Map Size Thread

[omer19992010]

 

Why do you guys take into account unplayable area for rdr size?

There is no sense. Imagine if r*  has made a 500 sq miles map for gta v but only 22sq miles would be playable. For me rdr is only 6,5 sq miles not more 'cause it s the real size of playable area. Agree? So, i post again the rdr size to clear all doubts about the map

 

 

so :

GTA IV:~ 6 SQ miles

RDR :~6,5 SQ miles

GTA SA: ~13 sq miles

GTA V:  ~22 sq miles (land) < estimated size < ~35 sq miles(land+water)

 

About los santos It was announced to be 1/8 of the whole map so :

LS: ~3 sq miles

But i think we have to beware of r* announcements. At beginning Rdr had to be twice as large as SA and finaly it s only half size

IIRC, when R* previously talked about the size of RDR, they included the non-playable area, such as saying it's bigger than SA. So maybe when talking about GTAV being five times the size, they're doing the same thing?

wheres dee8ball crying about how everyones off topic? anyways... i have to disagree. the playable area of red dead is larger than san andreas, and los santos is waaaaaaaay the f*ck bigger than three square miles.

 

oh nevermind there he is!lol f*ck you! your name dan houser now? you know what he meant? its bigger... deal with it. by ol boys calculations he provided los santos is 3 square miles!?lol seriously? give me a break

So you disregard the facts and make your own idiotic assumptions.

 

Wow. Your either retarded or a troll.

And for the sake or humanity i hope it's the latter.

so youre saying los santos is 3 square miles? to be clear since youre a f*cking idiot, thatd be roughly 1.7 miles wide by 1.7 miles long... so 3 square miles? youre f*cking serious? and just to be clear... who in the fuuuck came up with rdr 6.5 square miles and what formula did you use?

Isn't 3 sq miles just a tiny bit bigger than Los Santos in GTA San Andreas?

[KrushLTx10]

 

Why do you guys take into account unplayable area for rdr size?

There is no sense. Imagine if r*  has made a 500 sq miles map for gta v but only 22sq miles would be playable. For me rdr is only 6,5 sq miles not more 'cause it s the real size of playable area. Agree? So, i post again the rdr size to clear all doubts about the map

 

 

so :

GTA IV:~ 6 SQ miles

RDR :~6,5 SQ miles

GTA SA: ~13 sq miles

GTA V:  ~22 sq miles (land) < estimated size < ~35 sq miles(land+water)

 

About los santos It was announced to be 1/8 of the whole map so :

LS: ~3 sq miles

But i think we have to beware of r* announcements. At beginning Rdr had to be twice as large as SA and finaly it s only half size

If Los Santos is 3 sq miles people would flip. That's just above half of what Liberty City is if I'm correct?

 

And I agree it's pretty ridiculous people count the unplayable area in RDR because it's just there for looks. Face it, RDR is not bigger than SA and is just around the same size as IV guys. Period. No matter what Dan Houser said he just writes the games, he has little influence if any on constructing the maps.

lol dan houser was the executive producer for red dead redemption... once again people spouting off sh*t they havent researched here at gta forums.

Executive producers oversee a game as it is developed... they manage to see that the job is getting done. Maybe some input here and there but they do not really work on the game intensively, that's the work for the developers. Sigh

Edited June 7, 2013 by KrushLTx10

[SaVaGe308]

 

Why do you guys take into account unplayable area for rdr size?

There is no sense. Imagine if r*  has made a 500 sq miles map for gta v but only 22sq miles would be playable. For me rdr is only 6,5 sq miles not more 'cause it s the real size of playable area. Agree? So, i post again the rdr size to clear all doubts about the map

 

 

so :

GTA IV:~ 6 SQ miles

RDR :~6,5 SQ miles

GTA SA: ~13 sq miles

GTA V:  ~22 sq miles (land) < estimated size < ~35 sq miles(land+water)

 

About los santos It was announced to be 1/8 of the whole map so :

LS: ~3 sq miles

But i think we have to beware of r* announcements. At beginning Rdr had to be twice as large as SA and finaly it s only half size

If Los Santos is 3 sq miles people would flip. That's just above half of what Liberty City is if I'm correct?

 

And I agree it's pretty ridiculous people count the unplayable area in RDR because it's just there for looks. Face it, RDR is not bigger than SA and is just around the same size as IV guys. Period. No matter what Dan Houser said he just writes the games, he has little influence if any on constructing the maps.

lol dan houser was the executive producer for red dead redemption... once again people spouting off sh*t they havent researched here at gta forums.

Executive producers oversee a game as it is developed... they manage to see that the job is getting done. Maybe some input here and there.

 

 

i thought 20min ago you said he was the writer? which is it?lol

 

http://www.nowgamer.com/features/895108/in...redemption.html

Edited June 7, 2013 by SaVaGe308

[The Hate]

Clearly Dan Houser, producer of the almighty Grand Theft Auto Series, is an omniscient, infallible, supreme human being who is incapable of making mistakes.

 

Sorry San Andreas Fanboys... You've got it all wrong.

