Map Size Thread

[Mr Snitcher]

[Mv6]

^ Thanks for posting it.

 

 

Here's another one.

http://laedc.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/0...tlined_full.png

 

 

Central Los Angeles is pretty much most of LA

[Mr Snitcher]

Simple enough?

[driftnslide]

@Mv6

Actually Central Los Angelos isn't close to "most" of LA. LA County includes nearly all of those colored regions in the map that was shown.

 

Not saying LS is going to represent all of LA county, but central LA is far from the only main region worth portraying.

 

There's so much more of South LA yet to be shown. There's good reason to suspect that cutoff road has more of South LA at the least if not some other SoCal city like San Diego.

Edited May 26, 2013 by driftnslide

[Dick Justice]

The highway going South has me curious. I have to assume it's only going to lead to another port type area, probably based off San Pedro or something, but at the same time it seems to be a pretty wide highway/bridge, so it would be weird if it didn't lead to somewhere more dense and populated than a port. I just really don't know what to make of it, because if there really was a Southern part of the map that we can't see here, then why would there be only on bridge leading to it without it being connected to the rest of the world?

[GTAaLEX117]

 

From the screenshots it's fairly certain that the cutoff portions of the map aren't a huge chunk of the city. It's possible that there is some significant portions not shown in the blue print, but not likely.

Wow, I can't believe this thread is still going.

 

Btw deff, I hope the hidden areas (aka Docks) will at least be this big:

[HOW'S ANNIE?]

Does it even matter what size Los Santos itself is? I mean, to me it doesn't look as big as LC was in IV (not to say it isn't). But even if it is small, we've got a whole massive map to play around in. Can't you at least be greatful about that?

[Boss7dm]

[LAPD 85]

Does it even matter what size Los Santos itself is? I mean, to me it doesn't look as big as LC was in IV (not to say it isn't). But even if it is small, we've got a whole massive map to play around in. Can't you at least be greatful about that?

Grateful that the big map is a gigantic lake and mountains with nothing to do on them but take up space? It really is RDR all over again.

[GTAaLEX117]

Does it even matter what size Los Santos itself is? I mean, to me it doesn't look as big as LC was in IV (not to say it isn't). But even if it is small, we've got a whole massive map to play around in. Can't you at least be greatful about that?

Grateful that the big map is a gigantic lake and mountains with nothing to do on them but take up space? It really is RDR all over again.

The map is most definitely not a "giant lake". From the map that was pieced together, the whole Alamo sea isn't even 1/10 of the map.

There's also desert areas and from what we can see, massive fields.

Are you really implying that there's nothing to do with the terrain and mountains?

 

I just hope you are trolling.

[Polish_Trucker]

4,000th post

OT: Why aren't people grateful for the map size.. we have only seen 1/4 of it

[MuXu96]

if you really think you will have nothing to do in the countryside like in Just Cause 2 you should get a little slap on the head^^ The countryside isn't empty dude.

[98 in 1]

4,000th post

OT: Why aren't people grateful for the map size.. we have only seen 1/4 of it

Jesus christ. 6 days and you already have that many posts?

 

OT: This is about the size of Los Santos, not the entire map.

[Polish_Trucker]

4,000th post

OT: Why aren't people grateful for the map size.. we have only seen 1/4 of it 

Jesus christ. 6 days and you already have that many posts?

 

OT: This is about the size of Los Santos, not the entire map.

I don't think you understand.. the 4,000 was the number of posts on the topic...

[GTA.]

look this you r gonna have an idea of the map size

 

 

[Official General]

 

4,000th post

OT: Why aren't people grateful for the map size.. we have only seen 1/4 of it 

Jesus christ. 6 days and you already have that many posts?

 

OT: This is about the size of Los Santos, not the entire map.

I don't think you understand.. the 4,000 was the number of posts on the topic...

