Mapping Liberty City (Laying Out Liberty City)

[Grand Theft Auto Dude]

 

I tried to match up the size of the smaller city blocks in San Fierro and the GTA IV map. I may have ended up with something smaller than it actually should be (the IV map).

 

Anyway, if anyone has a better idea to scale one to the other more accurately, let me know!

 

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v115/xen...TAIVoverlay.jpg

I think the city blocks this time around will be alot larger than in San Andreas.

Edited March 27, 2008 by Grand Theft Auto Dude

[Magic_Al]

i think this would be quiet accurate, although the airport in gta 3 looks a bit on the small side compare to the one on gta 4, does anuone remember if the in game airport it gta 3 was pretty small

 

This is too extreme. I think mine was more accurate. The GTA3 airport actually wasn't that small. When comparing maps you want to look at the smallest city blocks in each map and consider that a minimum size in both maps. The new Liberty City map is apparently same width as San Andreas and 2/3 its height. You should then figure the size of the GTA3/LCS Liberty City using an existing comparison of that map to San Andreas and you get a comparison of GTA3 to GTA4.

[kurashu]

Was thinking with my marbles here and I though of something. Was gonna fire up Photoshop but it's 5 am... =P

 

Anyway, now that the map is pretty much 'finalized' we're discussing the size of it. I was thinking about picking up the SA map and 'cut' out all 'unused' areas. (Rural, Desert, Farmland, etc) and just use that to compare to GTA4's LC.

 

Since LC is pretty much 100% used 'land' (R* said they didn't waste any space), comparing this new LC map with only the used land in SA would be an interesting comparison. It wont be 100% accurate since we don't have a scale to measure it, but fun nonetheless! =P

 

Anyone willing to embark on this?

[krama]

what i think is roughly the size comparisons, although i think both liberty citys would be a bit bigger

Edited March 27, 2008 by krama

[Magic_Al]

I think the city blocks this time around will be alot larger than in San Andreas.

That's why you should use the smallest city blocks to judge scale. There's no maximum size to city blocks but there is a minimum practical size of a city block.

[SovietWarrior42]

The overlay is quite right, now I think about. Liberty seems to be the size of all 3 cities.

[Slamman]

It would help not to quote the large pictures over and over, convert them to a link, a simple edit works

[xenorevlis]

Now that I'm staring at it I think it is in fact a bit too small (the IV portion). Then again, I'm not sure how the streets scale to the game world, as they appear to be larger and more naturally spaced.

 

 

[SovietWarrior42]

Yeah, quoting large images always grinds my gears, not as much as page stretching images though.

[Slamman]

 

Was thinking with my marbles here and I though of something. Was gonna fire up Photoshop but it's 5 am... =P

 

Anyway, now that the map is pretty much 'finalized' we're discussing the size of it. I was thinking about picking up the SA map and 'cut' out all 'unused' areas. (Rural, Desert, Farmland, etc) and just use that to compare to GTA4's LC.

 

Since LC is pretty much 100% used 'land' (R* said they didn't waste any space), comparing this new LC map with only the used land in SA would be an interesting comparison. It wont be 100% accurate since we don't have a scale to measure it, but fun nonetheless! =P

 

Anyone willing to embark on this? 

There was said to be no wasted space going from VC to SA. It's actually something Rockstar had said after the various complaints about Vice City's large beach... Which most objected to, I would tend to agree. The other obvious complaint was that it was too flat, so at least one out of two they remedied!

 

I think you'll find some un-used space dependant upon how you view it and how you play the game. I explore just about all the regions because I value the time and effort spent on creating it all, simple as that. I don't want to rant about this, but it is a subjective viewpoint over what area constitutes a waste of space in ones' mind.

[Magic_Al]

i think that gta 3 map should be smaller since look how wide the roads are...the road width needs to be the same as the gta4 one..but i duno

Road widths on Grand Theft Auto Dude's map are not to scale, he's indicating the locations of streets, not their widths.

 

According to contemporary reviews of GTA3, that Liberty City is 4km wide. San Andreas is 6km wide. On the probability that GTA4's Liberty City is the same width (but not height) as San Andreas, that is the basis for my scaling. The old Liberty City is 2/3 as wide as the new one.

[kurashu]

 

There was said to be no wasted space going from VC to SA. It's actually something Rockstar had said after the various complaints about Vice City's large beach... Which most objected to, I would tend to agree. The other obvious complaint was that it was too flat, so at least one out of two they remedied!

