Why there are 3 cities in GTA V...

[DS 17]

I think they will do the same as they did with Gta IV

 

ony city (new york) or (liberty city)

 

just that it will be LA (los santos) this time.

 

But split up in 3 different parts, like they have (always?) done.

The city is already splitted. They showed us Los Angeles, Santa Monica and Beverly Hills. These cities are independent cities with their own government, so it will definitely like New York / Liberty City. The thing is that these cities are grown so near that there aren't any noticable borders than the sign of the city in real life.

 

I don't think anymore that there will be featured San Francisco or Las Vegas. I d say San Diego and Palm Springs will be featured in the game. The Interstate 5 heads from Los Angeles to the South right to San Diego and there is a huge wind park in the near of Palm Springs between Los Angeles and PS. There is also a desert-like landscape in the near of Palm Springs which fits perfectly to the desert shown in the trailer.

I think they will give us the opportunity to explore whole Los Santos in the beginning then unlock the mountains, then the desert with Palm Springs and then San Diego. Maybe first San Diego and then PS. So there won't be any problems with splitting Los Angeles.

[C2H5OH]

 

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 whats in the press release. Its Los Santos and the surrounding country side-and a very big map."

 

IMO, this little line has pretty much confirmed we're getting more than just Los Santos and they're planning to surprise us.

Good point, why does he needs to be careful if its exactly like the announcement says, right?

 

Hopefully it's whole San Andreas with San Diego as a completly new city! If that happens, I'd intstantly cream my pants man.... f*cking A!

Edited December 14, 2011 by C2H5OH

[hithere5]

Im pretty sure that LV and SF are in.

Just take a look at the trailer. One whole scene just focussing on a traffic sign "5: North-Los Puerta FWY"?

If you now take a look at the real-life map of California and look for the interstate 5, you´ll get the point:

Where do you want to drive on interstate 5 northbound from L.A.? There is only one major city one it´s way: San Francisco.

And to the disk-limit:

Just look at Skyrim. 6 GB for a really big map. Nothing is impossible.

I think trailer 2 will show us SF, trailer 3 LV and trailer 4 scenes from the whole map.

Well, it´s still speculation but whatever, I´m going to buy this game for sure!

 

[YukiEiri]

 

Im pretty sure that LV and SF are in.

Just take a look at the trailer. One whole scene just focussing on a traffic sign "5: North-Los Puerta FWY"?

If you now take a look at the real-life map of California and look for the interstate 5, you´ll get the point:

Where do you want to drive on interstate 5 northbound from L.A.? There is only one major city one it´s way: San Francisco.

Weeeeellllll...

 

Interstate 5 goes south to San Diego as well.

It goes straight through the city of LA -> thus there is a big road called Interstate 5 in Los Santos as well, but that does not mean it has to go anywhere..

[rere1love]

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 whats in the press release. Its Los Santos and the surrounding country side-and a very big map."

 

IMO, this little line has pretty much confirmed we're getting more than just Los Santos and they're planning to surprise us.

yea i have to agree with you on that, thats what I was hearing to.....

[chapman_bobby]

 

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 whats in the press release. Its Los Santos and the surrounding country side-and a very big map."

 

IMO, this little line has pretty much confirmed we're getting more than just Los Santos and they're planning to surprise us.

I agree, his wording tells us a lot.

 

First off we know by his deferring to the press release that Rockstar very carefully worded that statement. It was the safest word choice with which he could identify. We know he was looking for safe wording as he said, he must "be real careful" about what he says. Why would the press release need to be so carefully worded? The only thing it discussed is the location of the game. So if we have carefully selected wording only referencing the geographic location of the game we know that the statement is worded to conceal information about something to do with a location. Given that they tell us a location the only likely conclusion that can be logically drawn is that there is something more to the location than has previously been announced.

 

Second, the very phrase “I’ve got to be real careful here” indicates that his previous thought was of something about which he felt a need to keep secret. His mind recalled something specific which triggered that feeling of secrecy and since the question was one of geography; again we can conclude he thought of something that exists outside of what has been announced.

