Map Size - i dont get it...

[Andreas]

 

San Andreas in particular works on a totally different scale to GTAIV and RDR.

GTA San Andreas, GTA IV and Red Dead Redemption are fairly in the same scale and I will prove that [though it was already proved before with other and perhaps the same methods], at least with San Andreas and GTA IV. We are driving to the Los Santos airport to one end of the landing strip. If we are there then we check what the menu statistics say. I'll make the test with a motorbike, specifically the FCR-900. I have recently started a new game which is why the numbers are all that low but anyway the statistics of the archievments say this:

 

As you can see, the statistics state that I travelled about 0.02ft in total so far with motorcycles. We start now to drive from one end of the landing strip to the other end. Just to show the route I drove with my bike:

 

The black line has a length of exactly 749 pixels. I have used the official map from Aaron Garbut, art director of Rockstar North, which has a resolution of 6000x6000 pixels and according to him the map of GTA San Andreas is 36 square kilometers big which equals 36,000,000 square meters. If you calculate the resolution of the map so 6000x6000 then the result is 36,000,000 pixels which means the map is scaled in one square meter per pixel resolution. Let's take a look what the menu statistics have to say now:

 

Good, the statistics show that I travelled about 2496.31ft so far with my bike and in this case we do not have to subtract the 0.02ft that I had at the start since the difference is so little that we can ignore it. 2496.31ft are exactly 760.88 meter which isn't that far away from 749 pixels. The difference is approximately 1.5% but if we consider that I have slightly corrected the route once while I have driven the motorcycle, I would say that the statement of the map being in one square meter per pixel resolution is true. Here is the original Rockstar map of San Andreas.

 

Now let's do the same test in GTA IV! We are driving to one end of the Algonquin Bridge, let's say the end that begins in Boabo. For whatever reason, I cannot make screenshots of the ingame menu in GTA IV. Anyway, the menu statistics say that I drove 63.98 miles with cars in total. Now we are driving from the end of the bridge in Boabo to the other end in Lancet and once again I made a screenshot of it and I have put a line into the image to show the route:

 

The line has a length of 888 pixels and according to the ingame statistics I drove 64.50 miles in total so now we've to subtract this number with the ammount of miles that we had at the start and the result is 0.52 miles which equals to 836.89 meter. The map I have used is the official Rockstar map which has a resolution of 6000x3800 pixels. I had to change the route slightly again but this time because of the traffic on the bridge even though I have put the vehicle density to minimum. Well, the differece between the pixels and the ammount of meter I drove with the car [which was a taxi by the way], including the route correction, is approximately 5.8% so still fairly close to one square meter per pixel resolution.

 

I cannot make the test with Red Dead Redemption since I don't own any consoles which also means I don't own the game but since it's on the console generation as GTA IV, I would say that the difference shouldn't be all that big. In case it interests you, the official map of Red Dead Redemption has a resolution of 7500x5500.

Edited February 10, 2013 by Carl CJ Johnsons Brother Brian

[Adriaan]

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.

Yes thanks. People seem to confuse Game Informer's own words in that article with what Aaron Garbut himself said. Game Informer, and other publications, have often communicated things across wrongly - so I'd rather go with what Aaron said himself.

[Choco Taco]

 

"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

 

.

.

.

Yet, by bringing in interiors into that sentence at all, it confirms that the level of detail is what they're referring to.

 

What do "bigger" and "room to spare" have to do with level of detail?

 

Interiors are like hidden square footage and all of the games have interiors. The question is how much more interior space can GTA V have than SA, IV, and RDR. Can it be enough to make a significant difference?

 

 

 

[GKP]

The total interior space of all GTA games TO DATE is far far far less than 1 square mile. So a moot point.

 

1 sq mile being 25 million odd sq ft !...thats like the every floor in Lower Manhattan.

[Chukkles]

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

Yes it's true that they said it.

Also it includes interiors and underwater space.

[Andreas]

 

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

GTA V is obviously nowhere as big as Just Cause 2. The map of Just Cause 2 has a size of around 400 square miles according to official statements which doesn't seem right to me but yeah. GTA V will be definitely bigger than anything that we have seen so far from any Rockstar title but the question is how much bigger exactly? By the way here are the correct mapsizes from some past Rockstar titles:

 

• GTA III: 3 square miles

• GTA Vice City: 3.9 square miles

• GTA San Andreas 13.9 square miles

• GTA IV: 6.25 square miles including water within the map

• Red Dead Redemption: 11-12 square miles however the exploreable area is only about 6 square miles big

• L.A. Noire: 8 square miles

 

Once GTA V is released, I'm going to make the same tests as above to see how big the map exactly is.

Edited February 10, 2013 by Carl CJ Johnsons Brother Brian

[ayyob]

if there is an installation disc then yes i think it's big as they say

[hitman_for_hire]

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

I think they include the depths of the bottom of the sea to the heights of sky so I don't think it will be as massive as San Andreas as in driving from 1 end of the map to the other.

[GKP]

Lol ...SA was only 4 miles across.

