Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

GTA V Map Partly Revealed + New Screenshots

1,102 replies to this topic

Poll: What do you think of the city? (1500 member(s) have cast votes)

What do you think of the city?

  1. It's small! (414 votes [30.94%])

    Percentage of vote: 30.94%

  2. It's big! (924 votes [69.06%])

    Percentage of vote: 69.06%

Vote Guests cannot vote
Bantri
  • Bantri

    I'll kill as many animals in GTA as I damn well please

  • Members
  • Joined: 24 Apr 2010

#961

Posted 17 June 2013 - 06:46 AM

It's crazy how real Los Angeles takes up 502.7 square miles. Yet, the map will only be (if going by the 30 kilometers- 18.6 square miles idea), 18.6 square miles. Then the city will only be about 20% of that area. That leaves Los Santos at 3-4 square miles, or 3.7 based on the 20%. That sounds, and looks about right compared to the map. Don't assume it's bigger than it is. GTA 4 was around 6 square miles, but that included the water, and empty spaces. Take that away and the 3.7 will be around the same. Which adds up and makes sense.

So I am squaring out the mileage here, and we are getting 252,707 miles total (502 squared) worth of city fit into 13.69 miles total (3.7 squared) for just the city in the game. To put that more into perspective, that is just a tiny bit bigger (based on google maps measurements) than the real life park area between 101 and 5 where the HollyWood sign is.

Triple Vacuum Seal
  • Triple Vacuum Seal

    If you ♥ the $, then prepare to die for it.

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 02 Dec 2011
  • United-States

#962

Posted 17 June 2013 - 07:08 AM

QUOTE (Bantri @ Monday, Jun 17 2013, 01:46)
It's crazy how real Los Angeles takes up 502.7 square miles. Yet, the map will only be (if going by the 30 kilometers- 18.6 square miles idea), 18.6 square miles. Then the city will only be about 20% of that area. That leaves Los Santos at 3-4 square miles, or 3.7 based on the 20%. That sounds, and looks about right compared to the map. Don't assume it's bigger than it is. GTA 4 was around 6 square miles, but that included the water, and empty spaces. Take that away and the 3.7 will be around the same. Which adds up and makes sense.

So I am squaring out the mileage here, and we are getting 252,707 miles total (502 squared) worth of city fit into 13.69 miles total (3.7 squared) for just the city in the game. To put that more into perspective, that is just a tiny bit bigger (based on google maps measurements) than the real life park area between 101 and 5 where the HollyWood sign is.

If it makes you feel any better, there are single suburban neighborhoods in the US bigger than the entire V map. R* have proven to be masters at squeezing as much culture and substance into a limited "sandbox". After all, SA was much smaller than V and it was 3 major cities, wildernesses, and several towns.

JRZ
  • JRZ

    Real Horrorshow

  • Members
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2011

#963

Posted 17 June 2013 - 09:08 AM Edited by JRZ, 17 June 2013 - 09:10 AM.

QUOTE (Bantri @ Monday, Jun 17 2013, 06:46)
It's crazy how real Los Angeles takes up 502.7 square miles. Yet, the map will only be (if going by the 30 kilometers- 18.6 square miles idea), 18.6 square miles. Then the city will only be about 20% of that area. That leaves Los Santos at 3-4 square miles, or 3.7 based on the 20%. That sounds, and looks about right compared to the map. Don't assume it's bigger than it is. GTA 4 was around 6 square miles, but that included the water, and empty spaces. Take that away and the 3.7 will be around the same. Which adds up and makes sense.

So I am squaring out the mileage here, and we are getting 252,707 miles total (502 squared) worth of city fit into 13.69 miles total (3.7 squared) for just the city in the game. To put that more into perspective, that is just a tiny bit bigger (based on google maps measurements) than the real life park area between 101 and 5 where the HollyWood sign is.

