Map Size - i dont get it...

[Nion]

ok i am pretty sure this has been discussed many times here, but i cant find any answers in threads,

there is just too many threads and posts

 

so i read on the net that

 

''GTA is going to be bigger than the worlds of Red Dead Redemption, Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas and Grand Theft Auto IV combined''

 

is this really true

 

do they mean the physical ground you can explore?

so its bigger in space (all three combined) ?

 

 

or do they mean on things like details etc, no space?

 

 

i find it hard to believe its bigger than all three games in space ? i will be glad if its that big, but is this really true?

thats just crazy

[Willzy123]

I'm pretty sure they mean the map is the size of GTA4, RDR and San Andreas combined. There's no other way of explaining it. The map will be pretty big!

[GKP]

the combined areas of those maps is not that large. 25 square miles or so so a 5 by 5 mile map.

 

Cross that in a few minutes at high speed in a car. Or a minute by jet.

[Nion]

OMG

 

thats so insane crazy big, if thats really true this gonna be the best game ever

i cant wait to drive around. this makes me hyped up damzz

i still cant believe this. i hope its true

 

i dont think it will take a few minutes with high speed car

maybe a plane plane yes

 

san andreas was not a few minutes with high speed car

[Adriaan]

It's certainly NOT in 2d space - but instead, 3d space - taking in the entire topography of the map into account.

 

Imagine taking a mountain, and stretching it out flat... the space it's going to take up is going to be MUCH bigger than the space in square miles it takes up in its intended form with peaks, slopes etc.

 

 

I'm too lazy to do any mathematical calculations on this, but one of the mountains in the game could probably take up a much larger space if its flattened out. Reason I say that is, because, GTAIV's map is entirely flat.

 

 

In the end, just wanna say, don't be surprised when what they said about the map size doesn't correlate when you compare it in 2d space on a flat map.

 

 

Also, another thing, that map size comparison they gave takes into account all the building interiors and the DEPTHS OF THE OCEAN. GTAV has a "fully explorable ocean floor" - so this is also included in the size comparison (not just the land).

[BKALLDAY]

I remember reading one of those "leaked features" list that said it took about 15 min or so to cross the map. I guess we will see in September. Or October. Maybe 2014

[Nion]

ok ok well i dont mind if its not that big in space only

i am still hyped. i know its gonna be epic

 

one question more though

 

can you have the dog always with you?

so the dog is your pet in the game?

and you can drive around with the dog in the same car and then lets say u step outside

somewhire in a forest and walk with the dog ?

[ImPantsAtThis]

 

It's certainly NOT in 2d space - but instead, 3d space - taking in the entire topography of the map into account.

 

Imagine taking a mountain, and stretching it out flat... the space it's going to take up is going to be MUCH bigger than the space in square miles it takes up in its intended form with peaks, slopes etc.

 

 

I'm too lazy to do any mathematical calculations on this, but one of the mountains in the game could probably take up a much larger space if its flattened out. Reason I say that is, because, GTAIV's map is entirely flat.

 

 

In the end, just wanna say, don't be surprised when what they said about the map size doesn't correlate when you compare it in 2d space on a flat map.

 

 

Also, another thing, that map size comparison they gave takes into account all the building interiors and the DEPTHS OF THE OCEAN. GTAV has a "fully explorable ocean floor" - so this is also included in the size comparison (not just the land).

So you're suggesting size = traversable surface area?

[Adriaan]

 

So you're suggesting size = traversable surface area?

I know, I know, it's supposed to be common sense, but I know a lot of people think of "map" and think of it in 2d terms when they pause their game or look at the one included in the box - and don't think of things like the mountains, hills, ocean floor, interiors - but just think of it basically in square miles in 2d space.

[GTAfan786]

It's going to be the biggest map out of all their games, that's all that can be said.

[GKP]

Adrian....ridiculous logic. They are referring to square miles . Mountains cannot be flattened out . If your referring to their more vertical surfaces , they dont include that in the size of the game.

 

 

[Adriaan]

 

Adrian....ridiculous logic.  They are referring to square miles . Mountains cannot be flattened out . If your referring to their more vertical surfaces , they dont include that in the size of the game.

You are right about the verticality, that's what I meant. A previous member hit the nail on the head when he said "traversable surface area" - hence why Aaron (Art Director at North) included the "interiors" specifically in his comparison with his interview with Game Informer.

 

He was basically talking about the "traversable surface area", which is why he included the interiors and the ocean floor .

 

 

The fact that he mentioned interiors was an obvious sign that he did not mean square miles, because he included interiors in addition.

 

 

What you said is an entirely incorrect assumption on the square miles, trust me on this. But if you don't understand it, then you'll just have to wait for the game to come out. If you still believe it's square miles when you turn the game on for first time, you're going to be severely disappointed.

