Map wise I am becoming very suspicious.

[Cwave]

I don't know where people are getting it that SA's map is slightly bigger than RDR's, when I seen several times map comparisons of all Rockstar games, and all pointed to RDR as being the largest map they've ever made. It doesn't seem likely that a PS2 era game had a bigger map than RDR.

yes, you're right! i'm totally with u. the guys who said sa is 50% bigger than rdr are stupit! everyone knows that the world of rdr is the biggest rockstar created to date. screw such unrealistic mapanaliysises by your own. you NEVER can scale those map by doing it yourself!

Haha. Now read it.

That's complete and utter bullsh*t.

 

You can easily tell that both maps were designed with a different sense of perception, you can tell the view of RDR's map is from further away, and was made into a more realistic form, while San Andreas' is completely abstract.

 

The way the guy made this theory, simply analyses it by the size of the image that he picked to do it, so basically if he grabbed a picture of RDR's map with a higher resolution, it would result in him saying that RDR's is bigger.

 

I've seen analysis from different people by searching on google, and I came to the conclusion that SA's map goes around 13.9 sq miles while RDR's goes around 24 sq miles, which would mean RDR's map is twice as big as San Andreas'.

Well, we'll find out soon enough. Admittedly, I haven't played RDR myself, but there is a useful youtube video showing how long it takes to go from the western-most point to the eastern-most point:

 

 

 

The journey took him 8 minutes, but he had to take an indirect route via the 'roads'. If he'd gone as-the-crow-flies, the map could be traversed in even less time. Furthermore, even though the horse is fast, it is not as fast as some of the vehicles in GTA. If you could drive a car in RDR and go directly from start to finish, the journey could be completed in 4-5 minutes. Another thing to remember is that the destination was north-east of the starting point, so it is not actually measuring the length of the map. Think of it as a triangle; the hypotenuse is the longest side, and therefore it would take less time to go left-to-right or top-to-bottom than bottom-left to top-right as demonstrated in his video.

 

You are exaggerating the size of RDR's map. If you consider all of the above, you will see that SA is at least the same size as RDR, not "many times larger". And IV's map was the smallest of the 3. So even if RDR's map was bigger than SA, the relatively-small GTA IV map compensates for the 3 SA-sized maps.

[CaponeDeez]

still have my hopes up for SF and LV

[un94]

 

still have my hopes up for SF and LV   

Sorry man, u r going te be disappointed when you get the game. San Fierro and Las Venturas won't be in the game, it is confirmed now. Perhaps a small city in Southern California, like San Diego. But no SF and LV. Just read GI.

[DiegoLosSantos]

"So why would they switch from GTA IV to RDR? Same units and same generation.

I don't see any reason why they would change it.

Consider this too

It takes John 21 mins 8 secs to jog across RDR map

It takes Carl 17 mins 48 secs to jog across SA map

Now, play each game and jog about a little, who do you think is jogging at the faster pace?

How fast would Carl take to jog across the RDR map?" (from niko's map analysis)

 

i think it makes not a big difference betweent both jog speeds^^so that means that rdr MUST be bigger (only a little bit)

[inflamedeyeball]

 

The guy is using formulas to different maps that have different scaling, he's doing it wrong.

 

- It's two guys. You still didn't read the topic.

- There is no indication that the maps have different scaling. There is absolutely no reason to believe that a meter in RDR does not equal one meter in GTA IV.

 

 

He would need the information that usually comes with real life maps, that says from how far the view was made, so he could convert it to a same value as both maps, and then compare.

 

This is not about scale. The ingame stats were translated to a high resolution map by means of 'X feet = Y pixels'. By this method you end up with a map with a clear indication of how many feet (or whatever unit of measurement you want to use) a pixel is.

 

 

You can find people that know what they are doing on google and have already done the comparison way back a year ago or more, and you will see that San Andreas actually is around half the size of RDR.

 

Anecdotal evidence. 'They know what they are doing' does not make me change my mind on this issue. Unless they used a fixed stat, they weren't being very scientific about it.

