Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

RDR or SA?

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
97 replies to this topic
ChatterBoxFM
  • ChatterBoxFM

    ★★★★★★

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 May 2013

#1

Posted 31 May 2013 - 08:47 PM

http://www.myepsilon...-lights-map.jpg
http://images.wikia....ed-Game-Map.jpg

ghostface8282
  • ghostface8282

    Player Hater

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 31 May 2013

#2

Posted 31 May 2013 - 09:08 PM

QUOTE (ChatterBoxFM @ Friday, May 31 2013, 20:47)
http://www.myepsilon...-lights-map.jpg
http://images.wikia....ed-Game-Map.jpg

Read Dead. No doubt about it

ChatterBoxFM
  • ChatterBoxFM

    ★★★★★★

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 May 2013

#3

Posted 31 May 2013 - 09:15 PM Edited by ChatterBoxFM, 31 May 2013 - 09:17 PM.

QUOTE (ghostface8282 @ Friday, May 31 2013, 13:08)
QUOTE (ChatterBoxFM @ Friday, May 31 2013, 20:47)
http://www.myepsilon...-lights-map.jpg
http://images.wikia....ed-Game-Map.jpg

Read Dead. No doubt about it

i dont know honestly, but SA kinda looks bigger.

if you look at plainview (RDR) and compare it to the houses south of the town that is south of the military base (SA)

but thats assuming theyre the same size buildings

<Yang3
  • <Yang3

    ☆☆☆☆☆

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Apr 2009
  • Philippines

#4

Posted 31 May 2013 - 09:37 PM

Red Dead Redemption's map is bigger. Rockstar said it themselves.

ghostface8282
  • ghostface8282

    Player Hater

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 31 May 2013

#5

Posted 31 May 2013 - 09:45 PM

QUOTE (DODI3OG @ Friday, May 31 2013, 21:37)
Red Dead Redemption's map is bigger. Rockstar said it themselves.

bingo cookie.gif

Gtaghost22
  • Gtaghost22

  • Members
  • Joined: 22 Dec 2011

#6

Posted 31 May 2013 - 10:03 PM

QUOTE (DODI3OG @ Friday, May 31 2013, 21:37)
Red Dead Redemption's map is bigger.

True, but the actual playable area isn't.

Note that I'm not a SA fanboy in any way, IV is my favourite GTA and Red Dead Redemption is one of my favourite games of all time. smile.gif

Fireman
  • Fireman

    Cunning Stunter

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Mar 2005

#7

Posted 31 May 2013 - 10:13 PM

I've read a top ten about Largest Playable maps and San Andreas was in there, but RDR wasn't, therefore, San Andreas is bigger.

TheKryptonite
  • TheKryptonite

    The World is Yours

  • Members
  • Joined: 09 May 2012

#8

Posted 31 May 2013 - 10:41 PM

RDR. Speaking of which, I heard that the "unplayable" area was going to be part of the map.

Fireman
  • Fireman

    Cunning Stunter

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Mar 2005

#9

Posted 31 May 2013 - 11:34 PM

Ah the articles don't mention RDR, because there was never any information given about the size of the map.

The only thing Rockstar said was that "it would be twice as big as San Andreas" and that was said pre-release.

Anyway, here's lists of big maps:

Gamer's Hub Top 10
Gamingbolt Top 10

tuareg
  • tuareg

    Goodbye, John Marston. It's been a great pleasure!

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 04 Sep 2006
  • None

#10

Posted 31 May 2013 - 11:40 PM

Actually, RDR is more than twice the size of San Andreas.

NYC PATROL
  • NYC PATROL

    "Patrolling and Observing Forums Since 2005"

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Jan 2008
  • United-States

#11

Posted 31 May 2013 - 11:45 PM

This thread here imo gives the ultimate map size showdown
Gives some good insight....

