Mapping Los Santos! Building/landmark analysis

[almostrodney]

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!

This man speaks sense, tbh I think anything less wouldnt live up to the type of hype that it's been building. I wonder if R* are worried that it can't live up to the hype it's caused?

[dirtycopVCPD]

 

Point to me one place on the announcement where it says the game won't take on the surface of the moon!

[PretendWereDead]

 

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.

'They' was a leak form GamesRadar.com, not R*, no official statement:

 

 

Thursday, May 13, 2004

 

GamesRadar.com is reporting some rather interesting new details on SanAn from an as-of-yet unknown source. Most interesting of which would be (as many have guessed from the intitial plot summary) that San Andreas will be an entire state featuring three cities. Rockstar's original press release made mention of a Los Santos, which with the screenshots and Cali's observation thereof, seems to be based on Los Angeles. GamesRadar not only echoes this, but speaks of two other cities as well- San Fierro, said to be based on San Francisco, and Las Venturra which might just be based on Las Vegas.

[Bellic 4 life]

Point to me one place on the announcement where it says the game won't take on the surface of the moon!

We're resorting to those kinds of posts, really? He has a fairpoint. You however, make it sound like he's suggesting something that sounds like a rumour for Saints Row.

[dirtycopVCPD]

'They' was a leak form GamesRadar.com, not R*, no official statement:

 

The fact of the matter is there was no big secret that cities based on San Francisco and Las Vegas were going to be featured in the game. I remember clearly they're being plenty of print and online articles about or at least mentioning the two cities months before the game's release.

[PretendWereDead]

 

The fact of the matter is there was no big secret that cities based on San Francisco and Las Vegas were going to be featured in the game. I remember clearly they're being plenty of print and online articles about or at least mentioning the two cities months before the game's release.

If it wasn't for the leaks we wouldn't have known about LV and SF before 2 weeks from the date of release.

[Bellic 4 life]

The fact of the matter is there was no big secret that cities based on San Francisco and Las Vegas were going to be featured in the game. I remember clearly they're being plenty of print and online articles about or at least mentioning the two cities months before the game's release.

If it wasn't for the leaks we wouldn't have known about LV and SF before 2 weeks from the date of release.

Right, and in this case, there are no leaks whatsoever. That means we could have a lot to look forward to.

[DRN94]

 

The fact of the matter is there was no big secret that cities based on San Francisco and Las Vegas were going to be featured in the game. I remember clearly they're being plenty of print and online articles about or at least mentioning the two cities months before the game's release.

If it wasn't for the leaks we wouldn't have known about LV and SF before 2 weeks from the date of release.

Right, and in this case, there are no leaks whatsoever. That means we could have a lot to look forward to.

Finally some logical, rational, and critical thinking involved in this discussion... I started a whole thread to discuss the serious issue but of course I got trolled by mindless imbeciles and a completely inconsistent moderator.

 

My point is this: Rockstar wants to keep other cities a secret so of course they wouldn't give it away in an announcement. Have people gone mad believing a press release made by a developer who wants to keep something secret is rational? Rockstar did not release anything about the other two cities for GTA SA and the hint of other cities were clearly leaked by an unknown source way before anything had been officially announced. Had it not have been leaked the knowledge of the other two cities would not have been known up until just 2 weeks before launch.

 

Not so hard to believe Rockstar will pull the same trick with GTA V but this time without a leak of the other two cities and without an obvious press release giving away everything. "LOLz Los Santos only, sry kthxbye" herr durr Rockstar would say it's "only" in Los Santos. I can't believe the majority of people trust Rockstar's official gimmicky words when they've been so secretive about EVERYTHING.

[GTAsince97]

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!

This man speaks sense, tbh I think anything less wouldnt live up to the type of hype that it's been building. I wonder if R* are worried that it can't live up to the hype it's caused?

I read the first article referenced and clearly stated in the article there were to be three metropolis' (metropoli?) planned and separated by countryside and connected by highways and such. While there was no mention as to exactly what those cities were to be, it seems pretty clear that it was widely known that Los Santos wasn't to be the only city in the game. I'm not refuting the possibility that there could be another city or two in GTA V. But there has been no official statements regarding multiple cities in V.

 

I fully understand that this following quote is widely known and has been burned into our skulls like having watched our dead grandmothers rise from the grave to eat our baby sisters but........here it is.

 

"We are very proud to officially announce that Grand Theft Auto V is in full development.