I think you've confused square miles with miles square. This is the difference.
Los Angeles is 503 sq mi (rounded to the nearest one), the square just means that the number is describing a two-dimensional area, just like how a cubic mile describes a three-dimensional area.
Since we're referring to the 2D footprint of the city, there is no 252,707 miles, since that is a one-dimensional measurement.

Bantri
  • Bantri

    I'll kill as many animals in GTA as I damn well please

  • Members
  • Joined: 24 Apr 2010

#964

Posted 17 June 2013 - 04:46 PM Edited by Bantri, 17 June 2013 - 04:49 PM.

QUOTE (JRZ @ Monday, Jun 17 2013, 09:08)
QUOTE (Bantri @ Monday, Jun 17 2013, 06:46)
It's crazy how real Los Angeles takes up 502.7 square miles. Yet, the map will only be (if going by the 30 kilometers- 18.6 square miles idea), 18.6 square miles. Then the city will only be about 20% of that area. That leaves Los Santos at 3-4 square miles, or 3.7 based on the 20%. That sounds, and looks about right compared to the map. Don't assume it's bigger than it is. GTA 4 was around 6 square miles, but that included the water, and empty spaces. Take that away and the 3.7 will be around the same. Which adds up and makes sense.

So I am squaring out the mileage here, and we are getting 252,707 miles total (502 squared) worth of city fit into 13.69 miles total (3.7 squared) for just the city in the game. To put that more into perspective, that is just a tiny bit bigger (based on google maps measurements) than the real life park area between 101 and 5 where the HollyWood sign is.

I think you've confused square miles with miles square. This is the difference.
Los Angeles is 503 sq mi (rounded to the nearest one), the square just means that the number is describing a two-dimensional area, just like how a cubic mile describes a three-dimensional area.
Since we're referring to the 2D footprint of the city, there is no 252,707 miles, since that is a one-dimensional measurement.

I should have used acres then. But I was just stating the total land covered if the squared part was included into the numbers. I understand it's squared because it's a mile by a mile, but if you were to walk a mile down and back, down and back, slightly moving sideways as you did covering all the land within that square mile, it would cover a whole lot more miles within that area than just a mile. Eventually walking back and forth slowly moving sideways over the whole city of Los Angeles, you would eventually hit 252,707 miles more or less. I'm not confused, that was just my thinking, even though it may not have been the best example tounge.gif

And canttakemyid, I agree, it's amazing how Rockstar can take even just that small area and make it feel bigger than it is.

JRZ
  • JRZ

    Real Horrorshow

  • Members
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2011

#965

Posted 17 June 2013 - 06:14 PM Edited by JRZ, 17 June 2013 - 06:21 PM.

QUOTE (Bantri @ Monday, Jun 17 2013, 16:46)
QUOTE (JRZ @ Monday, Jun 17 2013, 09:08)
QUOTE (Bantri @ Monday, Jun 17 2013, 06:46)
It's crazy how real Los Angeles takes up 502.7 square miles. Yet, the map will only be (if going by the 30 kilometers- 18.6 square miles idea), 18.6 square miles. Then the city will only be about 20% of that area. That leaves Los Santos at 3-4 square miles, or 3.7 based on the 20%. That sounds, and looks about right compared to the map. Don't assume it's bigger than it is. GTA 4 was around 6 square miles, but that included the water, and empty spaces. Take that away and the 3.7 will be around the same. Which adds up and makes sense.

So I am squaring out the mileage here, and we are getting 252,707 miles total (502 squared) worth of city fit into 13.69 miles total (3.7 squared) for just the city in the game. To put that more into perspective, that is just a tiny bit bigger (based on google maps measurements) than the real life park area between 101 and 5 where the HollyWood sign is.

I think you've confused square miles with miles square. This is the difference.
Los Angeles is 503 sq mi (rounded to the nearest one), the square just means that the number is describing a two-dimensional area, just like how a cubic mile describes a three-dimensional area.
Since we're referring to the 2D footprint of the city, there is no 252,707 miles, since that is a one-dimensional measurement.

