Map Size Thread

[icandothisallday]

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.

couldnt have said it better! red dead is clearly the biggest though. thats why they kept comparing V's map to rdr's. plus ive played them, its obvious. you made good points though! well said

[Dick Valor]

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.

Trolling Official General in 3 easy steps:

 

1) Login to GTAF and proceed to the Los Santos Size thread.

2) Post how fans should not be concerned about the size of LS since it is only a fraction of R* biggest open world to date.

3) *Grabs popcorn.*

 

Works every time!

 

 

 

[Eutyphro]

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.

This is a good point.

[Magic_Al]

 

couldnt have said it better! red dead is clearly the biggest though. thats why they kept comparing V's map to rdr's. plus ive played them, its obvious. you made good points though! well said

GTASA actually is bigger than RDR, though RDR is wider. They mention RDR because the experience and detail is obviously much closer to GTAV than the older GTASA.

 

 

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.

The rolled up image is distorted, obviously, but there are two other flat images that fit with it, and the streets fit together, so distortion in the combined image of all three pieces shouldn't be significant. Scale is being estimated from blueprint dimensions Rockstar gave, the rolled up image apparently showing the entire width of the blueprint, and recognizable features on the map. Nobody's exactly right but they're not way off.

Edited May 26, 2013 by Magic_Al

[icandothisallday]

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.

This is a good point.

thank you!lol these goofy bastards on this thread are ridiculous! they f*cking assume everything! "due to my calculations rockstar showed us 27.8984635% of a rolled up map at an angle of 45 degrees to the southwest..." shut the f*ck up already! heres a thought... ill open it up when i get the game... ill bet i get a damn good look at that map then!

[AceHigh11]

^

http://www.rockstargames.com/V/img/global/special-full.jpg

 

Two flat images of the blueprint map are in there.

[xzxxsicko]

I think wee will have the city and countryside will come later as DLC .

[lazloisdavrock]

I think wee will have the city and countryside will come later as DLC .

lmao.

[Deffpony]

Ok guys, being the diligent forum member that I am , I decided to look further into the scale I had previously got for LS and try to find holes in my approach. The good news is I found reasonable doubt to COMPLETELY trust this scale.

 

My entire scale was based on the premise that LS Bank Tower was a 1:1 model, just as the Rotterdam Tower was. But when messing around with the model its clear to see that LS is much different than LC in terms of building scales.

 

In LC every building for the most part is 1:1, the chrysler building, metlife, and so on. But when recreating the LS skyline with the real life counter parts I found major discrepancies in the sizes of the buildings.

 

First off, the Westin Bonaventure building is MUCH larger in game than in real life.

 

 

 

Second, the California plaza buildings are not the right size compared to themselves. In LA one plaze building is MUCH smaller than the other, while in LS it is only about 10% smaller. The rest of the skyline seems to follow this trend of being unlike to size of the LA counterparts.

 

 

 

What does this mean??

 

Well since we now know that the rest of the buildings in LS are being exhagerated in size and not in fact 1:1 models of the real life counterparts, using the LS Bank Tower and comparing it to the Rotterdam tower is not as reliable as I once thought.

 

However, alot of the other buildings throughout LS are in fact 1:1 when compared to the LS bank tower. Which leads me to believe that the buildings in question were bulked up to give the LS skyline more of an "Awe" effect. If any building were to be 1:1 I would bet my money that the LS tower would be the one.

 

But to further illustrate the scale of LS I decided to see what the MAXIMUM size of LS could be. I think it is safe to say that the Bank tower is NOT bigger than the Rotterdam tower. Knowing that, I used the rotterdam tower in place of the bank tower and placed it on the blueprint appropriately.

 

 

With this we can establish that the map will in no way possible be this size or larger. Here is the scale obtained.

 

 

 

I am still fairly certain that the original scale I obtained is correct. The Bank Tower is more likely than not 1:1.

 

 

But to be completely objective I cannot rule out the possibility that it is not 1:1.

Edited May 26, 2013 by deffpony

[bakerach]

@deffpony, that analysis puts the scale I got by comparing key points on the map right between your two extremes. Since my scale puts the two maps at roughly the same size I think this shows how the limits of Los Santos will be about the same as the edges of Liberty City.

