Map Size Thread

[sanex4]

What??

 

LS is smaller than even the landmass of LC?

 

Yeah, this is totally the "sense of sprawl" done right.

LS landmass ~85-88% of LC landmass.

[kesta195]

What?? 

 

LS is smaller than even the landmass of LC?

 

Yeah,  this is totally the "sense of sprawl" done right. 

The majority of comparisons done here show the LS exceeds LC's landmass, if only by a bit.

No the majority of comparisons and estimates accepted by you guys. Not overall accepted.

I didn't say 'accepted', I said 'done'.

[Ferocious Banger]

What?? 

 

LS is smaller than even the landmass of LC?

 

Yeah,  this is totally the "sense of sprawl" done right. 

LS landmass ~85-88% of LC landmass.

..And just like that, "Los Santos definitely covers more square footage" goes flying out of the window.

[Cilogy]

Do you guys want some kind of medal if you turn out to be correct with you're"calculations" and "measurements"?

[Raavi]

What?? 

 

LS is smaller than even the landmass of LC?

 

Yeah,  this is totally the "sense of sprawl" done right. 

The majority of comparisons done here show the LS exceeds LC's landmass, if only by a bit.

No the majority of comparisons and estimates accepted by you guys. Not overall accepted.

I didn't say 'accepted', I said 'done'.

Allow me to rephrase: You guys only 'accept' your own estimates and comparisons and classify the other ones that conclude LC Landmass > LS landmass as false.

[sanex4]

What?? 

 

LS is smaller than even the landmass of LC?

 

Yeah,  this is totally the "sense of sprawl" done right. 

The majority of comparisons done here show the LS exceeds LC's landmass, if only by a bit.

No the majority of comparisons and estimates accepted by you guys. Not overall accepted.

I didn't say 'accepted', I said 'done'.

Allow me to rephrase: You guys only 'accept' your own estimates and comparisons and classify the other ones that conclude LC Landmass > LS landmass as false.

open previous page. there big analysis.

[kesta195]

What?? 

 

LS is smaller than even the landmass of LC?

 

Yeah,  this is totally the "sense of sprawl" done right. 

The majority of comparisons done here show the LS exceeds LC's landmass, if only by a bit.

No the majority of comparisons and estimates accepted by you guys. Not overall accepted.

I didn't say 'accepted', I said 'done'.

Allow me to rephrase: You guys only 'accept' your own estimates and comparisons and classify the other ones that conclude LC Landmass > LS landmass as false.

No, I (stressing the word I as I do not identify myself with any of the ridiculous little cliques that this thread has spawned) accept the comparisons that I consider fair and accurate. And so far I have seen more of these that show LS's landmass to exceed that of LC.

[sanex4]

 

What?? 

 

LS is smaller than even the landmass of LC?

 

Yeah,  this is totally the "sense of sprawl" done right. 

The majority of comparisons done here show the LS exceeds LC's landmass, if only by a bit.

No the majority of comparisons and estimates accepted by you guys. Not overall accepted.

I didn't say 'accepted', I said 'done'.

Allow me to rephrase: You guys only 'accept' your own estimates and comparisons and classify the other ones that conclude LC Landmass > LS landmass as false.

No, I (stressing the word I as I do not identify myself with any of the ridiculous little cliques that this thread has spawned) accept the comparisons that I consider fair and accurate. And so far I have seen more of these that show LS's landmass to exceed that of LC.

Most accurate comparisons on the previous page. and comparison show us what LS landmass ~85-88% of LC landmass.

1 day ago i said what LS = 100% of LC landmass and was wrong. LS a little less.

anyway LS is big.

[kesta195]

What?? 

 

LS is smaller than even the landmass of LC?

 

Yeah,  this is totally the "sense of sprawl" done right. 

The majority of comparisons done here show the LS exceeds LC's landmass, if only by a bit.

No the majority of comparisons and estimates accepted by you guys. Not overall accepted.

I didn't say 'accepted', I said 'done'.

Allow me to rephrase: You guys only 'accept' your own estimates and comparisons and classify the other ones that conclude LC Landmass > LS landmass as false.

No, I (stressing the word I as I do not identify myself with any of the ridiculous little cliques that this thread has spawned) accept the comparisons that I consider fair and accurate. And so far I have seen more of these that show LS's landmass to exceed that of LC.

