Jump to content

Why there are 3 cities in GTA V...


Recommended Posts

You know what, I think that there the 3 cities, Los Santos, San Fierro and Las Venturas..

In the first trailer they show you Los Santos.

In the second they gonna show us San Fierro.

And in the third they gonna show us LAS VEGAS!!! (Las Venturas) with an awesome graphics!! tounge.giftounge.gif

 

 

--R* said that this map gonna be the bigest, so i think that will be LS, SF and LV..

Edited by Coronado G
Snake Without a Tongue
normally i'd request a lock but this is pretty well done, this should be the official thread for discussion.

Same for me. I hate the topic, but it was a coherent and even compelling presentation of theories. I think it'll be just Los Santos based on what we've seen, but I can't be 100% sure. In my mind I imagine the bottom 2/3rds of the map from the old San Andreas, but larger and more detailed.

 

I hope there's a brief interview soon that will clarify some of this stuff. No reason for them to be tight lipped now that the first trailer is out.

A "re-imagined So-Cal" means is is RE-IMAGINED.

 

The way you could read that as is they re-imagined Southern California WITH a city like Las Vegas/San Francisco in it.

 

I don't know. I keep going back and forth.

 

But, until they specifically say there isn't any MORE than "Los Santos and it's surrounding ect" I have to believe it is more.

I think it's more likely that if we see additional cities it'll be San Diego and Tijuana, because both are in southern California (the region of Mexico where Tijuana is located is called "Baja California", and it's in the same metro area as San Diego). I'd be thrilled to return to San Fierro and Las Venturas, but I think that's less likely than seeing two southern Californian cities (ok one's in Mexico but you get the point).

Why can't people accept the fact that there won't be SF and LV?

They're just in denial, and desperately hanging on to any hope that it could still include San Fierro and Las Venturas. How pathetic they are.

Your post is pathetic. We're discussing whether sf and lv will be in it. Not crying about it not being in the game. Stupid moron.

WOAH WOAH WOAH.

 

I don't know if anyone has said this yet, but I think I'm on to something here.

 

Rockstar said GTA V was taking place in a RE-IMAGINED Southern California.

 

RE-IMAGINED practically means to form a new version of.

 

That means GTA V isn't taking place in the real-life Southern California, but a RE-IMAGINED one. One they made up themselves.

 

Maybe in this RE-IMAGINED Southern California, they moved Las Vegas to Southern California, because it was recreated.

 

Let me know what yall think.

GrandTheftAuto101
WOAH WOAH WOAH.

 

I don't know if anyone has said this yet, but I think I'm on to something here.

 

Rockstar said GTA V was taking place in a RE-IMAGINED Southern California.

 

RE-IMAGINED practically means to form a new version of.

 

That means GTA V isn't taking place in the real-life Southern California, but a RE-IMAGINED one. One they made up themselves.

 

Maybe in this RE-IMAGINED Southern California, they moved Las Vegas to Southern California, because it was recreated.

 

Let me know what yall think.

no...

I would make piece with the fact if it's Los Santos only with 2 other cities. Like said before; LC from GTA IV only included one city from GTA III. Maybe they do the same thing with GTA V now.

 

I didn't like San Fierro anyway, only it's country side and mountains.

 

I think it's going to be Los Santos and a city named Los Puerta and some other city yet to be announced or Las Venturas.

 

I liked Las Venturas. I was addicted to gambling in the casino's lol. Also the desert style was to my liking.

I would make piece with the fact if it's Los Santos only with 2 other cities. Like said before; LC from GTA IV only included one city from GTA III. Maybe they do the same thing with GTA V now.

 

I didn't like San Fierro anyway, only it's country side and mountains.

 

I think it's going to be Los Santos and a city named Los Puerta and some other city yet to be announced or Las Venturas.

 

I liked Las Venturas. I was addicted to gambling in the casino's lol. Also the desert style was to my liking.

Good post, The cool thing about LA is that it does have some casinos...theres one right off of I5.

Why can't people accept the fact that there won't be SF and LV?

And why is it so damn important? One is a city with hills and cable cars, and the other is a strip full of hotels and casinos. They aren't that exciting.

Anyone can downplay any city in the world like that.

 

Why should they make a city based on New York? It's just skyscrapers and a big statue.

 

It's a stupid viewpoint.

 

Las Vegas is one of the most exciting cities in the world. I would love the varity of 3 cities personally. They stuffed up LV last time, with just 3 casinos you could go in and very little else in the centre other than that. It was the worst city they have ever had in a game whereas it could have potentially been the best. It saddens me that it isn't coming back, by the looks of things.

Yeah, it's not like they are two of the largest, most iconic, most ethnically and culturally diverse, and most crime-ridden metropolises in the world or anything.

 

What more could they do with LV, aside from adding more hotels and casinos?

 

In SF there wasn't even anything to do the last time we visited it. Nothing that was related to the location anyway.

Ppl who are sayin' that Los Santos will be bigger 3 times (wtf) than Liberty City - are you all retarted cucumbers? Los Angeles 3 times bigger than Neu York. WTF ?

 

 

@cherrycola

 

Maybe because we want STATE not only one crappy city and villages? STATE - big, massive thing with 3 CITIES! Maybe not so awesome as 'Los Angulus' but nice! Shiz

Edited by Lampka12

Hey,

 

I think you put across a well thought out argument for SF and LV but I can't see it - especially LV.

