Basically, if the title was GTA 4: SA, there would be no doubters. Considering Rockstar's development history with the franchise, I'm surprised they put the "5" on this one. It makes me wonder if they have something up their sleeves.
@kb8618 Point taken. I'll put it at 50/50 whether SF or LV are in the game. The plane makes me think that they will be. If they have SF and LV in the level of detail that Los Santos has in this trailer...then Rockstar are truly gods among men.
I'm reading articles and comments across the internet from people saying that it will have all three San Andreas cities. Am I missing something? I've watched the trailer at least ten times now and I can't see anything that confirms SF or LV. It looks like the scale of Los Santos is going to be huge. I don't even know if they'll have room to add a fully-fleshed SF or LV. Given Rockstar's comments about taking the series into tighter and more serious stories, I'd almost be surprised if either SF or LV made the cut.
I was holding out for a brand new location, but this still looks great. I'm a big fan of adding the rural areas like the wind farm, mountain park, and vine field. I think they add great contrast and are one of San Andreas' biggest strengths. My only disappointment was that I didn't see any evidence for San Fierro or Las Venturas. That doesn't mean they aren't in the game though, Rockstar will want to carefully manage the hype meter on this one. The protagonist definitely sounds Italian-American to me. That's a bit surprising, as I think a lot of people were banking on a Hispanic character. I'd better be able to fly those planes :D
I'm liking the Washington D.C. theory. GTA IV was great, but it didn't break any new ground on being truly outrageous. Putting the game in Washington D.C. would seriously up the ante. Fox News might collectively explode. Too bad they won't do London. I know it's supposed to be an American parody etc., but doing the UK GTA-style would be instant game of the year without question. So many awesome things they could do with the UK. I like either Chicago or Washington D.C. I won't mind L.A. again, but it IS starting to get overdone.
I may be in the minority, but I'm still holding out on this game. After playing the demo, then reading more about the features, and then reading reviews, I still come to the conclusion that only gamers forget the past so easily. Empire was a failure in many ways, and Napoleon was an insulting cash grab containing features that were promised by the developers to be in Empire itself. Now Creative Assembly puts out an albeit working game that delivers nothing that wasn't done in Rome or Medieval, and gamers can't line up fast enough to drop their fifty dollars. It doesn't appear to me that this game is anything beyond Rome mechanics and AI, with a graphical update. I've been waiting for an AI that does siege battles correctly (from my demo experience, not the case still), a working diplomacy system, and actually provides new and interesting campaign features such as random events, an actual economic system, or a revamped Senate-like feature. I admit that the game looks playable and fun, but this is now four games past Rome:TW and where are we? I just can't justify paying full price for this game, and I'm surprised that so many people encourage Creative Assembly to keep resting on their laurels.
I'm going to chime in again on a small point. I see quite a few comments along the lines of "If only DA2 didn't have the Dragon Age name attached to it, it would be seen as good." This is a ridiculous defense of the game. Using similar logic, if only COD:MW didn't have the COD name attached to it, it would be seen as a bad game. Furthermore, the setting of the game is entirely relevant to whether it is good or not. To use the favored BG2 comparison, if BG2 severed all meaningful connections to the story and setting of BG1, it would not have been received nearly as well even with all of its other mechanical improvements. No one would argue that this would be unjustified either, because a developer charged with making a sequel is bound by some of the restrictions of the previous game. Even in a fairy tale world where DA2 can be examined in complete isolation from its predecessor, it would probably be seen as a competent game with some serious flaws: for example, I don't think anyone is okay with random pop-in mobs of enemies anymore. That is, unless you're playing Dynasty Warriors :D TIC aside, if anything Bioware gets some serious benefit of the doubt from reviewers because of their previously well-earned reputation. I think reviewers really held back from slamming the game when there are some serious bugs, re-used areas, pop-in mobs, and other amateur hour design features which would get an indie game developer raked over the coals of a 6/10 score.
As a final comment, I don't care that other people like DA2. All I'm railing against is the flippant attitude given to a large section of Bioware's fans who have some legitimate complaints on DA2. And yes, the complaints are legitimate: they're found in mainstream reviews, forums, and comments sections like this site. It's not an isolated phenomenon or a personal attack on fans of DA2. It doesn't mean that DA2 is a complete pile of trash, but it might mean that Bioware has dropped their standards. That's all. If the GTFO atttiude is how Bioware wants to go, that's fine. I don't think it's good business practice to do take the position Mike Laidlaw is taking, but it's their call. I'd just encourage others who feel the same way I do to just buy other fantasy RPGs that do it better.
TheLawLord's comments