Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

I think a lot of us are underestimating the size

62 replies to this topic
bump222
  • bump222

    Snitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 01 Apr 2007

#31

Posted 23 May 2007 - 01:36 AM

Well, GTA has to be smaller because it takes a long time for Rockstar to create the engine for the game. Most of the time spent on GTA IV was for the engine. When the next game in the IV series comes out, it will be huge because they don't have to rebuilt the engine and they can expand on it instead.

brucewayne909
  • brucewayne909

    Thug

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Dec 2006

#32

Posted 23 May 2007 - 01:37 AM

Plus a lot of concentration was put on graphics. Maybe this will be the GTA where the characters actually have fingers instead of blocks for hands?

Quinny-SWFC
  • Quinny-SWFC

    The Man

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 May 2007

#33

Posted 23 May 2007 - 01:41 AM

Ive got to admit i liked playing on SA's size but when you think of it, ALOT of space was used for the countryside/roads/Desert/little towns. If you take all that out, IV will be alot bigger than it plus its all ONE CITY. Think of all the back alleys. rahkstar2.gif

freshlaundryX
  • freshlaundryX

    KindaGamey.com

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 May 2007

#34

Posted 23 May 2007 - 03:42 AM

QUOTE (brucewayne909 @ May 23 2007, 01:37)
Plus a lot of concentration was put on graphics. Maybe this will be the GTA where the characters actually have fingers instead of blocks for hands?


You know what would be funny? If one of the first things Niko did was flick somebody off.
That would be R* saying to us, "here's your real hands mother f*ckers!"

Rick88
  • Rick88

    "Who is Atlas?"...

  • Members
  • Joined: 24 Apr 2007

#35

Posted 23 May 2007 - 05:41 AM



To give you an idea on big its really going to be:

-LC will be the biggest city R* has ever made (or remade), as said by Dan.

Now going back to SA, we all saw how big of a damn map SA was. Now if Dan says that LC will be the same, if not, nearly the same size as SA. Imagine how big this one city is going to be compared to SA.


Lord Illicious
  • Lord Illicious

    S H A O L I N NYC

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Mar 2005

#36

Posted 23 May 2007 - 05:53 AM

Im very curious as to how large this game will be because if Rockstar did indeed map most of of the nyc boroughs then the game would be way to big.
SA would not even compare to its size if mapped correctly.

I do believe they will cut out many street blocks and try to squeeze in the most revelent ones.

Would be interesting to have the city all mapped out but its not just ground level. Theres the sublevels and above is what would make LC just like nyc.
I mean it would be incredibly amazing to drive up through my old hood and visit my current one and like to see my grocery store in game. Way to incredible but who knows.

Im not sure any system could handle it or any disk could store enough data for this.
Most likely it will be toned down.

Saigon
  • Saigon

    Snitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 21 Mar 2007

#37

Posted 23 May 2007 - 06:04 AM

I'm sure we will have plenty of space to play around in. If anything, having more useful space will make LC seem bigger.

pocho
  • pocho

    Rat

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Mar 2006

#38

Posted 23 May 2007 - 09:02 AM

if new map size was even near to San Andreas, i believe that Rockstar would make an extra effort and expanded it further, just to achieve marketing goal - bigger map size than previous game. that is important thing for creating necessary hype, and they know it.

since this didnt happend, my conclusion is that GTAiv map is significantly smaller than SA. i agree with Red County comparison, anything smaller than that would be useless.

krama
  • krama

    Hustler

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Jun 2007

#39

Posted 10 June 2007 - 02:18 AM

QUOTE (Quinny-SWFC @ May 23 2007, 01:41)
Ive got to admit i liked playing on SA's size but when you think of it, ALOT of space was used for the countryside/roads/Desert/little towns. If you take all that out, IV will be alot bigger than it plus its all ONE CITY. Think of all the back alleys.  rahkstar2.gif

that is completely true because when i play san an i never went to the country i stayed in the citys, and when i went two a different city i flew

so even though it is smaller it will still seem the same size to me

plus its got no irrelivent space

GTA3leading man
  • GTA3leading man

    Prankster

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 16 Nov 2004

#40

Posted 10 June 2007 - 03:21 AM

i think they said it will be pretty much all city no wasted space. 2/3 of san andreas is country and barren deserts

TDP992
  • TDP992

    weed purple like a lakers away jersey

  • Members
  • Joined: 09 Apr 2007

#41

Posted 10 June 2007 - 03:27 AM

People might not even notice the size difference between San Andreas and LC. San Andreas was so huge, you didn't even need 60% of the map. I think LC will be just about half the size, but more concentrated on the city, not countryside and desert bullsh*t. They even used half of Shore Side Vale in III as a waste of space, since it was just hills you couldn't even climb to the top of.