 

Developed by series creator Rockstar North, Grand Theft Auto V heads to the city of Los Santos and surrounding hills, countryside and beaches in the largest and most ambitious game Rockstar has yet created.

 

A bold new direction in open-world freedom, storytelling, mission-based gameplay and online multiplayer, Grand Theft Auto V focuses on the pursuit of the almighty dollar in a re-imagined, present day Southern California."

 

I am of the mind that were are to only expect one metropolis. It is possible for other smaller towns or populous areas to exist. Southern Cali is dotted with them. But I wouldn't expect any other MAJOR cities.

[DRN94]

I read the first article referenced and clearly stated in the article there were to be three metropolis' (metropoli?) planned and separated by countryside and connected by highways and such. While there was no mention as to exactly what those cities were to be, it seems pretty clear that it was widely known that Los Santos wasn't to be the only city in the game. I'm not refuting the possibility that there could be another city or two in GTA V. But there has been no official statements regarding multiple cities in V.

 

I fully understand that this following quote is widely known and has been burned into our skulls like having watched our dead grandmothers rise from the grave to eat our baby sisters but........here it is.

 

"We are very proud to officially announce that Grand Theft Auto V is in full development.

 

Developed by series creator Rockstar North, Grand Theft Auto V heads to the city of Los Santos and surrounding hills, countryside and beaches in the largest and most ambitious game Rockstar has yet created.

 

A bold new direction in open-world freedom, storytelling, mission-based gameplay and online multiplayer, Grand Theft Auto V focuses on the pursuit of the almighty dollar in a re-imagined, present day Southern California."

 

I am of the mind that were are to only expect one metropolis. It is possible for other smaller towns or populous areas to exist. Southern Cali is dotted with them. But I wouldn't expect any other MAJOR cities.

Again, why believe Rockstar's vague gimmicky words when they've been so secretive about EVERYTHING?

[dirtycopVCPD]

I'm just trying to remember when Rockstar has ever played coy word games when it comes to these things. The original SA press release said that it was going to take place in the entire state of San Andreas.

[Bellic 4 life]

I'm just trying to remember when Rockstar has ever played coy word games when it comes to these things. The original SA press release said that it was going to take place in the entire state of San Andreas.

Yeah, and GTA 3 took place in the entire State of Liberty.

[œaœa]

I'm just trying to remember when Rockstar has ever played coy word games when it comes to these things. The original SA press release said that it was going to take place in the entire state of San Andreas.

Yeah, and GTA 3 took place in the entire State of Liberty.

No, it didn't.

[GtaVComments]

I'm just trying to remember when Rockstar has ever played coy word games when it comes to these things. The original SA press release said that it was going to take place in the entire state of San Andreas.

Yeah, and GTA 3 took place in the entire State of Liberty.

Listen. Everyone says that even though GTA IV had "Liberty City State" on the licence plates, it didnt take place in the entire Liberty City, when really it did. We aren't talking New York City here, we're talking Liberty City, one's real & one's fictional.

 

When it comes to putting "San Andreas" on licence plates in GTA V, i'll bet you now it means entire San Andreas, i.e LS, SF & LV.

 

Thats always the annoying argument. People saying it wont be all San Andreas even though it says it on licence plates, because GTA IV said "Liberty City State" and it wasnt the full State.

 

It was the full state, Dukes/Broker Algonquin, Bohan & Alderney were the state. By saying Liberty City State doesn't mean the entire New York City State!

 

After all, San Andreas isnt the entire South Cal, Las Vegas & San Fran. states but we call it San Andreas State, right? Same way we call Duke/Broker Alderney Bohan & Algonquin Liberty City State.

 

All in all R* didnt lie about GTA IV by putting Liberty City State on the licence plates, and I'm sure they aren't lying putting "San Andreas" on the licence plates in V, because it will be LS SF & LV (IMO of coarse)

[DaWiesel]

In the early stage of GTA IV R* had planned a Liberty City State with countryside such as the catskill mountains and the adroniacs, but they wanted to focus on the city. Thats why LC isn't the full state, it's a part of it. And the license plates aren't a proof for SF and LV. I do hope it will have both cities, but I doubt it.

[Magic_Al]

The license plate does refer to the entire state and all those cities are still in that state. That doesn't mean the whole state will be in GTA V. San Andreas in GTA SA was a group of several islands and in this game they are going to focus only on the islands that are based on Southern California and make those big enough to be the whole game.

[Death2Drugs]

 

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:

 

This is unfair. There are no shots in any part of the trailer where we see every part of the city.

