Mapping Los Santos! Building/landmark analysis

[DRN94]

Based on what I've seen, Los Santos doesn't appear to be that big even in comparison to Liberty City. I'd say Los Santos is the size of Liberty City minus the water inbetween and excluding Alderney.

 

And I know people keep saying it's not going to be a PS3 or PC exclusive but think of it this way. If the 360's storage capacity impedes Rockstar's scope of the game they are trying to make they will ditch the 360 unless it were possible to have the 360 version require a hard drive where they provide a content install disc which installs the city and game engine to the hard drive so the play disc only contains the story dialog, cutscene code, game logic, etc. That would be the most logical solution to the dvd storage dilemma. Forza 3 and 4 employed a similar tactic around the dvd storage limit. I'm not a fanboy but Rockstar could very well be going back to it's PS exclusive roots as it did in the past if what they want accomplished in GTA V can't fit practically onto a 360 medium.

 

But back to the main point. Los Santos seems seriously small. The whole main structure of Los Angeles is that fact that downtown Los Angeles is pretty damn far from the coast but in GTA V it seems so condensed to the point where it doesn't feel big being able to clearly see the skyline of downtown from the santa monica beach. I mean look at how close the observatory is in the pier shot and then where the observatory is in the oil drill shot in comparison to downtown. It's RIGHT there. And it's odd that in the final shot of the plane flying over downtown you can't see past downtown at all. It's just blurred to cover up the fact that the coast is pretty much right there.

 

What I have a hard time understanding is the fact that the VINEWOOD sign is to the east of downtown? The Hollywood sign in real life is way north west of downtown near hollywood. We've seen a shot of Rodeo Dr. which is the equivalent of Hollywood Boulevard and the road is really long and is horizontal to the mountain range that the observatory sits on. Shouldnt the VINEWOOD sign be near there north west of downtown and not to the east? It just doesn't make sense in terms of what you'd expect from a Los Angeles based map. Even the VINEWOOD sign was at least north of downtown in GTA SA.

 

Maybe the VINEWOOD sign is just a continuity fail where the jet in the final shot didn't come from the same direction as the jet in the previous shot flying over the VINEWOOD sign but IDK. What do you all think?

[Bellic 4 life]

Based on what I've seen, Los Santos doesn't appear to be that big even in comparison to Liberty City. I'd say Los Santos is the size of Liberty City minus the water inbetween and excluding Alderney.

 

And I know people keep saying it's not going to be a PS3 or PC exclusive but think of it this way. If the 360's storage capacity impedes Rockstar's scope of the game they are trying to make they will ditch the 360 unless it were possible to have the 360 version require a hard drive where they provide a content install disc which installs the city and game engine to the hard drive so the play disc only contains the story dialog, cutscene code, game logic, etc. That would be the most logical solution to the dvd storage dilemma. Forza 3 and 4 employed a similar tactic around the dvd storage limit. I'm not a fanboy but Rockstar could very well be going back to it's PS exclusive roots as it did in the past if what they want accomplished in GTA V can't fit practically onto a 360 medium.

 

But back to the main point. Los Santos seems seriously small. The whole main structure of Los Angeles is that fact that downtown Los Angeles is pretty damn far from the coast but in GTA V it seems so condensed to the point where it doesn't feel big being able to clearly see the skyline of downtown from the santa monica beach. I mean look at how close the observatory is in the pier shot and then where the observatory is in the oil drill shot in comparison to downtown. It's RIGHT there. And it's odd that in the final shot of the plane flying over downtown you can't see past downtown at all. It's just blurred to cover up the fact that the coast is pretty much right there.

 

What I have a hard time understanding is the fact that the VINEWOOD sign is to the east of downtown? The Hollywood sign in real life is way north west of downtown near hollywood. We've seen a shot of Rodeo Dr. which is the equivalent of Hollywood Boulevard and the road is really long and is horizontal to the mountain range that the observatory sits on. Shouldnt the VINEWOOD sign be near there north west of downtown and not to the east? It just doesn't make sense in terms of what you'd expect from a Los Angeles based map. Even the VINEWOOD sign was at least north of downtown in GTA SA.