GTA3leading man
  • GTA3leading man

    Prankster

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 16 Nov 2004

#42

Posted 10 June 2007 - 03:30 AM

shoreside sucked it was pretty confusing to navigate and find the spray shop and weps lot

NYFan23
  • NYFan23

    Punk-ass Bitch

  • Awaiting Authorization
  • Joined: 30 May 2007

#43

Posted 10 June 2007 - 03:58 AM

i think a lot of us are underestimating how liberty city will not be as big as we all thinkk.......if you look the empire state building is right near downtown

MIKEY GTA
  • MIKEY GTA

    Hustler

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 20 May 2007

#44

Posted 10 June 2007 - 10:02 AM

If it was the same size as Los Santos and red country that would be pathetic. And its also very pathetic people saying thats about the right size. no offence but thats complete bull sh*t, just because rockstar said Liberty city wont be as big as SA your all thinking the worst, it will be at least the same size as all of los Santos ans San fierro thats about right you have no clue what your talking about and some of you live there ffs. You really think they could fit all of the boroughs there doing into los Santos and red country get real and use some sence

RoundTrip
  • RoundTrip

    Mark Chump

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Apr 2007

#45

Posted 10 June 2007 - 10:43 AM

Yup.

Agree.

I will guess at 75-80% of SA.

You can add to that possible sublevels and highrise buildings with lots of added space..

MotjoBoss
  • MotjoBoss

    Hustler

  • Members
  • Joined: 04 Jun 2007

#46

Posted 10 June 2007 - 12:35 PM

So that's the outcome! 75% of SA.
well... that's the end of this topic.

RoundTrip
  • RoundTrip

    Mark Chump

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Apr 2007

#47

Posted 10 June 2007 - 01:39 PM

QUOTE (MotjoBoss @ Jun 10 2007, 12:35)
So that's the outcome! 75% of SA.
well... that's the end of this topic.

That's my estimate for land size.

I do however think it will feel a lot bigger than SA with all the stuff you can do.
Including multiple levels etc.

So in a way.. it will be bigger rahkstar2.gif

the skuzzbot
  • the skuzzbot

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 01 Jun 2007

#48

Posted 10 June 2007 - 04:22 PM

I would laugh if Houser was just pulling our legs and ended up it being like, bigger than San Andreas.


He is kind of a jerk.

MIKEY GTA
  • MIKEY GTA

    Hustler

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 20 May 2007

#49

Posted 10 June 2007 - 04:43 PM

i dont think hes a jerk he and sam are the men go rahkstar2.gif

BoomHeadshot
  • BoomHeadshot

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Jun 2007

#50

Posted 10 June 2007 - 05:01 PM

to get a realistic city it needs to be around the size of the whole of san andreas

trains
  • trains

    Thug

  • Members
  • Joined: 23 Mar 2005

#51

Posted 10 June 2007 - 05:31 PM

I happen to think GTA IV will in fact be bigger than San An. Each time we get a preview they ask about landmass but what they haven't included so far is how much water is between landmasses. See if there is enough water inbetween landmasses the game could appear larger. See one brough is red county, then water ,another is the area around Mt Chilliad,then water then another and another till the game is bigger then we expected but smaller then we think. Add on if this LC is like that then we can expect the "one hour from one end to the other" to probably appear.

Hope I made sense. confused.gif

MIKEY GTA
  • MIKEY GTA

    Hustler

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 20 May 2007

#52

Posted 10 June 2007 - 05:49 PM

good point trains i think so too.

farrugia
  • farrugia

    is now dead. RIP

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Jan 2004

#53

Posted 10 June 2007 - 06:31 PM

QUOTE (trains @ Jun 10 2007, 18:31)
I happen to think GTA IV will in fact be bigger than San An. Each time we get a preview they ask about landmass but what they haven't included so far is how much water is between landmasses. See if there is enough water inbetween landmasses the game could appear larger. See one brough is red county, then water ,another is the area around Mt Chilliad,then water then another and another till the game is bigger then we expected but smaller then we think. Add on if this LC is like that then we can expect the "one hour from one end to the other" to probably appear.

