Where to next for GTA..?

splashthecash

So the buzz has died down for GTA V and it was a good 'un....

- improved graphics
- increased map size with unbelievable detail and exploring potential
- new approach to player engagement
- fantastic story and fun characters
- wide variety of missions
- for the most part, great value in the online mode
- limitless hours of free-play shinanigans

Question is, where do Rockstar go from here? Will it more of the same with a different setting, if so - where? Would they redo a previously used location or brand new? Would there\could there be new and improved ways of immersing us into the GTA world?

Agricola

I would like to see them try a setting outside of the US, but I doubt it could really work. Satirizing American culture is such a huge part of the joy of GTA, I don't know how they could substitute for it if they opted for something different.

What other US city could they use? Maybe Chicago. Although I think no-one would be averse to seeing a living breathing New York in the latest engine, so Liberty City will always be there or there abouts.

Saipanne

Baltimore. Based on the wire.

Kharrell

Wouldn't say the hype is dying down, after all, the next-gen games are coming out in 10 days..

Also, after Watch Dogs, they aren't going near a fictional Chicago.

Detroit, Hawaii, Washington, San Francisco (San Fierro), Las Vegas (Las Venturas), Miami (Vice City) are the likely choices I feel. Perhaps somewhere in Mexico/Texas is a possibility, who knows.

I'd be happy with any of them, but if they did Vice City, I'd hope they'd expand to include the Everglades and Key West, maybe if possible either an island south (Bahamas) or further north of Miami with areas like Tampa Bay, Orlando and Palm Beach possible areas.

Saipanne

Also, I always liked the two countries element of Red Dead Redemption. Two cultures. It was a nice contrast.

DoYouEvenLift

I want a return to vice city/miami. Just like GTA 5/los Angeles, it is a bright and colourful city and wouldn't depress the sh!t out of you like GTA 4s city atmosphere did

LaGlisse

Some kind of multi City game, definetly could do with revisiting vice city could pair it with New Orleans, could do some kind of Liberty City in the new engine with London also.
I want to see a Nightcrawler mode in Gta v too

ItsHoggie

Vice City or Los Venturas in the next gen engine would be sweet!

Zero-Cool

Well the next step is Next Gen and 1st person mode. Looks amazing.

Next game wise, I think it would be class if they released like an expansion pack with another island connected to San Andreas that you could still go back and forth between islands. Next Gen Vice City would be amazing but they could also add that as an expansion to V.

Varik

Outside the US, maybe Tokyo or London.

Rather another Red dead or at least heists.

Mister Jingles

Another vote for Vice City here too, I would love them to go back to the 1980s as well

DarkJager

I think a multi-island map is the next step, something like SA and Liberty City mixed.

wnolan1992

I think San Fierro would be a nice next move. It's sort of the neglected city in SA IMO and I think there's huge scope there.

As for mechanics and stuff, I really want them to focus on interiors at some point. Like, the games are always good at once off interiors (like the LifeInvader offices in V, that lawyer's office in IV) but they never really feel like part of the world to me. I'd love a game where you can run into random office buildings and go mental flipping desks and sh*t. Or even just massive shopping centres and shops, bring back the nightclubs from TBoGT, maybe bring back burglaries... that sort of stuff.

splashthecash

sheehy83 wrote: »

Well the next step is Next Gen and 1st person mode. Looks amazing.

Next game wise, I think it would be class if they released like an expansion pack with another island connected to San Andreas that you could still go back and forth between islands. Next Gen Vice City would be amazing but they could also add that as an expansion to V.

What do you mean, looks amazing - is this already available somewhere or just a hack on PC?

splashthecash

Could the size of the map get bigger? Or the most pertinent question....should it get bigger than GTA V? If so, where do you draw the line..?

That was one thing about RDR that kinda got to me....you only have a horse and you have to traverse this huge area - i know its different in CTA with cars\planes etc.

Zero-Cool

splashthecash wrote: »

What do you mean, looks amazing - is this already available somewhere or just a hack on PC?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ValqBCvtQUM

J. Marston

DarkJager wrote: »

I think a multi-island map is the next step, something like SA and Liberty City mixed.

That's what I think too. Not sure if it's possible on consoles but imagine GTAV's Los Santos, a modern day Vice City and Las Venturas all in one game? It would be life ending.

splashthecash

sheehy83 wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ValqBCvtQUM

That.looks.class

It would be like a whole new experience!

wnolan1992

splashthecash wrote: »

Could the size of the map get bigger? Or the most pertinent question....should it get bigger than GTA V? If so, where do you draw the line..?