 

Maybe the VINEWOOD sign is just a continuity fail where the jet in the final shot didn't come from the same direction as the jet in the previous shot flying over the VINEWOOD sign but IDK. What do you all think?

Just stop. Your posts have a thinly veiled insult to the Xbox system, because you feel it is not as good as the PS. You are not actually contributing anything to the discussion, which is about MAPPING LOS SANTOS, not rendering between systems.

[DRN94]

Based on what I've seen, Los Santos doesn't appear to be that big even in comparison to Liberty City.  I'd say Los Santos is the size of Liberty City minus the water inbetween and excluding Alderney.

 

And I know people keep saying it's not going to be a PS3 or PC exclusive but think of it this way.  If the 360's storage capacity impedes Rockstar's scope of the game they are trying to make they will ditch the 360 unless it were possible to have the 360 version require a hard drive where they provide a content install disc which installs the city and game engine to the hard drive so the play disc only contains the story dialog, cutscene code, game logic, etc.  That would be the most logical solution to the dvd storage dilemma.  Forza 3 and 4 employed a similar tactic around the dvd storage limit.  I'm not a fanboy but Rockstar could very well be going back to it's PS exclusive roots as it did in the past if what they want accomplished in GTA V can't fit practically onto a 360 medium.

 

But back to the main point.  Los Santos seems seriously small.  The whole main structure of Los Angeles is that fact that downtown Los Angeles is pretty damn far from the coast but in GTA V it seems so condensed to the point where it doesn't feel big being able to clearly see the skyline of downtown from the santa monica beach.  I mean look at how close the observatory is in the pier shot and then where the observatory is in the oil drill shot in comparison to downtown.  It's RIGHT there.  And it's odd that in the final shot of the plane flying over downtown you can't see past downtown at all.  It's just blurred to cover up the fact that the coast is pretty much right there.

 

What I have a hard time understanding is the fact that the VINEWOOD sign is to the east of downtown?  The Hollywood sign in real life is way north west of downtown near hollywood.  We've seen a shot of Rodeo Dr. which is the equivalent of Hollywood Boulevard and the road is really long and is horizontal to the mountain range that the observatory sits on.  Shouldnt the VINEWOOD sign be near there north west of downtown and not to the east?  It just doesn't make sense in terms of what you'd expect from a Los Angeles based map.  Even the VINEWOOD sign was at least north of downtown in GTA SA.

 

Maybe the VINEWOOD sign is just a continuity fail where the jet in the final shot didn't come from the same direction as the jet in the previous shot flying over the VINEWOOD sign but IDK.  What do you all think?

Just stop. Your posts have a thinly veiled insult to the Xbox system, because you feel it is not as good as the PS. You are not actually contributing anything to the discussion, which is about MAPPING LOS SANTOS, not rendering between systems.

Calm down dude. I don't own a PS3. I only have my computer and Xbox 360. And it's no hiding the storage limits of the DL-DVD. Also, Rockstar's RAGE engine runs better on the Xbox 360 and I will say that. Just because I said one well known problem with the 360 doesn't mean I'm a trolling fanboy. And I'm bringing to question the location of the VINEWOOD sign and the actual scale of Los Santos which no one in the last 85 pages has even brought up or discussed.

[DRN94]

 

This was edited with special effects (but not in any way manipulated) to reveal more buildings. (It is not mine)

 

This may as well kill your "Downtown is close to the coast" theory. The building you must have been talking about in the bottom left corner (the pizza place" is close to the coast, but here's a map of Los Angeles.

 

The shot you are looking at is looking towards downtown from the coast. That little corner off the the right is south of downtown Los Santos. I'm mainly concerned with the city scape inbetween Downtown and the coast line to the west. I've never been to LA personally but I've played True Crimes Streets of LA when I was little and that map was to scale of LA and it literally took 20 minutes at full speed in a sports car to get to the coast from downtown. Now all the GTAs have been considerably scaled obviously but I want at least the longer length of Algonquin inbetween downtown LS and the coast to the west at minimum but I don't think that is going to happen.

[Dr. Zoidberg]

DRN94 seems legit.. Its very valid.