Hope I made sense. confused.gif

Oh of course.

Why not make motherf*cking oceans between each island? That way the map will look really huge!!!

The only way I see you to take one hour to travel from end to end is to get stuck in a New York style traffic jam.

trains
  • trains

    Thug

  • Members
  • Joined: 23 Mar 2005

#54

Posted 10 June 2007 - 06:37 PM

QUOTE (farrugia @ Jun 10 2007, 13:31)
Oh of course.

Why not make motherf*cking oceans between each island? That way the map will look really huge!!!

The only way I see you to take one hour to travel from end to end is to get stuck in a New York style traffic jam.

Well this is to be New york so yeah traffic jams are possible but on the oceans no. See each area is different in width and since we don't know how excatly the are's will be put together I am putting them in lines. Crossing a river in GTA for New York should REALISTICly take about two to three minutes and not oceans but slow moving bridge traffic.Now if this city had no cars I'd say a 20 seconds to cross the river and about half an hour to get across the city.

b4rtsimps0n
  • b4rtsimps0n

    Playa

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Apr 2007

#55

Posted 10 June 2007 - 06:49 PM

QUOTE (trains @ Jun 10 2007, 18:37)
QUOTE (farrugia @ Jun 10 2007, 13:31)
Oh of course.

Why not make motherf*cking oceans between each island? That way the map will look really huge!!!

The only way I see you to take one hour to travel from end to end is to get stuck in a New York style traffic jam.

Well this is to be New york so yeah traffic jams are possible but on the oceans no. See each area is different in width and since we don't know how excatly the are's will be put together I am putting them in lines. Crossing a river in GTA for New York should REALISTICly take about two to three minutes and not oceans but slow moving bridge traffic.Now if this city had no cars I'd say a 20 seconds to cross the river and about half an hour to get across the city.

there won't be any traffic jams and huge traffic that you can't get trough fast enough. rockstar said they're making the traffic look real and dense but without affecting gameplay so you can drive trough lc fast enough.

blaringbugle
  • blaringbugle

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 09 Jun 2007

#56

Posted 10 June 2007 - 07:26 PM

Am I the only one who wants a smaller map? Personally, I do not like all of the wasted space in San Andreas. I would much rather prefer a smaller, more detailed city where most of the buildings are interactive. No more cities with buildings just for decoration and the occasional mission. Is it fun to speed down a seemingly endless country side road? Sure, but that offers no more than a few fun minutes. I do not want the city to be spread across a huge map, just so Rockstar can say, "Hey, the map is the same size as San Andreas!" Think of how fun it would be learning every corner of the city. Knowing what buildings are what. No more driving across miles of country side to get to another city. I want to learn back alley ways and side routes to avoid the police. Maybe it's just me, but i would be fine with a city the size of Red County and Los Santos combined, all city with no wasted space. Thats about 40 percent of San Andreas.

xxmylastregrets
  • xxmylastregrets

    =]

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Dec 2007

#57

Posted 02 December 2007 - 05:40 AM

I agree, its prolly gonna be about 75 percent of S.A.

Either way,
like said before, theres gonna be vertical space too.
I mean it is a city.

Ronnyboy
  • Ronnyboy

    Blind leading the deaf, leading the socially inept.

  • Members
  • Joined: 09 Nov 2007

#58

Posted 02 December 2007 - 05:43 AM

I say 80% of SA

Bren_34
  • Bren_34

    LCPD Riot Cop

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Apr 2007

#59

Posted 02 December 2007 - 07:12 AM

QUOTE (GTA3leading man @ Jun 9 2007, 23:21)
i think they said it will be pretty much all city no wasted space. 2/3 of san andreas is country and barren deserts

Pretty much, yeah.

I'd go as far as to say about 3/4ths of San Andrea's was Barren Deserts, Country and Ocean inbetween.

swishersweets20031
  • swishersweets20031

    Square Civilian

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2007

#60

Posted 02 December 2007 - 07:55 AM

does anyone feel this game is starting to become very over hyped?
im more interested in the sequel to this then this game actually.

Im assuming alot of new bells and wistles so to speak. But how long will this be impressive?

I think the real leap will be the sequel after. Just like what was done with part 3 it was new and fresh then vice city just upped the bar.

To me IV will be the test ground for what direction they will go and the one after will be the one that should be carved in stone and so on and so on after with sequels.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users