[KrushLTx10]

 

Why do you guys take into account unplayable area for rdr size?

There is no sense. Imagine if r*  has made a 500 sq miles map for gta v but only 22sq miles would be playable. For me rdr is only 6,5 sq miles not more 'cause it s the real size of playable area. Agree? So, i post again the rdr size to clear all doubts about the map

 

 

so :

GTA IV:~ 6 SQ miles

RDR :~6,5 SQ miles

GTA SA: ~13 sq miles

GTA V:  ~22 sq miles (land) < estimated size < ~35 sq miles(land+water)

 

About los santos It was announced to be 1/8 of the whole map so :

LS: ~3 sq miles

But i think we have to beware of r* announcements. At beginning Rdr had to be twice as large as SA and finaly it s only half size

If Los Santos is 3 sq miles people would flip. That's just above half of what Liberty City is if I'm correct?

 

And I agree it's pretty ridiculous people count the unplayable area in RDR because it's just there for looks. Face it, RDR is not bigger than SA and is just around the same size as IV guys. Period. No matter what Dan Houser said he just writes the games, he has little influence if any on constructing the maps.

lol dan houser was the executive producer for red dead redemption... once again people spouting off sh*t they havent researched here at gta forums.

Executive producers oversee a game as it is developed... they manage to see that the job is getting done. Maybe some input here and there.

i thought 20min ago you said he was the writer? which is it?lol

Dan Houser is the head writer and Vice Pres. for R* games. Once again you have no idea what you're talking about. He was the executive producer for RDR. He has written for each GTA and most of the other R* games they've made. And has been the executive producer for many of their titles.

Edited June 7, 2013 by KrushLTx10

[SaVaGe308]

 

Why do you guys take into account unplayable area for rdr size?

There is no sense. Imagine if r*  has made a 500 sq miles map for gta v but only 22sq miles would be playable. For me rdr is only 6,5 sq miles not more 'cause it s the real size of playable area. Agree? So, i post again the rdr size to clear all doubts about the map

 

 

so :

GTA IV:~ 6 SQ miles

RDR :~6,5 SQ miles

GTA SA: ~13 sq miles

GTA V:  ~22 sq miles (land) < estimated size < ~35 sq miles(land+water)

 

About los santos It was announced to be 1/8 of the whole map so :

LS: ~3 sq miles

But i think we have to beware of r* announcements. At beginning Rdr had to be twice as large as SA and finaly it s only half size

If Los Santos is 3 sq miles people would flip. That's just above half of what Liberty City is if I'm correct?

 

And I agree it's pretty ridiculous people count the unplayable area in RDR because it's just there for looks. Face it, RDR is not bigger than SA and is just around the same size as IV guys. Period. No matter what Dan Houser said he just writes the games, he has little influence if any on constructing the maps.

lol dan houser was the executive producer for red dead redemption... once again people spouting off sh*t they havent researched here at gta forums.

Executive producers oversee a game as it is developed... they manage to see that the job is getting done. Maybe some input here and there.

i thought 20min ago you said he was the writer? which is it?lol

Dan Houser is the head writer/VP for R* games. Once again you have no idea what you're talking about. He was the executive producer for RDR. He has written for each GTA and most of the other R* games they've made. And has been the executive producer for many of their titles.

Thats my point. you said he was the writer of rdr at first. im the one who told you otherwise. you dont know sh*t. you honestly think dan houser doesnt know every aspect of every game they put out? youre a fool. quality control is why they have lasted as long as they have. ill guarantee he knows every damn game hes ever been a part of like the back of his hand by the time the games get to us. thats his job. youre an idiot. you literally went to wiki and copied and pasted the first paragraph!lol jackass

[KrushLTx10]

 

Why do you guys take into account unplayable area for rdr size?

There is no sense. Imagine if r*  has made a 500 sq miles map for gta v but only 22sq miles would be playable. For me rdr is only 6,5 sq miles not more 'cause it s the real size of playable area. Agree? So, i post again the rdr size to clear all doubts about the map

 

 

so :

GTA IV:~ 6 SQ miles

RDR :~6,5 SQ miles

GTA SA: ~13 sq miles

GTA V:  ~22 sq miles (land) < estimated size < ~35 sq miles(land+water)

 

About los santos It was announced to be 1/8 of the whole map so :

LS: ~3 sq miles

But i think we have to beware of r* announcements. At beginning Rdr had to be twice as large as SA and finaly it s only half size

If Los Santos is 3 sq miles people would flip. That's just above half of what Liberty City is if I'm correct?

 

And I agree it's pretty ridiculous people count the unplayable area in RDR because it's just there for looks. Face it, RDR is not bigger than SA and is just around the same size as IV guys. Period. No matter what Dan Houser said he just writes the games, he has little influence if any on constructing the maps.

lol dan houser was the executive producer for red dead redemption... once again people spouting off sh*t they havent researched here at gta forums.

Executive producers oversee a game as it is developed... they manage to see that the job is getting done. Maybe some input here and there.

i thought 20min ago you said he was the writer? which is it?lol

Dan Houser is the head writer/VP for R* games. Once again you have no idea what you're talking about. He was the executive producer for RDR. He has written for each GTA and most of the other R* games they've made. And has been the executive producer for many of their titles.