 

Though, I will literally sh*t my pants from how pissed i will be when i find out how small Los Santos is and if it doesnt feature any other towns/cities

[Death2Drugs]

IMAGE

 

This was edited with special effects (but not in any way manipulated) to reveal more buildings. (It is not mine)

 

This may as well kill your "Downtown is close to the coast" theory. The building you must have been talking about in the bottom left corner (the pizza place" is close to the coast, but here's a map of Los Angeles.

 

The shot you are looking at is looking towards downtown from the coast. That little corner off the the right is south of downtown Los Santos. I'm mainly concerned with the city scape inbetween Downtown and the coast line to the west. I've never been to LA personally but I've played True Crimes Streets of LA when I was little and that map was to scale of LA and it literally took 20 minutes at full speed in a sports car to get to the coast from downtown. Now all the GTAs have been considerably scaled obviously but I want at least the longer length of Algonquin inbetween downtown LS and the coast to the west at minimum but I don't think that is going to happen.

Okay, I understand now.

 

1. Here's another map of Los Angeles:

It's too big, you'll have to see it here

 

We barely see any part of the Hollywood-Beverly Hills-Television City area. We do occasionally see parts of its landmarks. As for the first scene, perhaps the map might not have been finished so they used optical illusions to hide those ugly areas, or simply that big building and other things like cliffs were just simply blocking it from view. Because we barely saw any sort of shot toward the northwest, that makes Downtown seem so closer to Santa Monica. Also, in the final shot of the trailer, we see a plane heading to the LSX (probably the area that we revealed in the picture). We can't see any part of the coast, and the area between it might be Wilshire. I will agree with you on one thing: Wilshire seems much more condensed. But for now, saying whether LS is big or small cannot be said due to the lack of info.

 

2. As for "the Xbox 360 might not handle it", I doubt that will play any role. For example, Skyrim was only 3.8 GB on the Xbox 360. A game so massive as that but on one disc for a supposedly weak console means that the 360 isn't so weak. Also, Microsoft has been beefing up its disc size.

Link

 

Microsoft has to be working with R* on how to deliver such a massive game on its console.

[Fido_le_muet]

I read what DRN94 with all my attention and I must say I was very impressed with the dedication he showed in trying to add something to the subject of this thread.

I fear that LS could be smaller than expected, with Santa Monica/Vespucci Beach much closer to Downtown than in real LA.

However, I do agree with Troll Proof about the use of smog as a tool to recreate the atmosphere of the city rather than to hide the true size of LS.

 

Anyway, we don't have a clue about the true size of Los Santos and everything that we can say about it is pure speculation because we don't have enough information.

 

Concerning the PS3 VS. X360 "debate", it is completely irrelevant to this thread and should be discussed elsewhere.

I appreciate everyone's contribution to this thread but please, stay on topic guys.

[Death2Drugs]

Back on-topic:

 

 

In the area I circled, you can see a cliff that is obscured by the smog (which may have been used to make the city look bigger, obviously also added because after all, Los Santos is based on Los Angeles). Once again, a map of Los Angeles County:

 

 

Also, here's Rancho Palos Verdes:

 

The cliff right there might represent a very high end neighborhood, likely Rancho Palos Verdes. The same cliff was in San Andreas, but instead of RPV, it had Griffith Park instead. Since Griffith Park has been re-placed to a more consistent location, this area is likely RPV.

 

This might also be evidence that LS is not as big as it is, and that Rancho Palos Verdes (and the South LA area) will be placed more closer to Downtown. However, take note, the Inglewood-Crenshaw-Gateway Cities-LAX region continues more southeast past RPV, so that doesn't mean that area will be that small. We barely have seen any Eastern parts, so keep that in mind when we are talking size. San Fernando Valley (which may have been merged with the San Gabriel Valley in an earlier post I showed), Orange County, and the general East Los Angeles region hasn't been seen yet.

Edited July 3, 2012 by Death2Drugs

[GTAgamersquirrel]

 

 

This was edited with special effects (but not in any way manipulated) to reveal more buildings. (It is not mine)

 

This may as well kill your "Downtown is close to the coast" theory. The building you must have been talking about in the bottom left corner (the pizza place" is close to the coast, but here's a map of Los Angeles.