I should have used acres then. But I was just stating the total land covered if the squared part was included into the numbers. I understand it's squared because it's a mile by a mile, but if you were to walk a mile down and back, down and back, slightly moving sideways as you did covering all the land within that square mile, it would cover a whole lot more miles within that area than just a mile. Eventually walking back and forth slowly moving sideways over the whole city of Los Angeles, you would eventually hit 252,707 miles more or less. I'm not confused, that was just my thinking, even though it may not have been the best example tounge.gif

And canttakemyid, I agree, it's amazing how Rockstar can take even just that small area and make it feel bigger than it is.

Well... 252,707 miles is pretty much irrelevant either way.
If you want to use acres, the city of LA is roughly 321,920 of those, but that's still a 2D measurement, just using a smaller grid.

You can't just convert a 2D area to a 1D distance, it's essentially the same thing as dividing by zero.
A 2D area has a length and a width, while a 1D distance only has length. Since the 1D distance has a width of zero, an infinite number of straight lines would be divided over it using any 2D area, since its width would be larger than zero and any number divided by zero is ∞.

I see what you did, and yes, if you were to walk across each square mile at some arbitrary interval you would be able to get a distance of 252,707 miles, but that number is irrelevant because you could always walk at different intervals and you would get a completely different distance, all the way to infinity.

Anyway, I'm sure I'll be more than satisfied with the size of the GTA V map.

seveb
  • seveb

    GTA Race Crew

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 May 2008
  • None

#966

Posted 18 June 2013 - 08:50 AM

look this fake leaked map:

http://2.bp.blogspot...0/GTA V map.PNG

it's shaped like real gta v map with a big city and other little villages, plus the big lake. Maybe it was from a pre alpha version of the game?

I<3GTAV
  • I<3GTAV

    I LOVE GARY PAYTON NO ONE UNDERSTANDS

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Nov 2012
  • United-States

#967

Posted 18 June 2013 - 10:13 AM

QUOTE (seveb @ Tuesday, Jun 18 2013, 03:50)
look this fake leaked map:

http://2.bp.blogspot...0/GTA V map.PNG

it's shaped like real gta v map with a big city and other little villages, plus the big lake. Maybe it was from a pre alpha version of the game?

It's debatable. It does have those curvy roads (presumably oil fields) on the east end in the same place, the airport juts out westward much life the real thing, the docks are in the exact same spot, and the freeways are slightly in the same position, with some added, repositioned, or taken away, and also it has the Zancudo River and Alamo Sea.

Old World
  • Old World

    Player Hater

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2013

#968

Posted 18 June 2013 - 10:15 AM

Confirmed fake a long time ago ^

seveb
  • seveb

    GTA Race Crew

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 May 2008
  • None

#969

Posted 19 June 2013 - 12:22 AM

QUOTE (Old World @ Tuesday, Jun 18 2013, 10:15)
Confirmed fake a long time ago ^

agreed it's obviously fake, but as ive already said its shape fits almost perfectly the actual map, including the lake. i dont think its just a coincidence

Bantri
  • Bantri

    I'll kill as many animals in GTA as I damn well please

  • Members
  • Joined: 24 Apr 2010

#970

Posted 19 June 2013 - 05:34 AM

QUOTE (JRZ @ Monday, Jun 17 2013, 18:14)
QUOTE (Bantri @ Monday, Jun 17 2013, 16:46)
QUOTE (JRZ @ Monday, Jun 17 2013, 09:08)
QUOTE (Bantri @ Monday, Jun 17 2013, 06:46)
It's crazy how real Los Angeles takes up 502.7 square miles. Yet, the map will only be (if going by the 30 kilometers- 18.6 square miles idea), 18.6 square miles. Then the city will only be about 20% of that area. That leaves Los Santos at 3-4 square miles, or 3.7 based on the 20%. That sounds, and looks about right compared to the map. Don't assume it's bigger than it is. GTA 4 was around 6 square miles, but that included the water, and empty spaces. Take that away and the 3.7 will be around the same. Which adds up and makes sense.