 

 

I would love if someone posted a screenshot of San Andreas using the Draw Limit mod from up high from a certain edge of the map (overview), and then took a screenshot in RDR from a high up part of the map (which if I'm not mistaken is the Northeast edge of the map), that would probably clear up the size.

Then you end up with something that looks bigger than the other thing. Again, not very scientific. This could get some pretty accurate results however, as seen in this thread.

[DiegoLosSantos]

the comparsion in this image between RDR and SA is correct (ignore just cause in the back)

[Canes21]

Haha. Now read it.[/url]

loool xD why r u holding on these sh*t? rdr and sa are totally wrong scalted together!!!

 

Get into that thread and tell RockStarNiko and Magic_al where they have gone wrong.

 

Or better yet, actually read the f*cking thing this time.

 

There are actually people on this forum who put time and effort in measuring the maps with the in-game 'distance traveled' stats and have come to solid, conclusive and repeatable results.

 

All you, and a lot of other people can say in response is "hur everyone knows RDR's map is bigger than SA's lol". Idiot.

 

You come off as a juggalo who doesn't want to know how magnets work.

 

edit: that means you too, Vugo

The guy is using formulas to different maps that have different scaling, he's doing it wrong. He would need the information that usually comes with real life maps, that says from how far the view was made, so he could convert it to a same value as both maps, and then compare.

 

You can find people that know what they are doing on google and have already done the comparison way back a year ago or more, and you will see that San Andreas actually is around half the size of RDR.

 

I would love if someone posted a screenshot of San Andreas using the Draw Limit mod from up high from a certain edge of the map (overview), and then took a screenshot in RDR from a high up part of the map (which if I'm not mistaken is the Northeast edge of the map), that would probably clear up the size.

You're stating it like he is only looking at the maps, finding a distance in one game, drawing a line and moving it over to the other game's map and saying that distance must be equal.

 

That is not what he is doing. He is measuring the same distances in each game, then scaling the maps so that the distances measured are the same in both maps. That is the correct way of doing it. Walk in a straight line in Read Dead for 1 mile. Mark that line on the map. Do the same in San Andreas, then GTA IV. Overlay the maps, scale them until the distance(1 mile) is equal in all 3 maps, then you will see how the maps truly compare. It's not rocket science, but does take effort.

 

From doing that, you can come to the conclusion that it goes GTA SA, RDR, and GTA IV. SA and RDR are very close in size, but both are nearly double IV. You can also find out through more extensive work and math that Rockstar's maps always follow the same scale. How crazy! A company using the same method in all of their work. In Rockstar's maps of their games, one pixel equals one meter. Find the maps in their native resolution and you find their true sizes. They've done that and those map sizes are the exact same map sized they found in the first method I described.

 

If you'd just read the thread, you'd see this.

[DiegoLosSantos]

then explain me why it takes a longer time to jog over the RDR map as over the sa map?

[Canes21]

 

the comparsion in this image between RDR and SA is correct (ignore just cause in the back)

You still fail at giving any real reasons why it is correct. Just because you want to believe Red Dead is so much bigger does not make it really true. Rockstar does not just create their games by modeling objects based off what looks right and to scale. When you do that, the end product becomes a mess. They have scales they follow from game to game. From GTA III to San Andreas, to GTA IV, to Max Payne 3 and Red Dead Redemption, they use the same methods and scales to create their games. And when you do the work and make all the maps the correct size to where each distance in the game is represented correctly, you see the true sizes of the games compared to one another.

 

You can't just say, this bridge should fit in there, then photoshop it into the image, then use that image and location on the map to scale it, it just doesn't work like that. I feel like Grove Street is the same size of Armadillo, and I could easily photoshop a picture to where it fits perfect, then scale the maps over each other, but that won't be the true map sizes in relation to one another.

 

I'd have to measure 100 feet in RDR, 100 feet in SA, draw lines on the maps showing those exact distances, overlay the maps, have those lines match each other perfectly through scaling the maps, then I'd have their true sizes.