@ Polish Trucker

 

It's not really that hard to read or understand the title. The debate is about the size of LOS SANTOS only. You go ahead and keep talking about the size of the FULL map, you will see that no one will really respond to that properly on here, because NO ONE IS TALKING ABOUT THE FULL MAP SIZE.

 

@ Niko Vercetti 112

 

The size of LS obviously does matter because this thread has around 4,000 posts and is 200 pages long. No need ask such a stupid question. Just because you are happy with the city's map it does not mean everybody else should does it ?

 

@ mr6plow

 

You would never think something so simple and basic would turn into something so difficult and complicated for those with less than average brain cells.

Edited May 26, 2013 by Official General

[haitian11]

I personally think that R* is just making a huge ass country side and a medium sized Los Santos. I don't mind a large country side but I mean damn, If you're gonna make a big country side at least make more than one medium sized city to balance it out.

[Andreas]

 

* Rockstar have had GTA V in development for 5 YEARS.

That's true but does this have something to do with the city or the map size in general? Not much actually. The first thing Rockstar is doing when they are starting the development of a game is thinking about the the area that the game is set in. After that, they are thinking about characters and everything else. A title that has been longer in the development than another title does not automatically have a bigger city and map. The map is one of the more important things in an openworld games, yes, but it's not the most important thing.

 

 

* Los Santos is the ONLY city in the game. (Had Las Venturas and San Fierro been included, we could overlook this smaller city issue, but that is not the case).

Having multiple cities is not necessarily beneficial. There are a lot of factors to consider to decide whether more than one city does even make sense and if yes, then how the playable area can be used. GTAV has three protagonists so multiple cities could have make sense but unlike GTA IV, there is not only urban area in the game. In fact, the surroundings, which includes forests, deserts, rivers, and many more things, is considerably bigger than the city itself. Los Santos seems to be around the size of Liberty City without water, perhaps bigger. I'll make another post later to estimate the size of the city.

 

 

* Los Santos is not even the same size as Liberty City in GTA IV, let alone bigger. To make it worse, GTA IV happens to be nearly 6 YEARS OLD.

Thinking that the long development time of a game suggests a bigger city is the same fallacy as thinking that the map size of future games will be bigger compared to the current games because of the next-generations consoles. Neither is correct.

 

 

* Los Santos is based on Los Angeles which is bigger than New York City in real-life. Liberty City is based on NYC, so LS should be bigger than LC, NOT the same size, that is not something to be content about if you ask me.

I have an idea; let's take a look at Liberty City without the water that surrounds the city. Thinking about that, GTA IV has actually two cities, namely Liberty City and Alderney so we should consider that too!

 

The official GTA IV map of Rockstar Games has a resolution of 6000x3800 pixels, which includes a lot of water outside of the actual map. I and other members of this forum have proved in the past that the map is scaled in one meter per pixel resolution, exactly like the map of San Andreas. By making in-game measurements, I figured out the the scale isn't 100% accurate, it's off by approximately less than 5%, and I don't think that it's really worth to mention. 6000x3800 pixels are 22,800,000 pixels/square meters, which in turn would be around 8.8 square miles. We know that the city is actually 6.25 square miles big [but like I said, the map is surrounded by water]. I have selected the water of the map in Paint .NET, and I have installed an add-on to it; that way, I counted more than 13.85 million pixels worth of water. That means there are 8.95 million pixels/square meters left which are around 3.45 square miles land area. That includes both, Liberty City and Alderney.

Edited May 26, 2013 by Carl CJ Johnsons Brother Brian

[icandothisallday]

What a f*cking retard. Seriously, get out of this forum. Dan said the MAP is the biggest one they've created yet, where's the exaggeration? You clearly don't know anything, so you decide to talk out of your dirty ass. If the map is SA + RDR + IV, then that is the biggest map they've made.

While it will be the biggest one they created, according to the blueprint size there is no way it's going to be bigger than RDR, SA and IV with room to spare.

