City of Dis

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    74

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Posts posted by City of Dis

  1. Posted · Report reply

    I doubt it will release this holiday season. There are simply too many big games coming out - Black Ops 2 (which Take Two owns), Assassin's Creed 3, Resident Evil 6, Halo 4, Bioshock, The Last of Us, and God of War 4. All those and any unannounced titles likely to be revealed at E3 - Sucker Punch is likely working on Infamous 3, for example.

    The holiday season is already extremely overcrowded, and the industry is probably going to suffer. GTA V is set to make a lot of money. It will probably break records. They won't hurt profits by releasing it in late 2012.

    And it gives them a few more months to polish the game.

  2. Posted · Report reply

    Look, you can believe whatever you want to believe, but face it. Facts are facts.

    Okay, look. I'm not saying that SF and LV will appear or that they are likely to appear.

    But there is sufficient reason to think that they will. Listen to the statement. Game Informer says that GTA V is returning to San Andreas and asks if Dan will comment on that. Why does he have to be careful? Why does he have to defer to the press release? Why doesn't he say, "Well actually it's not all of San Andreas, it's just Los Santos." He's extremely reluctant to accidentally hint at anything other than what's in the press release. But if the game only takes place in Los Santos and it's surrounding area, why would he need to be careful at all?

    These are good questions. To just sit back and say, "Well the press release doesn't say that SF or LV will be in it therefore it's not" but to ignore this obviously suspicious behavior is lazy thinking.

  3. Posted · Report reply

    I was pretty sure it was just los santos until i read that article.... I don't think this confirms just Los Santos, in my opinion in points towards all three cities..

    I will stick to exactly what's in the press release. It's Los Santos and the surrounding counryside - and a very big map.

    1. Los Santos is in it.

    and

    2. Surrounding countryside

    and

    3. a very big map.

    Also, he says he'll stick to exactly whats in the press release. If it's just Los Santos and countryside, while qualify it by saying "i'll be sticking to the press release". I think that his statement makes it more likely that it will contain the other cities... (or at least one additional city).

    Actually, this makes a lot of sense. His reluctance to say anything outside the press release suggests that there is more to it than the press release.

  4. Posted · Report reply

    I don't understand why everyone thinks that Rockstar can't pull off 3 cities with the level of detail you're imagining Los Santos to exhibit.

    I mean look at Skyrim. Just look at the mindblowing vastness of that game. Bethesda started it in 2007-2008. That's when Rockstar started Grand Theft Auto V. So why couldn't Rockstar replicate the level of detail of Skyrim but have it in Grand Theft Auto?

    • Like 1

  5. Posted · Report reply

    Agreed, but I just keep going back to the fact that San Andreas' story felt weird to me because the cites were so different. They're more than capable of putting all three cities in the game, I just feel like one city fits better, one continuous theme throughout the game, rather than three different themes that don't really fit together.

    Yeah, but it would be so badass to drive from Los Santos to San Fierro on their version of I5 lol. Give it a "California theme."

  6. Posted · Report reply

    Because you made the sensible and organized 'Argument for San Fierro and Las Venturas' topic, I'm just going to wait and see how things turn out rather than bash your opinion. Anyone else is fair game, though.

    It's not like I think they're likely to appear. I just don't think the Dan Houser quote says anything. Like I said, all I did was pretty much say, "I'm not allowed to talk about anything so I'll just defer to the press release." If he said something like, "San Fierro and Las Venturas won't be in it" or "Las Santos is the only city in the game," then yeah, I'd concede.

    If the other two cities are in the game, I'm guessing they want to do a surprise reveal. Really amp up the anticipation.

    On a side note, I really don't understand why people don't think we can have three really detailed cities. Everyone says that Rockstar can't do three really big, really detailed cities. To that I just point to Skyrim. If Bethesda can do it, Rockstar sure as hell can.

  8. Posted · Report reply

    Skyrim too is pretty big, and that fits on one 360 disc.

    Frankly I don't know how that's possible, but maybe Bethesda knows something we don't.

    Anyway, if it was only PS3 that would be dope. No, I'm not a PS3 fanboy like some people in this thread (Halo: Reach is easily one of the best games of this generation and Gears of War 3 is just plain awesome), but to put it bluntly the PS3 can go so much farther than the 360. Killzone 3, Uncharted 3, hell I'd even wager Metal Gear Solid 4 (with the whole Rex vs. Ray battle) can't be handled on the Xbox.

    I'm not worried about space. Rockstar would just do multiple discs. But the cpu is seriously lacking on the 360 compared to the PS3, and that's where a console's "next gen"-ness comes from.

  12. Posted · Report reply

    Okay just think. Just think for a second. Why would they have a scene of guy putting up a foreclosure sign? . . . .

    Because he didn't pay his bills? Just that one sign doesn't mean Occupy Wall Street will be apart of the game. Foreclosures happen all the time.

    I didn't say that. I said that the foreclosure sign was an obvious indication that the game will take place in the aftermath of the financial crisis i.e. anytime between late 2007 and now.

    Because the Occupy movement has become an iconic part of the whole "Great Recession (I put that in quotations because I hate that term), I only wonder if Rockstar will somehow incorporate it. I'm not saying that they definitely will, like a lot of people in this thread have said, it depends on how far they are in development.

  13. Posted · Report reply

    .........

