LotusRIP Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Just because san fierro and LV aren't included doesn't conclude that Los Santos is the only city in all of "southern California"... Seriously, I'm more curious for san Diego and Mexico or something, why would they be completely unoriginal and take over 4 years in the process? I suggest you discover more to America than the cities that GTA teach you about... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zee Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 i discover plenty, and I have visited San Diego enough to know its a sh*tboring city that may as well be a copy paste of Los Santos in a game. Completely unnesacary and stupid to include San Diego and not SF. However, tijuana might be interesting, but i doubt R* would be f*cked to have a whole mexico portion, though ive been wrong in the past about such things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tenpennyisplainevil Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Just because san fierro and LV aren't included doesn't conclude that Los Santos is the only city in all of "southern California"... Seriously, I'm more curious for san Diego and Mexico or something, why would they be completely unoriginal and take over 4 years in the process? I suggest you discover more to America than the cities that GTA teach you about... this is a topic about a possible reference to LV... it could be San Diego. but we're discussing a possible reference to LV.. 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. 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. Maybe you misunderstood. I was not saying Dan houser said It was not San Andreas 2. I was saying that! Becuase its very obvious is not. Who the f*ck wants San Andreas 2 anyway? I dont. This will be brand new innovate game Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LotusRIP Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Just because san fierro and LV aren't included doesn't conclude that Los Santos is the only city in all of "southern California"... Seriously, I'm more curious for san Diego and Mexico or something, why would they be completely unoriginal and take over 4 years in the process? I suggest you discover more to America than the cities that GTA teach you about... this is a topic about a possible reference to LV... it could be San Diego. but we're discussing a possible reference to LV.. Yes but people are just saying "nup SF and LV are not in southern California, so that means its definitely only one city. Cause there's only 3 cities in the entire state! At least that's what my GTA geography classes tell me" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tenpennyisplainevil Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Just because san fierro and LV aren't included doesn't conclude that Los Santos is the only city in all of "southern California"... Seriously, I'm more curious for san Diego and Mexico or something, why would they be completely unoriginal and take over 4 years in the process? I suggest you discover more to America than the cities that GTA teach you about... this is a topic about a possible reference to LV... it could be San Diego. but we're discussing a possible reference to LV.. Yes but people are just saying "nup SF and LV are not in southern California, so that means its definitely only one city. Cause there's only 3 cities in the entire state! At least that's what my GTA geography classes tell me" yh, we're kinda off topic arent we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuzzknuckles Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Just because san fierro and LV aren't included doesn't conclude that Los Santos is the only city in all of "southern California"... Seriously, I'm more curious for san Diego and Mexico or something, why would they be completely unoriginal and take over 4 years in the process? I suggest you discover more to America than the cities that GTA teach you about... this is a topic about a possible reference to LV... it could be San Diego. but we're discussing a possible reference to LV.. Yes but people are just saying "nup SF and LV are not in southern California, so that means its definitely only one city. Cause there's only 3 cities in the entire state! At least that's what my GTA geography classes tell me" yh, we're kinda off topic arent we? I think the real problem here is people are for themost part saying "I want SF and LV, so it will be in there". There's no evidence or solid proof to suggest they'll be in the game. However, there's a lot of evidence to suggest that they WON'T be in the game. It's been confirmed it's Los Santos and the surrounding area. It has NOT been confirmed that it's San Andreas, and the cities that lay therein. People seem to be over looking the fact that whilst LV was in a desert, and desert has been hinted at in the trailer, there is also desert in Southern California. Without sounding like a broken record: You are expecting too much if you're expecting all three cities from San Andreas, because this is NOT San Andreas. This is something different, based on Los Santos. Signatures are dumb anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benrod Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 why are people still thinking SF and LV will be in the game? the offical press release clearly states that's it's just going to be LS and the surrounding areas. people need to stop comparing gta san andreas with gta v... