Zip87 Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 IV had a lot of shops with like Puerto Rican or Mexican flags on them. Also there's a Russian Shop. Doesn't mean the game's gonna take place all around the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forzum Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 if SF and LV are in the game then why the fuk does R* keep that a secret? To drop a gigantic hype bomb at us. They did it with San Andreas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattymcs Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 if SF and LV are in the game then why the fuk does R* keep that a secret? To drop a gigantic hype bomb at us. They did it with San Andreas. No, they didn't. It was clear almost straight away that San Andreas had 3 cities. I'm not ruling them out doing it this time, but people need to get this idea out their head, that R* tricked people into thinking San Andreas was only going to have Los Santos and then revealed the other two cities, as that is not what happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jnzooger Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 I dont know about just southern california, those windmillls in the trailer dont appear for hundreds of miles around L.A. im expecting Phoenix. Wrong, there are at least 2 locations in and around the LA area that have wind-farms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hydro_PlayboyX Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 casinos only exist in las vegas? SF and LV wont be in GTA V get over it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
negrodamus Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Las Vegas/venturas is not the only place in the world with casino's. Exactly. There are alot of native american casino gambling towns in southern California were that screenshot could be set in. If the OP would have known this he would not have thought it was Vegas. Casinos(alot of which are on native american territory) exists in pretty much every state in America. There are lots of them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gtasadude Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Las Venturas is referred to in both dialogue and text loads of times in GTA IV, if you're going to see a gambling city it certainly wont be anywhere else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samsuxx Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Nice that many of us have the game and know so much about it Anyways, I don't know why noone has thought about San Diego yet. It one of the big cities in Southern California besides LA. And since there isn't a GTA-version of it, it would be great to see a new city entering the GTA-universo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dystopia Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 It’s a liquor store, in the middle of the desert, with card suits on the sign. It’s more of a hint towards backroom gambling than an association with Las Vegas. Although the aesthetics do make it look a bit like Vegas, I do agree with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forzum Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 if SF and LV are in the game then why the fuk does R* keep that a secret? To drop a gigantic hype bomb at us. They did it with San Andreas. No, they didn't. It was clear almost straight away that San Andreas had 3 cities. I'm not ruling them out doing it this time, but people need to get this idea out their head, that R* tricked people into thinking San Andreas was only going to have Los Santos and then revealed the other two cities, as that is not what happened. Yeah I get your point, way to many are believing this will be the whole San Andreas. But we have no info whether or not it is only some good speculations of why it might could be. But until any info it's all just speculations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j.hunt Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 casinos only exist in las vegas? SF and LV wont be in GTA V get over it +1, there will be casinos, countryside, small towns, huge highways, and a realistic atmosphere in Los Santos. nobody will miss or remember Las Venturas anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jojuinc Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 I've seen people on this board look at the mountain in the background thinking it might be Mt. Chilliad. Although no one seems to look at the alcohol market named Liquor ACE (seems like a "casino theme" to me). Not evidence by any means but by the wonderful work of Mapping of Los Santos makes it look like LA is a little smaller than the biggest possible Rockstar map. Praying for a full San Andreas. P.S. I know I could of put this GTA V Trailer Analysis [Official Thread] but have not seen this detail discussed in full. I live in Vegas, and the liquor store does look like it could be right down the street from me. However, on the sign it states that they sell lottery tickets, and the entire state of Nevada doesn't have those (although San Andreas laws may be different). What we do have in our liquor stores (and supermarkets and convenience stores, everywhere else) is video poker and slot machines, which every single place that has them proudly advertises as such all over the outside of the building. Which leads me to believe that this store isn't in Las Venturas, but instead in some random desert town. