Grand Theft Auto IV

Started by Koala MeatPie3 pages

Isn't Vice City GTA 4 and SA GTA 5?

Those were considered spinoffs of GTAIII, side stories.

Thats what I always argued when someone discussed GTA4. 🙄

But this could mean they that are gonna take that next step from the mold they have with III/VC/SA.

Good.

New characters, new city, some new gameplay mechanics...

Originally posted by Koala MeatPie
Isn't Vice City GTA 4 and SA GTA 5?

Once again, if I may...

To use this logic is flawed from before even GTA III.

You have:

GTA
GTA: London 1969
GTA II
GTA III
GTA Vice City
GTA San Andreas

By this logic GTA III should have been GTA IV.

Any speculations on where, when, and who will be the game about?

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Any speculations on where, when, and who will be the game about?

Not yet.

Originally posted by LanceWindu
Once again, if I may...

To use this logic is flawed from before even GTA III.

You have:

GTA
[b]GTA: London 1969

GTA II
GTA III
GTA Vice City
GTA San Andreas

By this logic GTA III should have been GTA IV. [/B]

London was more like an expansion rather than an new game

damn the game is October 2007. The logic on it being #4 is not wrong. Rockstar said a while back that GTA 4 would be an entire new game and it would have to wait for next gen consoles so it could do everything they had planned for it. THey said GTA 3 was basicly a big step up from 2, and vice city and san andreas were all off the same type of engine just different settings, but not really totaly new games, which is why they were not considered 4 and 5

Originally posted by IcePunk
London was more like an expansion rather than an new game

Which is why it was never listed as GTA II, that's my whole point.

Vice City and San Andreas are the same way, they are expansions of GTA III.

Read my post again, that was an example of KMP's logic.

Originally posted by LanceWindu
Which is why it was never listed as GTA II, that's my whole point.

Vice City and San Andreas are the same way, they are expansions of GTA III.

Read my post again, that was an example of KMP's logic.

Ha Ha Ha 😐

gta 4 is coming to ps3 aswell, its not a 360 exclusive.

wow thats bad news for sony hope they get through it LOl it would be funny if sony got a contract with bungie to have halo 3 on the ps3

If this turns into a war of words im gonna like it even more, its just gonna attract more gta fans, if there are any more thats needs to be attracted. but i would like if sony and M$ fought over rockstar, i think that Rockstar has done a great job with there games. i think this is gonna be straightened out within a few weeks, this wouldnt be the first time moored lied. i have a 360 and i love it but ive never enjoyed playin gta on the xbox so im gonna be gettin it on the ps3 but props to Moore for lyin 😄

Originally posted by LanceWindu

Vice City and San Andreas are the same way, they are expansions of GTA III.

Not really. They are fully-fledged sequels.

Calling them expansions is crazy. They were both bigger than GTAIII, added more features etc.

GTA London is the the ONLY GTA expansion.

The names of the games aren't down to whether they consider them as sequels, they're down to what sounds good, and looks good.

GTA II - It suits the futuristic setting it had. The "2" indicates it's set after the first one. It works well to call it GTA2.

GTA III - New console, so far the series' standalone games have been named with numbers, plus it doesn't have an exotic setting to make people aware of, so therefore there would be no need to change it.

GTA - Vice City. Rockstar simply decided calling it "GTA4" would be boring and not give an indication of what the game was about.

GTA - San Andreas - follows the Vice City philosophy.

I expect the next GTA to have a subtitle, rather than a number.

Originally posted by Red Superfly
Not really. They are fully-fledged sequels.

Calling them expansions is crazy. They were both bigger than GTAIII, added more features etc.

GTA London is the the ONLY GTA expansion.

The names of the games aren't down to whether they consider them as sequels, they're down to what sounds good, and looks good.

GTA II - It suits the futuristic setting it had. The "2" indicates it's set after the first one. It works well to call it GTA2.

GTA III - New console, so far the series' standalone games have been named with numbers, plus it doesn't have an exotic setting to make people aware of, so therefore there would be no need to change it.

GTA - Vice City. Rockstar simply decided calling it "GTA4" would be boring and not give an indication of what the game was about.

GTA - San Andreas - follows the Vice City philosophy.

I expect the next GTA to have a subtitle, rather than a number.

agreed, the subtitles have been working theres no reason to go back to the number thing

people dont listen, even though Rockstar themselves explained why this game would be #4. the number thing is because its going to be a big leap into a new game again rather than totaly based off the same design as the previous game with just a different map and a couple added features.

Sony is slowing dying.

Originally posted by Batazer
Sony is slowing dying.

what you mean

well seeing as sony has nothing to do with GTA4 it makes so much sense to say.

And the cost of ps3 is around 6000 kr which is about 650 dollars, they're are in desperate need for money