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
Carnotaurus
  • Carnotaurus

    Rat

  • Members
  • Joined: 15 Sep 2013

#31

Posted 24 September 2013 - 06:13 AM

The fact that Los Santos is about the size as Liberty City in GTA IV is very disappointing.  If they had included two other cities about the same size as Los Santos, it would clearly be the greatest GTA game to date.  As for the countryside of GTA V, I don't think it bigger than SA and RDR combine, however add in the ocean and it could be, BUT SA also had ocean...


IveGotNoValues
  • IveGotNoValues

    Half Mexican/half white...I'm a vanilla bean!

  • Members
  • Joined: 14 Jun 2012
  • United-States

#32

Posted 24 September 2013 - 06:21 AM

I can't say I agree with you on this. I feel like I'm one of the only people who can really appreciate V's size and beauty, everyone else keeps defending San Andreas. I get that you have some 2004 nostalgia, but you have to open up your minds to new things, in this case the NEW state of San Andreas.

  • SteaVor and HeliWolf420 like this

Carnotaurus
  • Carnotaurus

    Rat

  • Members
  • Joined: 15 Sep 2013

#33

Posted 24 September 2013 - 06:25 AM

I can't say I agree with you on this. I feel like I'm one of the only people who can really appreciate V's size and beauty, everyone else keeps defending San Andreas. I get that you have some 2004 nostalgia, but you have to open up your minds to new things, in this case the NEW state of San Andreas.

 

Are you talking to me?  If so, I do appreciated the beauty that is V but the size leave a lot to be desire.  It is a good size open world game but nothing ground breaking.  

  • NYdreamz likes this

Killerdude
  • Killerdude

    And Remember, Respect is Everything!

  • The Yardies
  • Joined: 09 Mar 2012
  • Canada

#34

Posted 24 September 2013 - 06:41 AM

The draw distance is what made San Andreas' tiny map feel big, watch, turn it way up and you can see LV from LS, suddenly not so big.

That said, GTA V is significantly larger than SA, please remove your head from your anus and think.
  • IDAS Leader likes this

Khaos89
  • Khaos89

    Has a small willy

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 06 Sep 2013
  • Antarctica

#35

Posted 24 September 2013 - 06:43 AM

Suck a diccccck

Aren't you a mature member of the forum. I agree with the OP actually, there's absolutely no chance their claim is right.


Goodman88
  • Goodman88

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Sep 2013

#36

Posted 24 September 2013 - 06:44 AM

1) You don't really care about the mathematical point of view but, well, that point of view is rather important when you talk about size. The FACT is that it's bigger than San Andreas, no argument there.

 

2) San Andreas was an immense step forward, not just compared to Vice City but to any game back then. When it comes to size, V isn't as revolutionary (maybe compared to IV, but not in general)

 

3) A lot of people fail to appreciate things like the explorable ocean, mostly because they don't care about it. Well, it's still there isn't it?

 

4) Is size really that important? When I think about it, when playing any GTA game, never have I thought "hmm, this map just isn't big enough". It's what you can do in the map. And face it, contrary to popular believe, there was very little to do in San Andreas.

  • hywelkidd and IDAS Leader like this

Sept17th2013
  • Sept17th2013

    Cracker.

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Jun 2013
  • None

#37

Posted 24 September 2013 - 06:45 AM

Agreed. Just beaten V and san andreas is still my favorite GTA in terms of map.

lazedout
  • lazedout

    Snitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 Sep 2013

#38

Posted 24 September 2013 - 06:45 AM Edited by lazedout, 24 September 2013 - 06:46 AM.

The draw distance is what made San Andreas' tiny map feel big, watch, turn it way up and you can see LV from LS, suddenly not so big.

That said, GTA V is significantly larger than SA, please remove your head from your anus and think.

Yes but the claim is V is bigger than SA, LS, AND RDR put together.


Romario
  • Romario

    Prankster

  • Members
  • Joined: 27 Sep 2009

#39

Posted 24 September 2013 - 06:47 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?

Show me with measurements and scaling please.


