Map Size - i dont get it...

[Choco Taco]

San Andreas is 14 square miles.

[Nion]

even if its like san andreas size i am happy in a mofo

the details will be better etc

but still i think it will be bigger

cant wait to see the forest in the rain

[T0X1C]

San Andreas is 14 square miles.

Hmmmm ok I'll take your word for it for now because you make a lot of sense

[Vormek]

Whoa you guys. Chill out. It's been repeateded numerous times by different sources that GTA 5 will have a big map. GTA 5 will have a bigger map than any other game created by R*. We have a huge city, a huge mountain and a huge countryside and many other places. The game will be big. Bigger than any GTA game out there. What's the big deal if the game has this many square miles or that many time bigger than RDR. The map size will be very satisfactory for 95% of us so just relax and let R* do what they do best.

[Andreas]

You know what? Once GTA V is out I'll play it a bit and then I will create a detailed topic about the mapsize, comparisons to past Rockstar titles and I'll describe the way I'm calculating all these things.

 

 

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

The map of GTA IV has a size of around 6.25 square miles compared to 13.9 square miles mapsize of GTA San Andreas.

[T0X1C]

You know what? Once GTA V is out I'll play it a bit and then I will create a detailed topic about the mapsize, comparisons to past Rockstar titles and I'll describe the way I'm calculating all these things.

 

 

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

The map of GTA IV has a size of around 6.25 square miles compared to 13.9 square miles mapsize of GTA San Andreas.

Ok I guess 2 people can't be wrong. More than double?? Wow, didn't know that.

[Andreas]

 

More than double?? Wow, didn't know that.

Liberty City is much smaller than San Andreas but it's of course much more detailed and the similarities to the real city are more clear. The map doesn't feel that small in my opinion.

[Choco Taco]

What's the big deal if the game has this many square miles or that many time bigger than RDR.

The problem is if Rockstar is being misleading, it can lead to disappointment. There would be no problems if they would just be honest.

 

I wonder if the map size is going to be another one of Rockstar's misleading and false statements.

 

In a few weeks or so.

 

The Epsilon screen saver turns up next week.

 

Spring 2013.

 

Box art revealed by the end of the month.

 

Bigger than SA, IV, and RDR combined.

[omer19992010]

 

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.

Rdr was like 12-11 sq miles so that's almost 3x the size of sanandreas.

[GTA5isntAMYTH]

i remember them saying itll take 30 mins flying across the map bottom to top thats pretty big

[Magic_Al]

 

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.

Rdr was like 12-11 sq miles so that's almost 3x the size of sanandreas.

RDR takes up a space comparable to GTASA, but unlike that, RDR has boundaries that keep you within a space under 6 square miles. GTAIV's rectangular map is half water, which is explorable surface but mostly empty space. The comparison of GTAV to the other three maps is really about the amount of content experienced, which can take many shapes.

[DjMiikkii]

I'm fairly certain they mean all areas of the map, including interiors and the seabed.

[rare.steak]

I'd LOL if they meant airspace as well. Maybe they give us 3 times the altitude with a landspace not much larger than SA and there ya go.

[thestoneman420]

i remember them saying itll take 30 mins flying across the map bottom to top thats pretty big

They never said that, stop making sh*t up.

[Revolution-XW]

Wow

[GrandMaster Smith]

 

The problem is if Rockstar is being misleading, it can lead to disappointment.  There would be no problems if they would just be honest.

 

I wonder if the map size is going to be another one of Rockstar's misleading and false statements.

 

In a few weeks or so. 

 

The Epsilon screen saver turns up next week. 

 

Spring 2013. 

 

Box art revealed by the end of the month. 

 

Bigger than SA, IV, and RDR combined.     

"Due to production issues we've been forced to have to shave off a square mile or so to help make GTAV our most ambitious title yet"

 

 

*Map ends up being the size of SA alone*

 

 

I can see it now..

[Dick Justice]

The whole SA, RDR, IV map size thing SHOULDN'T be taken literally. The guy who said it is an art director/designer and has been with Rockstar for a long time, and for all we know he's comparing how much work he had to put into this game to how much work he had to put into San Andreas and IV. Garbut was talking about interiors a lot in that interview, and how much detail has gone into them, so it's fair to believe that these interiors take up a lot of theoretical space. He specifically mentioned "when you include the interiors," and that quote alone proves he's not talking about 2D distance. If he was talking about 2D distance, then of course the interiors would be included.

 

In my opinion, he's talking about the level of detail as opposed to the map size itself.

[Josh410]

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

I think someone made that up, but it seems possible

[Gtaghost22]

 

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.

How? I'm pretty sure Red Dead Redemption's playable area is at least 6.5-7 square miles, so that means GTA V's playable area is over 20 square miles. Not bad by any means.

[GrandMaster Smith]

The whole SA, RDR, IV map size thing SHOULDN'T be taken literally. The guy who said it is an art director/designer and has been with Rockstar for a long time, and for all we know he's comparing how much work he had to put into this game to how much work he had to put into San Andreas and IV. Garbut was talking about interiors a lot in that interview, and how much detail has gone into them, so it's fair to believe that these interiors take up a lot of theoretical space. He specifically mentioned "when you include the interiors," and that quote alone proves he's not talking about 2D distance. If he was talking about 2D distance, then of course the interiors would be included.