 

The shot you are looking at is looking towards downtown from the coast. That little corner off the the right is south of downtown Los Santos. I'm mainly concerned with the city scape inbetween Downtown and the coast line to the west. I've never been to LA personally but I've played True Crimes Streets of LA when I was little and that map was to scale of LA and it literally took 20 minutes at full speed in a sports car to get to the coast from downtown. Now all the GTAs have been considerably scaled obviously but I want at least the longer length of Algonquin inbetween downtown LS and the coast to the west at minimum but I don't think that is going to happen.

Actually, i'm pretty sure that shot was takin facing south meaning the griffith observatory would be behind you, and the coast would be to the right of the picture and beond the city in the shot would be the oil rig shot, meaning what your looking at in this picture is southwest of downtown.

Edited July 3, 2012 by GTAgamersquirrel

[DRN94]

 

Okay, I understand now.

 

1. Here's another map of Los Angeles:

It's too big, you'll have to see it here

 

We barely see any part of the Hollywood-Beverly Hills-Television City area. We do occasionally see parts of its landmarks. As for the first scene, perhaps the map might not have been finished so they used optical illusions to hide those ugly areas, or simply that big building and other things like cliffs were just simply blocking it from view. Because we barely saw any sort of shot toward the northwest, that makes Downtown seem so closer to Santa Monica. Also, in the final shot of the trailer, we see a plane heading to the LSX (probably the area that we revealed in the picture). We can't see any part of the coast, and the area between it might be Wilshire. I will agree with you on one thing: Wilshire seems much more condensed. But for now, saying whether LS is big or small cannot be said due to the lack of info.

 

2. As for "the Xbox 360 might not handle it", I doubt that will play any role. For example, Skyrim was only 3.8 GB on the Xbox 360. A game so massive as that but on one disc for a supposedly weak console means that the 360 isn't so weak. Also, Microsoft has been beefing up its disc size.

Link

 

Microsoft has to be working with R* on how to deliver such a massive game on its console.

Now I remember the first GTA SA trailer that showed only Los Santos was partially incomplete and you could easily tell.

 

 

 

Notice the plane flying over VINEWOOD. The road wrapping around Vinewood is incomplete, a block to the left is entirely missing, and one of the block's textures are off. Just before the trailer fades to black you can see lots of buildings missing and if you remember SA you'll notice the map in the trailer is far from the final map used in the final build.

 

I suppose it is entirely possible that the map is incomplete as of November 2011 but I doubt by much considering development started in early to mid 2008.

 

GTA has never scaled their maps proportionally to the real world counter parts so saying Hollywood and Beverly Hills not being very big on the full scale real map of Los Angeles and expecting the same proportionality in neighborhood and city sizes for GTA V isn't logical. If that were the case then Dukes, Bohan, and Broker are way out of proportionality not only to each other but also to Algonquin in GTA IV.

 

I personally think the location of the Observatory in the two shots is enough evidence to conclude Los Santos is "skinny". Most likely they've made the city taller than it is wider so they've made a larger emphasis on Long Beach and other southern portions of the Los Angeles area like the expanded docks, airport, and "hood/ghetto" which is just east and south of downtown. So I personally wouldn't be surprised if the downtown skyline is clearly visible from the Santa Monica beach.

 

And back to the Xbox 360 storage dilemma. Skyrim and GTA use completely different data compression. Max Payne 3 shipped on 2 discs for the Xbox 360. Considering Max Payne's linear campaign size to Skyrim's open world size you'd think Max Payne could fit on 1 disc. I'm expecting the simple solution of having a mandatory install content disc that puts bulk data onto the hard drive and then is no longer needed to play the game with using the play disc. It'd be foolish to pull the plug on the xbox 360 version when there is so much money at stake.

Edited July 3, 2012 by DRN94

[DRN94]

Actually, i'm pretty sure that shot was takin facing south meaning the griffith observatory would be behind you, and the coast would be to the right of the picture and beond the city in the shot would be the oil rig shot, meaning what your looking at in this picture is southwest of downtown.

Nope. That corner is looking to the south of downtown. Rewatch the trailer and pay attention to the US Bank tower in relationship to the skyscraper under construction. It is indeed looking south. Also the blue building in the bottom left corner of the same unedited shot has been confirmed by someone earlier to be a building along the west coast of Santa Monica.

