Talk:Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Weapon List

The weapon list for GTA: SA on this page is flat out wrong or contains mis-information.

- There is no M16A2 in the game. Only an M4.
- The silenced pistol is not an M1911 .45. It is a non-specific 9mm, which is directly taken from the strategy guide.
- There are no separate night-vision goggles and thermal-vision goggles. The night-vision goggles simply have thermal capabilities.
EDIT- Tear Gas is in vice city but not san andreas Recommend clean-up. --JOK3R 15:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Corrected the former two. I must disagree with the final statement, though. It's not possible for each set of goggles to possess both nightvision and thermal capabilities, and the googles can only be switched on or off, not between nightvision and thermal vision. ╫ ２５ ◀RingADing▶ 18:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC) ╫

You're right. Sorry about that. Not sure why I thought they were separate. I actually had to pop the game in last night just to double check. My bad. :) --JOK3R 14:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

No problem. :) ╫ ２５ ◀RingADing▶ 18:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC) ╫

I think that there is tear gas in San Andreas either that or they are smoke grenades, however it is believed its teargas because pedestrians lose health when gas is deployed

Why is the factual accuracy tag still there? savidan(talk) (e@) 04:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
There's really tear gas in San Andreas. Near the Mulholland Intersection and on the LV Airport. 213.39.130.11 19:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)-
The in-game model for the silenced pistol is just the Colt .45 with a silencer attached, though. However, in-game, the Colt is called "9mm" although it obviously is an M1911. R* stopped using the "real" names due to licensing problems. And they haven't gotten the M4 right yet. Its barrel is still too long, just as in VC and III, so it looks like a weird M16/M4 hybrid. And it uses the same sound effect as the AK-47, which is wrong because they use different ammunition amongst other things. I love GTA, but Rockstar should really try to get the weapons "right" and really include more variety- I'm getting sick of the same 10 guns. -albrozdude 05:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

P.S.: the "micro-Smg" is not a Mac-10. It is a "micro uzi". Everywhere on wikipedia I see this mistake, and to a layperson the two weapons look the same, but they are not. I will correct this in the article. -albrozdude 05:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

There's also tear gas in the big aircraft carrier VTEC....God's gift to man---t(-_-t) 23:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

"The health bar pictured [...] will increase in length"

I'm not sure this is true. I know that the amount of health can be increased by exercising and so on, but does the actual bar change length? Perhaps someone who is certain either way can fix it or let me know that it does. I've got to rush off in a minute, but if no one has replied when I get back I'll load up the game and find out. Icey 20:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Alrighty, I loaded up the game and cycled/ran around for a while until my health got an increase... and the bar didn't move! Also, there isn't any room for it to get any bigger because the weapon icon is right next to it. So I'll correct that on the image description. Icey 22:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
The health bar does lengthen as the player's maximum health increases. You can compare the image in question with the other four screenshots. The initial length of the health bar starts out with the same length of the armor bar, and increases until it reached the length of the money counter. The individual increase of the maximum health, and the bar's length, are too small to be noticeable until one plays the game long enough and repeats the increase several more times.
Nevertheless, your change is satisfactory and sufficient; no revert is require. ╫ ２５ ◀RingADing▶ 11:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC) ╫
I tried it out with one of my completed games and you're right, the bar does go all the way across! Icey 19:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Okey dokey. :) ╫ ２５ ◀RingADing▶ 20:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC) ╫
It does expand, but just too slow. Probrably due to the fact your health bar moves very slowly. As for ways to increase it, I think it works similar to a "Veterns" system, such as the longer you travel or more you work, your health will increase. On my Xbox, I have my max health, on my PC, I am actually increasing it riding a motorbike. I don't know if it is because I am gaining stats that also increases health (Vetern system) Also, I believe you can increase it doing Paramedic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ledgo (talk • contribs) 16:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah it does increase in lengh and eventually surpass the armor bar. --67.142.130.14 01:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Police Radio

If you steel a car, you get a police star. Then the police dispatcher says in the police radio where the suspect is (like Downtown) and if you are on foot or in a car. For the second case: Which car and which color. Most of the cars (like the Sentinel) have the same names (the dispatcher hasn't the exact names for the cars, he only says "in a truck" and so on). But I don't understand what he is saying to the "normal" cars. Turudor? Curudor? And also what he is saying to the "Linerunner".

I believe it says "two-door" or "four-door". Not sure about the Linerunner, will have to go check that out. Tarc 04:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

What is this game about?

First sentence of the article: "Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas is a video game that was developed by Rockstar North and published by Rockstar Games." OK, but is it an adventure, a Tetris-clone or a shooter? The whole first paragraph does not tell me

I suggest you should read some more then.--Soetermans 20:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
The reason is That the name is from the San Andreas Fault That Reaches Earthquakes out Las Vegas Dur!!

AO

What are the differences between the AO version and the M version.

There is no difference in content between the two. The original game was rerated Adults Only after the "hot coffee" controversy. A later rerelease of the game with the code removed allowed it to be sold under a Mature rating again. It's thought that this action caused huge financial harm to Take-Two. ~xenc. 07:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
BTW, The "Hot Cofee" part is inside the game itself. It's not a mod. A mod is when you add additional stuff to the game. Ok? RocketMaster 20:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
It is not a mod, but something you must unlock through editing files. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ledgo (talk • contribs) 16:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

NWA era

I deleted the part saying that Ganton, East Los Santos and Vinewood are based on the 'N.W.A. - era', which is useless, because it is already said that the game takes places in the early '90s.--Soetermans 20:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Cultural references

I know lots of pages on Wikipedia have sections with cultural references, though GTA:SA is without one, despite (or perhaps due to?) being chock full of them. Has a consensus been made that such a section in this article would be unnecessary, or has no one had the initiative to begin it? If it's the latter, I'll start it and add a few. If it's the former, somebody can say so here and delete it. Agonotheta 10:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not know if already something was made, but I find it a good idea. I did some work on the (popular) culture section at Vice City.--Soetermans 12:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Listing of "Cheat" sites

After some discussion HERE, it was suggested that the linking of cheat sites violates the policy on Indiscriminate collections of information. With this in mind can the anonymous contributors who continue to try to post cheat sites to this article please cease. Thank you Enigmatical 23:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Serious cleanup