[josephene123]

deffpony, I appreciate the hard work you put into all these. Could you explain why on the (in your opinion) most accurately scaled LC and LS comparison pictures, the roads in LCwith 2 lanes going both ways are even comparable in size to the lanes in LS which we know have 4 lanes going each way?

[Eutyphro]

Lol, that's freakin massive. I don't think it's that big. But that's exactly your point I guess.

 

But to be completely objective I cannot rule out the possibility that it is not 1:1.

That's fair. I think each time someone is negative about the size of Los Santos we should remind him that he is making a factual error, since we are not yet sure at all about the exact size.

[Hvitdverg]

Impressive DEFFPONY

[bakerach]

I think each time someone is negative about the size of Los Santos we should remind him that he is making a factual error, since we are not yet sure at all about the exact size.

This should be posted on the front page of this forum.

[Deffpony]

deffpony, I appreciate the hard work you put into all these. Could you explain why on the (in your opinion) most accurately scaled LC and LS comparison pictures, the roads with 2 lanes going both ways are even comparable in size to the lanes in LS which we know have 4 lanes going each way?

I think road size/width is a very inaccurate method of comparing. We cant really tell how the scale of the roads compare. The roads in LS look very wide, but it could be a visual illusion for all we know. The roads could realistically be much larger than they look, or much smaller than they look.

 

I think it would be more accurate to use the size of cars as a point of reference, but the difficulty in that lies in the fact that perspective would never allow for such a comparison.

 

Given that almost all of LC was scaled 1:1 to the real life buildings, one would assume that the same would hold true for LS. But as I showed, its just not so for all the buildings. However, given that the LS bank tower is the most recognizable symbol building wise, I think its a very safe bet that the building is scaled 1:1(my opinion).

 

@baker: I still stand by my scale because its the only objective reference we have seen so far. The closest reliable references would be the Airport runway width, and the cargo ships.

 

If my scale is not correct, which I would say it has an 80% chance of being right, than I can confidently say that size of LS would be about 90%, 95% max the size of LC.

[KrushLTx10]

There is still hope for a bigger city than we thought! All thanks to Deffpony.

[Deffpony]

There is still hope for a bigger city than we thought! All thanks to Deffpony.

Remember, there is NO WAY the city is within 10% of this size:

 

 

But if I were to be optimistic about the size of LS, I would say its possible that it is Equal the size of LC, or just under.

[KrushLTx10]

Ahh I get it now. Still I'd settle for the same size as LC.

[Deffpony]

I dont want people to think I am trying to prove myself right with these scales. I am trying to be objective about it. I thought it was only fair to try and find all the flaws with my original scale to prove that it is not 100% certain.

[GTAaLEX117]

I still think this here is one of the best comparisons so far. LC might be even smaller since it looks like the airport runway width is off:

[josephene123]

These gifs are making comparisons hard

[Deffpony]

 

I still think this here is one of the best comparisons so far.  LC might be even smaller since it looks like the airport runway width is off:

 

I would say LS is SLIGHTLY smaller than that.

 

I think its safe to say the range of LS' size is from this(myscale):

 

 

To this:

 

[dxbrandon]

Ok guys, being the diligent forum member that I am , I decided to look further into the scale I had previously got for LS and try to find holes in my approach. The good news is I found reasonable doubt to COMPLETELY trust this scale.

 

My entire scale was based on the premise that LS Bank Tower was a 1:1 model, just as the Rotterdam Tower was. But when messing around with the model its clear to see that LS is much different than LC in terms of building scales.

 

In LC every building for the most part is 1:1, the chrysler building, metlife, and so on. But when recreating the LS skyline with the real life counter parts I found major discrepancies in the sizes of the buildings.

 

First off, the Westin Bonaventure building is MUCH larger in game than in real life.

 

 

 

Second, the California plaza buildings are not the right size compared to themselves. In LA one plaze building is MUCH smaller than the other, while in LS it is only about 10% smaller. The rest of the skyline seems to follow this trend of being unlike to size of the LA counterparts.

 

 

 

What does this mean??

 

Well since we now know that the rest of the buildings in LS are being exhagerated in size and not in fact 1:1 models of the real life counterparts, using the LS Bank Tower and comparing it to the Rotterdam tower is not as reliable as I once thought.

