GTA V (Trailers in OP)

[Patticus]

I don't want to be doing things for gangs anymore. Not without an extremely good reason by way of quality narrative and characterisation.

[Vec]

I'm going with Vegas for now. The shading on the V is just like the one on a dollar bill so it seems more than plausible.

You mean it might be "Las Venturas" (lol those names). If it's Vegas, we might find Woozie again...or a reference to him at least?

[Stacy]

I don't want to be doing things for gangs anymore. Not without an extremely good reason by way of quality narrative and characterisation.

Doesn't that defeat one of the main parts of GTA?

[Patticus]

Doesn't that defeat one of the main parts of GTA?

In just about every GTA I've played (and RDR), despite how amazing your character may be, they're ultimately the lapdog of whomever is present. I quite liked CJ's story in San Andreas (well, what I played of it; got stuck 3/4 of the way in), but why the fuck does he take orders from Ryder of all people?

If your character is a lone ranger of sorts, who all the gangs and factions within the game wish to recruit to their side, it'd make a lot more sense. In fact you could argue that it's a touch meta, as whenever I've played missions involving A.I. companions they've been uniformly useless; characters within the game should be more appreciative that Claude/Tommy/CJ/Niko are the only goddamn straight shots in existence.

[Badnik Mechanic]

And the rumours are out already.

Remember this is just rumour right now.

City: Rockstarified version of Los Angeles.

Characters: More than one character will be playable during Five's campaign,

Again, it's rumour.

[Random Rhyme]

Rumor or not that is a good area to go to since the last one was NY related.

[Patticus]

Rumor or not that is a good area to go to since the last one was NY related.

San Andreas was at least partly Los Angeles-themed. Why can't we have a Seattle or New Orleans-based city? Something that isn't based on one of the three cities in a 14-year-old game.

[Random Rhyme]

San Andreas was at least partly Los Angeles-themed. Why can't we have a Seattle or New Orleans-based city? Something that isn't based on one of the three cities in a 14-year-old game.

New Orleans sounds like a good area.

[Vec]

San Andreas was at least partly Los Angeles-themed. Why can't we have a Seattle or New Orleans-based city? Something that isn't based on one of the three cities in a 14-year-old game.

[Patticus]

GTA III is set in Liberty City, while GTA: Vice City is essentially GTA III: Vice City. The same principle applies to San Andreas. I'll be very disappointed if there isn't some major overhauling (more than the location) to warrant this being given a new number.

[NintendoSoul]

Yeah, I'm thinking this one will be set in Las Vegas.

[LATER BUDDY]

I never really got hooked on either San Andreas or GTAIV for some reason. However, I played Vice City to the fullest and unlocked and beat everything as much as I could. Not saying I want it to be a carbon copy of that, but something that had that appeal for me would be welcome. As far as maps go, I wouldn't mind a Seattle based one, with possibly the option of going to one of the islands over there as well. With the rain, it could build up to be quite an epic and serious tone as well.

...not to mention I want to jump off the Space Needle, XD.

[Swiss]

I wouldn't be surprised if they used the LA Noire-style mo-cap for this new instalment, either.

[Patticus]

I wouldn't be surprised if they used the LA Noire-style mo-cap for this new instalment, either.

As much as I'd love that tech to be brought back for GTA usage, I'm afraid (and rather depressed that) I can't see it happening. Here's why, brah:

- It was obscenely expensive and time consuming to use.

- Rockstar has never been one to strive for absolute photo-realism in its GTA games. Yes, its games offer some truly remarkable visuals, but they've always contained an element of stylization throughout. Whether this is designed to help emphasize the games' more satirical take on pop culture, or whether it's simply a means to hide behind current hardware limitations, is up for debate. I don't see this changing though.

[Swiss]

Very good points actually, it would be a shame to not make use of the technology while it's available though. It could look great in a stylised fashion.

Then again, I'm pretty sure money/time aren't much of a problem to Rockstar.

[vgmaster]

Check this out.

http://i.imgur.com/uBWCz.jpg

This is the comparison with GTA III and SA with other game world maps. Imagine GTA V being bigger than Just Cause 2, or even bigger than Daggerfall, being 70,000 square miles! With that, have even more detail than GTA IV.

[Marcello]

I wouldn't want it to be that huge.

[Nintendoga]

Was San Andreas really that small? Felt so huge back then...

[Rave92]

Just read about this on facebook very mixed but mostly excited but GTA IV was a massive bore to me (reason I sold it) but I enjoyed the San Andreas LA gangsta wars they had on GTA:SA which is one my favourite GTA's off all time so I would love to see it return.....

But can we have a GTA V: London

Player has to pay for congestion charges *rides through London like a manic chav with a AK47* yeah I doubt that will happen after the riots lol.

[Random Rhyme]

If they had it in London Id buy it.

Always wanted to see how a GTA game would go from a London perspective.

[Blacklightning]

Check this out.

http://i.imgur.com/uBWCz.jpg

This is the comparison with GTA III and SA with other game world maps. Imagine GTA V being bigger than Just Cause 2, or even bigger than Daggerfall, being 70,000 square miles! With that, have even more detail than GTA IV.

[Swiss]

Also, in regards to GTA: London, that already happened.

[Random Rhyme]

Also, in regards to GTA: London, that already happened.

[Stacy]

Oh goodie - more expanses of land that I'll never have any reason to care about.

Seriously, I don't get this obsession with sandboxes and ridiculously large worlds. People keep treating it as a selling point, yet all it really amounts to is increasing the amount of time spent travelling between key locales. it's not even like it produces more areas to explore in the end, because you'll never have a single reason to care about one landmark over another unless the game specifies it as important. If this genre expects to be taken seriously in future, this quantity over quality bullshit has to stop.

Edited November 1, 2011 by BW199148

[Badnik Mechanic]

San Andreas for me was close to perfect when it came to land size and the reason being is that whilst there was loads to do in all the areas, you could actually drive around it all in a reasonable time.

Just Cause 2's map is very impressive when you see it. But actually playing it you realise just how bad it actually is. To get around quickly you either have to fast travel or buy the jet and upgrade it to the maximum level... or find a jet fighter.

Even then it takes so long just to fly from one side of the map to the other in the fastest planes, driving becomes amazingly boring and boats are close to useless.

San Andreas though. All the planes (nearly) could get you around the map in a time that didn't mean you were bored and most of the cars could also do it in a good time, not to mention the radio/soundtrack helped a lot.

Just Cause 2 though, when you were trying to change the percentage meters in towns/locations, it was so boring constantly travelling from one area to the other... it just felt like you were doing nothing but flying since going by road was out of the question as it was so slow.