Aside from being incoherent, that table full of characters (thirty links to the same article) is an utter joke. This needs a chainsaw taken to it. Chris Cunningham 14:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Still not perfect, but quite a bit more coherent. Chris Cunningham 16:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Recent revert

Y2kcrazyjoker4, why did you revert before making your edits? All sorts of other junk (like the tiny deep sections, the triple-linking of various related articles, and the ridiculous introduction) has crept back in. Consistency is only a good thing if the other GTA articles are good; the new layout is far more readable. Chris Cunningham 21:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that meant "discuss it", not "stick a comment in the edit history". Why is the excruciatingly boring story of Take 2's press releases the best way to kick off the article? It isn't. Nobody really cares. Chris Cunningham 22:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Just because you find information on Take 2's press release boring doesn't mean you should reorganize the ENTIRE article and make it a hodgepodge of unrelated information. Putting the gameplay, plot, and character elements all together in a broad "synopsis" section of the article makes no sense. It mixes up portions of the article that are better served by being categorized. I mean, isn't that the point of having sections and subsections? To divide up content so related parts are separated from unrelated parts? Right now, the article is just a muddle of stuff and it's unorganized. You took various gameplay elements and put them in the first section of the article, yet you left the rest of the gameplay elements in the middle of the article. Why are you unseparating similar content?
The article needs a gameplay section somewhere near the front. The other content deals with differences between San Andreas and former games, but "new stuff" isn't really the same as "how the game is played". Features rightly belong in a different section from gameplay. Chris Cunningham 07:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
You don't necessarily have to get to the crux of the game in the first 2 paragraphs of the entire article. It's perfectly acceptable (and precedented by thousands of other articles on this site)
Please don't throw numbers around. Not only am I not impressed, I flat-out don't believe it. Chris Cunningham 07:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
to start with a history section, briefly introduce elements, and then elaborate. If you don't like having to read a history/speculation portion of the game, you can choose to click the table of contents link to go somewhere else in the article, or you can move it somewhere else in the article, instead of rewriting the entire thing.
You can't do this to the intro, which needlessly repeats all the release information given in the immediately following paragraph. Chris Cunningham 07:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Lastly, your changes go completely against the Peer Review the article just had a few weeks ago (see this talk page for that review).
I see nothing whatsoever in that short peer review which contradicts the disputed changes, and in fact some of my edits follow the peer review closely. Please point out examples. Chris Cunningham 07:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
For that reason, I am reverting to my edits that follow the format of said review. Y2kcrazyjoker4 22:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to keep working on this today, including incorporating your section reduction in the feature list, but I'm going to remove the intro fluff and put gameplay up top where it belongs again. We'll get this worked out, but I really don't see where you're coming from (aside from a supposed precedent elsewhere). Chris Cunningham 07:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Current status of peer review

So, where are we as regards the peer review right now?

  • Popular impact section still needs to be expanded, but it's coherent and in-place.
  • Reduction of fanboy comments and general feature info. Work still needs to be done here; Y2kcrazyjoker4's reduction of subheaders in the "changes" section is a good idea.
  • Intro now provides a plot synopsis and an idea of what the game is like to play rather than being a list of all the different dates it was released. Check.
  • Extlinks have been killed. Check.

Chris Cunningham 09:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Reverting again

Y2kcrazyjoker4, please stop basing your edits on a reverted version. You've blatantly done this several times now, as evidenced by the genre getting messed up in the first line (action-adventure has its own article). While you fail to provide a good reason to revert me, you've got no basis for starting from a reverted edit. Back it goes again. Chris Cunningham 18:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

As for your recent edits: Hot Coffee didn't "overshadow" the game; it wasn't controverial to anyone who actually bought the game, nor did it dissuade anyone from buying it.


Listen. You've got some good points. The history section was repetitive by restating release date information. The gameplay section should be closer to the top of the article. There should probably be a section introducing the new features as "Differences from previous GTA games". The weapons section should be separate. And there should be a short explanation of the plot in the introduction. And that's why I've put made these changes in my edit. I'm trying to compromise here by implementing your ideas and continuing to use some of mine. But just because you don't agree with some of my my changes doesn't mean you should completely revert EVERYTHING. For example, by doing that, you are reverting all the minor edits I made; multiple links to the same article, for instance, is one thing I continued to fix in my edits, and I recall you complaining about that problem previously. Some of the character names linked to broad subjects and completely wrong articles (Ryder -> truck leasing company?) I also made several grammatical corrections, and organized the pictures better. By reverting, you are also removing the "Reception" section you were just encouraging people to develop further. Maybe if you are going to revert in the future, you should look at the individual changes I made first.
Please note how I reworded the mention of the Hot Coffee mod in the introduction. It was a significant enough event and made the game newsworthy enough that it should probably be prefaced in the introduction.
Also, I feel that the new features/differences with other GTA section is not suited best as a list. If this was a trivia section or a summary of evidence of some sort, then maybe it should be a list. But why are we just combining so much content together? Why not separate it into subsections (like I said earlier)? Why don't be separate things small differences/exclusions from large new features/inclusions, like I have it? I agree, the table of contents section gets too long if you do that, but that is also why I bolded the titles with triple apostrophes instead of making it a new section with the equals sign.
Lastly, the introduction cannot just say the genre of the game and then a plot summary. It needs some background information on the game, like when it was made, who made it, and when it was released (see ANY video game article- it's a precedent). I agree that this information does not need to be repeated in the History section, which is why I removed most of it from there. But the way you have the introduction, it's not very encylopedic at all.
I know you probably won't agree with most of what I am saying, but you have to come to a compromise. You can't just revert right back to your article, otherwise, you are removing all the minor, indisputable changes/added content that should be made. Y2kcrazyjoker4 22:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, from the top

This is getting confusing. I'll address all the issues I have with the current edit:

  • the intro contains stuff which isn't really interesting enough for an intro (the date stuff). It shouldn't be duplicated, but there is a perfectly appropriate section in the article itself for release dates. It should be moved down.
  • you've added direct links to the different cities. Those articles will probably end up getting deleted, so just putting a mainlink to the San Andreas article is probably enough.
  • You've added back the exhaustive list of character actors. There's a sub-article for that. Huge strings of wikilinks are poor style.
  • likewise for the "local" section, it really needs chopped down: there's an article for San Andreas locations.
  • You've reverted the list format for the new features. It's better to use semantic markup where possible instead of adding fake sub-headers.

