Talk:Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 09:32, 19 September 2005

GTA Myths

The article is missing a new feature SA brought in. The myths. The first serious had a little detail into myths with blue hell, but it was hard to explore, the VC had helicopters which allowed a lot more exploration, but it never picked off in the mainstream, SA on the other hand has sprung a huge arena of myth related topics.

I'm going to add some edits to myth related features, as well as some old myth related sites that I can grab.

If anyone has a problem with it being on the main page[though I do feel this is where it belongs], I can put it on a seperate sheet and just put up a link exchange.

~capi crimm.

Myths

Bigfoot
Serial Killer, face him on jungle
Big creature in deep sea
Mama's CJ ghost
ET contact

Real

Random writings in Los Santos cemetery at night.
Light balls passing in the sky
Ghostcar (an car nobody inside descend a mount)
Liberty City (with cheats)

I cleaned stuff up a lot and added more info. Let me know what you think!
Oh, and I think maybe the box art ought to be deleted - it's copyrighted. --Twinxor 08:15, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think the box art is released into the public domain. cun 16:16, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Why would the box art be in the public domain? I'm removing it. --Twinxor 17:29, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

But you have a fine case for fair use, so I've changed the status on the image. --Twinxor 17:40, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, cd covers are all around this place and are even instigated by Wikipedia, so why wouldn't ps2 covers be legal too?

* They are legal, it's fair use. It doesn't diminish the owner's ability to sell, and is not a work of art meant to be sold as is.

Table

I see in the table the person has listed players 1-2. That's kinda mean. The people who haven't seen the leaked covers yet (all 1 of them) will be shocked. --TIB (talk) 02:09, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

Why is it mean? The release is only a few days away. I wonder if it's even real, I doubt San Andreas will have multiplayer abilities. -- Sander 09:02, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Players of the leaked version claim that it will. See [1]. --GatesPlusPlus 14:07, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I read it on [[2]] yesterday. Sounds like an interesting idea. -- Sander 17:32, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Not officially confirmed, but there's co-op in a couple places. --Twinxor 18:10, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well now it's out and it's in the game there's no need to change it is there? --Vanguard 20:07, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Release Date Dispute

It's Oct 26, stop changing it phillip. gamespot still says 26. --TIB (talk) 05:09, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)

And the Australian release date is 29, who changed that? I've put it back. edgeworth 10:49, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

DVD Size

I dispute the dvd is a DVD9. Reports from everyone tell me its a DVD5. If someone has the dvd and can toss it in their DVD-ROM, right click/properties, and screenshot the size, that would help greatly. --69.92.23.31 02:18, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm sure I've read people (on www.gtaforums.com) having older PS2's who have trouble playing it, because it's dual-layer, meaning it's DVD9. Also, in one of the older interviews with Rockstar, they said San Andreas would he too big to fit on one side, so they expanded it even more to fit a dual-layer disc. -- Sander 08:59, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

DVD properties screenshot -Rjo 09:26, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

It's a DVD5, contains 4.3 GB of data --Mateusc 00:09, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's a dual-layer one, they said so in about a million interviews Ian Moody 18:26, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No. It's DVD5. --Mateusc 05:10, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please state scources prooving your point! Hakusa - Wiki addict: 01: 32, September 8, 2005 (UTC); While I don't have it for the PC, so I can't, I do recognise that it is probably a DVD9. But if you think otherwise proove it either by linking a site or any other creative idea; because right now it sounds like a bunch of uninformed opinions.

Cable cars

I'm removing the reference to being able to steal the cable car in SF. So far I've found no confirmation that it can be stolen. -Sean Curtin 03:19, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

Your right about that, it just goes around in a loop never stopping and is impossible to steal.--Vanguard 20:11, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Trolleys can't be jacked. Trains is what was being reffered to.

The original reference was: San Fierro features Rockstar's interpretations of the Haight-Ashbury district, Chinatown, and the Golden Gate Bridge, as well as cable cars which can be stolen. No reference to trains here, and the stealable trains are already mentioned in the article. -Sean Curtin 23:59, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

No what I ment was that Trolleys got mixed up with Trains in some of message boards. A few other things got exagerated like that as well

Yeah, a lot of things got conflated like that in the older versions of the article - even a few weeks after the game came out, there were still claims here that CJ could go up to any person on the street and talk to them, etc. -Sean Curtin 06:30, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

But isn't that true, in a manner of speaking? Anyone you bump into can talk to you, and you can respond. 137.148.52.254 20:19, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Is impossible to steal and stop these cable cars and the appears it is pure randomly.

