Quote:
Originally posted by xXx_DoN_CoRLeOnE_xXx:
[quote]Originally posted by long_lost_corleone:
[b]
Personally, I think Sin City would make a good game, granted they don't throw it together like shit. I think if you could get the GTA staff of Rockstar to collaborate (and listen, Ice is back for a brand new invention) with Miller, then they could really get something going
It's ironic you say that. I remember, before the idea for GTA: San Andreas materialized, they were gonna make a game called Grand Theft Auto: Sin City. It had nothing to do with Frank Miller's comic or film, I imagine. I just found it ironic... [/b][/quote]Actually, GTA: Sin City was a rumour. There were two seperate rumours that Rockstar had purposly spread to throw off gamers and the media alike. The first rumour was GTA: Sin City, which was to be Las Vegas ONLY. Personally, I think it would have been cool like that, considering it'd be most likely mob based. The second rumour, which held a bit more truth, was that it was to be called GTA: San Andreas, but take place in San Francisco ONLY, and it'd take place in the mid-70s.

Of course, we were over joyed to find not both cities in the final product, but the addition of a third city based on Los Angeles, and loads of country side. Of course, the idea of GTA: Sin City was bull-shit all along, as Rockstar announced. They fooled us this time.

"Somebody told me when the bomb hits, everybody in a two mile radius will be instantly sublimated, but if you lay face down on the ground for some time, avoiding the residual ripples of heat, you might survive, permanently fucked up and twisted like you're always underwater refracted. But if you do go gas, there's nothing you can do if the air that was once you is mingled and mashed with the kicked up molecules of the enemy's former body. Big-kid-tested, motherf--ker approved."