Jump to content

Keep an open mind for San Fierro and Las Venturas!


DRN94

Recommended Posts

This preview was done in late July of 2004.

 

http://ps2.ign.com/articles/534/534690p1.html

 

Look at the corresponding screenshots posted on July 30, 2004. No San Fierro and Las Venturas, see?

 

http://media.ps2.ign.com/media/611/611957/imgs_14.html

 

Just 3 months before release and Rockstar managed to keep San Fierro and Las Venturas a secret up until 14 days before launch with this trailer:

 

http://www.gametrailers.com/videos/5zhymj/...dreas-trailer-2

 

The trailer was posted on October 10, 2004... Just 14 days before launch! People had no clue San Fierro and Las Venturas would be in GTA SA until only 2 weeks before the game launched. The trailer shocked everyone that they had been keeping the other cities a complete secret up until then and probably helped contribute to it's wild success. I believe Rockstar is pulling the same trick with GTA V.

 

Again, no knowledge of San Fierro and Las Venturas as of July 31 of 2004 (3 months before launch). And San Fierro and Las Venturas were shown for the first time just 14 days (2 weeks) before launch! Why is it so hard for people to believe San Fierro and Las Venturas will be in GTA V? To me it makes complete sense. The only reason why people didn't ask about San Fierro and Las Venturas being in GTA SA before it was shown just 14 days before launch was because it was the first game to feature the cities and Rockstar kept quiet and only showed Los Santos. Now we sort of expect the other two cities to be in it because of GTA SA and is why Rockstar has been choosing their words wisely when describing where the game takes place.

 

 

Interviewer: "Obviously, it looks like it's going back to San Andreas."

 

Dan Houser: "I've got to be real careful here, or they will drag me through the office and whip me with barbwire. I will stick to exactly what's in the press release. It's Los Santos and the surrounding countryside - and a very big map."

 

Be careful of what? Bragging about how big the map is? You don't want to over exaggerate the "very big map"? He's obviously hiding the fact that San Fierro and Las Venturas will be in the game.

 

All I can say is EXPECT San Fierro and Las Venturas in the final game. And we may not even see the other cities until less than 2 weeks before launch as they did with GTA SA so even if nothing is shown at Gamescom (late august) of the other two cities, don't let that discourage the possibility. We could very well not learn of San Fierro and Las Venturas until the launch trailer released the day before launch which would be epic. So keep an open mind!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Johnny Playert

Jesus Christ with a sh*tstain you're like the 100th person with these theories... we don't want these topics man...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brendino333

I think they might include las venturas and san fierro. that would be one hell of a surprise. damn.. but we cant be sure!

user posted image
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jesus Christ with a sh*tstain you're like the 100th person with these theories... we don't want these topics man...

It's a legitimate argument based on Rockstar's marketing actions of the past. I'm not just another blubbering imbecile talking out his @ss. I did enough research to finally make a concrete claim for the possibility of SF and LV.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

dirtycopVCPD

 

Actually that's not what happened at all. From the GTA San Adreas.net May 2004 archive:

 

 

Im sure you all heard the news about the three cities, stamina meter, etc. somewhere else already(if not check out illy's report below), so I will skip all that and get right into what Dan Houser himself has confirmed about San Andreas.

 

The three cities are infact modeled after Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Las Vegas. Each will be about the size of Vice City, resulting in a gameworld about 4 to 6 times larger than GTA3/Vice City. Sounds amazing.

 

If I remember correctly they focused on Los Santos first when marketing, then San Fierro, the countryside, and finally Las Venturas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Johnny Playert

 

Jesus Christ with a sh*tstain you're like the 100th person with these theories... we don't want these topics man...

It's a legitimate argument based on Rockstar's marketing actions of the past. I'm not just another blubbering imbecile talking out his @ss. I did enough research to finally make a concrete claim for the possibility of SF and LV.

Yes bro but you're not the first. What it all boils down to is the official statement of: Los Santos with surrounding hills and countryside. How clear can it be? Don't get your hopes up. Houser was so careful to choose his words because they don't want to kill the hype by saying they're not in there. That's it. They want ppl like you to keep others like you hopeful about SF/LV.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The__Phoenix
It's a legitimate argument based on Rockstar's marketing actions of the past.

no,it´s just a rationalization based in your own beliefs.The facts and the reality is pretty different,

and not gives you site to believe this.