That was one thing about RDR that kinda got to me....you only have a horse and you have to traverse this huge area - i know its different in CTA with cars\planes etc.

IMO there's not much point having a massive map if most of it is empty. RDR really suffered from that for me. Sure it fit in with the setting, but after a while the wilderness just became something I had to traverse to get to something interesting as opposed to it being the interesting thing I was getting to.

Saipanne

wnolan1992 wrote: »

IMO there's not much point having a massive map if most of it is empty. RDR really suffered from that for me. Sure it fit in with the setting, but after a while the wilderness just became something I had to traverse to get to something interesting as opposed to it being the interesting thing I was getting to.

Wow. I loved that landscape. That was the best part of that game. It was beautiful.

wnolan1992

Saipanne wrote: »

Wow. I loved that landscape. That was the best part of that game. It was beautiful.

It was beautiful, yes. But there was very little to actually do in the world. I mean, you could go hunting animals or randomly encounter bandits. That was pretty much it in the vastness of that world. And if you went out there and shot someone in the middle of it, an entire posse would magically know where you are, so that basically evaporates all semblance of aloneness.

I find the same in GTAV and previous in GTASA. Sure the maps are massive, but a lot of it is just wilderness with nothing happening in it. Sure, it's pretty to look at, and fun to explore for a while, but after a while that just wears thin for me.

I found that GTAIV held me a lot more because even though the map was smaller, I was able to find a lot more to do within the city.

I'd like if they focused on just a city like LC again and make it sprawling and vast, throw in a whole heap of interiors, massive tower blocks, tenements, etc to explore, and I'd be happy as a pig in plop.

gnfnrhead

wnolan1992 wrote: »

It was beautiful, yes. But there was very little to actually do in the world. I mean, you could go hunting animals or randomly encounter bandits. That was pretty much it in the vastness of that world. And if you went out there and shot someone in the middle of it, an entire posse would magically know where you are, so that basically evaporates all semblance of aloneness.

I find the same in GTAV and previous in GTASA. Sure the maps are massive, but a lot of it is just wilderness with nothing happening in it. Sure, it's pretty to look at, and fun to explore for a while, but after a while that just wears thin for me.

I found that GTAIV held me a lot more because even though the map was smaller, I was able to find a lot more to do within the city.

I'd like if they focused on just a city like LC again and make it sprawling and vast, throw in a whole heap of interiors, massive tower blocks, tenements, etc to explore, and I'd be happy as a pig in plop.

I don't think you explored RDR enough. I fell in love with wandering aimlessly after coming across some random guy out walking. No horse, just him by himself. He walked for a bit, sat himself down, sighed, took out a pistol and shot himself in the head. Little stuff like that make exploring so much fun. I don't recall anything like that happening in the built up Liberty City, and I love Liberty City.

Saipanne

wnolan1992 wrote: »

It was beautiful, yes. But there was very little to actually do in the world. I mean, you could go hunting animals or randomly encounter bandits. That was pretty much it in the vastness of that world. And if you went out there and shot someone in the middle of it, an entire posse would magically know where you are, so that basically evaporates all semblance of aloneness.

I find the same in GTAV and previous in GTASA. Sure the maps are massive, but a lot of it is just wilderness with nothing happening in it. Sure, it's pretty to look at, and fun to explore for a while, but after a while that just wears thin for me.

I found that GTAIV held me a lot more because even though the map was smaller, I was able to find a lot more to do within the city.

I'd like if they focused on just a city like LC again and make it sprawling and vast, throw in a whole heap of interiors, massive tower blocks, tenements, etc to explore, and I'd be happy as a pig in plop.

To be fair, cops magically appear in gta too. It isn't like real life, take murder, where detectives must track you down over weeks, months or years. In gta, if you kill someone the cops are on top of you within seconds. I guess this feature of fast law is necessary in these games.

wnolan1992

Saipanne wrote: »

To be fair, cops magically appear in gta too. It isn't like real life, take murder, where detectives must track you down over weeks, months or years. In gta, if you kill someone the cops are on top of you within seconds. I guess this feature of fast law is necessary in these games.

Oh definitely.