 

I think you'll find some un-used space dependant upon how you view it and how you play the game. I explore just about all the regions because I value the time and effort spent on creating it all, simple as that. I don't want to rant about this, but it is a subjective viewpoint over what area constitutes a waste of space in ones' mind.

Sure, it's subjective to say "this is wasteland and this is usefull", but looking at the SA map, the three cities have nice contours.

For instance, looking at Las Venturas, the city is practically a Square. Anyway, I'm not trying to pass judgment on what is what.

 

Anyway, it's just an idea to compare the new LC which, according to R*, uses all available space for "something" other than desert and forests.

 

Bleh. =P

 

edit:

Something like this:

 

 

Blacked out area would be 'unused' space. The criteria would be that it is just filler for the 3 cities and (except some minor missions) no major gameplay/story happens on those areas. Something on that level.

 

In any case, it would be just to illustrate that the new LC, even though 'smaller', is denser and more populated, making it feel 'bigger'...

 

But only playing it will truly answer that! =P

Can't wait!

Edited March 27, 2008 by kurashu

[Magic_Al]

Sure, it's subjective to say "this is wasteland and this is usefull", but looking at the SA map, the three cities have nice contours.

For instance, looking at Las Venturas, the city is practically a Square. Anyway, I'm not trying to pass judgment on what is what.

 

Anyway, it's just an idea to compare the new LC which, according to R*, uses all available space for "something" other than desert and forests.

 

Bleh. =P

There's a lot of water surface this time, a higher ratio than in San Andreas, it seems. Land in GTA4 may be more densely packed but I'd be interested to see a comparison of land/water ratio in San Andreas vs. Liberty City as well as a comparison of absolute land area between the two. Finally, a comparison of "urban" land area.

 

I don't doubt that once all the interior and underground space is figured in (the subway system is beyond anyone's expectations in sophistication), there's more substance to GTA4 than to San Andreas. These comparisons are interesting mostly to appreciate the amount of work that goes into filling all this virtual space.

[Grand Theft Auto Dude]

Here's my attempt at a comparison:

I based it off the numbers we already know, knowledge of Los Santos, and this screenshot. It's not perfect, and probably way off, but it's just my attempt.

 

Edited March 27, 2008 by Grand Theft Auto Dude

[Slamman]

There was said to be no wasted space going from VC to SA. It's actually something Rockstar had said after the various complaints about Vice City's large beach... Which most objected to, I would tend to agree. The other obvious complaint was that it was too flat, so at least one out of two they remedied!

 

I think you'll find some un-used space dependant upon how you view it and how you play the game. I explore just about all the regions because I value the time and effort spent on creating it all, simple as that. I don't want to rant about this, but it is a subjective viewpoint over what area constitutes a waste of space in ones' mind.

Sure, it's subjective to say "this is wasteland and this is usefull", but looking at the SA map, the three cities have nice contours.

For instance, looking at Las Venturas, the city is practically a Square. Anyway, I'm not trying to pass judgment on what is what.

 

Anyway, it's just an idea to compare the new LC which, according to R*, uses all available space for "something" other than desert and forests.

 

Bleh. =P

 

edit:

Something like this:

 

 

Blacked out area would be 'unused' space. The criteria would be that it is just filler for the 3 cities and (except some minor missions) no major gameplay/story happens on those areas. Something on that level.

 

In any case, it would be just to illustrate that the new LC, even though 'smaller', is denser and more populated, making it feel 'bigger'...

 

But only playing it will truly answer that! =P

Can't wait!

Most were griping right away on the reduced size, lack of Stanton Island, etc. I recall. I also was a bit miffed that with a bigger platform to work on, why not as large a region as possible. It makes the adventure last longer, but it can have it's drawbacks. With interiors offered without a wait to enter and exit, this is one of the more interesting aspects of the new design and I can't wait to try it!

 

BTW, I don't relate to Kilometers here in the USA and I doubt they should bring foreign measurements into the game simulating the US! Ya know??

I am referring to the map sizing of course, we here in the USA just don't use meters, we prefer Feet and Inches

[-TRASE-]

nono.. the map is BIGGER, look at my topic

[kurashu]

Bah, use metric you imperial dogs! =P

Where did I mention meters??

 

 

Anyway, the verticalness and all the interiors makes me all excited and I don't even own a Xbox360 or PS3!!

[adrian949]

what i think is roughly the size comparisons, although i think both liberty citys would be a bit bigger

i think this is incorrect if u just look at the smalles blocks compared to the smalles blocks of los santos, the iv ones are still smaller. what u have here of the LC is maybe half the size of san andreas but its supposedly 3/4 or 2/3 the map and does not even come close and Id vice city should be the size of los santos, so vice city and old LC should be smaller.