 

In my opinion, he's talking about the level of detail as opposed to the map size itself.

Interiors are not apart of the entire map.. they're separate parts that are loaded seamlessly as you enter/exit.

 

I can guarantee they're talking about the actual size of the map, tip to tip will be larger than all previous games combined. There's no way they would release that official statement multiple times and try to mislead us by saying it was 'theoretical space' ...whatever the hell that is.

 

 

Just look at the different images released, it's obvious this map is larger than San Andreas alone, and we've barely even seen anything.

 

[nimblelinn]

After playing just cause 2, I wouldn't want it to be anywhere near that big. it take to long to travel and you dont get all the details

[Choco Taco]

 

In my opinion, he's talking about the level of detail as opposed to the map size itself.

 

The quote below is referring to size.

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

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.

How? I'm pretty sure Red Dead Redemption's playable area is at least 6.5-7 square miles, so that means GTA V's playable area is over 20 square miles. Not bad by any means.

 

The playable area of RDR is less than 6 square miles.

 

[RIKOSHAY]

What Adrian said sounds pretty logical to me. I think it'll be bigger than all 3 2D wise, but not as big as some of you are expecting.

[Raynos]

What Adrian said sounds pretty logical to me. I think it'll be bigger than all 3 2D wise, but not as big as some of you are expecting.

Yeap.. What ya'll gotta consider is that Addiran has inside knowledge.

 

Listen to him, He's probably seen the map but is not allowed to talk about it.

 

Now, Since we aren't certain about the hills and oceans in GTA V, We just can not ascertain the exact 2D straight line size of GTA V Map.

 

I mean seriously, If Rockstar wanted, they could put 25 very large mountains and these could all be in a 2sq km area.

The Transversal area on these mountains alone would be larger than GTA IV.

 

We really know nothing.. I just wouldn't expect a straight line comparison of the previous maps to GTA V.

 

Only Time, Time will be your friend and give you the facts that you require to complete your comparison.

 

[FranticFatality]

It'll just be big, and hopefully pretty cool.

[STOGE]

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.

this is such a BULLsh*t statement.

 

i have just drove round the san andreas map in a cheetah.Now i just used the main highways and did not enter any citys or country-side and it has taken 15MINS!!!!!!

 

so gtav will probably take 30/45mins to traverse in car given the estimated map size of MORE than SA,RDR,IV

[thestoneman420]

The map will be big enough to facilitate jets. That should tell you it's big enough!

[GTAfan786]

The people who are saying it's gonna be small have to be retarded. Why don't you just wait till the release and see the size of the map when your playing and as far as rockstar have said, it's bigger than all three of those games combined. It's possible, nuff said. The only thing is the ocean is going to be very detailed which might take some space up but that's a good thing. People just don't appreciate what they do for us and are never satisfied.

[Dick Justice]

The whole SA, RDR, IV map size thing SHOULDN'T be taken literally. The guy who said it is an art director/designer and has been with Rockstar for a long time, and for all we know he's comparing how much work he had to put into this game to how much work he had to put into San Andreas and IV. Garbut was talking about interiors a lot in that interview, and how much detail has gone into them, so it's fair to believe that these interiors take up a lot of theoretical space. He specifically mentioned "when you include the interiors," and that quote alone proves he's not talking about 2D distance. If he was talking about 2D distance, then of course the interiors would be included. 

 

In my opinion, he's talking about the level of detail as opposed to the map size itself.

Interiors are not apart of the entire map.. they're separate parts that are loaded seamlessly as you enter/exit.

 

I can guarantee they're talking about the actual size of the map, tip to tip will be larger than all previous games combined. There's no way they would release that official statement multiple times and try to mislead us by saying it was 'theoretical space' ...whatever the hell that is.

 

 

Just look at the different images released, it's obvious this map is larger than San Andreas alone, and we've barely even seen anything.

"When you include interior and exterior spaces together, Los Santos is bigger than the worlds of Red Dead Redemption, San Andreas and Grand Theft Auto IV combined, with room to spare." - Aaron Garbut

 

Read closely. Why would he even mention interior space if he's specifically referring to the square footage of the map? I understand how interiors are loaded - I've been through the whole Ganton Gym glitch before - either way, you're reinforcing my point, being that the more interiors there are the larger the map will seem, while still not necessarily being geographically larger than it actually is.

 

You also shouldn't try and guarantee anything. The GI article for VC referred to the map being twice the size of III's Liberty City and while it was certainly larger, I wouldn't dare call it 2x so. These magazines are advertisements, it's plain and simple, they aren't press releases, they're going to say whatever they damn well want in order to sell what they're advertising.

 

I referred to interiors as theoretical space seeing as two-dimensionally the map stays the same size whether interiors are included or not. Yet, by bringing in interiors into that sentence at all, it confirms that the level of detail is what they're referring to.

[mobe]

The comment I got from someone 'in the know' is that the map is about perfect size. Not pointlessly large (like JC2) but big enough to make you feel you could get lost in it and spend a lot of time getting to know it. There'a lot of diversity crammed into it and its a great playground.

 

My own personal view is that these size comparisons with other Rockstar games are all a bit meaningless. San Andreas in particular works on a totally different scale to GTAIV and RDR.