Most accurate comparisons on the previous page. and comparison show us what LS landmass ~85-88% of LC landmass.

1 day ago i said what LS = 100% of LC landmass and was wrong. LS a little less.

anyway LS is big.

Am I right in thinking that that comparison is saying that the length of the outlines of LC's islands exceeds the outline length of LS? If so that is ridiculous. Of course if you encircle all the islands and add up the length it is going to be bigger. It has a much larger 'surface area'. All the islands should be clumped together, the entire 'clump' outlined, and this outline compared with the existing outline of LS. If I have totally misconstrued that analysis then I will accept it.

[sanex4]

 

What?? 

 

LS is smaller than even the landmass of LC?

 

Yeah,  this is totally the "sense of sprawl" done right. 

The majority of comparisons done here show the LS exceeds LC's landmass, if only by a bit.

No the majority of comparisons and estimates accepted by you guys. Not overall accepted.

I didn't say 'accepted', I said 'done'.

Allow me to rephrase: You guys only 'accept' your own estimates and comparisons and classify the other ones that conclude LC Landmass > LS landmass as false.

No, I (stressing the word I as I do not identify myself with any of the ridiculous little cliques that this thread has spawned) accept the comparisons that I consider fair and accurate. And so far I have seen more of these that show LS's landmass to exceed that of LC.

Most accurate comparisons on the previous page. and comparison show us what LS landmass ~85-88% of LC landmass.

1 day ago i said what LS = 100% of LC landmass and was wrong. LS a little less.

anyway LS is big.

Am I right in thinking that that comparison is saying that the length of the outlines of LC's islands exceeds the outline length of LS? If so that is ridiculous. Of course if you encircle all the islands and add up the length it is going to be bigger. It has a much larger 'surface area'. All the islands should be clumped together, the entire 'clump' outlined, and this outline compared with the existing outline of LS. If I have totally misconstrued that analysis then I will accept it.

so hard to open previous page? (or i not understand you ) we compared only landmass

[kesta195]

What?? 

 

LS is smaller than even the landmass of LC?

 

Yeah,  this is totally the "sense of sprawl" done right. 

The majority of comparisons done here show the LS exceeds LC's landmass, if only by a bit.

No the majority of comparisons and estimates accepted by you guys. Not overall accepted.

I didn't say 'accepted', I said 'done'.

Allow me to rephrase: You guys only 'accept' your own estimates and comparisons and classify the other ones that conclude LC Landmass > LS landmass as false.

No, I (stressing the word I as I do not identify myself with any of the ridiculous little cliques that this thread has spawned) accept the comparisons that I consider fair and accurate. And so far I have seen more of these that show LS's landmass to exceed that of LC.

Most accurate comparisons on the previous page. and comparison show us what LS landmass ~85-88% of LC landmass.

1 day ago i said what LS = 100% of LC landmass and was wrong. LS a little less.

anyway LS is big.

Am I right in thinking that that comparison is saying that the length of the outlines of LC's islands exceeds the outline length of LS? If so that is ridiculous. Of course if you encircle all the islands and add up the length it is going to be bigger. It has a much larger 'surface area'. All the islands should be clumped together, the entire 'clump' outlined, and this outline compared with the existing outline of LS. If I have totally misconstrued that analysis then I will accept it.

so hard to open previous page? (or i not understand you ) we compared only landmass

I see nothing 'wrong' with deffpony's analysis, but there are still gaps between the LC islands so it's not completely fair. Yours on the other hand, well, read my last post as that is what I was talking abut.

[sanex4]

What?? 

 

LS is smaller than even the landmass of LC?

 

Yeah,  this is totally the "sense of sprawl" done right. 

The majority of comparisons done here show the LS exceeds LC's landmass, if only by a bit.

No the majority of comparisons and estimates accepted by you guys. Not overall accepted.

I didn't say 'accepted', I said 'done'.

Allow me to rephrase: You guys only 'accept' your own estimates and comparisons and classify the other ones that conclude LC Landmass > LS landmass as false.

No, I (stressing the word I as I do not identify myself with any of the ridiculous little cliques that this thread has spawned) accept the comparisons that I consider fair and accurate. And so far I have seen more of these that show LS's landmass to exceed that of LC.

Most accurate comparisons on the previous page. and comparison show us what LS landmass ~85-88% of LC landmass.

