So, as I said, I've been playing IV a lot lately, and the game really amazes me. It's gotten me to thinking, is Liberty City going to go to waste? Liberty from GTA IV is the best city I've ever seen in a free roam game, and I don't think it can be topped to be quite honest.

Right now, I have Niko standing on Time Square, listening to the world going by. The sounds of the city, cars and people going past, random crimes happening as I watch, Niko's phone ringing on and off. It's a living, breathing city and I think it's a travesty if it "goes to waste". This game needs to be a hub. GTA IV needs to be the start of something big imo. I've said this a few times before, but thought it was worthy of a bit of discussion here, because I think it's an idea that could seriously hold some weight.

I want the current generation of GTA's to spawn from GTA IV, and no, I don't mean like L&D and BoGT, not entirely. They're simply add-ons, but the way they came to us is what I want to point out.

We saw in L&D that Johnny and his friends' character models, a few building itneriors, markers/waypoints and mission information, some new vehicle models and textures and some new weapon physics/models/textures only took up about 1.3gb. So, imagine how in-depth a game Rockstar could make if they kept Liberty City as it is and brought us a new game on a DVD that uses Liberty city. Obviously it would be expanded a bit. Maybe a new island and some building interiors to keep things fresh, but to all intents and purposes, the vast majority of the map --and most importantly, the disk space-- are saved in the process, leaving us with 9gb worth of space --assuming it's going to be on Xbox aswell-- to spend on new vehicles, weapons, characters and the exorbitance that was missing in GTAIV.

In short, why waste time modelling a new city when Rockstar have made, imo, the perfect GTA city. Why not let Liberty be GTA's hometown and build our GTA universe around it, expanding slightly on what we have each time?

In my opinion it was a big mistake for R* to name the GTA4 city "Liberty City". Why? I hear you ask.
Simple. We've already had Liberty City not once, not twice but 3 times already. People are getting sick of it. However in GTA4 not a SINGLE street or junction is even remotely similar to past Liberty Cities. Yet R* still named the city "Liberty City". So even though the city is 100% different people still know it as Liberty City which leaves a bad taste in their mouth.
To make yet another game in LC would be suicide.
They should've called the GTA4 city Garcer City then people wouldn't mind another game on the same map.

Does it even matter what the name of the city is?
I don't mind if they make 5 more GTA's with that city's name in it.

I like the New Yorkish atmosphere.

I don't mind another Vice City either, I like the Beach and Neon lighting of Miami.

Well, I don't have to mention San Andreas, because everyone would love to have another one like that.

I also think GTA IV's Liberty City does feel like you're in a living, Breathing city.
Many other games I didn't feel like I was.
But in this one it does.
There's life everywhere you go.
Underground, on the streets, inside buildings, even on some balconeys or fire escapes there are people on it, smoking a cigarette.
You also feel like being a tourist in this game, especially with the cab rides, and helicopter tours.

I sure appreciate the little things and touches in the game.
Even though, it does miss the Crazy ass stunts and wacky vehicles and weapons and the fun amount of chaos you could do, as in previous games, but sometimes you have to take a game as they appear, and not because of it's GTA name.

Its a perfect city but the game needs to loosen up a little its too rigid.

@ Mnmfan, I really don't think the name matters at all either. I think the name "Liberty City" is more a metaphor for GTA games at this stage. Liberty, meaning freedom, City. A city where you can go and do anything you want, anytime.

I just don't think it's fair on people like the developers who spend countless man hours putting together and designing this city, just to have someone try to finish the game in less than 30 hours for some trophy, then forget about the game.

It would be a big gamble on Rockstar's part to come out and say, "You need GTA IV to play GTA V, but we think you'll enjoy playing in the new, expanded Liberty City, on top of what we had in GTA IV".

Why get rid of an amazing piece of design when there's SO much more they could do with it? And, like we pointed out before, all the landmark GTA's have been in Liberty. By landmark I just mean the sequential ones. GTA I, II, III and IV were all in Liberty, so if they're to continue the tradition and make GTA V in Liberty, I would love to see it be GTA IV's Liberty, expanded.

quote Shane

I just don't think it's fair on people like the developers who spend countless man hours putting together and designing this city, just to have someone try to finish the game in less than 30 hours for some trophy, then forget about the game.

Here is where you lose me. Developers are paid in MONEY not by how many hours gamers take to complete a world. Artists, programmers, producers, and a ton of other professionals work at a game like this, and all are making damned good living.

