Map Size Thread

[Choco Taco]

 

we are on gta forums.... no one here is scared.

 

You're definitely scared to take my bet. You said Los Santos is "much larger" than GTA IV, but you still think the city is under 4 square miles.

 

What do you consider "much larger"? A quarter of a square mile more land with a smaller footprint?

 

 

 

you excluded a large area on the east side of los santos. we dont know what that area is yet, it could be a residential area that is in fact part of los santos.

 

 

Yeah, it's a residential area with no streets. People ride their donkeys to work.

 

 

----------------------------------------

 

 

 

I think the amount of people claiming that LC was bigger had been drastically reduced after the last wave of comparisons hit this thread. Nevertheless, I will re-post mine since I can't find any real problem with it and is based on more than just eyeballing:

 

http://i1173.photobucket.com/albums/r597/A...eRdVHighway.jpg

 

 

It's kind of hard comparing thin lines on fuzzy jpegs. A lot of the streets on the blueprint have borders. Are you including the border with the width? Look at the runway. Is the border part of the runway width or is it just the inner part?

 

 

[GTAaLEX117]

It's kind of hard comparing thin lines on fuzzy jpegs. A lot of the streets on the blueprint have borders. Are you including the border with the width? Look at the runway. Is the border part of the runway width or is it just the inner part?

Yes, this is definitely a problem when you are trying to compare them. That's why the suspended highway is the best choice, since it's easy to see how large it is (it's clearly contoured) when it's above the 8 lane one.

[GKP]

The city is more and more disappointing the more I look at the map. I havent posted much recently as this fact is so abundantly clear there is little else to say.

[GKP]

Some of these scale pics are laughable. It's hilarious that people eat this stuff right up. Anything they can do to prove that LS is bigger than LC. It just simply is not the case, LC is larger than LS. I'll do whatever everyone else is doing and make a map and cut the water out of LC (Because it's water isn't a playable area and doesn't count! Right guys?!) and skew it to fit the agenda that LC is bigger than LS.

Its no surprise that the 'long termers' are the ones more likely to actually use there eyes and brains correctly and come to the above conclusion.

 

Double post - f*ck you I dont care.

[GTAaLEX117]

The city is more and more disappointing the more I look at the map. I havent posted much recently as this fact is so abundantly clear there is little else to say.

How "disappointing" it is, is just an opinion, not a fact. And why even bother posting, it's not like you even help with comparing the cities, or anything really, you just complain and complain...

[kjacked]

we are on gta forums.... no one here is scared.

 

You're definitely scared to take my bet. You said Los Santos is "much larger" than GTA IV, but you still think the city is under 4 square miles.

 

What do you consider "much larger"? A quarter of a square mile more land with a smaller footprint?

 

 

 

you excluded a large area on the east side of los santos. we dont know what that area is yet, it could be a residential area that is in fact part of los santos.

 

 

Yeah, it's a residential area with no streets. People ride their donkeys to work.

 

 

----------------------------------------

 

 

 

I think the amount of people claiming that LC was bigger had been drastically reduced after the last wave of comparisons hit this thread. Nevertheless, I will re-post mine since I can't find any real problem with it and is based on more than just eyeballing:

 

http://i1173.photobucket.com/albums/r597/A...eRdVHighway.jpg

 

 

It's kind of hard comparing thin lines on fuzzy jpegs. A lot of the streets on the blueprint have borders. Are you including the border with the width? Look at the runway. Is the border part of the runway width or is it just the inner part?

you excluded the area meaning you must know what it is... that or you are trying to skew things in your favor since you know los santos is bigger. tell me what the area you excluded is? id love to know

[Red XIII]

Some of these scale pics are laughable.  It's hilarious that people eat this stuff right up.  Anything they can do to prove that LS is bigger than LC.  It just simply is not the case, LC is larger than LS.  I'll do whatever everyone else is doing and make a map and cut the water out of LC (Because it's water isn't a playable area and doesn't count! Right guys?!) and skew it to fit the agenda that LC is bigger than LS.

Its no surprise that the 'long termers' are the ones more likely to actually use there eyes and brains correctly and come to the above conclusion.

 

Double post - f*ck you I dont care.

Have you ever thought that most people really don't care how small the city looks, its video game for Christ sakes..

[Official General]

The city is more and more disappointing the more I look at the map. I havent posted much recently as this fact is so abundantly clear there is little else to say.