Punk Noodles
  • Punk Noodles

    Playa

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 Jun 2013

#40

Posted 24 September 2013 - 06:48 AM

No, it's bigger.

BoringPedsDumbCops
  • BoringPedsDumbCops

    Mark Chump

  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • Joined: 16 Sep 2013
  • None

#41

Posted 24 September 2013 - 06:48 AM

Rockstar lied again, it's going to be two more decades until we get the game that we all expected.

Carnotaurus
  • Carnotaurus

    Rat

  • Members
  • Joined: 15 Sep 2013

#42

Posted 24 September 2013 - 06:49 AM

1) You don't really care about the mathematical point of view but, well, that point of view is rather important when you talk about size. The FACT is that it's bigger than San Andreas, no argument there.

 

2) San Andreas was an immense step forward, not just compared to Vice City but to any game back then. When it comes to size, V isn't as revolutionary (maybe compared to IV, but not in general)

 

3) A lot of people fail to appreciate things like the explorable ocean, mostly because they don't care about it. Well, it's still there isn't it?

 

4) Is size really that important? When I think about it, when playing any GTA game, never have I thought "hmm, this map just isn't big enough". It's what you can do in the map. And face it, contrary to popular believe, there was very little to do in San Andreas.

 

I agree with you that it is much bigger than San Andreas.  People fell to consider the lack of roadway, draw distance, and slow cars that made SA bigger than it really was.  However SA was huge compare to III and Vice City, while V didn't really take that next step.  Yes it bigger than IV but that not really saying much considering that SA was much bigger than IV (or am I wrong?).  

 

Are you happy with the map size or did you thought it was bigger or smaller?


Romario
  • Romario

    Prankster

  • Members
  • Joined: 27 Sep 2009

#43

Posted 24 September 2013 - 06:50 AM

Rockstar lied again, it's going to be two more decades until we get the game that we all expected.

Please back up what you said with measurements and scaling. Otherwise you're just another troll.


Osho
  • Osho

    Old School RPG'er

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Nov 2012
  • None

#44

Posted 24 September 2013 - 06:54 AM

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

 

 

Wrong. 

The wealth of activities is nowhere near the size and scope of GTA SA

but map?

I disagree, It is big and feels too, no doubt!


Luna Lovegood
  • Luna Lovegood

    You're just sane as i am

  • Members
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2008
  • Indonesia

#45

Posted 24 September 2013 - 06:56 AM

Let's be realistic: humans are never satisfied
  • IDAS Leader likes this

DeconstruKt
  • DeconstruKt

    Snitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 Jan 2012

#46

Posted 24 September 2013 - 06:56 AM

you guys are all idiots, that quote INCLUDES THE VAST OCEAN/UNDERWATER EXPLORATION.

 

 

It INCLUDES THE OCEAN.. which IV/SA/RDR did not have.


lazedout
  • lazedout

    Snitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 Sep 2013

#47

Posted 24 September 2013 - 06:58 AM Edited by lazedout, 24 September 2013 - 06:58 AM.

Rockstar lied again, it's going to be two more decades until we get the game that we all expected.

 

2 more decades? Don't know about that. Graphics increase is only getting quicker. Chances are by then there will be another game that does it better than GTA. Sandbox games are becoming the norm and GTA will be hit with some serious competition soon enough. Competition drives advances. 


Little William
  • Little William

    Mangi PNG ya!!

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 08 Mar 2009

#48

Posted 24 September 2013 - 06:58 AM

you guys are all idiots, that quote INCLUDES THE VAST OCEAN/UNDERWATER EXPLORATION.

 

 

It INCLUDES THE OCEAN.. which IV/SA/RDR did not have.

Who give a f*ck about the ocean? It is the land mass that matters and from what we look at it, it is nowhere near the size of SA, yet alone RDR. Cockstar has lied to us, plain and simple.


lazedout
  • lazedout

    Snitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 Sep 2013

#49

Posted 24 September 2013 - 07:09 AM

 

you guys are all idiots, that quote INCLUDES THE VAST OCEAN/UNDERWATER EXPLORATION.

 

 

It INCLUDES THE OCEAN.. which IV/SA/RDR did not have.