Red Dead isn't nearly as big as some of you think. Though it's pretty close to
the whole of SA.

http://www.gtaforums...pic=531982&st=0

Too bad Red Dead had a lot of "out of bounds area"

Still felt gigantic on horseback...

tuareg
  • tuareg

    Goodbye, John Marston. It's been a great pleasure!

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 04 Sep 2006
  • None

#12

Posted 01 June 2013 - 12:31 AM

No that thread is pure garbage. You can't base those facts on a scaling that is so horribly off.

All it takes is some common sense really. Ever played RDR? It takes roughly 8-10 minutes to ride from the Sea of Coronado all the way to Flat Iron Lake. That's the edge of New Austin to Blackwater in a straight line. If you were to cross the map perpendicularly (from the edge of Cholla Springs to the edge of Perdido) it would take you a few minutes less maybe.

Taking into account that the slowest airplane in San Andreas is roughly as fast as the fastest horse in RDR (both at top speed) you can cross the map of San Andreas flying a plane in about 2 minutes tops.

Rockstar themselves said RDR is their largest open world game and they've compared V to RDR's size for a reason. San Adreas is actually surprisingly small (10x draw distance mod).

ChatterBoxFM
  • ChatterBoxFM

    ★★★★★★

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 May 2013

#13

Posted 01 June 2013 - 12:47 AM

edit

Majestic81
  • Majestic81

    =VP=

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Jan 2012
  • None

#14

Posted 01 June 2013 - 12:49 AM

That RDR map looks huge, damn i wish they brought it to PC.

josephene123
  • josephene123

    No

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 May 2013

#15

Posted 01 June 2013 - 12:55 AM

QUOTE (tuareg @ Saturday, Jun 1 2013, 00:31)
No that thread is pure garbage. You can't base those facts on a scaling that is so horribly off.

All it takes is some common sense really. Ever played RDR? It takes roughly 8-10 minutes to ride from the Sea of Coronado all the way to Flat Iron Lake. That's the edge of New Austin to Blackwater in a straight line. If you were to cross the map perpendicularly (from the edge of Cholla Springs to the edge of Perdido) it would take you a few minutes less maybe.

Taking into account that the slowest airplane in San Andreas is roughly as fast as the fastest horse in RDR (both at top speed) you can cross the map of San Andreas flying a plane in about 2 minutes tops.

Rockstar themselves said RDR is their largest open world game and they've compared V to RDR's size for a reason. San Adreas is actually surprisingly small (10x draw distance mod).

There isn't a straight flat road in RDR, and how can you know that the speeds are roughly the same, too.

tuareg
  • tuareg

    Goodbye, John Marston. It's been a great pleasure!

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 04 Sep 2006
  • None

#16

Posted 01 June 2013 - 12:58 AM

I'm sure everyone gets the point.

josephene123
  • josephene123

    No

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 May 2013

#17

Posted 01 June 2013 - 02:16 AM

QUOTE (tuareg @ Saturday, Jun 1 2013, 00:58)
I'm sure everyone gets the point.

I don't. You've taken a highly measured post showing the scales which were pretty widely accepted in that thread by numerous high contributors and then straight away said, "That's pure garbage" before comparing times taken to cross a map with dirt roads with many turns and hills on horseback (you can't ALWAYS be going at top speed, too), to flying through a clear sky in a plane.

It's also widely accepted that SA was 13.9 miles squared, that would make RDR 27.8 miles squared at least if what you said earlier is true. GTA V's land mass is supposed to be 3.5 times RDR... 3.5 times 27.8 is 97.3. There is no way that GTA V is 97.3 miles squared based on the information we have from the blueprint maps.

Nem Wan
  • Nem Wan

    The Artist Formerly Known As Magic_Al

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

#18

Posted 01 June 2013 - 02:27 AM

OK, one more time.

GTA SA is 6km by 6km. This can be seen with a top-down 6000x6000 pixel view rendered at 1 pixel = 1 square meter here: ian-albert.com.

Now, in RDR, you start at a train station. At the beginning of the game, your stats screen measures your distance travelled by foot to the hundredth of a foot. By checking your stats before and after you move, you know the distance you moved.