I just find it jarring in RDR whereas in GTA I can easily suspend disbelief because I can rationalise it as "It's a city, of course there're loads of cops everywhere, and it's reasonable to assume someone saw me butcher this hooker in this alleyway from their apartment across the street."

Saipanne

wnolan1992 wrote: »

Oh definitely.

I just find it jarring in RDR whereas in GTA I can easily suspend disbelief because I can rationalise it as "It's a city, of course there're loads of cops everywhere, and it's reasonable to assume someone saw me butcher this hooker in this alleyway from their apartment across the street."

I dunno. I've never seen a city with cops on every street. Quite the opposite is often the case. It's just not realistic. But it is necessary for this game.

By the way, now that I think of it. Marshalls never appeared instantly for me in rdr. I seem to recall that if you murdered in the wild and killed all witnesses, you got off Scott free. Now that is real.

AndyBoBandy

Surely there will be a few add ons (episodes etc..) to GTA V before the next big release of 6,

and I would imagine whatever they do with 6, it will be epic. Look at how much they managed to get out of consoles that were 6-7 years old when V was released.

Think of what they are working on now that they have the next gen's in their hands. I'm sure there is a team somewhere, exploring the potential

eyeball kid

Yeah, I'd echo what people say about being able to explore buildings more. It would make the city seem more real. Would love to be able to go into a random building and have a nosy about.

I'd like to see it return to Vice city. Think it would look gorgeous on the new gen consoles.

Michael D Not Higgins

San Diego/Tijuana with a cartel and drug storyline.

Edit: side missions can include sneaking immigrants across the border or acting as border guard and sniping at cartel crossing the border, cooking meth in a caravan in the desert in a limited time before cops converge on you, something with Shamu at Seaworld, Ron Burgandy cameo, man this thing writes itself.

Kharrell

I had my hopes up for San Diego and Tijuana type city being in V from the very off, along with Orange County and maybe Palm Springs just a little east of LA. High expectations looking back, but Southern California screamed those places to me when I first heard Rockstar talk about it.

New Orleans is also a potential future destination, but after Infamous 2, I'm not sure they'll go there for many years, if at all.

If Vice City is brought back, it will be a modern day setting, and I think that will disappoint a lot of people. The 80s theme made Vice City, well, Vice City.

Oh, and after Max Payne, GTA in Brazil would be interesting too.

LaGlisse

Kharrell wrote: »

I had my hopes up for San Diego and Tijuana type city being in V from the very off, along with Orange County and maybe Palm Springs just a little east of LA. High expectations looking back, but Southern California screamed those places to me when I first heard Rockstar talk about it.

New Orleans is also a potential future destination, but after Infamous 2, I'm not sure they'll go there for many years, if at all.

If Vice City is brought back, it will be a modern day setting, and I think that will disappoint a lot of people. The 80s theme made Vice City, well, Vice City.

Oh, and after Max Payne, GTA in Brazil would be interesting too.

I think there is potential for an era spanning epic, the story of criminal gangs rise to power set over the 70's, 80's and 90's to present day, with scope for several cities

py2006

Surely the next GTA is 5-6 years away!

py2006

Outside of the US (as a setting) doesn't really appeal to me at all. I think the Americanism in terms of culture, cities and landscape is what appeals to the masses with this genre.

I don't necessarily think we need a bigger map than GTA V but certainly more interior (and maybe interactive) details within buildings etc would be interesting.

I'd also like to see a return to unlocking areas of the map. I really enjoyed watching the next section of a city unlock after reaching a certain stage in the game.

DEFTLEFTHAND

A proper single player story not the utter sh1te we got with V, a total mess. I really was expecting better after GTAIV's great tale where you really became immersed in the characters.

Maybe they should think about bringing back the driving mechanics too, V's fishtailing arcade nonsense angered me. Dumbing down to appeal to every tom dick and retard out there. Regression imo.

gnfnrhead

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

A proper single player story not the utter sh1te we got with V, a total mess. I really was expecting better after GTAIV's great tale where you really became immersed in the characters.

Maybe they should think about bringing back the driving mechanics too, V's fishtailing arcade nonsense angered me. Dumbing down to appeal to every tom dick and retard out there. Regression imo.

The driving in V is miles more fun. That's the important thing considering how much it is used in the game. Rockstar themselves even said the IV driving was like driving a boat at all times. No way would they go back to it after that.