 

someone else did the same with IV and SA map and it was a good size maybe slightly too big or not because it seemed to be 3/4

[Slamman]

Fine, fine. This is a fictional USA city we ARE talking about, kilometers be damned

 

Oh, and ah, Was Vice City really that small? I think there were comparison to VC and LS back in the day, in fact. Probably buried in the SA forums

Edited March 27, 2008 by Slamman

[SovietWarrior42]

Isn't America the only country that uses the Customary (is that the name?) System? We're quite behind, eh?

[kurashu]

Here you go: (just spotted it by mere luck!)

 

The post

 

[SovietWarrior42]

That'd be a cool game if it had SA, VC, LC, and new places added in. Anyways, I think VC is too small, considering it was supposed to be like 3 times the size of LC or along those lines.

[MrKlorox]

VC and LC'01 look proportionate to eachother, but they look very small compared to SA... and wtf is all that plains/stoney mountain BS?

 

EDIT: f*ckit, posting this response in two threads...

[SovietWarrior42]

Stoney Mountains and BS are supposed to be filler, to make it seem more complete.

[MrKlorox]

Makes sense I guess... I wasn't around the forums for the VS/SA dev cycle and wasn't sure if I missed some unused beta maps or whatnot.

 

OT: My method for estimating scale is to match up minimum runway sizes at the airports.

[adrian949]

Here's my attempt at a comparison:

I based it off the numbers we already know, knowledge of Los Santos, and this screenshot. It's not perfect, and probably way off, but it's just my attempt.

dude go bigger, compare the freeways in las venturas with the freeways in broker/dukes. the broker/dukes is way smaller so u should up the scale of the LC map.

 

since SA was 6 by 6 kilometers i think they'll follow the ratio of 16:9 which is the ratio of HD scree so they ll follow that since we are using HD consoles. The map seems to be pretty damn close to that ratio in absolute width and height. so we have to find a lenght and a height that has the same ratio as 16:9 but that also that falls around 3/4 and 2/3, it seemed to me that R* kept on saying about 3/4 and i dont think they ever said 2/3. so after playing with some numbers it seemd that 6.8 km by 3.8 km was about 71.77% the size of SA but the more i thought out about i realized R* insisted on 3/4 and that working in whole numbers would be easier on making the game and mapping everything out for them. so the ratio 7 to 4 seem to work really good since its a whole number and the fact that it equals 77% of the SA map but since we are counting on the extremes of the map and LC isnt as square SA that percentage should go down. (and also i forgot to take in account that the gta maps usually include some of the surrounding the water to make straight lines and for the 6.8 km to 3.8 km ratio to equal 7km by 4km, that would mean just including a hundred meters of water on each side of the map so pretty much u add two sets of hundred meters to the overall length it will go from 3.8km to 4 km)

 

anways, from what R* said about the map, the wide shape of the map and the strange shape of it, and the many similarities i found i would bet good money that the size of the mape is 7 KILOMETERS wide and 4 KILOMETERS tall.

 

so to move ur map accordingly i would make it a sixth of the width of SA bigger than the width of the SA map and a third (or two sixths) of the height of SA smaller than the height of SA. Or in other words one kilometer wider than SA and 2 kilometers shorter than the height of SA

 

can someone please tell me that this makes sense to them, cause this 7:4 ratio in seems very likely

[ryuclan]

what i think is roughly the size comparisons, although i think both liberty citys would be a bit bigger

*snip*

i think this is incorrect if u just look at the smalles blocks compared to the smalles blocks of los santos, the iv ones are still smaller. what u have here of the LC is maybe half the size of san andreas but its supposedly 3/4 or 2/3 the map and does not even come close and Id vice city should be the size of los santos, so vice city and old LC should be smaller.

 

someone else did the same with IV and SA map and it was a good size maybe slightly too big or not because it seemed to be 3/4

I'm pretty sure that VC is MUCH smaller then that. Just look at the roads in comparison to those of Los Santos.

[Grand Theft Auto Dude]

 

Here's my attempt at a comparison:

http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u309/Ev.../Comparison.gif

I based it off the numbers we already know, knowledge of Los Santos, and this screenshot. It's not perfect, and probably way off, but it's just my attempt.

dude go bigger, compare the freeways in las venturas with the freeways in broker/dukes. the broker/dukes is way smaller so u should up the scale of the LC map.

