Jump to content

GTA V on PC in

The Argument for San Fierro and Las Venturas


47 replies to this topic

#1 City of Dis

    Vandal

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 74 posts
16

Posted 08 November 2011 - 04:59 AM

I will break the argument into two different categories: logical suppositions and regional clues in the trailer.

Because the trailer focuses on Los Santos, the regional clues are sparse, so I'll start with those.

-It shows windmills that greatly resemble Altamont Pass, a notable place on the way from LA to northern California.

-The trailer highlights I-5, a famous highway that links Los Angeles to San Francisco.

-And, probably the most damning piece of evidence, Mount Chiliad is shown in the trailer, a location in San Fierro.

And now with the logical suppositions. These are tenuous conclusions that I've drawn which speak more about Rockstar's intentions regarding GTA V rather than any concrete allusions.

-They did it for San Andreas. They must know fans would be expecting it if they returned to Los Santos. I feel like even if the other cities don't appear in the game, they must've been up for discussion and debated.

-In the first San Andreas trailer, they only showed Los Santos, like this one.

-There are rumors that (more legit than the UK PS3 magazine rumors, in that they were posted on a rumor site and not as a random post on a forum) say the map is 2.5 times bigger than Red Dead Redemption's map, which is unbelievably freaking huge, certainly bigger than the original San Andreas map.

-There are jets, so obviously they're going to take you to far away places and other airports, which means other cities. Why not San Fierro and Las Venturas? Also, the jet coming from behind the Vinewood sign at the end of the trailer, wasn't the path from Las Venturas in San Andreas?

-Some license plates say "San Andreas" in the game (not really indicative; the state is San Andreas, so naturally the license plates would read that, but I don't think they would make it cryptically noticeable in the trailer if they didn't want to slyly allude to the first game).

-If they weren't going to include them, I think they would outright say it, instead of relaying ambiguities (see below)

-They've called it "the largest and most ambitious game Rockstar has yet created" which without San Fierro and Las Venturas, would feel like an overstatement.

Now I'm aware that Rockstar has said that the game "heads to the city of Los Santos and surrounding hills, countryside and beaches." In this statement, all they say is that GTA V heads to Los Santos; they do not say that it only heads to Los Santos. However, the next statement reads, "Grand Theft Auto V focuses on the pursuit of the almighty dollar in a re-imagined, present day Southern California." By saying that it focuses on Southern California, Rockstar seems to squash the implication that San Fierro or Las Venturas might return. But I still hold that this is too ambiguous. As I stated earlier, I truly believe that if San Fierro and Las Venturas don't appear in GTA V, Rockstar would've already explicitly said this. There is still speculation as to whether the other cities will appear, and I feel that Rockstar would quell the disappointment immediately, instead of allowing it to grow when they finally announce that the cities in fact will not be returning.

What do you guys think?

#2 Skribble

    Busting a nut.

  • Gold Member
  • 289 posts
31
  • LocationSydney, Australia
  • PSN Name:skribble

Posted 08 November 2011 - 05:08 AM

It's nice to see a conversation of this that isn't "ZOMG Rock* cants have teh santolos and not the other citiez"

I also think they are being cheeky by not saying directly "this game will not feature San Fierro or Las Venturas".
Honestly I would love if rockstar just wanted to recreate that first feeling from the original San Andreas where everyone though Ah sweet its los angeles! Then the second trailer reveals the other two cities.

However I don't think that it will be the case. It can still be a huge game without these two cities. If anything we will hopefully get a San Diego and another semi large cities aswell as small towns.

#3 Icecoldbagey

    Darkel

  • Gold Member
  • 217 posts
35

Posted 08 November 2011 - 05:16 AM

Excellent first post, and welcome! I'm still unsure about what to believe to be honest, don't really want to make assumptions (or indeed dismiss opinions of others) until there's more official information.

#4 Massacre

    Warlord of the Wastes

  • Moderators
  • 8,772 posts
5,807
  • LocationThe Apocrypha

Posted 08 November 2011 - 05:46 AM

Good post. I still think it'll only be Los Santos and the surrounding countryside, but at least you've made a good argument.

#5 TreeFitty

    Los Santos Fire Dept.

  • Admin
  • 4,836 posts
1,657

Posted 08 November 2011 - 05:49 AM

View PostCity of Dis, on 08 November 2011 - 04:59 AM, said:

-And, probably the most damning piece of evidence, Mount Chiliad is shown in the trailer, a location in San Fierro.


Not actually in San Fierro. San Fierro is the city north of it.