If you're looking for a realistic driving experience then you are playing the wrong game.

DoYouEvenLift

Yeah I'd prefer a smaller city where you can enter most of the buildings and go around inside them than a massive one where every building is pretty much blocked off. Would take an absolutely massive effort to do this though, they'd need to design and create the outside and inside of each building, choose colours of walls, furniture etc. Would pay off hugely though. If anyone would do it it'd be rockstar, they already put so much detail in their games


Wonder what games we'll see before GTA 6 though, hopefully bully 2 but more than likely it'll be a 3rd red dead game. Guess there's no chance of a new manhunt since graphics are so good nowadays that it'd probably be horrifying to most people lol

flas

I would like to see a choice for different paths,like with the expansions of ballad of gay tony and the lost and the damned,where you pick different types of outlaws(bikers, mafia, gangbangers, militia, everyday criminals) and they all had their different traits, eg the gang bangers would be able to start by street dealing and would have turf wars and drive by's, the mafia would be large scale and be avoiding rico cases and the feds, bikers would have drug and gun running, protection and inter bikers wars and you had to become president of your club etc. That game would blow my mind!

Hav like two full scale city opposite sides of the map with different factions in each!

gnfnrhead

flas wrote: »

I would like to see a choice for different paths,like with the expansions of ballad of gay tony and the lost and the damned,where you pick different types of outlaws(bikers, mafia, gangbangers, militia, everyday criminals) and they all had their different traits, eg the gang bangers would be able to start by street dealing and would have turf wars and drive by's, the mafia would be large scale and be avoiding rico cases and the feds, bikers would have drug and gun running, protection and inter bikers wars and you had to become president of your club etc. That game would blow my mind!

Hav like two full scale city opposite sides of the map with different factions in each!

I'd just be happy if the choices actually meant something. GTA IV had a lot of kill or spare choices, yet I don't think any of them affected the storyline. What was the point of them?

I agree your choices should dictate the path you take. V obviously had a big decision at the end but that was pretty much it. There should be choices to make like that all throughout the game. Every choice leads down a different path. Just imagine the amount of replay value it would add.

DEFTLEFTHAND

gnfnrhead wrote: »

The driving in V is miles more fun. That's the important thing considering how much it is used in the game. Rockstar themselves even said the IV driving was like driving a boat at all times. No way would they go back to it after that.

If you're looking for a realistic driving experience then you are playing the wrong game.

Felt dumbed down to me, I much preferred IV's, there was actual effort to it. Much more rewarding.

wnolan1992

gnfnrhead wrote: »

I'd just be happy if the choices actually meant something. GTA IV had a lot of kill or spare choices, yet I don't think any of them affected the storyline. What was the point of them?

I agree your choices should dictate the path you take. V obviously had a big decision at the end but that was pretty much it. There should be choices to make like that all throughout the game. Every choice leads down a different path. Just imagine the amount of replay value it would add.

IV had the same big decision at the end that actually affected the ending, and there was also the stuff with the McRearys. But yeah, the rest of the decisions were largely meaningless in the grand scheme of things.

V started off very well with the jewelry store robbery. Your choice in crew actually seemed to matter and affect your take home cash at the end. But then pretty much all subsequent heists barely used the crew at all IIRC. A hugely under-utilised mechanic.


Oh, and I too preferred the driving in IV.

Kharrell

gnfnrhead wrote: »

The driving in V is miles more fun. That's the important thing considering how much it is used in the game. Rockstar themselves even said the IV driving was like driving a boat at all times. No way would they go back to it after that.

If you're looking for a realistic driving experience then you are playing the wrong game.

IV's driving is easy if you know how to enter and exit corners with the right speed which post people clearly don't, even in the hold your hand driving style of V. As someone who loves racing, just turn on non-contact racing and it truly emphasizes how many cannot drive other than straight ahead of them. I honestly never had an issue with it in IV, though perhaps from years of Gran Turismo 4 and Forza, IV was made simpler.

gnfnrhead

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Felt dumbed down to me, I much preferred IV's, there was actual effort to it. Much more rewarding.

The casual gamer won't be able to just pick it up and play due to the driving. That is a MASSIVE mistake and alienates a lot of the potential audience. In order to maximise your audience, you make the core aspects of the game simple and easy to pick up. That's the case with V, but not with IV. IV got a hell of a lot of negativity and a lot of it was due to the driving. It would have been suicidal to ignore it and keep it as it was.