 

I’m not saying this is concrete proof that either San Fierro or Las Venturas are in the game. I have no way of knowing from that statement. All I can tell you is that there is something outside Los Santos and it’s hills and mountains that Dan Houser specifically thought of and knew he couldn’t talk about yet. Could just be small towns, maybe a new city we haven’t heard of before, maybe an island off the coast. Who knows? We’ll have to wait and see.

 

[Tipper]

 

I think people should stop comparing this game to SA to be honest, GTAIV era Liberty City is a completely different game world to the GTAIII era version and yet it's the "same" city.

 

The thing is, GTA III had three main islands, IV had three main islands.

GTA SA had 3 major cities, GTA V apparently has only one. Even if it's much bigger and more detailed, we can't help it, we have to compare to what has already been done with this area.

 

What made GTA SA great? The variety. Each time we went from one zone to another, it was like a new map, each city and the countryside and the desert had their own vibe. I know some people will disagree with that, but I'd rather have 3 cities each the size of IV's Liberty City than one big-ass city 3 times the size of LC.

 

Plus, if it's only LS, I'm a little worried about the role of the countryside. In SA, when you were kind of "thrown out" of LS, you had to stay there until you could go to SF. There was a reason to stay between the cities. Not to mention that it was the only way to go from a city to another (unless you take the boat or fly of course). But with only one city, we'll just go back and forth between LS and its surroundings.

 

And the latest interview of Houser drew my attention, he repaeated strictly what the announcement said, and he joked about the fact that he mustn't reveal something he's not supposed to. That makes me think, wouldn't it be simpler for him to just say SF and LV aren't gonna be there? It would stop all speculation and avoid some disappointment. And you may ask why they wouldn't announce SF and LV right away since it would satisfy the fans even more. Well, to surprise us, they like to do that, and it makes great publicity.

 

 

 

So I'm not saying we'll see SF and LV, just saying the hope isn't dead yet, and R*'s behavior regarding the location hints towards a surprise. So I guessall we can do now is wait and see.

[Knife]

 

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 whats in the press release. Its Los Santos and the surrounding country side-and a very big map."

 

IMO, this little line has pretty much confirmed we're getting more than just Los Santos and they're planning to surprise us.

I agree, his wording tells us a lot.

 

First off we know by his deferring to the press release that Rockstar very carefully worded that statement. It was the safest word choice with which he could identify. We know he was looking for safe wording as he said, he must "be real careful" about what he says. Why would the press release need to be so carefully worded? The only thing it discussed is the location of the game. So if we have carefully selected wording only referencing the geographic location of the game we know that the statement is worded to conceal information about something to do with a location. Given that they tell us a location the only likely conclusion that can be logically drawn is that there is something more to the location than has previously been announced.

This is interesting because I don't interpret his words like that at all.

 

I interpret it as quite simply "I cannot diverge any further information than what is contained in the press release". Understandable, they clearly aren't really to reveal any further details on the game right now.

 

I also don't see how R*'s press release could have possibly been more clear about the location. Unless they had literally said "Set in Los Santos only", which wouldn't read very well for a press release/game announcement. I don't see how it's 'carefully worded' as to allude to more locations.

[hithere5]

I think people should stop comparing this game to SA to be honest, GTAIV era Liberty City is a completely different game world to the GTAIII era version and yet it's the "same" city.

 

The thing is, GTA III had three main islands, IV had three main islands.

GTA SA had 3 major cities, GTA V apparently has only one. Even if it's much bigger and more detailed, we can't help it, we have to compare to what has already been done with this area.

 

What made GTA SA great? The variety. Each time we went from one zone to another, it was like a new map, each city and the countryside and the desert had their own vibe. I know some people will disagree with that, but I'd rather have 3 cities each the size of IV's Liberty City than one big-ass city 3 times the size of LC.

 

Plus, if it's only LS, I'm a little worried about the role of the countryside. In SA, when you were kind of "thrown out" of LS, you had to stay there until you could go to SF. There was a reason to stay between the cities. Not to mention that it was the only way to go from a city to another (unless you take the boat or fly of course). But with only one city, we'll just go back and forth between LS and its surroundings.

 

And the latest interview of Houser drew my attention, he repaeated strictly what the announcement said, and he joked about the fact that he mustn't reveal something he's not supposed to. That makes me think, wouldn't it be simpler for him to just say SF and LV aren't gonna be there? It would stop all speculation and avoid some disappointment. And you may ask why they wouldn't announce SF and LV right away since it would satisfy the fans even more. Well, to surprise us, they like to do that, and it makes great publicity.