The train platform you are standing on is made to look like straight boards running the length of the platform. By drawing your gun and aiming while walking, you can slowly walk in a nearly straight line from one end of the platform to another. Doing this several times, recording your distance stats each time, will give you a variety of measurements that you can average or take the shortest of to determine the length of the train platform.

You can also check the in-game map screen periodically and see that a crosshairs marking your position moves from one end of the map image of the platform as you move.

In the end, you learn this platform is about 133 feet long.

The highest resolution map of RDR can be found here: http://www.reddead-s...edemption/mappe (7500x5500)

On this map, the train platform is 42 pixels long. The scale is therefore equal or close to 42 pixels = 133 feet. The area of the entire map can be accurately calculated from this.

From observable evidence it is mathematically impossible for the limited portion of the map that accessible in Red Dead Redemption to be bigger, or even nearly as big, than the fully accessible map of San Andreas.

xMohawkkinGx
  • xMohawkkinGx

    Playa

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Oct 2012

#19

Posted 01 June 2013 - 03:01 AM

You can fit pretty much one to one and a half GTA SA maps into the RDR map. Aka, RDR is bigger. If the "unplayable areas" are the mountain areas that cuts off the map then ok understandable. If you really take just the land of SA you can easily get one and a half maps in that area.

<Yang3
  • <Yang3

    ☆☆☆☆☆

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Apr 2009
  • Philippines

#20

Posted 01 June 2013 - 03:20 AM

If you don't trust the people who developed RDR about the latter's size, then it doesn't have to come to making a sh*tty thread.
Nobody knows how much a kilometer is in a game.
The only way to measure the size of RDR's map is to port it to PC then render all MAP models atop GTA SA's map models.
There's no need for assumptions when the developers said it themselves. IDIOTS.

ghostface8282
  • ghostface8282

    Player Hater

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 31 May 2013

#21

Posted 01 June 2013 - 03:40 AM

QUOTE (DODI3OG @ Saturday, Jun 1 2013, 03:20)
If you don't trust the people who developed RDR about the latter's size, then it doesn't have to come to making a sh*tty thread.
Nobody knows how much a kilometer is in a game.
The only way to measure the size of RDR's map is to port it to PC then render all MAP models atop GTA SA's map models.
There's no need for assumptions when the developers said it themselves. IDIOTS.

exactly. rdr is bigger. end of story... close thread?

GlitzyTomb
  • GlitzyTomb

    Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Jul 2012

#22

Posted 01 June 2013 - 06:24 AM

QUOTE (tuareg @ Saturday, Jun 1 2013, 00:31)
No that thread is pure garbage. You can't base those facts on a scaling that is so horribly off.

All it takes is some common sense really. Ever played RDR? It takes roughly 8-10 minutes to ride from the Sea of Coronado all the way to Flat Iron Lake. That's the edge of New Austin to Blackwater in a straight line. If you were to cross the map perpendicularly (from the edge of Cholla Springs to the edge of Perdido) it would take you a few minutes less maybe.

Taking into account that the slowest airplane in San Andreas is roughly as fast as the fastest horse in RDR (both at top speed) you can cross the map of San Andreas flying a plane in about 2 minutes tops.

Rockstar themselves said RDR is their largest open world game and they've compared V to RDR's size for a reason. San Adreas is actually surprisingly small (10x draw distance mod).

the slowest airplane in San Andreas is roughly as fast as the fastest horse in RDR (both at top speed)




This sounds pointedly incorrect, but go ahead and explain it.

This was based on what exactly? Gut feeling?

nigelhere9901
  • nigelhere9901

    Gangsta

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2013

#23

Posted 01 June 2013 - 06:49 AM

GTA SA is certainly bigger.

CryptReaperDorian
  • CryptReaperDorian

    Boss

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Aug 2007

#24

Posted 01 June 2013 - 07:06 AM Edited by CryptReaperDorian, 01 June 2013 - 07:09 AM.