Votes for deletion results

The article, Glory Hole Theme Park, was listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion in accordance with the deletion policy on 03:16, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC). The result of this nomination was merge and redirect. Please see this page's entry for archive of the debate. -- AllyUnion (talk) 22:33, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Links to Gamespot

Is it just me, or are half of the links about stuff to Gamespot? Seems wrong / unrequired. Scumbag June 29, 2005 08:26 (UTC)

Not only that, but the images linked to don't work. All those links need to be taken out of the article. --Marcg106 18:49, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Walkthrough

I think we should write a walkthrough for San Andreas on the Wiki. It would be an interesting project seeing everyones ideas for completing each mission one by one. Perhaps even put each mission on seperate pages and let people add their own ways of completing the mission. Moitio 22:08, 02 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are you aware that Wikibooks is well underway into this very thing. Walkthroughs don't belong on Wikipedia, but Wikibooks is perfect for them. Check it out! --TheDotGamer ^Talk July 3, 2005 00:23 (UTC)

Ah right, thanks, I wasn't aware of that. --Moitio July 4, 2005 23:18 (UTC)

Character Criticisms

I was going to add the following text to "Criticisms", but it occurred to me that it might not be a neutral POV. Opinions?

Another criticized aspect of the game is Carl Johnson (the playable character) himself. In previous GTA games (except Vice City), the playable character was mute with little to no character development. As such, a person could kill random people in the game without compromising their own morals, stating that such actions would be done by the character anyway. In Vice City, the main character had dialogue and an established personality. Tommy Vercetti (the character) was portrayed as a brutal killer, being released from prison shortly before the game's events. However, Johnson is portrayed as a nice guy who's caught up with the wrong crowd; who only does what's necessary. Certainly, killing innocent people on the street isn't necessary. In essence, when one is playing the game (and not doing missions), anything one does cannot be credited to CJ, but to the player.

--Zeromaru 5 July 2005 21:46 (UTC)

Meh, seems OK to me. --Jacj 06:57, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure what this section is trying to say. Is the criticism of the fact that CJ is a more developed character than the playable characters in other GTA games, which makes it harder to reconcile the player's (possibly, but likely) amoral tendencies with his "good guy" nature? Or is the criticism of Carl's personality and character itself? It just isn't quite registering for me. -DynSkeet (talk) 21:01, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

It's the former. CJ doesn't seem like the kind of guy that would do have the stuff you do when not on a mission. --Zeromaru 00:56, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Then don't do the stuff when not on a mission... --84.173.243.25 01:23, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't think ANY of the characters from GTA III, VC or SA would just go up to someone in the streets and shoot them in the head (stress relief, perhaps?) If CJ had principles, he wouldn't have killed hundreds of people during missions. The game seems to contradict itself, no?

Hot Coffee

(The below coments have been copied and pasted from the above topic, where they did not belong.) I'm an avid fan of the GTA games and don't consider myself a prude, but there's a screenshot of the hot coffee mod which I reckon should be removed. I'm not usually one for censorship but it just looks tacky or childish to have it there. I'm sure if someone wants to know what it looks like they can find screenshots by a link or something, not have it shoved in their face like that.

Normally, I'd agree, if I didn't have to look closely at the picture in order to pick out what's going on. Really, it's crude, but leaves much to the imagination of children. Really makes you wonder how THAT scene gave it AO. --Zeromaru 01:34, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I also think that the link to the "Hot coffee cheats" should be removed too. -- 24.90.128.71 00:47 00:47, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hakusa - Wiki addict: 01:45, September 8, 2005 (UTC) - Do I think Rockstar should have done hot coffee to begin with? No. But does that make the game deserve an AO rating? I don't think so.In risk of having a POV, I think had hotcoffe been conciously available by rockstar, then AO would have been OK, but the fact that only a hacker (To hack: an ILEGAL event unwich usualy a programer gets into a program and changes it.), or a moder could have accesed it. The fact is, someone could have just as easily put that in the game anyways. I do, however agree it should have been taken out of the game, and don't think the AO rating should have been on the console version because having a moded Xbox or PS2 is far more illegal that game hacking, and the only way to access the content on a console is owning a moded one.

Pretty stupid, but this is an encyclopedia, so we can't deconstruct the arguments that the fact that it was even considered means the game should have an AO. Way I see it is if it isn't accessable in an unmodified release copy, it is user created content. Hackers or no. -- Fergdude33 22:44, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 114: / Line 114: @@
 :::Then don't do the stuff when not on a mission... --[[User:84.173.243.25|84.173.243.25]] 01:23, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
+:Well, I don't think ANY of the characters from GTA III, VC or SA would just go up to someone in the streets and shoot them in the head (stress relief, perhaps?) If CJ had principles, he wouldn't have killed hundreds of people during missions. The game seems to contradict itself, no?
 == Hot Coffee ==