ManularChimera Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 Look it's like this, in every GTA since III, the map has been made into an island to represent the portion of the area that is familiar to the protagonist. Even IRL, I ONLY know an 'x' amount of my state/city, so if I where to draw a map of the only areas within my city I know, the map would look a lot like an island with the 'water' areas being the unknown. Thus this is how GTA maps are meant to portray a region. Even though the rest of SA actually exist and is most likely attached to V's island mass by land, we have only the represented area of the map that the protagonists would know (or even care about, that's why Yankton seems like there's an ocean between the states when really it's just water being used as a metaphor for unknown, unseen, or otherwise not cared about areas - unless otherwise noted as a lake or river, etc) So the map of GTA V is just a piece of land "broken off" of the rest of the state for gameplay purposes, mainly because crashing your jet plane into an 'invisible wall' going full speed would just be the worst.... Also computer generated land isn't R* style, every inch better be hand-made or go to EA with that sh*t... This! This guy gets it! Niko Montana and LeakyLine 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jyrni Posted May 25, 2015 Share Posted May 25, 2015 All GTA maps are islands because no one wants invisible walls. Vertighost 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiizardii Posted May 25, 2015 Share Posted May 25, 2015 I am surprised this thread is still alive... Wow 2 pages. Congratulations to every single mod in the V section who actually gives a f*ck ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richard1997jones Posted May 25, 2015 Share Posted May 25, 2015 I still don't understand why rockstar did a complete change to the SA map. We could have had the game earlier, it would have been chaper and we would have had three cities too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oCrapaCreeper Posted May 25, 2015 Share Posted May 25, 2015 (edited) I still don't understand why rockstar did a complete change to the SA map. We could have had the game earlier, it would have been chaper and we would have had three cities too. None of that makes any sense at all. You're implying if they made 3 cities instead of one, we would have had the game earlier? It took them 5 years alone to nail down LS, do you even begin to understand how much longer it would have taken to add LV and SF with the same scale of LS? Map layout got changed because the jump from PS2 to the current generation of consoles back then is so huge it would be stupid not take advantage of it and redesign everything with that in mind. Same goes for GTAIV, HD era Liberty City has absolutely no relation to the 3D era Liberty City aside from them both being called Liberty City. Edited May 25, 2015 by oCrapaCreeper Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-B Posted May 25, 2015 Share Posted May 25, 2015 I still don't understand why rockstar did a complete change to the SA map. We could have had the game earlier, it would have been chaper and we would have had three cities too. Well there goes a few more brain cells. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick930930 Posted May 26, 2015 Share Posted May 26, 2015 Seriously? The one and only reason is so that they didn't have to make a large plot of land that the user is prevented from visiting. An island gives the impression that there's nothing held back. Compare far cry 3 and far cry 4. Far cry 4 is actually a larger map but the idea that a lot of the mountains are restrictions your movement gives the impression that the playable area is smaller than the island setting in far cry 3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cp1dell Posted May 26, 2015 Share Posted May 26, 2015 That's just how Rockstar prefers to do their maps. "Canonically" the cities aren't islands floating around in the ocean. Most likely, if San Fierro, Las Venturas, or something else was in place on the north and east ends of Los Santos, those would just be rivers separating the islands - just like in the 3D Era San Andreas. Instead since the map is limited to Los Santos in GTA V, there is the typical endless ocean in place. And if the north and east ends of Los Santos (HD Era) were titled as some sort of river, we would have retards on here complaining that it's a terrible design on Rockstar's end by including an "endless river." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spadge Posted May 26, 2015 Share Posted May 26, 2015 These theories man ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D9fred95 Posted May 26, 2015 Share Posted May 26, 2015 They should have done it like Saints Row 2 where you can see land in the distance but too far away to travel to so the "island city" idea actually works. Legomanarthur 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ManularChimera Posted May 26, 2015 Share Posted May 26, 2015 They should have done it like Saints Row 2 where you can see land in the distance but too far away to travel to so the "island city" idea actually works. Well, Prototype worked the same way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D9fred95 Posted May 26, 2015 Share Posted May 26, 2015 They should have done it like Saints Row 2 where you can see land in the distance but too far away to travel to so the "island city" idea actually works. Well, Prototype worked the same way. I was thinking more like land, not city because it would make it look like you were being cut off from a part of the city which is something Rockstar doesn't like. I like it in SR2 because it gives the feeling the mainland is nearby while still maintaining the "island city" feel. That always irked me in GTA IV because Liberty City doesn't seem like the kind of city to be out in the middle of the ocean. I know "canonically" they're not, but seeing it the way ingame just irritates me. ManularChimera and Legomanarthur 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lolznc Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 I'm fairly sure that Lester confirms that the area North of Paleto Bay is a river, which would suggest that North San Andreas would be on the other side, and canonically the Great Ocean Highway (west coast of visible map) and the Senora Freeway (east coast of map) - instead of forming the loop around the playable map - cross a bridge and join together into a larger Freeway/Interstate/Highway through N. SA. Either that, or the GOH is the main North/South route through the whole of San Andreas and one of the Interstates out of LS forms an West/East connection to the rest of the USA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lastmanonearth Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 1.) The events of the movie San Andreas I believe the events of the movie San Andreas included more than just the landmass safely being surgically separated from the rest of the world with every building staying intact... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeakyLine Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 I'm fairly sure that Lester confirms that the area North of Paleto Bay is a river, which would suggest that North San Andreas would be on the other side, and canonically the Great Ocean Highway (west coast of visible map) and the Senora Freeway (east coast of map) - instead of forming the loop around the playable map - cross a bridge and join together into a larger Freeway/Interstate/Highway through N. SA. Either that, or the GOH is the main North/South route through the whole of San Andreas and one of the Interstates out of LS forms an West/East connection to the rest of the USA. On this sign, the area on the left is part of SSA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Osho Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 Its 3.) Just Because of bullsh*t ONLINE!! And honestly, I feel its the main reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaWiesel Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 PIC On this sign, the area on the left is part of SSA. Nah, I think that would be part of Northern San Andreas. V's map already represents the whole southern part of it. theGTAking101 and Big Gta fan 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lastmanonearth Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 Where did this idea that there are northern and southern parts of SA come from? This isn`t the 3D era, and I believe the Housers and the The Benz` have said that this universe has nothing to do with the 3D games, so what you see there is all that there is of San Andreas, unfortunately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Algonquin Assassin Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 Where did this idea that there are northern and southern parts of SA come from? This isn`t the 3D era, and I believe the Housers and the The Benz` have said that this universe has nothing to do with the 3D games, so what you see there is all that there is of San Andreas, unfortunately. http://www.rockstargames.com/newswire/article/19471/grand-theft-auto-v-official-announcement.html I guess it all goes back to the original announcement in 2011 when they mentioned it being based on "Southèrn California". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeakyLine Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 PIC On this sign, the area on the left is part of SSA. Nah, I think that would be part of Northern San Andreas. V's map already represents the whole southern part of it. Yeah, typo, I meant North. Where did this idea that there are northern and southern parts of SA come from? This isn`t the 3D era, and I believe the Housers and the The Benz` have said that this universe has nothing to do with the 3D games, so what you see there is all that there is of San Andreas, unfortunately. Yeah, because a state only has one city. USE YOUR DAMN BRAIN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintJimmy Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 (edited) @lastmanonearth The idea stems from Los Santos and Blaine County being referred to as 'Southern San Andreas'. This implies there is a northern, and what we see in GTAV isn't the state of San Andreas in it's entirety. Edited May 27, 2015 by SaintJimmy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeakyLine Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 We know so far: San Fierro is a city in San Andreas Las Venturas may or not be in SA, but it exists Red County exists Montgomery exists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lastmanonearth Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 (edited) @lastmanonearth The idea stems from Los Santos and Blaine County being referred to as 'Southern San Andreas'. This implies there is a northern, and what we see in GTAV isn't the state of San Andreas in it's entirety. I see that it says "Based on Southern California," but I can`t find anything about a "Southern San Andreas." Yeah, because a state only has one city. USE YOUR DAMN BRAIN You`re a charmer aren`t you. I envy the mental capacity you must have to explode at people about videogames. Las Venturas may or not be in SA, but it exists Red County exists Montgomery exists. They exist in GTA:SA, dumbass. You`re probably too young to have played it. Edited May 27, 2015 by lastmanonearth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeakyLine Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 I was adding a bit of humor. Please, do not be an asshole and try to challenge my intelligence over a game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Algonquin Assassin Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 I think the fact you can buy vehicles from "Southern San Andreas Super Autos" speaks of its general locale. It's not an inaccurate assumption to make that there's a northern portion. Just like it is to think there's an upstate Liberty State. LeakyLine 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lastmanonearth Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 Well it`s assumed that the rest of the USA and the world and the solar system and the known universe exists as well but since it`s not in the game what`s the point discussing it? If a future GTA features San Andreas again, I highly doubt that it`ll be a copy/paste from V but a completely reimagined map altogether. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zkroll Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 (edited) except NY, that is in the middle of a big land. wat? Edit : ah saw your rebuttal, sorry. Edited May 27, 2015 by zkroll Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaWiesel Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 Well it`s assumed that the rest of the USA and the world and the solar system and the known universe exists as well but since it`s not in the game what`s the point discussing it? If a future GTA features San Andreas again, I highly doubt that it`ll be a copy/paste from V but a completely reimagined map altogether. We might see the northern part of San Andreas in a future GTA, it doesn't need to contain Southern San Andreas again. Las Venturas deserves it's own game as well and I'm pretty sure it would be in a separate state based on Nevada. Vice City is what I want to see next though, but there's a possibility that they might want to finish San Andreas first so it would make sense for the next GTA to be set in Northern San Andreas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D9fred95 Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 Las Venturas may or not be in SA, but it exists Red County exists Montgomery exists. They exist in GTA:SA, dumbass. You`re probably too young to have played it. Red County and Montgomery do exist in the HD era though, at least for now unless they retcon it. Some woman on MyRoomOnline.net mentions she's from Montgomery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lastmanonearth Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 Well it`s assumed that the rest of the USA and the world and the solar system and the known universe exists as well but since it`s not in the game what`s the point discussing it? If a future GTA features San Andreas again, I highly doubt that it`ll be a copy/paste from V but a completely reimagined map altogether. We might see the northern part of San Andreas in a future GTA, it doesn't need to contain Southern San Andreas again. Las Venturas deserves it's own game as well and I'm pretty sure it would be in a separate state based on Nevada. Vice City is what I want to see next though, but there's a possibility that they might want to finish San Andreas first so it would make sense for the next GTA to be set in Northern San Andreas. Yeah I get that, but I honestly care a great deal more about LV and VC than I do about SF so I hope they don`t spend nearly a decade making ANOTHER game based in San Andreas when there are so many other awesome places we need to mix it up with. 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