Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

RDR map seems bigger to me than GTA 5's map

64 replies to this topic
ManOfDisguise
  • ManOfDisguise

    Punk-ass Bitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Sep 2013

#1

Posted 28 September 2013 - 10:26 AM

Maybe its because in RDR i ride on a horse and its slower than with cars and I dont have helis and jets but still it just seems much bigger. I doubt GTA 5's map is bigger than RDR,San Andres and GTA 4 map combined. And flying from one edn to the other(from north to south) but it wasnt exactly the longest distance took me around 4 min which i think is rlly fast for such a big map as they make it to be. Your thoughts?


Vin89
  • Vin89

    Peon

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2012

#2

Posted 28 September 2013 - 10:29 AM

So now what? Guess what, you're wrong. 


JavierFF
  • JavierFF

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 23 Sep 2013

#3

Posted 28 September 2013 - 10:31 AM

you have to take into account the underwater part of the map as well

ManOfDisguise
  • ManOfDisguise

    Punk-ass Bitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Sep 2013

#4

Posted 28 September 2013 - 10:33 AM

So now what? Guess what, you're wrong. 

ok I just want some proof somehow that 5's is bigger. like maybe some pic where they measured the scale of both maps or i dunno


Kent_Paul_Jnr
  • Kent_Paul_Jnr

    lets bounce

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 Sep 2013

#5

Posted 28 September 2013 - 11:17 AM

you have to take into account the underwater part of the map as well

the part which no one gives two cents about - hardly seen the posts prasing diving lol

 

major fail - should have made the map on the overworld with more content as it stands the underwater is waisted space


TrevorPhilipsInc
  • TrevorPhilipsInc

    Mark Chump

  • Members
  • Joined: 22 Sep 2013

#6

Posted 28 September 2013 - 11:20 AM

 

So now what? Guess what, you're wrong. 

ok I just want some proof somehow that 5's is bigger. like maybe some pic where they measured the scale of both maps or i dunno

 

 

The only way to do this is to know how many square miles each one is...As neither of them are similar in shape.

 

GTA 5 has to be bigger.

 

Theres an entire city to the south with numerous landmasses jutting out. The Beach, the Airport, the Docks and The hills surrounding Los Santos. Then theres the scalable mountains and beyond that a desert. Youve got miles of beach going around the entire landmass and a large inland lake. Overlooking most of the beachline outside of Los Santos is Mountains. Then theres Mount Chiliad which is so high up a massive building was built up there for the sake of ferrying people from Paleto up to the Mount. Youve got miles of backroads, highways, city blocks and neighborhoods.

 

If it were possible to ride horses in GTA V at the same speed as the fastest horse in RDR. And have someone ride a full loop around the map of RDR and a full loop around Los Santos and Blaine County. Id be willing to put money on the RDR horse making a full loop long before the GTAV horse.


TheTruthOnly
  • TheTruthOnly

    Thug

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Jul 2013
  • Unknown

#7

Posted 28 September 2013 - 11:29 AM

I want an official map comparison from R*. I'm just sick of all speculations and rumors.


ManOfDisguise
  • ManOfDisguise

    Punk-ass Bitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Sep 2013

#8

Posted 28 September 2013 - 11:33 AM

I want an official map comparison from R*. I'm just sick of all speculations and rumors.

same


wallpaper42
  • wallpaper42

    Hustler

  • Members
  • Joined: 23 Sep 2013

#9

Posted 28 September 2013 - 11:46 AM

Think about riding a horse across GTA V's map. It would take a while... It's definitely the biggest map they've ever done but when they say it's bigger than all these other games put together, that is hard to believe. The ocean floor is really cool and I appreciate it but I'm not sure if it should count.


Harwood-Butcher
  • Harwood-Butcher

    Snitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Sep 2013

#10

Posted 28 September 2013 - 12:10 PM

I doubt GTA 5's map is bigger than RDR,San Andres and GTA 4 map combined.

 

You sure? :lol:

 

iwm3c9.jpg


janimal
  • janimal

    Low Skilled

  • Members
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2011

#11

Posted 28 September 2013 - 12:23 PM Edited by janimal, 28 September 2013 - 12:28 PM.

I'll set you an experiment so you can test it for yourself.