So I am squaring out the mileage here, and we are getting 252,707 miles total (502 squared) worth of city fit into 13.69 miles total (3.7 squared) for just the city in the game. To put that more into perspective, that is just a tiny bit bigger (based on google maps measurements) than the real life park area between 101 and 5 where the HollyWood sign is.

I think you've confused square miles with miles square. This is the difference.
Los Angeles is 503 sq mi (rounded to the nearest one), the square just means that the number is describing a two-dimensional area, just like how a cubic mile describes a three-dimensional area.
Since we're referring to the 2D footprint of the city, there is no 252,707 miles, since that is a one-dimensional measurement.

I should have used acres then. But I was just stating the total land covered if the squared part was included into the numbers. I understand it's squared because it's a mile by a mile, but if you were to walk a mile down and back, down and back, slightly moving sideways as you did covering all the land within that square mile, it would cover a whole lot more miles within that area than just a mile. Eventually walking back and forth slowly moving sideways over the whole city of Los Angeles, you would eventually hit 252,707 miles more or less. I'm not confused, that was just my thinking, even though it may not have been the best example tounge.gif

And canttakemyid, I agree, it's amazing how Rockstar can take even just that small area and make it feel bigger than it is.

Well... 252,707 miles is pretty much irrelevant either way.
If you want to use acres, the city of LA is roughly 321,920 of those, but that's still a 2D measurement, just using a smaller grid.

You can't just convert a 2D area to a 1D distance, it's essentially the same thing as dividing by zero.
A 2D area has a length and a width, while a 1D distance only has length. Since the 1D distance has a width of zero, an infinite number of straight lines would be divided over it using any 2D area, since its width would be larger than zero and any number divided by zero is ∞.

I see what you did, and yes, if you were to walk across each square mile at some arbitrary interval you would be able to get a distance of 252,707 miles, but that number is irrelevant because you could always walk at different intervals and you would get a completely different distance, all the way to infinity.

Anyway, I'm sure I'll be more than satisfied with the size of the GTA V map.

Yeah, I am glad you see my point. I just used the math from the numbers provided.

I'll be satisfied with the size myself. I just think it's amazing how they can much such a huge city seem so huge in game, when it's really only a very tiny size.

FelipeVinhao
  • FelipeVinhao

    Under construction, sorry for the inconvenience

  • Members
  • Joined: 16 Dec 2005

#971

Posted 20 June 2013 - 02:23 AM

QUOTE (natethegreatforlife @ Tuesday, Jun 18 2013, 08:13)
QUOTE (seveb @ Tuesday, Jun 18 2013, 03:50)
look this fake leaked map:

http://2.bp.blogspot...0/GTA V map.PNG

it's shaped like real gta v map with a big city and other little villages, plus the big lake. Maybe it was from a pre alpha version of the game?

It's debatable. It does have those curvy roads (presumably oil fields) on the east end in the same place, the airport juts out westward much life the real thing, the docks are in the exact same spot, and the freeways are slightly in the same position, with some added, repositioned, or taken away, and also it has the Zancudo River and Alamo Sea.

Confirmed fake. Just check my signature to get the original and who made it. biggrin.gif

dimitrispgr
  • dimitrispgr

    Schafter V12 Driver

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Dec 2008
  • None

#972

Posted 01 July 2013 - 11:38 AM

Watching the landmark topic and a superb 3D map based on the leaked one i once again realized that the city is not small but smaller than we most expected.

I dont blame Rockstar, current gen consoles cant afford a "Rockstar detailed" LS sized city as Los Santos AND a huge coyntryside.

But its a fact : It is small. Not in size. English isnt my native language and the best way to describe it is :

Imagine you drive in GTA IV from Gay Tony club to Luis safehouse. In GTA IV you will pass lets say 15 intersections, in V you will pass lets say half of them, BUT DRIVING THE SAME DISTANCE.