How "disappointing" it is, is just an opinion, not a fact. And why even bother posting, it's not like you even help with comparing the cities, or anything really, you just complain and complain...

Let him complain, it's a forum. Many people complained about the city's size with good reason. If you disagree, that fine, but no need to heckle someone else because they have a different view on this to yours.

 

This is not a geographical survey or land mass calculation exam, it's a simple discussion about the city's size, it's not complusory to have to analyze and design maps or measure them.

[ECDT1089]

we are on gta forums.... no one here is scared.

 

You're definitely scared to take my bet. You said Los Santos is "much larger" than GTA IV, but you still think the city is under 4 square miles.

 

What do you consider "much larger"? A quarter of a square mile more land with a smaller footprint?

 

 

 

you excluded a large area on the east side of los santos. we dont know what that area is yet, it could be a residential area that is in fact part of los santos.

 

 

Yeah, it's a residential area with no streets. People ride their donkeys to work.

 

 

----------------------------------------

 

 

 

I think the amount of people claiming that LC was bigger had been drastically reduced after the last wave of comparisons hit this thread. Nevertheless, I will re-post mine since I can't find any real problem with it and is based on more than just eyeballing:

 

http://i1173.photobucket.com/albums/r597/A...eRdVHighway.jpg

 

 

It's kind of hard comparing thin lines on fuzzy jpegs. A lot of the streets on the blueprint have borders. Are you including the border with the width? Look at the runway. Is the border part of the runway width or is it just the inner part?

I was just looking at your map...it looks like the PBS logo.

[GTAaLEX117]

 

The city is more and more disappointing the more I look at the map. I havent posted much recently as this fact is so abundantly clear there is little else to say.

How "disappointing" it is, is just an opinion, not a fact. And why even bother posting, it's not like you even help with comparing the cities, or anything really, you just complain and complain...

Let him complain, it's a forum. Many people complained about the city's size with good reason. If you disagree, that fine, but no need to heckle someone else because they have a different view on this to yours.

 

This is not a geographical survey or land mass calculation exam, it's a simple discussion about the city's size, it's not complusory to have to analyze and design maps or measure them.

I'm just annoyed at people constantly complaining. It's not valid criticism, it's just whining.

I also expected him (and I still do) to spam this thread every 2-3 minutes with a "the map is small it's a fact" comment, and reply to everybody telling them that.

 

Before you declare something as fact, you have to actually try to prove it, if not you risk looking like an asshole.

[Freezer89]

 

The city is more and more disappointing the more I look at the map. I havent posted much recently as this fact is so abundantly clear there is little else to say.

How "disappointing" it is, is just an opinion, not a fact. And why even bother posting, it's not like you even help with comparing the cities, or anything really, you just complain and complain...

Let him complain, it's a forum. Many people complained about the city's size with good reason. If you disagree, that fine, but no need to heckle someone else because they have a different view on this to yours.

 

This is not a geographical survey or land mass calculation exam, it's a simple discussion about the city's size, it's not complusory to have to analyze and design maps or measure them.

I'm just annoyed at people constantly complaining. It's not valid criticism, it's just whining.

I also expected him (and I still do) to spam this thread every 2-3 minutes with a "the map is small it's a fact" comment, and reply to everybody telling them that.

 

Before you declare something as fact, you have to actually try to prove it, if not you risk looking like an asshole.

Exactly. I just decided to visit this topic after weeks again and unsurprisingly the usual suspects are still posting about how disappointed the city is or something like that. Wow, that sure is a dedication.

 

I think we both just need to deal with it. People and opinions never change, it's just how it is.

[dxbrandon]

Haven't been to this topic in awhile...Looks like the sames things are going on..( No suprise there..)

[GKP]

Lex - I did over literally several hundred posts.

 

The fact that there are 6 blocks between downtown and the hills - the fact that you can tell the city is small by the out of proportion downtown - the city is just a handful of US Bank towers wide FFS.

 

The fact that suburbs or districts are literally 3 or 4 blocks in size - f*ck THAT...what kind of city is this .. a total pastiche ?...legoland ?..Look at the MINDBLOWING (admittedly) PS4 game to look at how cities should be done.

 

 

 

The fact that its on PS4 does NOT preclude it from the PS3 - it does simply by graphics...a similar sized game could be done on the PS3.

