GTA Map Comparisons

[GRINCH ASS BITCH]

I thought traveling through the city in IV was much less interesting. The city was nowhere near as interactive as it was hyped up to be pre-release and the constant, unchanging landscape became monotonous after a while.

 

What really hooked me with IV was the physics/graphics. I felt as if the city itself was somewhat lacking (especially since there were very few enterable buildings).

[Algonquin Assassin]

I don't think people give the IV map credit. They make it out as if it's tiny. It's actually pretty huge if you think about it.

 

I think it would be good to have about 1.5X the urban area plus country side. That kind of map would keep me entertained for years. If you think about it, LA would be a lot easier than New York to make large. NY is a much more vertical city compared to the skyline of Los Angeles, so it safe to say, that in it's self would make the map a little bit bigger.

I agree. Even if you combined LS, SF and LV LC is still big. I can't comprehend how people think it's small.

[J-B]

 

I felt as if the city itself was somewhat lacking (especially since there were very few enterable buildings).

 

I hate when people say this. At least most of IV's enter-able buildings were unique and memorable. How many enter-able buildings did SA even have that weren't one of the five stores that only had one interior model for the 5-6 that were around the map. I felt that with the addition of TBoGT the map has decent amount of enterable buildings and more than anything unique areas around the map that were interesting to explore. It was hardly lacking. I have no doubt that V will have decent amount of both as well. It's very unrealistic to expect a large amount of enter-able buildings in a game of GTA's size unless you want to see a lot of cookie cutter interiors.

[Algonquin Assassin]

I felt as if the city itself was somewhat lacking (especially since there were very few enterable buildings).

 

I hate when people say this. At least most of IV's enter-able buildings were unique and memorable. How many enter-able buildings did SA even have that weren't one of the five stores that only had one interior model for the 5-6 that were around the map. I felt that with the addition of TBoGT the map has decent amount of enterable buildings and more than anything unique areas around the map that were interesting to explore. It was hardly lacking. I have no doubt that V will have decent amount of both as well. It's very unrealistic to expect a large amount of enter-able buildings in a game of GTA's size unless you want to see a lot of cookie cutter interiors.

Definately. GTA IV had a lot more unique interiors. Take the safehouses for example. There were only 5 and they were all different. i'll take few interiors that are different over a heap that repeat themselves anyday.

[Meezarawcks]

That made me think of the sizes of previous GTA Games. I looked them all up for you and made a map of it. Here are the sizes (Source: Wikipedia & IGN):

 

Grand Theft Auto: Vice City = 3,5 Square Miles

Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas = 13,9 Square Miles

Grand Theft Auto: IV = 16 Square Miles

Red Dead Redemption = 28 Square Miles

 

LINK TO THE MAP

 

So that would make that Grand Theft Auto: V will be bigger then RDR, which is 28 Square Miles, giving lots of space to merge Vice City with San Andreas!

 

What are your thoughts about this?

 

I copied this text from here.

I feel this is a more accurate representation

[J-B]

 

That made me think of the sizes of previous GTA Games. I looked them all up for you and made a map of it. Here are the sizes (Source: Wikipedia & IGN):

 

Grand Theft Auto: Vice City = 3,5 Square Miles

Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas = 13,9 Square Miles

Grand Theft Auto: IV = 16 Square Miles

Red Dead Redemption = 28 Square Miles

 

LINK TO THE MAP

 

So that would make that Grand Theft Auto: V will be bigger then RDR, which is 28 Square Miles, giving lots of space to merge Vice City with San Andreas!

 

What are your thoughts about this?

 

I copied this text from here.

Why would anyone want to merge SA and VC ? That would just kill a lot of the flavor that both games had. When you say merge VC you must mean the original map of VC because a faithful scaled down recreation of Miami would be quite large. Southern Florida/VC/Miami deserves it's own game not to just be tacked on to V for nostalgia reasons. Honestly I'll be happy if SF and LV aren't in the game. It'll mean that we get see cities that haven't seen before which why a decent amount of people are upset that LS is in the game because it's been done before. From the shots we saw in the trailer LS looks about the size of Dukes/Broker/Algonquin combined which is very decent. I hope they go for a socal setting and don't try a shove SF and LV just because SA had them in it.