 

That's basically what they've done in the topic you refuse to read and their findings match Rockstar's native map sizes. I doubt it's a coincidence they match nearly to the decimal point.

 

And to your post above this one: If I jogged the New York marathon in 6 hours and my brother jogged the Boston marathon in 8 hours, does that make the NYM longer than the one on Boston? No. Both are 26.2 miles, people just run difference speeds. CJ is clearly faster than Marston. Go jog 100 in game feet in SA, do the same in RDR it's going to take Marston longer, but both distances are still 100 feet.

Edited November 12, 2012 by Canes21

[Sneakerhead.]

LV & SF are in the map. Logic says so.

How about no.

[Hove Beach]

There's alot we don't know about, and I'm sure Rockstar want to keep alot from us so it will be a suprise when we get to play the game. You raise some valid points, however, Liberty City had one airport with Passenger planes all around it, so you never know.

well u couldnt fly planes in IV.. so there's no point in havin several airports then

[johnnyftlent]

when reading game informer at the part were rockstar speaks about why they decided to only focus on one city. I think that was a response to why not include all of san andreas. They thought it would be better to focus on los santos and not all of san andreas. It did not sound like they were excluding all other cities. They have to be hiding something. Like i said before all the screens we are getting are repeats of the same areas over and over. this can not be it. there must be more. no way we are going to leave los santos cross over a couple of mountains and be in the Salton Sea like area. then return back.

[kj2022]

then explain me why it takes a longer time to jog over the RDR map as over the sa map?

John runs a hell of a lot slower than CJ does.

[johnnyftlent]

LV & SF are in the map. Logic says so.

How about no.

this is doubtful. but hey we can dream. haha. whatever as long as we can gamble in a casino i will be happy

[RockStarNiko]

 

then explain me why it takes a longer time to jog over the RDR map as over the sa map?

You should just read my thread again and ignore the jogging times and just focus on the in game measuring system part

 

I included the time taken to jog because before I started the analysis I did not know whether the 3 games used the same scale

 

After I measured distance using two taxis and the results came back identical I am now convinced that IV and SA use exactly the same measuring system

 

And as for RDR, I have no reason to believe they changed the measuring system from IV to RDR, if they kept it the same going from SA to IV, going across generation and switching from metric to imperial

 

 

and the reason it takes John longer to jog across RDR is because he jogs slower

 

If you look at the two taxis test I did you will see that one of the outcomes is that Niko jogs slower than Carl

 

The reason Niko jogs slower than Carl is the same reason John jogs slower than Carl

 

They are in smaller game worlds and so their speed needs to be slightly reduced

[Vugo]

Haha. Now read it.[/url]

loool xD why r u holding on these sh*t? rdr and sa are totally wrong scalted together!!!

 

Get into that thread and tell RockStarNiko and Magic_al where they have gone wrong.

 

Or better yet, actually read the f*cking thing this time.

 

There are actually people on this forum who put time and effort in measuring the maps with the in-game 'distance traveled' stats and have come to solid, conclusive and repeatable results.

 

All you, and a lot of other people can say in response is "hur everyone knows RDR's map is bigger than SA's lol". Idiot.

 

You come off as a juggalo who doesn't want to know how magnets work.

 

edit: that means you too, Vugo

The guy is using formulas to different maps that have different scaling, he's doing it wrong. He would need the information that usually comes with real life maps, that says from how far the view was made, so he could convert it to a same value as both maps, and then compare.

 

You can find people that know what they are doing on google and have already done the comparison way back a year ago or more, and you will see that San Andreas actually is around half the size of RDR.

 

I would love if someone posted a screenshot of San Andreas using the Draw Limit mod from up high from a certain edge of the map (overview), and then took a screenshot in RDR from a high up part of the map (which if I'm not mistaken is the Northeast edge of the map), that would probably clear up the size.

You're stating it like he is only looking at the maps, finding a distance in one game, drawing a line and moving it over to the other game's map and saying that distance must be equal.

