Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    2. News

    1. GTA Online

      1. Find Lobbies & Players
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Vehicles
      4. Content Creator
      5. Help & Support
    2. Crews

      1. Events
      2. Recruitment
    1. Grand Theft Auto Series

    2. GTA Next

    3. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    4. GTA IV

      1. Episodes from Liberty City
      2. Multiplayer
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
      5. GTA Mods
    5. GTA Chinatown Wars

    6. GTA Vice City Stories

    7. GTA Liberty City Stories

    8. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    9. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    10. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    11. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    12. Wiki

      1. Merchandising
    1. GTA Modding

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    3. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

    2. Red Dead Redemption

    3. Rockstar Games

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    1. Forum Support

    2. Site Suggestions

Hussein Sonic

Did Rockstar create the San Andreas state to its full potential?

Recommended Posts

BlueRoseGirl_xx

No, absolutely not! A DLC including two additional games/islands (San Fierro and Las Venturas) would be the cherry to the cake. They're not doing the full potential of a lot but hey..... patience and we will see what will happen next with GTA V + online + the next game in the sequence.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
snickers4passwords

Los Santos should have definitely been more detailed and bigger. But I really enjoyed the surrounding area like the Alamo Sea and Blaine County. It is really a give and take situation, because the devs couldn't have spent all their time on one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sleepwalking

They did a great job, don't forget this is a PS3 / Xbox360 game.

 

Everyone was amazed when this game first came out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hussein Sonic
Posted (edited)

No, absolutely not! A DLC including two additional games/islands (San Fierro and Las Venturas) would be the cherry to the cake. They're not doing the full potential of a lot but hey..... patience and we will see what will happen next with GTA V + online + the next game in the sequence.....

Shut the hell up. Please don't take this as an threat, but you just sound like a threat & no, we will not get San Fierro/Las Venturas DLCs for GTA V.

 

They're not going to make San Fierro and Las Venturas DLC for GTA V so close. They're still doing the full potential that the map in GTA V goes all of San Andreas. Sorta like California's map. You're clearly threatening the topic, flaming isn't allowed. Just warning you, so you don't get in trouble with San Fierro and Las Venturas.

 

Enough with this unjust bullsh*t. :angry:

Edited by Hussein Sonic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChiroVette

This thread is comprised of a very loaded question. First off, almost NOTHING is developed to its full potential since there is always room for improvement. Second, the more important (non hair-splitting) point I am making is that this question has two parts. The first is a statement about GTA V as a released game when it was launched and the second is all the effort that went into Online that was a much more lucrative, and dare say, path of least resistance. As a launch game, V is completely satisfying, improves the narrative, graphics, and gameplay immeasurably. But when Rockstar saw what a cash cow online was, all meaningful SP support came to a screeching halt. So if one wants to argue that San Andreas in V missed a lot of post-update potential, I would completely agree, since I care nothing for GTA Online. But as a full, complete, whole game, V is remarkable and one of the best in the series.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Official General

This thread is comprised of a very loaded question. First off, almost NOTHING is developed to its full potential since there is always room for improvement. Second, the more important (non hair-splitting) point I am making is that this question has two parts. The first is a statement about GTA V as a released game when it was launched and the second is all the effort that went into Online that was a much more lucrative, and dare say, path of least resistance. As a launch game, V is completely satisfying, improves the narrative, graphics, and gameplay immeasurably. But when Rockstar saw what a cash cow online was, all meaningful SP support came to a screeching halt. So if one wants to argue that San Andreas in V missed a lot of post-update potential, I would completely agree, since I care nothing for GTA Online. But as a full, complete, whole game, V is remarkable and one of the best in the series.

 

Nice theory, but....

 

To me, V's map still did not make use of its full potential and it is still a colossal waste. No clever-sounding, intellect-laced counterargument will change that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John Smith

I remember discussing this back before V's release while we were all still speculating. I'm no expert in game development, so I don't know how possible this would've been, but I always would've liked infinite woods to the north of the map and infinite desert to the east. Nothing fancy or incredibly detailed, just something to give the world a more vast feel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hussein Sonic

 

This thread is comprised of a very loaded question. First off, almost NOTHING is developed to its full potential since there is always room for improvement. Second, the more important (non hair-splitting) point I am making is that this question has two parts. The first is a statement about GTA V as a released game when it was launched and the second is all the effort that went into Online that was a much more lucrative, and dare say, path of least resistance. As a launch game, V is completely satisfying, improves the narrative, graphics, and gameplay immeasurably. But when Rockstar saw what a cash cow online was, all meaningful SP support came to a screeching halt. So if one wants to argue that San Andreas in V missed a lot of post-update potential, I would completely agree, since I care nothing for GTA Online. But as a full, complete, whole game, V is remarkable and one of the best in the series.

