Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Let's be realistic: GTA V is nowhere near the size or scope of San

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
559 replies to this topic
Ghost-Unit
  • Ghost-Unit

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2006

#1

Posted 24 September 2013 - 04:21 AM Edited by Ghost-Unit, 24 September 2013 - 04:23 AM.

Title got cut off. It's supposed to read: "Let's be realistic: GTA V is nowhere near the size or scope of San Andreas."

 

(Note before you read this: I'm not knocking GTA V. It's an awesome game. But there were some very ballsy proclamations about the size of the map.)

 

Like, the proclamation was that GTA V is bigger than San Andreas, IV, and Red Dead Redemption combined. I have hundreds of hours logged into GTA San Andreas, and I'm calling bs on that. I'm calling bs on the first claim, nevermind the other two.

I just don't see it. I've just beaten GTA V so I've been around the map a good few times. Maybe from a technical, mathematical standpoint GTA V is bigger. But translated into actual player perspective, there's just no way. I spent extensive time in the countryside in San Andreas. Angel Pine (The little town in the bottom left of the map) was completely cut off from the rest of the world. Completely. Cut. Off. If the claim was made that GTA V was the size of Los Santos + Northern Red County + Las Venturas from San Andreas? I'd believe you, because that's reasonable. But there's simply no way GTA V's wilderness trumps the size of Back o' Beyond, Whetstone, Bone County, Mount Chilead, Blueberry, and Red County, and etc.

I feel like an idiot for standing up against the mathematics, but something isn't being taken into account. We are missing something, and I don't know what it is.

 

Take a stab if you agree?

  • Admz, Mince, Deadly Target and 11 others like this

JeepXJFreak98
  • JeepXJFreak98

    Respect the classics, man!

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 May 2010
  • United-States

#2

Posted 24 September 2013 - 04:24 AM

It's still a massive difference compared to the incredibly cluttered and boring Liberty City. I'm still finding new roads and tunnels and such to this very day, but I can agree that the map might've been a tad bit exaggerated. Bigger than Liberty City, San Andreas, AND Red Dead Redemption's maps combined? Not a chance.

  • Kratos2000 and EscobarVice like this

EliasMansour
  • EliasMansour

    Car Enthusiast

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2013

#3

Posted 24 September 2013 - 04:25 AM

Suck a diccccck

  • Ninja_Gear, lol232, davetopper and 2 others like this

dp415263
  • dp415263

    Punk-ass Bitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 01 May 2013

#4

Posted 24 September 2013 - 04:25 AM

I agree and Los Santos seems like the same size as Liberty city and broker combined.

  • Palikari likes this

CarLuver69
  • CarLuver69

    Strangely Animated

  • Members
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2011
  • United-States

#5

Posted 24 September 2013 - 04:27 AM Edited by CarLuver69, 24 September 2013 - 07:59 AM.

Let's be realistic: You don't appreciate what you've been given, and obviously want the world from Rockstar. Sorry if they didn't give you CJ back, and that you can't make Michael fat. I'll tell you 'hwat, trolling is bad, mmkay?

  • ExitiumMachina, GroundZero, RockstarMark and 11 others like this

GlitchOnMyLevel
  • GlitchOnMyLevel

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 04 Sep 2013

#6

Posted 24 September 2013 - 04:28 AM

I cant prove it but I feel like it is.


HeliWolf420
  • HeliWolf420

    Rat

  • Members
  • Joined: 16 May 2011

#7

Posted 24 September 2013 - 04:28 AM Edited by HeliWolf420, 24 September 2013 - 04:30 AM.

Nah I can't agree with you there. SA had one mountain, V has mountain ranges. Plural.

SA had a tiny Los Santos that aside from a few landmarks didn't look anything like Los Angeles, with V I feel like I'be been to LA.

V is far more impressive and clearly had a broader but also more focused 'scope'.
  • Azazel, GroundZero, roostersrule2 and 6 others like this

Ghost-Unit
  • Ghost-Unit

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2006

#8

Posted 24 September 2013 - 04:28 AM

It's still a massive difference compared to the incredibly cluttered and boring Liberty City. I'm still finding new roads and tunnels and such to this very day, but I can agree that the map might've been a tad bit exaggerated. Bigger than Liberty City, San Andreas, AND Red Dead Redemption's maps combined? Not a chance.

 

I concur. Mostly I feel weird about the whole situation. There are people that have played GTA V and still think the map is bigger by a significant margin. I just don't see how they figure that.

  • Mr_Goldcard likes this

Raptomex
  • Raptomex

    Listen to Slayer

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Oct 2004
  • United-States

#9

Posted 24 September 2013 - 04:29 AM

Los Santos was confirmed to be about the same size as Liberty City from IV. This is nothing new.

