Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!   (92,587 visits to this link)

    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

tigertoddy2008

Anyone feel that San Andreas was a better representation of L.A?

Recommended Posts

Official General
42 minutes ago, Officer Ronson said:

that's because you're just looking into the whole gang thing from the 90's as if LA was still Boys N the Hood and Menace II Society. V nails the LA atmosphere in another way, and that's the the modern LA setting, having the city seal plasted everywhere, proudness over the city's hispanic heritage, superficial art nobody really cares about, ultra violent police department in a democratic city (shocker) and everyone driving like ass. Those are all the little things that fill in and help make V more like the real LA than just having a bunch of gangs and buildings that look like it. 

Regardless of what and how, that is how it feels to me, I just prefer the feel of LS in SA better than LS in V. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Officer Ronson
31 minutes ago, Official General said:

Regardless of what and how, that is how it feels to me, I just prefer the feel of LS in SA better than LS in V. 

Ok, but we already know that, don't need to tell us again and again if all you're going to say is that you just ''feel'' it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Official General
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, Officer Ronson said:

Ok, but we already know that, don't need to tell us again and again if all you're going to say is that you just ''feel'' it. 

1. I will post whatever I like.

2. Not being funny, but I don't know you responded with that reply in the first place. You're trying to tell me my own reasons for liking the feel of LS better in SA than in V (and you were wrong anyway), when it's not gonna make a single difference to my opinion. I could not be bothered to argue, so I just took the easy way and repeated myself, because your response makes no difference to my opinion at all. 

Edited by Official General

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
universetwisters
1 hour ago, Official General said:

1. I will post whatever I like.

2. Not being funny, but I don't know you responded with that reply in the first place. You're trying to tell me my own reasons for liking the feel of LS better in SA than in V (and you were wrong anyway), when it's not gonna make a single difference to my opinion. I could not be bothered to argue, so I just took the easy way and repeated myself, because your response makes no difference to my opinion at all. 

 

I think he was trying to start a proper discussion as to how the Los Santos in SA was trying to go for a more "Hollywood" version of LA whereas the one in V was more authentic to reality, you just took the lazy way out of what could've been a good debate and repeated yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Official General
16 minutes ago, universetwisters said:

 

I think he was trying to start a proper discussion as to how the Los Santos in SA was trying to go for a more "Hollywood" version of LA whereas the one in V was more authentic to reality, you just took the lazy way out of what could've been a good debate and repeated yourself.

Duh yeah I said I did  because I could not be bothered to argue, well done Sherlock !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
universetwisters
8 minutes ago, Official General said:

Duh yeah I said I did  because I could not be bothered to argue, well done Sherlock !

 

So why bother repeating yourself in the first place? If you couldn't have been bothered to argue in the first place then why make a post just to reaffirm everyone that you like LS in SA over V

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Odyssey

I mean, I feel like I'd call V's better, but I would credit that to the graphical upgrade more than anything. 

 

The other thing I gotta acknowledge is the differences in eras. Los Santos in San Andreas was incredible for its time at depicting Los Angeles in the 90's. With GTA V, it didn't add much to the table in terms of open world cities we've already seen before. Would have been nice to see them do a city they haven't done before, or one set in a different era. (Hopefully thats either case for VI)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Johnny Spaz

As someone from LA, V's version of LA was garbage, they literally had only the beach, the diminutive hoods, downtown and Beverly/Hollywood Hills, San Andreas had a bunch of hoods but at the same time they had the middle lower income places like Glen Park & Jefferson, the city was great same with the residential areas, plus the Latino areas which were pretty accurate.