 

The blueprint size means nothing. They would obviously have to compress the map to fit it on the blue print, just like how some of the screenshots/trailer pics are compressed. They aren't just going to give it away 4 months before the release.

I dont know how you can say the blueprint means nothing. If you have read the past 10 pages you would be able to see that the blueprint pretty much confirms most of our fears that the map is smaller than we had originally expected.

What? That's only the city (downtown) and even then it looks compressed, unless you are talking about the fan made maps. We should wait till Rockstar release the full map when they do, or wait until Sept 17th, because it will feel huge in game.

Once again, by map, I mean the city, this thread is about the city. For the last two months people have been singing about...

 

"The city will be MASSIVE, stop complaining!"

 

"No! GI said that the city is bigger than LC so shut up!"

 

"We havent even seen all of the city, theres still alot that is hidden fagzors!"

 

Yet here we are, with a blueprint of the city that pretty much confirms everything we have been saying. The city is not bigger than LC. There isnt a hidden portion of the city somewhere. Case closed.

 

Like my previous post stated, we can only hope that the quality of the city will be much better than IV, with loads of things to do. AFter all quality is better than quantity.

for all the haters and crybabies out there... how many of you are still buying the game? honest question

[icandothisallday]

and to the guy that said red dead was six miles and san andreas was 13 or some sh*t ...

 

http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/3774/gtasardrmap.jpg

 

im so tired of hearing that. just like people saying los santos is smaller than liberty city... no... its not. it has less tall buildings yes, but it clearly covers more area. you can tell just by looking at screen shots.

 

 

[kesta195]

and to the guy that said red dead was six miles and san andreas was 13 or some sh*t ...

 

http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/3774/gtasardrmap.jpg

 

im so tired of hearing that. just like people saying los santos is smaller than liberty city... no... its not. it has less tall buildings yes, but it clearly covers more area. you can tell just by looking at screen shots.

ANYONE could have put that together. You only think it's true because you want it to be true.

[MuXu96]

and to the guy that said red dead was six miles and san andreas was 13 or some sh*t ...

 

http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/3774/gtasardrmap.jpg

 

im so tired of hearing that. just like people saying los santos is smaller than liberty city... no... its not. it has less tall buildings yes, but it clearly covers more area. you can tell just by looking at screen shots.

dunno if the map is accurate but after all you are right about the tall building stuff and LC

[icandothisallday]

 

and to the guy that said red dead was six miles and san andreas was 13 or some sh*t ...

 

http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/3774/gtasardrmap.jpg

 

im so tired of hearing that. just like people saying los santos is smaller than liberty city... no... its not. it has less tall buildings yes, but it clearly covers more area. you can tell just by looking at screen shots.

ANYONE could have put that together. You only think it's true because you want it to be true.

yeah just like any san andreas fanboy can get on here and say "san andreas=13.6 miles, read dead=6 miles" are you f*cking kidding me? have these dipsh*ts even played both of these games? red dead is clearly the biggest game rockstar has made to date. bigger than IV, bigger than san andreas, biggest of all. yet there are ridiculous fanboys on here that claim otherwise. just like people are claiming los santos to be smaller than liberty city in IV... nooooo its not! look at the screenshots. even in the tightly cropped screens we have seen its still easy to see that los santos covers more area.

 

@kesta... i dont "want" anything to be true. it is true. red dead and san andreas have been out forever. they are both good games. red dead is a much larger game. i dont want it to be true. it just is. i really dont care one way or the other. just pisses me off when blind idiots/trolls get on here and say san andreas was bigger than red dead... no... it wasnt/isnt/never will be.

Edited May 26, 2013 by icandothisallday

[kesta195]

and to the guy that said red dead was six miles and san andreas was 13 or some sh*t ...

 

http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/3774/gtasardrmap.jpg

 

im so tired of hearing that. just like people saying los santos is smaller than liberty city... no... its not. it has less tall buildings yes, but it clearly covers more area. you can tell just by looking at screen shots.