    "Grand Theft Auto V focuses on the pursuit of the almighty dollar in a re-imagined, present day Southern California." -Rockstar Games

    Why does it show bums or slums? Cause both exist in Los Angeles. If the game focus is on the pursuit of money then OWS can't have a major role in the plot.

    BTW, all those 'professional trailer analysis' have been a lot of bullshit. Going on about 'Is that Tommy?! OOOOHHHH CJ!!!1!' <_<Ours is much better.

    Besides, an OWS/financial crisis focus doesn't match up with a GTA game. You'll be involved with crime lords etc., not people squatting in a park protesting.

    Okay just think. Just think for a second. Why would they have a scene of guy putting up a foreclosure sign? Why? What other possible reason could Rockstar have other than showing that the game will take place during the recession?

    I never said that OWS would have a major role in the plot. I just asked if people thought that maybe OWS would get a mention on the radio, the internet, or hell, maybe even a protest.

  14. Posted · Report reply

    The sight of a forclosure sign or a bum or two does not equal a story focus on the "financial crisis and the growing dichotomy of the rich and the poor".

    I can see it being referenced or maybe talked about, but not a focus or major plot point. That's just not GTA.

    -EDIT-

    In fact Rockstar has already stated the the game "focuses on the pursuit of the almighty dollar" which is about as opposite OWS as you can get. ;)

    It's pretty obvious that the game is going to focus on the financial crisis from the tone and indications of the trailer. Literally every professional trailer analysis has conjectured just that. Also notice how the trailer switched back between scenes of luxury and scenes of poverty. Notice the guy down on his luck looking askance at the guy in the nice sweater.

  21. Posted · Report reply

    It's nice to see a conversation of this that isn't "ZOMG Rock* cants have teh santolos and not the other citiez"

    I also think they are being cheeky by not saying directly "this game will not feature San Fierro or Las Venturas".

    Honestly I would love if rockstar just wanted to recreate that first feeling from the original San Andreas where everyone though Ah sweet its los angeles! Then the second trailer reveals the other two cities.

    However I don't think that it will be the case. It can still be a huge game without these two cities. If anything we will hopefully get a San Diego and another semi large cities aswell as small towns.

    But why would they include San Diego over San Francisco? San Francisco is certainly a more interesting city.

    -And, probably the most damning piece of evidence, Mount Chiliad is shown in the trailer, a location in San Fierro.

    Not actually in San Fierro. San Fierro is the city north of it.

    True. But why would they include Mount Chiliad but not San Fierro? Unless that's not actually Mount Chiliad in the trailer.

    --

    I think if we go with Occam's Razor, San Fierro and Las Venturas are not going to be in it. But I'm holding onto hope, and perhaps this is the only reason why I believe the cities will appear.

  22. Posted · Report reply

    I will break the argument into two different categories: logical suppositions and regional clues in the trailer.

    Because the trailer focuses on Los Santos, the regional clues are sparse, so I'll start with those.

    -It shows windmills that greatly resemble Altamont Pass, a notable place on the way from LA to northern California.

    -The trailer highlights I-5, a famous highway that links Los Angeles to San Francisco.

    -And, probably the most damning piece of evidence, Mount Chiliad is shown in the trailer, a location in San Fierro.

    And now with the logical suppositions. These are tenuous conclusions that I've drawn which speak more about Rockstar's intentions regarding GTA V rather than any concrete allusions.

    -They did it for San Andreas. They must know fans would be expecting it if they returned to Los Santos. I feel like even if the other cities don't appear in the game, they must've been up for discussion and debated.

    -In the first San Andreas trailer, they only showed Los Santos, like this one.

    -There are rumors that (more legit than the UK PS3 magazine rumors, in that they were posted on a rumor site and not as a random post on a forum) say the map is 2.5 times bigger than Red Dead Redemption's map, which is unbelievably freaking huge, certainly bigger than the original San Andreas map.

    -There are jets, so obviously they're going to take you to far away places and other airports, which means other cities. Why not San Fierro and Las Venturas? Also, the jet coming from behind the Vinewood sign at the end of the trailer, wasn't the path from Las Venturas in San Andreas?

    -Some license plates say "San Andreas" in the game (not really indicative; the state is San Andreas, so naturally the license plates would read that, but I don't think they would make it cryptically noticeable in the trailer if they didn't want to slyly allude to the first game).

    -If they weren't going to include them, I think they would outright say it, instead of relaying ambiguities (see below)

    -They've called it "the largest and most ambitious game Rockstar has yet created" which without San Fierro and Las Venturas, would feel like an overstatement.

    Now I'm aware that Rockstar has said that the game "heads to the city of Los Santos and surrounding hills, countryside and beaches." In this statement, all they say is that GTA V heads to Los Santos; they do not say that it only heads to Los Santos. However, the next statement reads, "Grand Theft Auto V focuses on the pursuit of the almighty dollar in a re-imagined, present day Southern California." By saying that it focuses on Southern California, Rockstar seems to squash the implication that San Fierro or Las Venturas might return. But I still hold that this is too ambiguous. As I stated earlier, I truly believe that if San Fierro and Las Venturas don't appear in GTA V, Rockstar would've already explicitly said this. There is still speculation as to whether the other cities will appear, and I feel that Rockstar would quell the disappointment immediately, instead of allowing it to grow when they finally announce that the cities in fact will not be returning.

    What do you guys think?

    • Like 5