TruXter Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 speculation is this ? you are speculating on a rumor started by someone ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turin88 Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 well if RDR is 2.5x SA then this rumour suggests that V is about 6x the size of SA. and if you saw how fast the jet was going in the trailer, you'll know there's gonna be a need for a really large map for that kind of speed 6x the size of SA seems a little excessive to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OGCFB Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 & That is exactly why i'm not mad about them not including multiple cities because I knew they wouldn't make the mistake of making a city smaller than the scale of San Andreas again one thing that has been confirmed by Rockstar themselves is: "in the largest and most ambitious game Rockstar has yet created." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aragond Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 Map size isn't everything. Just Cause 2 had a huge map, yet the gameworld was so lifeless and boring that it lost it's novelty for me after about 20 hours. I do not understand how people can say this. I'm up to 50 or 60 hours in JC2 and, alright, I haven't played in a while though opportunity I've had, I still regard it as an awesome game. Perhaps it's the difference between players seeking a game that actively entertains them and those of us prepared to just enjoy blowing sh!t up for 60 hours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Docfaustino Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 What? I highly doubt RDR was much bigger than SA in the first place. It's not listed on the size comparison chart, and for now, that's all we have to go off of. I can't find any official statements about the map's size either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TruXter Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 The suggestion is based on a statement that says "in the largest and most ambitious game Rockstar has yet created" Could simply mean file size or complexity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrcTOtheJ Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 It most certainly won't even be 1/100th of the side of the largest video game ever: http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/image...10/05/ubwcz.jpg **LARGE IMAGE Elder Scrolls II: Daggerfall - 62,394 square miles. 1/2 the size of Great Britain. Damn. GTA: San Andreas was 13 square miles btw. .021% of the size of Daggerfall. Yeah but if I remeber correctly most of Dagerfall was randomly generated, still it was huge, but I think it crossed the line into, to much is to much. Anyhow two and a half times the size of RDR? That's pretty big if I remeber RDR's map is about 20+ Square Miles, which is pretty big. That’s amazing if this is true, though it dose seem like a bit much. Then again I read a quote somewhere of Rockstar saying this is there most ambitious game yet, well then again most new GTA’s take that title, but it sounds like this might be insane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magic_Al Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 I don't think anybody's convincingly measured Red Dead Redemption's area yet. It's hard to travel far in a straight line in that game to get distance data, and the in-game map image is low contrast and grainy irregular shapes, which makes it tedious to isolate and measure areas. I think it is a lot larger than San Andreas but I don't think it's likely a GTA game will be as big as Red Dead Redemption because the density of content is greater in GTA and it just seems like too much to build. GTA IV's total area is 6.25 square miles including water (it's almost exactly half water). If you crop the 13.9 square mile GTA SA map to three rectangles containing the gray and white city areas of Los Santos, San Fierro, and Las Venturas, the total area of those rectangles is 6.5 square miles. GTA SA and GTA IV have the same amount of city area! That's telling because it suggests a consistent limit of how much environment Rockstar North could construct in the time and budget of two GTAs in a row. Other proportions to note: 6.5 square miles of 13.9 square miles is about half, so GTA SA is roughly half urban and half rural. GTA SA is about 80% land and 20% water. L.A. Noire is the largest all-city map ever released by Rockstar (built by Team Bondi over many more years than Rockstar has ever taken to make a GTA game) and is 8 square miles. So, let's say 8 square miles is the largest amount of city that can practically be built. Now let's assume they could also build 8 square miles of country, resulting in a 16 square mile map that is half urban and half rural like GTA SA, and is also a couple square miles larger than GTA SA. I think that's within the realm of plausibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samyG Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 (edited) For the record, Los Angeles County has a total area of 4,752.32 square miles (12,308.5 km2), of which 4,060.87 square miles (10,517.6 km2) (or 85.45%) is land and 691.45 square miles (1,790.8 km2) (or 14.55%) is water. source: wikipedia.org Edited November 4, 2011 by samyG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
secksyjames Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 What was bigger RDR or GTA SA? Just Cause 2. mfw you're being an unhelpful ... RDR map was about 250% (2.5 x) bigger than SA's map. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA WHAT?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now