The Multiple TOWNS Argument

[kjacked]

M'kay so Rockstar said "reimagined Southern California," not reimagined "California." Let's put the San Francisco hopes to bed. San Francisco ain't Southern California.

 

I don't think there will be another city, and it doesn't bother me. What really bothers me is that LS appears to be the most southernly part of the map in terms of land. I was really hoping there'd be a Mexico representation, like Tijuana or something. I think since Mexico was by far my favorite part of Red Dead, I have really wanted a representation of Mexico.

i know everyone says the "road" travelling south out of los santos is docks or something, and maybe it is, but i wont truly believe it until they release or leak the map. mexico was awesome in red dead and the way they worded it "southern california with surrounding hills and countryside and small towns and villages" who knows? maybe a small part of mexico could be in. i doubt it, but i definitely wouldnt be against it.

[e1999KrayzieBone]

M'kay so Rockstar said "reimagined Southern California," not reimagined "California."  Let's put the San Francisco hopes to bed.  San Francisco ain't Southern California.

 

I don't think there will be another city, and it doesn't bother me.  What really bothers me is that LS appears to be the most southernly part of the map in terms of land.  I was really hoping there'd be a Mexico representation, like Tijuana or something.  I think since Mexico was by far my favorite part of Red Dead, I have really wanted a representation of Mexico.

i know everyone says the "road" travelling south out of los santos is docks or something, and maybe it is, but i wont truly believe it until they release or leak the map. mexico was awesome in red dead and the way they worded it "southern california with surrounding hills and countryside and small towns and villages" who knows? maybe a small part of mexico could be in. i doubt it, but i definitely wouldnt be against it.

It seems weird to me that the map would cut off right below the airport the way most of the fanmade maps seem to do.

 

I know there are absolutely no screens that even offer a hint of landmass being to the South, but why does one of the airport runways appear to point directly to the Southeast yet the map appears to end directly south of it?

 

I am not confident there's something down there , nor am I some conspiracy theorist desperately hoping they are hiding something important to the South, but it's strange that they'd choose to make one runway pointing to the Southeast if nothing is down there. Why have your plane take off in that direction, only to immediately be forced to turn left after takeoff? If the map ends directly South of the airport, Have one runway point to the North and the other to the West, or Northwest and Northeast.

 

Could just be a lack of thought on Rockstar's part, but they seem to be so obsessive that I don't think they'd overlook the direction the runways face. Another option could be that there's just more playable ocean to the South of the airport than the fanmade maps are indicating. That would make taking off and landing on that runway a little more logical. This is what I have to believe is most likely, considering the lack of evidence that would support anything else.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Dope_0110]

 

It seems weird to me that the map would cut off right below the airport the way most of the fanmade maps seem to do. 

 

I know there are absolutely no screens that even offer a hint of landmass being to the South, but why does one of the airport runways appear to point directly to the Southeast yet the map appears to end directly south of it?

 

I am not confident there's something down there , nor am I some conspiracy theorist desperately hoping they are hiding something important to the South, but it's strange that they'd choose to make one runway pointing to the Southeast if nothing is down there.  Why have your plane take off in that direction, only to immediately be forced to turn left after takeoff?  If the map ends directly South of the airport, Have one runway point to the North and the other to the West, or Northwest and Northeast.

 

Could just be a lack of thought on Rockstar's part, but they seem to be so obsessive that I don't think they'd overlook the direction the runways face.  Another option could be that there's just more playable ocean to the South of the airport than the fanmade maps are indicating.  That would make taking off and landing on that runway a little more logical.  This is what I have to believe is most likely, considering the lack of evidence that would support anything else.

Oh come on, you are really going to think about why they made one runway in a certain direction? Really?

 

It was just the best way to place it and it doesn't have to follow any rules. A plane taking of from there can go anywhere in the fictional world of GTA, who says it has to fly left immediately, we just aren't going to see any other place in that fictional world but those planes can fly wherever they want.

[kjacked]

M'kay so Rockstar said "reimagined Southern California," not reimagined "California."  Let's put the San Francisco hopes to bed.  San Francisco ain't Southern California.

