#1 Posted by napninjanx (53 posts) -

I mean in the year 2000 it was obvious the city should have been more bigger and twice as large when they created GTA 3. At least they should have made the game really huge like the city for example.

Plus GTA 5 the city is so huge and realistic they should have made GTA 3 like that.

I mean it's already expanded on other platforms besides PS2 & Xbox.

It's on these platforms PlayStation 2, Windows, Xbox, PlayStation 3 (PSN), OS X, iOS, Android.

#2 Posted by TruthTellah (9472 posts) -

I'm guessing they decided to focus on making GTA IV.

They made the game they wanted to make, and then they made other games after that.

#3 Edited by falserelic (5407 posts) -

More then likely its because they didn't have the technology like we do nowadays, but even still the game was revolutionary because we haven't seen nothing like it before.

#4 Posted by Glottery (1389 posts) -

Napninja posts confusing to read once again, no surprises there.

So you really think they could've made an open world the size of Los Santos fit on older consoles like the PS2? Not to mention as detailed.

And you're also using expanded to describe the size of the game and also how it has been released on other platforms and...eh, screw it.

#5 Posted by ThunderSlash (1954 posts) -

San Andreas was basically that.

#6 Posted by ShaggE (6700 posts) -

You might as well ask why GTA1 wasn't 3D, or why GTA5 isn't the entire state of California.

#7 Posted by Random45 (1282 posts) -

It may be because I'm tired as hell right now, but I have NO idea what the hell you're trying to say here.

#8 Edited by Stealthmaster86 (682 posts) -

That was pretty much impossible back then, besides GTAIII came out in 2001, a little over a year after the PS2 came out.

#9 Posted by joshwent (2352 posts) -

@napninjanx: Okay, I've read your whole post six times, and I still have no idea what you're actually trying to say or ask. Something about why they didn't increase the size of the city in it's more recent releases, I guess? Or why wasn't the city bigger in original GTA III? Both seem kind of self-explanatory. I... really don't know

I'm assuming English isn't your first language, which is fine, but maybe try to boil what your saying down to one or two sentences to make sure your point is getting across.

#10 Posted by falserelic (5407 posts) -

@shagge said:

You might as well ask why GTA1 wasn't 3D, or why GTA5 isn't the entire state of California.

LOL!

#11 Posted by Cybexx (1226 posts) -

GTA3's three islands were pretty big for 2001, the closest thing to a 3D living virtual city at the time by far. The idea of a streaming world was quite new at the time. They probably spent most of there time building the tech, which is also why the mission design was limited. They pulled together GTA: Vice City in less then a year, which was possible because their tech was mature and they were able to put a lot more into the mission design. Vice City was 1.5 times bigger in terms of landmass. San Andreas was bloody massive, both in terms of landmass and features, I was pretty impressed what they pulled off in 2 years, especially since Rockstar North also shipped Manhunt during San Andreas's development.

If I have misunderstood your question and you are actually asking why there was no expansion packs or DLC for GTA3, it is because DLC obviously didn't exists, they were focused on console and they made Vice City in the amount of time it would take to do any kind of expansion pack or special edition.

#12 Edited by Marokai (3146 posts) -

It's actually sort of weird to think back on how many GTA games came out on the Ps2. GTA 3, Vice City, San Andreas, Liberty City Stories, Vice City Stories. It's like some weird inversion of modern day video game releases having become so annualized. GTA was a near constant in the Ps2's generation, while like 5 years separated the release of mainline GTA games last gen.

#13 Posted by Jimbo (9993 posts) -

Now I know how those old adventure games felt when they had to try and figure out wtf the player was on about. Could you try asking that a different way?

#14 Edited by TheLegendOfMart (258 posts) -

@glottery said:

Napninja posts confusing to read once again, no surprises there.

So you really think they could've made an open world the size of Los Santos fit on older consoles like the PS2? Not to mention as detailed.

And you're also using expanded to describe the size of the game and also how it has been released on other platforms and...eh, screw it.

Did you play San Andreas?

On the left is SA, top right is GTA3, bottom right is VC.

#15 Posted by Slag (4864 posts) -

I'm very glad they decided to make Vice City instead of doing that.

