Map Size Thread

[grandthefthoughto]

To see our new city being clearly smaller than our last, as evidenced from that blueprint, provides a perception on the game going backwards, not forwards in regards to this aspect. Many of us, with good reason, are a little pissed of with this, and are using this forum to highlight our anger.

 

So again, yes, we can't change sh*t. But what we can possibly do, is get our thoughts through to R* so they may learn from this and make their games even better in the future, unlike, as I earlier said, sit silently and watch our favourite franchise take the route of CoD and slowly decline into the sh*tty shambles that franchise now represents.

part of the problem is the "perception" that GTA always needs to feature a larger city than it's last iteration, which in turn makes the wait between each game longer and longer as the building of assets/the map is the longest part of the GTA production process.

 

i feel part of the reason rockstar have significantly played with the formula of GTA this time around is that they may regard the path they have previously been on as unsustainable, (larger, more detailed city every iteration because eventually it simply takes too long, or cannot be financed).

 

GTA has a long, long way to go before it declines anywhere near as badly as the CoD brand.

[MuXu96]

people are funny..and stupid..

mainly stupid

[GTAaLEX117]

 

So the real question is for much longer can you keep repeating the same message knowing nothing will change?

We're well aware that voicing our dissatisfaction on an internet forum isn't going to change sh*t, but at the same time, I'm not going to tape up my mouth after feeling quite substantially let down. Those type of individuals are why Activision make millions year after year selling the same rehashed sh*te. Their fanbase couldn't identify a well made game if it smacked them in the face, so they're quite happy to get raped on an annual basis.

However, I've bought and loved every GTA bar Advance and Chinatown Wars, and have watched them all progress from the previous. To see our new city being clearly smaller than our last, as evidenced from that blueprint, provides a perception on the game going backwards, not forwards in regards to this aspect. Many of us, with good reason, are a little pissed of with this, and are using this forum to highlight our anger.

So again, yes, we can't change sh*t. But what we can possibly do, is get our thoughts through to R* so they may learn from this and make their games even better in the future, unlike, as I earlier said, sit silently and watch our favourite franchise take the route of CoD and slowly decline into the sh*tty shambles that franchise now represents.

I think the single biggest argument here is that you didn't even get to experience the game, or even the see the entire map of Los Santos in game.

You are all complaining because you saw a map that portrays the city as, what, 10% smaller? Therefore you have to vent your anger (not talking about you, but R* bashers like GKP and his cohort) on every single page of this forum?

It's like me watching the picture of a hamburger and complaining about it's taste before I even get to eat it...

 

My advice: Play the game, see how the city feels, THEN complain since your complaints will actually have some validity.

[Deffpony]

Just in case you guys missed it. I don't see how this could be wrong.

 

 

 

Ok, here is my attempt to get a good scale of LS. We know that the empire state building is scaled 1:1, and I think its safe to assume the LS Bank tower is also scaled 1:1.

 

I first proportionately placed a 1:1 scale of the Bank Tower on the appropriate location of the blueprint map.

 

 

 

You can notice in the skydive shot that the tower has a moderate amount of room between the street and the base. I accounted for the space when placing the model on the map.

 

Then I added a 1:1 3d model of LC. The empire state building and LS bank tower are both scaled 1:1 so comparing them should be accuarate. The variances will lie in whether the bank tower is placed on the map correctly.

 

 

 

I double checked everything because LS seemed far too small but this is as accurate as possible using the two buildings as a reference. However, in my final scale comparison I made LS 5% bigger to account for any errors I may have made.

 

 

 

On paper this should be accurate, but the city seems ridiculously small. What do you guys think??

 

 

 

 

Ok in order to check my previously scaled comparison I decided to try and use the most reliable source of reference, character height.

 

First I obtained a scaled character model for GTA IV. All GTA IV characters are almost exactly this size.

 

 

Then I used this screenshot to compare a rough estimate of the character heights in GTA V.

 

 

Then I scaled the same model from GTA IV to match up with the characters in the screen.

 

 

Then I compared the original GTA IV model and the adjusted GTA V character model size. I rescaled the GTA IV map model and the character model to match the GTA V character model. I actually allowed the GTA V model to be slightly bigger to allow for any discrepancies. The GTA V model is on the left and the IV model is on the right.

