Several inconsistencies in the server continuity

[Aquila]

1 minute ago, Wynters said:

 

This is a funny subject, but I'll chime in.

The LSSD faction was made after server continuity was established, it had a set idea of what it aimed to become and ever since then, the idea has been molded more and more to that, which just so happens to be in line with California. The LSPD was the first LEA faction on the server and established in 2017 as pretty much a copy paste from what we knew PD to be on old communities in SA:MP and MTA:SA. PD is slowly changing and adapting to this more-so, but it's more long term and gradual than immediate.

 

I can't speak on SAPR but I believe each emergency services faction should share a streamlined mindset of closely following their real life counter, and then if the individual faction wants to go above that, then they can at the discretion of their leader, as it's the leader's faction.

 

The 1:1 argument has been long said, but the main principle behind this is that - nobody at all is seeking 1:1. It's impossible. What is possible is inserting the culture and politics of CA into SA to the extent a game can allow for, hence the terms; "emulate" and not 'simulate'.

And to be honest, if it was possible to establish this San Andreas = California, Los Santos = Los Angeles realization in 2019 - and still carry it on today, then it's possible to slightly amend the continuity to keep it rather consistent, airtight.

 

 

 

Just a correction, LSSD was made in either 2017 or 2018 but was disbanded or something.

 

We can never establish that San Andreas is California because of how many parts of California are actually missing. It is nonsensical to have a roleplay server where existing states of America don't exist, and are replaced with GTA counterparts. They should just co-exist so it's easier for everyone.

 

Furthermore, I'm seeing a lot of characters talk about their travels to Vice City and Liberty City. it's just an unnecessary amount of effort having to explain to every player that GTA places don't exist in our GTA roleplay server. 

[shaobadman]

9 minutes ago, Yoak said:

The issue with the servers continuity is that it is not enforced and people dont follow it, yet it exists

Yesterday I gave a lift to some guy whose /examine made many references to Las Venturas and I wasn't really sure on what we're meant to do. Is the server's continuity a hardcore rule, or just a suggestion? I didn't want to report him or anything because that seemed unnecessary.

[radreaper100]

 

2 minutes ago, shaobadman said:

Yesterday I gave a lift to some guy whose /examine made many references to Las Venturas and I wasn't really sure on what we're meant to do. Is the server's continuity a hardcore rule, or just a suggestion? I didn't want to report him or anything because that seemed unnecessary.

 

i cant blame him, also san fierro is a confusing thing too

[Luna]

10 minutes ago, shaobadman said:

Yesterday I gave a lift to some guy whose /examine made many references to Las Venturas and I wasn't really sure on what we're meant to do. Is the server's continuity a hardcore rule, or just a suggestion? I didn't want to report him or anything because that seemed unnecessary.

 

It's a hardcore rule.

 

 

Jokes aside, yes, it's an actual rule. Las Venturas doesn't exist.

Edited July 10, 2021 by Luna

[Storm]

14 minutes ago, shaobadman said:

Yesterday I gave a lift to some guy whose /examine made many references to Las Venturas and I wasn't really sure on what we're meant to do. Is the server's continuity a hardcore rule, or just a suggestion? I didn't want to report him or anything because that seemed unnecessary.

Yeah, continuity is a rule. In situations like that though you can really just politely inform people that the server doesn't roleplay the existence of x or y location and most people will change it by themselves without the need to go through with reporting the person.

[shaobadman]

17 minutes ago, radreaper100 said:

 

 

i cant blame him, also san fierro is a confusing thing too

According to the official continuity thread, San Fierro replaces San Francisco but the last time I checked, there wasn't any ruling on how we're meant to refer to neighbourhoods in San Fierro as the HD era doesn't have any details about SF at all apart from the name, and I also don't know if it's in the Bay Area.

[i dont wanna od in LA]

I think San Fierro shouldn't be recognized. San Fierro existed in the pre-HD era of GTA, when the San Andreas map looked completely different and consisted of different locations (Dillimore, Palomino Creek etc.) and thus shouldn't be recognized in GTA5. Lore should recognize San Francisco.

[Dom.]

1 hour ago, radreaper100 said:

if someone says liberty city to me i just assume its a nickname for new york, same with vice city for miami, doesnt particularly kill my vibe as much. i like ur threads perspective tho

 

@Storm the landbridge thing is what seriously kills my vibe, why cant we just RP it as an island still apart of san andreas and only a couple miles away from the coastline that requires ferry or air travel

 

The whole island idea is stupid as shit. Hot take - nothing wrong with subtly roleplaying the landmass continues on. No reason to make a big deal out of it.

[i dont wanna od in LA]

Just now, Dom. said:

The whole island idea is stupid as shit. Hot take - nothing wrong with subtly roleplaying the landmass continues on. No reason to make a big deal out of it.

This works too. I think that whether it's an island or not doesn't really matter. It is rather about the contents of the map.

[Dom.]

1 minute ago, i dont wanna od in LA said:

This works too. I think that whether it's an island or not doesn't really matter. It is rather about the contents of the map.

Ironically, I feel like the (in my opinion) laziness with GTA V's map makes it somewhat hard to roleplay it as a replacement of Los Angeles entirely, you know? There's no Wilmington, no Staples Center. It's kinda weird, tbh.