  • smizz11790 likes this

stevean2
  • stevean2

    Fast As You Can Fap!

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 Jul 2013

#10

Posted 24 September 2013 - 04:29 AM

Laughing.gif

  • RonDutch, RolfStarGames, PoopyCock and 1 other like this

Ghost-Unit
  • Ghost-Unit

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2006

#11

Posted 24 September 2013 - 04:29 AM

Let's be realistic: You don't appreciate what you've been given, and obviously want the world from Rockstar. Sorry if they didn't give you CJ back, and that you can't make Michael fatter than your mom. Because let's be realistic here - your mom is a f*cking whale, bro. :lol:

 

Didn't read my disclaimer, did you? I'm not knocking the game. But the assertions about the map were untrue.

  • ThatGuyWhoMakesThoseThings likes this

lazedout
  • lazedout

    Snitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 Sep 2013

#12

Posted 24 September 2013 - 04:31 AM

 

It's still a massive difference compared to the incredibly cluttered and boring Liberty City. I'm still finding new roads and tunnels and such to this very day, but I can agree that the map might've been a tad bit exaggerated. Bigger than Liberty City, San Andreas, AND Red Dead Redemption's maps combined? Not a chance.

 

I concur. Mostly I feel weird about the whole situation. There are people that have played GTA V and still think the map is bigger by a significant margin. I just don't see how they figure that.

 

 

Yeah now that he brings it up, I dont know how they HELL they claimed it was bigger than LS, SA AND RDR combined. Thats asinine. Maybe taking into account he WHOLE ocean. SA alone was absolutely massive. 


Miamivicecity
  • Miamivicecity

    Get Love Fisted

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2007
  • Australia
  • Best Member In An Official Group 2012

#13

Posted 24 September 2013 - 04:31 AM

SA was incredibly condensed and the sh*tty draw distance is what helped the illusion that it was big when it really wasn't. GTA V has mountain ranges and a fully explorable ocean floor. I think it is as big as GTA IV, RDR and SA combined when you consider mountain peaks and the ocean.

  • Foxhunt, Xx-ADITYA-xX, IveGotNoValues and 7 others like this

BMW Sterling
  • BMW Sterling

    (_o_Y_o_)

  • Members
  • Joined: 14 Aug 2013

#14

Posted 24 September 2013 - 04:31 AM

It is bigger than all of the 3 maps.

JeepXJFreak98
  • JeepXJFreak98

    Respect the classics, man!

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 May 2010
  • United-States

#15

Posted 24 September 2013 - 04:32 AM

 

It's still a massive difference compared to the incredibly cluttered and boring Liberty City. I'm still finding new roads and tunnels and such to this very day, but I can agree that the map might've been a tad bit exaggerated. Bigger than Liberty City, San Andreas, AND Red Dead Redemption's maps combined? Not a chance.

 

I concur. Mostly I feel weird about the whole situation. There are people that have played GTA V and still think the map is bigger by a significant margin. I just don't see how they figure that.

 

 

Still nonetheless, I love and enjoy the new map. Absolutely amazing, with loads of variety in terms of locations. The massive highway that wraps around the entire map is an awesome way to achieve some crazy speeds. The offroading trails are fun too.


M'aiq the Liar
  • M'aiq the Liar

    Skooma Addict

  • Members
  • Joined: 23 Sep 2013

#16

Posted 24 September 2013 - 04:36 AM

Exaggerated perhaps? I'm having trouble buying it's bigger then all three of those games combined. It's decent size though I'm content with the map. 


Soadisthebest
  • Soadisthebest

    Rat

  • Members
  • Joined: 27 Apr 2010
  • None

#17

Posted 24 September 2013 - 04:36 AM

Draw distance buddy.

  • D3ADSH0T likes this

Crewnordin
  • Crewnordin

    Snitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012

#18

Posted 24 September 2013 - 04:38 AM

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=FEzMrJqDEhc

 

Watch this homeboy

  • Drake1212, socialgarbage, L0st-D4md and 3 others like this

lazedout
  • lazedout

    Snitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 Sep 2013

#19

Posted 24 September 2013 - 04:38 AM Edited by lazedout, 24 September 2013 - 04:39 AM.

It is bigger than all of the 3 maps.

 

The question is not if its bigger than than the individual maps, but all of them COMBINED.

 

Eff the ocean floor, that is a cop out. The land mass above sea level is all that should be considered. Its definitely a massive map though.

