How similar do you find Los Santos to it's real life equivalent LA

[TestX]

.

Edited January 4, 2017 by TestX

[Homicidal Hipster]

Although I've never actually been to LA, but judging from the pictures I've seen and all the movies that take place there, I'd say that LS is a pretty good counterpart.

[XenoxX]

If you comparea the Beach to the one in LA or all these Buildings who were refferenced it realy feels like LA however.

I think R* could have done the pedestrians better and make us realy feel the irony of a splitted City like LA..

[Eram]

Have a look at this map:

http://grandtheftdata.com/landmarks/#0,0,2,satellite

 

From this awesome thread:

http://gtaforums.com/topic/491242-mapping-los-santos-buildinglandmark-analysis/page-1

[DaWiesel]

 

 

Nuff said.

[rjmthe2nd]

The Beach is 100% Spot on, everything else IDK.

[Smith John]

 

 

Nuff said.

That video was f*cking incredible!

 

Just confirms how much R* managed to replicate not only the buildings, roads, structures etc, but also things like the ambience of the weather and the atmosphere of the environment. They really are second to none when it comes to the designing of their city/world clones.

 

But we'll no doubt hear from the whiners how lazy R* are because there aren't 10,000 peds crossing a Downtown street at the same time.

[Algonquin Assassin]

But we'll no doubt hear from the whiners how lazy R* are because there aren't 10,000 peds crossing a Downtown street at the same time.

I don't get you sometimes. You always complain about the so called "whiners" yet saying garbage like this is just opening an invitation.

 

Anyway I've never been to LA, but I have seen that video before. Overall it looks like they nailed it pretty well.

 

With better technology R* have really stood up in the saddle so to speak regarding their ability to replicate real environments.

 

HD LS isn't my favourite city, but credit where credit is due.

[Osho]

They really are second to none when it comes to the designing of their city/world clones.

Quite true, and I would fully agree with respect to IV more than V when it comes to re-imagining a modern city.

Just like OP, I too felt that the modern LS just "feels like something is missing" than the old LS in classic GTA SA.

The modern LS seems more like a movie studio than an actual city. boring ..artificial.. lacks interesting things happening around.. and lacking the feeling of a living, breathing world.

Even from the gameplay perspective, I think people only judged GTA V for the amount effort they put up in developing the open world and all the details instead on the actual game itself. There are many obvious flaws beyond those details as already proved since the release. LS is surely pretty good to look at but feels awfully limited in interactivity and severely lacking in world reactivity. The game mechanics, missions design, choice of content, players freedom etc. are also pretty bad.

Basically, putting aside the technical limitations, the gameplay and the open world featured in classic GTA SA still blow me away, and never get bored of exploring and just having fun time.

[Smith John]

 

But we'll no doubt hear from the whiners how lazy R* are because there aren't 10,000 peds crossing a Downtown street at the same time.

I don't get you sometimes. You always complain about the so called "whiners" yet saying garbage like this is just opening an invitation.Actually, I was hoping it would act as a deterrent as I was alluding to the absolute stupity of some of the complaints on here.

 

@Osho

 

I understand nothing for you in V will ever compare to the holy grail of games shat straight from the anus of god himself I.e. your almighty and untouchable San Andreas, so nothing you say I consider non-bias and therefore not really worthy of a more disputing response.

 

Everyone's entitled to their opinions, but V's LS is a much more represntational tribute to LA than its SA counterpart. In San Andreas, the vinewood sign is like two blocks from downtown, the Griffith observatory is on a hill by the beach on the f*cking south side of the city. This is not down to technical limitations chief.

Edited July 9, 2015 by John Smith

[DaWiesel]

Everyone's entitled to their opinions, but V's LS is a much more represntational tribute to LA than its SA counterpart. In San Andreas, the vinewood sign is like two blocks from downtown, the Griffith observatory is on a hill by the beach on the f*cking south side of the city. This is not down to technical limitations chief.

Exactly, when it comes to the map then V's LS is the better representation of LA. But it's not just that, the NPC activities and the traffic density (on CG) is so much better compared to the old LS. Walking along the beach and seeing a guy playing on a guitar, people playing tennis and bodybuilders excising at that gym, people jogging and riding bicycles... it feels so much more alive.

 

SA's LS might be better than V's LS when it comes to interactivity, but even then V's LS has at some points more interactivity. For example you can actually use the roller coaster and the ferris wheel at the pier, you can rob the 24/7 stores, you can go to the cinema, you can drink in the strip club, you can customize your weapons in V's ammu-nation, you can buy masks at the beach, you can use the telescopes at the observatory, you can use ladders all around LS... all that is in V but not in SA.