 

edit: I should of noticed that you quoted some else derp. My point still stands though.

[no_chance]

traveling in san andreas was like a dream when i was a kid listening to country town music while doing like 80 mph on the highway was like smoking a joint relaxing

[butonu]

I think the map in V is going to be gigantic! I mean, I would like a map as big as the map in RDR. But think about the city and, mostly, the detail. This all new Los Santos will be MUCH more detailed than any other city we've seen in a video game by now I think. Plus, there's going to be a "surrounding area". That means we're going to have beaches, mountains, hills and countryside. Who knows? The most important fact is that it's going to be detailed and large at the same time. I am pretty sure about that. Can't wait for the next trailer though...

[jamieleng]

I felt as if the city itself was somewhat lacking (especially since there were very few enterable buildings).

 

I hate when people say this. At least most of IV's enter-able buildings were unique and memorable. How many enter-able buildings did SA even have that weren't one of the five stores that only had one interior model for the 5-6 that were around the map. I felt that with the addition of TBoGT the map has decent amount of enterable buildings and more than anything unique areas around the map that were interesting to explore. It was hardly lacking. I have no doubt that V will have decent amount of both as well. It's very unrealistic to expect a large amount of enter-able buildings in a game of GTA's size unless you want to see a lot of cookie cutter interiors.

Definately. GTA IV had a lot more unique interiors. Take the safehouses for example. There were only 5 and they were all different. i'll take few interiors that are different over a heap that repeat themselves anyday.

Not to mention all the unique disused, abandoned warehouses & factories. It had a subway system for the first time in GTA, which is one huge interior. Plus many more were added in EFLC.

 

The only legitimate gripe is that a lot of cool interiors appeared in cutscenes but not in gameplay. The biggest tease was Yusuf Amir's penthouse, I hope we can buy a similar pad in Los Santos. You know, actually give us something that motivates us to accumulate cash as fast as we can.

[Magic_Al]

 

That made me think of the sizes of previous GTA Games. I looked them all up for you and made a map of it. Here are the sizes (Source: Wikipedia & IGN):

 

Grand Theft Auto: Vice City = 3,5 Square Miles

Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas = 13,9 Square Miles

Grand Theft Auto: IV = 16 Square Miles

Red Dead Redemption = 28 Square Miles

 

LINK TO THE MAP

 

So that would make that Grand Theft Auto: V will be bigger then RDR, which is 28 Square Miles, giving lots of space to merge Vice City with San Andreas!

 

What are your thoughts about this?

 

I copied this text from here.

 

The IV and RDR numbers are way too high.

 

GTA SA is the only GTA map Rockstar confirmed the size of exactly (they said 36 million square meters). They also confirmed L.A. Noire is 8 square miles of city.

 

GTA IV's entire map including water out to the farthest extent of land is around 6.25 square miles. Many people have done this measurement by comparing distance-travelled stats to the map. The map is almost exactly 50% water, so there are 3.13 square miles of land.

 

The entire "sheet of paper" in the in-game image of Red Dead Redemption's map encompasses 13.75 square miles. This is based on my own measurement of Marston walking the north-south length of the train platform at the beginning of the game: 133 feet. The area within the boundaries of the game is about 6 square miles but the visible scenery around the boundaries can be counted as content beyond that.

[Slamman]

Wow, I'd just played the dang thing, rather then worry about the scale. BUT, you remember one game requirement was that you trekked from one town to another on opposite sides in one day, as an Achievement in MS XBL, and during that attempt, one could time their progress. Just one idea I'm throwing out! haha

[J-B]

The entire "sheet of paper" in the in-game image of Red Dead Redemption's map encompasses 13.75 square miles. This is based on my own measurement of Marston walking the north-south length of the train platform at the beginning of the game: 133 feet. The area within the boundaries of the game is about 6 square miles but the visible scenery around the boundaries can be counted as content beyond that.