Aside from that everything's good. Sorry about this mini-war: we're both trying to improve the article, I'm sure we can sort this out. Chris Cunningham 12:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I've worked on some of this now. Chris Cunningham 12:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Something just strikes me as unusual about the "Differences from previous GTA games" section. I can see where you might want to use a list to display new additions to the game, but I dunno, it just seems to read rough. Maybe we shouldn't have separated new notable features into separate subsections of the article (since they weren't the only new inclusions in the game), but I'm still in favor of discussing them in paragraph form. I won't add fake sub-headers, but I'm going to try to rewrite the section to avoid using the list format. Y2kcrazyjoker4 13:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I settled for including the "New features" header and writing out the personalization and AI sections in paragraph form, but listing the other new features. There's only 1 subsection now in this section and I think it blends the best of both worlds of what we were trying to add. I think we've gotten the article to a much better place now. Hopefully, this format can remain permanent. Y2kcrazyjoker4 16:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Perfect. Excellent :) That wasn't too hard now, was it? Chris Cunningham 15:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

GTA: SA's MB size

For a Windows how much MB's does the game take up? Is it 998 MB?


4.66 GB. Although, It can be compressed to about 600mb.

No, 3.94GB. 86.140.125.124 09:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Rampage Missions

The article states that rampage missions have been taken out of GTASA as compared to the other games, but thats not entirely true. They were switched to two person missions, but still are rampage missions!!!Thesetrixaintforkids 18:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Flowers as weapon

How do we feel about including these? People have tried to add a mention of the flowers and they've been reverted. Players of the game should know that you can use the flowers as a less-than-effective melee weapon. However, since they're not really supposed to be used this way, I can see the argument against including it. Thoughts? Croctotheface 00:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The flowers can be used as a weapon as effectively as the dildo and vibrator; there's no reason not to list all three as weapons. -- Kicking222 22:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

"Early 1990s" vs "1991-1992" language

OK, I'm not vested in this edit war, but the page is on my watchlist, and it's getting a bit tiresome. My view is this: the opening titles do make reference to 1991, but I do not recall any mention of 1992. At the same time, "early 1990s" could include, say, 1993 or 1994, which are undoubtedly wrong. So, if there is a reference made to the game concluding in 1992, I'd advocate the specific years. If not, I'd advocate mentioning 1991 and not 1992. Croctotheface 03:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Umm... actually, the first WORDS in the cutscenes at the beggining of the game (where C.J. is narrating about why he is moving back to San Andreas) says "Liberty City. 1992" So there is your proof. User:JSelby 19:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Umm...actually, yeah, I changed the text to that and added a citation. Also, civility is important here. Croctotheface 00:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

fac?

This article has a fac tag and fac nom, but was never placed at WP:FAC. If the nom is legit, it needs to be placed there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I took the liberty of doing this for the nominator just now. Carson 00:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

ps2 vs xbox version

does the xbox version run faster because of the harddrive? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Falcon866 (talk • contribs) 18:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC).

Late response, but it is probrably not due to the hard drive, but the fact PC and Xbox versions may run faster because Rockstar has had time to clean up things that weren't included in the final release of PS2, and the game may run faster because it has less things to load, probrably a few easier meshes to load, ect. Ledgo (talk) 16:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Good Article Nomination

Good MORNING/AFTERNOON/EVENING (GMT time); I have reviewed this article on 12:58, Thursday May 9 2024 (UTC) in accordance with the Good Article (GA) criteria. There are seven main critia that the article must comply with to pass:

  1. Well-written: Pass
  2. Factually accurate: Pass
  3. Broad: Pass
  4. Neutrally written: Pass
  5. Stable: Pass
  6. Well-referenced: Pass
  7. Images: Pass

I have concluded that, in my opinion, the article has passed all categories and I therefore award it GA status. Congradulations to the lead editors, and keep up the excellent work!

Kindest regards,
Anthonycfc [T • C] 20:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Issues with the intro

I'm not sold on the idea that the game is about CJ gradually unravelling the plot behind his mother's death. In fact, his mother doesn't really come up past "The Green Sabre," where CJ sees that Smoke and Ryder have betrayed the gang, and that they along with Tenpenny were involved in the hit. It would be more accurate to say that throughout the game he gradually unravels the network behind crack sales and corruption in San Andreas, or even that he examines the forces behind his betrayal, but that would be a spoiler. As I've been saying in edit summaries, I think he spends most of the game pursuing his own business ventures--the garage, car dealership, airstrip, and casino, none of which have to do with his mom or the GSF. Croctotheface 08:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it is more of a rags to riches story than anything else, the mother plot and the tenpenny plot are just to provide misions that have a purpose, CJ doesn't usually comit big crimes just for the hell of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.11.1 (talk) 13:20, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Year

I know in the opening new game the year is 1992 but I heard in the making of this game that the year is actually 1996 so please change the year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.207.88.86 (talk • contribs)

It's not. Edits that introduced 1996 are vandalism. Croctotheface 05:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Like I said the year is 1996 because the person in the making of the game said that the year is actually 1996 so please change it now. {172.207.88.86 11:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)}

Well I SAY that it's set in 2048. Please change it now...

Douchebag. 86.140.125.124 09:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

What person? What "making of the game"? What the hell are you on about? If there is some evidence out there that says San Andreas is set in 1996, then can we see it please? Dbam 14:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
It wouldn't matter if someone said that the game was based in 1996, because the game itself says that it's based in 1992. Unless it's specifically highlighted as a mistake, the evidence in the game overrules any evidence given elsewhere. RobWill80 15:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Ya know, if this guy says it is mentioned in a making of the game it might be true that the year is 1996. {Polaski67 20:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)}

Edits that introduce 1996 continue to be vandalism and will continue to be reverted. Croctotheface 20:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, i heard of that in a forum once. I believe that during development the game was in 96, but they changed it to 92.