#6 thomsedavi

    Nobody Special

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 10 posts
5

Posted 08 November 2011 - 06:49 AM

View PostCity of Dis, on 08 November 2011 - 04:59 AM, said:

-They've called it "the largest and most ambitious game Rockstar has yet created" which without San Fierro and Las Venturas, would feel like an overstatement.

This is the only thing that really convinces me we might still see the two other cities. If they stick with Los Santos and the surrounding countryside, then it clearly won't be their 'largest and most ambitious' game at all.

Also, referring to 'Southern California' doesn't necessarily exclude the two other cities. It might just mean they won't pay attention to anything north of San Francisco... which according to Google Maps, isn't much anyway. Las Vegas might be in Nevada, but it's close enough to Southern California to be part of the general area.

I'm sure they're still holding out on a few major details. Maybe they'll surprise us all, and include Hawaii?

#7 City of Dis

    Vandal

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 74 posts
16

Posted 08 November 2011 - 07:44 AM

View PostArts - Skribble, on 08 November 2011 - 05:08 AM, said:

It's nice to see a conversation of this that isn't "ZOMG Rock* cants have teh santolos and not the other citiez"

I also think they are being cheeky by not saying directly "this game will not feature San Fierro or Las Venturas".
Honestly I would love if rockstar just wanted to recreate that first feeling from the original San Andreas where everyone though Ah sweet its los angeles! Then the second trailer reveals the other two cities.

However I don't think that it will be the case. It can still be a huge game without these two cities. If anything we will hopefully get a San Diego and another semi large cities aswell as small towns.

But why would they include San Diego over San Francisco? San Francisco is certainly a more interesting city.

View PostTreeFitty, on 08 November 2011 - 05:49 AM, said:

View PostCity of Dis, on 08 November 2011 - 04:59 AM, said:

-And, probably the most damning piece of evidence, Mount Chiliad is shown in the trailer, a location in San Fierro.


Not actually in San Fierro. San Fierro is the city north of it.


True. But why would they include Mount Chiliad but not San Fierro? Unless that's not actually Mount Chiliad in the trailer.

--

I think if we go with Occam's Razor, San Fierro and Las Venturas are not going to be in it. But I'm holding onto hope, and perhaps this is the only reason why I believe the cities will appear.

#8 Rayge

    'English motherfucker, do you speak it?'

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,826 posts
688

Posted 08 November 2011 - 10:58 AM

It is possible that there will be two more cities, Rockstar isn't going to reveal the entire game in one trailer. Hell, they didn't even reveal the protagonist... So I'm betting in future trailers we will see a lot more! If the map is 2x RDR as I read somewhere, they could easily fit 3 large cities (The ones in San Andreas were tiny) and a lot of countryside as well.

#9 CutThatCity

    Nobody Special

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts
0

Posted 08 November 2011 - 11:42 AM

I can't remember too well but wasn't San Andreas revealed city by city? I remember only hearing proper details about Venturas not too long before the game came out.

#10 DiO

    Some Fucker

  • Gold Member
  • 2,688 posts
2,296

Posted 08 November 2011 - 12:47 PM

Posted Image
My main thought is that grand theft auto always had 3 cities and no not to would break their formula. plus if there is only one then the entire game map is available at the beginning of the game? How will they break it up if there is one city? I suppose they could have 3 islands and still call it all "los santos'

#11 BuickBoy

    Shoplifter

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 120 posts
12

Posted 08 November 2011 - 04:10 PM

I hope it has LV and SF. If not... Fuck them in the ass, twice, with a big black aids infected sweaty penis

#12 Drew-Barnes

    Leece

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 200 posts
64

Posted 08 November 2011 - 04:28 PM

If you look at the size of the actual Cities in San Andreas, and ignore the countryside, they are tiny, even Los Santos was tiny in terms of how many roads there are and the area it covers, if you compare it to Liberty City in GTA 4.

The reason San Andreas looked so big is cause it was just filled with countryside and deserts, the Cities were tiny.

If you look at the small towns, most of them only have 4 or 5 roads in total.

A lot of people are saying that making GTA 5 bigger than San Andreas, and only including one City and surrounding countryside is unrealistic and that there must be more cities in the game... but if they are making the cities the size of Liberty City in GTA 4, then I can see it being a lot bigger.



Attached File  gtasa_2player_map.jpg (647.88K)
Number of downloads: 5

#13 TreeFitty

    Los Santos Fire Dept.

  • Admin
  • 4,836 posts
1,657

Posted 08 November 2011 - 05:58 PM

People have a hard time accepting the fact that just because San Andreas was a certain way, Rockstar does NOT need to make GTA V the same way. It's like saying there HAD to be a dam in GTA IV just because III had one.