1 day ago i said what LS = 100% of LC landmass and was wrong. LS a little less.

anyway LS is big.

Am I right in thinking that that comparison is saying that the length of the outlines of LC's islands exceeds the outline length of LS? If so that is ridiculous. Of course if you encircle all the islands and add up the length it is going to be bigger. It has a much larger 'surface area'. All the islands should be clumped together, the entire 'clump' outlined, and this outline compared with the existing outline of LS. If I have totally misconstrued that analysis then I will accept it.

so hard to open previous page? (or i not understand you ) we compared only landmass

I see nothing 'wrong' with deffpony's analysis, but there are still gaps between the LC islands so it's not completely fair. Yours on the other hand, well, read my last post as that is what I was talking abut.

ah. you not see my extension of Deffpony analysis.

here only landmass without ANY water

[BullworthAcademy]

This is not the full map, do not base it on this.

[Irrational]

Los Santos is smaller, go home.

[kesta195]

 

ah. you not see my extension of Deffpony analysis.

here only landmass without ANY water

I did see it, but I have just realised I mis-understood it, so I apologize. I thought you were comparing the lengths of the borders rather than the land areas. However, whyy did you not include the large light-blue/grey area in the bottom right of LS? It is widely believed to be the oil fields and/or a quarry. Either way it is still part of the city.

[josephene123]

I'm with the "LS is big" group. I'm not an 'RDF' member because that's a bit childish, I just remember that LC seemed huge to me, and for me atleast, the waterways actually made it feel smaller by isolating the land masses from each other. If Los Santos is anywhere from 85% to 110% or upwards (It won't be bigger) then I'm extremely happy. Especially considering the additional activities. Just think about all the shops and interiors that could be in the game.

I appreciate the work that Raavi and Choco do more than others in the "LS is small" group. You guys have provided some pretty good analysis as has bakerach.

But bakerach's comparison just looks more realistic to me. Especially considering that here:

The road is noticably bigger than any road you'd find (I think?) in LC, but in the comparison pictures by deffpony it doesn't seem to reflect that size, but bakerach's seems to do a better job imo. I'm no expert though and could probably be proven very wrong

 

 

EDIT: Also, that building under construction to the right, is that the 'mile high club' or whatever it's called?

Edited May 25, 2013 by josephene123

[CTCCoco]

Delete the bridges (and water) of LC and put all the islands together, then put it in comparison with the new LS map, and you'll see more or less a legit comparison... somebody can do that, please?

[sanex4]

 

Delete the bridges (and water) of LC and put all the islands together, then put it in comparison with the new LS map, and you'll see more or less a legit comparison... somebody can do that, please?

open your eyes and look at 4 posts above

[CTCCoco]

What?? 

 

LS is smaller than even the landmass of LC?

 

Yeah,  this is totally the "sense of sprawl" done right. 

The majority of comparisons done here show the LS exceeds LC's landmass, if only by a bit.

No the majority of comparisons and estimates accepted by you guys. Not overall accepted.

I didn't say 'accepted', I said 'done'.

Allow me to rephrase: You guys only 'accept' your own estimates and comparisons and classify the other ones that conclude LC Landmass > LS landmass as false.

No, I (stressing the word I as I do not identify myself with any of the ridiculous little cliques that this thread has spawned) accept the comparisons that I consider fair and accurate. And so far I have seen more of these that show LS's landmass to exceed that of LC.

Most accurate comparisons on the previous page. and comparison show us what LS landmass ~85-88% of LC landmass.

1 day ago i said what LS = 100% of LC landmass and was wrong. LS a little less.

anyway LS is big.

Am I right in thinking that that comparison is saying that the length of the outlines of LC's islands exceeds the outline length of LS? If so that is ridiculous. Of course if you encircle all the islands and add up the length it is going to be bigger. It has a much larger 'surface area'. All the islands should be clumped together, the entire 'clump' outlined, and this outline compared with the existing outline of LS. If I have totally misconstrued that analysis then I will accept it.

so hard to open previous page? (or i not understand you ) we compared only landmass

I see nothing 'wrong' with deffpony's analysis, but there are still gaps between the LC islands so it's not completely fair. Yours on the other hand, well, read my last post as that is what I was talking abut.

ah. you not see my extension of Deffpony analysis.

here only landmass without ANY water

That's a crap comparison, the scale is not even the same mate...

[sanex4]

What?? 