SF and LV will not be in the game. It´s as clear as tomorrow sunrise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

f*cking christ not this again

 

Just because Rockstar said a vague press release about it being in a "re-imagined southern California" doesn't squash the possibility. Obviously Rockstar doesn't want people to know just like Rockstar kept it a secret until 2 weeks before launch for GTA SA... 2 WEEKS! And if you have good spacial awareness you'll notice that the greater urban area of Los Santos is not that big even in comparison to Liberty City from just watching the trailer. It all points to a complete San Andreas state.

Edited by DRN94
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a legitimate argument based on Rockstar's marketing actions of the past.

no,it´s just a rationalization based in your own beliefs.The facts and the reality is pretty different,

and not gives you site to believe this.

SF and LV will not be in the game. It´s as clear as tomorrow sunrise.

You have got to be kidding me... Just because Rockstar sent out a press release to say "LOLz what San Fierro and Las Venturas? Nah bro, it's only in southern California" would squash Rockstar's obvious intent to keep the other cities a secret? Do you think Rockstar is stupid or do you consider yourself stupid? It's either one or the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interviewer: "Obviously, it looks like it's going back to San Andreas."

 

Dan Houser: "I've got to be real careful here, or they will drag me through the office and whip me with barbwire. I will stick to exactly what's in the press release. It's Los Santos and the surrounding countryside - and a very big map."

 

Be careful of what? Bragging about how big the map is? You don't want to over exaggerate the "very big map"? He's obviously hiding the fact that San Fierro and Las Venturas will be in the game.

 

I wish the members of this forum would stop avoiding this point -- the way he said it has very deep meaning in the English language.

 

Plus, we've already come to the conclusion that Rockstar has hidden the actual size of the map from us in the trailer.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interviewer: "Obviously, it looks like it's going back to San Andreas."

 

Dan Houser: "I've got to be real careful here, or they will drag me through the office and whip me with barbwire. I will stick to exactly what's in the press release. It's Los Santos and the surrounding countryside - and a very big map."

 

Be careful of what? Bragging about how big the map is? You don't want to over exaggerate the "very big map"? He's obviously hiding the fact that San Fierro and Las Venturas will be in the game.

 

I wish the members of this forum would stop avoiding this point -- the way he said it has very deep meaning in the English language.

 

Plus, we've already come to the conclusion that Rockstar has hidden the actual size of the map from us in the trailer.

They were actually hiding the true size of Los Santos which isn't very big. I think what made me draw the conclusion confidently was the location of the Observatory from two shots. The Pier and Oil Drill screencap from the trailer. It shows how small Los Santos really is and the fact that Rockstar used the sunset and thick atmosphere to cover up most of the city inbetween downtown and the coast was to hide how small the city actually is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Death2Drugs

Here's some facts:

 

This isn't Southern California. This is Southern San Andreas. Here's a key thing: in GTA San Andreas and GTA IV, California and Nevada were as one big state called San Andreas. This would mean that Southern San Andreas would be much larger than Southern California. If California and Nevada were both one state, I believe Las Vegas would fall slightly in the Southern area of the state (though it is southeast), meaning that if that were the logic, Las Venturas might be added. This, therefore, kills the "Las Vegas isn't in California" argument. I'm not too optimistic about San Fierro, and it seems unlikely unless Rockstar re-imagined the Bay Area to be more closer to Los Santos and Venturas.

 

I'm not taking any side, but rather I'm presenting evidence how the original cities might return.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Johnny Playert

 

DRN94 read this for f*ck's sake that's all you need to know

 

Jesus Christ with a sh*tstain you're like the 100th person with these theories... we don't want these topics man...

It's a legitimate argument based on Rockstar's marketing actions of the past. I'm not just another blubbering imbecile talking out his @ss. I did enough research to finally make a concrete claim for the possibility of SF and LV.