 

To get on topic, LS nailed the vibe of modern L.A. IMO. Not just because of the map but also because of the different NPCs like the hobos in Mission Row or the hipsters in Mirror Park, the activities you can do like go to the cinema or play tennis, the radio that features a station that plays some modern pop music, TV with the show Fame or Shame and the internet with LifeInvader, even the missions, especially the S&F missions of Beverly and Nigel. So IMO it's very similar to it's real life counterpart.

Edited July 9, 2015 by DaWiesel

[SmokesWithCigs]

I think you should shut up . Thats what i think

[Mirage Las Vegas]

Ive only been to L.A once a few years ago, but apart from the size difference, I think V's Los Santos is pretty similar. I dont remember seeing any areas like Baldwin hills (and its steps into heaven) or Century City in the game, but its not a big deal. Places like the pier and the Griffith Observatory i felt they got down to a tee, even down to the little restroom and water fountain area in the observatory's front yard.

Edited July 9, 2015 by Mirage Las Vegas

[ZHPbim]

They absolutely nailed venice beach. The area where you see pictures of the "venice" banner hanging between two buildings in real life is completely spot on. (Even though theres no "vespucci" banner in the game) I stayed at a hostel in Venice and even that is in the game. (its the pink/salmon colored building across from the tattoo parlor. Even the surrounding buildings are spot on. In real life the tattoo shop is a bar, but its the same exterior with the flames. The beach itself is also spot on, along with the bike path to santa monica.

Edited July 9, 2015 by ZHPbim

[woggleman]

I went to California a few weeks ago and they nailed it. I even went to the Salton Sea which smells god awful in real life and they nailed Sandy Shores. I don't understand people who complain about the map because they seriously did their research.

[Slam_Jones]

Not so much the downtown areas, but definitely the beaches, the canals, and the small towns out in the hills feel very like home to me (I grew up in So Cal). A lot of the hills and the valleys feel familiar, a lot like the central valley and grapevine area (an area I drove through a lot as a kid in the back of my parent's car on the way to Oregon for vacation).

 

In all, I'd give it an 8 /10. Just wish PCH (or GOH, I guess) had more lanes of traffic throughout.

Edited July 9, 2015 by Slam_Jones

[woggleman]

The one and only flaw with the map is that it needs more interiors. The outside world is spot on.

[CarnageRacing00]

 

They really are second to none when it comes to the designing of their city/world clones.

Quite true, and I would fully agree with respect to IV more than V when it comes to re-imagining a modern city.

Just like OP, I too felt that the modern LS just "feels like something is missing" than the old LS in classic GTA SA.

The modern LS seems more like a movie studio than an actual city. boring ..artificial.. lacks interesting things happening around.. and lacking the feeling of a living, breathing world.

Even from the gameplay perspective, I think people only judged GTA V for the amount effort they put up in developing the open world and all the details instead on the actual game itself. There are many obvious flaws beyond those details as already proved since the release. LS is surely pretty good to look at but feels awfully limited in interactivity and severely lacking in world reactivity. The game mechanics, missions design, choice of content, players freedom etc. are also pretty bad.

Basically, putting aside the technical limitations, the gameplay and the open world featured in classic GTA SA still blow me away, and never get bored of exploring and just having fun time.

 

 

I've tried, many times, to determine just what it is that people feel is missing from V's interpretation of Southwest Cali, but nobody ever seems to be able to put a finger on it.

 

So here are my theories:

 

1. You expected the early 90's version of LA, which is the version you've seen in nearly every major action movie ever made. Think about it - Terminator, Die Hard, Lethal Weapon, Beverly Hills Cop, Naked Gun, Speed, and an ungodly large list of other movies. That's not even mentioning movie like South Central or other gang-themed films.

 

If you've never been there, those movies are most likely how you view LA. But the thing is, that LA is from the late 80's and early 90's, a unique time period for Los Angeles. Things have changed.

 

I still stand by my Last Action Hero theory - that Rockstar, however unintentionally, was following Last Action Hero's portrayal of LA and NYC. I mean, it fits so perfectly:

 

LA - bright, colorful, clean, like a hollywood set where real life physics and rules don't apply:

 

 

NYC - brown and grey, cold, miserable, dirty where reality is something we go to the movies to escape:

 

 

Just watch that movie (great movie) and tell me you don't at least see some merit to my theory.

