Zee Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 why do I get the feeling "biggest, most ambitious title yet" is the new "living,breathing cuty" type marketing buzzphrase? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matsvanstam Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 LV and SF won't be in the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrialzGTAS Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 LV is NOT IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA! It is Los Santos and surrounding areas. There are deserts in SOCAL aint there? Get your mind out of the gutter please and accept it =] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matsvanstam Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 LV is NOT IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA! It is Los Santos and surrounding areas. There are deserts in SOCAL aint there? Get your mind out of the gutter please and accept it =] this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zee Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 youre right, we need to accept things as they are. Im willing to accept that V will be a watered down version of SA, with only 1 city but shinier graphics. it will just take time. 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". 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? By adding 4. Seriously though it could mean a lot of things. I'd be happy with a countryside as vast if not more than RDR's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PretendWereDead Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 LV is NOT IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA! It is Los Santos and surrounding areas. There are deserts in SOCAL aint there? Get your mind out of the gutter please and accept it =] R* is talking about a re-imagined, present day Southern California. Guess what? San Andreas is a re-imagined Southern California which could include LS, SF and LV or even VC, nobody (but R*) can confirm or deny anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tenpennyisplainevil Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 LV is NOT IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA! It is Los Santos and surrounding areas. There are deserts in SOCAL aint there? Get your mind out of the gutter please and accept it =] R* is talking about a re-imagined, present day Southern California. Guess what? San Andreas is a re-imagined Southern California which could include LS, SF and LV or even VC, nobody (but R*) can confirm or deny anything. this in GTA, San Andreas = Southern Cali Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knife 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? From the size of the map to the way the game actually plays. It could be the longest game. It could be more detailed, more choices, more interiors, more gameplay mechanics, more vehicles. It could be just how much depth the world has like nature (it's looking most likely animals are in) etc etc etc. Would Rockstar call GTA IV their most ambitious game at the time? Yes they would (they probably did, but I can't be bothered to search). Even though a lot of things that were in San Andreas were missing, I'm sure they weren't thinking "well lets not really try". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tipper Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 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. We don't (well, I don't at least) expect it to happen. For all we know right now, it's very likely that there will be only LS. We just don't close the door on the possibility of other cities, so yeah, I'd be very surprised personnally, pleasantly surprised. And about other cities, well no, just no. Of course it's better than nothing, but you can't compare a great city like San Francisco or Vegas to cities of Southern California except LA. A small part of Mexico would be cool on the other hand, would add some variety, but honestly, San Diego being here or not, it wouldn't bother me too much. And, as someone pointed out earlier, the problem isn't size. LA in LA Noire was huge (well, it felt so at least) but boring, streets looked all the same. That's the whole point of smaller scaled cities, if you have 20 streets looking the same, just make 2 so it won't get boring. I'd much prefer having 3 smaller cities than a huge one if it's like in LA Noire. San Franciso and Vegas both have their own vibe. What was cool about San Andreas is that after several hours, once you got to know the city you were in, the game made you go elsewhere, a new place with a new atmosphere, it's kind of refreshing. Now I'm not saying I wouldn't like only one city, I loved IV which was set in NY only, I'm just saying it would be a shame to be restricted only to LA when you have 2 other great cities not far (well, relatively). Espacially when we played a game with all three in 2004. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-Malo94 Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 LV is NOT IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA! It is Los Santos and surrounding areas. There are deserts in SOCAL aint there? Get your mind out of the gutter please and accept it =] this LV is in another state all together Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matsvanstam Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 But, San andreas is a state with the cities LS, SF and LV. With only LS San Andreas won't exist, so it must be in the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inactive Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 But, San andreas is a state with the cities LS, SF and LV. With only LS San Andreas won't exist, so it must be in the game. I really hope for that too. But nowhere does it state that GTA V is San Andreas. It states it heads to the city of Los Santos. But, it still isn't an elimination to multiple cities. Both are a real possibility! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paced 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 No you didn't. Small dicked dickface. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knife Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 But, San andreas is a state with the cities LS, SF and LV. With only LS San Andreas won't exist, so it must be in the game. I don't quite understand what you're saying. Los Santos exists within the state of San Andreas no matter if there's other cities in the game or not. The game will be set in Southern San Andreas and more specifically, Los Santos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FelipeVinhao Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 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. Maybe it's even because of feeling that they won't add SF and LV. Maybe they would deserve their own game each, just like Liberty City and Vice City in the past. I would be a great surprise if they decided to add them to GTA5 though. 