Search In
• More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

## Recommended Posts

It's funny how people are taking the size so seriously... Geeze

You know what they say, "Size doesn't matter"

##### Share on other sites

@Kindled

It seems your eyeballing also results into you thinking that every poster who disagrees with you must be named gwaha.

No certainty. I'd think of Gtaxpert, Josephene, Kjacked's many accounts, Al, etc

@omgz153: Since when has a girl ever said that?

Edited by _Kindled_

##### Share on other sites

I don't care about the size of Los Santos. What I do care about is actual scientific methods. Someone using an eyeball method to claim people who used actual math are wrong just doesn't jive with me.

##### Share on other sites

Judging the size of the tennis courts from one game to another would give the same result as comparing the size of the highway. Either both ways are right or both are wrong.

##### Share on other sites

Judging the size of the tennis courts from one game to another would give the same result as comparing the size of the highway. Either both ways are right or both are wrong.

the bridge in iv is only 4 lanes though when highways are usually 8 lane

##### Share on other sites

Judging the size of the tennis courts from one game to another would give the same result as comparing the size of the highway. Either both ways are right or both are wrong.

What the hell have you done with the scale?

Edited by aleex96

##### Share on other sites

@Billy the kid

The size comparison of highway widths method come to pretty much the same conclusion as tennis courts method. You could based on a warped sense of reality claim that then both methods are probably wrong just because you want your own bias to be the truth.

And it is not about just checking the width of a road, it is about coming up with an actual measurement. GTAaLex didn't just overlay Liberty City on top of Los Santos to come up with a size comparison, he used actual numbers based on the width of cars and the width of lanes (plus median width and shoulder width). Of course you deny that anything in GTA 5 uses actual world measurements. Rockstar doesn't create buildings, roads, NPCs, etc without having them be realistic to one another. Heck, the pixel method has already shown that Rockstar does use real world measurements.

And that scaling you did is just laughable. Come on, the runways of the Los Santos airport is less than half the size of that of Liberty City? Really? Come on man.

This threads goes nowhere fast if people insist to use the line method which is based on nothing more but eyeballing. What has happened to our education system?

Edited by gwaha

##### Share on other sites

Billy the kid is an obvious troll.

@kindled: Why don't you show us how Magic_Al's, GTAAlex's, and deffpony's methods are wrong? You currently have 0 people who have agreed that your comparison method is substantial. So maybe you should give us some more stuff to laugh at and show us how your method is better than those of others?

##### Share on other sites

Well after seeing this image, i have absolutely NO problems with the size of the city. i mean....LOOK AT IT.

Same here, im not worried about the size on Los Santos anymore.

##### Share on other sites

This may not be the most constructive post I've ever made on here, but it needs to be said:

Anyone who claims that the city is anywhere near "small" are f*cking stupid.

It may not be "small", but if the blueprint map is accurate then there is a surprising lack of roads and avenues. Maybe if zoomed in, more small streets would reveal themselves? I can't help but feel disappointed by that map of the city...it just seems too brief and compact.

I would like to see you do a better map mr genious .

##### Share on other sites

The Aaron Garbut quote settles one thing:

The area of GTA V that Rockstar considers the actual city area of Los Santos is the size of Liberty City without the water. Any areas that go over that size aren't part of the city according to Rockstar.

For example, if including the oil fields to the east makes Los Santos larger than the landmass of IV, then that means the oil fields aren't considered part of the city by Rockstar.

##### Share on other sites

The Aaron Garbut quote settles one thing:

The area of GTA V that Rockstar considers the actual city area of Los Santos is the size of Liberty City without the water. Any areas that go over that size aren't part of the city according to Rockstar.

For example, if including the oil fields to the east makes Los Santos larger than the landmass of IV, then that means the oil fields aren't considered part of the city by Rockstar.

R* isn't even exact on whether Alderney is part of Liberty City. So why would they be exact on whether the oil fields are still Los Santos?