Nem_Wan
  • Nem_Wan

    The Artist Formerly Known As Magic_Al

  • Members
  • Joined: 12 Aug 2006
  • United-States

#973

Posted 02 July 2013 - 04:18 AM

QUOTE (dimitrispgr @ Monday, Jul 1 2013, 05:38)
Watching the landmark topic and a superb 3D map based on the leaked one i once again realized that the city is not small but smaller than we most expected.

I dont blame Rockstar, current gen consoles cant afford a "Rockstar detailed" LS sized city as Los Santos AND a huge coyntryside.

But its a fact : It is small. Not in size. English isnt my native language and the best way to describe it is :

Imagine you drive in GTA IV from Gay Tony club to Luis safehouse. In GTA IV you will pass lets say 15 intersections, in V you will pass lets say half of them, BUT DRIVING THE SAME DISTANCE.

If you compare maps of Los Angeles and New York City, generally NYC has smaller city blocks. This may be reflected in the difference between Los Santos and Liberty City.

Juuno
  • Juuno

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 May 2013

#974

Posted 02 July 2013 - 03:30 PM

Rockstar confirms what I said 1 mont ago :"One big change though with this game is that with a world of this size, we created a double-sided map based poster"

Front and Back. tounge2.gif

Mamunda
  • Mamunda

    Gangsta

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 08 Jul 2012

#975

Posted 02 July 2013 - 04:10 PM

QUOTE (Juuno @ Tuesday, Jul 2 2013, 15:30)
Rockstar confirms what I said 1 mont ago :"One big change though with this game is that with a world of this size, we created a double-sided map based poster"

Front and Back. tounge2.gif

But we don't know if there are going to be separate parts of map on both sides.

It could be whole map on one side, and Los Santos only on another

OR

Whole map on one side, and secrets, POIs etc. on other side.

Hopefully it's just that the map is too big to fit on one side.

However I don't get the feeling of map being super huge looking at trailers and screenshots

spiritman23
  • spiritman23

    makaveli

  • Members
  • Joined: 06 May 2013

#976

Posted 02 July 2013 - 08:00 PM Edited by spiritman23, 02 July 2013 - 08:13 PM.

I don't know if this has been shared or not but I just saw this today on Gamestop.com where it states how big the blue print map is. Which on the site it states 21.5" x 26.7

Here is link to prove it : Gamestop link

It is also on Rockstar's site as well. Rockstar

K20
  • K20

    suckmyrocket

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Nov 2012
  • None

#977

Posted 03 July 2013 - 11:18 AM

QUOTE (spiritman23 @ Tuesday, Jul 2 2013, 20:00)
I don't know if this has been shared or not but I just saw this today on Gamestop.com where it states how big the blue print map is. Which on the site it states 21.5" x 26.7

Here is link to prove it : Gamestop link

It is also on Rockstar's site as well. Rockstar

on da first page.

edenz21
  • edenz21

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 Jun 2013

#978

Posted 03 July 2013 - 12:27 PM

Anyone else notice the gameplay in the Kifflom advert screensaver? The wave effect is nice, possibly an area you can reach with the lightouse and all.

TBH I think the waves will look like this in game.

d3ex2
  • d3ex2

    Gangsta

  • Members
  • Joined: 27 Apr 2013

#979

Posted 03 July 2013 - 01:26 PM

QUOTE (edenz21 @ Wednesday, Jul 3 2013, 13:27)
Anyone else notice the gameplay in the Kifflom advert screensaver? The wave effect is nice, possibly an area you can reach with the lightouse and all.

TBH I think the waves will look like this in game.

http://media.gtanet....eenshot_151.jpg

I think this is the same place as the area seen in the Epsilon screensaver.

edenz21
  • edenz21

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 Jun 2013

#980

Posted 03 July 2013 - 05:01 PM

Good find, think your into something

Showstopper 26
  • Showstopper 26

    Big Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Nov 2012

#981

Posted 03 July 2013 - 05:09 PM

QUOTE (d3ex2 @ Wednesday, Jul 3 2013, 08:26)
QUOTE (edenz21 @ Wednesday, Jul 3 2013, 13:27)
Anyone else notice the gameplay in the Kifflom advert screensaver? The wave effect is nice, possibly an area you can reach with the lightouse and all.