 

 

 

LS city is a disgrace. It is NOT LA , its far smaller than the real life LAX. F.U.C.K THAT . 5 years ! pffft

 

Freezer - I havn't posted in 5 weeks regularly.

[Choco Taco]

tell me what the area you excluded is? id love to know

It's this...

 

http://i.imgur.com/9OCRsdU.jpg

 

 

Since there are no streets or lights at night, that area isn't city.

[GKP]

Choco - whats the latest analysis on the size compared to LC. As I just wrote - I haven't been around here for a while.

[Freezer89]

 

 

LS city is a disgrace. It is NOT LA , its far smaller than the real life LAX. F.U.C.K THAT . 5 years ! pffft

 

Freezer - I havn't posted in 5 weeks regularly.

Well, coincidentally you just posted today again and I checked the topic just now since few weeks. Also you should know that your posts sometimes are entertaining and hilarious.. thanks for that. But since you are actually serious about that it's rather not so fun anymore.

 

Anyways let me try: 5 years for one city? That'd be a joke, sure.. but you seem always to forget that the city size is not the only damn thing GTA V has to offer. There is the story, the details, creating the atmosphere, the characters, the sh*tton of features, the other towns, the countryside, the multiplayer. Now it sounds way more reasonable. The city may be too small for you but at least appreciate that they most likely will put enormous detail into it so that it won't feel generic, lifeless, repeating, etc. But whatever, this obviously will never change your mind on that. For you it seems that only size matters.. a more realistic representation to reallife.

 

Why are you even comparing it to LAX in reallife? Just why..? And yes, Los Santos is not L.A. Surprise, surprise..

 

And I am done here. Hopefully. And I hope you come up with good argumentations so that I may understand that. But since both our views on LS are very different this won't happen I guess.

 

I hope you still will enjoy the game very much, I really do. Meanwhile I still will have to wait for the PC version.

[kjacked]

tell me what the area you excluded is? id love to know

It's this...

 

http://i.imgur.com/9OCRsdU.jpg

 

 

Since there are no streets or lights at night, that area isn't city.

so you have no idea what it is but you exluded that area anyways? thats all you had to say.

[Deffpony]

Just so you guys know, Im still very confident that LS is POSSIBLY equal size to LC, maybe slightly larger when considering the hillsides. But definitely not much larger. I merely stopped posting in here because the argument has been going in circles.

 

Using pictures of roads and airports and saying this 4 lanes looks like that 4 lanes just isnt accurate. Its great for a rough comparison, but nothing more.

 

I will be back here come release day to talk about the real size of LS, and if I am right I will gloat like a mofo lol, but if Im wrong I will give credit where it is due.

 

 

 

To those of you saying LS is HUUUUGEEE, I think your delirious. Its large, if you think GTA IV was large...

[kjacked]

Just so you guys know, Im still very confident that LS is POSSIBLY equal size to LC, maybe slightly larger when considering the hillsides. But definitely not much larger. I merely stopped posting in here because the argument has been going in circles.

 

Using pictures of roads and airports and saying this 4 lanes looks like that 4 lanes just isnt accurate. Its great for a rough comparison, but nothing more.

 

I will be back here come release day to talk about the real size of LS, and if I am right I will gloat like a mofo lol, but if Im wrong I will give credit where it is due.

 

 

 

To those of you saying LS is HUUUUGEEE, I think your delirious. Its large, if you think GTA IV was large...

los santos itself is the size of liberty city which was the entire game in the last go around. los santos is a small part of gta v's map... thats huge in my opinion, but you dont have to agree which is what everyone in this thread is forgetting

[Choco Taco]

Choco - whats the latest analysis on the size compared to LC. As I just wrote - I haven't been around here for a while.

Nothing's changed for me - I think Los Santos has a little more land, but it has a smaller footprint so you'll be able to drive and fly across it faster.

 

Los Santos will feel a good bit smaller than Liberty City due to:

 

- smaller footprint

 

- more direct routes across the city

 

- increased draw distance

 

- mountains blocking the view on 2 sides of the city

[Official General]

Just so you guys know, Im still very confident that LS is POSSIBLY equal size to LC, maybe slightly larger when considering the hillsides. But definitely not much larger. I merely stopped posting in here because the argument has been going in circles.

 

Using pictures of roads and airports and saying this 4 lanes looks like that 4 lanes just isnt accurate. Its great for a rough comparison, but nothing more.