Well, I would hope that anyone that was alive between 1992 and 1996 would be able to discern the cultural context in which the game is set. References made by D.J.s and commercials are far too specific to the end of the New Jack Swing Era. Besides, none of the stations play anything that was released after 1992, which while not definitive proof against 1996, begs the question, why would everything feel 4 years behind? Eganio 00:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Also the rodney king riots happened in '92

I live in Edinbrugh, Scotland (where Rocstar North is). I visited the studio, then the director said "the game San Andreas is actually set in 96, not 92". {172.214.89.88 19:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)}

Your personal claims are not a reliable source. Croctotheface 20:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

File:San Andreas 1996 proof.JPG

Theres your evidence. {JarridUser 20:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)}

I could type something up that says the game is set during the Roman Empire, take a screenshot, and post it here. This doesn't prove anything, and it certainly does not override the game. I'm going to assume good faith here, but at some point, without sources, this will look an awful lot like disruptive editing. Croctotheface 21:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Here, I made "proof" that the game is actually set in ancient Rome:

Croctotheface 21:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

File:More proof that San Andreas is in 1996.JPG

Heres real proof. {JarridUser 21:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)}

It's pretty clear to me that the passages about 1996 are so poorly written that either you or someone else made them to make trouble. How come you can only post screenshots and not links to pages? Please stop being disruptive. Croctotheface 21:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Ahh, yes, here's the link. Stop attempting to introduce misinformation into the article. Croctotheface 21:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't care what "proof" anyone has to offer that the game is set in 1996. Play the damn game. It is 1992. Whether or not the original intent may have been to set it in 1996, everything in the game points to 1992, so the obvious final decision was to set the game in 1992. Apparently, some of the posters here never lived through the early or mid-nineties while cognizant of American culture. If they had, they would realize that nothing in the game points to any time after 1992, not the music, not the dress, not the references made on the radio. Here's a small piece of advice: if you don't know what you're talking about, don't talk. Eganio 20:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Sales Figures

I think we should have the sales figures (amounts sold and cash taken in) for San Andreas, after all it has been a pretty commercially succsessful game and I've heard it's sold more than Halo 2.Father Time89 02:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Xbox pictures

I took some pictures to improve this and many other articles that have no photos of console versions. Just tell me where to put them. Wikifan21century 03:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Is it action-adventure?

I'm not sure about classifying the game as action-adventure game. It is more likely third-person shooter and vehicular combat game. OK, it has some things like in a-a game, but still I think it cannot be categorized as a-a game. Hołek ҉ 11:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the game incorporates elements from a lot of genres, and in that respect it defies classification as any one in particular. I added the sandbox descriptor, since that was always the term I used to describe GTA's genre. I wouldn't be opposed to saying something like "GTA is a sandbox game that incorporates elements from the action-adventure, third-person shooter, vehicular combat, and role-playing genres." Croctotheface 16:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
It has many genres in it. You can say it is a role play game since you have some control over how CJ looks and reacts to the world. It is more likely an action game with the twist of other elements of gameplay. Usually, Adventures have you stay and focus on the storyline. However, this game does not force you to play the missions at all other then the first two or three missions. Afterwards, the players free will will take control, and from there, you can decide what you do. But, it is not a role play game because your decisions will not effect the storyline majorly in a recuring amount of times. Just minor things. If anything, the game probrably has a Action/Roleplay element to it. To stop the ranting and such, I would say it's an action. EDIT: Looking at what Crocto said, I would agree it's a sandbox. Sorry. Ledgo (talk) 16:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Why not link to 3 fansties?

I'm not going to edit war over this, but I'd be curious to get other editors' opinions. WP:NOT#Repository deals with Wikipedia not being a mere repository of links or photographs or the like. I fail to see how having 3 links instead of 1 moves this article from GA status to mere repository status. I'd be in favor of restoring the other 2 sites but not adding anymore. Opinions? Croctotheface 20:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Personally I don't think both GameFAQs and GameSpot should be there because they're heavily crosslinked. Also, IMDB's game coverage isn't all that great compared to GameSpot. I'd say cut IMDB and either GameFAQs or GameSpot (probably GameFAQs, since it's more about game help rather than general info). As for restoring the fansites, well... they all have good information. gtasanandreas.net has the upper hand in being still updated, but the quality of the content on the other site still remains. GarrettTalk 20:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi fellow editors, I edited the article down to 1 fansite citing WP:NOT#REPOSITORY, in particular because of this line: "On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate, marking the link as such.". The fansite featured in the article could possibly be gta-sanandreas.com as it is now, or perhaps gtasanandreas.net as it's news is mostly about San Andreas. I suppose 3 links wouldn't harm the article, but as it says 1 fansite in the policy then that's how I interpret it. I agree that the gamespot and IMDB links aren't necessary as they just repeat information. I hope that clears up my reasoning. --BillPP (talk) 21:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
In the case of major fansites, they could arguably be called independent news sites as well. I'd be fine with removing the IMDB and GameFAQs in favor of the fan-based sites. I think the spirit of the WP:NOT item you mention is that links sections should not overwhelm the article or attempt to be exhaustive, and links should not be added vicariously. We can make editorial decisions about linking to more than one informative fansite while keeping the article from becoming a repository of links. Croctotheface 22:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I see your point. I think that gtasanandreas.net is the best fansite for the article as it still focuses on San Andreas. What other fansites do you suggest go into the article? I think including the Google directory page would be useful. I checked the Gamespot union page that was linked to, and on the first page there was not one news item talking about San Andreas. --BillPP (talk) 23:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Modding the console´s version?

hi, anyone knows of there´s any way to use the GTA san andreas mods on the consoles versions of the game (specifically for the PS2, if so, anyone please tell me how to do it. thanks

no, sorry — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.180.2.242 (talk) 12:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Please visit a gaming site. Wikipedia is not the place for discussing gameplay or console logistics. Eganio 20:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

New Features

"In total, there are nearly 200 types of vehicles in the game, compared to the approximately 85 in GTA III." Why is the comparison to GTA3, and not the previous game Vice City? Did Vice City have fewer vehicles than GTA3? --64.149.42.161 18:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I think GTA III was chosen for a comparison because it was the first 3D incarnation of the game. Goldbringer 14:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Claude? No Claude!