What he also said was that they made the city fade into the countryside, so it could just as well be that the urban area is the size of LC, but that it sprawls into the countryside which resulted in it being bigger. That would explain the fact that every substantial comparison has LS as bigger than LC.

##### Share on other sites

What he also said was that they made the city fade into the countryside, so it could just as well be that the urban area is the size of LC, but that it sprawls into the countryside which resulted in it being bigger. That would explain the fact that every substantial comparison has LS as bigger than LC.

Here's the land area from the tennis court scale:

Aaron Garbut said he shoved the Liberty islands together and that became the scale for the city. He didn't say that they made the city bigger than the islands of IV together. He would have said so if they did. So, the landmass of the city is the same as the landmass of IV.

Using the tennis court scale, that would mean all of the area outside of the red circle below would be where the city was fading into the countryside.

What's more likely?

1. The area outside of the circle isn't part of Los Santos according to Rockstar.

2. The tennis court scale is too large?

##### Share on other sites

When R* say that the city area is the same size as that of Libert City do you actually think they mean that they are exactly the same size? If I remember correctly they also claimed that the GTA IV map was bigger than San Andreas (which it clearly wasn't).

My conclusion after watching these maps is simply; 1. The actual city is slightly bigger than GTA IV Liberty City. 2. Los Santos is a less compact city (smaller buildings, more open areas, further distances between the streets). 3. The actual map is f*cking huge.

Edited by Pro wrestler

##### Share on other sites

@choco taco: You have to consider that Al's scale is the largest one. I've always kept an open mind to it being slightly smaller than that (not a lot smaller though, deffpony and alex's scale). But the Vinewood hills not being part of Los Santos has a 0 percent chance. A little lesson in reading comprehension:

I made a conscious decision upfront that the city should be no smaller than liberty so effectively I shoved all the Liberty islands together and that became the scale for the city. I wanted to have the city fade into the countryside far more gradually and more naturally than we have done before

Let's assume that he uses the word 'city' in the same sense twice. Then what would be the only possible sense for the word city if we assume that? Urban area. So Los Santos has the same Urban Area but sprawls more.

Now we can also assume, like you do, that he means that Los Santos including sprawl is equal in size to Liberty City, or that the sprawl doesn't belong to Los Santos. But either of these statements seem very unlikely to me.

Another viable interpretation of this statement is that the words 'the same scale' should be taken with a pinch of salt, and that 20 percent bigger is still about the same scale.

Edited by gtaxpert

##### Share on other sites

Looks pretty big to me

##### Share on other sites

all he meant was that he decided early on that ls had to be at least as big as lc, he didn't mean for it to be taken so literally

##### Share on other sites

So, thoughts on this. V's map is apparently 49 sq miles. That's roughly 20-25 sq miles bigger than expected.

http://www.scotsman.com/lifestyle/technology/new-gta-v-release-tipped-to-rake-in-1bn-in-sales-1-3081943

Edited by NYC PATROL

##### Share on other sites

i told you the fan made map's bullsh*t. if the map was as small as the fan made map, it would take a few seconds to fly from one end of the map to the other end (fighter jet).

Edited by caligula87

##### Share on other sites

So, thoughts on this. V's map is apparently 49 sq miles. That's roughly 20-25 sq miles bigger than expected.

http://www.scotsman.com/lifestyle/technology/new-gta-v-release-tipped-to-rake-in-1bn-in-sales-1-3081943

Not possible, not a single map estimate or calculation comes close! What a weird number.. Where did that come from? The writer of the article just pops it in casually haha.

This is the quote: "The new game revolves around a satirical recreation of southern California. With players able to switch between three protagonists, the 49-square-mile world boasts a welter of activities, such as scuba diving with sharks and hijacking trains."

##### Share on other sites

So, thoughts on this. V's map is apparently 49 sq miles. That's roughly 20-25 sq miles bigger than expected.

http://www.scotsman.com/lifestyle/technology/new-gta-v-release-tipped-to-rake-in-1bn-in-sales-1-3081943

Not possible, not a single map estimate or calculation comes close! What a weird number.. Where did that come from? The writer of the article just pops it in casually haha.