[Choco Taco]

It's certainly NOT in 2d space - but instead, 3d space - taking in the entire topography of the map into account.

 

Imagine taking a mountain, and stretching it out flat... the space it's going to take up is going to be MUCH bigger than the space in square miles it takes up in its intended form with peaks, slopes etc.

 

 

I'm too lazy to do any mathematical calculations on this, but one of the mountains in the game could probably take up a much larger space if its flattened out. Reason I say that is, because, GTAIV's map is entirely flat.

 

 

In the end, just wanna say, don't be surprised when what they said about the map size doesn't correlate when you compare it in 2d space on a flat map.

 

 

Also, another thing, that map size comparison they gave takes into account all the building interiors and the DEPTHS OF THE OCEAN. GTAV has a "fully explorable ocean floor" - so this is also included in the size comparison (not just the land).

I think it should be similar to the 2D space of the maps combined considering the following:

 

- They all have interiors.

 

- SA and RDR have mountains

 

- SA has ocean floor

 

 

[Nion]

hmmm very indepth analysing

man i cant wait dammit

 

[Adriaan]

 

I think it should be similar to the 2D space of the maps combined considering the following:

 

- They all have interiors.

 

- SA and RDR have mountains

 

- SA has ocean floor

They all have differing topography/traversable surface areas. For instance, GTAIV is essentially flat.

 

As for RDR's mountains: A lot of it is inaccessible to the player - versus GTAV where all of them are accessible/traversable.

 

 

When I said 2d space, I meant square miles - which is what they're obviously not talking about in their size comparison.

 

 

As an example, in the real world, you can plaster more Rockstar stickers over a 1 mile square region of the Grand Canyon mountains versus a 1 mile square region of the flat area of the Black Rock Desert in Nevada. Similarly, more ants can "traverse" on the first comparison versus the 2nd.

 

This is what I'm talking about .

 

 

As for the ocean floor, they seemed to have made quite a big distinction during the November V reveal that it will have a "fully explorable ocean floor" - suggesting it is entirely different from previous games, including GTASA. San Andreas didn't have an "explorable" ocean floor. Not to mention, you'd run out of oxygen quick - whereas in GTAV, you have scuba gear (with oxygen tanks) and even a submarine!

[T0X1C]

I think it's in flat, 2d measurement. By my calculations (using the in game distance stat) Liberty City in IV is approximately 6 square miles in 2d measurement.

 

If it was measured including the 3d space it would be much larger as there are many buildings.

 

I think it's the size of LC, RDR + SA combined on a 2d level.

[Adriaan]

 

I think it's in flat, 2d measurement. By my calculations (using the in game distance stat) Liberty City in IV is approximately 6 square miles in 2d measurement.

 

If it was measured including the 3d space it would be much larger as there are many buildings.

 

I think it's the size of LC, RDR + SA combined on a 2d level.

Prepare for the disappointment then. I've said enough on the topic already.

[T0X1C]

 

I think it's in flat, 2d measurement. By my calculations (using the in game distance stat) Liberty City in IV is approximately 6 square miles in 2d measurement.

 

If it was measured including the 3d space it would be much larger as there are many buildings.

 

I think it's the size of LC, RDR + SA combined on a 2d level.

Prepare for the disappointment then. I've said enough on the topic already.

Well if what you are saying is correct, the 3D space of the maps of RDR and SA, (which certainly aren't flat) would be taken into account as well.

 

Whether or not the underwater area is considered in their estimation of the size isn't clear.

 

I tweeted one of those guys who saw a demo and the only thing he confirmed was that the map is indeed huge. I still believe that by map they mean square miles, but if not then it's not a trainwreck. As I said SA and RDR weren't flat.

[Adriaan]

As I said SA and RDR weren't flat.

That certainly is a statement of fact.

[GKP]

Adrian, there including interiors because...thats an area. The ocean floor as...that takes up square footage too.

 

They are NOT ....as in NOT referring to 'traversable space' ..that is flawed logic.

[BUT THE BENZ]

L.A. Noire had a good mapsize I thought. Took me like 10 minutes to drive from one end of the map to another. Can't say much about RDR..looked pretty huge though, you could see canyons and landscape in the distance. Draw distance was crazy...hope V has it too

[T0X1C]

 

As I said SA and RDR weren't flat.

That certainly is a statement of fact.

I assumed you overlooked that by referring to the mountainous areas in GTA V and comparing it to the flatness of GTA IV to show that, in your opinion, we are overestimating the size of the upcoming map. The fact that 2 of the 3 maps under discussion aren't flat slightly lessens the impact of your point.

 

 

Edit: I believe they are referring to the size in square miles because measuring the size of traversable space isn't the quickest calculation in the world. Estimating the size of mountainous terrain is extremely inaccurate unless you're lucky with a guess or an expert geographer. They wouldn't base an estimation off of that.