 

That is not what he is doing. He is measuring the same distances in each game, then scaling the maps so that the distances measured are the same in both maps. That is the correct way of doing it. Walk in a straight line in Read Dead for 1 mile. Mark that line on the map. Do the same in San Andreas, then GTA IV. Overlay the maps, scale them until the distance(1 mile) is equal in all 3 maps, then you will see how the maps truly compare. It's not rocket science, but does take effort.

 

From doing that, you can come to the conclusion that it goes GTA SA, RDR, and GTA IV. SA and RDR are very close in size, but both are nearly double IV. You can also find out through more extensive work and math that Rockstar's maps always follow the same scale. How crazy! A company using the same method in all of their work. In Rockstar's maps of their games, one pixel equals one meter. Find the maps in their native resolution and you find their true sizes. They've done that and those map sizes are the exact same map sized they found in the first method I described.

 

If you'd just read the thread, you'd see this.

If your theory of scaling is correct, then how come the pictures of the map of RDR has WAY thinner lines for roads than SA? That's because the distance perspective is different, kinda like taking a picture from further away. You don't even need math to compare it correctly, and since they use the same scale every time, then you would need to expand RDR's map until the road lines have the same width as the thinnest of roads from SA, and you would have both maps at the same proportion, then just overlay it and you have the perfect comparison.

 

Take in consideration that R* didn't actually draw the roads thinner for the game, since when you look at the GPS thing during gameplay, you see that the width of it is displayed just the same as in San Andreas (during gameplay aswell).

[mdniterder]

they confirmed a military base and small towns in the countryside, fairly certain the train/airplane could have a station/airport in one of them.

i just dont see a small town having a major airport. there has to be another major airport. If rockstar is shooting for realism I can not see them thinking one major airport is realistic. And san andreas is a state. a state should have another city.

Blackpool in England isn't a major city, that has an airport, it's barely a town. it doesn't need to be a major airport, as long as it has a runway, we can land.

Runway, who needs a runway? I'll land where I want...

[RockStarNiko]

Haha. Now read it.[/url]

loool xD why r u holding on these sh*t? rdr and sa are totally wrong scalted together!!!

 

Get into that thread and tell RockStarNiko and Magic_al where they have gone wrong.

 

Or better yet, actually read the f*cking thing this time.

 

There are actually people on this forum who put time and effort in measuring the maps with the in-game 'distance traveled' stats and have come to solid, conclusive and repeatable results.

 

All you, and a lot of other people can say in response is "hur everyone knows RDR's map is bigger than SA's lol". Idiot.

 

You come off as a juggalo who doesn't want to know how magnets work.

 

edit: that means you too, Vugo

The guy is using formulas to different maps that have different scaling, he's doing it wrong. He would need the information that usually comes with real life maps, that says from how far the view was made, so he could convert it to a same value as both maps, and then compare.

 

You can find people that know what they are doing on google and have already done the comparison way back a year ago or more, and you will see that San Andreas actually is around half the size of RDR.

 

I would love if someone posted a screenshot of San Andreas using the Draw Limit mod from up high from a certain edge of the map (overview), and then took a screenshot in RDR from a high up part of the map (which if I'm not mistaken is the Northeast edge of the map), that would probably clear up the size.

You're stating it like he is only looking at the maps, finding a distance in one game, drawing a line and moving it over to the other game's map and saying that distance must be equal.

 

That is not what he is doing. He is measuring the same distances in each game, then scaling the maps so that the distances measured are the same in both maps. That is the correct way of doing it. Walk in a straight line in Read Dead for 1 mile. Mark that line on the map. Do the same in San Andreas, then GTA IV. Overlay the maps, scale them until the distance(1 mile) is equal in all 3 maps, then you will see how the maps truly compare. It's not rocket science, but does take effort.

 

From doing that, you can come to the conclusion that it goes GTA SA, RDR, and GTA IV. SA and RDR are very close in size, but both are nearly double IV. You can also find out through more extensive work and math that Rockstar's maps always follow the same scale. How crazy! A company using the same method in all of their work. In Rockstar's maps of their games, one pixel equals one meter. Find the maps in their native resolution and you find their true sizes. They've done that and those map sizes are the exact same map sized they found in the first method I described.