 

EDIT: And in my opinion, Los Santos looks bigger, at least to me.

Edited July 4, 2012 by Death2Drugs

[Death2Drugs]

In the early stage of GTA IV R* had planned a Liberty City State with countryside such as the catskill mountains and the adroniacs, but they wanted to focus on the city. Thats why LC isn't the full state, it's a part of it. And the license plates aren't a proof for SF and LV. I do hope it will have both cities, but I doubt it.

I believe part of the reason Rockstar scrapped the whole idea of a large state based on New York was because they couldn't get any sort of "endless terrain" properly working, and the map as an island would have been very awkward like San Andreas. This time, they might have got the endless terrain thing working, or the map will be an island but they've figured out a way how not to make it awkward.

[John Footpenis]

Isn't LA county made up of multiple cities and towns? Maybe by Los Santos they mean all of LA county and not just Los Santos alone as it was back in San Andreas.

[wojas]

rockstar said the re-imagined Southern California. in my opinion there is no chance of San Fierro and Las Venturas. more likely its that the game will find San Diego or even Tijuana (Tijuana area is geographically located in California. The Mexican border will be a nice addition. At this point we are not able to assess the size of Los Santos (though I hope its bigger than Liberty City).

Remember that the trailer was showing only a portion of an urbanized area, which is a small part of the metropolitan area around Los Angeles.

If other parts of the city are proportional to their counterparts in the real world and the rest of Los Santos to the Los Angeles urban areas. In this case, Los Santos will be very big

 

Sorry for bad english

[bartosz.t]

LOS SANTOS in Google Earth :

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyKtMiWsYLs&feature=relmfu

[Davidx123]

What part of "Re imagined southern California" people don't understand?

 

[Death2Drugs]

Isn't LA county made up of multiple cities and towns? Maybe by Los Santos they mean all of LA county and not just Los Santos alone as it was back in San Andreas.

Yes. Los Angeles County is not one city but many cities (called suburbs). In addition, Orange County is also considered part of Los Angeles' metropolitan area.

 

It's possible that the city of Los Santos' surrounding areas might be counted as smaller cities, but considered part of its county and therefore metropolitan area.

[MLGTA]

 

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:

 

That shot right there of the game looks like its near san fierro and isn't that oil rig near area 51

Edited July 10, 2012 by MLGTA

[Zulu2065]

Are people actually thinking Los Santos will be small? If you see the oil rig scene, it's obviously bigger. It's more likely to be the size of LC or a bit bigger. Like the other guy said, what part of re-imagined southern california don't people get? It's re-imagined, meaning it's not similar to the old LS. You should see how different this LS is to the old one when you notice Santa Maria Beach is facin the west this time when in San Andreas it faced the south.

Edited July 10, 2012 by Zulu2065

[MLGTA]

What if they just combined all of the cities

[CSM. HB J-DOGG]

They need to have a West Coast Customs lol .

[SomePerson]

 

That shot right there of the game looks like its near san fierro and isn't that oil rig near area 51

 

My goodness you really don't have a clue at all. Area 51 isn't in california. San Francisco is in North California. So, taht should rule San fierro out.

 

The shot there, if you had any clue about LA geography (because it can be applied to Los Santos, obviously), shows that those are taken looking from east/northeast to west/southwest. That's where oil pumps are in real life relative to downtown, and the look past the downtown towards mountains in the distance. So It makes a lot of sense (plus the way the buildings are positioned) for this to be looking from east to west.

 

The place where the real oil pumps are in LA is on the hills in Whittier, if you want a comparison.

 

And guys, it's an oil PUMP, not an oil RIG. A rig is what you found out at sea mining at the seabed for oil.

[Death2Drugs]

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:

 

IMAGE

That shot right there of the game looks like its near san fierro and isn't that oil rig near area 51

I'll go easy on you.

 

I don't see San Fierro anywhere. Where's the Golden Gate Bridge? Transamerica Pyramid?

 

As for the oil pump... if it were between Las Venturas and Los Santos, why would they be smushed so close?

[36Chambers]

I still think by judging the clues in the trailer, that San Diego has a high chance of appearing in the game. It's in Southern California and anyone who says Las Venturas (which was based of Las Vegas, not even in California) or San Fierro ( San Francisco is in northern California ), will be included in this game has probably been misled. A re-imagined Southern California doesn't mean cities based on other cities that are in completely different states will be included. BUT, Rockstar being Rockstar, they could do what ever the hell they want.