 

 

 

So I'm not saying we'll see SF and LV, just saying the hope isn't dead yet, and R*'s behavior regarding the location hints towards a surprise. So I guessall we can do now is wait and see.

"+1" and "This." and

[MG3]

I want the area 69, abandoned airport in V and of course, a HUGE MAP.

[kgrogfefji82]

And the latest interview of Houser drew my attention, he repaeated strictly what the announcement said, and he joked about the fact that he mustn't reveal something he's not supposed to. That makes me think, wouldn't it be simpler for him to just say SF and LV aren't gonna be there? It would stop all speculation and avoid some disappointment. And you may ask why they wouldn't announce SF and LV right away since it would satisfy the fans even more. Well, to surprise us, they like to do that, and it makes great publicity.

I think what Dan Houser said can be taken two different ways

 

1. (And most likely)

 

Him saying "SF and LV isn't in the game" isn't a good way to market their game, they have to be careful with how they approach this. Just look at how many idiots already decided this game is gonna be a gimped SA after they saw "Returns to Los Santos" in the official announcement. Dan Houser has to be careful with what he says because it wouldn't sound good if he went out in interviews and said "Los Santos is the ONLY city in the game" that isn't a good way to sell your game. They obviously aren't ready to go into great detail just yet about how Los Santos works in this game if it's the only city, and what role the country side and surrounding areas will have, so he couldn't go in depth why Los Santos being the only city isn't the end of the world and since they're not ready to talk about the map layout and all that just yet

 

2.

 

There's more to be revealed

 

I do think it's likely we'll see more cities, I don't think they'll be San Fierro and Las Venturas though, I think we'll see a more realistically scaled San Andreas state this time around, and include like San Diego and maybe another city in the SoCal area. But the reason Dan Houser jokingly said he has to be careful is because they have strategies on how they reveal things for these games and how they approach marketing and announcing stuff and even if there are multiple cities in the game, or even if there aren't, they still have a plan for how to announce things and how to market this title, that is why Dan has to be careful with what he says and what he doesn't say.

[Dystopia]

 

2. They did it with the first GTA: San Andreas trailer

 

This is the kicker for me personally. I remember way back when GTA: San Andreas came out, everyone was pumped about Los Angelos in GTA, and no one thought that it could be the entire state, only rumours until it was actually confirmed a bit later.

 

In this trailer, they give WAY more evidence than they did in the first trailer for San Andreas. In that trailer, there was NO evidence of any more cities. Even the plane flew over only vinewood and los santos.

 

Check it out:

 

In a nutshell:

 

I believe R* made this version GTA V for a reason and not GTA: Los Santos, and like they did with GTA San Andreas, they are building us all up with speculation and rumours so they can later go BAM Trailer 2 with the Golden Gate Bridge & Casinos and have us all wetting our pants

I didn't even think of this. It looks like they are doing the same thing they did with San Andreas. What better way to get people hyped than to get them all to assume it's 1 city, Los Santos, then drop all 3 on them. It would be awesome.

 

Also, to all of those who for some reason think it's official that it's Los Santos and surrounding hills ONLY. It's because they aren't telling us anything, practically by saying it's Los Santos and surrounding hills, they are just saying what the trailer showed us. They haven't at one point said, it's not all of San Andreas, I think this is for a reason.

Edited December 14, 2011 by Dystopia

[Tipper]

 

Him saying "SF and LV isn't in the game" isn't a good way to market their game

 

Sure, but it's not an offical announcement, it's just an interview, he could have said something like "we're focussing on LS and not the entire state this time because we want to give this city better justice", I wouldn't see it as a bad marketing move, it's just an interview not many players read.

 

I assume they are aware that the debate still exists in the community and put an end to it could save some disappointment.

