Talk:Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
Famicom style controller This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Portal:CVG
 CVG Portal
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article is on a subject of high priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
CVG To-do:
Kicking222 has pledged a bounty of $10 in donation to the Wikimedia Foundation contingent on Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas's improvement to featured status. Please check out the Wikipedia Bounty Board for more information on how you can help collect for Wikipedia!

/Archive 1 (August 2004—April 2006)

Contents

[edit] 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) ╫

Your 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)

[edit] "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) ╫

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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!!

[edit] 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. (talk) at 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] "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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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).

[edit] Good Article Nomination

Good MORNING/AFTERNOON/EVENING (GMT time); I have reviewed this article on 21:04, Sunday April 8, 2007 (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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. —The preceding unsigned comment was 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)}

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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. —The preceding unsigned comment was 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)

[edit] 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).

[edit] 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)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/r/a/Talk%7EGrand_Theft_Auto%7E_San_Andreas_7a2f.html"