 

 

Here are a few more comparisons just to help paint the picture

 

 

 

Then I compared the V blueprint map with the LS Bank tower (now scaled correctly to LC) oriented appropriately.

 

 

And here is the scale I got.

 

 

Pretty much identical to my previous assessment.

[TheBankManager]

You do realize that in no point in the game when you're enjoying the massive detail and features you will not once stop in the middle of the road

and say: this is smaller than liberty city. NO you'll play it for what it is.

[GTAaLEX117]

@Deffpony I think your map is virtually identical to the one on the previous page (by looking, once again, at the runways).

You didn't manage to compress LC enough though, that's why it seems bigger. There's still a tone of filler space in between the landmass.

[FAH-Q]

How could we miss a half page f*cking long post Deffpony? Obviously "the minds" in this thread didn't find it interesting enough to reply to.

[sanex4]

@Deffpony I think your map is virtually identical to the one on the previous page (by looking, once again, at the runways).

You didn't manage to compress LC enough though, that's why it seems bigger. There's still a tone of filler space in between the landmass.

BASED ON DEFFPONY CALCULATIONS

Ok. we have nice scaled LS. now we need to find area of LC and LS.

Open histogram in photoshop and watch this (histogram show pixels count in selected area)

LC area 65k pixels

LS area 56k pixels

so. LS landmass ~85-88% of LC landmass.

I think what our calculations most accurate.

[GTAaLEX117]

@Deffpony I think your map is virtually identical to the one on the previous page (by looking, once again, at the runways).

You didn't manage to compress LC enough though, that's why it seems bigger. There's still a tone of filler space in between the landmass.

BASED ON DEFFPONY CALCULATIONS

Ok. we have nice scaled LS. now we need to find area of LC and LS.

Open histogram in photoshop and watch this (histogram show pixels count in selected area)

LC area 65k pixels

LS area 56k pixels

so. LS landmass ~85-88% of LC landmass.

I think what our calculations most accurate.

http://images.gameru.net/image/direct/425570b557.jpg

http://images.gameru.net/image/direct/2e72102b84.jpg

Can you use the histogram on the image from the previous page and compare the results?

[Deffpony]

How could we miss a half page f*cking long post Deffpony? Obviously "the minds" in this thread didn't find it interesting enough to reply to.

It was more for people who just jumped in the thread and hadnt seen it.

 

I just don't see how that scale can be wrong. I used two separate forms of reference that gave me the same results. If there is a flaw I will be the first to concede, but you can't just say its wrong because you don't like the results.

[bakerach]

Again, I don't really think that trying to scale the cities based off a LOT of assumptions (building size, character size -- I very much disagree that the Empire State building was 1-1 ratio to its real life counterpart) isn't as accurate as scaling the maps based on the strongest knowledge possible. That's why I believe, at this point, there isn't a better way to compare the two maps than by scaling it by referencing similar features as I've done. Is there anyone who disagrees that the LS river seems to be more or less the same size as one side of the Algonquin bridge, if not wider?

[dxbrandon]

Just look how small the size of Los santos is

 

 

Im disappointed

Looks huge in my eyes.

[Deffpony]

Again, I don't really think that trying to scale the cities based off a LOT of assumptions...

 

 

 

Is there anyone who disagrees that the LS river seems to be more or less the same size as one side of the Algonquin bridge?

 

Ok??? So you say you don't want to use assumptions and then you just eyeball a visual reference. There is no way to determine how close the bridge to the river relation can be to truth.

 

 

And you don't have to believe that the empire statebuilding is 1:1, but it just is. Many amatuer modelers have modeled LC and ALL of them are one to one. Every major building in LC is. So that's not really even a debate

[TrialzGTAS]

Im tired of everyone complaining. Havent even played the game yet jeez.

[FAH-Q]

I need to stop coming to this thread, I feel like it's ruining the experience for me.

[Deffpony]

 

Im tired of everyone complaining. Havent even played the game yet jeez.

I'm definitely not complaining. I just wanted to know the size of LS compared to LC. Do I wish it were bigger?? Yes, but there's nothing we can do. I'm just stating how there's no way the city is bigger than LC like 75% of the forum insists is the case.