 

If you'd just read the thread, you'd see this.

If your theory of scaling is correct, then how come the pictures of the map of RDR has WAY thinner lines for roads than SA? That's because the distance perspective is different, kinda like taking a picture from further away. You don't even need math to compare it correctly, and since they use the same scale every time, then you would need to expand RDR's map until the road lines have the same width as the thinnest of roads from SA, and you would have both maps at the same proportion, then just overlay it and you have the perfect comparison.

 

Take in consideration that R* didn't actually draw the roads thinner for the game, since when you look at the GPS thing during gameplay, you see that the width of it is displayed just the same as in San Andreas (during gameplay aswell).

Can you provide an alternative explanation for this

 

"I also measured the distance of 2 blocks in GTA IV using two taxis.

Method was get in one, park it directly in front of the other, bumper to bumper, then repeat

The distance was 33 taxi lengths

On the scaled image below of GTA IV the distance was 22-23 pixels.

Next I repeat the experiment in SA, again using 33 taxi lengths

When finished I looked on scaled image of SA and the distance was = 22-23 pixels

Length of a taxi in both game can then be calculated as being 17-18 feet

The result of this experiment leads me to believe that the in game measuring stats used in both SA and GTA IV are the same and so the map comparisons in this thread are very accurate

Could RDR have used a different in game measuring system?

From SA to GTA IV they switched from metric to imperial and from one generation to the other, yet the system stayed the same

So why would they switch from GTA IV to RDR? Same units and same generation.

I don't see any reason why they would change it.

Consider this too

It takes John 21 mins 8 secs to jog across RDR map

It takes Carl 17 mins 48 secs to jog across SA map

Now, play each game and jog about a little, who do you think is jogging at the faster pace?

How fast would Carl take to jog across the RDR map?"

 

 

Also you mentioned people have done experiments themselves in the past regarding map sizes of each game, please could you point me in the direction of one, because I often search for "red dead redemption map size" on google and I never find anything

 

I want to look at some other detailed analysis because maybe I would actually agree with it, but if I see no alternative, how can I ignore logic?

[m8son]

Obviously there is going to be more than one airport. Even if it just a small strip, there will be more than just the main one in the city. They aren't hiding another god damn city.

[hellobeatle]

 

Furthermore, do people even take off and land at airports in GTA? All I ever hear about is people crashing the planes or bailing out of them to skydive.

^^^

[Vugo]

Haha. Now read it.[/url]

loool xD why r u holding on these sh*t? rdr and sa are totally wrong scalted together!!!

 

Get into that thread and tell RockStarNiko and Magic_al where they have gone wrong.

 

Or better yet, actually read the f*cking thing this time.

 

There are actually people on this forum who put time and effort in measuring the maps with the in-game 'distance traveled' stats and have come to solid, conclusive and repeatable results.

 

All you, and a lot of other people can say in response is "hur everyone knows RDR's map is bigger than SA's lol". Idiot.

 

You come off as a juggalo who doesn't want to know how magnets work.

 

edit: that means you too, Vugo

The guy is using formulas to different maps that have different scaling, he's doing it wrong. He would need the information that usually comes with real life maps, that says from how far the view was made, so he could convert it to a same value as both maps, and then compare.

 

You can find people that know what they are doing on google and have already done the comparison way back a year ago or more, and you will see that San Andreas actually is around half the size of RDR.

 

I would love if someone posted a screenshot of San Andreas using the Draw Limit mod from up high from a certain edge of the map (overview), and then took a screenshot in RDR from a high up part of the map (which if I'm not mistaken is the Northeast edge of the map), that would probably clear up the size.

You're stating it like he is only looking at the maps, finding a distance in one game, drawing a line and moving it over to the other game's map and saying that distance must be equal.