 

Nice theory, but....

 

To me, V's map still did not make use of its full potential and it is still a colossal waste. No clever-sounding, intellect-laced counterargument will change that.

 

Don't make assumptions. No clever-sounding, intellect-laced counterargument won't change that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zello

They needed Inland Empire and Orange county

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AlexanderPierce

GTA V had a lot of potential which C* wasted on online.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hussein Sonic

They needed Inland Empire and Orange county

I'll include Inland Empire and Orange County.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChiroVette

 

This thread is comprised of a very loaded question. First off, almost NOTHING is developed to its full potential since there is always room for improvement. Second, the more important (non hair-splitting) point I am making is that this question has two parts. The first is a statement about GTA V as a released game when it was launched and the second is all the effort that went into Online that was a much more lucrative, and dare say, path of least resistance. As a launch game, V is completely satisfying, improves the narrative, graphics, and gameplay immeasurably. But when Rockstar saw what a cash cow online was, all meaningful SP support came to a screeching halt. So if one wants to argue that San Andreas in V missed a lot of post-update potential, I would completely agree, since I care nothing for GTA Online. But as a full, complete, whole game, V is remarkable and one of the best in the series.

 

Nice theory, but....

 

To me, V's map still did not make use of its full potential and it is still a colossal waste. No clever-sounding, intellect-laced counterargument will change that.

 

 

 

To me, it isn't.

 

I think that there are two underlying themes here, though. The first is the pure launch of the game, what we can call the "Day 1 version" meaning no DLC, no Online which was delayed, I think, and was a complete game we all pre ordered and picked up from Gamestop, Amazon, digital download, or wherever we bought it from. That version is complete, makes excellent use of an awesome, incredible map, is a world that even four years later, I still LOVE to play in and explore, and is utilized fantastically.

 

BUT, since we are now 4 and a half years after the launch of the game, and the SP has only gotten the most trivial, perfunctory content, and all effort and work has gone online, then THAT I can agree with makes the game feel incomplete to me. But, as I said, this is two different discussions. I would agree with your position on the latter, and we obviously completely disagree about the former.

 

So be it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CryptReaperDorian

I think it's fine if R* wants to focus on other parts of San Andreas state in future releases, but GTA V's map still doesn't make a whole lot of sense. There's this entire interstate system that's absolutely bustling with traffic, but all it does is go from Los Santos, through two small rural towns, and then back into Los Santos. What R* created resembles something more along the lines of what a devoted fan thought up. It's full detail, and that's not deniable, but it lacks a proper layout to give the player a suspension of disbelief.

 

Keeping the exact same amount of (flat) land area GTA V currently has, R* could have replaced much of northern Blaine County with another city roughly the size of Los Santos, and then we'd still have a satisfying amount of countryside to explore. This may not have been feasible due to RAM limitations of the PS3 and Xbox 360, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChiroVette

I think it's fine if R* wants to focus on other parts of San Andreas state in future releases, but GTA V's map still doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

 

I believe the intent was to create DLC with add ons for the map later on, which would have addressed some of your complaints below. But I don't agree about the map not making sense in Los Santos and Blaine County. Remembering that all GTA games are basically one or more islands surrounded on all sides by nothing but water, V's map makes more sense. At least as a fully released game. Would I have loved to see Fierro and Venturras? Absolutely! Would that have also added more context to the map as a future upgrade to the game? Sure. But as I said above, I see the completeness of V's map as two separate discussions. One, being the whole and satisfying game and map that was released almost 5 years ago, and the other being how the lack of promised DLC and SP support can make the game and map "feel" incomplete because we were all expecting so much more, until ROckstar abandoned us for their freemium thuggery and shark card sales.

 

 

There's this entire interstate system that's absolutely bustling with traffic, but all it does is go from Los Santos, through two small rural towns, and then back into Los Santos. What R* created resembles something more along the lines of what a devoted fan thought up. It's full detail, and that's not deniable, but it lacks a proper layout to give the player a suspension of disbelief.

 

I see what you're saying, but I think that the circular Interstate is very reminiscent of a virtual California thoroughfare system. You have a recreation of what I assume is Interstate 5, a road I have traveled on many times during trips to the west coast. It winds through the game's version of LA, Beverly Hills, and then traverses a long and massive desert, just as Route 5 does. Not having San Fierro in the game, means that there is no place for the fictitious Route 5 to end up in, so it has to go around in a circle.

