise the most. The minority is willing to put their word on more cities.
3. You are correct here. This is R*, not EA.


*The argument for San Diego and Tijuana would be taken much more serious on the forums if more people had a general geo-political knowledge of the SoCal region. But judging from the age and intelligence here, it's going to be one less thing we'll have to talk about until trailer #2.

[Mr.Moffat]

QUOTE (FilipinoGoblin @ Thursday, Jun 21 2012, 01:18)

QUOTE (Mr.Moffat @ Thursday, Jun 21 2012, 01:07) QUOTE (nkjellman @ Wednesday, Jun 20 2012, 23:14) There is a chance that other cities can be done. Reason's why: 1. GTA SA's first trailer only showed LS. It could be the same with V. 2. Rockstar could of confirmed that LS and the surrounding hills and countryside are in. They could of confirmed that there there, but they could be keeping quiet about SF and LV. 3. They could use DLC to make it. It can be in its own map or added to the current map. But I can see two Episodic DLC's, one in SF, and the other in LV. But there is a chance they will be like IV. It would be impressive to see all the cities but there is a 60% chance that its only what as been confirmed so far. 1, SA had months before the first railer confirmed that there was 3 major cities, so it was'nt as surprise in trailer 2 so no 2, why would they do that? if they were going to confirm more major cities they would have and it would'nt be a surprise anyway because so many people still are grasping at hope, in terms of marketing there would'nt be any difference so it would make no sense to keep it a secret 3 dlc, im really against this idea for many reasons 1 why would they bother making 1 (never mind 2) MASSIVE cities that are both very different from each other with their own peds , emergency services etc plus country side/ desert for dlc? they'd have to put a lot of missions in to justify making these cities worthwhile and used which if they do why not just make it a full gta game? but if they only make 20 to 30 missions then those cities have gone to waste. 2, personally i would find it weird after a few months for the map to magically have more cities and storywise it would just be strange 3 economically its a bad idea to spend that much money and resources making cities as dlc considering for dlc to be fully effective it needs to be released witihn a few months of the games release, the dlc for IV did'nt sell well at all so no way in hell are they going to do 2 cities, plus its unfair to those who may not be able to download those maps and there are pleanty of people out there who are completly against dlc even when its a good deal such as epsisodes from lc and would just refuse to buy it out of some moral standing that they are being screwed. While some of this guy's ideas are ridiculous and will NOT be implemented in my opinion, don't count out another city and area completely. What areas are there to unlock? A desert with nothing in it? A forest? It's a good question that will probably be answered in the upcoming Trailer 2.

im with you that there will be other smaller none major cities such as San diego or something similar (same as aldernary reaaly in IV) that makes perfect sense to include but at the same time not major enough to announce
Some peole though just seem to be either LV LS and SF and thats it or just LS and thats it.

[whatsstrength]

QUOTE (Sean5 @ Wednesday, Jun 20 2012, 19:49)

QUOTE (Bluedonut1 @ Tuesday, Jun 19 2012, 23:58) QUOTE (r34ld34l @ Tuesday, Jun 19 2012, 14:43) QUOTE (Colonel Dre @ Tuesday, Jun 19 2012, 20:55) QUOTE (leyja @ Tuesday, Jun 19 2012, 20:40) if they use double layered bluray discs for the ps3 version they can however xbox and multiple discs ugh Maps barely take up any room. It's the audio and animations that take up the room No. Textures take up the most space. So if bigger map, more textures. You don't want repetive textures, do you? Anim in GTA IV, is like 700MB While Audio 6GB Textures is a little more than 6GB, I think. That is for PC, consoles no idea. IV on consoles took up 6.4GB on the NTSC versions and 6.6GB on the PAL versions. I think that the audio quality was increased and the texture resolutions were increased for the PC versions. The highest I've seen a single disc hold on the Xbox 360 is 7.8GB. Red Dead Redemption holds 6.7GB and Max Payne 3 holds 7.7GB on disc 1 and 7.4GB on disc 2. Xbox 360 game discs hold 9GB of data and Playstation 3 game discs hold 25GB of data. where do you get your data? Xbox disks hold a max of roughly 8.5GB (on a dual layered DVD) and PS3 disks can hold a max of 50GB (dual layered blue ray disk) Why do you think PS3 exclusives look so much better? They ain't watered down to fit on the disk

PS3 exclusives don't look "better" because of Blu-Ray. If anything the Blu-Ray hinders the PS3 due to it's slow read speeds.

Also, I think GTA V will be on two discs for 360.

-As you said, maps don't take up that much space on the disc, but it could be a good chunk if it's "three liberty cities and two RDR's".
-Music and Custscenes are the soul of GTA next to gameplay and will take up the majority of the disc.
-Whatever space is left is all they have for missions and side activites.
-Multiplayer will be on a second disc most likely, so as to not hinder the open-world nature of the single player.

So, the single player experience should have no trouble fitting on one disc so long as multiplayer isn't hogging up room.

[Sean5]

QUOTE (whatsstrength @ Thursday, Jun 21 2012, 01:49)

QUOTE (Sean5 @ Wednesday, Jun 20 2012, 19:49) QUOTE (Bluedonut1 @ Tuesday, Jun 19 2012, 23:58) QUOTE (r34ld34l @ Tuesday, Jun 19 2012, 14:43) QUOTE (Colonel Dre @ Tuesday, Jun 19 2012, 20:55) QUOTE (leyja @ Tuesday, Jun 19 2012, 20:40) if they use double layered bluray discs for the ps3 version they can however xbox and multiple discs ugh Maps barely take up any room. It's the audio and animations that take up the room No. Textures take up the most space. So if bigger map, more textures. You don't want repetive textures, do you? Anim in GTA IV, is like 700MB While Audio 6GB Textures is a little more than 6GB, I think. That is for PC, consoles no idea. IV on consoles took up 6.4GB on the NTSC versions and 6.6GB on the PAL versions. I think that the audio quality was increased and the texture resolutions were increased for the PC versions. The highest I've seen a single disc hold on the Xbox 360 is 7.8GB. Red Dead Redemption holds 6.7GB and Max Payne 3 holds 7.7GB on disc 1 and 7.4GB on disc 2. Xbox 360 game discs hold 9GB of data and Playstation 3 game discs hold 25GB of data. where do you get your data? Xbox disks hold a max of roughly 8.5GB (on a dual layered DVD) and PS3 disks can hold a max of 50GB (dual layered blue ray disk) Why do you think PS3 exclusives look so much better? They ain't watered down to fit on the disk PS3 exclusives don't look "better" because of Blu-Ray. If anything the Blu-Ray hinders the PS3 due to it's slow read speeds. Also, I think GTA V will be on two discs for 360. -As you said, maps don't take up that much space on the disc, but it could be a good chunk if it's "three liberty cities and two RDR's". -Music and Custscenes are the soul of GTA next to gameplay and will take up the majority of the disc. -Whatever space is left is all they have for missions and side activites. -Multiplayer will be on a second disc most likely, so as to not hinder the open-world nature of the single player. So, the single player experience should have no trouble fitting on one disc so long as multiplayer isn't hogging up room.

Why do people think multiplayer takes up so much space? It's just adding in skins, ranks, and scoreboards. Not a whole new map