Map Size Thread

[GTAaLEX117]

Honestly, the difference between this

and this

is not that big at all (I'm talking about skyscraper density and number not actual size).

[Ciaran]

I think Los Santos is a Perfect Size, Plus we got a lot of Country and Desert and Little towns to explore

[GKP]

its a pissant tiny recreation that pleases tiny minded people who cant judge the size of cities.

 

Driving across Algonquin in 90 seconds is not that immersive, feels like a disneyland NYC - as V will - a truman show esque dwarfed 3 miles square city.

 

Well done R* ,.,what a magnus Opus. Stuff you countryside up your arse for all I care as well as your yoga , undersized airports and golf.

[bakerach]

GKP wouldn't know small if he looked down at what's in his hands while taking a piss -- he's just trying to start arguments with people, nobody in their right mind thinks anything about GTA V will be small. Don't buy into their troll bait.

[LTA1992]

Liberty City is not so big either:

 

 

Liberty City is not a so great version of NYC.

Saying that LS is too close to mountains is like saying Midtown is too close to Downtown.

As a person who lives in NYC, LC was a GREAT representation of NYC. Certain scenes made me feel like I was actually at those places.

[GTAaLEX117]

its a pissant tiny recreation that pleases tiny minded people who cant judge the size of cities.

Driving across Algonquin in 90 seconds is not that immersive, feels like a disneyland NYC - as V will - a truman show esque dwarfed 3 miles square city.

Well done R* ,.,what a magnus Opus. Stuff you countryside up your arse for all I care as well as your yoga , undersized airports and golf.

Looks like GKP the troll has returned, now with even more swearing and dissing.

Have you ever though about not buying the game if you dislike so many things?

[Chekoloco]

It's crazy though that Rockstar would make a make a map the size of San Andreas and Red Dead Redemption combined but cheat us out of having SF or LV. Makes no sense whatsoever, it's cool to have county side but gta was originally a city based video game. What ever person at Rockstar came up with the corny idea of having Los Santos remade surrounded by nothingless must be on crack, and the guy who signed off on the idea needs to be drug tested as well. What are they smoking? If you're not going to do San Andreas correctly, then dont do it at all. This is 2013, no excuses you made 3 cities in 2003 but cant do the same now with all this technology? lmao nobody buys that except hardcore fanboys. No excuses, when is there going to be forward progress instead of going backwards? Take some of that countyside and make SF or LV. It's so simple. I cant believe that countyside will dominating a grand theft auto map like they forgot the roots of the franchise. These dudes are making a hiking camping game.

WTF?

[GKP]

no Lex - overall the game will be fine. Its LS thats too small.

 

 

Check my posting history...im no troll. These are my honest beliefs.

[Official General]

Honestly, the difference between this

and this

is not that big at all (I'm talking about skyscraper density and number not actual size).

I'm actually hoping that is the case, I hope I'm wrong.

 

But the surrounding suburbs in LS appear to be lacking from the images.

[œaœa]

Liberty City is not so big either:

 

Liberty City is not a so great version of NYC.

Saying that LS is too close to mountains is like saying Midtown is too close to Downtown.

As a person who lives in NYC, LC was a GREAT representation of NYC. Certain scenes made me feel like I was actually at those places.

Same goes for Los Angeles. Don't judge unless you've been/are from there.

[LordXayd]

wow only 1 person got this right so far xd

 

kricco :

It was said that Los Santos would be the size of San Andreas, GTA IV and RDR map, which was news from GI and even R*.

& more to spare , infact this is what they said:

 

Houser was quoted as saying that GTA 5's world is bigger than Red Dead Redemption, San Andreas and GTA 4 combined.

 

Now Houser has told The Guardian that players will be doing a lot of flying in GTA 5 so it was important to the studio that there's plenty of airspace.

 

"We wanted to make a big place, as much as anything, to allow you to fly," he said. "A lot of the decisions, we're talking about them here on a philosophical level, but they're also practical decisions, too: we're making a game. You have to understand the medium.

 

"On an obvious level we wanted somewhere big so you can fly properly - we have a lot of missions that involve flying, in helicopters or whatever, it was logical. Also, Jet skis work better around LA than they would in New York.

 

"We're using the environment to let us have toys we couldn't have had otherwise," Houser added. "And equally, we're using the story and environment to introduce missions that can be more extreme. In some ways we wanted the game to have a larger-than-life Hollywood feel; the stories we heard in LA, we wanted to capture them in the game. If the place isn't informing what we're doing, we're not using it correctly."

 

 

edit resize your f*cking images for god sakes...

If there was a Kudos button Loony, I would give it to you.

[Waingro]

Ironically, this discussion is devolving into the same kind of discussion from The Dark KNight before it was released:

 

"This joker will suck because his skin isn't permanently white"

 

"No, Batman Begins is doing a good take on villains."

 

"Yea but this one WILL SUCK because look how Ras Al Ghul isn't immortal and stuff. Joker's gonna totes suck too"

 

This entire thread is dumb, every time I look here hoping for nuanced and mature points it's just the same damn "Nuh uh! It's a terrible map." I lived in LA for a year, I'm from NYC. GTA IV did a great job, and I bet GTA V will do a better job. I don't want nor need a literal 1:1 recreation of either city.....because I can just go there in real life. And if you can't, well, I'm sorry.