 

V was just a big clusterf*ck, the geography was way off and you could tell they just sprinkled in a lot of sh*t and just named it Los Santos, SA was great with areas like Mulholland, Willowfield, Market, etc. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GroveStreetOG92

Heccs yeah San Andreas was a wayyy better presentation of Los Angelinos. San Andreas in my Top 5 games of all time. GTA V is dope online but I just don't like how Los Santos look and the vibe it gives off. Bacc in 2015 my Chicano homie was playing GTA V and we kept saying how it doesn't feel or look like L.A. we said if felt more like Daygo(San Diego) or somewhere but idk it just felt and looked weird.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AlexGRFan97

III, VC and SA were the Dollars Trilogy of the GTA franchise:

  • III was Fistful, pretty much directly appropriating all of the gameplay aspects that made Driver 2 a success for its own gain.
  • VC was More, turning the formula into its very own and amplifying the better aspects.
  • SA was TGTBATU, deconstructing and destroying the formula during the second half that it carefully built up during the first in some grandiose spectacle.

And when you make what many argue to be among the greatest pieces of media in their respective sectors, it can be tough to follow up without copying what you've already done, hence why the Stories games were a thing. When they didn't work as well as intended (LCS sold barely half the amount that III did, VCS barely a third of VC's), they had to reinvent themselves or die. So you got IV and V, the "Once Upon a Time"s of the GTA franchise. Unnecessarily intricate, drawn-out and elaborate, but that was the only way they could go from there; anything else would have been a disappointment. And that extends to the reimagined locations. V's LS is just a more drawn-out version of SA's LS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
KevinR1990

I think that San Andreas' Los Santos was a better representation of "Hollywood" Los Angeles, the city as it was portrayed in early '90s movies like Boyz n the HoodFalling Down, and Terminator 2: Judgment Day. The smog filter was designed to evoke gangsta rap videos, and everything had a heightened sense of "Hollywood realism". And of course, the focus on street gangs meant that it had a great representation of South Central and East LA that GTA V wasn't quite able to top. GTA V's Los Santos, on the other hand, is a better representation of the real, modern Los Angeles, with a more accurate climate (LA's smog isn't nearly as bad as it used to be) and neighborhood layouts and more direct satire of the city's lifestyle.

 

I've noticed that, in the HD era of GTA games, the settings that Rockstar designed seemed to be drawing less inspiration from pop culture and more from real life. While the 3D era's Liberty City, Vice City, and San Andreas were based on contemporary New York, '80s Miami, and '90s California/Las Vegas as they were portrayed in movies, less interested in accuracy than in capturing their aesthetic, GTA IV's Liberty City was based on New York as it actually existed during the Mike Bloomberg years. It's a pretty big stylistic shift. I wonder if, for the next GTA game, they might go back to a more stylized setting influenced less by the real city it's based on and more by pop culture depictions of it, given how much they've been leaning on more over-the-top content in GTA Online.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hmmm nice bike
On 7/2/2018 at 3:03 PM, Johnny Spaz said:

As someone from LA, V's version of LA was garbage, they literally had only the beach, the diminutive hoods, downtown and Beverly/Hollywood Hills, San Andreas had a bunch of hoods but at the same time they had the middle lower income places like Glen Park & Jefferson, the city was great same with the residential areas, plus the Latino areas which were pretty accurate. 

 

V was just a big clusterf*ck, the geography was way off and you could tell they just sprinkled in a lot of sh*t and just named it Los Santos, SA was great with areas like Mulholland, Willowfield, Market, etc. 

I thought the beach area was strange, the way they seemed to meld Venice and Santa Monica together even though Los Santos in SA actually had them separate! That alone was more accurate to real life. Were there even any Latino areas in V?

 

I haven't been to LA in a few years, but V's LS never reminded me of LA at all. The city felt way too densely packed (possibly because of how much they focused on recreating downtown, Hollywood and downtown Beverly Hills with not a lot of residential areas), and I agree that they overall did a terrible job of trying to capture the city in modern day and recreate it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lock n' Stock

Is it me or did Los Santos in SA always feel bigger than more diverse than in V, even though it wasn't? Maybe it's just my nostalgia goggles.