I reworded the section on the GTA3 protagonist because the way it was worded presented the name Claude as a fact, which it is not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.115.253.51 (talk) 20:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

I don't think that the character's identity or name is the least bit dubious. Perhaps it should be cited (I actually don't think it would be necessary, but whatever), but just adding "purported" does not somehow strengthen the article. Croctotheface 20:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
You just said "I don't think." That there violates the neutrality of what you're saying. There is no undeniable proof that his name is Claude. Perhaps we can change it to "Rockstar has neither officially confirmed or denied his name is Claude, but it is widely believed so" or something to that effect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.115.253.51 (talk • contribs)
Comments on talk pages need not be neutral. The events of the game are presented such that his name is understood by the audience to be Claude. If we take a skeptical approach to everything within fiction, then it's difficult to write about at all. Should we doubt whether it's actually Sweet in a scene unless he's referred to by name? Croctotheface 23:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Catalina calls him claude a number of times (on telephone etc)
Not to mention the unused text in the game saying his name is Claude. The default name for him in GTA3 is Claude. I think it is a fact that Rockstar now call him Claude. - .:Alex:. 12:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Bridges

The bridge.../bridges in San Fierro ar actualy the forth road and rail bridges in scotland. Some things to notice are in the middle of the forth road bridge the meatal criss croses 3 times like in number 1.. like in the game on the golden gate bridge it has 4 beams going straight across like in number 2 

       1.x  2._
         x    _
         x    _
              _

u couldent mistake the forth rail bridge for anything else but the angle is exactly the same as the real life forth road and rail bridges and 1 last thing is the forth road and rail bridges ar only about 10 - 15 miles away from the housu and office of the people that mad the game

some pics real for road bridge : http://www.edinburgh-scotland.net/images/ForthRoadBridge02S.jpg game bridge : http://www.gta-sanandreas.com/screenshots/images/screen_156.jpg ..sry best i coud find


Bridges in game : http://static.flickr.com/57/188996769_d83b82de9b.jpg real bridges : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Wfm_db_forth_bridges.jpg

couldent find a game forth rail bridge so left it out If you read it and looked at the links thank you —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Andyp363 (talk • contribs) 03:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

Target on map?

In the new features section, it says you can now set a waypoint on the map. Couldn't this be done in previous games? Goldbringer 14:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Nope, guess they added it for SA since it's such a huge place. Axe995 20:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

They added it for SA, and continuted to include the feature in succeeding games like Liberty City Stories and Vice City Stories.

Romeo + Juliet reference?

In Baz Luhrman's adaptation of Romeo and Juliet, the city it takes place in is called "Verona Beach". This is also an area in Los Santos. I'd dismiss it as a mere coincidence if not for the similarities of Baz Luhrman's Sycamore Grove (A pier amusement park. Even has a tunnel going under it, much like the one in SA) to the pier amusement park in GTA:SA. 66.222.181.28 02:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

That is quite interesting, but unearthing evidence for this connection will likely be difficult. Is this a challenge you wish to face? I would personally have no idea where to begin to find that out! Eganio 01:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Interesting, I've noticed this as well. And it does actually look like the scene where Mercutio died (The fair grounds, and that small tunnel where they fight)It may just be a tribute to the play. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ledgo (talk • contribs) 16:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Average Age of a GTA Player?

I recently heard that the average age of a Grand Theft Auto player was 12 years old, but I can't find a demographic with the age listed. Anyone able to help me out. I mean c'mon it's GTA, Of course they are gonna have an age demographic on who plays this game. 24.84.108.255 21:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Snapshots for Main Article

I have a gallery of snapshots I took around San Andreas, during my latest incarnation of Carl as taking on amateur photography as a hobby after completing all the missions and making himself filthy rich on the ponies (can't go over 1 billion, unfortuntaley, though). I took great pains in finding specific locations and times for taking the pics, and I think they might look good on the main page. Is there a way of downloading them from the memory card for electronic transfer? How were the pics on the main page obtained? Eganio 03:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The pictures were most likely obtained from the PC version by taking screen shots of various items. As to how to take the pictures off your memory card I wouldn't say there is a way because the game wasn't designed with the thought of taking the pictures out of the game unlike Gran Turismo 4 which featured a photo mode and compatibility with USB drives so pictures could be transferred. Xtreme racer 00:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, thanks. I figured as much. And they're such nice pictures, too. Pity. Eganio 01:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Is this significant?

Has anyone else noticed that the main character from GTA III re-appears during GTA SA (mission "Farewell My Love" - last of the Catalina missions)? According to a walkthrough on gamefaq.com (Aggrosk8r), his name is Claude (I believe Catalina refers to him as Fido in GTA SA). Does anyone have any confirmation of this, and if so, is it supposed to be the same guy, and if so, what the hell is he doing in SA?! Oh, and the final question: do we care? Eganio 00:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

He was in San Andreas as a set up to the plot to GTA 3 because San Andreas takes place a few years before the events of Grand Theft Auto 3, then as we find out later Catalina eventually ditches him after the robbery in the start of GTA 3. It is as notable as many other references to other Grand Theft Auto games like Ken Rosenberg's appearance in San Andreas or the appearance of Salavtore Leone in the game. Xtreme racer 00:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. Well, are such things noteworthy in the general article? There seems to be little reference to the interplay between characters and locations that makes up the grand play that is GTA. Is a short paragraph dedicated to the notion of continuity and thematicism warranted? Thoughts??? Eganio 00:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, because it is a major part of Grand Theft Auto series as the designers of the games always try to link the games together in many ways. We only comment on the section though because to list everything would be irrelevant to the general article. That is what the article for all the links is for. But yes it is relevant to have a small section explaining some of the links between games as it is a major part of San Andreas storyline. Xtreme racer 01:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that gory details are unnecessary. I'm glad that someone agrees that it should be noted that the series does attempt to maintain the same general plot line and characters. I will put something in, and please edit...your opinion is requested. Eganio 04:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Alright - tacked it onto the end of the second paragraph under "Series overview" on the GTA series main page. Eganio 04:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The Epsilon Program

Have added a whole paragraph about the Epsilon Program a Myth/Easter Egg that was not included in the myths sections. Please add to it if you have any more information. (HMSvictory 19:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC))

I would also like to ask that any Wikipedia staff look over my paragraph, as it contains information I have gathered from sites devoted to Easter Eggs/SA myths, so they may be biased. Thankyou. (HMSvictory 19:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC))

My Paragraph has been deleted. Who did this and why? It was perfectly relevant to the subject, and included valuable information about the Epsilon Cult. (HMSvictory 17:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC))

It was OR and excessively detailed for an article on the game itself. Croctotheface 18:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes. Besides, the current paragraph on myths was chosen specifically because it covers all verifiable myths and because we could then get rid of the San Andreas Myths page which was mostly full of OR. This section doesn't mean anyone can add whatever they want to it, and to be honest shouldn't be added to at all seeing as just about nothing else can be sourced and verified. - .:Alex:. 12:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Ghost Car Myth

I'm not really sure if the ghost cars are really ghost cars. I think they're just glitches in the game itself. In my opinion they just seem to be cars which spawn on really steep inclines, which cause the vehicle to roll down. For example, (in the PC version) in Playa del Seville, (assuming you've set the rendering distance option to the max, and driving quickly down that major street) a parked vehicle will spawn on a driveway in front of a house; usually rolling down onto the street and colliding with moving vehicles.