 

 

2. Rockstar intentionally made LS to feel superficial, as LA (mostly the richer areas) are well known as being full of fake, superficial people who are completely up their own asses. It's a main theme throughout the course of the game - just look at Michael's family, and you need no more proof that this is what Rockstar were going for. They were criticizing the superficiality of much of California. V's story was about how all that fame and fortune just isn't enough, that success doesn't make you happy, that there's more to life than how much money you have or how well known you are. It is a stark contrast to how they designed Liberty City, which featured a story about real people trying to survive in a sh*tty world that seems designed to hold them down. So in other words, New York vs. Los Angeles. They're not the same place, and Rockstar represented each of them very faithfully, under the lens of satire.

 

3. There's no lens filter. Yep, like it or not, GTA V is one of few games that doesn't apply a color filter to the screen, so you're seeing "natural" lighting and colors everywhere you look - unlike GTA IV, which intentionally muted its color palette to begin with, then added a filter on top of that to muddy things up.

 

It's a VERY well known and popular method of playing with your brain. Dull, brown colors are depressing. Red colors are stressful, scary. Bright blues and greens are peaceful, serene.

 

Read:

http://www.cracked.com/article_18664_5-annoying-trends-that-make-every-movie-look-same.html

 

Joy Ride used lots of red to make the viewer constantly feel the threat of danger:

 

The Matrix used green, because for some reason we associate green with sci-fi and technology.

 

GTA IV used brown and grey to depress us and make us sympathize with the depressed characters:

 

 

With GTA V, Rockstar broke this trend, and that very well could be what's so off-putting to some people. You lack that disconnect because something as simple as color design isn't triggering that emotional response in your brain.

 

 

 

In conclusion, I think the issue is far deeper than people realize. That it's not a fault with Rockstar's design of San Andreas, it's that we're so conditioned to viewing things a certain way, that when something attempts to alter our perception of that thing, it's jarring.

Edited July 9, 2015 by MichiganMuscle77

[XenoxX]

 

 

They really are second to none when it comes to the designing of their city/world clones.

Quite true, and I would fully agree with respect to IV more than V when it comes to re-imagining a modern city.

Just like OP, I too felt that the modern LS just "feels like something is missing" than the old LS in classic GTA SA.

The modern LS seems more like a movie studio than an actual city. boring ..artificial.. lacks interesting things happening around.. and lacking the feeling of a living, breathing world.

Even from the gameplay perspective, I think people only judged GTA V for the amount effort they put up in developing the open world and all the details instead on the actual game itself. There are many obvious flaws beyond those details as already proved since the release. LS is surely pretty good to look at but feels awfully limited in interactivity and severely lacking in world reactivity. The game mechanics, missions design, choice of content, players freedom etc. are also pretty bad.

Basically, putting aside the technical limitations, the gameplay and the open world featured in classic GTA SA still blow me away, and never get bored of exploring and just having fun time.

 

 

I've tried, many times, to determine just what it is that people feel is missing from V's interpretation of Southwest Cali, but nobody ever seems to be able to put a finger on it.

 

So here are my theories:

 

1. You expected the early 90's version of LA, which is the version you've seen in nearly every major action movie ever made. Think about it - Terminator, Die Hard, Lethal Weapon, Beverly Hills Cop, Naked Gun, Speed, and an ungodly large list of other movies. That's not even mentioning movie like South Central or other gang-themed films.

 

If you've never been there, those movies are most likely how you view LA. But the thing is, that LA is from the late 80's and early 90's, a unique time period for Los Angeles. Things have changed.

 

I still stand by my Last Action Hero theory - that Rockstar, however unintentionally, was following Last Action Hero's portrayal of LA and NYC. I mean, it fits so perfectly:

 

LA - bright, colorful, clean, like a hollywood set where real life physics and rules don't apply:

 

 

NYC - brown and grey, cold, miserable, dirty where reality is something we go to the movies to escape:

 

 

Just watch that movie (great movie) and tell me you don't at least see some merit to my theory.

 

 

2. Rockstar intentionally made LS to feel superficial, as LA (mostly the richer areas) are well known as being full of fake, superficial people who are completely up their own asses. It's a main theme throughout the course of the game - just look at Michael's family, and you need no more proof that this is what Rockstar were going for. They were criticizing the superficiality of much of California. V's story was about how all that fame and fortune just isn't enough, that success doesn't make you happy, that there's more to life than how much money you have or how well known you are. It is a stark contrast to how they designed Liberty City, which featured a story about real people trying to survive in a sh*tty world that seems designed to hold them down. So in other words, New York vs. Los Angeles. They're not the same place, and Rockstar represented each of them very faithfully, under the lens of satire.

