Some people think they're so smart, right? How would you know what the actual size is? And some of you are just not open minded, how do you know if the unplayable area of RDR is also not included? It could be. Though I'm VERY happy with 20-25 sq miles, 49 sq miles is what I believe in right now.
How does a site like The Scotsman know the actual size? They were even completely wrong about the bridge they mentioned being from somewhere else instead of it being a copy of the Vincent Thomas bridge in LA.
And why on earth would Rockstar even include the non-playable area when coming up with a size comparison? Who would logically include that anyway? It is not an actual part of the map.
RDR with unplayable map is 15.927 square miles based on the map being 7500 x 7500 pixels. This makes 3.5 times RDR 55.65 (or actually 55.74 if you first use kilometers to come up with the total number) square miles.
Let's be fair then and count the entire map of GTA 4 including the water and everything of GTA SA. GTA 4 is then 8.8 square miles and GTA SA is 13.9 square miles. So then RDR + GTA 4 + GTA SA makes the map 38.7 square miles. As I recall when Rockstar made this comparison they also stated with "room to spare".
So the number is not the same. Yet if you only use RDR's playable area you get 5.4 square miles times 3.5 is 18.9 square miles which is 49 (48.9) square kilometers. Rather coincidental how that looks like the number The Scotsman used. And that is if they have been told anything instead of using the faulty 28 square miles number for RDR. RDR is not anywhere near that size.
Post in question with reliable numbers:
Note how the map with water is probably 100 square kilometers based on how Rockstar's maps always seem to be one meter per pixel.
The most important note is actually that Rockstar's maps are clearly calculated in meters. A pixel is one meter on Rockstar's game maps. This is why it makes a whole lot of sense that The Scotsman may have been told that the map is 49 square kilometers instead of miles.