Thats my point. you said he was the writer of rdr at first. im the one who told you otherwise. you dont know sh*t. you honestly think dan houser doesnt know every aspect of every game they put out? youre a fool. quality control is why they have lasted as long as they have. ill guarantee he knows every damn game hes ever been a part of like the back of his hand by the time the games get to us. thats his job. youre an idiot. you literally went to wiki and copied and pasted the first paragraph!lol jackass

LOL the problem is... he is the writer AND executive producer. I wasn't wrong in any aspect. Keep defending RDR's size. Keep counting the unplayable area we have never ventured into as part of it's size. It simply doesn't count. And when you don't count it, it comes out to near the same size as IV, and less than SA. I'm an idiot and a jackass? You ignore the fact that the unplayable area DOES NOT count toward the game's size and that is ignorant. It is not used for ANYTHING except looks. You've taken this size argument very personal.

[SaVaGe308]

Why do you guys take into account unplayable area for rdr size?

There is no sense. Imagine if r*  has made a 500 sq miles map for gta v but only 22sq miles would be playable. For me rdr is only 6,5 sq miles not more 'cause it s the real size of playable area. Agree? So, i post again the rdr size to clear all doubts about the map

 

 

so :

GTA IV:~ 6 SQ miles

RDR :~6,5 SQ miles

GTA SA: ~13 sq miles

GTA V:  ~22 sq miles (land) < estimated size < ~35 sq miles(land+water)

 

About los santos It was announced to be 1/8 of the whole map so :

LS: ~3 sq miles

But i think we have to beware of r* announcements. At beginning Rdr had to be twice as large as SA and finaly it s only half size

If Los Santos is 3 sq miles people would flip. That's just above half of what Liberty City is if I'm correct?

 

And I agree it's pretty ridiculous people count the unplayable area in RDR because it's just there for looks. Face it, RDR is not bigger than SA and is just around the same size as IV guys. Period. No matter what Dan Houser said he just writes the games, he has little influence if any on constructing the maps.

lol dan houser was the executive producer for red dead redemption... once again people spouting off sh*t they havent researched here at gta forums.

Executive producers oversee a game as it is developed... they manage to see that the job is getting done. Maybe some input here and there.

i thought 20min ago you said he was the writer? which is it?lol

Dan Houser is the head writer/VP for R* games. Once again you have no idea what you're talking about. He was the executive producer for RDR. He has written for each GTA and most of the other R* games they've made. And has been the executive producer for many of their titles.

Thats my point. you said he was the writer of rdr at first. im the one who told you otherwise. you dont know sh*t. you honestly think dan houser doesnt know every aspect of every game they put out? youre a fool. quality control is why they have lasted as long as they have. ill guarantee he knows every damn game hes ever been a part of like the back of his hand by the time the games get to us. thats his job. youre an idiot. you literally went to wiki and copied and pasted the first paragraph!lol jackass

LOL the problem is... he is the writer AND executive producer. I wasn't wrong in any aspect. Keep defending RDR's size. Keep counting the unplayable area we have never ventured into as part of it's size. It simply doesn't count. And when you don't count it, it comes out to near the same size as IV, and less than SA. You've taken this size argument very personal.

youre the one still talking about it. i was commenting on your copy and paste skills and the fact that los santos is way the f*ck bigger than 3 square miles. i want a 6pack of whatever the guy was drinking that came up with those numbers

[josephene123]

Why do you guys take into account unplayable area for rdr size?

There is no sense. Imagine if r*  has made a 500 sq miles map for gta v but only 22sq miles would be playable. For me rdr is only 6,5 sq miles not more 'cause it s the real size of playable area. Agree? So, i post again the rdr size to clear all doubts about the map

 

 

so :

GTA IV:~ 6 SQ miles

RDR :~6,5 SQ miles

GTA SA: ~13 sq miles

GTA V:  ~22 sq miles (land) < estimated size < ~35 sq miles(land+water)

 

About los santos It was announced to be 1/8 of the whole map so :

LS: ~3 sq miles

But i think we have to beware of r* announcements. At beginning Rdr had to be twice as large as SA and finaly it s only half size

If Los Santos is 3 sq miles people would flip. That's just above half of what Liberty City is if I'm correct?

 

And I agree it's pretty ridiculous people count the unplayable area in RDR because it's just there for looks. Face it, RDR is not bigger than SA and is just around the same size as IV guys. Period. No matter what Dan Houser said he just writes the games, he has little influence if any on constructing the maps.

lol dan houser was the executive producer for red dead redemption... once again people spouting off sh*t they havent researched here at gta forums.

Executive producers oversee a game as it is developed... they manage to see that the job is getting done. Maybe some input here and there.

i thought 20min ago you said he was the writer? which is it?lol

Dan Houser is the head writer/VP for R* games. Once again you have no idea what you're talking about. He was the executive producer for RDR. He has written for each GTA and most of the other R* games they've made. And has been the executive producer for many of their titles.