 

I don't think there will be another city, and it doesn't bother me.  What really bothers me is that LS appears to be the most southernly part of the map in terms of land.  I was really hoping there'd be a Mexico representation, like Tijuana or something.  I think since Mexico was by far my favorite part of Red Dead, I have really wanted a representation of Mexico.

i know everyone says the "road" travelling south out of los santos is docks or something, and maybe it is, but i wont truly believe it until they release or leak the map. mexico was awesome in red dead and the way they worded it "southern california with surrounding hills and countryside and small towns and villages" who knows? maybe a small part of mexico could be in. i doubt it, but i definitely wouldnt be against it.

It seems weird to me that the map would cut off right below the airport the way most of the fanmade maps seem to do.

 

I know there are absolutely no screens that even offer a hint of landmass being to the South, but why does one of the airport runways appear to point directly to the Southeast yet the map appears to end directly south of it?

 

I am not confident there's something down there , nor am I some conspiracy theorist desperately hoping they are hiding something important to the South, but it's strange that they'd choose to make one runway pointing to the Southeast if nothing is down there. Why have your plane take off in that direction, only to immediately be forced to turn left after takeoff? If the map ends directly South of the airport, Have one runway point to the North and the other to the West, or Northwest and Northeast.

 

Could just be a lack of thought on Rockstar's part, but they seem to be so obsessive that I don't think they'd overlook the direction the runways face. Another option could be that there's just more playable ocean to the South of the airport than the fanmade maps are indicating. That would make taking off and landing on that runway a little more logical. This is what I have to believe is most likely, considering the lack of evidence that would support anything else.

i agree with you. id does seem strange. im pretty obviously in the camp that knows there will be no other cities in the game. im sure there will be plenty of towns and villages just like rockstar said but no other cities. however, i could see some kind of island being further south on the map with just wilderness on it. i could also see the fan made maps being wrong and there could be more land down that way. who knows? just have to wait and see

[gwaha]

There is nothing weird about a runway pointing SE if there is only landmass in the game north of LS. LS is still supposed to make sense as in being a part of a bigger world.

[Zulu412]

When the website drops this thread will die

One way or the other. My hopes.

@kindled: I'm sorry but, you've been made a fool. regardless of what side of "other cities" your on.

you have only dug yourself into a deeper hole.

 

@the people with intelligent conversation: south of LS could be anything. the screen shots & trailers block it out with clouds & draw distance. The blue print map is obviously only showing so much.

On the other hand, it could be just docks & marina, but I hope not.

[kjacked]

When the website drops this thread will die

One way or the other. My hopes.

@kindled: I'm sorry but, you've been made a fool. regardless of what side of "other cities" your on.

you have only dug yourself into a deeper hole.

 

@the people with intelligent conversation: south of LS could be anything. the screen shots & trailers block it out with clouds & draw distance. The blue print map is obviously only showing so much.

On the other hand, it could be just docks & marina, but I hope not.

just seems like a strange place to cut it off at. makes me think that if all that was south of the cutoff was a few hundred extra feet of docks, then why wouldnt they just include that in the image they showed us. then again it could be absolutely nothing. the main reason its making me think is because rockstar doesnt seem to just randomly do anything. seems like they always have some sort of meaning or forethought in everything action they take. the 17th cant come quickly enough

[Allular]

Anyone that doubts at least the presence of a other city go to the mapping Los Santos tbread and turn the map on it's side... Notice anything?

[PoliceFarm]

Anyone that doubts at least the presence of a other city go to the mapping Los Santos tbread and turn the map on it's side... Notice anything?

I don't get it, please explain.

[Allular]

edit: oops...

Edited July 25, 2013 by Allular

[Allular]

 

Anyone that doubts at least the presence of a other city go to the mapping Los Santos tbread and turn the map on it's side... Notice anything?

I don't get it, please explain.

http://s22.postimg.org/gapg8473l/GTA.jpg

 

The layout is very similar to the PS2 map, San Fierro fits pefectly into the top left hand side just above Chiliad! It could very easily be edited out and have those mountains rendered in during any press footage, it also makes sense with the way the roads are heading.

[BurningSnow]

 

Anyone that doubts at least the presence of a other city go to the mapping Los Santos tbread and turn the map on it's side... Notice anything?