 

[LibertyKing]

 

Liberty City is not so big either:

 

Liberty City is not a so great version of NYC.

Saying that LS is too close to mountains is like saying Midtown is too close to Downtown.

As a person who lives in NYC, LC was a GREAT representation of NYC. Certain scenes made me feel like I was actually at those places.

Same goes for Los Angeles. Don't judge unless you've been/are from there.

I don't judge anything. I meant that if people think LS is not a great representation of LA because it is too small, then LC is a bad representation of NYC too. I also think that Liberty City (IV) was an awesome representation of New York. It has a New York feel. It's not about size, it's all about athmosphere.

 

@Waingro: I agree with you, but I prefer GTA than going there in real life, you have a lot more freedom in a videogame.

[kesta195]

It's not about size, it's all about atmosphere.e.

Finally, someone gets it.

[initium]

It's not about size, it's all  about atmosphere.e.

Finally, someone gets it.

I agree completely!

 

I can even imagine an open world game being TOO BIG, yes I said it..

[Official General]

I don't judge anything. I meant that if people think LS is not a great representation of LA because it is too small, then LC is a bad representation of NYC too. I also think that Liberty City (IV) was an awesome representation of New York. It has a New York feel. It's not about size, it's all about athmosphere.

 

 

If you're trying to prove a point then you went the wrong way about it because, Liberty City in GTA IV was not small at all, it was very big, in fact, huge.

 

The size of the city matters to a significant extent because that is what greatly contributes to the atmosphere. The huge size of LC in IV really added to giving me that realistic feeling like I was in New York City, because I've been to NYC, and it looks and feels huge. A huge-sized LS would certainly do the same to give me a realistic sense of being in LA.

[ChillyPhilly]

I don't judge anything. I meant that if people think LS is not a great representation of LA because it is too small, then LC is a bad representation of NYC too. I also think that Liberty City (IV) was an awesome representation of New York. It has a New York feel. It's not about size, it's all  about athmosphere.

 

 

If you're trying to prove a point then you went the wrong way about it because, Liberty City in GTA IV was not small at all, it was very big, in fact, huge.

 

The size of the city matters to a significant extent because that is what greatly contributes to the atmosphere. The huge size of LC in IV really added to giving me that realistic feeling like I was in New York City, because I've been to NYC, and it looks and feels huge. A huge-sized LS would certainly do the same to give me a realistic sense of being in LA.

Hallelujah.

 

What some have neglected to mention is that Liberty City was the biggest ever single city Rockstar have created (LA Noire was developed mostly by Team Bondi). To get Los Santos close to its size is still pretty slick. It would be bigger than the LC of III, bigger than Vice City and obviously bigger than any city in the original SA.

 

 

[73duster]

It's crazy though that Rockstar would make a make a map the size of San Andreas and Red Dead Redemption combined but cheat us out of having SF or LV. Makes no sense whatsoever, it's cool to have county side but gta was originally a city based video game. What ever person at Rockstar came up with the corny idea of having Los Santos remade surrounded by nothingless must be on crack, and the guy who signed off on the idea needs to be drug tested as well. What are they smoking? If you're not going to do San Andreas correctly, then dont do it at all. This is 2013, no excuses you made 3 cities in 2003 but cant do the same now with all this technology?  lmao nobody buys that except hardcore fanboys. No excuses, when is there going to be forward progress instead of going backwards? Take some of that countyside and make SF or LV. It's so simple. I cant believe that countyside will dominating a grand theft auto map like they forgot the roots of the franchise. These dudes are making a hiking camping game. 

WTF?

EXACTLY! WTF?

 

Most people are assuming that just because we aren't getting Las Venturas, or San Fierro, that we aren't getting other interesting towns to visit. That is just plain DUMB. While Los Santos is going to be the main city, I think it's ridiculous for anyone to think that everything else will be an empty map. Rockstar isn't going to create their "largest map to date", to just turn around and not fill it with places that are interesting and populated. Why not wait until we actually SEE the game, before we start complaining about what's NOT in it?

 

Rockstar has built a reputation on QUALITY games. I think they've EARNED a bit of trust.

[JStarr31]

didnt know where else to place this so.... heres my size comparison of LS vs. LC (streets/placement/orientations are not to scale, only the overall outline/circumference is):

 

PS: The brown mountain area still counts as LS, i am just to lazy to draw suburban/residential streets to represent the neighborhoods.... which a lot of you seem to forget about during comparison

[JupiterSound]

To be honest I think the city of los santos will be the same size as liberty city and the country side part of the map will be red dead redemption/ san Andrea's size which is f*cking huge you have got to remember they have added ocean floor ass well now so maybe have the country side san Andrea's size and the ocean floor red dead redemption size

I don't think the ocean floor will be the size of the Red Dead Redemption map..