Thats my point. you said he was the writer of rdr at first. im the one who told you otherwise. you dont know sh*t. you honestly think dan houser doesnt know every aspect of every game they put out? youre a fool. quality control is why they have lasted as long as they have. ill guarantee he knows every damn game hes ever been a part of like the back of his hand by the time the games get to us. thats his job. youre an idiot. you literally went to wiki and copied and pasted the first paragraph!lol jackass

LOL the problem is... he is the writer AND executive producer. I wasn't wrong in any aspect. Keep defending RDR's size. Keep counting the unplayable area we have never ventured into as part of it's size. It simply doesn't count. And when you don't count it, it comes out to near the same size as IV, and less than SA. You've taken this size argument very personal.

youre the one still talking about it. i was commenting on your copy and paste skills and the fact that los santos is way the f*ck bigger than 3 square miles. i want a 6pack of whatever the guy was drinking that came up with those numbers

Are you saying it's bigger than around 3 SQ M as a fact or as your opinion

[KrushLTx10]

 

youre the one still talking about it. i was commenting on your copy and paste skills and the fact that los santos is way the f*ck bigger than 3 square miles. i want a 6pack of whatever the guy was drinking that came up with those numbers

Ok so you came at me saying I'm idiotic for saying that RDR is smaller than SA and now you're diverting to his size estimate of Los Santos being 3 sq miles. Copy and paste? How else could I have worded that? It's a simple phrase. And yes the 3 sq miles is way off I agree with that. People have come up with around 6.5 sq miles for RDR's playable area.

Edited June 7, 2013 by KrushLTx10

[dee8ball]

Why do you guys take into account unplayable area for rdr size?

There is no sense. Imagine if r*  has made a 500 sq miles map for gta v but only 22sq miles would be playable. For me rdr is only 6,5 sq miles not more 'cause it s the real size of playable area. Agree? So, i post again the rdr size to clear all doubts about the map

 

 

so :

GTA IV:~ 6 SQ miles

RDR :~6,5 SQ miles

GTA SA: ~13 sq miles

GTA V:  ~22 sq miles (land) < estimated size < ~35 sq miles(land+water)

 

About los santos It was announced to be 1/8 of the whole map so :

LS: ~3 sq miles

But i think we have to beware of r* announcements. At beginning Rdr had to be twice as large as SA and finaly it s only half size

IIRC, when R* previously talked about the size of RDR, they included the non-playable area, such as saying it's bigger than SA. So maybe when talking about GTAV being five times the size, they're doing the same thing?

wheres dee8ball crying about how everyones off topic? anyways... i have to disagree. the playable area of red dead is larger than san andreas, and los santos is waaaaaaaay the f*ck bigger than three square miles.

 

oh nevermind there he is!lol f*ck you! your name dan houser now? you know what he meant? its bigger... deal with it. by ol boys calculations he provided los santos is 3 square miles!?lol seriously? give me a break

So you disregard the facts and make your own idiotic assumptions.

 

Wow. Your either retarded or a troll.

And for the sake or humanity i hope it's the latter.

so youre saying los santos is 3 square miles? to be clear since youre a f*cking idiot, thatd be roughly 1.7 miles wide by 1.7 miles long... so 3 square miles? youre f*cking serious? and just to be clear... who in the fuuuck came up with rdr 6.5 square miles and what formula did you use?

I never said los santos was three square miles.

I said it was the size of liberty city or 6 square miles you dumbass.

[SaVaGe308]

 

youre the one still talking about it. i was commenting on your copy and paste skills and the fact that los santos is way the f*ck bigger than 3 square miles. i want a 6pack of whatever the guy was drinking that came up with those numbers

Ok so you came at me saying I'm idiotic for saying that RDR is smaller than SA and now you're diverting to his size estimate of Los Santos being 3 sq miles. Copy and paste? How else could I have worded that? It's a simple phrase. And yes the 3 sq miles is way off I agree with that. People have come up with around 6.5 sq miles for RDR's playable area.

i know people have come up with 6.5 square miles. what i said was someone please prove to me how rdr is 6.5 square miles. also, i commented on the 3 square miles for los santos because that number was on topic since it was about los santos and it also depends on his skewed sense of red deads map size. those numbers make no sense whatsoever

 

@dumbf*ck... i mean dee8ball you were pointing to dipsh*ts diagram above as fact. it is not fact. it has many many flaws and in no way shape or form is it accurate at all. for his numbers to be correct then rdr has to be 6.5 miles which points to los santos being 3 miles which is almost as retarded as you

Edited June 7, 2013 by SaVaGe308

[Choco Taco]

what i said was someone please prove to me how rdr is 6.5 square miles.

It's smaller.