I don't get it, please explain.

http://s22.postimg.org/gapg8473l/GTA.jpg

 

The layout is very similar to the PS2 map, San Fierro fits pefectly into the top left hand side just above Chiliad! It could very easily be edited out and have those mountains rendered in during any press footage, it also makes sense with the way the roads are heading.

No way dude. If it was that close to chilliad and the Alamo sea we'd have caught a glimpse or 2. Besides R* have already said Los Santos was the only one and all our would be hopes and dreams are crushed. Well, not mine since I never thought there was another city after all the screens and trailers. good try though. A for effort they say!

 

Edit: damn Swype!

[Allular]

Anyone that doubts at least the presence of a other city go to the mapping Los Santos tbread and turn the map on it's side... Notice anything?

I don't get it, please explain.

http://s22.postimg.org/gapg8473l/GTA.jpg

 

The layout is very similar to the PS2 map, San Fierro fits pefectly into the top left hand side just above Chiliad! It could very easily be edited out and have those mountains rendered in during any press footage, it also makes sense with the way the roads are heading.

No way dude. If it was that close to chilliad and the Alamo sea we'd have caught a glimpse or 2. Besides R* have already said Los Santos was the only one and all our would be hopes and dreams are crushed. Well, not mine since I never thought there was another city after all the screens and trailers. good try though. A for effort they say!

 

Edit: damn Swype!

The city just screams to be there, it wont be the same driving around the side of Chiliad to get to San Fierro. Oh well, i'll just take out my feelings of old age and frustrations on all the new wild life roaming around the area.

[Dope_0110]

The layout is very similar to the PS2 map, San Fierro fits pefectly into the top left hand side just above Chiliad! It could very easily be edited out and have those mountains rendered in during any press footage, it also makes sense with the way the roads are heading.

1. They are not recreating SA, so go compare LC from III and IV to see how much freedom they have to make whatever they want:

 

LC in III: http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb2013...a1/Gta3_map.gif

 

LC in IV: http://images.wikia.com/gtawiki/images/7/71/Lciv.jpg

 

It's completely different as it's a new redention of the city and it doesn't have to follow any rules. Also.. come on, you really still believe that, after EVERYTHING that proves LV and SF ain't in there? You are setting yourself up for a huge disappointment.

[Twiggy123]

The logic of this thread and it's proponents is astounding to say the least. So far people have shown proof of there being no other major city besides Los Santos and it is dismissed on the possibility that Rockstar lied. I'm not usually spiteful of threads that speculate but once something is proven/disproven you can't really speculate that much on whatever has been proven/disproven.

 

Really it's one thing to be ignorant of the proof but another to see proof that disproves the existence of other major cities then dismiss it.

 

Hell, what I just typed out will probably be dismissed because somebody will say something along the lines of "Twiggy123 is just a carefully placed Rockstar agent to keep us ignorant of the fact that there are actually, in complete fact, 52 cities!" Followed shortly by "Don't you see!? Twiggy is just an anagram for "Totally Weird and Inconspicuous Guy trying to Goad You" and 123 is his number of........CONFIRMED KILLS!

[BurningSnow]

Hell, what I just typed out will probably be dismissed because somebody will say something along the lines of "Twiggy123 is just a carefully placed Rockstar agent to keep us ignorant of the fact that there are actually, in complete fact, 52 cities!" Followed shortly by "Don't you see!? Twiggy is just an anagram for "Totally Weird and Inconspicuous Guy trying to Goad You" and 123 is his number of........CONFIRMED KILLS!

Oh. My. God. That was hilarious thanks for making me chuckle for like 3 minutes straight.

[Twiggy123]

Hell, what I just typed out will probably be dismissed because somebody will say something along the lines of  "Twiggy123 is just a carefully placed Rockstar agent to keep us ignorant of the fact that there are actually, in complete fact, 52 cities!" Followed shortly by "Don't you see!? Twiggy is just an anagram for "Totally Weird and Inconspicuous Guy trying to Goad You" and 123 is his number of........CONFIRMED KILLS!

Oh. My. God. That was hilarious thanks for making me chuckle for like 3 minutes straight.

You are quite welcome, sir.