 

But I find it very satisfying, because it goes through the city, the suburbs of LA, small, sleepy desert towns, as well as a small forest area, tons of gorgeous mountains, and honestly about the single BEST scenery and graphical eye-candy as I have EVER seen in a GTA game. Then we have a virtual rendering of the world famous Route 66 which basically goes from Southern Chicago, and takes a very scenic route, winding through many Midwestern states, to end up in Cali. Again, could they have added real estate in the forum of DLC? Yes, and I would argue this would have been amazing.

 

But I don't see how this map is, taken by itself, in any way unsatisfying. The myriad of activities, missions, sides, collectibles, and exploration potential is absolutely stellar to me. To this day I still love exploring the terrain and map.

 

Keeping the exact same amount of (flat) land area GTA V currently has, R* could have replaced much of northern Blaine County with another city roughly the size of Los Santos, and then we'd still have a satisfying amount of countryside to explore. This may not have been feasible due to RAM limitations of the PS3 and Xbox 360, though.

 

Again, I would leave Blaine County as it is, if for no other reason than its pure fun, hedonistic exploratory and sightseeing potential, and all the various cool stuff to do there. In short, I wouldn't change V's map as it was released, but I would definitely add to it, both to the north, with Fierro and to the northeast with Venturras.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Official General

 

 

This thread is comprised of a very loaded question. First off, almost NOTHING is developed to its full potential since there is always room for improvement. Second, the more important (non hair-splitting) point I am making is that this question has two parts. The first is a statement about GTA V as a released game when it was launched and the second is all the effort that went into Online that was a much more lucrative, and dare say, path of least resistance. As a launch game, V is completely satisfying, improves the narrative, graphics, and gameplay immeasurably. But when Rockstar saw what a cash cow online was, all meaningful SP support came to a screeching halt. So if one wants to argue that San Andreas in V missed a lot of post-update potential, I would completely agree, since I care nothing for GTA Online. But as a full, complete, whole game, V is remarkable and one of the best in the series.

 

Nice theory, but....

 

To me, V's map still did not make use of its full potential and it is still a colossal waste. No clever-sounding, intellect-laced counterargument will change that.

 

 

 

To me, it isn't.

 

I think that there are two underlying themes here, though. The first is the pure launch of the game, what we can call the "Day 1 version" meaning no DLC, no Online which was delayed, I think, and was a complete game we all pre ordered and picked up from Gamestop, Amazon, digital download, or wherever we bought it from. That version is complete, makes excellent use of an awesome, incredible map, is a world that even four years later, I still LOVE to play in and explore, and is utilized fantastically.

 

BUT, since we are now 4 and a half years after the launch of the game, and the SP has only gotten the most trivial, perfunctory content, and all effort and work has gone online, then THAT I can agree with makes the game feel incomplete to me. But, as I said, this is two different discussions. I would agree with your position on the latter, and we obviously completely disagree about the former.

 

So be it.

 

 

Don't get it twisted though....I love the supreme graphical detail and effects of environments within V's map itself. I love exploring it and soaking up the atmosphere. The main problem for me is that it was not varied enough, and there was not enough of certain aspects and features as I would have liked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
assCRACK_98
Posted (edited)

It isnt supposed to be the entire state but even then they still sorta f*cked the LA area, LS is way too small and doesnt represent LA as good, plus its as hilly as San Fran, wtf is up with that. LA is all flat.

 

Decent views and weather but sh*t representation, there is no way I should be able to cross an entire city in 2 minutes. No back areas either, everything is on the face, no reason to explore, its like they looked at a generic picture of LA and a map and did a rough draft and called it a day.

Edited by assCRACK_98

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChiroVette

Don't get it twisted though....I love the supreme graphical detail and effects of environments within V's map itself. I love exploring it and soaking up the atmosphere.

Absolutely. I know that you have made many posts acknowledging your appreciation of the graphics quality and even the visuals and environment. I also am well aware that you are not a hater.

 

 

The main problem for me is that it was not varied enough, and there was not enough of certain aspects and features as I would have liked.

We will likely never agree on this, to be honest, but it could be as I have said in the past, that while you like the game all right, and appreciate the graphical aesthetics, you also are not as big a fan of all the side missions that get the player out into all that open space, certainly not to the extent that I am. I honestly think that if you liked the game more than you actually do, the map would be more overall enjoyable to you and might feel less like wasted space to you. It has never felt that way to me.

 

This is not to say that I am right. Maybe your issues with the map are much deeper than you not being enamored by all the side missions, Random Events, collectibles, and so on. I also think that if you had your way there would be less wide open space and more city, neighborhoods, and streets.