How do you know that it's 133 feet ?

[J-B]

@blaster The scale is horribly off in that comparison.

 

This is how I scaled the maps of RDR and SA to each other.

 

 

Using the size of the player and not the horse or atv as a scale , you can see that the trails are of similar size. I posted the map before but I'll post the link again. http://oi44.tinypic.com/4qsfud.jpg

[TreyCrll]

 

Do you think we'll see a lot more "grid-like" layouts? In other words, more cris-crossing roads?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Los_an...n_pano.jpg#file

 

This is a full panoramic view of LA....if R* maks LS anything like the real thing then we should see a very grid-filled map lol

[J-B]

@blaster The scale is horribly off in that comparison.

Proof?

You've got the roads in the III and VC maps scaled to be way too large. The roads in IV are way off. You need to find some pics of similar sized roads in each game and use that as your scale.

[Tipper]

 

It had a subway system for the first time in GTA

 

GTA III had one too, even if it was rather primitive : an underground subway circling around the entire city (4 stations) and another over the ground circling around Portland.

 

 

Now about LC's map, it's quite big in fact. Just look at Middle Park seen from a chopper and try imagining the size it reprensents in SA's map, you'll find that LC has much larger roads than SA.

 

 

This comparison : http://img641.imageshack.us/img641/6748/ivtosa.jpg seems much more accurate than this one : http://i1230.photobucket.com/albums/ee484/...3dmapcompar.jpg

 

And even in the first one Middle Park is as long as the airstrip from LV's airport. maybe my memery is tricking me but I think Middle Park is much longer than this airstrip.

[inflamedeyeball]

 

That made me think of the sizes of previous GTA Games. I looked them all up for you and made a map of it. Here are the sizes (Source: Wikipedia & IGN):

 

Grand Theft Auto: Vice City = 3,5 Square Miles

Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas = 13,9 Square Miles

Grand Theft Auto: IV = 16 Square Miles

Red Dead Redemption = 28 Square Miles

 

LINK TO THE MAP

 

So that would make that Grand Theft Auto: V will be bigger then RDR, which is 28 Square Miles, giving lots of space to merge Vice City with San Andreas!

 

What are your thoughts about this?

 

I copied this text from here.

 

The IV and RDR numbers are way too high.

 

GTA SA is the only GTA map Rockstar confirmed the size of exactly (they said 36 million square meters). They also confirmed L.A. Noire is 8 square miles of city.

 

GTA IV's entire map including water out to the farthest extent of land is around 6.25 square miles. Many people have done this measurement by comparing distance-travelled stats to the map. The map is almost exactly 50% water, so there are 3.13 square miles of land.

 

The entire "sheet of paper" in the in-game image of Red Dead Redemption's map encompasses 13.75 square miles. This is based on my own measurement of Marston walking the north-south length of the train platform at the beginning of the game: 133 feet. The area within the boundaries of the game is about 6 square miles but the visible scenery around the boundaries can be counted as content beyond that.

I honestly think you are not given enough credit in this thread. It seems you are the only one who has taken the scientific (and logical) approach of actually measuring the map with the 'distance traveled' stats, and your findings seem to be spot on.

 

Maybe you should post more information on your work methods, since the RDR forum where you posted that stuff is down. I would really like to see it, also because this seems to be the only thread with actual information in it apart from the first 40 pages or so of the trailer analysis thread and the mapping los santos one.

 

Edited December 1, 2011 by inflamedeyeball

[cidamelo]

GTA 3's Liberty City may be the smallest, but it's also the most interesting city in GTA Series! I love it!