 

http://www.gtaforums.com/index.php?showtop...entry1062549084

[dee8ball]

youre the one still talking about it. i was commenting on your copy and paste skills and the fact that los santos is way the f*ck bigger than 3 square miles. i want a 6pack of whatever the guy was drinking that came up with those numbers

Ok so you came at me saying I'm idiotic for saying that RDR is smaller than SA and now you're diverting to his size estimate of Los Santos being 3 sq miles. Copy and paste? How else could I have worded that? It's a simple phrase. And yes the 3 sq miles is way off I agree with that. People have come up with around 6.5 sq miles for RDR's playable area.

i know people have come up with 6.5 square miles. what i said was someone please prove to me how rdr is 6.5 square miles. also, i commented on the 3 square miles for los santos because that number was on topic since it was about los santos and it also depends on his skewed sense of red deads map size. those numbers make no sense whatsoever

 

@dumbf*ck... i mean dee8ball you were pointing to dipsh*ts diagram above as fact. it is not fact. it has many many flaws and in no way shape or form is it accurate at all. for his numbers to be correct then rdr has to be 6.5 miles which points to los santos being 3 miles which is almost as retarded as you

What diagram. What the hell are you talking about.

Also you seem to be slipping up. Maybe a nice cup 'o shut the hell up will cure what ails you.

[AKalashnikov]

 

youre the one still talking about it. i was commenting on your copy and paste skills and the fact that los santos is way the f*ck bigger than 3 square miles. i want a 6pack of whatever the guy was drinking that came up with those numbers

Ok so you came at me saying I'm idiotic for saying that RDR is smaller than SA and now you're diverting to his size estimate of Los Santos being 3 sq miles. Copy and paste? How else could I have worded that? It's a simple phrase. And yes the 3 sq miles is way off I agree with that. People have come up with around 6.5 sq miles for RDR's playable area.

i know people have come up with 6.5 square miles. what i said was someone please prove to me how rdr is 6.5 square miles. also, i commented on the 3 square miles for los santos because that number was on topic since it was about los santos and it also depends on his skewed sense of red deads map size. those numbers make no sense whatsoever

 

@dumbf*ck... i mean dee8ball you were pointing to dipsh*ts diagram above as fact. it is not fact. it has many many flaws and in no way shape or form is it accurate at all. for his numbers to be correct then rdr has to be 6.5 miles which points to los santos being 3 miles which is almost as retarded as you

What diagram. What the hell are you talking about.

Also you seem to be slipping up. Maybe a nice cup 'o shut the hell up will cure what ails you.

I don't really care for getting abusive when arguing the size of the map in a video game. But as a contribution this is what came to mind.

 

 

Edited June 7, 2013 by AKalashnikov

[SaVaGe308]

youre the one still talking about it. i was commenting on your copy and paste skills and the fact that los santos is way the f*ck bigger than 3 square miles. i want a 6pack of whatever the guy was drinking that came up with those numbers

Ok so you came at me saying I'm idiotic for saying that RDR is smaller than SA and now you're diverting to his size estimate of Los Santos being 3 sq miles. Copy and paste? How else could I have worded that? It's a simple phrase. And yes the 3 sq miles is way off I agree with that. People have come up with around 6.5 sq miles for RDR's playable area.

i know people have come up with 6.5 square miles. what i said was someone please prove to me how rdr is 6.5 square miles. also, i commented on the 3 square miles for los santos because that number was on topic since it was about los santos and it also depends on his skewed sense of red deads map size. those numbers make no sense whatsoever

 

@dumbf*ck... i mean dee8ball you were pointing to dipsh*ts diagram above as fact. it is not fact. it has many many flaws and in no way shape or form is it accurate at all. for his numbers to be correct then rdr has to be 6.5 miles which points to los santos being 3 miles which is almost as retarded as you

What diagram. What the hell are you talking about.

Also you seem to be slipping up. Maybe a nice cup 'o shut the hell up will cure what ails you.

dude you realize this is the internet right? you can act all timmy tuff nuts as much as you want and its not gonna change anything. youre a f*cking tool.

 

also @choco that pic you posted is a pic of the map with numbers written on them. ive seen it. i want to know how someone came up with the numbers they did. i dont want to see another pic with numbers scribbled on it.

 

heres a pic for you

 

 

 

[RockStarNiko]

youre the one still talking about it. i was commenting on your copy and paste skills and the fact that los santos is way the f*ck bigger than 3 square miles. i want a 6pack of whatever the guy was drinking that came up with those numbers

Ok so you came at me saying I'm idiotic for saying that RDR is smaller than SA and now you're diverting to his size estimate of Los Santos being 3 sq miles. Copy and paste? How else could I have worded that? It's a simple phrase. And yes the 3 sq miles is way off I agree with that. People have come up with around 6.5 sq miles for RDR's playable area.

i know people have come up with 6.5 square miles. what i said was someone please prove to me how rdr is 6.5 square miles. also, i commented on the 3 square miles for los santos because that number was on topic since it was about los santos and it also depends on his skewed sense of red deads map size. those numbers make no sense whatsoever

 

@dumbf*ck... i mean dee8ball you were pointing to dipsh*ts diagram above as fact. it is not fact. it has many many flaws and in no way shape or form is it accurate at all. for his numbers to be correct then rdr has to be 6.5 miles which points to los santos being 3 miles which is almost as retarded as you

How large do you believe each of the 3 maps of SA, IV and RDR to be? What is your estimate?