 

That is not what he is doing. He is measuring the same distances in each game, then scaling the maps so that the distances measured are the same in both maps. That is the correct way of doing it. Walk in a straight line in Read Dead for 1 mile. Mark that line on the map. Do the same in San Andreas, then GTA IV. Overlay the maps, scale them until the distance(1 mile) is equal in all 3 maps, then you will see how the maps truly compare. It's not rocket science, but does take effort.

 

From doing that, you can come to the conclusion that it goes GTA SA, RDR, and GTA IV. SA and RDR are very close in size, but both are nearly double IV. You can also find out through more extensive work and math that Rockstar's maps always follow the same scale. How crazy! A company using the same method in all of their work. In Rockstar's maps of their games, one pixel equals one meter. Find the maps in their native resolution and you find their true sizes. They've done that and those map sizes are the exact same map sized they found in the first method I described.

 

If you'd just read the thread, you'd see this.

If your theory of scaling is correct, then how come the pictures of the map of RDR has WAY thinner lines for roads than SA? That's because the distance perspective is different, kinda like taking a picture from further away. You don't even need math to compare it correctly, and since they use the same scale every time, then you would need to expand RDR's map until the road lines have the same width as the thinnest of roads from SA, and you would have both maps at the same proportion, then just overlay it and you have the perfect comparison.

 

Take in consideration that R* didn't actually draw the roads thinner for the game, since when you look at the GPS thing during gameplay, you see that the width of it is displayed just the same as in San Andreas (during gameplay aswell).

Can you provide an alternative explanation for this

 

"I also measured the distance of 2 blocks in GTA IV using two taxis.

Method was get in one, park it directly in front of the other, bumper to bumper, then repeat

The distance was 33 taxi lengths

On the scaled image below of GTA IV the distance was 22-23 pixels.

Next I repeat the experiment in SA, again using 33 taxi lengths

When finished I looked on scaled image of SA and the distance was = 22-23 pixels

Length of a taxi in both game can then be calculated as being 17-18 feet

The result of this experiment leads me to believe that the in game measuring stats used in both SA and GTA IV are the same and so the map comparisons in this thread are very accurate

Could RDR have used a different in game measuring system?

From SA to GTA IV they switched from metric to imperial and from one generation to the other, yet the system stayed the same

So why would they switch from GTA IV to RDR? Same units and same generation.

I don't see any reason why they would change it.

Consider this too

It takes John 21 mins 8 secs to jog across RDR map

It takes Carl 17 mins 48 secs to jog across SA map

Now, play each game and jog about a little, who do you think is jogging at the faster pace?

How fast would Carl take to jog across the RDR map?"

 

 

Also you mentioned people have done experiments themselves in the past regarding map sizes of each game, please could you point me in the direction of one, because I often search for "red dead redemption map size" on google and I never find anything

 

I want to look at some other detailed analysis because maybe I would actually agree with it, but if I see no alternative, how can I ignore logic?

Last time I found these analysis, I think I searched for "RDR San Andreas square miles".

[Canes21]

Because the paths and roads in RDR are way thinner than any road in San Andreas. Every road in SA is at least wide enough two lanes, meaning at least 2 cars can fit, but more than likely 3 cars could if you had them close together. In RDR, half of the paths are just wide enough for two horses at most and the widest road(bridges not included) in RDR can barely fit two carriages side by side on it. Carriages are a little wider than cars, but not 1.5x bigger to where it'd equal 3 cars.

 

At most, the widest road/path in RDR is the same width as the skinniest road in SA. Heck, the train tracks are wider than half of the paths in RDR, but the train tracks are not wider than any road in SA at any point.

Edited November 12, 2012 by Canes21

[DiegoLosSantos]

@rockstarniko. sorry but i'm a little bit confused^^so you can say that sa is a little bit bigger than the world of rdr? what about the non-pass area in rdr? then rdr is only half the size of sa?

