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

[FlacidJack]

27 minutes ago, Nutduster said:

 

I gotta say, I really don't get the hate on V.  It's a quality game that clearly a ton of effort went into, and quite a lot of the best parts of San Andreas were brought into it and updated.  Even the heists were an updated, more complex spin on the casino robbery quests in SA.  I think the very mixed feelings people have about Online tended to rub off on V; I bet it would be remembered pretty differently if it didn't even have multiplayer.

I don't hate V in any way shape or form, just that SA was so much more... just more of everything good imo. I still play SA (with my son) and it's just so much more of a complete game. 

It's no surprise though, GTAV released when several good games turned to being "accessible" and "streamlined". It's still a big game it just caters to more of a variety of players instead of designing it fully based on past GTAs imo... Which is fine with me.

 

The island of LS is a decent indication of streamlining, SA was split up and felt massive, LS is one compact island that feels big but easy to travel.

In the end it's just a matter of taste, I doubt anyone on this forum hates V, they probably just like SA more.

[Nutduster]

But in terms of actual physical space, V's map dwarfs SA's.  Los Santos as a city is also several times larger.  The diversity of SA's map was really cool in its day but it feels almost comically small to me today, and the two non-LS cities are so half-baked.

 

I loved SA, don't get me wrong, but I struggle to understand what people think was great about it that wasn't also great about V.  Literally the only thing I wanted back that we didn't get was gang territories.  And V had several things that improve on the formula too - first that comes to mind is the random encounters (which of course were also in RDR and GTA IV, but not in SA).

 

[lowriderlife63]

What LS did great in SA was gang neighborhoods, were very diverse in my opinion. You had GS at 1 part and the Vagos at the end of LS, in V they kinda feel mushed together. Other than that I would say V did a much better job at recreating LA, especially the Hollywood and Observatory area. Only mistake is that Sunset and Hollywood are mashed into one street next to each other while in real life they are different streets. As someone who's from LA V represents it great. Just wish the city was a bit more bigger. 

Edited June 16, 2018 by lowriderlife63

[SinZer0s]

V is closer to real LA. Maybe you enjoyed the gang stuff more so you developed a special love for SA's city. 

 

I agree with lowriderlife63 though, the gang territories in V are too close to each other

These guys should be shooting each other the whole day

[Gtaman_92]

GTA V captured LA way more accurately then San Andreas.

Edited June 17, 2018 by Gtaman_92

[Algonquin Assassin]

Even though I have my fair share of gripes with GTA V's map there's no doubt the GTA V rendition of Los Santos is much more accurate to LA than Los Santos is in San Andreas. Forget about which game is more fun and look at facts.

 

It was a pretty good rendition of LA for the time, but like how R* captured NYC far more accurately in GTA IV compared to GTA III with better and more powerful hardware the progress is hard to ignore. If GTA VI heads to Vice City it'll be undoubtedly be more accurate to Miami than Vice City ever was.

 

It doesn't mean these older settings are bad at what they achieved, but in this case I really think it has more to do with nostalgic attachment than anything concerning accuracy of the real life counterpart.

 

 

[Guest]

SA's LS was amazing for its time but V's LS is undoubtedly a better representation . With greater technology and experience R* crafted a much more intricate and detailed city, which is understandable given they had nearly a decade to improve on SA. Probably someone raised in LA will have a better idea but imo areas in V's LS like Hollywood, Beverly hills, Downtown, the beachside all look very similar to their real life counterparts from what I've seen in articles and video comparisons. Dynamic/Random events give a sense of activity and life to V's LS .SA'S LS, especially the ghetto areas are great but V's LS is simply greater in scope and detail. 

[lil weasel]

I was not aware that the Los Santos city was supposed to be an "Accurate" map of L.A.  or for that matter any of the Generalized Depictions of the other Cities in the Grand State of San Andreas.

 

San Andreas in GTA San Andreas, is certainly a better representation of a State than the Atoll of  San Andreas in GTA V.

Edited June 18, 2018 by lil weasel

[Rhoda]

I don't think it's fair to compare Los Santos to the real thing, nor do I think it's fair to compare it to V.