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PretendWereDead Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 casinos only exist in las vegas? SF and LV wont be in GTA V get over it SF and LV will be in GTA V get over it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FelipeVinhao Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 casinos only exist in las vegas? SF and LV wont be in GTA V get over it SF and LV will be in GTA V get over it! San Francisco and Las Vegas aren't in Southern California. Las Vegas isn't even in California at all. Get over it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SimMaster Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Someone found a location in or near Palm Springs that looked just like this screenshot. Anyone have the picture? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Algonquin Assassin Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 It would be lying as it's not a "re-imagining of Southern California" if SF and LV are in it. R* can't go back on their word You mean the people who told us that LCS and VCS would never get released on PS2, that they didn't have anything regarding V one week before the announcement and that TLAD and TBOGT were exclusive to the Xbox 360 can't lie to us? Plus it'd be a "good" lie, since we would find out there is even more than we thought. It'd be all positive. I see your point, but that's a different circumstance. These are game details. Breaking exclusitivity isn't that uncommon. Developers do it all the time however announced details are different. As I said SF and LV do not fit GTA V's apparent geography, so I can't see R* saying it'll be a re-imagined Southern California only to go against it later on. Admitedly it wouldn't be a bad lie, but let me ask you this would it be as much of surprise if SF and LV were in it? Most expect that to happen, so I can't see it being much of a surprise. Even though it's unlikely I would rather 2 new cities in place of SF and LV. That would be a better surprise IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dirtycopVCPD Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 The fact that the liquor apparently has a gambling/cards themed logo is most likely irrelevant. I live on the east coast in North Carolina and I imagine of I looked around long enough I could find a store, restaurant, or bar that has a gambling/cards themed logo too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inactive Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Off : Look at the no. of people reading this topic. Majority wants to see the whole SA. Is there any 'Ace' liquor store near any desert? I just saw the one one of the guys posted. But that's near a city. Anything near any desert? I guess many are on the hunt already! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuzzknuckles Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Even though it's unlikely I would rather 2 new cities in place of SF and LV. That would be a better surprise IMO. This. I really don't expect to see any sign of SF or LV, and that's fine. We're going to get an entirely new map, a new take, on something we're all very familiar with. Even if SF and LV were in there, they won't be the same. So how about we just have something new? Something entirely different to San Andreas. Please note, we know the game is called GTAV. It's not called GTAV: San Andreas. We'll have PLENTY to muck around in, so why do we need these extra cities? I mean, you haven't even seen the main city yet. It's, as far as I can see, going to be HUGE, so you won't even notice the other two cities missing. There's nothing that's been shown so far to suggest the cities are returning, and it's pretty much been confirmed by THE BIG MAN at R* that's it's Los Santos, the surrounding country and NOTHING MORE THAN THAT. But that will be plenty, thanks. Signatures are dumb anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tenpennyisplainevil Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 It would be lying as it's not a "re-imagining of Southern California" if SF and LV are in it. R* can't go back on their word You mean the people who told us that LCS and VCS would never get released on PS2, that they didn't have anything regarding V one week before the announcement and that TLAD and TBOGT were exclusive to the Xbox 360 can't lie to us? Plus it'd be a "good" lie, since we would find out there is even more than we thought. It'd be all positive. I see your point, but that's a different circumstance. These are game details. Breaking exclusitivity isn't that uncommon. Developers do it all the time however announced details are different. As I said SF and LV do not fit GTA V's apparent geography, so I can't see R* saying it'll be a re-imagined Southern California only to go against it later on. Admitedly it wouldn't be a bad lie, but let me ask you this would it be as much of surprise if SF and LV were in it? Most expect that to happen, so I can't see it being much of a surprise. Even though it's unlikely I would rather 2 new cities in place of SF and LV. That would be a better surprise IMO. how in the world is it going to be their most ambitious and biggest game without those cities? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FelipeVinhao Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 how in the world is it going to be their most ambitious and biggest game without those cities? Let's say it's highly possible. When GTA4 was released, someone made a size comparison between San Andreas from GTASA and Liberty City from GTA4, and the results was that the newer was roughly 3/4 the area of the older. Now imagine the new Los Santos (only the city) will be exactly the same size of the new Liberty City, and put a large open area around it. Now we're talking business! There's a high chance of having a map that is much bigger than the old San Andreas just with only one main city. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Algonquin Assassin Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 It would be lying as it's not a "re-imagining of Southern California" if SF and LV are in it. R* can't go back on their word You mean the people who told us that LCS and VCS would never get released on PS2, that they didn't have anything regarding V one week before the announcement and that TLAD and TBOGT were exclusive to the Xbox 360 can't lie to us? Plus it'd be a "good" lie, since we would find out there is even more than we thought. It'd be all positive. I see your point, but that's a different circumstance. These are game details. Breaking exclusitivity isn't that uncommon. Developers do it all the time however announced details are different. As I said SF and LV do not fit GTA V's apparent geography, so I can't see R* saying it'll be a re-imagined Southern California only to go against it later on. Admitedly it wouldn't be a bad lie, but let me ask you this would it be as much of surprise if SF and LV were in it? Most expect that to happen, so I can't see it being much of a surprise. Even though it's unlikely I would rather 2 new cities in place of SF and LV. That would be a better surprise IMO. how in the world is it going to be their most ambitious and biggest game without those cities? Why does SF and LV have to be in it to be their most ambious and biggest map yet? GTA IV's LC was quite large for a city based map. Assuming LS is similar in size we then still have the surrounding areas. SF and LV don't need to be in it for what is likely going to be a monster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuzzknuckles Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 how in the world is it going to be their most ambitious and biggest game without those cities? By making everything in that one city and the surrounding area bigger and better than anything they've done before. Also: GET OVER IT, THOSE CITIES DON'T MATTER A DAMN. Signatures are dumb anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DAWeeE1 Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 I can't believe people are still arguing about this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tenpennyisplainevil Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 how in the world is it going to be their most ambitious and biggest game without those cities? Let's say it's highly possible. When GTA4 was released, someone made a size comparison between San Andreas from GTASA and Liberty City from GTA4, and the results was that the newer was roughly 3/4 the area of the older. Now imagine the new Los Santos (only the city) will be exactly the same size of the new Liberty City, and put a large open area around it. Now we're talking business! There's a high chance of having a map that is much bigger than the old San Andreas just with only one main city. now that would suck. because SF, LV both had their own vibe in addition to LS. plus LV had a desert, which would leave the game with pretty much everything you can think of, except snow. and even the trip to LC had snow (but i dont think it counts) if not, we would only have LS and some country side. its not about size, its about the feeling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuzzknuckles Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 its not about size, its about the feeling. Is that what she tells you? AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHOHGOD. So, anyway... personally, I thought SF was really, really poor - it felt unfinished, it didn't have much of interest going on. There was about 2 thirds of that city that was just straight, dull roads. A couple of nice little areas, but for the main part, pretty boring. LV felt great, but that's not even in California, so guess again. Signatures are dumb anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vice Beach Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 (edited) The only way I can see all three cities being in the game is if A. Each city is a little bigger than a borough in IV (Ouch) B. Because it'll be for next gen consoles which are rumored to be unveiled very soon. And thats the reason R* has not revealed consoles or a release date. Or it'll just be LS and rural areas outside the city. Like they said. People need to understand that our current systems can not handle 3 Liberty City sized and detailed cities, plus the whole Red Dead Redemption map surrounding it. Maybe PS3 could but definitely not XBOX. Say you get what you want and you're walking around a new LV but there's barely any pedestrians on the street or cars. Just so you can have your cities. Edited January 4, 2012 by BrianJohnsonsBrotherCarl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tenpennyisplainevil Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 its not about size, its about the feeling. Is that what she tells you? AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHOHGOD. thats exactly what i thought while i wrote it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Algonquin Assassin Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 its not about size, its about the feeling. That made me chuckle. ILets keep in mind this isn't SA HD. It's a new place that's likely to have its own "vibe" and "feeling". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tenpennyisplainevil Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 its not about size, its about the feeling. That made me chuckle. ILets keep in mind this isn't SA HD. It's a new place that's likely to have its own "vibe" and "feeling". exactly, but it would only have ONE vibe/feeling. i'm not even saying that it will be SF/LV, but there have to be multiple cities. V has to be more ambitious than SA. how are they gon do that without multiple cities? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now