 

LS is smaller than even the landmass of LC?

 

Yeah,  this is totally the "sense of sprawl" done right. 

The majority of comparisons done here show the LS exceeds LC's landmass, if only by a bit.

No the majority of comparisons and estimates accepted by you guys. Not overall accepted.

I didn't say 'accepted', I said 'done'.

Allow me to rephrase: You guys only 'accept' your own estimates and comparisons and classify the other ones that conclude LC Landmass > LS landmass as false.

No, I (stressing the word I as I do not identify myself with any of the ridiculous little cliques that this thread has spawned) accept the comparisons that I consider fair and accurate. And so far I have seen more of these that show LS's landmass to exceed that of LC.

Most accurate comparisons on the previous page. and comparison show us what LS landmass ~85-88% of LC landmass.

1 day ago i said what LS = 100% of LC landmass and was wrong. LS a little less.

anyway LS is big.

Am I right in thinking that that comparison is saying that the length of the outlines of LC's islands exceeds the outline length of LS? If so that is ridiculous. Of course if you encircle all the islands and add up the length it is going to be bigger. It has a much larger 'surface area'. All the islands should be clumped together, the entire 'clump' outlined, and this outline compared with the existing outline of LS. If I have totally misconstrued that analysis then I will accept it.

so hard to open previous page? (or i not understand you ) we compared only landmass

I see nothing 'wrong' with deffpony's analysis, but there are still gaps between the LC islands so it's not completely fair. Yours on the other hand, well, read my last post as that is what I was talking abut.

ah. you not see my extension of Deffpony analysis.

here only landmass without ANY water

That's a crap comparison, the scale is not even the same mate...

open previous page and read my post with comparisons of Deffpony.

It most accurate comparison based on humans scale

[bakerach]

Sanex's comparison sucks, the whole human/building scale is just as laughable as all of the people who try to calculate the square footage of the city. Here's the most accurate comparison:

 

[sanex4]

Sanex's comparison sucks, the whole human/building scale is just as laughable as all of the people who try to calculate the square footage of the city. Here's the most accurate comparison:

 

 

lol

[countrymike84]

Who cares in LS is just a tad smaller than LC. In GTA IV, LC felt large and went on for miles. LS is even more detailed than LC according to previews. Did LC have seagulls, squirrels, and even deer in the city. No. Rockstar made a city that makes every single facet of the city an interesting area. I do have a question.. In this screenshot released with the CE..Where in the city is this location?

 

 

The screenshot with the 50s style car..

[CTCCoco]

Sanex's comparison sucks, the whole human/building scale is just as laughable as all of the people who try to calculate the square footage of the city. Here's the most accurate comparison:

 

I second this comparison.

[AceHigh11]

@bakerach:

What's wrong with the character model/building height comparison?

[bakerach]

Sanex's comparison sucks, the whole human/building scale is just as laughable as all of the people who try to calculate the square footage of the city.  Here's the most accurate comparison:

 

 

lol

Laughter is the best medicine

[josephene123]

Sanex's comparison sucks, the whole human/building scale is just as laughable as all of the people who try to calculate the square footage of the city. Here's the most accurate comparison:

 

I agree that this is the best comparison, but can you possibly cut up Liberty City more so we can see how it fits against LS a little better?

[St.Marks]

Who cares in LS is just a tad smaller than LC. In GTA IV, LC felt large and went on for miles. LS is even more detailed than LC according to previews. Did LC have seagulls, squirrels, and even deer in the city. No. Rockstar made a city that makes every single facet of the city an interesting area. I do have a question.. In this screenshot released with the CE..Where in the city is this location?

 

 

The screenshot with the 50s style car..

That would be near the golf course

[Knife]

Isn't it fair to say, simply, that both IV's Liberty City and V's Los Santos are a similar size? Los Santos is a little smaller, but it's one solid clump of city rather than split up into islands. The overall map is going to be far bigger than anything in GTA history. There's nothing small about this game really.

[Official General]

 

Los Santos is smaller, go home.

Exactly

 

Los Santos is smaller than Liberty City, give up the f**king ghost already.

 

 

(stressing the word I as I do not identify myself with any of the ridiculous little cliques that this thread has spawned)

 

Really ? I'd say the RDF were more like an army and a whole movement.

 

 

 

 

Blind and unquestionable loyalty. Total submission to authority. They only accept the best.