Yes bro but you're not the first. What it all boils down to is the official statement of: Los Santos with surrounding hills and countryside. How clear can it be? Don't get your hopes up. Houser was so careful to choose his words because they don't want to kill the hype by saying they're not in there. That's it. They want ppl like you to keep others like you hopeful about SF/LV.

Plus, it's Southern California so no Frisco or Vegas don't be so ignorant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not the first time it's been posted about, but at least the OP put some effort and thought into the thread.

I happen to agree, we will see more than LS but bot sure what yet. Going off of the R*'s team flickR we could see an awful lot more than SF & LV.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Here's some facts:

 

This isn't Southern California. This is Southern San Andreas. Here's a key thing: in GTA San Andreas and GTA IV, California and Nevada were as one big state called San Andreas. This would mean that Southern San Andreas would be much larger than Southern California. If California and Nevada were both one state, I believe Las Vegas would fall slightly in the Southern area of the state (though it is southeast), meaning that if that were the logic, Las Venturas might be added. This, therefore, kills the "Las Vegas isn't in California" argument. I'm not too optimistic about San Fierro, and it seems unlikely unless Rockstar re-imagined the Bay Area to be more closer to Los Santos and Venturas.

 

I'm not taking any side, but rather I'm presenting evidence how the original cities might return.

I believe the other two cities will be the big shocker that will grab everyone's attention. Be it at gamescom or a day before launch. Rockstar claims it'll be the "most ambitious" title of the series. Well how is having less main cities more ambitious than their previous efforts? Especially in relationship to how big a deal GTA San Andreas was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Johnny Playert
Here's some facts:

 

This isn't Southern California. This is Southern San Andreas. Here's a key thing: in GTA San Andreas and GTA IV, California and Nevada were as one big state called San Andreas. This would mean that Southern San Andreas would be much larger than Southern California. If California and Nevada were both one state, I believe Las Vegas would fall slightly in the Southern area of the state (though it is southeast), meaning that if that were the logic, Las Venturas might be added. This, therefore, kills the "Las Vegas isn't in California" argument. I'm not too optimistic about San Fierro, and it seems unlikely unless Rockstar re-imagined the Bay Area to be more closer to Los Santos and Venturas.

 

I'm not taking any side, but rather I'm presenting evidence how the original cities might return.

But where they talking about "Southern San Andreas"? No, re-imagined Southern California. Damn you're stupid, sorry man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Death2Drugs
Here's some facts:

 

This isn't Southern California. This is Southern San Andreas. Here's a key thing: in GTA San Andreas and GTA IV, California and Nevada were as one big state called San Andreas. This would mean that Southern San Andreas would be much larger than Southern California. If California and Nevada were both one state, I believe Las Vegas would fall slightly in the Southern area of the state (though it is southeast), meaning that if that were the logic, Las Venturas might be added. This, therefore, kills the "Las Vegas isn't in California" argument. I'm not too optimistic about San Fierro, and it seems unlikely unless Rockstar re-imagined the Bay Area to be more closer to Los Santos and Venturas.

 

I'm not taking any side, but rather I'm presenting evidence how the original cities might return.

But where they talking about "Southern San Andreas"? No, re-imagined Southern California. Damn you're stupid, sorry man.

Re-imagined Southern California.

 

The state is called San Andreas (from license plates):

Therefore, Southern San Andreas.

 

Before you call people stupid, get some evidence first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Actually that's not what happened at all.  From the GTA San Adreas.net May 2004 archive:

 

 

Im sure you all heard the news about the three cities, stamina meter, etc. somewhere else already(if not check out illy's report below), so I will skip all that and get right into what Dan Houser himself has confirmed about San Andreas.

 

The three cities are infact modeled after Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Las Vegas. Each will be about the size of Vice City, resulting in a gameworld about 4 to 6 times larger than GTA3/Vice City. Sounds amazing.

 

If I remember correctly they focused on Los Santos first when marketing, then San Fierro, the countryside, and finally Las Venturas.

I'm quoting this again since you may have overlooked it. I think this puts a big dent in OP's argument. I do, however, applaud OP's effort. icon14.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cutter De Blanc

Unless they were being very liberal with the term "countryside," I find it highly unlikely that Venturas and Fierro are in.

