Inf3rn0 Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 It seems like some of the members here are convinced that it's only going to be LS. Here's what R* said: "Developed by series creator Rockstar North, Grand Theft Auto V heads to the city of Los Santos and surrounding hills, countryside and beaches in the largest and most ambitious game Rockstar has yet created." No where in this statement does it say that LV and SF will NOT be in the game. They only say that LS WILL be in the game. "A bold new direction in open-world freedom, storytelling, mission-based gameplay and online multiplayer, Grand Theft Auto V focuses on the pursuit of the almighty dollar in a re-imagined, present day Southern California." Now this could be taken to say that LV will not be in the game as it is only 'a re-imagined, present day Southern California.' But it says re-imagined. What exactly does this mean? No one knows yet. But this could mean they included LV in the game as re-imagined means they can do whatever the f*ck they want. I guess my point is, what makes you so sure that it will ONLY be LS? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIKON8ERISBACK Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 There's nothing to say that the additional two cities for sure won't appear in the game, it's just that we can't count on it given the uncertainty about appropriate compression algorithms to use with the Xbox 360's dated DVD-DATA storage medium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Degrees Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 Not this again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Racecarlock Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 I'm not sure about San Fierro, since it is a Californian city, but there's a simple test to figure out why Las Venturas definitely won't be there. They said southern California. Las Venturas is a Las Vegas parody. Now, is Las Vegas in California? I thought not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrcTOtheJ Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 I'm not sure about San Fierro, since it is a Californian city, but there's a simple test to figure out why Las Venturas definitely won't be there. They said southern California. Las Venturas is a Las Vegas parody. Now, is Las Vegas in California? I thought not. Well about SF, you might as well figure it's based off of San Fransisco, which isn't in SoCal. It's quite aways out of what one might consider Southern Califorinia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Rabbit Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 There's nothing to say that the additional two cities for sure won't appear in the game, it's just that we can't count on it given the uncertainty about appropriate compression algorithms to use with the Xbox 360's dated DVD-DATA storage medium. don't worry bout that this game will be multiple disks for xbox anyway, rightly so as well. GTA V shoudl not be compromised to suit their out-dated discs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grope_4_that_date Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 Common, stop trying to beat a dead horse. 'Southern California' means 'Southern California'. Stop trying to read in between the lines. In all honesty, judging how well they've captured Los Santos, there is no possible way San Fransisco is in this. No possible way. Go look how big it is. Las Venturas is possible, but they would have mentioned it in the synopsis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Durden Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 It's a defense mechanism. People don't want to get their hopes up and then be dissapointed, so everyone just says "stfu retards, SF and LV won't be in the game" when they really don't know jack sh*t, but they hope they are included. If people convince themselves that something won't happen, they are not surprised or let down if/when it doesn't end up happenning. Where do I stand? I honestly don't know. Rockstar is terribly vague, so they could have another big city plan up their sleeve. On the other hand, their vagueness could just be a way of sugar-coating "LS is the only city in the game, deal with it" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Racecarlock Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 I'd like people who are concerned about map size or general play area size to watch this video. After watching this, ask yourself. Are you still worried about the map being too small? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JStarr31 Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 (edited) : facepalm: San Fierro/Francisco is not in southern California.... nor is it close to or by Los Angeles. Not a little but or any thing like that. Las Vegas could technically be included, but it seems unfair to snuff out an actual Californian city for a Nevadan one just because this is what you, the fans want. For this, save the head ache and not include either of the two and reinvent southern San Andreas/SoCal, freeing up the latter cities for future development and series longevity. Los Santos only, get over it. Really it's not that bad of a realization to come to. It's better this way if you ask me. Now we can get a solo Las Venturas game with surrounding desert and a solo San Fierro game with surrounding bay areas. Edited April 30, 2012 by JStarr31 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Degrees Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 There's nothing to say that the additional two cities for sure won't appear in the game, it's just that we can't count on it given the uncertainty about appropriate compression algorithms to use with the Xbox 360's dated DVD-DATA storage medium. don't worry bout that this game will be multiple disks for xbox anyway, rightly so as well. GTA V shoudl not be compromised to suit their out-dated discs A GTA game multiple disks? No way would we have to change disks every time we go from one city to the next? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake Without a Tongue Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 It'll definitely be more than just LS. You can see pretty much all of Los Santos in the trailer. If it was a full SA remake we'd know by now, so it's not that. Like JStarr31 said, San Fierro is not in southern California. So... take from all of that what you will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Rabbit Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 There's nothing to say that the additional two cities for sure won't appear in the game, it's just that we can't count on it given the uncertainty about appropriate compression algorithms to use with the Xbox 360's dated DVD-DATA storage medium. don't worry bout that this game will be multiple disks for xbox anyway, rightly so as well. GTA V shoudl not be compromised to suit their out-dated discs A GTA game multiple disks? No way would we have to change disks every time we go from one city to the next? it will eb too big for one xbox disc, like LA Noire. If not then GTA V is a FRACTION of the game it could and SHOULD be if R* comprimises and makes GTA V one disc for xbox. I don't know how it will work, but R* will have figured out 16 different ways by now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Australia Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 I'm not sure about San Fierro, since it is a Californian city, but there's a simple test to figure out why Las Venturas definitely won't be there. They said southern California. Las Venturas is a Las Vegas parody. Now, is Las Vegas in California? I thought not. Las Venturas is in San Andreas as is San Fierro and Los Santos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIKON8ERISBACK Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 I'd like people who are concerned about map size or general play area size to watch this video. After watching this, ask yourself. Are you still worried about the map being too small? Classic reminiscence of the 1950s American suburbia. Before post-secondary education became so overvalued, when gasoline, food, real estate, and the necessities of living were cheap, and well paying jobs were plentiful in number. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magic_Al Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 They assume people know Los Santos means Los Angeles but they avoided saying San Andreas even though that's still the state that Los Santos is in. They said Southern California deliberately to tell you GTA V will not include the Northern California and Nevada parts of San Andreas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B1T8 Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 blahblahblahblahblah. give up, man. give up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Racecarlock Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 Look, I'm sorry I'm not entirely familiar with the geography of southern California. I'm a utahn suburb rat, what do you want? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triple Vacuum Seal Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 Trailer 2 will address this. Don't worry. "shut up, sit down, relax" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kj2022 Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 not this crap again. i wanna see San Fierro and Las Venturas again, but not this gen, not because the consoles can't handle it, but because of the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GTAViscool1 Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 Why do they need to say that it won't have LV and SF? It's not San Andreas 2 but GTA V and Socal. They just said where it'll take place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragonjack Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 Los Santos & southern california And For "Southern california?" it would probably be a fictional type of name i suppose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CJ killed Ryder Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 Maybe Las Venturas could be in the multiplayer. I wanna see Roman Bellic gambling in Las Venturas, even though Jason Zumwalt (Roman's voice actor) has already confirmed he is not in GTA V. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Algonquin Assassin Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 (edited) Honestly the way R* words it delibrately points towards just LS as the main city. They wouldn't just say SF and LV aren't included in the game. That's not very good marketing and if they are I don't see any reason to hide the fact. It's not as if the inclusion of SF and LV would be breaking news so why hide it? Sooner or later we'll know for sure, but I've always read it as a nicer way of saying LS is the only city without upsetting people in the process. Edited April 30, 2012 by Miamivicecity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CJ killed Ryder Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 Maybe the GTA V era will be a trilogy, so they can still release a GTA: San Fierro and a GTA: Las Venturas. The GTA VI era will take place in Europe I hope: Grand Theft Auto: Rotterdam, Grand Theft Auto: Paris and Grand Theft Auto: Madrid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inflamedeyeball Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 They wouldn't just say SF and LV aren't included in the game. That's not very good marketing. This. Making a press release about V taking place in southern cali is a smart way of saying SF and LV aren't in the game, and I personally can't think of another way to do that without giving a negative spin to the press release. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jnzooger Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 It simple, Los Santos and the surrounding towns and cities does not include San Fierro or Los Santos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GourangaMaster Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 Why persist on dredging up this idiotic discussion again it only leads to rabid flame wars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Algonquin Assassin Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 (edited) It's a defense mechanism. People don't want to get their hopes up and then be dissapointed, so everyone just says "stfu retards, SF and LV won't be in the game" when they really don't know jack sh*t, but they hope they are included. If people convince themselves that something won't happen, they are not surprised or let down if/when it doesn't end up happenning. Where do I stand? I honestly don't know. Rockstar is terribly vague, so they could have another big city plan up their sleeve. On the other hand, their vagueness could just be a way of sugar-coating "LS is the only city in the game, deal with it" I wouldn't say it's a defense mechanism. Most have simply accepted SF and LV wont be in it, myself included. As I said I can't see why R* would hide SF and LV. It'd be the worst kept secret ever. There's simply no way else of saying it without coming as negative. Think of any bottle of whiskey, bourbon etc. Now do you think distributers like Jack Daniel's would advertise their product as a cause of health issues or leading people to become alcoholics? Cigarettes are the same. People know that sh*t will cause cancer, but the manufacturers don't parade the fact. Think of any fast food outlet aswell. They don't want to promote a juicy burger as an artery clogger. Perhaps these comparisons are a bit asrtray from R* not including SF and LV in GTA V, but it shows they're not just going to say SF and LV aren't in it directly. Anyway obviously I'm not in marketing, but it seems like the sensible to do to advertise your product in the most positive light possible even if your consumer base knows it's "sugar coating". Dragonjack: I'd say it'll be referred to as Southern San Andreas in game. San Andreas plates are present on vehicles in the trailer, so it'll obviously be San Andreas, but most likely be called Southern San Andreas or abbreviated as SOSA. Edited April 30, 2012 by Miamivicecity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isuck100% Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 There's nothing to say that the additional two cities for sure won't appear in the game, it's just that we can't count on it given the uncertainty about appropriate compression algorithms to use with the Xbox 360's dated DVD-DATA storage medium. don't worry bout that this game will be multiple disks for xbox anyway, rightly so as well. GTA V shoudl not be compromised to suit their out-dated discs A GTA game multiple disks? No way would we have to change disks every time we go from one city to the next? it will eb too big for one xbox disc, like LA Noire. If not then GTA V is a FRACTION of the game it could and SHOULD be if R* comprimises and makes GTA V one disc for xbox. I don't know how it will work, but R* will have figured out 16 different ways by now Like L.A. Noire, huh? You don't even know why L.A. Noire required three discs. If you did, you would not use it as an indicator that GTA V will require more than one disc. 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