They probably figured it made more business and artistic sense to start from scratch a couple times in VC and San Andreas as the tech and budgets quickly improved allowing them to do things they never could before, plus they had just made three games set in Liberty city (GTA 1-3) I don't blame them for wanting to try something different.

GTA worlds are too big now anyway imo for the amount of meaningful content they have in them. I'd rather they be denser so I don't have to spend going back and forth endless over the same terrain or having to use fast travel as much.

#16 Posted by Zella (823 posts) -

@glottery said:

Napninja posts confusing to read once again, no surprises there.

So you really think they could've made an open world the size of Los Santos fit on older consoles like the PS2? Not to mention as detailed.

And you're also using expanded to describe the size of the game and also how it has been released on other platforms and...eh, screw it.

Did you play San Andreas?

On the left is SA, top right is GTA3, bottom right is VC.

Pretty sure by Los Santos he is referring to Los Santos from GTAV, which I remember hearing about how the city alone is larger than the entire San Andreas map. The PS2 GTA games appeared way larger than they actually were.

#17 Posted by Rowr (5824 posts) -

I mean in the year 2000 it was obvious the city should have been more bigger and twice as large when they created GTA 3. At least they should have made the game really huge like the city for example.

Plus GTA 5 the city is so huge and realistic they should have made GTA 3 like that.

I mean it's already expanded on other platforms besides PS2 & Xbox.

It's on these platforms PlayStation 2, Windows, Xbox, PlayStation 3 (PSN), OS X, iOS, Android.

GTA 3 was a huge leap in technology at the time, there was nothing to rival it's depth and scope as a 3D game. I'm guessing your kinda young.

GTA 3 was basically expanded in the way that they made the incredibly popular Vice city not too long afterwards and then San Andreas not long after that.

It's really easy to forgot how fast this industry evolves technologically, I think you should do maybe some youtube searches and see what other games were coming out around 2000 to get a feel for the what level games were at in general.

I mean, that was 14 freaking years ago.

#18 Posted by Chaser324 (6744 posts) -

I've typed out and deleted three different responses to this thread. Every time I think I've figured out what the OP is asking, I reread it and think it's asking something different.

Moderator
#19 Edited by Jaytow (705 posts) -

Man if I was older in the 80s I wouldn't have been making pacmam aNd shit!! Why make pacman when you can make... CALL OF DUTY: BLACK OPS! Those guys were so dumb!!!

#20 Posted by PandaBear (1384 posts) -

What the fuck are you talking about?

I was super keen for GTA3 for so long and when it came out I was blown away by how big the city was. Seriously, every gamer was... But how the hell could Rockstar predict if the game would be a success and be worth their time and money? The game could have bombed. I can't fathom how much time and money went into that game...

And now, 14 years later, you want to know what a game from TWO generations ago wasn't bigger? I mean is this a troll post?

I mean.... you can't .... I'm .... what!?

I'm losing my brain here.

I sincerely hope you're under 13.

#21 Edited by CaLe (4052 posts) -

@napninjanx said:

I mean in the year 2000 it was obvious the city should have been more bigger and twice as large when they created GTA 3. At least they should have made the game really huge like the city for example.

Plus GTA 5 the city is so huge and realistic they should have made GTA 3 like that.

I mean it's already expanded on other platforms besides PS2 & Xbox.

It's on these platforms PlayStation 2, Windows, Xbox, PlayStation 3 (PSN), OS X, iOS, Android.

Why did they never expand GTA 3 then? If what you're saying is based on the whole truth and nothing but the truth, they would have expanded the game in 2001 or 2002 at the latest. So are you telling me when they made the game they didn't ever plan on expanding it? What about the shareholders? They would have wanted it to be expanded, that's not even up for debate. So the question remains, why didn't they expand it on PS2 and Xbox, the two hardware platforms it sold best on?

Online
#22 Posted by napninjanx (53 posts) -

I already knew the answer to that, just wanted to hear people's opinions. Back in 2000 technology was limited for game developers but few years later technology had changed and now they make HD video games soon they will make 4 K games that's the new HD now.

Plus I am 22 and been a gamer for along time, I also read about Web Development, Software Development. Even Game Engines I have tons of eBooks stored on my DVD Discs like about 150 discs of eBooks safe kept. I am terrible at English grammar so forgive me.

My whole question was comparing GTA 3 To GTA 5 since they are both different.