 

Perhaps they meant an actual chunk of the entire country, but I doubt it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kill Frenzy!

I´m getting nervous of seeing this thousands of times... It can´t be clearer.. there is no San Fierro & Las Venturas coming in V ass hole! icon13.gificon13.gificon13.gificon13.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

universetwisters

I'll sum it up for those who dont get it:

 

Rockstar stated "Southern California"

 

San Fransisco is North/Mid California

 

Las Vegas is in Nevada

 

Learn Geography

sTgL5iS.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Death2Drugs

 

I'll sum it up for those who dont get it:

 

Rockstar stated "Southern California"

 

San Fransisco is North/Mid California

 

Las Vegas is in Nevada

 

Learn Geography

Fact: Rockstar freely interprets region in any way they want. We saw that with New York, we saw that with Miami, we saw that with California.

 

EDIT: And do you really need that huge font size?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's some facts:

 

This isn't Southern California. This is Southern San Andreas. Here's a key thing: in GTA San Andreas and GTA IV, California and Nevada were as one big state called San Andreas. This would mean that Southern San Andreas would be much larger than Southern California. If California and Nevada were both one state, I believe Las Vegas would fall slightly in the Southern area of the state (though it is southeast), meaning that if that were the logic, Las Venturas might be added. This, therefore, kills the "Las Vegas isn't in California" argument. I'm not too optimistic about San Fierro, and it seems unlikely unless Rockstar re-imagined the Bay Area to be more closer to Los Santos and Venturas.

 

I'm not taking any side, but rather I'm presenting evidence how the original cities might return.

I'm thinking there will be more cities than just Los Santos as well, but why do you want the original 3 cities back? Haven't they already been done to death already? Give me Los Santos and two new cities, at least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's some facts:

 

This isn't Southern California. This is Southern San Andreas.

Grand Theft Auto V focuses on the pursuit of the almighty dollar in a re-imagined,

present day Southern California.

 

what did you say? monocle.gif

 

http://www.rockstargames.com/newswire/arti...nouncement.html

LOL Again with the press release... Take one second to really think about the logic of believing a press release made by a developer who wants to keep a secret. THINK about it, I doubt you can. Rockstar says it'll be the most ambitious title of the series. How is having less main cities more ambitious than their previous efforts? Logic?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Johnny Playert
Here's some facts:

 

This isn't Southern California. This is Southern San Andreas. Here's a key thing: in GTA San Andreas and GTA IV, California and Nevada were as one big state called San Andreas. This would mean that Southern San Andreas would be much larger than Southern California. If California and Nevada were both one state, I believe Las Vegas would fall slightly in the Southern area of the state (though it is southeast), meaning that if that were the logic, Las Venturas might be added. This, therefore, kills the "Las Vegas isn't in California" argument. I'm not too optimistic about San Fierro, and it seems unlikely unless Rockstar re-imagined the Bay Area to be more closer to Los Santos and Venturas.

 

I'm not taking any side, but rather I'm presenting evidence how the original cities might return.

But where they talking about "Southern San Andreas"? No, re-imagined Southern California. Damn you're stupid, sorry man.

Re-imagined Southern California.

 

The state is called San Andreas (from license plates):

Therefore, Southern San Andreas.

 

Before you call people stupid, get some evidence first.

Damn, even more stupid.

 

Look, if you were gonna adapt a version of SoCal in a game, would it be possible to put SF/LV in it? That's not Southern California ffs. Then they should've said 'a re-imagined Southern San Andreas' like you said. 2 completely different things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

universetwisters
I'll sum it up for those who dont get it:

 

Rockstar stated "Southern California"

 

San Fransisco is North/Mid California

 

Las Vegas is in Nevada

 

Learn Geography

Fact: Rockstar freely interprets region in any way they want. We saw that with New York, we saw that with Miami, we saw that with California.

 

EDIT: And do you really need that huge font size?

But if Rockstar wouldve included San Fierro & Las Venturas, wouldnt they've said something about it by now?

 

And even if that were the case, each city would have to be about the size of Broker/Dukes in order to fit in the game, including the countryside

sTgL5iS.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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