[DRN94]

This preview was done in late July of 2004.

http://ps2.ign.com/articles/534/534690p1.html

Look at the corresponding screenshots posted on July 30, 2004. No San Fierro and Las Venturas, see?

http://media.ps2.ign.com/media/611/611957/imgs_14.html

Just 3 months before release and Rockstar managed to keep San Fierro and Las Venturas a secret up until 14 days before launch with this trailer:

http://www.gametrailers.com/videos/5zhymj/...dreas-trailer-2

The trailer was posted on October 10, 2004... Just 14 days before launch! People had no clue San Fierro and Las Venturas would be in GTA SA until only 2 weeks before the game launched. The trailer shocked everyone that they had been keeping the other cities a complete secret up until then and probably contributed to it's wild success. I believe Rockstar is pulling the same trick with GTA V.

 

Again, no knowledge of San Fierro and Las Venturas as of July 31 of 2004. And San Fierro and Las Venturas were shown for the first time just 14 days (2 weeks) before launch! Why is it so hard for people to believe San Fierro and Las Venturas will be in GTA V? To me it makes complete sense. The only reason why people didn't ask about San Fierro and Las Venturas being in GTA SA before it was shown just 14 days before launch was because it was the first game to feature the cities and Rockstar kept quiet and only showed Los Santos. Now we sort of expect the other two cities to be in it because of GTA SA and is why Rockstar has been choosing their words wisely when describing where the game takes place.

 

Interviewer: "Obviously, it looks like it's going back to San Andreas."

 

Dan Houser: "I've got to be real careful here, or they will drag me through the office and whip me with barbwire. I will stick to exactly what's in the press release. It's Los Santos and the surrounding countryside - and a very big map."

 

Be careful of what? Bragging about how big the map is? You don't want to over exaggerate the "very big map"? He's obviously hiding the fact that San Fierro and Las Venturas will be in the game.

 

All I can say is EXPECT San Fierro and Las Venturas in the final game. And we may not even see the other cities until less than 2 weeks before launch as they did with GTA SA so even if nothing is shown at Gamescom of the other two cities, don't let that discourage the possibility. We could very well not learn of San Fierro and Las Venturas until the launch trailer released the day before launch. So keep an open mind!

[dirtycopVCPD]

 

They said right from the beginning that San Andreas was going to take place in an entire state with versions of SF and LV. From the GTA San Adreas.net May 2004 archive:

 

 

Im sure you all heard the news about the three cities, stamina meter, etc. somewhere else already(if not check out illy's report below), so I will skip all that and get right into what Dan Houser himself has confirmed about San Andreas.

 

The three cities are infact modeled after Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Las Vegas. Each will be about the size of Vice City, resulting in a gameworld about 4 to 6 times larger than GTA3/Vice City. Sounds amazing.

 

If I remember correctly they focused on Los Santos first when marketing, then San Fierro, the countryside, and finally Las Venturas.

 

[SaintWilly]

*EDIT* There was an error.

[Dr. Zoidberg]

No one really has the right to determine whether SF or LV are out of the picture or are in the game. Rockstar Games/ Dan Houser was vague with their response and thats how it should be taken and should remain. Nothing is determined until Rockstar says so.

[DRN94]

No one really has the right to determine whether SF or LV are out of the picture or are in the game. Rockstar Games/ Dan Houser was vague with their response and thats how it should be taken and should remain. Nothing is determined until Rockstar says so.

Well Rockstar has claimed GTA V will be the most ambitious title of the series. My logic asks: How is having less main cities more ambitious than their previous efforts? I'm actually starting to expect more than just SF and LV such as Malibu, San Diego, and even Arizona. Each are important for Rockstar to make a statement about popular culture and politics. SF - homosexuality, LV - marital issues, Malibu - sheltered rich people, San Diego - Mexican drug cartels, and Arizona - Illegal immigration politics. Rockstar would only include a city that can contribute to a political or pop cultural statement or stereotype.

[36Chambers]

If you guys go on rockstars website and click on warehouse, you'll notice a picture of a white airplane in the top left corner. I think that this is probably a screenshot from GTA V since Max Payne didn't have anything that looked similar. The environment looks like it could be in the countryside in GTA V. What do you guys think?