 

I know that a lot of people (please nobody pipe up and say 'I loved it' because I'm not saying people didn't love it) thought that SF was a bit weak and bit of filler in SA. People often remarked that it didn't do itself justice and was the boring part between the brilliance of the story in LS and LV.

 

With that in mind, I wouldn't be suprised to see Rockstar possibly have another crack at SF - it would fit quite well I believe and if my sums are correct the land mass of San Francisco (46sq mi) is about 10% of that of Los Angeles (468sq mi) so it would not even need to be radically big.

 

But as people say, SF is much further north than LS and doesn't fit in the SoCal mandate that we have been given.

 

This leads me to believe that San Diego could feature. I think that it would be the perfect fodder to all the artificial glitz and LA trying to be the most perfect city in the world to have what is considered by some as one of the finest cities in the world juxtaposed.

 

In short, I feel that LS will not be the only city involved but I do believe that the SA as we knew it is no more.

 

Ppl who are sayin' that Los Santos will be bigger 3 times (wtf) than Liberty City - are you all retarted cucumbers?  Los Angeles 3 times bigger than Neu York. WTF ?

you can see the entire city in a single frame! it's not as big as people think... they're just desperately hanging on as much as we are to believe it's gonna be bigger/better etc.

These seem very poor and invalid points with no direct evidences...

 

In GTA:SA Rockstar indeed did not speak of Las Venturas or San Fierro, but they never confirmed it was only Los Santos either.

 

In GTA V Rockstar STATED it is only LS and surrounding mountains and countryside. If there was LV or SF then that means Rockstar lied about the info. Lying by all means is totally different from not speaking about the possibility.

Halo_Override

 

Ppl who are sayin' that Los Santos will be bigger 3 times (wtf) than Liberty City - are you all retarted cucumbers?  Los Angeles 3 times bigger than Neu York. WTF ?

LA is already 1.5 times the size of NYC in real life. Not an unreasonable assumption that the Los Santos map will aim to do even better.

Why can't people accept the fact that there won't be SF and LV?

They're just in denial, and desperately hanging on to any hope that it could still include San Fierro and Las Venturas. How pathetic they are.

Your post is pathetic. We're discussing whether sf and lv will be in it. Not crying about it not being in the game. Stupid moron.

Yeah, I'm the moron. dozingoff.gif

Los Santos was bigger than LC in GTA III era so maybe in V too D:

 

I loved to travel around San An in multiplayer or single after beating main story - wow those countrysides (boring as crap but nice!) and 3 cities - so much fun! You can be terrorist in Las Ven and ran out to Los Santos

 

These seem very poor and invalid points with no direct evidences...

 

In GTA:SA Rockstar indeed did not speak of Las Venturas or San Fierro, but they never confirmed it was only Los Santos either.

 

In GTA V Rockstar STATED it is only LS and surrounding mountains and countryside. If there was LV or SF then that means Rockstar lied about the info. Lying by all means is totally different from not speaking about the possibility.

you are putting words in their mouth to fit your argument. ("it is only LS")

 

they actually said "GTAV will be heading to Los Santos... " etc

 

wish people would stop fabricating stories and actually getting the quotes wrong.

There is just one simple reason why R* will never put SF and LV in the game. And that's because it would be too unrealistic for the standards seen in the trailer. If you recall playing San Andreas even if the map was huge at the time, it still felt awkward to reach different cities so quickly. Liberty City in GTA IV and this last trailer clearly shows the will to move to a much more realistic way of representing the game world.

King Of Monra
Rockstar have released an announcement.  The announcement says "Grand Theft Auto V heads to the city of Los Santos and surrounding hills, countryside and beaches" and explicitly mentions that the game takes place in "a re-imagined, present day Southern California."  This rules out SF and LV.  There will probably be small rural towns but as for anything else, that's for another thread.

Southern cali is not only los santos though, so that doesn't explain anything.

 

Yes it explain how las vegas (las venturas or whatever) wont be in, cause that is in nevada.

 

an san fierro is northen.

 

but that still doesn't say that los santos is the only city.

It must explain something, since you've just admitted SF and LV aren't in it. You're right that there could be other SoCal cities in the game, we won't know until they tell us, and speculating on that isn't part of this thread, since the title of this thread is about how the 3 cities are LS, SF and LV. Elsewhere, there's been speculation that San Diego is possible, or as kendoyanar suggests, maybe the border with Mexico.

I think there is a posibility that there will be 3 different cities, but it probably will be a really large "copy" of LA (as liberty city was new york)

 

will be split up in three.

 

but the posibility that there are 3 different cities, are there.

 

The title of the thread here is "why there are 3 cities in gta v"

 

yes the person who made the topic is talking about las venturas an san fierro, but why can't I think that there might still be 3 cities but not those two included? Seeing as the title is about why there might be 3 cities.

Very good Job op.

Thank you. Stuff like this stops the 900000001 self hyped threads that eventually

get everyone's expectations of something totally different, bullet proof, with a free

case of beer and strippers. So they get disappointed when it's just a game.

Which explains why they bash this thread.

 

 

Keep it real op.

(good job)

Edited by TruXter
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • 0 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 0 Guests

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.