[Dope_0110]

 

The logic of this thread and it's proponents is astounding to say the least. So far people have shown proof of there being no other major city besides Los Santos and it is dismissed on the possibility that Rockstar lied. I'm not usually spiteful of threads that speculate but once something is proven/disproven you can't really speculate that much on whatever has been proven/disproven.

 

Really it's one thing to be ignorant of the proof but another to see proof that disproves the existence of other major cities then dismiss it.

 

Hell, what I just typed out will probably be dismissed because somebody will say something along the lines of  "Twiggy123 is just a carefully placed Rockstar agent to keep us ignorant of the fact that there are actually, in complete fact, 52 cities!" Followed shortly by "Don't you see!? Twiggy is just an anagram for "Totally Weird and Inconspicuous Guy trying to Goad You" and 123 is his number of........CONFIRMED KILLS!

That's the power of human belief. Just look at god, it's never been proven that any supernatural beings exist yet different cultures all have their god/gods and would gladly kill you to ''prove'' they're right.

 

Though I do understand where faith in god comes from and why it remains, but these other cities.. I don't know. Still haven't figured it out why they hang on to it so much. I guess it's just nostalgia, not being able to let go of SA like them people hoping for CJ's house or something.

[Zulu412]

 

Really it's one thing to be ignorant of the proof but another to see proof that disproves the existence of other major cities then dismiss it.

 

 

What proof is there of no other cities? the R* comment? pretty sure that means nothing else like LS.

The area called Paleto is by all accounts a city.

Anyone arguing that it's not is still just ignorant as to what a city is.

 

 

Obviously nothing is out there that will be any where near the size of LS.

& with as much map that hasn't been seen, no one can be 100% sure that there aren't one or two other places

as big as Paleto (but LV or SF...nah)

 

If half of you read the thread rather then just blindly commenting on the last page or two,

this would be a lot more of an intelligant discussion.

Thanks to those that get it.

[Dope_0110]

 

Really it's one thing to be ignorant of the proof but another to see proof that disproves the existence of other major cities then dismiss it.

 

 

What proof is there of no other cities? the R* comment? pretty sure that means nothing else like LS.

The area called Paleto is by all accounts a city.

Anyone arguing that it's not is still just ignorant as to what a city is.

 

 

Obviously nothing is out there that will be any where near the size of LS.

& with as much map that hasn't been seen, no one can be 100% sure that there aren't one or two other places

as big as Paleto (but LV or SF...nah)

 

If half of you read the thread rather then just blindly commenting on the last page or two,

this would be a lot more of an intelligant discussion.

Thanks to those that get it.

Those places are obviously what Rockstar themselves, and a lot of us call ''towns''. By that logic San Andreas had at least 10 cities (I'm just counting the bigger towns, if we add the smaller ones that's even more).

 

There's a reason we say San Andreas had 3 cities and ~10 towns. It's quite clear what in a GTA game should be considered a city, and what should be considered a town. If you want to call Paleto or Sandy Shores or any other place a city, it's your choice, nothing more.

[kjacked]

Really it's one thing to be ignorant of the proof but another to see proof that disproves the existence of other major cities then dismiss it.

 

 

What proof is there of no other cities? the R* comment? pretty sure that means nothing else like LS.

The area called Paleto is by all accounts a city.

Anyone arguing that it's not is still just ignorant as to what a city is.

 

 

Obviously nothing is out there that will be any where near the size of LS.

& with as much map that hasn't been seen, no one can be 100% sure that there aren't one or two other places

as big as Paleto (but LV or SF...nah)

 

If half of you read the thread rather then just blindly commenting on the last page or two,

this would be a lot more of an intelligant discussion.

Thanks to those that get it.

show me where rockstar referred to paleto as a city and ill concede my point. paleto is a town or village, just like rockstar said. if rockstar came out 12 months ago and said "we are recreating san andreas and there will be 3 cities in the game" and the three cities were los santos, sandy shores, and paleto wouldnt you feel just a tad bit mislead? im not trying to argue or get you fired up. im not trying to be a dick. in real life you would be 100% right. any small town that wants to call itself a city is in fact a city, but this isnt real life. its a manufactured game world built by rockstar. their definition is the only that matters and to them los santos is a city and everything else in the game is a town or village. like i said, i get your point but it doesnt apply in gta v.