 

since SA was 6 by 6 kilometers i think they'll follow the ratio of 16:9 which is the ratio of HD scree so they ll follow that since we are using HD consoles. The map seems to be pretty damn close to that ratio in absolute width and height. so we have to find a lenght and a height that has the same ratio as 16:9 but that also that falls around 3/4 and 2/3, it seemed to me that R* kept on saying about 3/4 and i dont think they ever said 2/3. so after playing with some numbers it seemd that 6.8 km by 3.8 km was about 71.77% the size of SA but the more i thought out about i realized R* insisted on 3/4 and that working in whole numbers would be easier on making the game and mapping everything out for them. so the ratio 7 to 4 seem to work really good since its a whole number and the fact that it equals 77% of the SA map but since we are counting on the extremes of the map and LC isnt as square SA that percentage should go down. (and also i forgot to take in account that the gta maps usually include some of the surrounding the water to make straight lines and for the 6.8 km to 3.8 km ratio to equal 7km by 4km, that would mean just including a hundred meters of water on each side of the map so pretty much u add two sets of hundred meters to the overall length it will go from 3.8km to 4 km)

 

anways, from what R* said about the map, the wide shape of the map and the strange shape of it, and the many similarities i found i would bet good money that the size of the mape is 7 KILOMETERS wide and 4 KILOMETERS tall.

 

so to move ur map accordingly i would make it a sixth of the width of SA bigger than the width of the SA map and a third (or two sixths) of the height of SA smaller than the height of SA. Or in other words one kilometer wider than SA and 2 kilometers shorter than the height of SA

 

can someone please tell me that this makes sense to them, cause this 7:4 ratio in seems very likely

I didn't understand that at all, but I did update the image.

[adrian949]

whoever made this really got it, its almost exactly 7 km by 4 km and really compliments my theory. and the street sizes work fine eventhough the runways look bigger, i think IVs runways are going to be longer because its more realistic and in past GTAs the runways were way short

 

THis one is really right one, I would use this now on as the reference in comparsion

 

(thanks to -TRASE- for making this)

[MrKlorox]

dude go bigger, compare the freeways in las venturas with the freeways in broker/dukes. the broker/dukes is way smaller so u should up the scale of the LC map.

 

since SA was 6 by 6 kilometers i think they'll follow the ratio of 16:9 which is the ratio of HD scree so they ll follow that since we are using HD consoles. The map seems to be pretty damn close to that ratio in absolute width and height. so we have to find a lenght and a height that has the same ratio as 16:9 but that also that falls around 3/4 and 2/3, it seemed to me that R* kept on saying about 3/4 and i dont think they ever said 2/3. so after playing with some numbers it seemd that 6.8 km by 3.8 km was about 71.77% the size of SA but the more i thought out about i realized R* insisted on 3/4 and that working in whole numbers would be easier on making the game and mapping everything out for them. so the ratio 7 to 4 seem to work really good since its a whole number and the fact that it equals 77% of the SA map but since we are counting on the extremes of the map and LC isnt as square SA that percentage should go down. (and also i forgot to take in account that the gta maps usually include some of the surrounding the water to make straight lines and for the 6.8 km to 3.8 km ratio to equal 7km by 4km, that would mean just including a hundred meters of water on each side of the map so pretty much u add two sets of hundred meters to the overall length it will go from 3.8km to 4 km)

 

anways, from what R* said about the map, the wide shape of the map and the strange shape of it, and the many similarities i found i would bet good money that the size of the mape is 7 KILOMETERS wide and 4 KILOMETERS tall.

 

so to move ur map accordingly i would make it a sixth of the width of SA bigger than the width of the SA map and a third (or two sixths) of the height of SA smaller than the height of SA. Or in other words one kilometer wider than SA and 2 kilometers shorter than the height of SA

 

can someone please tell me that this makes sense to them, cause this 7:4 ratio in seems very likely

Actually your theory is broken at the 16:9 part. The LC'08 map seems to be more 4:3. By your logic SA was intended for 4:3 viewing ratio and had a map proportionate to this. Well since the SA map is 1:1 ratio (1.00) at 4:3 (1.3333), shouldn't the LC'08 map be 4:3 if it's intended for 16:9 viewport ratio? 16:9 (1.6667) divided by 4:3 (1.3333) equals 4:3 (1.3333).

 

Regardless, your idea of LC'08 is WAY too big... compare the runways. GTA dude's map doesn't have the proper road width, in case you're using that as a comparison point.