 

If I'm being honest though, both renditions have their pros.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mister Pink
Posted (edited)

SA's Los Santos for me is a better experience -  but hear me out. It's about 3 things. Context, content/setting, and timing. 

 

Open-world gaming was still pretty new and exciting. GTA still felt new and exciting. The beauty of San Andreas was that It wasn't just Los Santos, we had 3 cities. If you got bored of one city, you had another 2 to chose from. If you didn't like one city, chances are you might like one of the other two. 

 

1992 setting for San Andreas lent itself perfectly for the type of crime-spree, war on the streets and rise to the top gameplay GTA provided. It played on films like Boyz In The Hood and Menace II Society, great films that us 80's/90's kids grew up on and now we could play in those worlds. We were just watching those films, we could actually play them! I also remember seeing the L.A. riots on TV when I was kid. Now it's real-life events in a game. Mind was blown. 

 

Setting a story based around Westcoast 90's G-Funk, gangster culture to me, is more hilarious but fun and often times very dark and gritty than a game set around the Hollywood side of GTA V presents. Modern L.A. doesn't really excite me that much. There's not much culture or counter-culture. Instead, we get fame or shame, satire, spoiled kids, talentless Jewish movie producers, yoga instructors - basically all the low-hanging fruit, west-coast California stereotypes. That's OK but there's enough of that on MTV shows like The Hills and America's Got Talent that stuff it just kind everywhere already. Whereas 1992 in San Andreas in 2004 was 12 years after the events. Clothing had changed, attitudes, people, clothing, cars fashion.  Revisiting that old gang culture was fun. 

 

It's just a matter of interests. Fame or Shame satire, jokes aren't really pushing new territory for me. Yeah those talent shows are junk but that might be edgy to someone who actually watches those shows? Satirizing paparazzi in Hollywood and Hollywood princesses is kind like preaching to the choir. It's just short of Justin Bieber jokes or Trump jokes. Come on. Give us something a bit different mate. 

 

The actual Los Santos in V is a brilliant city. Besides lack of interiors, those guys really made a map that was fluid for driving in. I remember never really getting stuck anywhere. There was always "a way out." It's perfect size that traversing it's a huge chore. The graphics, amazing and Rockstar really exceeded in map design with regards to the city, even though I think V's map was overall poor due to it's shape and nothing being on the north. 

 

So, SA's Los Santos in 1992 has a better subject matter for me and offers me a better setting. But V's Los Santos gives a amazing map design.

 

On 7/5/2018 at 8:38 PM, KevinR1990 said:

I've noticed that, in the HD era of GTA games, the settings that Rockstar designed seemed to be drawing less inspiration from pop culture and more from real life. While the 3D era's Liberty City, Vice City, and San Andreas were based on contemporary New York, '80s Miami, and '90s California/Las Vegas as they were portrayed in movies, less interested in accuracy than in capturing their aesthetic, GTA IV's Liberty City was based on New York as it actually existed during the Mike Bloomberg years. It's a pretty big stylistic shift. I wonder if, for the next GTA game, they might go back to a more stylized setting influenced less by the real city it's based on and more by pop culture depictions of it, given how much they've been leaning on more over-the-top content in GTA Online.

 

I hope so. For me that's what made GTA. That aestethic. You feel it when you look at the box of GTA Vice City. This a is little time-capsule that captured this outrageous time/place that was Miami in the 90's. Same for San Andreas. For IV and V, I can see that they will become those thing in 10 years time but I'd rather just Rockstar continue to capture time/places like Boston in the 80's/90's (even if it doesn't seem so obvious, the time/place)

Edited by Mister Pink

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hmmm nice bike
5 hours ago, Mister Pink said:

It's just a matter of interests. Fame or Shame satire, jokes aren't really pushing new territory for me. Yeah those talent shows are junk but that might be edgy to someone who actually watches those shows? Satirizing paparazzi in Hollywood and Hollywood princesses is kind like preaching to the choir. It's just short of Justin Bieber jokes or Trump jokes. Come on. Give us something a bit different mate.  