[Bellic 4 life]

If you guys go on rockstars website and click on warehouse, you'll notice a picture of a white airplane in the top left corner. I think that this is probably a screenshot from GTA V since Max Payne didn't have anything that looked similar. The environment looks like it could be in the countryside in GTA V. What do you guys think?

The R* Warehouse backgrounds are RL picss, not screenshots.

[tomi19]

That's a real photo.

[Revolution-XW]

If you guys go on rockstars website and click on warehouse, you'll notice a picture of a white airplane in the top left corner. I think that this is probably a screenshot from GTA V since Max Payne didn't have anything that looked similar. The environment looks like it could be in the countryside in GTA V. What do you guys think?

The R* Warehouse backgrounds are RL picss, not screenshots.

What a nice fail lol.

 

OT: tomorrow is the day we will see what's popp'n with ChungChangCheng guy.

 

I'll be back in a few hours when its daytime, later mates!

 

P.S - Cheers,

 

Revolution-XW

 

Lol.

[36Chambers]

Haha alright I wasn't sure.

[YukiEiri]

This preview was done in late July of 2004.

http://ps2.ign.com/articles/534/534690p1.html

The trailer was posted on October 10, 2004... Just 14 days before launch! People had no clue San Fierro and Las Venturas would be in GTA SA until only 2 weeks before the game launched. The trailer shocked everyone that they had been keeping the other cities a complete secret up until then and probably contributed to it's wild success. I believe Rockstar is pulling the same trick with GTA V.

 

Again, no knowledge of San Fierro and Las Venturas as of July 31 of 2004. And San Fierro and Las Venturas were shown for the first time just 14 days (2 weeks) before launch! Why is it so hard for people to believe San Fierro and Las Venturas will be in GTA V? To me it makes complete sense. The only reason why people didn't ask about San Fierro and Las Venturas being in GTA SA before it was shown just 14 days before launch was because it was the first game to feature the cities and Rockstar kept quiet and only showed Los Santos. Now we sort of expect the other two cities to be in it because of GTA SA and is why Rockstar has been choosing their words wisely when describing where the game takes place.

Well .. as it has been pointed earlier, the three cities were announced.

And as in the IGN article:

 

 

In the months following E3 2004 when San Andreas was first announced, we've already learned an enormous amount of information. We already know, for instance, that the state of San Andreas is five times the size of Vice City: with three enormous metropolises spread out across multiple highways, byways, and other rural separators.

 

 

So .. yeah..

[PretendWereDead]

Though, I will literally sh*t my pants from how pissed i will be when i find out how small Los Santos is and if it doesnt feature any other towns/cities

It will feature other cities. Los Santos isn't bigger than Liberty City in my opinion:

 

[V_GTA_V]

Though, I will literally sh*t my pants from how pissed i will be when i find out how small Los Santos is and if it doesnt feature any other towns/cities

It will feature other cities. Los Santos isn't bigger than Liberty City in my opinion:

 

R* sad GTA V is the biggest game that they yet created. So this two pic really prove nothing bro!!

And its fact that GTA V is set to LS, and surronding hills, why people arent accept this? Maybe thecity isnt bigger than LC, but the surronding countryside can be, just thinking it has to be bigger than any R* game include GTA IV, RDR!

[Edward-Is-A-Flunky45]

 

This preview was done in late July of 2004. 

http://ps2.ign.com/articles/534/534690p1.html

Look at the corresponding screenshots posted on July 30, 2004.  No San Fierro and Las Venturas, see?

http://media.ps2.ign.com/media/611/611957/imgs_14.html

Just 3 months before release and Rockstar managed to keep San Fierro and Las Venturas a secret up until 14 days before launch with this trailer:

http://www.gametrailers.com/videos/5zhymj/...dreas-trailer-2

The trailer was posted on October 10, 2004... Just 14 days before launch!  People had no clue San Fierro and Las Venturas would be in GTA SA until only 2 weeks before the game launched.  The trailer shocked everyone that they had been keeping the other cities a complete secret up until then and probably contributed to it's wild success.  I believe Rockstar is pulling the same trick with GTA V.

