|QUOTE (AceRay @ Sunday, Jun 16 2013, 14:53)|
|QUOTE (kjacked @ Monday, Jun 17 2013, 10:04)|
|QUOTE (the7ftmidget @ Sunday, Jun 16 2013, 20:11)|
|QUOTE (ghostface8282 @ Friday, May 31 2013, 13:45)|
|QUOTE (DODI3OG @ Friday, May 31 2013, 21:37)|
| Red Dead Redemption's map is bigger. Rockstar said it themselves. |
But RDR is all wasted space, a bunch of desert land. San andreas had that and then some, it had more life to its map, so i would say SA is bigger. Rdr's map is half dead emptiness.
? That makes no sense at all. You could say there was more to do in San Andreas, but to say it was bigger than red dead is false. Red dead had a bigger map.
What do you mean by bigger? I think we're meaning in terms of map size, in which case RDR is bigger. Also, SA had a lot of dead space and wasn't as interesting in terms of design, it was much better in RDR.
What i mean by bigger and more alive when refering to SA is that its not just a bunch of empty uninhabited land like RDR is. Sure SA's empty land is less diverse and ugly, but remember that rockstar didnt have the technology to add more "life" and diversity to the map. Taking that into account i feel that SA's map is bigger, not nessesarily in the literal sence, but in the overall feel and amount of accesable land.
Lets all be honest, when freeroaming in RDR, do you spend more time in the towns and nearby outskirts of town, or do you actually spend the majority of your time playing in the far-away-from-everything empty land masses?