 

 

That said, I don't believe we'll see them in the game, I'm just keeping that in mind, the hope isn't dead, the idea is just very unlikely, but not impossible (so far at least)

[Triple Vacuum Seal]

Good to see a thread where this is seen as a serious topic because there are people like myself that are very educated about the GTA series and still find it hard to believe that there is one major city. I'm not saying it's LV and SF. I'm just saying that in addition to the points shown in the beginning of the thread, I analyzed LS as not being big enough alone in the trailer to be "the largest and the most ambitious game Rockstar has yet created." At least another major city (possibly one based on San Diego) or a series of decent sized small towns are sure to be present in order to fill the void of exploration potential in the game.

Edited December 14, 2011 by canttakemyid

[dirtycopVCPD]

2. They did it with the first GTA: San Andreas trailer

 

This is the kicker for me personally. I remember way back when GTA: San Andreas came out, everyone was pumped about Los Angelos in GTA, and no one thought that it could be the entire state, only rumours until it was actually confirmed a bit later.

 

In this trailer, they give WAY more evidence than they did in the first trailer for San Andreas. In that trailer, there was NO evidence of any more cities. Even the plane flew over only vinewood and los santos.

 

Check it out:

 

In a nutshell:

 

I believe R* made this version GTA V for a reason and not GTA: Los Santos, and like they did with GTA San Andreas, they are building us all up with speculation and rumours so they can later go BAM Trailer 2 with the Golden Gate Bridge & Casinos and have us all wetting our pants

I didn't even think of this. It looks like they are doing the same thing they did with San Andreas. What better way to get people hyped than to get them all to assume it's 1 city, Los Santos, then drop all 3 on them. It would be awesome.

 

Also, to all of those who for some reason think it's official that it's Los Santos and surrounding hills ONLY. It's because they aren't telling us anything, practically by saying it's Los Santos and surrounding hills, they are just saying what the trailer showed us. They haven't at one point said, it's not all of San Andreas, I think this is for a reason.

 

Actually that's not how it happened. They announced at E3 that San Andreas was going to be one large state comprised of LS, SF, and LV with the countryside in between. We knew well before the first trailer that Los Santos wasn't going to be the only city in the game.

[chapman_bobby]

 

This is interesting because I don't interpret his words like that at all.

 

I interpret it as quite simply "I cannot diverge any further information than what is contained in the press release". Understandable, they clearly aren't really to reveal any further details on the game right now.

 

I also don't see how R*'s press release could have possibly been more clear about the location. Unless they had literally said "Set in Los Santos only", which wouldn't read very well for a press release/game announcement. I don't see how it's 'carefully worded' as to allude to more locations.

I completely agreed with you about the press release wording, before Dan Houser spoke. After he spoke I took notice of the care that went into the release. In a sense it could be read as a carefully crafted lie of omission. The best lies are those in which we can omit a detail as we are not having to make up a fantasy to go along with them. Most lies of omission are harder to catch as there is simply a piece of a story missing, yet surrounded by rich detail that fleshes out a full and true story. After all, why would anyone probe further into a story that seems complete already?

 

What we can tell by the way that Dan Houser defers his wording to the press release after stating how careful he had to be, is that the wording of the press release was very specifically chosen. That is what sets off alarms to me. Before he answers he's connecting to a memory of something he's not allowed to talk about just before choosing what he considers to be the safest option; which was parroting back what we've been told already. We only choose words carefully when we feel the need to be guarded or secretive about something. That tells us that in the topic of the games location he connected with a memory he was not allowed to talk about, became somewhat defensive, and chose his words cautiously.

 

His caution in the matter is what makes the press release stand out as carefully crafted wording to me, the original statement itself seemed innocuous and straight forward before.

 

-Bobby

 

Edit:

As a side note I again reiterate that this is not proof to me that either San Fierro or Las Venturas are in the game. It only tells me there is something in the countryside outside of Los Santos that he cannot talk about.

Edited December 14, 2011 by chapman_bobby

[HeNDo6750]

i hope SF returns as i do miss the fun of driving up the steep roads and then charging down again at high speed

[Dystopia]

2. They did it with the first GTA: San Andreas trailer

 

This is the kicker for me personally. I remember way back when GTA: San Andreas came out, everyone was pumped about Los Angelos in GTA, and no one thought that it could be the entire state, only rumours until it was actually confirmed a bit later.

 

In this trailer, they give WAY more evidence than they did in the first trailer for San Andreas. In that trailer, there was NO evidence of any more cities. Even the plane flew over only vinewood and los santos.