 

I also think that it is possible that if Rockstar had made good on their promise to come out with SP support AND that included mission packs and map expansions that you might feel differently about the map. This also I could be wrong about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hussein Sonic
Posted (edited)

They needed Silicon Valley, San Diego County, maybe places in Imperial County. Full potential would come out with SP support, mission packs and map expansions and would be a great map expansion.

Edited by Hussein Sonic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ViceBoy69

No point doing anything else to GTA5's map it would be just more space for the idiots to play on and 90% of those who play GTAonline are idiots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hussein Sonic
Posted (edited)

No point doing anything else to GTA5's map it would be just more space for the idiots to play on and 90% of those who play GTAonline are idiots.

False, it cannot be just more space for the idiots to play on. Prove it.

Edited by Hussein Sonic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Interface
Posted (edited)

Personally, I dislike the map a lot. Not because it is only Southern San Andreas, I didn't expect R* to create the whole SA state on that old hardware.

 

I dislike the map because of its layout. It doesn't feel like a state at all. The countryside behind Los Santos feels like an "outskirt" of LS, but not like a SoCal state. I don't feel like travelling through a state. A state should have more counties, but the V countryside only consists of ONE county. In SA it actually felt like a state because you've travelled from county to county, and each county felt different and had its own atmosphere. In V this feeling is non-existing.

 

V needs more counties, more towns, more isolation. Blaine County feels more like an industrial LS outskirt than a true state or even a countryside at all. The lazy highway that simply circles around the map is a joke, too. In terms of layout (not in terms of detail or beauty) the V map is a fail in my opinion. It just feels wrong.

Edited by Interface

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hussein Sonic
Posted (edited)

V needs more counties, more towns, more isolation.

Why not more cities?

Edited by Hussein Sonic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LeakyLine

You should play True Crime series or LA Noire to see that the size isnt everything. Although I agree that the area outside LS couldve used some more attention.

LA Noire and True Crime both had in-world pieces that reference areas outside the playable map. GTA V doesn't. True Crime has highway exits to other cities blocked off by Jersey Barriers. Roads out of the playable area in LA Noire were blocked off by pipes and barriers. GTA V had nothing like this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ash_735

Plus I don't know what he's on about, L.A.Noire had an amazing map with so many interiors, playing that before GTAV was a mistake because it raised my expectations of Los Santos which Rockstar didn't meet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChiroVette

They needed Silicon Valley, San Diego County, maybe places in Imperial County. Full potential would come out with SP support, mission packs and map expansions and would be a great map expansion.

 

The problem I have with the entire concept of the thread title, is it is comprised of a loaded question. One could argue that NOTHING is perfect, therefore how can anything be "used to its full potential" when any product could be improved and Monday Morning Quarterbacks like we have all over this forum just can't get enough of, well, Monday Morning Quarterbacking. But let's put the loaded question aside for a moment as I try not to roll my eyes too much at it lol.

 

The long and short of it is you are 100% right. There could have been so much more done if SP was continually supported post-release of V in 2013.

 

As I said above. this question has TWO PARTS and is only really able to be evaluated:

 

1. As a launch title, in terms of what was sold to us as a full game back in September of 2013.

2. Given the era we live in, and as you assert, DLC could be part of ONLY the post release part of the discussion, and should have no bearing whatsoever on the launch game, or the "Day 1" game.

 

The two are, in many ways, mutually exclusive, at least insofar as one cannot consider themselves responsible for blasting or dinging GTA V as a launch game due to Rockstar's greed, avarice, and such desperation to sell shank cards that they reneged on all promised SP support post-launch That's what I am calling them from now on, shank cards or Skank Cards.

 

But blasting GTA V and Rockstar for what came after, in my opinion, is reasonable. But basically they are two separate entities. How good is GTA (for the thread title, the map) as a launch game? And how good is it in terms of the DLC age we live in as a post-launch game? The latter is abysmal, but the former is amazing and the game, like the map itself, is one of the best in the series.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ash_735

but the former is amazing and the game, like the map itself, is one of the best in the series.

But this is where quite a few would disagree, it looks nice but feels hollow, it's even more annoying when there's content planned but held back for Online or even worse then doesn't get included in Online so it's just scrapped outright (like the Night Clubs for Los Santos).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChiroVette
Posted (edited)

But this is where quite a few would disagree,

A few, certainly. Obviously I disagree with you on the map, and outside this forum that has its share of people who resent who, let's face it, resent V for not being IV "another GTA game," I believe most people love the map, both GTA fans and gamers alike, not to mention professional critics. But if you are talking about

 

As far as content held back due to corporate thuggery and Rockstar/Take2 trying to bully people to go online where all the updates are, on that one you're preaching to the choir. I couldn't agree more.