 

1) Walk across RDR (SW to NE I think is the widest dimension, but you can choose)

2) Walk across San Andreas.

 

Let us know your results in a couple of weeks :lol:

 

[Edit]

 

All you really need to do though is walk for a set amount of time in each game and compare how much of the map you traverse, then you can derive the relative scales.

  • KushaD and wallpaper42 like this

TaazR
  • TaazR

    Interiors & Parkour

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Nov 2011

#12

Posted 28 September 2013 - 12:58 PM

 

I doubt GTA 5's map is bigger than RDR,San Andres and GTA 4 map combined.

 

You sure? :lol:

 

iwm3c9.jpg

 

Yeah because anyone can't paste a RDR map onto the GTA V map and scale it down to whatever the f*ck they want? GTA V is about 1.5x the size of RDR.


JonnJonnz
  • JonnJonnz

    Rat

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Sep 2013

#13

Posted 28 September 2013 - 01:59 PM

They made cars drive really fast and I am pretty sure they increased the walk/run speed as well. That's why the map feels smaller than SA or RDR and the city may feel smaller than the map of IV when in reality it's a little bigger

ChimpySkater
  • ChimpySkater

    Crackhead

  • Members
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2003

#14

Posted 28 September 2013 - 06:10 PM

 

So now what? Guess what, you're wrong. 

ok I just want some proof somehow that 5's is bigger. like maybe some pic where they measured the scale of both maps or i dunno

 

Proof. The map is bigger. There you go now you can rest easy.


PolishPrisoner
  • PolishPrisoner

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Sep 2013

#15

Posted 28 September 2013 - 06:19 PM

I agree that RDR feels bigger.  There are a lot more small towns and settlements in RDR, and there are TWO countries.  But I bet the GTA V map is actually a little bit bigger. 

 

Just a side note, I find that the technology used to build RDR and the technology used to build GTA V are roughly the same.  In other words, nothing has changed or improved since 2010 as far as these games go.  In fact, I think the effects of bullets on humans in RDR are better than those in GTA V.  In RDR, a bullet would cause visible damage beyond just a blood stain on a corpse.  If you shot someone in the head, there would be a nasty exit wound.  In GTA V, you just see a little bit of blood.  Turn up the gore please R*. 


dodeca
  • dodeca

    Rat

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Sep 2013

#16

Posted 28 September 2013 - 06:35 PM Edited by dodeca, 28 September 2013 - 06:41 PM.

Slightly OT, but anyone think the map would have felt bigger if there werent so many mountains? Theres mount chiliad, mount gordo, mount this, mount that....everytime im in sandy shores, everywhere I look I see mountains on the horizon. As big as the map is, it feels a bit claustrophobic with all the mountains and a bigass lake right in the middle of the map. So many mountains feels liek a cheap way to fill up the map and theres usually just one or two dirt trails going up and down the mountains, which means less usable land space.

  • Ferocious Banger likes this

WinterEdit
  • WinterEdit

    It was all just lying there!

  • Members
  • Joined: 22 Sep 2013
  • Finland

#17

Posted 28 September 2013 - 06:36 PM

Same thing... only with GTA: San Andreas. I don't know why, it just seems a bit bigger to me. I know that's not the case most likely, but it feels like it.


Jozzborne
  • Jozzborne

    Jeremy

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Sep 2013

#18

Posted 28 September 2013 - 06:41 PM

I think its a perfect map size personally. I am sure its larger technically but largely due to the lakes, rivers, and mountains acting as filler which is kinda cheap. Not that I don't enjoy that aspect of the game (reminds me of FC3). If you're like me you probably spend 80% of your time in the city which is not all that big so it feels tiny.

PkUnzipper
  • PkUnzipper

    Li'l G Loc

  • Members
  • Joined: 20 Aug 2013

#19

Posted 28 September 2013 - 06:45 PM Edited by PkUnzipper, 28 September 2013 - 06:55 PM.

 

So now what? Guess what, you're wrong. 

ok I just want some proof somehow that 5's is bigger. like maybe some pic where they measured the scale of both maps or i dunno

 

 

ignorance is truly bliss.  Just quite while you're still ahead of the flamers man.

 

Better yet, follow Harwood-Butcher and taazr's advice. :lol:

 

R* also confirmed this in press releases when V was announced.