 

"Rockstar map sizes: GTA V > RDR > San Andreas > GTA IV"

 

If your signature was true, can you explain to me how GTA V = 3.5x RDR and GTA V = RDR + SA + IV can result in the same answer?

 

 

What is you opinion on the post Choco quoted? The one from fatality showing RDR map size

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Eutyphro]

If your signature was true, can you explain to me how GTA V = 3.5x RDR and GTA V = RDR + SA + IV can result in the same answer?

Didn't R* say it was RDR + SA + IV with room to spare?

[RockStarNiko]

youre the one still talking about it. i was commenting on your copy and paste skills and the fact that los santos is way the f*ck bigger than 3 square miles. i want a 6pack of whatever the guy was drinking that came up with those numbers

Ok so you came at me saying I'm idiotic for saying that RDR is smaller than SA and now you're diverting to his size estimate of Los Santos being 3 sq miles. Copy and paste? How else could I have worded that? It's a simple phrase. And yes the 3 sq miles is way off I agree with that. People have come up with around 6.5 sq miles for RDR's playable area.

i know people have come up with 6.5 square miles. what i said was someone please prove to me how rdr is 6.5 square miles. also, i commented on the 3 square miles for los santos because that number was on topic since it was about los santos and it also depends on his skewed sense of red deads map size. those numbers make no sense whatsoever

 

@dumbf*ck... i mean dee8ball you were pointing to dipsh*ts diagram above as fact. it is not fact. it has many many flaws and in no way shape or form is it accurate at all. for his numbers to be correct then rdr has to be 6.5 miles which points to los santos being 3 miles which is almost as retarded as you

What diagram. What the hell are you talking about.

Also you seem to be slipping up. Maybe a nice cup 'o shut the hell up will cure what ails you.

dude you realize this is the internet right? you can act all timmy tuff nuts as much as you want and its not gonna change anything. youre a f*cking tool.

 

also @choco that pic you posted is a pic of the map with numbers written on them. ive seen it. i want to know how someone came up with the numbers they did. i dont want to see another pic with numbers scribbled on it.

 

heres a pic for you

 

How did you come up with the picture comparison?

 

Maybe if you showed some method people might take you more seriously.

 

I am not 100% convinced that San Andreas is larger than Red Dead Redemption (I am ~90%), but I am 100% convinced that according to the in game measuring systems, San Andreas is larger than Red Dead Redemption.

 

Until someone can actually show a reasonable argument that the measuring systems are different and why, I have no choice but to believe SA > RDR.

 

I am open to change my mind, but only if someone can prove it somehow.

 

 

[SaVaGe308]

youre the one still talking about it. i was commenting on your copy and paste skills and the fact that los santos is way the f*ck bigger than 3 square miles. i want a 6pack of whatever the guy was drinking that came up with those numbers

Ok so you came at me saying I'm idiotic for saying that RDR is smaller than SA and now you're diverting to his size estimate of Los Santos being 3 sq miles. Copy and paste? How else could I have worded that? It's a simple phrase. And yes the 3 sq miles is way off I agree with that. People have come up with around 6.5 sq miles for RDR's playable area.

i know people have come up with 6.5 square miles. what i said was someone please prove to me how rdr is 6.5 square miles. also, i commented on the 3 square miles for los santos because that number was on topic since it was about los santos and it also depends on his skewed sense of red deads map size. those numbers make no sense whatsoever

 

@dumbf*ck... i mean dee8ball you were pointing to dipsh*ts diagram above as fact. it is not fact. it has many many flaws and in no way shape or form is it accurate at all. for his numbers to be correct then rdr has to be 6.5 miles which points to los santos being 3 miles which is almost as retarded as you

How large do you believe each of the 3 maps of SA, IV and RDR to be? What is your estimate?

 

"Rockstar map sizes: GTA V > RDR > San Andreas > GTA IV"

 

If your signature was true, can you explain to me how GTA V = 3.5x RDR and GTA V = RDR + SA + IV can result in the same answer?

 

 

What is you opinion on the post Choco quoted? The one from fatality showing RDR map size

jesus christ buddy... read a little bit! f*ck!! i have seen stupid motherf*cker post this sh*t countless times on here and it is wrong! read the quote! the quote you are trying to put in equation form is "GTA V is BIGGER than GTA IV, GTA San Andreas, and Read Dead Redemption combined, WITH ROOM TO SPARE! where did you go to school? in what country does that come out to "gtav=gta iv+gtasa+rdr"???

 

the equation is: (GTA V) > (GTA IV)+(GTA SA)+(RDR)+(x)

 

he also said GTA V's land area is 3.5x rdr and 5x rdr with underwater explorable areas included

 

that equation means any of the three could be the biggest. it rules out none of them, and if you dont believe dan houser when he said rdr was roughly twice as big as san andreas then why do you put so much stock into his other quotes???

[dxbrandon]

If your signature was true, can you explain to me how GTA V = 3.5x RDR and GTA V = RDR + SA + IV can result in the same answer?

Didn't R* say it was RDR + SA + IV with room to spare?