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? But back to topic, If there'll be multiple cities (and not only small towns) I'm more likely to believe they'll add a parody of San Diego instead of the existent San Francisco and Las Vegas, exactly because they explicitly said Southern California. LV is NOT IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA! It is Los Santos and surrounding areas. There are deserts in SOCAL aint there? Get your mind out of the gutter please and accept it =] R* is talking about a re-imagined, present day Southern California. Guess what? San Andreas is a re-imagined Southern California which could include LS, SF and LV or even VC, nobody (but R*) can confirm or deny anything. You're taking "re-imagined" too seriously. C'mon, even Vice City?! Suddenly a re-imagined Southern California became Southern USA! But, San andreas is a state with the cities LS, SF and LV. With only LS San Andreas won't exist, so it must be in the game. Liberty State also has other cities, but it still existed even if game only features Liberty City... Well, it also features Alderney, but this is talk for another topic... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zee 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? By adding 4. Seriously though it could mean a lot of things. I'd be happy with a countryside as vast if not more than RDR's. i seriously doubt the countryside will be anywhere near RDR's. 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 No you didn't. Small dicked dickface. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jokesminus Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 At the end of the day we are all in the same boat none of us know a thing we are all assuming. One side assumes that it wont have new citys, The other side assumes it will none of us have played the game we all know nothing more then what R* has officially announced. Its 50/50 and San Andreas/Los Santos being apart of San Andreas is still fresh in peoples minds the whole San Andreas thing still brings back happy memories for some and others not so much. Some people want a fresh new game with new areas and some want a fresh new San Andreas more this gen with better made more immersive citys that only this gen can bring for now. Some people keep saying I dont want the other cities cause they felt uncomplete that may well be but this gen couldnt bring better of course it could and stop comparing it to the old San Andreas cause your no better then those who say its not San Andreas HD. GTA V is and will be completly re done and changed more geographically correct in the terms of the cities/ or city at least. We can see this from the trailer proof officially in your face from the trailer therefore will never be the old San Andreas HD/2. Things will never be new untill R* decide to go new but GTA only really has San Andreas Liberty City and Vice City its allways been like that since day one. In the end no matter what way you look at it its still Los Santos San Andreas its been done before nothing new there then. Maybe we can get excited about the countryside being more like Southern California and a few buildings moved around but it will always be Los Santos in San Andreas. R* could also decide to add take away move do whatever they want its GTAs world fun enjoyable to all. Last but not least this is NO geographically correct version of LA nor Southern California its GTA get over it never could nor will be REAL LIFE COUNTERPARTS. That would bring too much unwanted attention from the media and to be honest LA nor California would want there state to be used in such a terrible way. To do GTA it has to always be a game and not a real life game that would cause way too much media attention with people comitting real life murders on the streets of LA then blaming GTA for it. Which of course would have nothing to do with the fact that they are wrong in the head blame the easiest thing it was a game it told me to do it. So end results it will never be San Andreas remake as most will not look the same so NO COMPARING to the old San Andreas. There might be new cities but dont look like itjust yet but then again there is plenty to say there is more. Some assume its only Los Santos so you are getting a remake of part of the old San Andreas. The others that assume its more cities will only ever end up with a whole San Andreas Remake with maybe new added city/cities. Its NEVER EVER gonna be a geographically correct Southern California as we have heard fully from R*s mouth A RE IMAGINED SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA. A) It has to be RE IMAGINED to stop the crazy media and murdering wierdos from saying its GTAs fault they commited crimes as it was so real to them. B) Its the state of San Andreas as stated on the license plates DEFINED BY EITHER GTA OR GTA SAN ANDREAS. We are all assuming what we dont know speculation and some have RE IMAGINED R*s official announcement into a geographically correct version of Southern California by leaving out RE IMAGINED. I have also decided to add the defintion of RE IMAGINED as well so you Southern California geographically correct people understand its RE IMAGINED SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA and called LOS SANTOS NOT LOS ANGELES. RE IMAGINED to take something and imagine it from new. So basically imagine Southern California from nothing it ends up being exactly what the old San Andreas was that was also RE IMAGINED its just R* never said last time that it was any state other then San Andreas. What I think they mean is we will be getting a Southern California size map but completely RE IMAGINED into whatever R* wants to put there. Why I think that is again R*s announcement LARGEST AND MOST AMBITIOUS GAME AS OF YET meaning it would have to be larger then any game they have created so far. Red Dead did states and it did it well. But all is assuming from us all for now. But hear this no saying just Southern California no saying only Los Santos to say only is to cut out the RE IMAGINED SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PART. No true geographically correct comparing. If you have done any of these things you are seriously wrong and look just plainly wrong on so many levels. Remember HEADS TO LOS SANTOS, IN THE LARGEST AND MOST AMBITIOUS GAME AS Of YET, IN A RE IMAGINED SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA.... There is all you need for the realisation of multiple cities and a whole entire RE IMAGINED half a state. Oh then you have Dan Housers statement Its Los Santos surrounding areas AND a very big map notice the AND. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darrel Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Why don't people just drop it, jesus christ. This is not San Andreas 2, get over it!. It came from Dan houser himself. The map will be huge. With most likely small towns and lots more stuff scattered everywhere. I prefer that than 3 half assed attempts at 3 cities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zee Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 from the looks of it, it appears to be one half assed city and a countryside that wont be as big as RDRs. Whoopie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tenpennyisplainevil Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Why don't people just drop it, jesus christ. This is not San Andreas 2, get over it!. It came from Dan houser himself. just stop changing the words that Dan Houser said into your preference! did he in any way say its ONLY LS? did he in any way say that its NOT SA2? NO HE DID NOT SA = Cali in the GTA universe, get over it! R* can put any city they want in there. you dont know sh*t and i dont know sh*t. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alfabutt Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 from the looks of it, it appears to be one half assed city and a countryside that wont be as big as RDRs. Whoopie. ha,think,im,gunna,play,sr im getting bored other than someone finding proof there is dogs in the game its just thevsame day in day out someone create a new thread thats xciting nd good to read! c u all l8r! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jokesminus Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Its kind of funny we are all on R*s magical rocking boat throwing assumption stones at eachother. But we can all agree R* needs to clear this up. We cant geographically correct what wont be geograpically correct we have already seen its not geographically correct in anyway by what we see and by what its called. We cant add things we cant take away things its only ever gonna be Los Santos in the state of San Andreas for the only Los Santos people all your gonna get is a remake of Los Santos and countryside no geographically correct LA just a remake of Los Santos and countryside. For the SF LV people all your gonna get is a remake of the full San Andreas it will always be a remake for all of us there is full proof from what we have seen and heard. Some change what was there to sound like there assumptions are correct but are very very wrong missing what was announced and you see makes you look like a fool. RE IMAGINED Southern California and Los Santos nothing geographically correct there not one bit so dont try to make it into something it is not and never will be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llpalm08 Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 I dont think that just because it has a playing card theme means that it is based in the outskirts of Venturas. To me it looks like a typical American countryside/city outskirts pub. Plus arent these sort of places that are all around America assosociated with gambling so I dont think it confirms Venturas in any way atall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tenpennyisplainevil Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 I dont think that just because it has a playing card theme means that it is based in the outskirts of Venturas. To me it looks like a typical American countryside/city outskirts pub. Plus arent these sort of places that are all around America assosociated with gambling so I dont think it confirms Venturas in any way atall. yes, but i think the cowgirl hooker is still a reference to LV... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
negrodamus Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 I dont think that just because it has a playing card theme means that it is based in the outskirts of Venturas. To me it looks like a typical American countryside/city outskirts pub. Plus arent these sort of places that are all around America assosociated with gambling so I dont think it confirms Venturas in any way atall. yes, but i think the cowgirl hooker is still a reference to LV... In what way? Hookers can be found everywhere, not just in Vegas. And Vegas ain't famous for having "cowgirl hookers", whatever that is. I've never heard anywhere that hookers in vegas dresses like cowgirls. They have hookers of all kinds of varieties, theres alot of escort type hookers there. You are grasping at straws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tenpennyisplainevil Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 I dont think that just because it has a playing card theme means that it is based in the outskirts of Venturas. To me it looks like a typical American countryside/city outskirts pub. Plus arent these sort of places that are all around America assosociated with gambling so I dont think it confirms Venturas in any way atall. yes, but i think the cowgirl hooker is still a reference to LV... In what way? Hookers can be found everywhere, not just in Vegas. And Vegas ain't famous for having "cowgirl hookers", whatever that is. I've never heard anywhere that hookers in vegas dresses like cowgirls. They have hookers of all kinds of varieties, theres alot of escort type hookers there. You are grasping at straws. cowgirls make me think of Vegas. it is in the desert and all, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zee Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 im just pissed that along with not including SF and LV, Los Santos wont be as close to LA was IV was to Liberty, which seems stupid if its just one city. Wasn't the whole point of this new generation was to do "proper" versions of the cities? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IAmMars Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 If i want one city to play in i could also play GTA IV 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