ANYONE could have put that together. You only think it's true because you want it to be true.

yeah just like any san andreas fanboy can get on here and say "san andreas=13.6 miles, read dead=6 miles" are you f*cking kidding me? have these dipsh*ts even played both of these games? red dead is clearly the biggest game rockstar has made to date. bigger than IV, bigger than san andreas, biggest of all. yet there are ridiculous fanboys on here that claim otherwise. just like people are claiming los santos to be smaller than liberty city in IV... nooooo its not! look at the screenshots. even in the tightly cropped screens we have seen its still easy to see that los santos covers more area.

Seriously, I have played both games for probably 100s of hours, and I would agree that RDR feels bigger, I'm only going by what other people have calculated.

[icandothisallday]

and to the guy that said red dead was six miles and san andreas was 13 or some sh*t ...

 

http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/3774/gtasardrmap.jpg

 

im so tired of hearing that. just like people saying los santos is smaller than liberty city... no... its not. it has less tall buildings yes, but it clearly covers more area. you can tell just by looking at screen shots.

ANYONE could have put that together. You only think it's true because you want it to be true.

yeah just like any san andreas fanboy can get on here and say "san andreas=13.6 miles, read dead=6 miles" are you f*cking kidding me? have these dipsh*ts even played both of these games? red dead is clearly the biggest game rockstar has made to date. bigger than IV, bigger than san andreas, biggest of all. yet there are ridiculous fanboys on here that claim otherwise. just like people are claiming los santos to be smaller than liberty city in IV... nooooo its not! look at the screenshots. even in the tightly cropped screens we have seen its still easy to see that los santos covers more area.

Seriously, I have played both games for probably 100s of hours, and I would agree that RDR feels bigger, I'm only going by what other people have calculated.

it feels bigger because it is bigger. they didnt make i bigger game for original xbox a decade ago. hell rockstar has even told us red dead was twice as big as san andreas. its fact. end of story

[Dick Justice]

San Andreas wasn't as big as people remember it. It's just really diverse.

[kesta195]

they didnt make i bigger game for original xbox a decade ago.

Well, GTAIV is clearly smaller than San Andreas, and that only came out 2 years before RDR and 4 years after SA so I think we can agree that that is irrelevant. The fact is, RDR, IV, SA were all big enough. This isn't going to change for V, city or otherwise.

[allftw]

I'm pretty sure San Andreas is bigger than RDR. I mean I have seen countless calculations all arriving at that point but haven't seen one showing RDR is bigger.

[Magic_Al]

 

The official GTA IV map of Rockstar Games has a resolution of 6000x3800 pixels, which includes a lot of water outside of the actual map. I and other members of this forum have proved in the past that the map is scaled in one meter per pixel resolution, exactly like the map of San Andreas. By making in-game measurements, I figured out the the scale isn't 100% accurate, it's off by approximately less than 5%, and I don't think that it's really worth to mention. 6000x3800 pixels are 22,800,000 pixels/square meters, which in turn would be around 8.8 square miles. We know that the city is actually 6.25 square miles big [but like I said, the map is surrounded by water]. I have selected the water of the map in Paint .NET, and I have installed an add-on to it; that way, I counted more than 13.85 million pixels worth of water. That means there are 8.95 million pixels/square meters left which are around 3.45 square miles land area. That includes both, Liberty City and Alderney.

That 5% adds up over distance. I think it was worked out that resizing the full IV and RDR radar images 94.12% gets them to 1-meter resolution.

 

GTASA, GTAVC, and GTA3 radar images are in scale to each other but lower resolution than HD-era, so reducing IV and RDR images to 24.1% gets everything to the same scale.

 

[whittle13]

Hey everybody, listen.

That photo of the rolled up map does not look like an actual phto of the map. It looks photoshopped as f*ck.

Therefor the scales are way off.