Ya, they never said the map would be equal to RDR+ SA + IV combined with room to spare, they said "Bigger" than RDR + SA + IV combined with room to spare.

[SaVaGe308]

If your signature was true, can you explain to me how GTA V = 3.5x RDR and GTA V = RDR + SA + IV can result in the same answer?

Didn't R* say it was RDR + SA + IV with room to spare?

Ya, they never said the map would be equal to RDR+ SA + IV combined with room to spare, they said "Bigger" than RDR + SA + IV combined with room to spare.

thank you for being able to read properly by my estimation that moves you to the top of the gta forums food chain.

[dee8ball]

youre the one still talking about it. i was commenting on your copy and paste skills and the fact that los santos is way the f*ck bigger than 3 square miles. i want a 6pack of whatever the guy was drinking that came up with those numbers

Ok so you came at me saying I'm idiotic for saying that RDR is smaller than SA and now you're diverting to his size estimate of Los Santos being 3 sq miles. Copy and paste? How else could I have worded that? It's a simple phrase. And yes the 3 sq miles is way off I agree with that. People have come up with around 6.5 sq miles for RDR's playable area.

i know people have come up with 6.5 square miles. what i said was someone please prove to me how rdr is 6.5 square miles. also, i commented on the 3 square miles for los santos because that number was on topic since it was about los santos and it also depends on his skewed sense of red deads map size. those numbers make no sense whatsoever

 

@dumbf*ck... i mean dee8ball you were pointing to dipsh*ts diagram above as fact. it is not fact. it has many many flaws and in no way shape or form is it accurate at all. for his numbers to be correct then rdr has to be 6.5 miles which points to los santos being 3 miles which is almost as retarded as you

How large do you believe each of the 3 maps of SA, IV and RDR to be? What is your estimate?

 

"Rockstar map sizes: GTA V > RDR > San Andreas > GTA IV"

 

If your signature was true, can you explain to me how GTA V = 3.5x RDR and GTA V = RDR + SA + IV can result in the same answer?

 

 

What is you opinion on the post Choco quoted? The one from fatality showing RDR map size

jesus christ buddy... read a little bit! f*ck!! i have seen stupid motherf*cker post this sh*t countless times on here and it is wrong!

What a perfect description of yourself Mr. Savage.

[RockStarNiko]

youre the one still talking about it. i was commenting on your copy and paste skills and the fact that los santos is way the f*ck bigger than 3 square miles. i want a 6pack of whatever the guy was drinking that came up with those numbers

Ok so you came at me saying I'm idiotic for saying that RDR is smaller than SA and now you're diverting to his size estimate of Los Santos being 3 sq miles. Copy and paste? How else could I have worded that? It's a simple phrase. And yes the 3 sq miles is way off I agree with that. People have come up with around 6.5 sq miles for RDR's playable area.

i know people have come up with 6.5 square miles. what i said was someone please prove to me how rdr is 6.5 square miles. also, i commented on the 3 square miles for los santos because that number was on topic since it was about los santos and it also depends on his skewed sense of red deads map size. those numbers make no sense whatsoever

 

@dumbf*ck... i mean dee8ball you were pointing to dipsh*ts diagram above as fact. it is not fact. it has many many flaws and in no way shape or form is it accurate at all. for his numbers to be correct then rdr has to be 6.5 miles which points to los santos being 3 miles which is almost as retarded as you

How large do you believe each of the 3 maps of SA, IV and RDR to be? What is your estimate?

 

"Rockstar map sizes: GTA V > RDR > San Andreas > GTA IV"

 

If your signature was true, can you explain to me how GTA V = 3.5x RDR and GTA V = RDR + SA + IV can result in the same answer?

 

 

What is you opinion on the post Choco quoted? The one from fatality showing RDR map size

jesus christ buddy... read a little bit! f*ck!! i have seen stupid motherf*cker post this sh*t countless times on here and it is wrong! read the quote! the quote you are trying to put in equation form is "GTA V is BIGGER than GTA IV, GTA San Andreas, and Read Dead Redemption combined, WITH ROOM TO SPARE! where did you go to school? in what country does that come out to "gtav=gta iv+gtasa+rdr"???

 

the equation is: (GTA V) > (GTA IV)+(GTA SA)+(RDR)+(x)

 

he also said GTA V's land area is 3.5x rdr and 5x rdr with underwater explorable areas included

 

that equation means any of the three could be the biggest. it rules out none of them, and if you dont believe dan houser when he said rdr was roughly twice as big as san andreas then why do you put so much stock into his other quotes???

I have never seen the source of the Dan Houser quote. Maybe if I did I would give it more weight.

 

You don't need to have a temper tantrum.

 

If RDR is larger than San Andreas it means that either the in game measuring system for SA is false, the in game measuring system for RDR is false or both are false

 

Which one do you believe has an accurate in game measuring system, if any?

 

 

Do you accept that San Andreas is 6 x 6 km and 36 sq km?