 

Again, no knowledge of San Fierro and Las Venturas as of July 31 of 2004.  And San Fierro and Las Venturas were shown for the first time just 14 days (2 weeks) before launch!  Why is it so hard for people to believe San Fierro and Las Venturas will be in GTA V?  To me it makes complete sense.  The only reason why people didn't ask about San Fierro and Las Venturas being in GTA SA before it was shown just 14 days before launch was because it was the first game to feature the cities and Rockstar kept quiet and only showed Los Santos.  Now we sort of expect the other two cities to be in it because of GTA SA and is why Rockstar has been choosing their words wisely when describing where the game takes place. 

 

Interviewer: "Obviously, it looks like it's going back to San Andreas."

 

Dan Houser: "I've got to be real careful here, or they will drag me through the office and whip me with barbwire. I will stick to exactly what's in the press release. It's Los Santos and the surrounding countryside - and a very big map." 

 

Be careful of what?  Bragging about how big the map is?  You don't want to over exaggerate the "very big map"?  He's obviously hiding the fact that San Fierro and Las Venturas will be in the game.

 

All I can say is EXPECT San Fierro and Las Venturas in the final game.  And we may not even see the other cities until less than 2 weeks before launch as they did with GTA SA so even if nothing is shown at Gamescom of the other two cities, don't let that discourage the possibility.  We could very well not learn of San Fierro and Las Venturas until the launch trailer released the day before launch.  So keep an open mind!

But Rockstar never said it would be just Los Santos, they said San Andreas, ... Rockstar announced GTA V, saying that the game will be set just in Los Santos... Why can't people understand that ? No San Fierro or Las Venturas... Sorry to disappoint you... But no.

[Freezer89]

Rockstar announced GTA V, saying that the game will be set just in Los Santos...

Fixed. They never mentioned that it's just set in LS. Doesn't mean anything though.

[Edward-Is-A-Flunky45]

Though, I will literally sh*t my pants from how pissed i will be when i find out how small Los Santos is and if it doesnt feature any other towns/cities

It will feature other cities. Los Santos isn't bigger than Liberty City in my opinion:

 

R* sad GTA V is the biggest game that they yet created. So this two pic really prove nothing bro!!

And its fact that GTA V is set to LS, and surronding hills, why people arent accept this? Maybe thecity isnt bigger than LC, but the surronding countryside can be, just thinking it has to be bigger than any R* game include GTA IV, RDR!

Nothing ? Look at the sky ^^. And dude, the game is still in the works... so don't say bullsh*t about the game ok ? Wait for the final version -.-'

[PretendWereDead]

R* sad GTA V is the biggest game that they yet created. So this two pic really prove nothing bro!!

And its fact that GTA V is set to LS, and surronding hills, why people arent accept this? Maybe thecity isnt bigger than LC, but the surronding countryside can be, just thinking it has to be bigger than any R* game include GTA IV, RDR!

These pics prove that you can't judge the size of LS based on the trailer, compared to LC it could be even a lot smaller.

[Edward-Is-A-Flunky45]

Rockstar announced GTA V, saying that the game will be set just in Los Santos...

Fixed. They never mentioned that it's just set in LS. Doesn't mean anything though.

What ? Why not ? Los Santos, Surrounding Hills and Countrysides... you should remember that Rockstar is "updating" Los Santos, like they did with Liberty City.

Los Santos should be bigger than the Old LS or LC. I don't know where i saw this but i remember that a Guy from rockstar said that the map is 2.5x bigger than RDR. But well like i said... Let's wait for the final version.

[PretendWereDead]

What ? Why not ? Los Santos, Surrounding Hills and Countrysides... you should remember that Rockstar is "updating" Los Santos, like they did with Liberty City.

Los Santos should be bigger than the Old LS or LC. I don't know where i saw this but i remember that a Guy from rockstar said that the map is 2.5x bigger than RDR. But well like i said... Let's wait for the final version.

Where do we need planes for? To fly to the countryside?

 

R* never excluded anything, there is no proof that LS will be the only city, all the 'one city only' believers based there opinion on the announcement which doesn't state that LS will be the only city. There are more indications that there will be more than one city but like you already said: Let's wait for the final version.