 

Check it out:

 

In a nutshell:

 

I believe R* made this version GTA V for a reason and not GTA: Los Santos, and like they did with GTA San Andreas, they are building us all up with speculation and rumours so they can later go BAM Trailer 2 with the Golden Gate Bridge & Casinos and have us all wetting our pants

I didn't even think of this. It looks like they are doing the same thing they did with San Andreas. What better way to get people hyped than to get them all to assume it's 1 city, Los Santos, then drop all 3 on them. It would be awesome.

 

Also, to all of those who for some reason think it's official that it's Los Santos and surrounding hills ONLY. It's because they aren't telling us anything, practically by saying it's Los Santos and surrounding hills, they are just saying what the trailer showed us. They haven't at one point said, it's not all of San Andreas, I think this is for a reason.

 

Actually that's not how it happened. They announced at E3 that San Andreas was going to be one large state comprised of LS, SF, and LV with the countryside in between. We knew well before the first trailer that Los Santos wasn't going to be the only city in the game.

Thanks for clearing that up dude.

[GrandTheftAuto101]

2. They did it with the first GTA: San Andreas trailer

 

This is the kicker for me personally. I remember way back when GTA: San Andreas came out, everyone was pumped about Los Angelos in GTA, and no one thought that it could be the entire state, only rumours until it was actually confirmed a bit later.

 

In this trailer, they give WAY more evidence than they did in the first trailer for San Andreas. In that trailer, there was NO evidence of any more cities. Even the plane flew over only vinewood and los santos.

 

Check it out:

 

In a nutshell:

 

I believe R* made this version GTA V for a reason and not GTA: Los Santos, and like they did with GTA San Andreas, they are building us all up with speculation and rumours so they can later go BAM Trailer 2 with the Golden Gate Bridge & Casinos and have us all wetting our pants

I didn't even think of this. It looks like they are doing the same thing they did with San Andreas. What better way to get people hyped than to get them all to assume it's 1 city, Los Santos, then drop all 3 on them. It would be awesome.

 

Also, to all of those who for some reason think it's official that it's Los Santos and surrounding hills ONLY. It's because they aren't telling us anything, practically by saying it's Los Santos and surrounding hills, they are just saying what the trailer showed us. They haven't at one point said, it's not all of San Andreas, I think this is for a reason.

 

Actually that's not how it happened. They announced at E3 that San Andreas was going to be one large state comprised of LS, SF, and LV with the countryside in between. We knew well before the first trailer that Los Santos wasn't going to be the only city in the game.

Thanks for clearing that up dude.

no problem

[Static94]

This doesn't make sense? L.A is huge but why would they have JUST LOS SANTOS? sure the surrounding hillsides and mountains but whats beyond that? THERE HAS TO BE SOMETHING BEHIND THAT. Who's stupid enough to make a game with one city and add a f*ckiing jet fighter planes it would take MINS to go around the city. I believe there will be more THAN ONE CITY.

[Dystopia]

 

This doesn't make sense? L.A is huge but why would they have JUST LOS SANTOS? sure the surrounding hillsides and mountains but whats beyond that? THERE HAS TO BE SOMETHING BEHIND THAT. Who's stupid enough to make a game with one city and add a f*ckiing jet fighter planes it would take MINS to go around the city. I believe there will be more THAN ONE CITY.

Or just a big city. Houser said it's a big map.

 

There are like 6 airports in the LA area, why not include planes, add's to realism. (Which from IV and the trailer, is what it looks like Rockstar are trying to achieve.)

[Elric101]

I think GTAV's map will have a very different and more realistic layout than GTA:SA, and based on that assumption I don't think SF & LV will be in the game, however I think other cities like San Bernardino or San Diego and counties like Orange county, Ventura or Riverside might be included in the map, I don't think it will just be Los Santos I think the map will huge and varied but with a new layout than before. But I obviously don't know for sure, I'm just guessing.

[GTA-King]

In time, the truth shall set us free.

 

I am hoping for all cities, but I know Rockstar won't disappoint nonetheless.