As for the Sadlshit and Glenshit, I don't think that they are ghost vehicles, but they're meant to be some old, shitty, beat up cars that some people use. I'm sure it's quite common to drive around the American Midwest and see the occasional beat up old car still being used; that's probably what the beat up Sadlers and Glendales were meant to resemble. If you go to the trailer park across the road from the Lil' Probe Inn, you see some parked, beat-up Glendales there. 

Achiu31 21:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Um, they're not glitches, as far as I can tell. Their presence seems highly deliberate, since they spawn at the same points, and behave the same way every time (i.e. rolling down a hill, with no driver). Go into the back-country on your way from Los Santos to San Fierro...out in the woods are a couple of them. Considering that cars normally spawn in populated places, it seems to me that the fact that the same beat up cars appear infinitely in the same places out in the middle of nowhere is very purposeful. And yes, the Sadlshit and Glenshit are the ghost vehicles that appear in the woods...try it sometime. Eganio 17:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Just a grammar/spelling/syntax suggestion

Under the description of San Fierro there is a reference to a windy windy windy windy road. This looks like you are talking about the wind that blows. A better known reference to the road is "the crookedest road in America." I suggest you change it to that because it better conveys the true description of the road. Also, the game is all about crooks.

You don't have to use my suggestion, but at least change it from windy windy windy as it makes absolutely no sense in print.


Jaylectricity 17:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

"Windy...street Road" is the name of the street within the game. Croctotheface 17:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
The street you're thinking of is Lombard Street, in San Francisco. In San Fierro, the street is called Windy Windy Windy Windy Rd. Mujarimojo 19:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Assault ship =/= Carrier

I really don't see how this resembles an LHD other than the 69; it's just a 69 joke by Rockstar like almost every other numbered thing in the game, let's not think too much into it. ZakuTalk 01:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Removed San Andreas Stories

It is confirmed that rockstar is NOT working on this game right now —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.224.199.211 (talk • contribs) 23:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Myths section--references?

Can anyone provide references to show these myths are actually held notably by fans? RJaguar3 | u | t 01:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

How about using links to GTA forums for the references? I seem to remember people used them to spread the rumors about the Myths. Wrathchild13 19:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:GTASABOX.jpg

Image:GTASABOX.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 01:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Problem solved, I think.ZakuTalk 02:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

For the last time...

That's not an aircraft carrier docked at Easter Basin; it's a Tarawa class Amphibious Assault Ship... ZakuTalk 23:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

If there's a dispute over what it is then the best way to solve it is by including a source. I don't have the official SA strategy guide but I'd expect it to be mentioned in there. That would be a good source to backup exactly what it is. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 00:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, Zaku is right...as far as I can tell, the vessel docked there matches the description of a Wasp class amphibious assault ship. More specifically, it seems to match the older Tarawa from which the Wasp is derived, since it contains the notched flight deck and forward sponsons. However, I agree with BillPP...verifiability is a must. Eganio 17:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Mixture genres between GTA:San Andreas and The Sims

The game features that I must feed CJ and workout, inculding accompany girlfirends. Is this ture? It plays more like The Sims than GTA: San Andreas itself. It has a mixture of genres between action and simulation game. Professional Gamer 20:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, you don't actually have to make CJ eat. When you save (at any safe-house), he re-energizes himself, filling his health meter, and presumably eating, since he doesn't begin to get hungry for quite a while after doing so. As far as working out is concerned, you have the option of keeping him fit or letting him get fat, dependent upon your fervor for tapping buttons repeatedly. However, I do not see the relevance of the correlation you made between GTA:SA and The Sims, unless you are seeking to somehow re-categorize the game. Did you have a new category in mind? Eganio 18:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Not really, but I found out that since CJ eventually gets hungry, I always take him to the fast-foods in order to keep playing. I can tell that CJ never sleeps, bathes or any other, just eating and exercise. So when I save, he does'nt get hungry. I can see that (because I did'nt notice earler in the game). I know you're right for once, since CJ eventually gets hungry. In The Sims the character gets hungry very quickly, unlike CJ. For the fans who wanted Cj fat, they should, but it takes long to make CJ fat, so it must be set with the cheat code. but that may lead CJ suffer a heart attack, and thus preventing it from gaining access to missions, depending on his looks from the other characters. Professional Gamer 20:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

This is not a forum for general discussion of the game. Croctotheface 20:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

For real? Professional Gamer 13:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, for real. This is an encyclopedic resource, and this discussion page is intended for hashing out how to improve the article itself. If you have no intention of discussing whether or not to change wording in the article to reflect what you've been talking about, this discussion does not belong here, rather a gaming site. If you are seeking to improve the article, by all means, let's discuss. Eganio 21:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
So, discussion is one thing and the forums is another. Thanks for reminding me. Professional Gamer 15:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
This is for discussion of the article. Discussion of the game with no relevance to the article does not belong here. Croctotheface 17:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Bear like creature