I agree with you that the Liberty City in GTA IV is a breathtaking masterpiece, quite artistic and aesthetic. The problem is that a game environment is only as good as the gameplay and the game itself. I see the gorgeous city as a bonus. Since many GTA fans were less than overwhelmed by GTA IV, to those folks, it does not matter how gorgeous the city is, not even one little bit. I am STILL playing Burnout Paradise to this day. Truth be told, Paradise City is absolutely stunning, but my continuing to play it for sometimes HOURS on end online has absolutely nothing to do with the city. I will say that the beauty and stunning array of sights in Paradise are of great joy to me.

However, the ONLY reason I care is because I already intrinsically love the game. Since gamers ONLY care about the visual environment to the extent that they already love the game, the fact that many people are only spending 30 or so hours in the beautifully crafted Liberty City may say something about the game, at least insofar as the perception of the part of the fanbase that rejected IV. Perhaps this is even true of many of those who enjoyed it, but got bored after (to use your number) 30 hours once they beat the main storyline. By the way, on the flip side, there are also a great many people still playing online GTA IV as much as ever. Why? Because to them, 30 hours was not even enough to scratch the surface of GTA IV they loved it so much.

I suppose that was a bad example on my part though, I meant more that the amazing map they've put together is only used for one game. It's getting to the stage now that graphical improvements aren't that huge anymore, so using something --in this case, the map-- from a previous game wouldn't be that noticeable in a new game.

I must admit that the ambiance in GTA4 is a true work of art. You really don't get even a remote sense of what I'm talking about unless you take the time to just walk around the city. Listen to the peds converse with eachother and things like that. The strip clubs are nice too.

I really couldn't care less how many times the Liberty City name is. Hell, the city could be called Maser Sucks City and I wouldn't care as long as the game is fun and has a high replay value.

My main peeve about GTA4 is the difficulty of the game. It sucks out loud. The aiming and cover system make for such missions. As a gamer I don't like losing, but I also like a challenge. I miss the overly hard missions from GTA3 or VC and SA. You know the missions that have you cussing out the TV and threatening to break your game and then you finally beat the mission and it's like a New Years party at your house. My other peeve is the wanted system. It takes NO skill whatsoever. It's all a matter of whether the computer wants you to lose or keep your wanted level. There is no excuse to have 4 or 5 cop cars on your ass when all you have is a single star level. The second you are out of the wanted circle......BOOM another cop car happens to appear in front of you and restarts your wanted status.

All in all I give it 5 stars. It's an overly easy game, but the fun factor and replay value make up for it. Plus Packie is the funniest video game character I have ever seen.

I don't think the name is that important. It was called LC because it was a take on NYC, which is what the concept behind LC has always been. I don't think it really has much affect on anyone.

Lets not turn this into a "Sure, the city is good, but this is why I don't like the game" thread. That's completely unrelated.

I wish people would stop calling the city perfect. It's not perfect. Any game that has such am emphasis on detailed driving and vehicles, but doesn't provide long uncluttered roads for you to drive on is cheating itself. VC had the airport, and a strip on both islands you could floor it down if you wanted. SA had hundreds of country roads that were absolutely fantastic to drive on, as well as things like the entire LV highway. And games like GTA III that didn't have this had less clutter, that is, traffic and all that. The roads were also a bit wider I think.

GTA IV's LC isn't like that at all. There's more traffic than any other GTA and there are no empty country roads to compensate for this. Hell, even the airport is barred off.
And thus, it's not perfect. It's all city, no countryside. Gridlocked streets are great, except that there's no escape, and it's hard to think of a single place you can really stretch a car's legs, without soon coming towards a clogged intersection.

It is great though. Atmosphere, all of that, pretty damn good.

I don't really think Rockstar can get away with having the same setting, even if it's added on, for the next game. Part of the appeal of GTA, since GTA III, has been that it's a new city with a different feel. I think it's better for them to retain that, for the fans who expect it, and because it's great. I'd much rather have the next game in something new, like a revamped VC setting, than the same LC that we just had. It wouldn't feel like a new game, it'd feel like an expansion pack.

This message was edited by Ville_Valo on Jul 05 2009.

Have you played Lost and Damned? If you haven't, then I can assure you that it's easy to make the same city have a different feel to it. Lost and Damned felt like it was in a completely new setting, not just because it came at the map from a different angle, but because of how the game played.

You could call your friends and have them deliver fully loaded guns and vehicles to you. It's simple touches like this that made the game feel like it was in a completely different universe to IV, even though it was set in the very same city.