Who give a f*ck about the ocean? It is the land mass that matters and from what we look at it, it is nowhere near the size of SA, yet alone RDR. Cockstar has lied to us, plain and simple.

 

 

Yep. The ocean should be an afterthought. 95% of the gameplay experience should be on land. Thats another reason Im disappointed. With all of the effort they put into the ocean you would have thought other basic features would have been included. They should have put the ocean aside and focused on more fundamental gameplay elements. 


Canes21
  • Canes21

    Punk-ass Bitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 28 Jun 2008

#50

Posted 24 September 2013 - 07:09 AM

 

you guys are all idiots, that quote INCLUDES THE VAST OCEAN/UNDERWATER EXPLORATION.

 

 

It INCLUDES THE OCEAN.. which IV/SA/RDR did not have.

Who give a f*ck about the ocean? It is the land mass that matters and from what we look at it, it is nowhere near the size of SA, yet alone RDR. Cockstar has lied to us, plain and simple.

 

How is it not the size of SA? Did you even watch the video posted in this thread? Los Santos in San Andreas was like 16 total blocks altogether. Los Santos in V is easily well over 100 blocks of city. Los Santos, Las Venturas, and San Fierro were so basic and simple, it's not even close that all 3 are as big and as complex as LS in V. San Andreas was a great game, but you all let nostalgia control what you believe too much.

 

San Andreas is still a decently sized game even today, but it's definitely not even close to the size of V.


Goodman88
  • Goodman88

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Sep 2013

#51

Posted 24 September 2013 - 07:12 AM

 

1) You don't really care about the mathematical point of view but, well, that point of view is rather important when you talk about size. The FACT is that it's bigger than San Andreas, no argument there.

 

2) San Andreas was an immense step forward, not just compared to Vice City but to any game back then. When it comes to size, V isn't as revolutionary (maybe compared to IV, but not in general)

 

3) A lot of people fail to appreciate things like the explorable ocean, mostly because they don't care about it. Well, it's still there isn't it?

 

4) Is size really that important? When I think about it, when playing any GTA game, never have I thought "hmm, this map just isn't big enough". It's what you can do in the map. And face it, contrary to popular believe, there was very little to do in San Andreas.

 

I agree with you that it is much bigger than San Andreas.  People fell to consider the lack of roadway, draw distance, and slow cars that made SA bigger than it really was.  However SA was huge compare to III and Vice City, while V didn't really take that next step.  Yes it bigger than IV but that not really saying much considering that SA was much bigger than IV (or am I wrong?).  

 

Are you happy with the map size or did you thought it was bigger or smaller?

 

 

Like I said, I've never been disappointed with regards to map size when playing a GTA game. Seeing that this is by far the largest map, I am very happy with it.

 

The thing is, when I see how much some people play the game, it's no wonder it gets boring quick and they start coming up with ridiculous things like "the map is too small". Since I bought the game on tuesday, I played it for maybe 8 hours, and I still get to discover a lot of stuff when I play it.

 

Seriously guys, open your door and walk outside for a while. The map is huge, graphics are insane, lots of pedestrians and cars,... You can't shoot anyone, but other than that there's a lot more to do than in any game.


Anullu
  • Anullu

    Snitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Nov 2011

#52

Posted 24 September 2013 - 07:13 AM

nice one thanks !! to be hondes San Andreas looks pretty small now.


rgangsta
  • rgangsta

    THE OPERATOR

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Sep 2013

#53

Posted 24 September 2013 - 07:15 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?

Have you stayed in Blaine long? Or went under water? There's a lot more than just buildings to the map.

 

And I've seen the comparisons to the other games. V is huge. Don;t know what game you're playing.


ak-4seven
  • ak-4seven

    Playa

  • Members
  • Joined: 30 Oct 2007

#54

Posted 24 September 2013 - 07:16 AM

Draw distance is your answer. In GTA V you can see the horizon. In San Andreas you could barely see 5 buildings away.

EzOne4Me
  • EzOne4Me

    V > ALL

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Sep 2013

#55

Posted 24 September 2013 - 07:18 AM

Poor souls. Still couldn't understand the meaning of draw distance. 