[kj2022]

they confirmed a military base and small towns in the countryside, fairly certain the train/airplane could have a station/airport in one of them.

i just dont see a small town having a major airport. there has to be another major airport. If rockstar is shooting for realism I can not see them thinking one major airport is realistic. And san andreas is a state. a state should have another city.

Blackpool in England isn't a major city, that has an airport, it's barely a town. it doesn't need to be a major airport, as long as it has a runway, we can land.

Runway, who needs a runway? I'll land where I want...

I made the same point earlier, put it down on the freeway if you wanna, we can land however and wherever we wanna.

[RockStarNiko]

@rockstarniko. sorry but i'm a little bit confused^^so you can say that sa is a little bit bigger than the world of rdr? what about the non-pass area in rdr? then rdr is only half the size of sa?

All I know is that after my analysis the results I found were that the image of SA was 14.5 sq m, the image of RDR was 11.9 sq m and the image of GTA IV was 6.3 sq m

 

This is all using the in game measuring systems

 

If the results are wrong it is because the in game measuring systems are not the same

 

But after this first analysis I did the taxi experiment and this made me almost certain that IV and SA used the same system of measuring

 

 

 

Here is another thing for people to ponder

 

 

If RDR is indeed larger than the in game measuring system says it is, then why did they use a fake measuring system, when the one in IV and SA was so accurate

 

So accurate in fact that when you do analysis you end up with taxi lengths that are 17-18 feet long, that is very realistic don't you agree?

 

Why go from being so realistic to being so inaccurate?

 

Say RDR was for example 2x as large as SA, just for argument sake, why do the in game stats not reflect this

 

What possible reason is there for them to scale DOWN the measuring system?

[gdfsgdfg]

I find it stupid that R calls this the biggest game they've made, without las venturas and san fierro its not the same.

 

Heck I could wait one more year or two just to add those cities back

[hulklogann]

You guys have to stop visioning the previous cities and comparing it to the new game.

 

I believe that Los Santos is going to be very very big.

Nothing compared to any city we have seen in previous GTA.

 

I understand its hard to think of because we are so used to the pervious game we cant get our mind of of them and comparing. But think hard..

 

If GTA 5 is going to be as big as they said i wouldn't be surprised if the whole city is as big as the whole San Andreas map alone, and very possibly even bigger then that.

 

Now think back at how big San Andreas actually is.

Unless you wanted to take forever to go to another city you would have to Take a either a train or plane for THAT map.

 

In other words i think the city is going to be so big that it could easily have multiple airports, train stations ect.

And then to add to that there will also be suburbs (towns) and major country side that will be a destination.

 

 

[Getzmunney]

Why cant people understand that Los Santos continues south/ southeast past the harbor?

[kj2022]

You guys have to stop visioning the previous cities and comparing it to the new game.

 

I believe that Los Santos is going to be very very big.

Nothing compared to any city we have seen in previous GTA.

 

I understand its hard to think of because we are so used to the pervious game we cant get our mind of of them and comparing. But think hard..

 

If GTA 5 is going to be as big as they said i wouldn't be surprised if the whole city is as big as the whole San Andreas map alone, and very possibly even bigger then that.

 

Now think back at how big San Andreas actually is.

Unless you wanted to take forever to go to another city you would have to Take a either a train or plane for THAT map.

 

In other words i think the city is going to be so big that it could easily have multiple airports, train stations ect.

And then to add to that there will also be suburbs (towns) and major country side that will be a destination.

 

 

they're trying to work out the size of the entire map (interiors, mount chilliad and seabed) from rockstars statement of it being GTA IV, RDR and SA added together with room to spare.

[Cazzer14]

they confirmed a military base and small towns in the countryside, fairly certain the train/airplane could have a station/airport in one of them.

i just dont see a small town having a major airport. there has to be another major airport. If rockstar is shooting for realism I can not see them thinking one major airport is realistic. And san andreas is a state. a state should have another city.

Blackpool in England isn't a major city, that has an airport, it's barely a town. it doesn't need to be a major airport, as long as it has a runway, we can land.

Runway, who needs a runway? I'll land where I want...

Or not even land at all