This is the quote: "The new game revolves around a satirical recreation of southern California. With players able to switch between three protagonists, the 49-square-mile world boasts a welter of activities, such as scuba diving with sharks and hijacking trains."

It does seem fishy doesn't it but they talked to people from Rockstar North. And they also aren't a random journalism site.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotsman_%28newspaper%29

If anything it's only made things more confusing.

Edited by NYC PATROL

##### Share on other sites

People, are you RETARDED?

##### Share on other sites

So, thoughts on this. V's map is apparently 49 sq miles. That's roughly 20-25 sq miles bigger than expected.

http://www.scotsman.com/lifestyle/technology/new-gta-v-release-tipped-to-rake-in-1bn-in-sales-1-3081943

Not possible, not a single map estimate or calculation comes close! What a weird number.. Where did that come from? The writer of the article just pops it in casually haha.

This is the quote: "The new game revolves around a satirical recreation of southern California. With players able to switch between three protagonists, the 49-square-mile world boasts a welter of activities, such as scuba diving with sharks and hijacking trains."

It does seem fishy doesn't it but they talked to people from Rockstar North. And they also aren't a random journalism site.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotsman_%28newspaper%29

If anything it's only made things more confusing.

Hell yes it's confusing! Such a specific number... Wtf.

I googled for that number and found this: http://whatculture.com/gaming/gta-v-9-facts-that-will-blow-your-mind.php/2

"V is going to be greater than that of Red Dead Redemption, GTA IV and GTA: San Andreas combined. A quick spot of research reveals their map sizes as 28, 6.8 and 13.9 square miles respectively, and so combined they total almost 49 square miles."

Coincidence?

##### Share on other sites

People, are you RETARDED?

##### Share on other sites

According to Rockstar, the map bigger than RDR, San Andreas & GTA IV combined.

It's already been proven using the in game measuring stats and Rockstar's scale that SA is 13.6 sqare miles, RDR is nearly 28 and IV is 6.

14 + 28 + 6 = 49-square-mile world seems fishy.

Yeah, right...

Edited by caligula87

##### Share on other sites

It pops op on this website too. http://elitedaily.com/news/technology/the-24-things-you-need-to-know-about-gta-v/

49 square miles.

I bet the author of that article in the scotsman just did a quick search for the size of GTA V's map and found this number a few times and decided to use it in his piece too.

@caligula87: R* has also said GTA V will be 5x RDR's map. RDR's map is not 28 square miles, not even close.

##### Share on other sites

So, thoughts on this. V's map is apparently 49 sq miles. That's roughly 20-25 sq miles bigger than expected.

http://www.scotsman.com/lifestyle/technology/new-gta-v-release-tipped-to-rake-in-1bn-in-sales-1-3081943

Wish that was true, sadly from what we've seen we may be glad if it is 25 sqm.

##### Share on other sites

Ehh I guess it's possible it could be a typo or whatnot.

We know its a large map either way.

##### Share on other sites

Ehh I guess it's possible it could be a typo or whatnot.

We know its a large map either way.

Not typo, just typical journalism. He wanted to make the audience get a sense of how big the map was going to be... So he did a quick google for "gta v map square miles" and guess what. The second results gives a nice round number so he can use that casually in a sentence to fluff it up.

"the 49-square-mile world boasts a welter of activities, such as scuba diving with sharks and hijacking trains."

It sounds good, that's all.

Edited by AceHigh11

##### Share on other sites

Ehh I guess it's possible it could be a typo or whatnot.

We know its a large map either way.

A Typo my bum!

And it looks like the hack in question just Googled his entire article.

Also they stated that the Forth Road Bridge will be in GTA V - mixing their facts up with GTA San Andreas methinks.

Read the full article and they haven't spoken to anyone from R* directly - Aaron Garbut's quote is from CVG a few weeks back.

Sloppy Journalism from a twee middle class pro-unionist rag.

## Create an account

Register a new account