[Vice Beach]

That made me think of the sizes of previous GTA Games. I looked them all up for you and made a map of it. Here are the sizes (Source: Wikipedia & IGN):

 

Grand Theft Auto: Vice City = 3,5 Square Miles

Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas = 13,9 Square Miles

Grand Theft Auto: IV = 16 Square Miles

Red Dead Redemption = 28 Square Miles

 

LINK TO THE MAP

 

So that would make that Grand Theft Auto: V will be bigger then RDR, which is 28 Square Miles, giving lots of space to merge Vice City with San Andreas!

 

What are your thoughts about this?

 

I copied this text from here.

I feel this is a more accurate representation

Dude no way. You're telling me VC vertically is roughly the same length as the start of the Gant Bridge to the top of Bayside?

[GRINCH ASS BITCH]

I felt as if the city itself was somewhat lacking (especially since there were very few enterable buildings).

 

I hate when people say this. At least most of IV's enter-able buildings were unique and memorable. How many enter-able buildings did SA even have that weren't one of the five stores that only had one interior model for the 5-6 that were around the map. I felt that with the addition of TBoGT the map has decent amount of enterable buildings and more than anything unique areas around the map that were interesting to explore. It was hardly lacking. I have no doubt that V will have decent amount of both as well. It's very unrealistic to expect a large amount of enter-able buildings in a game of GTA's size unless you want to see a lot of cookie cutter interiors.

Definately. GTA IV had a lot more unique interiors. Take the safehouses for example. There were only 5 and they were all different. i'll take few interiors that are different over a heap that repeat themselves anyday.

Are you two serious? Play San Andreas on a server where all of the interiors are accessible.

 

http://weedarr.wikidot.com/interior

 

Remove the "cookie-cutter interiors" (as you call them) from the list and San Andreas still has more unique interiors than GTA:IV (with or without DLC).

 

Alas, all of that is irrelevant. The point that I had tried to make with my previous post was that San Andreas didn't even need unique interiors to make it feel like it was less "lacking"; it completely made up for them with the shear size of the map and variation in landscape.

 

The major difference between the two is the fact that GTA:IV's interiors are mostly enterable from the main map (where as most of San Andreas' interiors are held within different virtual worlds and require loading).

 

That Is why I had said that GTA:IV's city was lacking; not only did it have a very low level of interaction/enterable buildings, but it also had nothing to fall back on once you've seen all there is to see in the city (unlike San Andreas with its massive and completely explorable areas outside of the major towns/cities).

[TyphoonJames]

I loved the "dead space" of San Andreas.

[Nebby]

GTA 3's Liberty City may be the smallest, but it's also the most interesting city in GTA Series! I love it!

But it alway's felt relatively large to me...even on the first island.

[Turbojohn]

I noticed that VC and GTA III Liberty city had a much higher "water/land" ratio where san andreas and GTA IV LC had more land then water

[Magic_Al]

 

The entire "sheet of paper" in the in-game image of Red Dead Redemption's map encompasses 13.75 square miles. This is based on my own measurement of Marston walking the north-south length of the train platform at the beginning of the game: 133 feet. The area within the boundaries of the game is about 6 square miles but the visible scenery around the boundaries can be counted as content beyond that.

How do you know that it's 133 feet ?

OK, here's how to do this.

 

Under Stats, you can get Distance Travelled by (foot, horse, vehicle) which is a total for the game. At the start of the game it's measured in feet (to hundredths of a foot which is ridiculously precise).

 

When you first control Marston you are on the train platform in Armadillo which parallels a due north-south stretch of track, and the train is there. You can walk, slowly and carefully, in a straight line against the train from the northern or southern end of the platform. You can also draw your gun and aim for the cracks in the boardwalk to help you walk the line. Before you start, pause the game and check your distance travelled stat, and your position crosshairs on the map, zoomed all the way in. At the same time, have a computer with the full map (warning: big) loaded into something like Photoshop, so you can mark your same position there. Walk the distance and check your stats and map crosshairs again. Do the math. Repeat a few times because you'll probably move slightly out of line or begin and stop slightly different places. Of your various results use the one that is either most repeated or the shortest -- since you're trying to go straight the shortest attempt was probably the best, as long as you covered the full distance of the platform.