 

For the first point, I think SA tackled a representation that didn't so much strive for accuracy. Regardless of limitation, I feel like Los Santos as a city had the personality of LA without resorting to such heavy handed replicas. Don't get me wrong, I'm aware of the striking similarities such as the Vinewood sign or certain landmarks, but it didn't feel like it was trying to be an accurate depiction. Rather, elements were borrowed to display that this was obviously what was being parodied.

 

V is different. Starting with IV, it was obvious that R* took a different approach. We immediately saw Liberty City borrowed as much as it could from NYC to play host, including the layout. V continued the trend by copying elements of Los Angeles exactly. It's clear that both are supposed to be Los Angeles, but it's presented in such a different way that I don't think it's a fair comparison. It's like comparing III's Liberty City to IV's; sure, it's the same city but there's so much that separates them they have completely different chemistry.

[LordStarship]

19 hours ago, ∴ said:

I don't think it's fair to compare Los Santos to the real thing, nor do I think it's fair to compare it to V.

 

For the first point, I think SA tackled a representation that didn't so much strive for accuracy. Regardless of limitation, I feel like Los Santos as a city had the personality of LA without resorting to such heavy handed replicas. Don't get me wrong, I'm aware of the striking similarities such as the Vinewood sign or certain landmarks, but it didn't feel like it was trying to be an accurate depiction. Rather, elements were borrowed to display that this was obviously what was being parodied.

 

V is different. Starting with IV, it was obvious that R* took a different approach. We immediately saw Liberty City borrowed as much as it could from NYC to play host, including the layout. V continued the trend by copying elements of Los Angeles exactly. It's clear that both are supposed to be Los Angeles, but it's presented in such a different way that I don't think it's a fair comparison. It's like comparing III's Liberty City to IV's; sure, it's the same city but there's so much that separates them they have completely different chemistry.

I agree. 3D universe is very different from HD Universe for sure. R* only makes a parody of LA when they are creating SA's Los Santos. It can be seen at some parts of the city which is a parody from the real life parts.

[Evil empire]

I've never been in Los Angeles but based on the various series and movies I saw taking place in this city I think it's well represented.

[Lioshenka]

Depends what you mean by "better", closer to reality? Probably 5, even though I have no idea what Los Angeles looks like.

 

Better representation as in better playable 3d representation? Definitely SA.

[Official General]

V was obviously a better representation of LA in terms of realism, a trifle obvious due to the huge advances in gaming technology since SA was made. However to me, LS in SA just 'felt' and looked better. The hood areas were not small, and East LS actually looked and felt like it was supposed to feel. LS in SA was indeed lacking certain other aspects, but it had more landscape variety to me - there was the hood areas (with a proper East LS), the industrial areas, middle-income areas, downtown, and rich hills. V's LS was just small hood areas, downtown, and the rest was wealthy Hollywood--styled mansion-laden hills. 

Edited June 21, 2018 by Official General

[GTA_CAT]

Imo each one is created to depict a city in the year the game takes place on. That's a thing that can bias the opinions. It's not the same L.A. in 1992 than in 2013, but this is seen as a more subjective point of view. So both LS might be tied on this field, but SA give me the impression that it's slightly better, because of the bond with the whole city and the storyline.

 

If you think about landscaping and realism GTA V wons without too much effort, 11 years of technology improving make GTA V LS the biggest and most detailed city in the series, probably till GTA 6 release. It can even be unfair to compare the cities in this way.

 

I think I have arrived at this point where I couldn't tell what city is better, having in mind all the different aspects to value...

[Journey_95]

The nostalgia is real lol. I mean you can prefer the city but GTA V's LS is objectively a better representation of LA, its not even close

[LordStarship]

4 hours ago, Journey_95 said:

The nostalgia is real lol. I mean you can prefer the city but GTA V's LS is objectively a better representation of LA, its not even close

Remember that the old LA is not the new LA. SA could make the representation of the old LA or the 1990 LA, but V could make the representation of the new LA or the 2012 LA. Also remember that 3D Universe is not as same as HD Universe. Both represents LA, but none is better, because the time when GTA SA created and the time when GTA V created are different.