 

The reason V appears smaller is due to to the mountains and water bodies (with Mt Chiliad in particular being the largest terrain feature on the island map).  These take up a CONSIDERABLE amount of surface area. If you bothered to trek the off road trails, you would find that you'd spend a lot of your time trying to move vertically to a given point (i.e. by climbing, scuba diving/swimming).

 

Basically if you drained the ocean/lakes, leveled the hilly/mountainous terrain features while preserving their original surface areas, the vast differences in spatial scale would be immediately apparent.


ManOfDisguise
  • ManOfDisguise

    Punk-ass Bitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Sep 2013

#20

Posted 28 September 2013 - 07:12 PM

Slightly OT, but anyone think the map would have felt bigger if there werent so many mountains? Theres mount chiliad, mount gordo, mount this, mount that....everytime im in sandy shores, everywhere I look I see mountains on the horizon. As big as the map is, it feels a bit claustrophobic with all the mountains and a bigass lake right in the middle of the map. So many mountains feels liek a cheap way to fill up the map and theres usually just one or two dirt trails going up and down the mountains, which means less usable land space.

Exactly! I think this makes the map feel smaller and I think its a lazy way to do a map. The map needs more variation! More and deeper valleys and maybe more skyscrapers in the city(there is only like 5 which sucks) and a lot of other things.


ManOfDisguise
  • ManOfDisguise

    Punk-ass Bitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Sep 2013

#21

Posted 28 September 2013 - 07:15 PM

 

 

So now what? Guess what, you're wrong. 

ok I just want some proof somehow that 5's is bigger. like maybe some pic where they measured the scale of both maps or i dunno

 

 

ignorance is truly bliss.  Just quite while you're still ahead of the flamers man.

 

Better yet, follow Harwood-Butcher and taazr's advice. :lol:

 

R* also confirmed this in press releases when V was announced.

 

The reason V appears smaller is due to to the mountains and water bodies (with Mt Chiliad in particular being the largest terrain feature on the island map).  These take up a CONSIDERABLE amount of surface area. If you bothered to trek the off road trails, you would find that you'd spend a lot of your time trying to move vertically to a given point (i.e. by climbing, scuba diving/swimming).

 

Basically if you drained the ocean/lakes, leveled the hilly/mountainous terrain features while preserving their original surface areas, the vast differences in spatial scale would be immediately apparent.

 

Ok thanks! BUT I may be PARTIALLY right. RDR is maybe bigger in terms of width/length? Like going from the left of the map to the right would take imo longer than in gta to go from south to north or north to south. Or no? :p


king-rotty
  • king-rotty

    King Rotty

  • Members
  • Joined: 06 Sep 2013

#22

Posted 28 September 2013 - 07:18 PM

get a vehicle that travels about the speed of a horse. golf caddy, old banger, UFO gift. time them :D


dodeca
  • dodeca

    Rat

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Sep 2013

#23

Posted 28 September 2013 - 07:20 PM Edited by dodeca, 28 September 2013 - 07:20 PM.

 

Exactly! I think this makes the map feel smaller and I think its a lazy way to do a map. The map needs more variation! More and deeper valleys and maybe more skyscrapers in the city(there is only like 5 which sucks) and a lot of other things.

 

 

Yeah. I was hoping for a bigger and denser swampland, swampboats, alligators, and all that. And the senora desert is in the middle of the map surrounded on three sides by green countryside and on one side by a huge waterbody. How does a desert exist in conditions like that? Feels unrealistic but Im no expert on geography.


king-rotty
  • king-rotty

    King Rotty

  • Members
  • Joined: 06 Sep 2013

#24

Posted 28 September 2013 - 07:20 PM

 

Slightly OT, but anyone think the map would have felt bigger if there werent so many mountains? Theres mount chiliad, mount gordo, mount this, mount that....everytime im in sandy shores, everywhere I look I see mountains on the horizon. As big as the map is, it feels a bit claustrophobic with all the mountains and a bigass lake right in the middle of the map. So many mountains feels liek a cheap way to fill up the map and theres usually just one or two dirt trails going up and down the mountains, which means less usable land space.

Exactly! I think this makes the map feel smaller and I think its a lazy way to do a map. The map needs more variation! More and deeper valleys and maybe more skyscrapers in the city(there is only like 5 which sucks) and a lot of other things.