[JupiterSound]

 

It's crazy though that Rockstar would make a make a map the size of San Andreas and Red Dead Redemption combined but cheat us out of having SF or LV. Makes no sense whatsoever, it's cool to have county side but gta was originally a city based video game. What ever person at Rockstar came up with the corny idea of having Los Santos remade surrounded by nothingless must be on crack, and the guy who signed off on the idea needs to be drug tested as well. What are they smoking? If you're not going to do San Andreas correctly, then dont do it at all. This is 2013, no excuses you made 3 cities in 2003 but cant do the same now with all this technology?  lmao nobody buys that except hardcore fanboys. No excuses, when is there going to be forward progress instead of going backwards? Take some of that countyside and make SF or LV. It's so simple. I cant believe that countyside will dominating a grand theft auto map like they forgot the roots of the franchise. These dudes are making a hiking camping game. 

 

If you don't like it, then here's an idea...PLAY SAN ANDREAS FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE!

Edited April 27, 2013 by JupiterSound

[Choco Taco]

I don't think the ocean floor will be the size of the Red Dead Redemption map..

It might be. If the land area is 20 square miles, then a thin strip of mapped ocean floor around it could easily be the size of RDR. It would look like this:

 

 

If there are deep underwater canyons, then the strip of would be thinner.

[trevors685]

It's not about size, it's all  about atmosphere.e.

Finally, someone gets it.

I agree completely!

 

I can even imagine an open world game being TOO BIG, yes I said it..

CAN be too big or CAN'T?

Well, either way, look at JC2.

[samyG]

One thing you have to consider (which it probably already has because I'm too lazy to read through every single post in this thread and the several other threads about this, lol) is that you have The CITY of Los Angeles and then you the COUNTY of Los Angeles. If you look up how the City of LA is WITHIN the county, it's really weird looking? lol but yea, that's one thing you need to think about. For instance, some of the more "notorious" places in LA such as Compton and Inglewood are it's own city within the county. Santa Monica and Beverly Hills are their own cities. So we don't know, of course, how they are sculpting Los Santos to reflect this and I know they won't involve every aspect of the place and it will be downsized for scale but I hope they do justice and make it a grand a lively place, both the good parts and the bad. lol

[Red Hat]

I'm sure Los Santos will be very big compared to Liberty City...

[GKP]

The city will be just a few square miles.

 

It IS too small. If you include the city limits, hills , sure ..it may be as large as the CITY part of LC.

 

Does crossing the city by highway in 90 seconds sound good to you ?...because at 2miles across thats a generous estimate of time.

[MuffinMcFluffin]

 

The city will be just a few square miles.

 

It IS too small. If you include the city limits, hills , sure ..it may be as large as the CITY part of LC.

 

Does crossing the city by highway in 90 seconds sound good to you ?...because at 2miles across thats a generous estimate of time.

To be fair, if I'm driving down I-5 and there isn't any traffic, that's all that it takes to "pass by" downtown. Granted, you're pretty far away from it and you're probably only looking at the skyscrapers when it happens, and you can see it for miles before and miles after (as long as you're not obstructed and you don't crash looking off the road lol), but it's not quite the array of skyscrapers like New York, Chicago, or even San Francisco.

 

But of course, I'm on the other side myself. I just think the city is too small, especially if it's the game's only major city. Yeah, I know we'll have hick towns here and there, but these games never did enough to replicate suburb life. It was either always one extreme or the other.

 

I would have killed for a San Diego replica alongside Los Santos.

[œaœa]

The city will be just a few square miles.

 

It IS too small. If you include the city limits, hills , sure ..it may be as large as the CITY part of LC.

 

Does crossing the city by highway in 90 seconds sound good to you ?...because at 2miles across thats a generous estimate of time.

I don't understand how someone as old as you are can be so bothered by this. Use your brain, the city isn't small at all. If you like city so much, play IV.

 

As large as the city part of LC? LC was all city. Do you not understand how city limits work?

 

Jesus, you think people would be over the whole skyscraper thing by now.

[GTAfan786]

The city will be just a few square miles.

 

It IS too small. If you include the city limits, hills , sure ..it may be as large as the CITY part of LC.

 

Does crossing the city by highway in 90 seconds sound good to you ?...because at 2miles across thats a generous estimate of time.

This isn't a real life simulator, it's a video game. I'd rather have a small city with MUCH MORE detail with a big city full of sh*t. Besides, it's big, it's been said in the GI magazine. Get a grip you obsessive kid.

[GKP]

The only reason I feel that this is such a big deal is how police chases and driving from mission to mission are affected.

 

I dont want to drive for 45 seconds from mission start point to target area. I would like a fairly significant drive. DONT mention the countryside to me, I am referring specifically to city missions. Similarly with police chases. You start off by the beach and 1 minute later your in downtown f*ck THAT !

 

I dont care if the kids (and most are kids) dont like to hear this opinion, you will realise R* spoon feeding you a variation on a theme come September.

 

READ my f*cking words 786 - dont just take what you read for granted, comprehend the fact that driving from one city locale to another will be a very fast and short process. The absence of the bridges in LC will mean there is nothing to stop you driving as the crow flies (within reason) from one area to the next in no time at all.

 

 

I have said it before but LS in V is far smaller than the real life LAX - thats a theme park sized city.

Edited April 27, 2013 by GKP