Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

What's with the hate towards using SF in future?

21 replies to this topic
Niko Vercetti 112
  • Niko Vercetti 112

    That's, just, like, your opinion man

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Feb 2012

#1

Posted 2 weeks ago

One thing I've noticed a hell of a lot of around the forums is people blasting SF and claiming it's too sh*t to include in a future game. I've got to ask though, why?

Yes Rockstar f*cked up with San Fierro (and even Las Venturas) in San Andreas, leading to it being an ugly, undetailed and poorly mapped hell hole of a place to be. But anybody who knows a thing or two about the real San Francisco knows that they really made a screw up. This is why R* are separating the cities from San Andreas in the HD era, to give more focus on an acurate representation, as opposed to throwing together a bunch of places they've seen in movies.

San Francisco may not be all neon lights, sports cars and ghetto (which seems to be what everyone playing GTA these days wants), but it's definitley GTA material. I'm a big fan of the idea of basing a SF game in the 70's (enough culture their to rival their representation of Miami in VC), but even today I couldn't imagine it being as bad as GTAF members are claiming.

So just tell me, please, what the f*ck have you all got against San Fierro?

Loc14
  • Loc14

    King of Los Santos

  • Members
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2014
  • Romania

#2

Posted 2 weeks ago

Pump your brakes baby, take a chilllllllllllll pill!

 

I'm not against SF, but i just like LV and VC more.

(as with many other people, i guess)


Queen Elizabeth II
  • Queen Elizabeth II

    Punk-ass Bitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 2 weeks ago
  • Poland

#3

Posted 2 weeks ago

I like SF in San Andreas... :panic:

  • Jeansowaty likes this

Osho
  • Osho

    Ghetto Star

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Nov 2012
  • None

#4

Posted 2 weeks ago

Someone like me who has no clue about real SF has no reason to say I hate it.
The only thing I disliked that there was no way I could use the tram and also, lack of good interiors.
Otherwise, it was nice as a city ( incl LV ) to roam around, looked better than LS atmosphere wise.
Still, the driving felt like going through tight spaces in the city.

SFPD officer
  • SFPD officer

    What do I look like I'm made of? Pudding?

  • Members
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2012
  • Czech-Republic

#5

Posted 2 weeks ago

Even contemporary San Fierro could work as an excellent counter to glitzy, sunny, superficial Los Santos as it was presented in V. It's easily my top pick for next GTA's location. When I think about the dense urban environment, trademark hills, weather, architecture and possibities for countryside... f*ck yeah, I want an HD era San Fierro right now!

 

And, honestly, of all SA cities, Los Santos deserved the HD remake least. I think, with the kind of story R* told in V, setting it in, say, Washington would have been much better. Of course, they wouldn't be able to go on a tirade about celebrity culture there, but I wouldn't miss it. R* did LA justice already in SA, it was San Francisco and Las Vegas who got the short end of the stick there.


Queen Elizabeth II
  • Queen Elizabeth II

    Punk-ass Bitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 2 weeks ago
  • Poland

#6

Posted 2 weeks ago

Yes, plus they made LS too small (shh) to look like LA so they could go for San Francisco (it doesn't have to be big actually) :)


RoadRunner71
  • RoadRunner71

    Try to Run, Try to Hide

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Mar 2012
  • None

#7

Posted 2 weeks ago

1. San Francisco doesn’t especially attract me, I find it a rather dull city.

2. I'm totally against repeating past GTA settings, I don't care whether they were poorly portrayed in past GTAs or still have plenty of original storyline possibilities.

3. This point is related to the previous one, I want a brand new setting we haven't seen yet, because USA is bigger than NY, Miami and So Cal, right? What about Texas and the Southern, Midwestern or even Northwestern coast?

So this is what the f*ck I have against it.

Niko Vercetti 112
  • Niko Vercetti 112

    That's, just, like, your opinion man

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Feb 2012

#8

Posted 2 weeks ago

1. San Francisco doesnt especially attract me, I find it a rather dull city.

2. I'm totally against repeating past GTA settings, I don't care whether they were poorly portrayed in past GTAs or still have plenty of original storyline possibilities.

3. This point is related to the previous one, I want a brand new setting we haven't seen yet, because USA is bigger than NY, Miami and So Cal, right? What about Texas and the Southern, Midwestern or even Northwestern coast?

So this is what the f*ck I have against it.

Well this is the most valid point I've seen yet. I myself am in a lot of support of seeing a new setting based on either Boston, Dallas or New Orleans. I just feel that if Rockstar want to keep recycling the same old locations, San Fierro is the best option.

universetwisters
  • universetwisters

    Verrekte Mongol

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Feb 2011
  • United-States

#9

Posted 2 weeks ago

We already say the west coast in V, so why dwell there? Why not go to the south or rust belt?

ObsydianRaven
  • ObsydianRaven

    Formerly Sethpenguin

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Jul 2008
  • None

#10

Posted 2 weeks ago

It's not that I'm against SF, I just want a new location. 