 

I will be back here come release day to talk about the real size of LS, and if I am right I will gloat like a mofo lol, but if Im wrong I will give credit where it is due.

 

 

 

To those of you saying LS is HUUUUGEEE, I think your delirious. Its large, if you think GTA IV was large...

This

 

I hold the similar views. And we have pretty much the same reasons for not posting on here in a while.

[kjacked]

Choco - whats the latest analysis on the size compared to LC. As I just wrote - I haven't been around here for a while.

Nothing's changed for me - I think Los Santos has a little more land!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

so you dont want to take my bet because you know los santos is bigger than liberty city?lol glad we finally got that cleared up. all you had to do was say so

[NYC PATROL]

I'll say this. Los Santos is pretty comparable to the total land area of GTA IV. It

may not be as big as we would have liked BUT there is going to be a ton of stuff

to do in it.

 

Looking at it from the sky obviously makes it look a lot smaller. Get down on one of the roads

and you will feel like a damn ant guaranteed.

 

 

[GTAaLEX117]

 

Lex - I did over literally several hundred posts.

 

The fact that there are 6 blocks between downtown and the hills - the fact that you can tell the city is small by the out of proportion downtown - the city is just a handful of US Bank towers wide FFS.

I think this is the last time I will tell you this: stop relying on street blocks!

 

Firstly, look at the size of the city blocks in the downtown area, and then look at the city blocks in the Vespuci Canals area.

If you want an example from SA, look at the size of the blocks in Las Venturas, and compare it to the size of the blocks in Los Santos.

 

Those are NOT valid comparison references.

[josephene123]

Los Santos will feel a good bit smaller than Liberty City due to:

 

Stop saying that as a fact. S T O P I T. This would do nicely

 

"I believe Los Santos will feel a good bit smaller than Liberty City due to:"

[GTAaLEX117]

Using pictures of roads and airports and saying this 4 lanes looks like that 4 lanes just isnt accurate. Its great for a rough comparison, but nothing more.

 

Why would you say that? I'm talking strictly about the roads.

[Official General]

Los Santos is pretty comparable to the total land area of GTA IV. It

may not be as big as we would have liked BUT there is going to be a ton of stuff

to do in it.

 

 

This is what would make me get over the possible disappointment of Los Santos not being as big I thought it would be.

 

As long as there is a ton of things to do and there is a whole bunch of exciting and interesting things happening in the city, then that would more than compensate.

[Deffpony]

 

Using pictures of roads and airports and saying this 4 lanes looks like that 4 lanes just isnt accurate. Its great for a rough comparison, but nothing more.

 

Why would you say that? I'm talking strictly about the roads.

because you are eyeballing something that isnt a valid reference. Roads vary in width, especially between cities, despite the number of lanes.

 

 

I did a comparison using vehiclels as a reference and LS was still about equal to LC.

 

 

Here

 

 

Ok so duy9161 gave me an idea to use vehicles as a reference.

 

Using a scaled model of the feltzer, and the Michael rappeling screenshot, I tried to get an accurate estimation of the scale of one of the highways in V.

 

Heres the feltzer in a full scale model of IV

 

 

Now of course this isnt perfect, but I used the feltzer model to estimate the width of this street

 

 

 

Making the street on the plueprint equal to the same distance as the stacked up feltzers I obtained this scale.

 

[GTAaLEX117]

Using pictures of roads and airports and saying this 4 lanes looks like that 4 lanes just isnt accurate. Its great for a rough comparison, but nothing more.

 

Why would you say that? I'm talking strictly about the roads.

because you are eyeballing something that isnt a valid reference. Roads vary in width, especially between cities, despite the number of lanes.

 

 

I did a comparison using vehiclels as a reference and LS was still about equal to LC.

I did this a while ago:

 

 

They seem to be the same overall width.

[Deffpony]

 

 

They seem to be the same overall width.

Not a chance. The first picture has lanes that could probably tightly fit two cars within them. The LS pic maybe 1 1/4 a car. When amplified thats a big difference.

 

edit: Oh i see what you did with the median. Once again, this just isnt accurate enough when you amplify it to scale.

 

 

Im not saying that you are wrong. What I am saying is that you shouldnt tote your findings as irrefutable. My means of finding the scale has just as much room for error as yours, and we have two very different sizes. So to claim that LS is definitely bigger than LC is just not true

Edited July 2, 2013 by deffpony