Like you say, it's all about FEELING like you're experiencing something new. L&D gave us --well, for me it did-- a completely new experience in the exact same place. Johnny was a character with his own personality, his friends lived in their own world and had their own rules. Niko was an immigrant and a hired hitman who was finding his feet in Liberty, having to fight up through the ranks of the mob world. It's these kind of factors that make for our game moreso than the map, imo.

It's seeing the city from the different angles and perspectives of different people that ultimately makes it such an immersive experience for me, which is why I'm looking forward to the Ballad of Gay Tony so much. Admittedly not as much as I looked forward to L&D, because the setting of L&D was something I've wanted to see for a long time in GTA --ie, biker gangs and heavy metal-- but I can't wait to see what spin BoGT puts on Liberty and it's inhabitants.

I just think that the Liberty of IV could be easily likened to an iceberg. What we can see is only one tenth of the city. The cities finer --and not so fine-- points rest with the people and the interaction therein. I would like to see them turn the city into it's own character and have it develop. Show us the background of some of the places, see how it evolves, let us destroy parts of it and see it stay that way so we can contribute our own part of the history of the city.

Maybe the idea is a bit too advanced for Liberty of IV, but I would really like to see V stay in that city and develop it more, because I love it.

Liberty City is definitely stunning. I agree with Mnm though, they should have named it something else. But I don't care too much about the name. I just care about the size and beauty of it. Now if they make a bigger Vice City with today's graphics, I guarantee it'll look more stunning than Liberty City.

You could be right Shane, I haven't played L&D, but I still think people won't be very impressed if they dish out much the same city the next time around. Maybe a better option would be to keep releasing more DLC, up to around 5 packs, and for the PS3 as well. This way they expose the city more, but we still get a fresh new game.

There's always the chance they'll come back to it in later years with a game like LCS. We don't know what will happen after the PSP in terms of portable gaming

quote Mnmfan

In my opinion it was a big mistake for R* to name the GTA4 city "Liberty City". Why? I hear you ask.
Simple. We've already had Liberty City not once, not twice but 3 times already. People are getting sick of it. However in GTA4 not a SINGLE street or junction is even remotely similar to past Liberty Cities. Yet R* still named the city "Liberty City". So even though the city is 100% different people still know it as Liberty City which leaves a bad taste in their mouth.
To make yet another game in LC would be suicide.
They should've called the GTA4 city Garcer City then people wouldn't mind another game on the same map.

I disagree. Liberty was a representation of New York in GTA III. Because of the PS2's limitations, Rockstar did not have the resources to make it closely resemble the Big Apple AND give us the kind of gameplay and freedom they did. In this generation, Rockstar gave us a gorgeously rendered NYC and what they at least believed was massive freedom. I think that GTA IV being in Liberty was inevitable and even a very good thing even if I disagree wholeheartedly with how just about everything that was implemented in this game.

quote Mnmfan

In my opinion it was a big mistake for R* to name the GTA4 city "Liberty City". Why? I hear you ask.
Simple. We've already had Liberty City not once, not twice but 3 times already. People are getting sick of it. However in GTA4 not a SINGLE street or junction is even remotely similar to past Liberty Cities. Yet R* still named the city "Liberty City". So even though the city is 100% different people still know it as Liberty City which leaves a bad taste in their mouth.

Why is 4 the focal point of the city being different compared to the others? You do realize that each iteration of the city is different, (even though they all resemble NY) right?





GTA revolves around Liberty City. Although it shows up often, it's always a different experience.
So no, using it again is not "suicidal."

I disagree with the original posters assessment. GTA IV isn't a "artistic masterpiece", it is a impressive TECHNICAL accomplishment. By this I mean that IV isn't particularly creative nor does it have a unique personality. This city looks beautiful, but I feel this falls more under technical marvel rather than artistry.

Artistic aspects of the game would include the FEEL of the game, not the LOOKS. The OP seems to be impressed bythe games facade, and not necessarily on how it feels to play the game. It's 2009, and I'm not impressed at how REAL the city looks. Give a room of nerds a $100 million budget and I'm confident that they'll produce a video game that LOOKS good. What IV lacks in my opinion is the aforementioned Artistic qualities from previous games. I would say that IV lacks in story, character personality, mission creativity, and most importantly...overall vibe of the city. The city feels empty and sterile despite all of the pretty buildings and "living/breathing" qualities of the peds.