 

@dope... sh*ttiest analogy ever!lol

[Zulu412]

show me where rockstar referred to paleto as a city and ill concede my point. paleto is a town or village, just like rockstar said. if rockstar came out 12 months ago and said "we are recreating san andreas and there will be 3 cities in the game" and the three cities were los santos, sandy shores, and paleto wouldnt you feel just a tad bit mislead? im not trying to argue or get you fired up. im not trying to be a dick. in real life you would be 100% right. any small town that wants to call itself a city is in fact a city, but this isnt real life. its a manufactured game world built by rockstar. their definition is the only that matters and to them los santos is a city and everything else in the game is a town or village. like i said, i get your point but it doesnt apply in gta v.

 

@dope... sh*ttiest analogy ever!lol

your right, in R* definintion it is a town.

But for the sake of the thread, since I can't rename it the other towns thread, I'm

maintaining that it's a city.

& am just going to hope that some of the other people in this thread can make the

distinction between that & LS.

...now THAT is a lot to hope for, haha.

 

I also contend that "Bay City" will be it's own location & not what we think is Paleto.

Which would be another "town" the size of Paleto.

[kjacked]

show me where rockstar referred to paleto as a city and ill concede my point. paleto is a town or village, just like rockstar said. if rockstar came out 12 months ago and said "we are recreating san andreas and there will be 3 cities in the game" and the three cities were los santos, sandy shores, and paleto wouldnt you feel just a tad bit mislead? im not trying to argue or get you fired up. im not trying to be a dick. in real life you would be 100% right. any small town that wants to call itself a city is in fact a city, but this isnt real life. its a manufactured game world built by rockstar. their definition is the only that matters and to them los santos is a city and everything else in the game is a town or village. like i said, i get your point but it doesnt apply in gta v.

 

@dope... sh*ttiest analogy ever!lol

your right, in R* definintion it is a town.

But for the sake of the thread, since I can't rename it the other towns thread, I'm

maintaining that it's a city.

& am just going to hope that some of the other people in this thread can make the

distinction between that & LS.

...now THAT is a lot to hope for, haha.

 

I also contend that "Bay City" will be it's own location & not what we think is Paleto.

Which would be another "town" the size of Paleto.

i get your point and can agree to refer to paleto and sandy shores and bay city as cities for the sake of your thread. ill be honest, not only did paleto look big as hell but sandy shores looks pretty damn big in the airplane screen showing the alamo sea. i think a lot of people forget how far away the town is in the screens. it looks as almost as big as paleto. also, has anyone confirmed where the strip mall area is from the gameplay trailer (the one where the pet shop is visible)? i honestly expect there to be 2 or 3 more paleto and sandy shore sized cities in the game and one could very well be bay city.

[haarp]

This proves it beyond doubt - there WILL be other cities!!!!

[kjacked]

 

This proves it beyond doubt - there WILL be other cities!!!!

hahahahaha! ok lil kid! you miss the part where i said "for the sake of this thread"?

[_Kindled_]

To be honest. I had thought about San Fierro being NW of LS.

[kjacked]

To be honest. I had thought about San Fierro being NW of LS.

oh god.... what in the f*ck are you on about now?lol

[_Kindled_]

 

To be honest. I had thought about San Fierro being NW of LS.

oh god.... what in the f*ck are you on about now?lol

Nah, just admit it. It's the smartest thing you've seen. But I know you can't admit because you know we hate eachother.

 

... Just read the damn thing.

[lazloisdavrock]

why is this thread still going?

[kjacked]

To be honest. I had thought about San Fierro being NW of LS.

oh god.... what in the f*ck are you on about now?lol

Nah, just admit it. It's the smartest thing you've seen. But I know you can't admit because you know we hate eachother.

 

... Just read the damn thing.

what exactly am i supposed to read? you scribbled some lines on a map with the grace of a recovering alcoholic. you posted a picture of real life san francisco as proof that san francisco is in gta v? as i have already stated numerous times, your level of fail is epic to say the least. where is interstate 5 in that pic? is there something about your post im not "under standing"?lol