 

3. There's no lens filter. Yep, like it or not, GTA V is one of few games that doesn't apply a color filter to the screen, so you're seeing "natural" lighting and colors everywhere you look - unlike GTA IV, which intentionally muted its color palette to begin with, then added a filter on top of that to muddy things up.

 

It's a VERY well known and popular method of playing with your brain. Dull, brown colors are depressing. Red colors are stressful, scary. Bright blues and greens are peaceful, serene.

 

Read:

http://www.cracked.com/article_18664_5-annoying-trends-that-make-every-movie-look-same.html

 

Joy Ride used lots of red to make the viewer constantly feel the threat of danger:

 

The Matrix used green, because for some reason we associate green with sci-fi and technology.

 

GTA IV used brown and grey to depress us and make us sympathize with the depressed characters:

 

 

With GTA V, Rockstar broke this trend, and that very well could be what's so off-putting to some people. You lack that disconnect because something as simple as color design isn't triggering that emotional response in your brain.

 

 

 

In conclusion, I think the issue is far deeper than people realize. That it's not a fault with Rockstar's design of San Andreas, it's that we're so conditioned to viewing things a certain way, that when something attempts to alter our perception of that thing, it's jarring.

 

Most of what you are saying is probably right.

But I am sure Dan and Sam houser do not need a movie to see how LA looks like, since I believe they have a mansion there...

[CarnageRacing00]

I am sure Dan and Sam houser do not need a movie to see how LA looks like, since I believe they have a mansion there...

 

 

I agree, and that's not what I was saying. In fact, that lends to my theory: Housers were showing us the modern Los Angeles, but "glorified" like it often is in our favorite movies, love it or hate it, while WE all were expecting the LA that we know from classic action films.

Edited July 9, 2015 by MichiganMuscle77

[Fuzzknuckles]

I've never been to LA but I've watched literally hundreds of movies set there and I'd say it does a very good job of illustrating certain part of LA.

 

Now, I'm not normally one to bow down to the mighty San Andreas, but I'd say it did an equally good job with it's depiction of South Central LA. However, the two games are trying to illustrate two very different areas. I will admit that I would have liked SA's South Central to have been updated and incorporated into the new LS, because I think the Grove St. area, with the iconic bridge over to the centre of the city, and the Watts Towers, felt more like what I'd seen in the movies. The rest of SA's LS was ultimately quite bland, though, and didn't evoke the city centre as well as V's LS does.

 

That said, Franklin's street and the surrounding area were very good, nicely detailed and could have bigger in an ideal world.

 

The observatory, the Richman area in general, the beach... all fantastic. It's a shame you can't have Axel F playing in the background while you're driving around for that perfect Beverly Hills Cop feel.

 

Yeah, I think it did a grand job of depicting some of the most iconic areas, focusing on some more for the sake of context - as above, could have had a bigger South Central, but I understand why it was less of a focus than in SA.

[CarnageRacing00]

I've never been to LA but I've watched literally hundreds of movies set there and I'd say it does a very good job of illustrating certain part of LA.

 

Now, I'm not normally one to bow down to the mighty San Andreas, but I'd say it did an equally good job with it's depiction of South Central LA. However, the two games are trying to illustrate two very different areas. I will admit that I would have liked SA's South Central to have been updated and incorporated into the new LS, because I think the Grove St. area, with the iconic bridge over to the centre of the city, and the Watts Towers, felt more like what I'd seen in the movies. The rest of SA's LS was ultimately quite bland, though, and didn't evoke the city centre as well as V's LS does.

 

That said, Franklin's street and the surrounding area were very good, nicely detailed and could have bigger in an ideal world.

 

The observatory, the Richman area in general, the beach... all fantastic. It's a shame you can't have Axel F playing in the background while you're driving around for that perfect Beverly Hills Cop feel.

 

Yeah, I think it did a grand job of depicting some of the most iconic areas, focusing on some more for the sake of context - as above, could have had a bigger South Central, but I understand why it was less of a focus than in SA.

 

I don't think the two games were trying to depict different areas, they were trying to depict two different time periods. We're talking about a difference of 21 years. San Andreas - 1992, versus San Andreas - 2013.

 

Things changed.

 

In 92, the gang war stuff WAS about turf and "family". Now it's about product - drugs. It's more savage and desperate than ever before, hence why Franklin wants out.