[Forzum]

Another thing to point at GTA V to be set with SF, LV & San Diego is this:

 

In 2010 Ross Wallace (Rockstar North, Lead Level Designer), went on a trip (most likely a business trip) to Los Angeles, San Fransisco, Las Vegas and San Diego = San Andreas. Since he's a level designer, he would want as much inspiration as possible, so if they were making a GTA game, focused in San Andreas, the best way to find that inspiration would be to visit these settings in real life.

 

Here is his photo album from the travel in 2010: http://www.flickr.com/photos/rosswallace/c...57623803148118/

 

I don't know who Lee, Stu & DJ are, but when Google:

 

"Lee rockstar games" = Shawn Lee, a guy working with Rockstar Games who made the soundtrack to Bully.

 

"Stu rockstar games" = Stu Neal, UI Artist at Rockstar Games. (Not 100% sure of this one, but saw something about him working or worked for Rockstar Games)

 

"DJ Rockstar games" = Did not really find any hits of this.

[Forzum]

And on my thoughts about this, I say, I think it will only be Los Santos and countryside now, hopefully I'm wrong and SF & LV are in it as well, but if not, I also think there are chances for a SF & LV DLC releases.

[Static94]

Another thing to point at GTA V to be set with SF, LV & San Diego is this:

 

In 2010 Ross Wallace (Rockstar North, Lead Level Designer), went on a trip (most likely a business trip) to Los Angeles, San Fransisco, Las Vegas and San Diego = San Andreas. Since he's a level designer, he would want as much inspiration as possible, so if they were making a GTA game, focused in San Andreas, the best way to find that inspiration would be to visit these settings in real life.

 

Here is his photo album from the travel in 2010: http://www.flickr.com/photos/rosswallace/c...57623803148118/

 

I don't know who Lee, Stu & DJ are, but when Google:

 

"Lee rockstar games" = Shawn Lee, a guy working with Rockstar Games who made the soundtrack to Bully.

 

"Stu rockstar games" = Stu Neal, UI Artist at Rockstar Games. (Not 100% sure of this one, but saw something about him working or worked for Rockstar Games)

 

"DJ Rockstar games" = Did not really find any hits of this.

Wow I wish this was true

[Dystopia]

Another thing to point at GTA V to be set with SF, LV & San Diego is this:

 

In 2010 Ross Wallace (Rockstar North, Lead Level Designer), went on a trip (most likely a business trip) to Los Angeles, San Fransisco, Las Vegas and San Diego = San Andreas. Since he's a level designer, he would want as much inspiration as possible, so if they were making a GTA game, focused in San Andreas, the best way to find that inspiration would be to visit these settings in real life.

 

Here is his photo album from the travel in 2010: http://www.flickr.com/photos/rosswallace/c...57623803148118/

 

I don't know who Lee, Stu & DJ are, but when Google:

 

"Lee rockstar games" = Shawn Lee, a guy working with Rockstar Games who made the soundtrack to Bully.

 

"Stu rockstar games" = Stu Neal, UI Artist at Rockstar Games. (Not 100% sure of this one, but saw something about him working or worked for Rockstar Games)

 

"DJ Rockstar games" = Did not really find any hits of this.

Nice find man.

[Jokesminus]

This doesn't make sense? L.A is huge but why would they have JUST LOS SANTOS? sure the surrounding hillsides and mountains but whats beyond that? THERE HAS TO BE SOMETHING BEHIND THAT. Who's stupid enough to make a game with one city and add a f*ckiing jet fighter planes it would take MINS to go around the city. I believe there will be more THAN ONE CITY.

Or just a big city. Houser said it's a big map.

 

There are like 6 airports in the LA area, why not include planes, add's to realism. (Which from IV and the trailer, is what it looks like Rockstar are trying to achieve.)