[Sonny_Black]

Accuracy or not, I always preferred L.S from San Andreas, I don't know, it feels like the L.A I saw in movies and TV show.

 

[Jack Lupino]

I like both representation of LA.I really cant choose one over the other.

Ofcourse if you are looking for accuracy GTA 5 is better but San Andreas also did a great job of creating mini replica of the city.

if you look at the skyline of downtown LS its almost look alike.

It should be also mentioned that 5 is focussed on one city as opposed to 3 cities in SA .

The latter did a great job i must say with the limited hardware of its time.

[SmokesWithCigs]

On 6/16/2018 at 2:47 PM, kcole4001 said:

The sunny days in V are usually much cleaner/clearer.

More like weather out in the country.

Can't say I miss the virtual smog.

 

Gta v does have a smoggy/foggy atmospheric effects somtimes. Its just not constantly smoggy and hazy like san andreas.

[Journey_95]

On 6/24/2018 at 3:35 AM, LordStarship said:

Remember that the old LA is not the new LA. SA could make the representation of the old LA or the 1990 LA, but V could make the representation of the new LA or the 2012 LA. Also remember that 3D Universe is not as same as HD Universe. Both represents LA, but none is better, because the time when GTA SA created and the time when GTA V created are different.

Yeah but SA didn't even make a good representation of the "old" LA. And of course GTA V's LA is better, of course it has to do with how its possible to create such a well crafted city today (more than back when SA came out) but that doesn't change its vastly superior.

 

Its like comparing 3D Era LC with GTA IV's LC

 

[SmokesWithCigs]

Obviously gta.vs map is the better rendition because it resembles its real life counterpart but gta san andreas map is better gameplay wise be abuse every area of the map was utilised. The landscape and environment varied. There were many great places to use for. Over during combat. There was so much detail ,interactivity and so much to do outside of story missions during free roam.

[Official General]

On ‎6‎/‎28‎/‎2018 at 4:24 AM, anthony said:

Accuracy or not, I always preferred L.S from San Andreas, I don't know, it feels like the L.A I saw in movies and TV show.

 

 I feel the same. 

 

I don't know exactly why, but LS in SA just felt more like the LA is saw in the movies than the LS in V. The main factor that really swings it in SA's favour for me was it's hood areas - they genuinely looked and felt like very dangerous places to be in, and they completely exuded the character and atmosphere of the hood's inhabitants. 

[Yinepi]

I think many of you guys are not understanding the OP correctly. It's not about the visual/graphical representation, it's about the culture and atmosphere of the city the OP is asking about.

Personally, they're both good representations of the time periods. LA is less gang-culutre now. But in the early '90s common culture of the city was different. Street/gang culture was on the rise. LA has always been a superficial place, but it was less so in the '90s.

Edited July 1, 2018 by Yinepi

[Official General]

6 hours ago, Yinepi said:

I think many of you guys are not understanding the OP correctly. It's not about the visual/graphical representation, it's about the culture and atmosphere of the city the OP is asking about.

Personally, they're both good representations of the time periods. LA is less gang-culutre now. But in the early '90s common culture of the city was different. Street/gang culture was on the rise. LA has always been a superficial place, but it was less so in the '90s.

Mister topic Nazi relax.....sometimes topic encompass other subjects not part of the core topic but related, they naturally diverge every now and then, but still relate to each other. Come on, be smarter than that. 

[universetwisters]

GTA 5. San Andreas just looks like a bunch of cardboard boxes painted like LA buildings. The only thing SA did better than V was the size of the ghetto and that's about it.

[Official General]

18 hours ago, universetwisters said:

GTA 5. San Andreas just looks like a bunch of cardboard boxes painted like LA buildings. The only thing SA did better than V was the size of the ghetto and that's about it.

Looking better is one thing. Getting the feeling better is another. I just feel that LS in SA captured the LA atmosphere better than V did, despite V looking much better graphically. 

[Officer Ronson]

2 hours ago, Official General said:

Looking better is one thing. Getting the feeling better is another. I just feel that LS in SA captured the LA atmosphere better than V did, despite V looking much better graphically. 

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. 

[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. 

[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. 

[Official General]

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 July 2, 2018 by Official General