 

If so, please tell me how large you estimate RDR to be compared to this 6 x 6 and 36 sq km square

 

Source = http://uk.gamespot.com/grand-theft-auto-sa...e-hood-6126774/

 

 

 

[Eutyphro]

I have never seen the source of the Dan Houser quote. Maybe if I did I would give it more weight.

http://www.psu.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-230419.html

 

It's from an interview with a spanish gaming website.

[SaVaGe308]

 

youre the one still talking about it. i was commenting on your copy and paste skills and the fact that los santos is way the f*ck bigger than 3 square miles. i want a 6pack of whatever the guy was drinking that came up with those numbers

Ok so you came at me saying I'm idiotic for saying that RDR is smaller than SA and now you're diverting to his size estimate of Los Santos being 3 sq miles. Copy and paste? How else could I have worded that? It's a simple phrase. And yes the 3 sq miles is way off I agree with that. People have come up with around 6.5 sq miles for RDR's playable area.

i know people have come up with 6.5 square miles. what i said was someone please prove to me how rdr is 6.5 square miles. also, i commented on the 3 square miles for los santos because that number was on topic since it was about los santos and it also depends on his skewed sense of red deads map size. those numbers make no sense whatsoever

 

@dumbf*ck... i mean dee8ball you were pointing to dipsh*ts diagram above as fact. it is not fact. it has many many flaws and in no way shape or form is it accurate at all. for his numbers to be correct then rdr has to be 6.5 miles which points to los santos being 3 miles which is almost as retarded as you

What diagram. What the hell are you talking about.

Also you seem to be slipping up. Maybe a nice cup 'o shut the hell up will cure what ails you.

dude you realize this is the internet right? you can act all timmy tuff nuts as much as you want and its not gonna change anything. youre a f*cking tool.

 

also @choco that pic you posted is a pic of the map with numbers written on them. ive seen it. i want to know how someone came up with the numbers they did. i dont want to see another pic with numbers scribbled on it.

 

heres a pic for you

 

bout this big

 

fyi ive still never seen an official size given for rdr like they did for san andreas. all ive seen is fan maps with numbers written on them or the dan houser quotes about rdr being roughly twice as big, so literally i believe that picture to be accurate. anyone is more than welcome to prove it false if they wanna try. also, san andreas was scaled horribly. it was another trick to make the game feel bigger, like the fog and short draw distances

Edited June 7, 2013 by SaVaGe308

[RockStarNiko]

I have never seen the source of the Dan Houser quote. Maybe if I did I would give it more weight.

http://www.psu.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-230419.html

 

It's from an interview with a spanish gaming website.

Assume for one moment that the source of that quote is legitimate, nothing was lost in translation, Houser was referring to the actual map size specifically and that Houser was correct.

 

Assume that it was all true.

 

So, we have a map size of RDR being 72 sq km.

 

This in turn would mean that GTA V will be 252 sq km, which is just under 100 sq miles.

 

10 miles from edge to edge.

 

I really hope that is true, because I want a huge GTA game, but I cannot see it happening especially after we have seen the blueprint map of the city.

 

 

So, if GTA V is not going to be 100 sq miles and not even close to that, then the Houser statement and the Garbut statement cannot both be true. One is a false statement.

 

Now, it is a question of who we believe is more qualified between Houser and Garbut.

 

Garbut is I think the Art Director and Houser the producer/writer.

 

Personally I would lean towards the art director as I believe they would have more hands on knowledge.

 

 

It would help to actually see the interview so we could know the context of the Houser quote, if the quote was said to begin with

[Choco Taco]

If your signature was true, can you explain to me how GTA V = 3.5x RDR and GTA V = RDR + SA + IV can result in the same answer?

Didn't R* say it was RDR + SA + IV with room to spare?

Well, only an idiot would consider "room to spare" to be a large area.

 

If it was a significant size, they wouldn't have said "room to spare". They would have changed the numbers from 3.5 x RDR to something like 4 x RDR or whatever was appropriate.

 

[RockStarNiko]

Using the Griffith Observatory as the starting point.

 

What is the estimated distance to the most N point, most S point, most W point and most E point of the GTA V map?

[Eutyphro]

 

It would help to actually see the interview so we could know the context of the Houser quote, if the quote was said to begin with

If you would go to all the links in what I sent you then you would find this http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y...%2F&sl=es&tl=en as the original source.

 

If it was a significant size, they wouldn't have said "room to spare".  They would have changed the numbers from 3.5 x RDR to something like 4 x RDR or whatever was appropriate.

Uuhm, the room to spare comment referred to "GTA IV + SA + RDR". Not to "3.5 RDR".

 

Maybe we should take all these statements with a grain of salt? Sometimes there is also confusion about whether interiors are used in a clever way to make certain statements.

 

I feel like no one can really make perfect sense of these statements yet, and judge them. I think it's obvious to see how it is hard to compare the scaling of Games like RDR IV and SA with each other. I'm not a technical mastermind, but that seems obvious to me. Comparing IV and V would seem like an easier task to me, seeing how similar those are. RDR, IV and SA are just so different.

 

And in the end, who cares? Does that number really matter when we judge the game whilst playing it? We will judge the game on how much we like it when we play it. Not on some abstract fact about it that is in the end pretty unverifiable.