I remember from GTA for PS1 that the graphics were a little mushy then came out GTA 3 a new era started :D.

I know tech was limited and not advanced at the moment so the dev had to try their best to make it possible.

#23 Posted by anywhereilay (174 posts) -

Why wasn't an older videogame more like a newer one? You might as well ask why GTA III had worse graphics than V.

#24 Edited by CaLe (4052 posts) -

@napninjanx: If you were the boss of Rockstar in 2000 would you have expanded the game GTA 3? If you read all those eBooks I'm sure you'll become the boss of Rockstar and remake GTA 3 but this time you will expand it. Thank you.

(P.S. please fix the mushy graphics when you remake the game)

Online
#25 Posted by LordAndrew (14430 posts) -

Later games were bigger, including GTA IV which once again returned to Liberty City.

You ask why they didn't expand the game. But they did.

#26 Posted by pinner458 (850 posts) -

@glottery said:

Napninja posts confusing to read once again, no surprises there.

So you really think they could've made an open world the size of Los Santos fit on older consoles like the PS2? Not to mention as detailed.

And you're also using expanded to describe the size of the game and also how it has been released on other platforms and...eh, screw it.

I know right?

#27 Posted by StrainedEyes (1331 posts) -

I just wish they would have released the updated IOS versions onto XBLA and PSN.

#28 Posted by napninjanx (53 posts) -

@cale: I never said I can read thousands of eBooks. I they are also my collection to just like video game covers I collect for every game console :D.

#29 Edited by agentboolen (1845 posts) -

@napninjanx: why waste there time when they could work on all the other awesome games they did. Also it's not like the ps2 could do dlc, and Rock star focuses on console more then the pc.

It's a classic game but doesn't need anything more, it's a piece for its time.

Besides GTA4 was a remake of the city.

Do I really need to go on?!

#30 Posted by napninjanx (53 posts) -

@agentboolen: You got a point there are endless possibilities to make created instead of going back and expanding the game. Plus they could always re make just HD versions same game just HD quality :D Like they did with God Of War & God Of War 2 they created a God Of War Collection HD version :D.

#31 Posted by mosespippy (4449 posts) -

I just wish they would have released the updated IOS versions onto XBLA and PSN.

What's new or different in the iOS versions? I played the PSN version of Vice City and wish it was the original. About 15% of the music had to be removed because of licensing.

#32 Posted by Superfriend (1585 posts) -

@strainedeyes said:

I just wish they would have released the updated IOS versions onto XBLA and PSN.

What's new or different in the iOS versions? I played the PSN version of Vice City and wish it was the original. About 15% of the music had to be removed because of licensing.

I haven´t played the iOS versions.. but judging from some of the screenshots out there, they are based on the Xbox versions of those games. Vice City and especially GTA III looked a hell of a lot better on Xbox, because the devs did some work on the character models and car models.

#33 Posted by development (2628 posts) -

Also keep in mind that GTAIII was the first of its kind in many ways. They had nothing to compare it to. Any-sized city would have been large and expansive when put up against then-current counterparts, aside from The Elder Scrolls and a few more obscure unrelated games. Nothing offered the same level of interactivity in a 3rd-person, fully 3D world, either, so they had no need to make it ridiculously big.

I can tell you I certainly didn't think it was small when it was released.

#34 Posted by HatKing (6109 posts) -

@strainedeyes said:

I just wish they would have released the updated IOS versions onto XBLA and PSN.

What's new or different in the iOS versions? I played the PSN version of Vice City and wish it was the original. About 15% of the music had to be removed because of licensing.

Wait. Is that fucking true? They took out music on the PSN release? I thought those were just full on emulations, untouched. That's fucking awful.

Online
#35 Posted by mosespippy (4449 posts) -

@hatking: The worst part is that half the music missing is from WildStyle, the hip hop station. It's not so bad when a station is missing one song, but when a station is missing more than half it's playlist it's completely fucked. The DJ banter that leads into or out of those songs are also missing.

The game is also based on the edited PS2 release, so dialogue in some cutscenes doesn't line up properly. One of them is even recut with dialogue that says blah blah blah.

#36 Posted by HatKing (6109 posts) -

@mosespippy: Wow. Holy crap. I am really glad you told me that. I'll never buy that version. That's absolutely ridiculous. So glad I still have an old PC copy laying around somewhere.

Online