Phoenix_Shit
  • Phoenix_Shit

    Hey

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Oct 2013
  • Sweden

#11

Posted 2 weeks ago

Although the idea feels weak when talking about it, I am no San Francisco expert, but SF in GTA San Andreas was small as f*ck. It felt like a small abonded city. If R* are gunna make San Fierro in the future, it needs to be something big and cool. I know for sure that the bay area is amazing in San Francisco

 

 

But still, I am more towards a new Vice City :)


Jeansowaty
  • Jeansowaty

    ._.

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 Mar 2013
  • Poland

#12

Posted 2 weeks ago

San Fierro was small, but it was a great town.


Viscacha
  • Viscacha

  • Members
  • Joined: 2 weeks ago
  • East-Timor

#13

Posted 2 weeks ago

We already say the west coast in V, so why dwell there? Why not go to the south or rust belt?

Because west coast is better. But yeah I agree, confederate south would be nice too as long as it's not somewhere in the f*cking midlands.


ssbawesome
  • ssbawesome

    The Eigth Sage

  • Members
  • Joined: 01 Aug 2013
  • United-States

#14

Posted 2 weeks ago

San Fierro was always my favorite city in SA. I'm not against the inclusion of SF being a location for a future game, I just want the first 'new' game on next gen to be Vice City. SF will be fine, but I just want Vice City more.


universetwisters
  • universetwisters

    Verrekte Mongol

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Feb 2011
  • United-States

#15

Posted 2 weeks ago


We already say the west coast in V, so why dwell there? Why not go to the south or rust belt?

Because west coast is better. But yeah I agree, confederate south would be nice too as long as it's not somewhere in the f*cking midlands.

They might be able to incorporate it if they ever do DC, if you can even count that as the south.

Severe
  • Severe

    Street Cat

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Mar 2007
  • None

#16

Posted 2 weeks ago

They might be able to incorporate it if they ever do DC, if you can even count that as the south.

 

wat.jpg

 

I'm pretty sure you can't.

 

As for SF: It could of course work, but probably not the VI, it might be just a bit too similar to V for that. 


Viscacha
  • Viscacha

  • Members
  • Joined: 2 weeks ago
  • East-Timor

#17

Posted 2 weeks ago

 

 

We already say the west coast in V, so why dwell there? Why not go to the south or rust belt?

Because west coast is better. But yeah I agree, confederate south would be nice too as long as it's not somewhere in the f*cking midlands.

They might be able to incorporate it if they ever do DC, if you can even count that as the south.

 

How would that ever even be remotely related to the south? It's basically Canada level.


Severe
  • Severe

    Street Cat

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Mar 2007
  • None

#18

Posted 2 weeks ago Edited by Severe, 2 weeks ago.

How would that ever even be remotely related to the south? It's basically Canada level.

 

Not quite, it is on the border of Virginia, one of the CSA, so it's not a million miles off, but calling it 'southern' is probably still a bit of a stretch.


universetwisters
  • universetwisters

    Verrekte Mongol

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Feb 2011
  • United-States

#19

Posted 2 weeks ago

 

 

 

We already say the west coast in V, so why dwell there? Why not go to the south or rust belt?

Because west coast is better. But yeah I agree, confederate south would be nice too as long as it's not somewhere in the f*cking midlands.

They might be able to incorporate it if they ever do DC, if you can even count that as the south.

 

How would that ever even be remotely related to the south? It's basically Canada level.

 

 

what

 

washington-dc-map.gif

 

I dunno, lots of people here say that Washington DC is technically the South seeing as it's sandwiched between Virginia & Maryland, that are both southern states according to them. But what defines a "southern" state. a state that's geographically south of a certain point, a state allied with the confederates in the civil war, etc.


Queen Elizabeth II
  • Queen Elizabeth II

    Punk-ass Bitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 2 weeks ago
  • Poland

#20

Posted 2 weeks ago

I think that if there is going to be Washington DC in GTA it should be named Cleaningston.


Viscacha
  • Viscacha

  • Members
  • Joined: 2 weeks ago
  • East-Timor

#21

Posted 2 weeks ago

 

what

 

washington-dc-map.gif

 

I dunno, lots of people here say that Washington DC is technically the South seeing as it's sandwiched between Virginia & Maryland, that are both southern states according to them. But what defines a "southern" state. a state that's geographically south of a certain point, a state allied with the confederates in the civil war, etc.

 

 

What the f*ck, you need to get your eyes checked.

 

You have a map right f*cking there, with DC marked and you still think it's south? Yeah it's south of Canada but that's f*cking about it.

 

251fe2814d.png

It doesnt' even reach the line of north Carolina and you still think it's south?

The most you'd deviate from it being North is to call it East Coast..


universetwisters
  • universetwisters

    Verrekte Mongol

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Feb 2011
  • United-States

#22

Posted 2 weeks ago Edited by universetwisters, 2 weeks ago.

What the f*ck, you need to get your eyes checked.

 

You have a map right f*cking there, with DC marked and you still think it's south? Yeah it's south of Canada but that's f*cking about it.

 

-snip-

 

It doesnt' even reach the line of north Carolina and you still think it's south?

The most you'd deviate from it being North is to call it East Coast..

 

 

>Virginia

>Not Southern state

 

what

 

That's funny, this map here counts DC as part of the south

 

Southern_United_States_Civil_War_map.png





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users