Edited May 25, 2013 by deffpony

[sanex4]

@Deffpony I think your map is virtually identical to the one on the previous page (by looking, once again, at the runways).

You didn't manage to compress LC enough though, that's why it seems bigger. There's still a tone of filler space in between the landmass.

BASED ON DEFFPONY CALCULATIONS

Ok. we have nice scaled LS. now we need to find area of LC and LS.

Open histogram in photoshop and watch this (histogram show pixels count in selected area)

LC area 65k pixels

LS area 56k pixels

so. LS landmass ~85-88% of LC landmass.

I think what our calculations most accurate.

http://images.gameru.net/image/direct/425570b557.jpg

http://images.gameru.net/image/direct/2e72102b84.jpg

Can you use the histogram on the image from the previous page and compare the results?

as you requested

[MuXu96]

deleted cause I'm stupid

[sanex4]

@Deffpony I think your map is virtually identical to the one on the previous page (by looking, once again, at the runways).

You didn't manage to compress LC enough though, that's why it seems bigger. There's still a tone of filler space in between the landmass.

BASED ON DEFFPONY CALCULATIONS

Ok. we have nice scaled LS. now we need to find area of LC and LS.

Open histogram in photoshop and watch this (histogram show pixels count in selected area)

LC area 65k pixels

LS area 56k pixels

so. LS landmass ~85-88% of LC landmass.

I think what our calculations most accurate.

http://images.gameru.net/image/direct/425570b557.jpg

http://images.gameru.net/image/direct/2e72102b84.jpg

Can you use the histogram on the image from the previous page and compare the results?

as you requested

does that mean it's now "2k pixels" bigger now?^^

i think what this comparison incorrect. correct comparison based on Deffpony analisys and if we count pixels in both cities - LS = 85-88% of LC

[GTAaLEX117]

*Sanex So it seems the two comparisons are accurate. So far it seems like LS is 83-87% of Liberty City.

I'm sorry If I'm asking for too much, but can you also do the histogram method on this?

This is probably how the whole city will look like:

[AceHigh11]

^ 5 bucks on 90% now

[boxmonster]

How was the size of the map comparison done? I got this from Using the widest points of the Metlife Building and Theme Building at LAX (which are both around 103m if Rockstar scaled them correctly).

The runways are also about the same width with now.

[Knife]

 

The overall map is going to be far bigger than anything in GTA history. There's nothing small about this game really.

I really don't know why you feel the need to state this. Like a million guys before you, now you wanna add the same thing.

 

Nobody ever disputed this, it's irrelevant to the debate and argument about the city's map size only.

I'm perfectly aware we're just talking about the city limits. I mention the countryside because it's ridiculous not to factor that in when discussing the size of the city as it's just a part of the entire map. If Los Santos was smaller than Liberty City and it was the entire map, I could understand people being disappointed. But when the city is only a part of the map in the grand scheme, I find it harder to understand people calling it "tiny" and "small".

[trevors685]

Maybe each square on the blueprint is one square mile?

[F4t4l1ty]

Maybe each square on the blueprint is one square mile?

I believe it is 1 sqare km. 1 sq mile is too much...

[kesta195]

 

Maybe each square on the blueprint is one square mile?

This is what I would have thought. Isn't it far more common for Americans to measure distances in miles, rather than kilometers? I know this game is British produced before someone flames me but it is set in America.

[Raavi]

The overall map is going to be far bigger than anything in GTA history. There's nothing small about this game really.

I really don't know why you feel the need to state this. Like a million guys before you, now you wanna add the same thing.

 

Nobody ever disputed this, it's irrelevant to the debate and argument about the city's map size only.

I'm perfectly aware we're just talking about the city limits. I mention the countryside because it's ridiculous not to factor that in when discussing the size of the city as just a part of the entire map. If Los Santos was smaller than Liberty City and it was the entire map, I could understand people being disappointed. But when the city is only a part of the map in the grand scheme, I find it harder to understand people calling it "tiny" and "small".