QUOTE (DODI3OG @ Friday, May 31 2013, 21:20)
If you don't trust the people who developed RDR about the latter's size, then it doesn't have to come to making a sh*tty thread.
Nobody knows how much a kilometer is in a game.
The only way to measure the size of RDR's map is to port it to PC then render all MAP models atop GTA SA's map models.
There's no need for assumptions when the developers said it themselves. IDIOTS.

R* employees always over exaggerate the map sizes in their games. There's no way that Red Dead Redemption's map comes out to roughly 28 square miles. That's a bit larger than True Crime: New York City's map (almost an exact replica of Manhattan's street layout), and it takes possibly the same amount of time or longer to get from the northern end of that map to the southern end by vehicle than it does to go from Escalera to Blackwater on horse in Red Dead Redemption. Red Dead Redemption's map feels large, but that game's playable area still isn't any larger than GTA SA's playable area.

EDIT: As for the "slowest plane"? Well, I have a feeling that even the bicycles in GTA SA are capable of reaching speeds faster than the third tier horses in Red Dead Redemption.

tuareg
  • tuareg

    Goodbye, John Marston. It's been a great pleasure!

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 04 Sep 2006
  • None

#25

Posted 01 June 2013 - 09:26 AM

Yes, the american standardbred/hungarian half-bred are both comparable to the dodo/cropduster/beagle in san andreas, but i digress. Rockstar has stated before that RDR is their largest open world game. If you don't take their word for it then everything else beyond this point is meaningless. If, after playing both games, you still think the playable area of RDR is actually smaller than SA then i have no further words.

Fireman
  • Fireman

    Cunning Stunter

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Mar 2005

#26

Posted 01 June 2013 - 10:05 AM

No they haven't, anything said by Rockstar about the size of RDR was pre-release and thus greatly exaggerated for sales and this wasn't even about the playable area.

Also comparing flying an airplane without any obstacles in the air over a map and taking a horse that runs into obstacles every 3 seconds is the dumbest comparison ever made.


To sum up this thread:

R* Employees have told me personally, that RDR is twenty times as small as GTA III.

I can't give you any source, but believe me it's true! And the bicycle that was ment to be in GTA III goes atleast three times as fast as the invisible donkey in RDR.

josephene123
  • josephene123

    No

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 May 2013

#27

Posted 01 June 2013 - 10:23 AM

You can continue to quote Rockstar as having said this, but after doing the math, it really is impossible for RDR to be 28 sq miles. I played RDR and it felt like one of the biggest games I've ever played but that 'feeling' goes to sh*t when you actually do the maths

Chris Fromage
  • Chris Fromage

    Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 22 Sep 2012
  • Japan

#28

Posted 01 June 2013 - 12:12 PM

I think this is a question we will never find the answer on...

AnDReJ98
  • AnDReJ98

    Soldier

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Oct 2011
  • Serbia

#29

Posted 01 June 2013 - 01:24 PM

Simply, RDR map is smaller than SA's map if we don't count unplayable area, but if we count unplayable area, then RDR's map is bigger. I've played both games and in my option SA's map is bigger than RDR's, you could go to more places and it feels huge. As it takes more time to get from one to second part of the map.

http://i.imgur.com/vG8h2cj.jpg

<Yang3
  • <Yang3

    ☆☆☆☆☆

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Apr 2009
  • Philippines

#30

Posted 01 June 2013 - 02:31 PM

QUOTE (AnDReJ98 @ Saturday, Jun 1 2013, 21:24)
Simply, RDR map is smaller than SA's map if we don't count unplayable area, but if we count unplayable area, then RDR's map is bigger. I've played both games and in my option SA's map is bigger than RDR's, you could go to more places and it feels huge. As it takes more time to get from one to second part of the map.

http://i.imgur.com/vG8h2cj.jpg

Try rendering those maps. Until then, I won't believe you.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users