  • Raspy likes this

Joshua8903
  • Joshua8903

    Rat

  • Members
  • Joined: 09 Aug 2013

#20

Posted 24 September 2013 - 04:39 AM

Do you guys think Rockstar just guessed when comparing to the other games THEY'VE made? I'm curious as to why everyone is so discontent with that claim. It's not like SA is unbelievably big, but back then it was for a sandbox game.

Rockstar is never going to redo GTA San Andreas, and according to this forum, 85% of GTA fans will continue to be disappointed since the release of IV.
  • CanOdope likes this

LaughingDingo
  • LaughingDingo

    Rat

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Sep 2013

#21

Posted 24 September 2013 - 04:40 AM

Considering the ocean and the explorable area in it, their statement probably is true. In terms of landmass though, I don't think so.

lazedout
  • lazedout

    Snitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 Sep 2013

#22

Posted 24 September 2013 - 04:40 AM

Do you guys think Rockstar just guessed when comparing to the other games THEY'VE made? I'm curious as to why everyone is so discontent with that claim. It's not like SA is unbelievably big, but back then it was for a sandbox game.

Rockstar is never going to redo GTA San Andreas, and according to this forum, 85% of GTA fans will continue to be disappointed since the release of IV.

I think they included the entire ocean floor in that statement. 


Ronrollin9434
  • Ronrollin9434

    Grotti Enthusiast

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Sep 2013

#23

Posted 24 September 2013 - 04:46 AM

Angel Pine has nothing to do with it. More like the fact that they included three huge, unique cities connected and surrounded by large countryside. I think that SF and LV are responsible for most, if not all of the illusion that SA is bigger than V.

 

But, in reality it's not. V just has a sh*t load of countryside -- too much, if you ask me. I would easily have been okay with Rockstar cutting out half of the country/rural areas in GTA V and replaced it with a big/medium size city -- not necessarily SF or LV but another California related city that is very beachy -- like San Diego or Long Beach.


Toastybunz
  • Toastybunz

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 22 Sep 2013

#24

Posted 24 September 2013 - 04:47 AM Edited by Toastybunz, 24 September 2013 - 04:48 AM.

Don't get me wrong, I loved San Andreas but the sh*tty draw distance and slow cars made it seem much bigger then it really was. Not to mention a lot of nostalgia...

 

The draw distance is incredible in V and not to mention most of the cars are WAY faster then any previous GTA game. I have zero complaints about the new map. I love exploring the countryside more then the city (and there is tons to see there).

  • TabooV2 and Albert Kike like this

jato4x4
  • jato4x4

    Rat

  • Members
  • Joined: 06 Aug 2010

#25

Posted 24 September 2013 - 04:48 AM

Plus the cars were much slower back in SA, which madeit take even longer to travel.

That video really shows how big SA was, or actually was not.

lazedout
  • lazedout

    Snitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 Sep 2013

#26

Posted 24 September 2013 - 04:52 AM

Plus the cars were much slower back in SA, which madeit take even longer to travel.

That video really shows how big SA was, or actually was not.

 

Yeah, but add to that RDR and LS. 


IGhostUlt
  • IGhostUlt

    LSLKS

  • Members
  • Joined: 28 Aug 2012

#27

Posted 24 September 2013 - 04:58 AM Edited by IGhostUlt, 24 September 2013 - 04:58 AM.

gta sa felt bigger because it had more cities


EzOne4Me
  • EzOne4Me

    V > ALL

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Sep 2013

#28

Posted 24 September 2013 - 05:12 AM

 

This.

 

Stop saying SA was big. It's 2013, ever heard of draw distance? 

SA + IV + RDR = V + Ocean floor

  • Albert Kike likes this

iN31L
  • iN31L

    Rat

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2013

#29

Posted 24 September 2013 - 05:32 AM Edited by iN31L, 24 September 2013 - 05:33 AM.

 

This pretty much debunks these stupid motherf*ckers talking about how SA is bigger than V.

  • Albert Kike and Shahin177 like this

Death2Drugs
  • Death2Drugs

    Wanna milky?

  • Members
  • Joined: 20 Feb 2011
  • Mexico

#30

Posted 24 September 2013 - 05:35 AM

SA was incredibly condensed and the sh*tty draw distance is what helped the illusion that it was big when it really wasn't. GTA V has mountain ranges and a fully explorable ocean floor. I think it is as big as GTA IV, RDR and SA combined when you consider mountain peaks and the ocean.

 

We're also forgetting another big piece of the puzzle: highways. There was no direct highway from one city to another in GTA San Andreas (except one connecting Los Santos to Las Venturas). The fact that there were long highways in between the stretch of countryside created the illusion of a bigger map.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users