 

However, alot of the other buildings throughout LS are in fact 1:1 when compared to the LS bank tower. Which leads me to believe that the buildings in question were bulked up to give the LS skyline more of an "Awe" effect. If any building were to be 1:1 I would bet my money that the LS tower would be the one.

 

But to further illustrate the scale of LS I decided to see what the MAXIMUM size of LS could be. I think it is safe to say that the Bank tower is NOT bigger than the Rotterdam tower. Knowing that, I used the rotterdam tower in place of the bank tower and placed it on the blueprint appropriately.

 

 

With this we can establish that the map will in no way possible be this size or larger. Here is the scale obtained.

 

 

 

I am still fairly certain that the original scale I obtained is correct. The Bank Tower is more likely than not 1:1.

 

 

But to be completely objective I cannot rule out the possibility that it is not 1:1.

Wow, you're good.

[gtamann123]

I still think this here is one of the best comparisons so far. LC might be even smaller since it looks like the airport runway width is off:

Someone should scale everything down so the runway width is the same. That would eh a pretty good comparison IMO

[AceHigh11]

@deffpony:

Eat the cookies

[GTAaLEX117]

 

I still think this here is one of the best comparisons so far.  LC might be even smaller since it looks like the airport runway width is off:

 

I would say LS is SLIGHTLY smaller than that.

 

I think its safe to say the range of LS' size is from this(myscale):

 

http://i.imgur.com/M2AT38m.gif

 

To this:

 

http://oi43.tinypic.com/2s9u5hx.jpg

Looking at it again, I think the roads are also a bit off in that one. The highway that runs through downtown LS is 8 lanes, bigger than any highway/bridge in LC.

[bakerach]

I think this is just about right- look at the smallest city blocks and the largest city blocks. They should be similar in size regardless of how big the city is.

[Game2048]

 

I still think this here is one of the best comparisons so far.  LC might be even smaller since it looks like the airport runway width is off:

 

I would say LS is SLIGHTLY smaller than that.

 

I think its safe to say the range of LS' size is from this(myscale):

 

 

To this:

 

Not the best comparison.

 

It's clear that width of the roads on Liberty City pic is bigger than on Los Santos pic. Hence, the Liberty City pic is too big

Edited May 26, 2013 by Game2048

[Deathtickle]

I think that under Los Santos will be a vast network of infrastructure and a ton of cool explorable things. As well same could be said for the underwater portions of the game.

 

I think that under LS will be extremely huge and explorable. As well under the water; be vastly explorable with caves and the like.

 

Perhaps a size 1/3 of the city will be underneath. I did read back in early 2012 that a drive from Michaels house (long since deleted) to mid map took 10 mins at high speed, and that under the city of LS you could explore for over 2 hours and not see the same area twice.

 

Under the city = Subway, Railway, Sewers(storm/sewage), Gas pipelines, Maintenance tunnels, Bomb shelters. Maybe there will be grow ops, Meth labs, Chop shops and so many things I cant think of.

 

Under the water = Caves, ship wrecks, Sewers

 

Going from Under the FIB building to exiting middle of the golf course via tunnel will be cool and possible. I think that tunnels will be all over the map not just in the big city; however the big city will have the vast majority.

 

How big do you think the below ground area will be and what will it all contain? I think it will be surprisingly big. Hence making LS even bigger and more explorable.

 

 

 

 

[73duster]

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.

This is a good point.

thank you!lol these goofy bastards on this thread are ridiculous! they f*cking assume everything! "due to my calculations rockstar showed us 27.8984635% of a rolled up map at an angle of 45 degrees to the southwest..." shut the f*ck up already! heres a thought... ill open it up when i get the game... ill bet i get a damn good look at that map then!

Best summary of this thread. This is ALSO another reason why I think Rockstar shouldn't reveal so much info, because it only gives complainers something to gripe about. Yes, I know it's a forum, but how much more can you beat a subject to death? This looks like it will EASILY be the greatest map of ANY game ever developed on a console. However, that simply isn't good enough for a measly $60. They want next gen type of graphics, physics and content, without accepting that there is a limit to how much money you can pour into a product before it becomes unprofitable.

Even knowing that this small group only makes up 22% of people dissatisfied with Los Santos, they STILL don't think they are being ridiculous with their expectations.