Edited February 8, 2013 by Mm9090

[kadava]

The map will be huge or else it is no fun to fly at speed of sound with a jet

[Aborted_Fetus]

 

As an example, in the real world, you can plaster more Rockstar stickers over a 1 mile square region of the Grand Canyon mountains versus a 1 mile square region of the flat area of the Black Rock Desert in Nevada.

I think I have enough R* stickers from purchasing merchandise from the Rockstar Warehouse to do just that.

 

As for map size, does the exact square mileage (or how they're calculating it) really matter? It's the largest, most diverse world they've yet created and its size is enough to justify the use of planes. To me, that's all that matters. It's going to be huge, everyone. There will be no need for disappointment.

[BigKush]

 

...building interiors and the DEPTHS OF THE OCEAN. GTAV has a "fully explorable ocean floor" - so this is also included in the size comparison (not just the land).

Every time now that I hear the line "DEPTHS OF THE SEA", I feel as though the lights in GTAForums should dim and flicker a little and there should be a heavy, ominous rumble in the distance..

 

OT: hadn't considered the 'verticality' aspect of it actually Adriaan, that's a point well made. At the very least we know that Rockstar aren't going to be calling "cold water" when we pull out the measuring tape come September.

[œaœa]

Looking at the mapping Los Santos thread. I'm already happy with the map size. That doesn't even matter, though. What matters is the geography and diversity of it and we know Rockstar can pull that off.

[T0X1C]

When Rockstar did the interview I'm pretty sure that they knew that 90% of fans would assume that they meant square miles, it's what most people care about, I don't think many people would be happy with a hypothetical deal: smaller map, but higher mountain.

 

We'll see, we know it'll be huge either way, though.

[I Shot The Sheriff]

It's certainly NOT in 2d space - but instead, 3d space - taking in the entire topography of the map into account.

 

Imagine taking a mountain, and stretching it out flat... the space it's going to take up is going to be MUCH bigger than the space in square miles it takes up in its intended form with peaks, slopes etc.

 

 

I'm too lazy to do any mathematical calculations on this, but one of the mountains in the game could probably take up a much larger space if its flattened out. Reason I say that is, because, GTAIV's map is entirely flat.

 

 

In the end, just wanna say, don't be surprised when what they said about the map size doesn't correlate when you compare it in 2d space on a flat map.

 

 

Also, another thing, that map size comparison they gave takes into account all the building interiors and the DEPTHS OF THE OCEAN. GTAV has a "fully explorable ocean floor" - so this is also included in the size comparison (not just the land).

So the map is gonna be small. Thanks for the info, Rockstar.

[Choco Taco]

 

 

When I said 2d space, I meant square miles - which is what they're obviously not talking about in their size comparison.

 

 

 

No, it's not obvious. They're being incredibly misleading if they're not talking about square miles.

 

 

http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/11/13/the...now-about-gta-v

 

 

In fact, it’s so big, you could fit the Red Dead, GTA IV and GTA: San Andreas maps into the GTA V map and have room to spare

 

 

Now, if they really are being sneaky bastards and are not talking about square miles, then a lot of people are going to be really disappointed. Taking this quote...

 

 

Rockstar says the map is 3.5 times bigger than Red Dead Redemption -- 5 times bigger if you include topography, as representatives kept talking about be depths of the ocean.

 

That would mean that the 2-D flat map size of GTA V is 3.5 times RDR. That's less than 20 square miles. That's this size compared to San Andreas:

 

 

With the much increased draw distance, GTA V will look smaller than San Andreas. That also means we've already seen nearly the entire GTA V map.

 

 

 

 

[T0X1C]

 

When I said 2d space, I meant square miles - which is what they're obviously not talking about in their size comparison.

 

 

 

No, it's not obvious. They're being incredibly misleading if they're not talking about square miles.

 

 

http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/11/13/the...now-about-gta-v

 

 

In fact, it’s so big, you could fit the Red Dead, GTA IV and GTA: San Andreas maps into the GTA V map and have room to spare

 

 

Now, if they really are being sneaky bastards and are not talking about square miles, then a lot of people are going to be really disappointed. Taking this quote...

 

 

Rockstar says the map is 3.5 times bigger than Red Dead Redemption -- 5 times bigger if you include topography, as representatives kept talking about be depths of the ocean.

 

That would mean that the 2-D flat map size of GTA V is 3.5 times RDR. That's less than 20 square miles. That's this size compared to San Andreas:

 

 

With the much increased draw distance, GTA V will look smaller than San Andreas. That also means we've already seen nearly the entire GTA V map.

Whoa I'm pretty sure the SA map is smaller than that. GTA IV is 6sq miles, SA is bigger but not THAT big.

 

Otherwise, I agree with you.