TBH I think the waves will look like this in game.

http://media.gtanet....eenshot_151.jpg

I think this is the same place as the area seen in the Epsilon screensaver.

I can't wait to explore that! How many points of interest do you think will be hidden in the country/mountains?

Archvile78
  • Archvile78

    Playa

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Nov 2012

#982

Posted 03 July 2013 - 11:12 PM

QUOTE (Showstopper 26 @ Wednesday, Jul 3 2013, 12:09)
QUOTE (d3ex2 @ Wednesday, Jul 3 2013, 08:26)
QUOTE (edenz21 @ Wednesday, Jul 3 2013, 13:27)
Anyone else notice the gameplay in the Kifflom advert screensaver? The wave effect is nice, possibly an area you can reach with the lightouse and all.

TBH I think the waves will look like this in game.

http://media.gtanet....eenshot_151.jpg

I think this is the same place as the area seen in the Epsilon screensaver.

I can't wait to explore that! How many points of interest do you think will be hidden in the country/mountains?

Waaaaaaaay too many, that include the bottom of the ocean too!

edenz21
  • edenz21

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 Jun 2013

#983

Posted 04 July 2013 - 11:48 AM

Hmm are those some new screens on the website ?

http://www.rockstarg...202948975434428

bellboy
  • bellboy

    Kingfish

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 Oct 2012

#984

Posted 04 July 2013 - 11:56 AM

QUOTE (edenz21 @ Thursday, Jul 4 2013, 11:48)
Hmm are those some new screens on the website ?

http://www.rockstarg...202948975434428

Naw

edenz21
  • edenz21

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 Jun 2013

#985

Posted 04 July 2013 - 11:59 AM

new to me though biggrin.gif, love the bank one as it gives better view of the mountains in the background

vivalavendredi
  • vivalavendredi

    Gangsta

  • Members
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2012

#986

Posted 04 July 2013 - 12:04 PM

QUOTE (edenz21 @ Thursday, Jul 4 2013, 11:59)
new to me though biggrin.gif, love the bank one as it gives better view of the mountains in the background

which "bank one"?
The latest screens on the page are from June 11th… 3 weeks old.

LiveApk25
  • LiveApk25

    Big Mouth Prick

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Apr 2011

#987

Posted 04 July 2013 - 04:08 PM

user posted image

Maybe this is not Fake but Map in Alpha Stage

Showstopper 26
  • Showstopper 26

    Big Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Nov 2012

#988

Posted 04 July 2013 - 04:18 PM

QUOTE (sarvesh25 @ Thursday, Jul 4 2013, 12:08)
user posted image

Maybe this is not Fake but Map in Alpha Stage

Where is that from? The city looks packed, nice!

gracz209
  • gracz209

    Kurwa

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Nov 2012

#989

Posted 04 July 2013 - 04:19 PM

QUOTE (sarvesh25 @ Thursday, Jul 4 2013, 16:08)
user posted image

Maybe this is not Fake but Map in Alpha Stage

Lol hahaha it was just big troll. Someone from this forum made it

JANTSUU
  • JANTSUU

    Wanted Level: ★★★★★

  • Members
  • Joined: 14 Apr 2008
  • Finland
  • Best Video 2012 [GTA V Trailer with Niko, Luis and Johnny]

#990

Posted 04 July 2013 - 06:42 PM Edited by Jantsu92, 04 July 2013 - 06:51 PM.

QUOTE (sarvesh25 @ Thursday, Jul 4 2013, 16:08)
user posted image

Maybe this is not Fake but Map in Alpha Stage

It's a fan made map.

Map doesn't change much from alpha to final build because Rockstar plans the map before they start to model it. There is some tiny changes of course but not that much. People should stop speculating about these "alpha" version maps.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users