Edited by ChiroVette

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ash_735

I think it's worth mentioning though that there's a slight difference in well designed and looking good and well designed but bland. The map does look good, the details are amazing, no doubting that, but it is bland in places and skipped a lot of iconic areas which were present even in San Andreas.

 

So yeah, it looks amazing, brilliant texture and effects, etc, probably THE best GTA map in that regard, but egad is it dull.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChiroVette
Posted (edited)

I think it's worth mentioning though that there's a slight difference in well designed and looking good and well designed but bland.

Okay, fair enough. But you can see how "bland" and "dull" are a matter of personal taste, right? I see nothing bland about the map at all. But also, as I have said many times, I truly love all the activities, side missions, city and off road races, exploration, base jumping, and on and on. Look, I am a New Yorker and we have had this discussion MANY times. You would think I would love GTA IV's map even though I don't like the game, right? I mean, if nothing else, the attention to detail and the authenticity of certain structures I see literally every day of my life.

 

Yet, when I played IV ten years ago, or my playthrough of the Episodes recently, all I could think of was how grey and lackluster everything looks, how cramped and too close together structures are that are really miles apart in NY City, how drab and depressing, and how the map doesn't "pop" in the sense of being vibrant. Now before you think I am going off on an anti-IV rant, let me say that in a way I am actually defending IV's map. Because I honestly think that my feelings about the gameplay, the story, and IV as a game, could possibly be coloring (lol no pun intended) how I look at the map. Maybe things that make me roll my eyes now and annoy me about the map are really things that are excusable, only maybe I can't look past them because I detest the actual game?

 

Again, maybe.

 

But without trying to put words in your mouth, I can't help but wondering if you actually really enjoyed all the nuances of V's story, missions, sides, and collectibles, AND there was a lot more content in V, all over the map you currently find "bland," and had Rockstar not decided to be a bunch of f*ckwad, corporate douchebags with SP DLC and support, that maybe, just maybe, things that seem bland to you would not because you would be too bus. enjoying the game and being immersed in it? Maybe.

 

Believe me, I have often wondered the same thing about IV. I mean, as a New Yorker my whole life, how could I possibly hate what will arguably be the single most detailed rendering of my city in the history of gaming until Spider-Man PS4 (in 4K) comes out in a couple of months? Maybe its coincidence. Maybe you really do find V's map bland and would no matter what you thought of the game. And maybe, even as a Brooklynite, I would still dislike IV's map even if I actually liked the game and the Episodes. But I can't help wondering when I hear things like this if we would even be having this conversation if I LOVED IV the way you do and you loved V the way I do?

Edited by ChiroVette

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cheatz/Trickz

Honestly I just think you don't understand GTA IV at all. But regarding map, when you write "drab and depressing" about IV's map that's pretty much why I love it. That's what IV was trying to do so i'm not going to moan that it's too grey when that was the idea, it's one piece of a bigger picture and all the peices complement each other. It's grey because GTA IV is a depressing tale about a depressed man in a depressed city. It's like Max Payne being drab to reflect its noir theme and even more depressed protagonist. RDR has the same open wasteland that I call "wasted space" in GTA V, but in RDR it is teeming with life and character, it complements the game's theme. Put it this way, a stroll in the desert in RDR is a lot more immersive (and dangerous) than in V because in V the desert has no life.

 

And while I do prefer the dark and gritty style to the vibrant and colourful style, as well as depressing stories to campy, over the top stories, I won't knock GTA V purely for not being dark, or drab or depressing because I know it was not going for that. There are parts of GTA V's map that I think are absolutely amazing but does each part of it really feel like it had equal thought and care put into it? Do you think the three gigantic mountains had the same level of care put into them as Franklin's neighbourhood? The latter goes well with what V is trying to do with its recreation of LA so it has a purpose, and it's parts of the map like this that take it beyond the surface level playing area. But the wasted space of GTA V, the mountains, deserts are shallow. The forest in the mission Predator for example, why is that not constantly full of life and activity? In RDR, if you ever play it, DO NOT go wandering mindlessly in the forests. The Alamo Sea, what is in there? Nothing, and GTA V has an extensive swimming system so why not? These parts of V's map feel lifeless, as though Rockstar just pasted it there and said that'll do. The map feels almost obligatory, or routine and i'm think as ever the blame goes to GTA Online. Who needs nuance, purpose, or focus? Aint nobody got time for that shiz.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×

Important Information

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