 

FOR f*ckS SAKES ppl !....3 times larger than SA is not that large !....SA seemed big to your tiny minds as it had a small draw distance. True Crime Streets of LA was 15 times larger than SA !

[Andreas]

 

Lol ...SA was only 4 miles across.

 

FOR f*ckS SAKES ppl !....3 times larger than SA is not that large !....SA seemed big to your tiny minds as it had a small draw distance. True Crime Streets of LA was 15 times larger than SA !

The actual size of the map is not that important, what really matters is how big the map feels like and how much you can do on it. GTA IV is half as big as San Andreas, yet Liberty City doesn't feel that small and the city is certainly well done. The map of Just Cause 2 is big but it's too big and it lacks detail in my opinion. All that sounds small to you but it's nevertheless a difference if we're talking about real life or about a videogame. It's really not that simple to create a whole gameworld in HD that is fully dynamic and appears to be full of life like GTA IV or Red Dead Redemption were. True Crime: Streets of LA has a big map as well but the map is not enjoyable at all and just way too big in my opinion, exactly like Just Cause 2.

[Choco Taco]

FOR f*ckS SAKES ppl !....3 times larger than SA is not that large !

GTA V is probably not going to be that big. I think the entire map, including the detailed ocean floor, will be around 2 times the size of San Andreas.

[GKP]

Choco - disappointed in you . The game is 5 times larger than RDR...Including the ocean.

 

The countryside is obviously vastly larger. The screenshot over the hollywood sign shows mountains at least 4 miles away inland. And that was not the edge of the map.

 

It is ludicrous to think the entire map is only 28 sq miles or 5 by 5. The jet that has been shown to travel at a much more realistic speed in the trailer would cover that in under 50 seconds.

[Andreas]

 

The game is 5 times larger than RDR...Including the ocean.

Yes, correct. The overall map size of Red Dead Redemption is about 11-12 square miles however only 6 square miles of it are exploreable are which would be 30 square miles if you multiply it with 5.

[TOMAHAWKS]

When they say bigger than San Andreas, Red Dead Redemption, and Grand Theft Auto IV combined, they're saying that the explorable space in Grand Theft Auto V added up will be larger than that of all three games combined. It's basically everything that can be explored in GTA V vs SA, RDR & GTA IV. You must keep in mind that not everything in the three games was explorable.

[Choco Taco]

Choco - disappointed in you . The game is 5 times larger than RDR...Including the ocean.

 

The countryside is obviously vastly larger. The screenshot over the hollywood sign shows mountains at least 4 miles away inland. And that was not the edge of the map.

 

It is ludicrous to think the entire map is only 28 sq miles or 5 by 5. The jet that has been shown to travel at a much more realistic speed in the trailer would cover that in under 50 seconds.

As already mentioned, the play area of RDR is less than 6 square miles. I don't think they'd include areas you can't reach in the size comparison. The size comparison quotes from Rockstar work well with RDR at less than 6 square miles.

 

 

 

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.

 

I think the quote above is including the detailed ocean floor.

 

RDR (5 1/2 sq mi) + IV (6 1/2 sq mi) + SA (14 sq mi) = 26 square miles

 

 

 

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.

 

So, if you don't include the ocean, GTA V is 3.5 times RDR (3.5 x 5.5 = 19.25 square miles)

 

Including the ocean floor, GTA V is 5 times RDR (5 x 5.5 = 27.5 square miles)

 

That's why I think the total area of GTA V including the explorable underwater areas will be about twice the size of San Andreas (2 x 14 = 28 square miles)

 

 

 

[trevors685]

This is what I'm expecting

inb4 fake map herrherr gullable fagg

I know. It's the size that I am referring to.

[Choco Taco]

This is what I'm expecting

http://i.imgur.com/jtIO4uU.png

inb4 fake map herrherr gullable fagg

I know. It's the size that I am referring to.

That's about what I'm expecting as well. The shape might also be similar to the real map.

[N0Xaeris]

 

This is what I'm expecting

inb4 fake map herrherr gullable fagg

I know.  It's the size that I am referring to.

What about Grapeseed and farmland? The north has too much desert. Also, I think the desert to the east will be bigger. Nonetheless, seems pretty likely that this may be the general shape.

Edited February 11, 2013 by N0Xaeris

[trevors685]

This is what I'm expecting

inb4 fake map herrherr gullable fagg

I know.  It's the size that I am referring to.

What about Grapeseed and farmland? The north has too much desert. Also, I think the desert to the east will be bigger. Nonetheless, seems pretty likely that this may be the general shape.

The actual layout of the map and shape is fake. I'm just using the map compared to Liberty City to give a general sense of size.

[N0Xaeris]

 

This is what I'm expecting

inb4 fake map herrherr gullable fagg

I know.  It's the size that I am referring to.

What about Grapeseed and farmland? The north has too much desert. Also, I think the desert to the east will be bigger. Nonetheless, seems pretty likely that this may be the general shape.

The actual layout of the map and shape is fake. I'm just using the map compared to Liberty City to give a general sense of size.

I figured that much but it seems pretty likely, besides the island. Though, I hold back my expectations since we've probably barely seen 60% of the actual map.