The article says, that there is no bigfoot in the game, but somebody told me, that there is a bear like creature in the woods of back'o'beyond. I already checked it out, but I didn't find it. Has anybody seen this thing? I don't even know what a bear like creature should be. One more thing: The gringo who deleted all my texts should at least tell me the reason right now![gamafool]--77.57.15.45 12:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I haven't played San Andreas for a long time so I have forgotten where back'o'beyond is. If you can tell me where it is, I may be can call back my memory and answer your question. Anyway, something may be go wrong so that there are strange things happened. I have heard that there is strange thing happened in Mount Chiliad. Someone suspect that there is a broken car racing down the mountain on the road which beside the house. (Addaick 10:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC))
Go out of Los Santos near the beach, in the west, go on the freeway and drive to the west. Soon there will be a bridge. After the bridge, turn to your right. Then you can see blue water, but later the water is brown or black. Some call this "damned lake". That's where the creature is. (If it's really in the game).This car, you're talking about, couldn't this be one of the ghost cars? Is it a sadler or a glandale? [gamafool--84.73.47.29 13:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)]
In the article, it is mentioned that R* itself has denied the presence of a "Bigfoot" in the game. Whether or not there is a bear-like creature in Back-o-Beyond is irrelevant to the article, and any attempts at linking this phenomenon to the Bigfoot myth is original research, pure and simple. Eganio 20:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, 84.73.47.29, I don't remember whether I have seen that bear(but mostly not). I think the case of the bear is just like the "ghost car" you have mentioned, just some mistakes made by the operator. You have said "one of the ghost cars", do you mean that there are other ghost cars? (Addaick 09:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC))
In the woods you can find many ghost cars. Some drive a few meters others don't. I don't think that they're only glitches. I would rather call them easter eggs, because you can't fix their buckles. You can read more about this in an own discussion at the top: "ghost car myth". Anyway: Yes, there are more than one ghost cars. Rockstar said : " There is no bigfoot in the game, but there's something in the woods..." I only wonder, if it's the bear, leatherface, or anything else. [gamafool--84.73.47.29 18:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)]
Well there is a video on youtube that shows a photo of the bear. However whether or not this "bear" is present in the game is most likely false. I've played San Andreas many times and have heard of this, searched for it numerous times and found nothing. However I did find a bush that's shaped like big foot. Anyway this shouldn't be added into the article because it is probably fake, unless there is a reliable source that can suggest its exsistence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.101.48.24 (talk) 06:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Already checked it and it's nowhere to be found on the PS2 version. Just a downloadable mod for the PC. The only thing I can find are "Ghost Cars", but it's nothing more than 2 Glendale vehicles with unrepairable superficial body damages. Professional Gamer 15:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
People, would you mind taking this discussion outside of Wikipedia? This is not the place for it. Thank you. Eaglestorm 02:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
To answer the poster, there is no bigfoot OR bear creature. Though it has be said it was an orginal concept for the game. They are not there. I have seen these videos about Bigfoot, to simpely put, you can tell it is a modded mesh of a person and it is added ONLY through mods. It was not in the original release of the game. Ledgo (talk) 16:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
OK, My bad. I shouldn't have added a discussion that is actually more about the game than the article. Special:Contributions/217.162.178.56|217.162.178.56]] (talk) 11:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Locations and setting: San Fierro

OK, the article mentions several San Francisco landmarks that have been re-imagined in the fictitious San Fierro, and lists all of the real-life landmarks except that for Garver Bridge. Even though it may be modeled after a bridge in Scotland, it is obviously meant to emulate the San Francisco Bay Bridge. I think this should be referenced, not the Forth Road Bridge in Scotland. When describing a fictitious location modeled after S.F., it makes no sense to run through a list of re-created S.F. landmarks, and then begin talking about landmarks in Scotland. I think any mention of the rail bridge should be omitted (since it is not a re-creation of anything in or around S.F.), and the Bay Bridge should be referenced as being re-created into the Garver Bridge, with perhaps a brief mention of its design basis emanating from a bridge in Scotland. Eganio 21:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Changed things accordingly. Eganio 21:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Beta

Should someone mention the stuff that was in the beta?!?


Thriller

Money

This debt thing might just be another rumour, I checked the PC version, no gangsters came, the money can't get passed zero. If it's a console thing it should be mentioned. —May the Edit be with you, always. (T|C) 16:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It happened on the PC and it was shown on YouTube : Glitch Although this is a gambling glitch, notice the red negative numbers are shown on the top right. It happened to me with my PS2 version. Professional Gamer 19:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is real although I myself have never been able to do it (I can't get my money anywhere near that low). I do recall reading somewhere that there is (or was, as I am certain it is no longer possible in the game now) a way to borrow money from casinos and they would send goons around if you did not pay it back. I'm pretty sure that wherever I read it, it was written at a point where this feature was in the game and was unchanged when the feature was presumably removed. I wonder what happened to that? .:Alex:. 20:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

i read about it, and the tried it myself. i bought the game before the recall. what you do is keep gambling and gambling and then your money will turn red. there is a limit to how much you can borrow but i am not sure what (i think it was around 100k). anyway you will be driving around and this black car will start chasing you and shooting at you with sub machine guns, but they are easy to kill. 202.156.66.110 (talk) 02:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
The limit is determined by your gambling level, i.e., if it's $100,000, then your debt limit is -$100,000. I'm surprised people are still even doubting that the debt thing existed. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 03:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


Ive gone down to a $1,000,000 on the debt thing, its true. Ive found it on the 2nd version on PC. The goons are basically the skinhead taxi drivers, the punks and the guys wearing green shirts and shades. There all armed with AK47's and once killed, a lot of money can be earned from them [average of $2000-3000]. However, they can't get you once your outside Las Venturas, though i heard that there have been sightings of them seen in bone county and even in San Fierro... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.121.250.41 (talk) 13:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Myths section

Should the myths section be extended? There was an article on the myths but it was deleted many months ago in accordance to wikipedia policies.

UFOs and Ghosts cars were mentioned as not being true. Chainsaw killers, a serial killer as well as a shark were also confirmed as not being true. I think all these things should be added into this section, and it should be stated that they are false. This would help people unfamiliar with this topic to understand that there are more myths then just the one about bigfoot. It should be mentioned that Ghost cars can be found, but are nothing more than just beat up cars that roll down hills.