This is part of why I think a lot of the jokes fell flat in V. Besides the fact that I think everything felt a bit too tryhard, it was a lot of the same jokes we've already seen and people that have already been made fun of in other media. Pretty sure some jokes were even repeated from GTA IV. Unlike VC and SA's satire of the 80s and 90s, Rockstar trying to parody Los Angeles culture in 2013 just didn't feel as sharp, and it was kind of annoying.

 

I think this kind of translates into the LS that we got in V compared to SA. V's was about a vapid cultural wasteland where everybody just wants to be rich and famous and we got more areas that suited that kind of story, SA's was gang culture.

 

5 hours ago, Mister Pink said:

I hope so. For me that's what made GTA. That aestethic. You feel it when you look at the box of GTA Vice City. This a is little time-capsule that captured this outrageous time/place that was Miami in the 90's. Same for San Andreas. For IV and V, I can see that they will become those thing in 10 years time but I'd rather just Rockstar continue to capture time/places like Boston in the 80's/90's (even if it doesn't seem so obvious, the time/place)

I'd love to see Rockstar do another period piece GTA. They seem to be quite good at that, and it feels like the humor in the games was better than in their modern titles. Of course, IV already feels like a time capsule back to 2008 in many ways, and I'm sure V will evoke the same feelings of 2013. But something like IV's Liberty City in the 70s or 80s would be awesome to see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chamberman20
On 6/16/2018 at 1:36 AM, tigertoddy2008 said:

It really had that feel of a place where it's always sunny and warm, but V looks more like Chicago in Watch Dogs.  While the graphics are overall more realistic, it just doesn't feel the same.

LOL Have you ever seen LA?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ash_735

I always felt like BOTH versions of Los Santos were approached from different sides. V focuses on area that wern't a priority in San Andreas, mainly the suburbs, hills, Hollywood, Beverly Hills, etc, where as San Andreas covered gang related area better, east LA, Long Beach, etc. Which is a shame as it makes BOTH feel incomplete but makes San Andreas "feel" better in ways because it does have more known buildings to people outside of LA. It always felt like Los Santos in V should've been wider, extended out East, at least another Broker/Dukes worth of city space to let the gang areas and downtown get some breather space instead of being cramped together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gtafaninwest

Western and northern Los Santos are quite accurate in size and character. South and East LS, not so much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Big_Smiley
Posted (edited)
On 7/11/2018 at 5:09 AM, Ash_735 said:

I always felt like BOTH versions of Los Santos were approached from different sides. V focuses on area that wern't a priority in San Andreas, mainly the suburbs, hills, Hollywood, Beverly Hills, etc, where as San Andreas covered gang related area better, east LA, Long Beach, etc. Which is a shame as it makes BOTH feel incomplete but makes San Andreas "feel" better in ways because it does have more known buildings to people outside of LA. It always felt like Los Santos in V should've been wider, extended out East, at least another Broker/Dukes worth of city space to let the gang areas and downtown get some breather space instead of being cramped together.

Exactly :^:  Always felt that the gang areas was much better covered and grounded well in SA compard to V. As already stated, V seemed to focus more on the Beverly hills parts (which in this case was very well potrayed). It always botherd me a little that Ballas and CGF hoods were right next to each other crossing roads and not one single gun fight ever erupted. So SA gets the point in my view. Coming from the rough dark days of early 1990's East Los, the porjects near Vagos territory from SA just felt like home in the barrios. V's version looked pretty good but was only a small section of the projects. Would have been a plus for me if R* expanded them further to give it that large barrio (neighborhood) feel to it.The type of neighborhoods you wouldn't want to walk in during night time without the assist of police or the ghetto birds watching above :whistle:

Edited by Big_Smiley

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

×

Important Information

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