#14 ratylird

    Nobody Special

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 11 posts
1

Posted 08 November 2011 - 06:31 PM

View PostTreeFitty, on 08 November 2011 - 05:58 PM, said:

People have a hard time accepting the fact that just because San Andreas was a certain way, Rockstar does NOT need to make GTA V the same way. It's like saying there HAD to be a dam in GTA IV just because III had one.


Was there a Dam in IV? I can't even remember

#15 ViceMan

    Decidedly average.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,627 posts
945

Posted 08 November 2011 - 06:36 PM

There was no dam in GTA IV.

I can't make my mind up yet, and to be honest I have no reason to argue one way or another. I've swayed from one side of the fence to the other and back and i've come to the conclusion it's pointless speculating until R* finally decide to reveal their master plan to us. It's nice to talk about "what if this was in the game" and such, but I wouldn't get your hopes up too much.

#16 ratylird

    Nobody Special

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 11 posts
1

Posted 08 November 2011 - 06:42 PM

View PostViceMan, on 08 November 2011 - 06:36 PM, said:

There was no dam in GTA IV.

I can't make my mind up yet, and to be honest I have no reason to argue one way or another. I've swayed from one side of the fence to the other and back and i've come to the conclusion it's pointless speculating until R* finally decide to reveal their master plan to us. It's nice to talk about "what if this was in the game" and such, but I wouldn't get your hopes up too much.


Totally agree (Y)
Would be nice to have in the game but either way we know the game will be awesome

#17 ViceMan

    Decidedly average.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,627 posts
945

Posted 08 November 2011 - 06:54 PM

All we can hope for is a swift death few screenshots to be released in the coming months that might hint towards other cities, until then there is nothing in the trailer - as far as i'm concerned - that 100% proves there will be other cities.

#18 Rayge

    'English motherfucker, do you speak it?'

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,826 posts
688

Posted 08 November 2011 - 06:59 PM

View PostDrew-Barnes, on 08 November 2011 - 04:28 PM, said:

If you look at the size of the actual Cities in San Andreas, and ignore the countryside, they are tiny, even Los Santos was tiny in terms of how many roads there are and the area it covers, if you compare it to Liberty City in GTA 4.

The reason San Andreas looked so big is cause it was just filled with countryside and deserts, the Cities were tiny.

If you look at the small towns, most of them only have 4 or 5 roads in total.

A lot of people are saying that making GTA 5 bigger than San Andreas, and only including one City and surrounding countryside is unrealistic and that there must be more cities in the game... but if they are making the cities the size of Liberty City in GTA 4, then I can see it being a lot bigger.




True, but obviously Rockstar aren't gonna keep Los Santos and the other cities that size... Just look at the transformation of LC from III > IV. HUGE amount of change. That's what I'm expecting in V as well, I am posetive they won't keep those tiny-ass cities with all this new technology.

#19 DiO

    Some Fucker

  • Gold Member
  • 2,688 posts
2,296

Posted 08 November 2011 - 07:15 PM

Posted Image
Yah I wont be upset if it is the one city. I just kinda think as of now they are holding out on info, And if not, whatever. A large contryside is gonna be in there for sure which is sick cause I loved the country-side in gta sa.

#20 Drew-Barnes

    Leece

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 200 posts
64

Posted 08 November 2011 - 08:03 PM

View PostManicMarcus, on 08 November 2011 - 06:59 PM, said:

View PostDrew-Barnes, on 08 November 2011 - 04:28 PM, said:

If you look at the size of the actual Cities in San Andreas, and ignore the countryside, they are tiny, even Los Santos was tiny in terms of how many roads there are and the area it covers, if you compare it to Liberty City in GTA 4.

The reason San Andreas looked so big is cause it was just filled with countryside and deserts, the Cities were tiny.

If you look at the small towns, most of them only have 4 or 5 roads in total.

A lot of people are saying that making GTA 5 bigger than San Andreas, and only including one City and surrounding countryside is unrealistic and that there must be more cities in the game... but if they are making the cities the size of Liberty City in GTA 4, then I can see it being a lot bigger.




True, but obviously Rockstar aren't gonna keep Los Santos and the other cities that size... Just look at the transformation of LC from III > IV. HUGE amount of change. That's what I'm expecting in V as well, I am posetive they won't keep those tiny-ass cities with all this new technology.



That was my point exactly, the new Los Santos (I'm hoping) will be nothing like the old one from San Andreas. and if the transformation of Liberty City is anything to go by then I don't see why the GTA 5 map can't bigger than the whole state of San Andreas map.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users