All this info should be added, and not deleted unless there is a good reason to. There is a site which can be used as a source for this info. --JayJ47 (talk) 06:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you "JayJ47" and will add the info according to information I read on a rockstar produced website documenting info on the myths. This website can be used as a reliable source, and I will inlcude it within the article. --220.101.48.95 (talk) 06:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

A while back I and others cleaned up the GTA: San Andreas myths article and eventually it became apparent at the time that there was only enough sourced material to allow for one mention of the Bigfoot issue. I've found the MyWire copy of the EGM article which may be better than linking to a scan. Being a well known, reliable source, this link would be good to source the recently added paragraph. This brings me onto the source that was already added (http://www.myepsilon.org/) Though, looking through this site I believe it to be factual, I'm not sure it qualifies as a reliable source. It seems to be fan produced and some information appears to have been gotten from Wikipedia. The article should use the reliable source for this new paragraph rather than the fansite. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 11:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Boxart

Hi, there's been a bit of a revision war about the image GTASABOX.jpg - there are two possible versions. The current one is a bit battered, and thus I prefer a slightly older one. Hpwever, my revision got reverted, so I figured I'd come here and ask for consensus. mattbuck (talk) 09:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Have reverted to cleaner version. It has been on the article for years and should only have been changed for a better version of a copyright free version (which obviously isn't going to happen any time soon). Have left a note for the uploader to come here and discuss it. - X201 (talk) 15:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

GTA:SAv2? v3?

I have read in different forums about a "Second Edition" of SA for PC (also called "Second Edition" at the Rockstar Support page[1]). Does anyone know about this, what it is about and if it shouldn't be included into the article? --SoWhy Talk 17:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

It's just the re-released version of the game that was released without the Hot Coffee content.- X201 (talk) 18:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Jetpack glitch?

Theres this building in Los Santos that I think is the highest in Los Santos. So I get a jetpack and try and hop from one building hoping when I get to that building I can parachute off. to another up and up, but for some reason the jetpack stops and goes down slowly. I tried everything but it just at any height on occasions just stops and floats back down to the ground. I can stop it by waiting for a bit and then it works but then doesn't. Does anybody know or has had problems like this before? I've tried going in a plane and dropping on the top of the building but the plane is to fast or crashes and I can' find a helicopter-- wait I can' remember... Is there a helicopter on GTA:SA? Well, if there is anyone who can help thanks :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlr6 (talk • contribs) 12:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

There are helicopters in GTA:SA, at the airports and on your private airfield after completing one of the "heist"-missions. You can also use the Hydra you get in the last Toreno-mission, it can hover like a chopper. With the jetpack, I think it's not a glitch but a feature. the jetpack is just not capable of climbing to such heights but I can't remember for sure. You should try and ask at GTA-related forums like GTAForums.com instead of WP tho. --SoWhy Talk 18:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I would like to say is that Wikipedia is not a forum. But since on the topic, the Jetpack is scripted to go to certain maximum height defined from the height where you got it. Like if you picked it up from the Airstrip, it cant make it to the top of that building. On the other hand what you can do is, go to the top of any other tallest building you can get to close by. Then use the Spwan Jetpack cheatcode from that place. You're new jetpack would be able to go higher than your previous one. Ultimately, you can spawn a jetpack on top of Mount Chillad which would be the highest going Jetpack you can get. UzEE (Talk • Contribs) 19:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, it's just scripted to go to a certain height above whatever's below it, so if you stand on top of a building and go up you'll get higher than in the road. -mattbuck 15:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Of course that is not a problem, Rockstar never let you use a Jetpack to go up and go up and reach the "space". Addaick (talk) 13:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Can't you walk into that building and it takes you to the top? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.213.233.162 (talk) 03:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't walk into that building, I wish I could though! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlr6 (talk • contribs) 12:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

First, you can access the roof of the tallest building in Los Santos from street level. Second, you can access the roofs of any of the taller buildings with the jetpack by using lower-slung buildings as "steps" to make your way up. Just start at the end of a low-lying building's roof and give yourself a "running start" by applying full thrust forward, and making sure to hold down R1 while doing so to gain altitude. When close to the building you're trying to access, ease off the forward pressure, and allow the thrust to gradually point straight downward as you slide up the side of the building. I have used this technique successfully in all three cities. EganioTalk 20:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Carl "CJ" Johnson's age?

Does anybody know CJ's age? I think he's about 25-35 so if he's 30 he would of been born in 1962 I think. Can somebody give a guess at his age and date of birth. I haven't finished San Andreas yet but I'm almost there and I don't think they've said his age yet. Can you just give an estimate of his age and date of birth please? I know this question is a bit silly but it's driving me crazy looking over the internet and everything just to find out his age and D.O.B. Thanks :-) Oh, and I've seen that loads of people are looking at my discussion 'Jetpack glitch?' and whoever is looking at that and answering (I thanks for the help by the way) can you please guess CJ's age? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlr6 (talk • contribs) 12:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I may very well be wrong, but I think his age is intentionally unspecified in order to give him relevance to a broad range of "youths". IMO, you will pull every last hair out before you find anything concrete on this subject, unfortunately. EganioTalk 20:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

External links edit war

There's no reason not to link to that site. It's not a "fansite" in the sense of some guy putting up animated gifs of CJ shooting people. It could just as easily be called an independent news and information site. Let's keep it. Croctotheface (talk) 18:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree it should be kept. There is no ban on fan sites and policy says that one fansite is fine. This link should be kept as gtasanandreas.net is one of the most comprehensive information sites on San Andreas that is available on the web. It definitely qualifies as a site that goes further than an encyclopedia article and therefore benefits the reader. It's stable, it has been acknowledged in the past by Rockstar, (I believe they've received press packs) and it does not violate any external link policies. Bill (talk|contribs) 23:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Agree x2, sanandreas.net is a well-written and informative resource. Canning it from this article would be like canning wowwiki or thotbot from the World of Warcraft links section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarc (talk • contribs) 02:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

GA Sweeps on hold

In the process of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force/Sweeps, this article has been found to not meet all the GA criteria. The article will be delisted unless the following concerns are addressed:

  • There are 9 fair use screenshots in the article: a good deal of those should be removed as per fair use guidelines.
  • Gameplay, Locations and settings, and Crossovers with other games sections need to be sourced.
  • Differences in gameplay from previous titles needs to be sourced.

I'm giving this a cutoff date of 3/21/2008 for these issues to be fixed. If you finish beforehand, leave me a message on my talk page. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Menace II Society

Surly that deserves a mention as an influence? AJUK Talk!! 11:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Is there a source, some sort of publication or news outlet or such, that has discussed it as an influence? Tarc (talk) 12:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Grand_Theft_Auto:_San_Andreas/Archive_2&oldid=1147875401"