Fun is what sells.

wnolan1992 wrote: »

IV had the same big decision at the end that actually affected the ending, and there was also the stuff with the McRearys. But yeah, the rest of the decisions were largely meaningless in the grand scheme of things.

V started off very well with the jewelry store robbery. Your choice in crew actually seemed to matter and affect your take home cash at the end. But then pretty much all subsequent heists barely used the crew at all IIRC. A hugely under-utilised mechanic.


Oh, and I too preferred the driving in IV.

Didn't IV more or less end the same regardless of what option you picked? Either Roman or the girlfriend ends up dead. Different missions, but other than no more calls to go bowling I don't think it really made a difference either way. You had essentially the same outcome. But, it has been a while so I may be forgetting something.

I was mostly referring the handful of kill or spare choices you were given. Kill them and nothing happens, spare them and they run off before nothing happens. Why even include them if they aren't going to do anything?

Kharrell

Fun is what sells, but gamers unwilling to adapt whatsoever is an issue, IMO. If people struggled with IV, I imagine they're the same people who go 100MPH into turns with no regards for racing line or the opponent, or the ones who purposefully drive into you to effectively end your race at the first checkpoint. Thank heaven for non-contact races.

IV driving (Battlefield) vs V driving (COD) is like from COD to Battlefield, it's incredibly simple to pick up after 15 minutes if even that. But most gamers these day lack patience, jump straight to quick match and hate on Battlefield because they're doing badly.

In IV, if you were a good racer, you were one best far more times than not. In V, it's a free for all half the time, unless playing on tracks created by users where you have to actually use your breaks.

Adding slip stream and catch up as default on just further dumbs things down as people refuse to race without it, or two, they're too lazy to change it.

There really isn't much of a jump from IV to V as those who disliked IV make out, again, it took some basic understanding of driving like learning racing lines, where to break and the turn point of cars.

DeSelby83

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

Yeah I'd prefer a smaller city where you can enter most of the buildings and go around inside them than a massive one where every building is pretty much blocked off. Would take an absolutely massive effort to do this though, they'd need to design and create the outside and inside of each building, choose colours of walls, furniture etc. Would pay off hugely though. If anyone would do it it'd be rockstar, they already put so much detail in their games

may not be the same but i sa a brief stream of AC:Unity yesterday and he went inside some buildings and it was great looking, if ubisoft can do it I know rockstar definitely can

DoYouEvenLift

DeSelby83 wrote: »

may not be the same but i sa a brief stream of AC:Unity yesterday and he went inside some buildings and it was great looking, if ubisoft can do it I know rockstar definitely can

Would be a lot harder to do for GTA though since there are big modern cities with sky scrapers and lots of huge buildings whereas ac is set in old cities with a lot less large scale buildings.

Liam O

Somewhere in the south like New Orleans or Houston I think would be good. I wouldn't mind another period piece at this stage too.

deadybai

Bring back cheats. Half the fun was using the cheats. GTA 5 feels empty without them. Also the detail in GTA 5 was incredible, especially underwater but i thought the map was way too small and not much to do. I would like to see a game where you are the top of the food chain in a gang and everyone is trying to bring you down. I hope they just leave Vice City untouched. Dont see any point in having it in Miami now and having it set in the 80s would just bring back the same as the original. I think a game set somewhere like San fierro would be good. But also include missions in Mexico, New york, LA. That would be deadly.

wnolan1992

deadybai wrote: »

Bring back cheats. Half the fun was using the cheats. GTA 5 feels empty without them. Also the detail in GTA 5 was incredible, especially underwater but i thought the map was way too small and not much to do. I would like to see a game where you are the top of the food chain in a gang and everyone is trying to bring you down. I hope they just leave Vice City untouched. Dont see any point in having it in Miami now and having it set in the 80s would just bring back the same as the original. I think a game set somewhere like San fierro would be good. But also include missions in Mexico, New york, LA. That would be deadly.

There are cheats in GTAV? Granted there's not the same level that there was on PS2 (anyone else here a proud owner of an ARMAX cheat disc? :P) but they're there at least.

One thing that annoys me about the cheats in V is that the invincibility is only for 5 minutes.

py2006

wnolan1992 wrote: »

One thing that annoys me about the cheats in V is that the invincibility is only for 5 minutes.

Yea that bugged the t1ts right off me