 

 

 

Slightly OT, but anyone think the map would have felt bigger if there werent so many mountains? Theres mount chiliad, mount gordo, mount this, mount that....everytime im in sandy shores, everywhere I look I see mountains on the horizon. As big as the map is, it feels a bit claustrophobic with all the mountains and a bigass lake right in the middle of the map. So many mountains feels liek a cheap way to fill up the map and theres usually just one or two dirt trails going up and down the mountains, which means less usable land space.

Exactly! I think this makes the map feel smaller and I think its a lazy way to do a map. The map needs more variation! More and deeper valleys and maybe more skyscrapers in the city(there is only like 5 which sucks) and a lot of other things.

 

It's what that city is like.... jeez.. there's tons of locations.


Lance_Vance89
  • Lance_Vance89

    Vance Crime Family Co:CEO

  • Members
  • Joined: 22 Sep 2013
  • None

#25

Posted 28 September 2013 - 07:21 PM

 

 

Exactly! I think this makes the map feel smaller and I think its a lazy way to do a map. The map needs more variation! More and deeper valleys and maybe more skyscrapers in the city(there is only like 5 which sucks) and a lot of other things.

 

 

Yeah. I was hoping for a bigger and denser swampland, swampboats, alligators, and all that. And the senora desert is in the middle of the map surrounded on three sides by green countryside and on one side by a huge waterbody. How does a desert exist in conditions like that? Feels unrealistic but Im no expert on geography.

 

Alligators in California? Are ye high boyo?


dodeca
  • dodeca

    Rat

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Sep 2013

#26

Posted 28 September 2013 - 07:26 PM

Theres rock pythons and a lot of other non native species in the USA that have become part of the ecosystem. So why not alligators in a fictitious state of USA?


JonRenemy
  • JonRenemy

    Greater Than Great

  • Members
  • Joined: 22 Apr 2008

#27

Posted 28 September 2013 - 07:38 PM

:panic:

 

I don't get this. I still don't understand people's confusion. 

 

In real life we have a "draw distance" limited only by our own vision and field of view. We've lived our lives walking around and can judge distances instinctively.

 

In San Andreas in 2004 we got a map that was fairly large, made larger by the appalling draw distance. This made the map feel SMALL to me. I dunno, I'm fairly grounded in reality and I knew what was happening. I felt closed in by GTA: SA because there was always fog or something blocking the view any further than 2 blocks away.

 

With GTA V we have a simply staggering distance, almost lifelike... this is why our brains perceive it as "small".... or at least how MOST people's brains are perceiving it.

 

It's all relative. I look at GTA V and think WOW there's so much out there, and so much space.

 

GTA V is clearly, easily, obviously, and DEFINITELY bigger than the previous maps and there's simply NO room for argument.

 

It fascinates (and sort of irritates) me that people don't see it.


PHOENIXZERO
  • PHOENIXZERO

    Mack Pimp

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Jul 2004

#28

Posted 28 September 2013 - 07:45 PM

Yeah, in the "real world" the area that makes of GTA V's world would be tiny but it's still MUCH bigger than previous Rockstar made worlds.

 

With how it's scaled though it's fine.


BohanThug
  • BohanThug

    Niko Bellic went quiet.

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2012

#29

Posted 28 September 2013 - 07:46 PM

Slightly OT, but anyone think the map would have felt bigger if there werent so many mountains? Theres mount chiliad, mount gordo, mount this, mount that....everytime im in sandy shores, everywhere I look I see mountains on the horizon. As big as the map is, it feels a bit claustrophobic with all the mountains and a bigass lake right in the middle of the map. So many mountains feels liek a cheap way to fill up the map and theres usually just one or two dirt trails going up and down the mountains, which means less usable land space.

 

Take a dirt bike and go cruising up the mountains... every inch of it is usable.


GTAVTheHeat
  • GTAVTheHeat

    I can't picture life without a point of view..

  • Members
  • Joined: 06 Jul 2013

#30

Posted 28 September 2013 - 08:59 PM

hahaha this topic is funny, I can ride on horseback for 5 minutes and reach one end of the map to another, the same cannot be said for GTAV, and we drive fast cars.. LMAO





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users