Because:

 

 

Grand Theft Auto from its inception is a franchise that's centered around an urban setting, with GTA IV being the latest prime example of this, Liberty City really felt like a decent sized urban city, with enough green to make many games make a run for their money. However countryside, as in desert, woods and mountainous areas is something that was only really present in GTA San Andreas, and the game justified having a large countryside as you would want/need to travel trough these beautiful areas to get to one of the other two Big Cities one in a mountainous area the other in a desert area. Now that incentive for traveling is no longer present. Meaning there is no way to justify having such a large countryside and such a small city. Sure we have sandy shores and a few other small towns but there is no big city on the other side of the map that would justify traveling trough such a large and vast countryside area. With this I feel like the GTA franchise loses a large chunk of its identity, namely the emphasis on the urban hustle and bustle.

[kesta195]

The overall map is going to be far bigger than anything in GTA history. There's nothing small about this game really.

I really don't know why you feel the need to state this. Like a million guys before you, now you wanna add the same thing.

 

Nobody ever disputed this, it's irrelevant to the debate and argument about the city's map size only.

I'm perfectly aware we're just talking about the city limits. I mention the countryside because it's ridiculous not to factor that in when discussing the size of the city as just a part of the entire map. If Los Santos was smaller than Liberty City and it was the entire map, I could understand people being disappointed. But when the city is only a part of the map in the grand scheme, I find it harder to understand people calling it "tiny" and "small".

Because:

 

 

Grand Theft Auto from its inception is a franchise that's centered around an urban setting, with GTA IV being the latest prime example of this, Liberty City really felt like a decent sized urban city, with enough green to make many games make a run for their money. However countryside, as in desert, woods and mountainous areas is something that was only really present in GTA San Andreas, and the game justified having a large countryside as you would want/need to travel trough these beautiful areas to get to one of the other two Big Cities one in a mountainous area the other in a desert area. Now that incentive for traveling is no longer present. Meaning there is no way to justify having such a large countryside and such a small city. Sure we have sandy shores and a few other small towns but there is no big city on the other side of the map that would justify traveling trough such a large and vast countryside area. With this I feel like the GTA franchise loses a large chunk of its identity, namely the emphasis on the urban hustle and bustle.

Well that is totally subjective. The countryside isn't just there to serve as a gap between cities. It is in many ways much more interesting than an urban environment. They are completely different, not that you need me to tell you that.

[Raavi]

The overall map is going to be far bigger than anything in GTA history. There's nothing small about this game really.

I really don't know why you feel the need to state this. Like a million guys before you, now you wanna add the same thing.

 

Nobody ever disputed this, it's irrelevant to the debate and argument about the city's map size only.

I'm perfectly aware we're just talking about the city limits. I mention the countryside because it's ridiculous not to factor that in when discussing the size of the city as just a part of the entire map. If Los Santos was smaller than Liberty City and it was the entire map, I could understand people being disappointed. But when the city is only a part of the map in the grand scheme, I find it harder to understand people calling it "tiny" and "small".

Because:

 

 

Grand Theft Auto from its inception is a franchise that's centered around an urban setting, with GTA IV being the latest prime example of this, Liberty City really felt like a decent sized urban city, with enough green to make many games make a run for their money. However countryside, as in desert, woods and mountainous areas is something that was only really present in GTA San Andreas, and the game justified having a large countryside as you would want/need to travel trough these beautiful areas to get to one of the other two Big Cities one in a mountainous area the other in a desert area. Now that incentive for traveling is no longer present. Meaning there is no way to justify having such a large countryside and such a small city. Sure we have sandy shores and a few other small towns but there is no big city on the other side of the map that would justify traveling trough such a large and vast countryside area. With this I feel like the GTA franchise loses a large chunk of its identity, namely the emphasis on the urban hustle and bustle.

Well that is totally subjective. The countryside isn't just there to serve as a gap between cities. It is in many ways much more interesting than an urban environment. They are completely different, not that you need me to tell you that.

Yes it is subjective. I don't care that much for countryside to be honest, sure it's fun for a bit. But urban hustle and bustle is where it is at for me personally.

[DMan304]

 

Just look how small the size of Los santos is

 

 

Im disappointed

 

 

It really isn't though.

 

That's one corner of the map you're looking at, not the whole city.