Carnotaurus
  • Carnotaurus

    Rat

  • Members
  • Joined: 15 Sep 2013

#56

Posted 24 September 2013 - 07:20 AM

 

 

1) You don't really care about the mathematical point of view but, well, that point of view is rather important when you talk about size. The FACT is that it's bigger than San Andreas, no argument there.

 

2) San Andreas was an immense step forward, not just compared to Vice City but to any game back then. When it comes to size, V isn't as revolutionary (maybe compared to IV, but not in general)

 

3) A lot of people fail to appreciate things like the explorable ocean, mostly because they don't care about it. Well, it's still there isn't it?

 

4) Is size really that important? When I think about it, when playing any GTA game, never have I thought "hmm, this map just isn't big enough". It's what you can do in the map. And face it, contrary to popular believe, there was very little to do in San Andreas.

 

I agree with you that it is much bigger than San Andreas.  People fell to consider the lack of roadway, draw distance, and slow cars that made SA bigger than it really was.  However SA was huge compare to III and Vice City, while V didn't really take that next step.  Yes it bigger than IV but that not really saying much considering that SA was much bigger than IV (or am I wrong?).  

 

Are you happy with the map size or did you thought it was bigger or smaller?

 

 

Like I said, I've never been disappointed with regards to map size when playing a GTA game. Seeing that this is by far the largest map, I am very happy with it.

 

The thing is, when I see how much some people play the game, it's no wonder it gets boring quick and they start coming up with ridiculous things like "the map is too small". Since I bought the game on tuesday, I played it for maybe 8 hours, and I still get to discover a lot of stuff when I play it.

 

Seriously guys, open your door and walk outside for a while. The map is huge, graphics are insane, lots of pedestrians and cars,... You can't shoot anyone, but other than that there's a lot more to do than in any game.

 

 

Yeah I'm the same, I been playing since midnight release on and off.  I only have 31 out of 69 missions done so far.   Have not experience the ocean other than the one sub mission.  


carnage.
  • carnage.

    What color do you bleed?

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Jul 2013

#57

Posted 24 September 2013 - 07:45 AM Edited by carnage., 24 September 2013 - 07:48 AM.

I'm thinking when Rockstar said GTA V was bigger than SA, IV, and RDR combined they were taking into account how wide the ocean floor extends on all sides of the map. Not just the landmass of the state of San Andreas.

 

Because like it or not, the ocean floor is still part of the map since it can be explored.


Carnotaurus
  • Carnotaurus

    Rat

  • Members
  • Joined: 15 Sep 2013

#58

Posted 24 September 2013 - 07:48 AM

I'm thinking when Rockstar said GTA V was bigger than SA, IV, and RDR combined they were taking into account how wide the ocean floor extends on all sides of the map. Not just the landmass of the state of San Andreas.

 

Yeah, but it is sort of false advertising.  On another topic, do you think the landmass of SA, IV, and RDR combined would be bigger, on par, or smaller than the landmass of Just Cause 2?  Just Cause 2 is just really copy and paste but the landmass is of epic proportion.  


Fuzzknuckles
  • Fuzzknuckles

    Chronic Ape

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 10 Apr 2004
  • None

#59

Posted 24 September 2013 - 07:52 AM

Hmm, well, I call BS on you calling BS. 

 

It IS a bigger map. It IS a bigger game. It has MORE CARS, MORE PEDESTRIANS, MORE DETAILED BUILDINGS, BETTER LIGHTING/AMBIENT SOUND. 

 

I could go on for hours about they've made huge improvements to the physics of not only the cars, but the people. How they've written very thoughtful and cleverly constructed dialogue and layered tiny stories from outside the main game around the side to make the city and inhabitants more reactive, responsive and engaged with the world they're in. 

 

I could also just say STFU, but that's lame. But seriously bro, STFU. 


zainzombie
  • zainzombie

    PRE-ORDER CANCELLED! *sob sob*

  • Members
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2011

#60

Posted 24 September 2013 - 07:54 AM

Oh.. its definitely bigger. MUch bigger. 

  • IDAS Leader likes this




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users