Edited July 9, 2015 by MichiganMuscle77

[DaWiesel]

3. There's no lens filter. Yep, like it or not, GTA V is one of few games that doesn't apply a color filter to the screen, so you're seeing "natural" lighting and colors everywhere you look - unlike GTA IV, which intentionally muted its color palette to begin with, then added a filter on top of that to muddy things up.

This is actually one of my main reasons why I think LS is better than LC, because it feels more natural. That filter they used for LC was great since it helped to make the game feel more dark and gritty but at the same time it made it look kind of like a movie. I simply like the more natural look of V's map, it looks more realistic IMO.

[CarnageRacing00]

 

3. There's no lens filter. Yep, like it or not, GTA V is one of few games that doesn't apply a color filter to the screen, so you're seeing "natural" lighting and colors everywhere you look - unlike GTA IV, which intentionally muted its color palette to begin with, then added a filter on top of that to muddy things up.

This is actually one of my main reasons why I think LS is better than LC, because it feels more natural. That filter they used for LC was great since it helped to make the game feel more dark and gritty but at the same time it made it look kind of like a movie. I simply like the more natural look of V's map, it looks more realistic IMO.

 

 

There are PC mods that remove that filter for IV, and while it does make the game prettier, I definitely notice an effect on my emotional connection to the story. Like "It's such a nice, sunny day! How can you be so unhappy, Niko??"

[Fuzzknuckles]

 

I've never been to LA but I've watched literally hundreds of movies set there and I'd say it does a very good job of illustrating certain part of LA.

 

Now, I'm not normally one to bow down to the mighty San Andreas, but I'd say it did an equally good job with it's depiction of South Central LA. However, the two games are trying to illustrate two very different areas. I will admit that I would have liked SA's South Central to have been updated and incorporated into the new LS, because I think the Grove St. area, with the iconic bridge over to the centre of the city, and the Watts Towers, felt more like what I'd seen in the movies. The rest of SA's LS was ultimately quite bland, though, and didn't evoke the city centre as well as V's LS does.

 

That said, Franklin's street and the surrounding area were very good, nicely detailed and could have bigger in an ideal world.

 

The observatory, the Richman area in general, the beach... all fantastic. It's a shame you can't have Axel F playing in the background while you're driving around for that perfect Beverly Hills Cop feel.

 

Yeah, I think it did a grand job of depicting some of the most iconic areas, focusing on some more for the sake of context - as above, could have had a bigger South Central, but I understand why it was less of a focus than in SA.

 

I don't think the two games were trying to depict different areas, they were trying to depict two different time periods. We're talking about a difference of 21 years. San Andreas - 1992, versus San Andreas - 2013.

 

Things changed.

 

In 92, the gang war stuff WAS about turf and "family". Now it's about product - drugs. It's more savage and desperate than ever before, hence why Franklin wants out.

 

I was a bit vague, I meant that the focus of the cities was very different - we have a bigger South Central area in SA than the one in V, as the game's context calls for it. Whereas it's still present but smaller in V (though I would imagine, technically it's about the same size) as the focus is more on the Richman area to the west.

 

So while they're overall depicting the same city, the layout and allocation of space is focused differently, giving them very different feels.

[XCalinX]

LS is tiny. Again, the map is one of the few things I dont like about V

[Fuzzknuckles]

LS is tiny. Again, the map is one of the few things I dont like about V

lolyallacrazy.

 

LS is big. Try walking around it or riding around on a BMX for a while. It's really big.

[XCalinX]

 

LS is tiny. Again, the map is one of the few things I dont like about V

lolyallacrazy.

 

LS is big. Try walking around it or riding around on a BMX for a while. It's really big.

 

I did ride on a BMX around it a while back, Not as small as it was in SA but far from big. I have never been in LA but It's probably 100 times bigger.

LC from IV was the only GTA city that's wasn't small IMHO

Edited July 9, 2015 by XCalinX

[ZHPbim]

Anyone who has ever been to griffith park, getty center, or runyon canyon can tell you LA is MUCH bigger in real life. But R* did do a good job of making it look pretty big from the games griffith observatory. Heres pics I took from the Griffith and Runyon recently:

Edited July 9, 2015 by ZHPbim

[Sentinel Actual]

I know people who live in LA, and they said apart from a few buildings being in the wrong location, and LSX/LAX being in the wrong place, its incredibly accurate in its depiction. So I'd say LS is very accurate. The rest of the map (Blaine County) not so much. There aren't wetlands and such that close to the city, and the desert is a little small.