 

I got results like 132.94ft, 132.83ft, 132.89ft, and Marston takes a step off the platform if you get all the way to the edge, so I'm comfortable calling it 133 feet.

 

Now you go to the computer and count how many pixels of the map are between the two crosshair positions you recorded. If it's 42 pixels, then you know 42 pixels of the map is 133 feet, so one pixel on the map is 3.16667 feet, or close enough to that.

 

 

You can roughly confirm the Armadillo measurement later in the game in Blackwater which has streets and architecture that help you take a longer straight-line walk. By then the Stats will be in miles instead of feet, with accuracy only to hundredths of a mile (52.8 feet) but that's good enough if walk a longer distance. You can walk the main street with the columns of the gazebo and the building across the park centered in your sniper scope so you can make sure you're not drifting left or right as you walk. It's not a very long street but with the columns in your scope you can start at the steps of the gazebo and walk backwards in a straight line to get even more length than the street. You want to stop at a "crosswalk" in last paved intersection because those line up with the edges of city blocks on the map. You're measuring hundredths of a mile so you don't have to stop on a dime, but you want to be consistent enough to get the same number a few times, and you want to be able to match your map crosshairs position with your computer copy of the map so you can count the number of pixels between your endpoints. I was able to walk 0.07 of a mile, which is 369.6 feet and 115 pixels on the map, and that works out to 3.2139 feet per map pixel.

 

If you round my Armadillo and Blackwater measurements, they're both 3.2 feet per map pixel, which validates the more precise Armadillo measurement of 3.166667 feet per map pixel. Once you have a scale, you can convert the pixel dimensions of the map image (7500*5500 pixels) to distances (23750*17417 feet) and measure anything on the map.

 

This technique can be applied to any Rockstar open world game that gives distance-travelled stats, if someone has extracted and uploaded its map in high resolution.

[CalgaryJay]

All the people complaining about SA's "dead space" must've hated RDR...

 

Personally I loved all the countryside in SA, I hope V is the exact same. Loved how hitting the highway to a different town actually felt like a road trip. Also, what you call "dead space", I call endless crazy sanchez dirtbiking paradise.

[J-B]

OK, here's how to do this.

 

Under Stats, you can get Distance Travelled by (foot, horse, vehicle) which is a total for the game. At the start of the game it's measured in feet (to hundredths of a foot which is ridiculously precise).

 

When you first control Marston you are on the train platform in Armadillo which parallels a due north-south stretch of track, and the train is there. You can walk, slowly and carefully, in a straight line against the train from the northern or southern end of the platform. You can also draw your gun and aim for the cracks in the boardwalk to help you walk the line. Before you start, pause the game and check your distance travelled stat, and your position crosshairs on the map, zoomed all the way in. At the same time, have a computer with the full map (warning: big) loaded into something like Photoshop, so you can mark your same position there. Walk the distance and check your stats and map crosshairs again. Do the math. Repeat a few times because you'll probably move slightly out of line or begin and stop slightly different places. Of your various results use the one that is either most repeated or the shortest -- since you're trying to go straight the shortest attempt was probably the best, as long as you covered the full distance of the platform.

 

I got results like 132.94ft, 132.83ft, 132.89ft, and Marston takes a step off the platform if you get all the way to the edge, so I'm comfortable calling it 133 feet.

 

Now you go to the computer and count how many pixels of the map are between the two crosshair positions you recorded. If it's 42 pixels, then you know 42 pixels of the map is 133 feet, so one pixel on the map is 3.16667 feet, or close enough to that.