Don't wanna sound rude but have you seen the trailer have you seen how big the city is its no where close to real LA. They wouldnt show a trailer for Los Santos and then suddenly make it 3 times bigger it's from the trailer twice as big as the old Los santos. It's big but not that big no where big enough for the 6 airports you talk about oh and another thing. The skyscrapers are quite close to the sea as you can tell from the griffin observatory and pleasure pier. In the trailer and the oil pump view of the city. I reckon this map is 25-28 sq miles with the three cities or other cities about twice the San Andreas map. It's well more then possible to have more then what R* is making it out to be there are hints at more and very very secretive no leaks behaviour. It's obvious there is more going on they want us to think its one city then spring a load of surprises on us. After all it's a re imagined southern California not the real life one re imagined means stuff can be added taken away and changed. After all San Andreas was defined by the gta 3 era why do what they did with gta iv because gta iv needed to be re done as it was small and didn't resemble new York which is what liberty city was loosely based on. It's R*s world loosely basing things on real things but not being the real thing San Andreas is San Andreas it won't change that much maybe more detailed with stuff moved around but the overall map will include the same things. After all they said re imagined southern California not real life California gtas southern california and how does gta do southern California San Andreas, re imagined southern California. I think we have all gone a bit too far with the realistic thing realistic doesn't mean exact replicas it also means realistic feels and breathing life into a game with the peds rubbish and feel of the city lived in. Not realistic in the exact replicas of city's. Was gta iv liberty city and exact replica of new York hell nooo it wasn't.

[kgrogfefji82]

Another thing to point at GTA V to be set with SF, LV & San Diego is this:

 

In 2010 Ross Wallace (Rockstar North, Lead Level Designer), went on a trip (most likely a business trip) to Los Angeles, San Fransisco, Las Vegas and San Diego = San Andreas. Since he's a level designer, he would want as much inspiration as possible, so if they were making a GTA game, focused in San Andreas, the best way to find that inspiration would be to visit these settings in real life.

 

Here is his photo album from the travel in 2010: http://www.flickr.com/photos/rosswallace/c...57623803148118/

 

I don't know who Lee, Stu & DJ are, but when Google:

 

"Lee rockstar games" = Shawn Lee, a guy working with Rockstar Games who made the soundtrack to Bully.

 

"Stu rockstar games" = Stu Neal, UI Artist at Rockstar Games. (Not 100% sure of this one, but saw something about him working or worked for Rockstar Games)

 

"DJ Rockstar games" = Did not really find any hits of this.

What's interesting is that the flickr account definitely isn't a troll one, user that posted it still seems to actively post photos over a year after, so if it was just a troll post then clearly all that would've been there would've been the Las Vegas, San Fran, LA and San Diego and nothing else, user sure as sh*t wouldn't have continued posting a year after

[Static94]

This doesn't make sense? L.A is huge but why would they have JUST LOS SANTOS? sure the surrounding hillsides and mountains but whats beyond that? THERE HAS TO BE SOMETHING BEHIND THAT. Who's stupid enough to make a game with one city and add a f*ckiing jet fighter planes it would take MINS to go around the city. I believe there will be more THAN ONE CITY.

Or just a big city. Houser said it's a big map.

 

There are like 6 airports in the LA area, why not include planes, add's to realism. (Which from IV and the trailer, is what it looks like Rockstar are trying to achieve.)

Don't wanna sound rude but have you seen the trailer have you seen how big the city is its no where close to real LA. They wouldnt show a trailer for Los Santos and then suddenly make it 3 times bigger it's from the trailer twice as big as the old Los santos. It's big but not that big no where big enough for the 6 airports you talk about oh and another thing. The skyscrapers are quite close to the sea as you can tell from the griffin observatory and pleasure pier. In the trailer and the oil pump view of the city. I reckon this map is 25-28 sq miles with the three cities or other cities about twice the San Andreas map. It's well more then possible to have more then what R* is making it out to be there are hints at more and very very secretive no leaks behaviour. It's obvious there is more going on they want us to think its one city then spring a load of surprises on us. After all it's a re imagined southern California not the real life one re imagined means stuff can be added taken away and changed. After all San Andreas was defined by the gta 3 era why do what they did with gta iv because gta iv needed to be re done as it was small and didn't resemble new York which is what liberty city was loosely based on. It's R*s world loosely basing things on real things but not being the real thing San Andreas is San Andreas it won't change that much maybe more detailed with stuff moved around but the overall map will include the same things. After all they said re imagined southern California not real life California gtas southern california and how does gta do southern California San Andreas, re imagined southern California. I think we have all gone a bit too far with the realistic thing realistic doesn't mean exact replicas it also means realistic feels and breathing life into a game with the peds rubbish and feel of the city lived in. Not realistic in the exact replicas of city's. Was gta iv liberty city and exact replica of new York hell nooo it wasn't.

Exactly man have a