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCLASS Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Zee , what brings you over to the states a lot ? business , holidays ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Pink Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 How exacly would they lose their credibility. On the contrary, I think it would be a genius marketing move. Fans got excited once at the announcement (since we had been waiting a long time, I guess nearly all of us were satisfied with the trailer), if they surprise us with two more cities, fans will get excited a second time. Now I do realise that as of right now we're likely to have only LS as a major city, but we can't rule out SF and LV completely (espacially after the latest interview with the evasive answer regarding the location) 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. I believe they chose those words carefully as not to get peoples' hopes up, but some are still holding onto the belief SF and LV will be in it. I know R* are known to be vague at times, but to me it was made pretty clear what the general geography would be of GTA V. I suppose, actually the key is that the even mentioned that it's based on Southern California. Usually Rockstar don't even say it's based on <insert real life place here> I suppose San Andreas is a made up state as it contains places in Nevada. San Andreas state is sort of made up of two different states as is IV - New Jersey city and New York City. The fact that Rockstar are saying it's based on South Cali, a real life place is kind of a first for Rockstar. ＲＵＢＢΣＲ░Ｊ♢ＨＮＮＹ （スオッ） Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SimMaster Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 (edited) Based on the trailer, the new LS honestly doesn't look that much larger than the GTASA version. There has to be another large city. Unless someone can calculate how large it really is. I've seen people posting that the new LS is as large as all of GTA4 and that seems ridiculous. Edited January 4, 2012 by SimMaster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Royal55 Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 (edited) I think we need to focus on the "surrounding areas" portion of the press release. Let's define "surrounding areas", what exactly could that mean? If the beaches and mountains (etc..) are in Los Santos and it is supposedly in just one city, based on the press release, then what does "surrounding areas" really mean? Personally, to me, that sounds like a pretty good loophole to screw with our minds. "Surrounding areas" could literally mean anything, hell, it could mean we could travel to Vice City for all I care. Two words that I believe are getting overlooked. Also, I think that we'll be seeing more than one major city besides Los Santos. Think about it, this generation of consoles is slowly dying out, sooner or later. At the rate GTA's are getting produced and released (one so far for this console cycle..), I highly doubt we'll see another major console release after V. This game has to be huge, massive, and downright groundbreaking, go out with a bang, yah'know? Would I be happy with just Los Santos? Yes, if it meets the previous criteria. If not then I'd hope for something better than just Los Santos. I rest my case. Edited January 4, 2012 by Royal55 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Arcadia Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Honestly, I hope V's LS is only a bit larger than SA's LS and more cities are included... Looking at maps of the real Los Angeles, the flat urban sprawl is utterly ridiculous. I can tell right now it wouldn't be fun at all to be stuck in an accurate representation of that place for the whole game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CookPassBabtridge Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Honestly, I hope V's LS is only a bit larger than SA's LS and more cities are included... Looking at maps of the real Los Angeles, the flat urban sprawl is utterly ridiculous. I can tell right now it wouldn't be fun at all to be stuck in an accurate representation of that place for the whole game. Exactly what's bothering me too....I find it odd that R* would go back to another single land mass after IV, unless they think that slapping a load of countryside around it will feel different. @Royal55: there are no cryptic clues in these press releases, in fact it seems R* felt it important to mention SoCal to try and quash the rumours of multiple cities. Surrounding areas means local bordering areas, not Vice City (which is the opposite coast!!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mokrie Dela Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Honestly, I hope V's LS is only a bit larger than SA's LS and more cities are included... Looking at maps of the real Los Angeles, the flat urban sprawl is utterly ridiculous. I can tell right now it wouldn't be fun at all to be stuck in an accurate representation of that place for the whole game. True Crime LA suffered from that. MAssive and (so i'm told) accurate - but it was all the same, boring street roads.... The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing. Click here to view my Poetry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FelipeVinhao Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Honestly, I hope V's LS is only a bit larger than SA's LS and more cities are included... Looking at maps of the real Los Angeles, the flat urban sprawl is utterly ridiculous. I can tell right now it wouldn't be fun at all to be stuck in an accurate representation of that place for the whole game. True Crime LA suffered from that. MAssive and (so i'm told) accurate - but it was all the same, boring street roads.... That's one of the reasons Rockstar mentioned once they'll never make a full recreation of a city, only parodies will buildings and roads that resemble the real thing. Don't ask source now, I don't have it and don't remember where I read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mokrie Dela Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Honestly, I hope V's LS is only a bit larger than SA's LS and more cities are included... Looking at maps of the real Los Angeles, the flat urban sprawl is utterly ridiculous. I can tell right now it wouldn't be fun at all to be stuck in an accurate representation of that place for the whole game. True Crime LA suffered from that. MAssive and (so i'm told) accurate - but it was all the same, boring street roads.... That's one of the reasons Rockstar mentioned once they'll never make a full recreation of a city, only parodies will buildings and roads that resemble the real thing. Don't ask source now, I don't have it and don't remember where I read. dont worry i wont - it seems logical enough The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing. Click here to view my Poetry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Royal55 Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 @Royal55: there are no cryptic clues in these press releases, in fact it seems R* felt it important to mention SoCal to try and quash the rumours of multiple cities. Surrounding areas means local bordering areas, not Vice City (which is the opposite coast!!) Well, no kidding. I didn't think there were any cryptic clues, I was merely implying that we may have overlooked the wording and if I'm not mistaken SoCal has multiple cities, correct? Also, when I said Vice City, I hope you had some sort of an idea that I was being sarcastic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CookPassBabtridge Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 To be fair Royal, you basically said surrounding areas was a 'loophole to screw with our minds'. Not having a go at you, but if you think outside of these forums, who the hell would think that a trick wording? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Royal55 Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 What I meant by that is "surrounding areas" is a very vague phrase, it can mean anything. It's up in the air for any sort of interpretation to be honest. Stranger things have happened in the past and I wouldn't be surprised by Rockstar at all. That phrase could be the key to what is yet to come (possibly..). I'm neither for or against one sole city, as long as it's well thought out and they really stick to the "largest and most ambitious game" statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FelipeVinhao Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 To be fair Royal, you basically said surrounding areas was a 'loophole to screw with our minds'. Not having a go at you, but if you think outside of these forums, who the hell would think that a trick wording? Only someone who wants something really hard. Ok that "surrounding" may sound abstract as it doesn't explicitly says "how many kilometers", but saying San Francisco and Las Vegas are part of the area that surrounds Los Angeles is a little too much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USAPatriot Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Answer to first post: Because it isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Staten Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 What I meant by that is "surrounding areas" is a very vague phrase, it can mean anything. It's up in the air for any sort of interpretation to be honest. Stranger things have happened in the past and I wouldn't be surprised by Rockstar at all. That phrase could be the key to what is yet to come (possibly..). I'm neither for or against one sole city, as long as it's well thought out and they really stick to the "largest and most ambitious game" statement. If you mean that "surrounding areas" could refer to other SoCal cities, then there are a lot of people who agree with you. It's a common speculation that's been raised ever since the trailer came out. San Diego is the most likely other city, considering that Rockstar have a studio there. @OP: That scene is not proof of LV. In fact, there's evidence that it is likely a representation of a place at the eastern edge of LA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeeebuuus Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 What I meant by that is "surrounding areas" is a very vague phrase, it can mean anything. It's up in the air for any sort of interpretation to be honest. Stranger things have happened in the past and I wouldn't be surprised by Rockstar at all. That phrase could be the key to what is yet to come (possibly..). I'm neither for or against one sole city, as long as it's well thought out and they really stick to the "largest and most ambitious game" statement. I agree with this. If you were making the largest and most ambitious game with a "very big map", I don't think you would want to give away its entire scope right off the bat with a teaser trailer. Thats not to say the old cities will be making a return. I think new ones, but we'll see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Royal55 Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 ..but saying San Francisco and Las Vegas are part of the area that surrounds Los Angeles is a little too much. I agree because those are not in the SoCal area, but like I said it's open for interpretation, it can mean all sorts of things. Am I saying it's likely? No, not necessarily, but it's not exactly out of the question. Saying it's only Los Santos is a little ignorant, like I said there are so many cities in the SoCal area it's out of control, some 150+ cities and towns in SoCal alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FelipeVinhao Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 ..but saying San Francisco and Las Vegas are part of the area that surrounds Los Angeles is a little too much. I agree because those are not in the SoCal area, but like I said it's open for interpretation, it can mean all sorts of things. Am I saying it's likely? No, not necessarily, but it's not exactly out of the question. Saying it's only Los Santos is a little ignorant, like I said there are so many cities in the SoCal area it's out of control, some 150+ cities and towns in SoCal alone. Which leads San Diego, for example, to be a more plausible possibility than previously used cities. Not to mention the towns from GTASA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
itsonelouder Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 I'm of the thinking that as IV was very urban in nature, V is going to be just LS but with much more of a countryside feel with activities to suit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Typhus Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 We've got Mount Chiliad, or an equivalent. And if that's the case, we'll probably see the little hick towns nearby. As well as creepy wooded areas like Back 'o Beyond and Fisherman's Lagoon. But Vegas? I doubt it very much. They seem dead set on only using one city per game now. But hey, as long as we get the creepy countryside and a few weird myths and legends, I'll be happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GiantsPride Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 The only hookers to wear cowboy hats in GTA San Andreas were in Las Venturas...could be a clue 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. cowgirls make me think of Vegas. it is in the desert and all, right? Why would a cowgirl belong in the nevada desert? That's more of a texan midwestern thing. Cowgirls have nothing to do with Vegas. 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