 

 

You can roughly confirm the Armadillo measurement later in the game in Blackwater which has streets and architecture that help you take a longer straight-line walk. By then the Stats will be in miles instead of feet, with accuracy only to hundredths of a mile (52.8 feet) but that's good enough if walk a longer distance. You can walk the main street with the columns of the gazebo and the building across the park centered in your sniper scope so you can make sure you're not drifting left or right as you walk. It's not a very long street but with the columns in your scope you can start at the steps of the gazebo and walk backwards in a straight line to get even more length than the street. You want to stop at a "crosswalk" in last paved intersection because those line up with the edges of city blocks on the map. You're measuring hundredths of a mile so you don't have to stop on a dime, but you want to be consistent enough to get the same number a few times, and you want to be able to match your map crosshairs position with your computer copy of the map so you can count the number of pixels between your endpoints. I was able to walk 0.07 of a mile, which is 369.6 feet and 115 pixels on the map, and that works out to 3.2139 feet per map pixel.

 

If you round my Armadillo and Blackwater measurements, they're both 3.2 feet per map pixel, which validates the more precise Armadillo measurement of 3.166667 feet per map pixel. Once you have a scale, you can convert the pixel dimensions of the map image (7500*5500 pixels) to distances (23750*17417 feet) and measure anything on the map.

 

This technique can be applied to any Rockstar open world game that gives distance-travelled stats, if someone has extracted and uploaded its map in high resolution.

That's an interesting way to do that , but I'm not sure I trust the game's ability to measure distance. I've played multiplayer and have been killed at point blank range but the game would I killed at 3yrds when the person was about in melee range. Nowhere near ten feet. That's why I tried to find similarly sized paths rather to scale them to each other. But your conclusion is probably right since the only facts I have is "these roads look very similar in size" and you have actual measurements rather than guesstimating it.

[locolow2011]

OK, here's how to do this.

 

Under Stats, you can get Distance Travelled by (foot, horse, vehicle) which is a total for the game. At the start of the game it's measured in feet (to hundredths of a foot which is ridiculously precise).

 

When you first control Marston you are on the train platform in Armadillo which parallels a due north-south stretch of track, and the train is there.  You can walk, slowly and carefully, in a straight line against the train from the northern or southern end of the platform.  You can also draw your gun and aim for the cracks in the boardwalk to help you walk the line.  Before you start, pause the game and check your distance travelled stat, and your position crosshairs on the map, zoomed all the way in.  At the same time, have a computer with the full map (warning: big) loaded into something like Photoshop, so you can mark your same position there. Walk the distance and check your stats and map crosshairs again. Do the math. Repeat a few times because you'll probably move slightly out of line or begin and stop slightly different places. Of your various results use the one that is either most repeated or the shortest -- since you're trying to go straight the shortest attempt was probably the best, as long as you covered the full distance of the platform.

 

I got results like 132.94ft, 132.83ft, 132.89ft, and Marston takes a step off the platform if you get all the way to the edge, so I'm comfortable calling it 133 feet.

 

Now you go to the computer and count how many pixels of the map are between the two crosshair positions you recorded.  If it's 42 pixels, then you know 42 pixels of the map is 133 feet, so one pixel on the map is 3.16667 feet, or close enough to that.

 

 

You can roughly confirm the Armadillo measurement later in the game in Blackwater which has streets and architecture that help you take a longer straight-line walk. By then the Stats will be in miles instead of feet, with accuracy only to hundredths of a mile (52.8 feet) but that's good enough if walk a longer distance. You can walk the main street with the columns of the gazebo and the building across the park centered in your sniper scope so you can make sure you're not drifting left or right as you walk. It's not a very long street but with the columns in your scope you can start at the steps of the gazebo and walk backwards in a straight line to get even more length than the street. You want to stop at a "crosswalk" in last paved intersection because those line up with the edges of city blocks on the map. You're measuring hundredths of a mile so you don't have to stop on a dime, but you want to be consistent enough to get the same number a few times, and you want to be able to match your map crosshairs position with your computer copy of the map so you can count the number of pixels between your endpoints. I was able to walk 0.07 of a mile, which is 369.6 feet and 115 pixels on the map, and that works out to 3.2139 feet per map pixel.

