This kind of debate always get heated for some reason. The setting of the game itself is based on three cities from two US states - California and Nevada. San Fierro in particular is based on San Francisco, California. The entire setting, however, is fictionalized for game's sake to avoid such actual representation of various events.
In game's theory, San Andreas is considered as a state within the United States, and the entire map (Los Santos, San Fierro, Las Venturas, Red County, Bone County, Flint County) are all part of the State of San Andreas. However, various roleplay communities are putting it in various locations (island, separate country) for whatever reason they think it is. Communities are free to make their own conceptualization of the map, but at the end of the day, the way the game developers (Rockstar North) conceptualized the map is that it is its own state within the United States.
On an unrelated note that is somewhat related, since the rest of the map will be closed on the server, what would be the IC reason for that?
I can't answer this officially but my ideas to answer this have been purely infrastructure-related... Good ol' fashioned bridge construction. Maybe an earthquake crumbled the one in Flint County near The Panopticon, the one near the single player RS Haul is simply too old and deemed structurally unsafe. As for the Flint Range / Los Santos bridge, given that it reduces from four lanes to two on the bridge rather than before or after it, it could be a serious traffic hazard and needs to be replaced for safety.
As for the Bayside area the only thing I have come up with is either is some sort of rock fall/mud slide or the tunnel(s) has/have collapsed.
-
I never really considered the state of San Andreas to be a separate island. Interesting thought. Definitely on the west coast, but I just kind of assumed it to be connected to the mainland.
San Andreas, to me, should just be San Andreas. We're playing a video game and role-playing on a fictional map. Associating San Andreas with any real life country/city/etc serves no purpose, considering you can't ever leave.
The best way for us to exist is to be a replacement for California, in the West Coast of the United States of America. It's not hard at all to not roleplay the existence of California or any other part of the US West Coast. Additionally, this being an island is incredibly dumb for me, we should roleplay it as a continental side without looking at the map for everything, it's a roleplay server so we should use our imagination to create proper lore.
On 10/24/2017 at 7:30 AM, Giga said:
However, various roleplay communities are putting it in various locations (island, separate country) for whatever reason they think it is
I say let's make the sane decision and stick with the Grant Theft Auto 3D Universe's lore and replace the main points of interest with what actually happens it it, such as the other cities like Liberty City and Vice City. Despite being blocked out we should roleplay the other cities as well and impose a realistic distance between them, ICly for example, the distance between LS and SF should be of around 4 hours, we shouldn't limit ourselves to the "island" theory.
The best way for us to exist is to be a replacement for California, in the West Coast of the United States of America. It's not hard at all to not roleplay the existence of California or any other part of the US West Coast. Additionally, this being an island is incredibly dumb for me, we should roleplay it as a continental side without looking at the map for everything, it's a roleplay server so we should use our imagination to create proper lore.
I say let's make the sane decision and stick with the Grant Theft Auto 3D Universe's lore and replace the main points of interest with what actually happens it it, such as the other cities like Liberty City and Vice City. Despite being blocked out we should roleplay the other cities as well and impose a realistic distance between them, ICly for example, the distance between LS and SF should be of around 4 hours, we shouldn't limit ourselves to the "island" theory.
I agree with this pretty much. Don't see why this wouldn't work and it's pretty standard for the lore. Doesn't cause problems either.
The State of San Andreas is a fictional state in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. It is mostly based on California and Nevada (only having the city Las Venturas based on Las Vegas and the surrounding desert region) while there are other notable areas and landmarks nodding to areas of Arizona (mainly the desert and forest areas).
Straight out of GTA:SA wiki. San Andreas is a fictional state, nothing more and nothing less. Searching for any more details is just pointless. It's not Atlantis lmao.
For roleplaying sake, San Andreas is California. Los Santos is Los Angeles, and San Fierro is San Francisco.
If that was the case when it comes to in character, then the "SFPD" would be San Francisco PD not San Fierro PD. So, that is, obviously, not the case. I don't think that there is an official statement or lore if you will about SA/SF here at BA-RP yet, but a bold guess is that it will most likely be considered just another state of the US and geographically be an island (obviously) somewhere around.
If that was the case when it comes to in character, then the "SFPD" would be San Francisco PD not San Fierro PD. So, that is, obviously, not the case.
I personally think not changing every name to represent California makes things simple, and gives the administrators / players more freedom in their factions. It doesn't have to be perfect. San Andreas is a fictionalized and exaggerated representation of California.
Just now, SCANDALOUZ said:
I don't think that there is an official statement or lore if you will about SA/SF here at BA-RP, but a bold guess is that it will be an island (as it is) and just another state of the US.
I will tell you that is very stupid and good factions / roleplayers will ignore that.
Why would surenos, who are based in their hoods in California, be in this new state? How would it make sense that there is a Vinewood as well as a Hollywood, or a Santa Maria as well as a Santa Monica? That's very dumb.
I personally think not changing every name to represent California makes things simple, and gives the administrators / players more freedom in their factions. It doesn't have to be perfect. San Andreas is a fictionalized and exaggerated representation of California.
I will tell you that is very stupid and good factions / roleplayers will ignore that.
Why would surenos, who are based in their hoods in California, be in this new state? How would it make sense that there is a Vinewood as well as a Hollywood, or a Santa Maria as well as a Santa Monica? That's very dumb.
Real life based fictional worlds have their imperfections.
Think it's best just to let people role play San Andreas where it is. I personally role play it taking over California, so California in this universe does not exist. Nor does Vegas (Nevada). People can RP that it's some island off the coast of Cali, or whatever. Or the 51st state. I don't agree, but it doesn't effect too much for me. I'll just continue going along with how I want to view it.
San Andreas is a state on the west coast of the continental United States - in the GTA universe it's a complete replacement of California and some of Nevada. Universe-wise, the SA version of the state isn't all of it, there'd obviously be more cities in the state.
It should be a new state and not California. Pretty much everything is fictional and not so realistic due to the size of the map. No need to overcomplicate it by making it a real life copy-paste.