 

If you round my Armadillo and Blackwater measurements, they're both 3.2 feet per map pixel, which validates the more precise Armadillo measurement of 3.166667 feet per map pixel. Once you have a scale, you can convert the pixel dimensions of the map image (7500*5500 pixels) to distances (23750*17417 feet) and measure anything on the map.

 

This technique can be applied to any Rockstar open world game that gives distance-travelled stats, if someone has extracted and uploaded its map in high resolution.

That's an interesting way to do that , but I'm not sure I trust the game's ability to measure distance. I've played multiplayer and have been killed at point blank range but the game would I killed at 3yrds when the person was about in melee range. Nowhere near ten feet. That's why I tried to find similarly sized paths rather to scale them to each other. But your conclusion is probably right since the only facts I have is "these roads look very similar in size" and you have actual measurements rather than guesstimating it.

On MP its different due to connection issues and whatnot

[J-B]

On MP its different due to connection issues and whatnot

A lot of the times I play free roam I'll be playing by myself and it'll be the AI that kills me and it says that. I'm just saying that it's hard for me to trust the games stat measurements but I don't really have any logical counter argument besides a guesstimate which is probably wrong.

[Meezarawcks]

 

That made me think of the sizes of previous GTA Games. I looked them all up for you and made a map of it. Here are the sizes (Source: Wikipedia & IGN):

 

Grand Theft Auto: Vice City = 3,5 Square Miles

Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas = 13,9 Square Miles

Grand Theft Auto: IV = 16 Square Miles

Red Dead Redemption = 28 Square Miles

 

LINK TO THE MAP

 

So that would make that Grand Theft Auto: V will be bigger then RDR, which is 28 Square Miles, giving lots of space to merge Vice City with San Andreas!

 

What are your thoughts about this?

 

I copied this text from here.

I feel this is a more accurate representation

Dude no way. You're telling me VC vertically is roughly the same length as the start of the Gant Bridge to the top of Bayside?

 

I'm not telling you that....the person who created that image is telling you that. I am just saying that I believe its a more accurate representation then most of the things I have heard or seen.

[Meezarawcks]

I felt as if the city itself was somewhat lacking (especially since there were very few enterable buildings).

 

I hate when people say this. At least most of IV's enter-able buildings were unique and memorable. How many enter-able buildings did SA even have that weren't one of the five stores that only had one interior model for the 5-6 that were around the map. I felt that with the addition of TBoGT the map has decent amount of enterable buildings and more than anything unique areas around the map that were interesting to explore. It was hardly lacking. I have no doubt that V will have decent amount of both as well. It's very unrealistic to expect a large amount of enter-able buildings in a game of GTA's size unless you want to see a lot of cookie cutter interiors.

Definately. GTA IV had a lot more unique interiors. Take the safehouses for example. There were only 5 and they were all different. i'll take few interiors that are different over a heap that repeat themselves anyday.

Are you two serious? Play San Andreas on a server where all of the interiors are accessible.

 

http://weedarr.wikidot.com/interior

 

Remove the "cookie-cutter interiors" (as you call them) from the list and San Andreas still has more unique interiors than GTA:IV (with or without DLC).

 

Alas, all of that is irrelevant. The point that I had tried to make with my previous post was that San Andreas didn't even need unique interiors to make it feel like it was less "lacking"; it completely made up for them with the shear size of the map and variation in landscape.

 

The major difference between the two is the fact that GTA:IV's interiors are mostly enterable from the main map (where as most of San Andreas' interiors are held within different virtual worlds and require loading).

 

That Is why I had said that GTA:IV's city was lacking; not only did it have a very low level of interaction/enterable buildings, but it also had nothing to fall back on once you've seen all there is to see in the city (unlike San Andreas with its massive and completely explorable areas outside of the major towns/cities).

Not to rain on your guys' parade or anything, but can't we just say that both games had there merits and were a blast to play?