Map Size Thread

[Ferocious Banger]

Re-playing San Andreas, and holy smokes! I just realized what GTAV will be missing; it will be missing that amazing travelling between cities, through the magnificent countryside. God! What a game that is!

 

IMO, GTA:SA is the most ambitious game made by R*. I'm talking about ambition, and ambition alone. GTAV doesn't do all what SA did, but it will surely do whatever SA did in a better way and do some more that SA didn't.

 

SO, yeah, we'll miss the travels. We'll go north, enjoy the country, go south, enjoy LS. Rinse and repeat.

 

Okay bye. Thanks for reading I'm 75% asleep. Very sleepy. dzzz

[FranklinDeRoosevelt]

Give me the time machine you use

 

 

Seriously, you can't say that since you haven't played V.

[Vagg]

Re-playing San Andreas, and holy smokes! I just realized what GTAV will be missing; it will be missing that amazing travelling between cities, through the magnificent countryside. God! What a game that is!

 

Feel ya =/

[PHOENIXZERO]

There has been som talks about the size of the desert area in GTA V. Which made me thinking about SA. The theory I have is about map size in general and the desert area in particular. It's all about perceived size. Let's take the desert area in SA as an example. When you were out there in the middle of the desert you could really feel that you were a great distance away from civilization. Truth is the distance was not that big actually.

I think the reason for the "I'm in the middle of nowhere"-feeling was mainly because of the draw distance. You couldn't see anything else than desert and rocks. Imagine if you could see the skyline of San Fierro when you were standing in the desert. That would've taken away that great feeling of how big SA felt.

 

In GTA V the draw distance will apparently be a lot greater. I.M.O. this calls for a lot bigger size of the map (and the desert). On the fanmade maps the desert is quite small and it seems like we will be able to see some forests, lakes and the mountains surrounding Los Santos from there. One point of having a diversified world is that you should be able to "travel" to different kinds of vegetation and (i.m.o.) get the feeling you had in SA of being far away from anything else. I find it hard to believe that R* will take away that feeling by not making the different areas (forests, desert, lakes, villages etc.) in parity with the draw distance.

 

With that said. I'm convinced that the map size will be big enough for most of us, no matter the size in square miles.

I dunno, the illusion of SA's size died for me back in 2005 when I tried the 10x draw distance mod. But normally yes, that stuff contributed greatly to the illusion and it's something Rockstar has been great at and I doubt that's going to change with GTA V.

[shotgun fist]

'' a sprawling reimagining of southern california''

[Magic_Al]

There has been som talks about the size of the desert area in GTA V. Which made me thinking about SA. The theory I have is about map size in general and the desert area in particular. It's all about perceived size. Let's take the desert area in SA as an example. When you were out there in the middle of the desert you could really feel that you were a great distance away from civilization. Truth is the distance was not that big actually.

I think the reason for the "I'm in the middle of nowhere"-feeling was mainly because of the draw distance. You couldn't see anything else than desert and rocks. Imagine if you could see the skyline of San Fierro when you were standing in the desert. That would've taken away that great feeling of how big SA felt.

 

In GTA V the draw distance will apparently be a lot greater. I.M.O. this calls for a lot bigger size of the map (and the desert). On the fanmade maps the desert is quite small and it seems like we will be able to see some forests, lakes and the mountains surrounding Los Santos from there. One point of having a diversified world is that you should be able to "travel" to different kinds of vegetation and (i.m.o.) get the feeling you had in SA of being far away from anything else. I find it hard to believe that R* will take away that feeling by not making the different areas (forests, desert, lakes, villages etc.) in parity with the draw distance.

 

With that said. I'm convinced that the map size will be big enough for most of us, no matter the size in square miles.

I dunno, the illusion of SA's size died for me back in 2005 when I tried the 10x draw distance mod. But normally yes, that stuff contributed greatly to the illusion and it's something Rockstar has been great at and I doubt that's going to change with GTA V.

Draw distance seemed to work for Red Dead Redemption, not against it. Part of the problem, such as it is, with San Andreas is that the map is square. GTAV looks to be a longer map as well as larger, so you can get much farther from Los Santos than you could in San Andreas.

[kjacked]

Even in Al's estimate it is, which I think is the largest but I might be wrong.

kjacked's is the largest.

 

I highly doubt that's to scale.

That is the point. kjacked's scale is based on the whole horse track being one mile and the straights being around 600-800m, which would give this scale

jesus christ guys! chock ho made this scale. i did not make this scale. i never said the track was a mile from end to end. its a mile for a lap. the length from end to end has to be between 400m and 800m if it is a one mile track. i guessed it could be 600m but it was just a guess. it could be 500m, or 450m, or anything between 400m or 800m. let me repeat... I DID NOT MAKE THIS SCALE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! CHOCO MADE IT! I COMPLAINED TO THE MODS TO HAVE MY NAME TAKEN OFF OF IT SINCE CHOCO MADE IT AND CLAIMED IT WAS MINE. I HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT, IT IS CHOCOS SCALE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[LilBig A-Money]

Even in Al's estimate it is, which I think is the largest but I might be wrong.

kjacked's is the largest.

 

I highly doubt that's to scale.

That is the point. kjacked's scale is based on the whole horse track being one mile and the straights being around 600-800m, which would give this scale

jesus christ guys! chock ho made this scale. i did not make this scale. i never said the track was a mile from end to end. its a mile for a lap. the length from end to end has to be between 400m and 800m if it is a one mile track. i guessed it could be 600m but it was just a guess. it could be 500m, or 450m, or anything between 400m or 800m. let me repeat... I DID NOT MAKE THIS SCALE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! CHOCO MADE IT! I COMPLAINED TO THE MODS TO HAVE MY NAME TAKEN OFF OF IT SINCE CHOCO MADE IT AND CLAIMED IT WAS MINE. I HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT, IT IS CHOCOS SCALE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

i somewhat believe u, but i doubt Choco is dat big of a dick as to frame u for his stupidity

[kjacked]

Even in Al's estimate it is, which I think is the largest but I might be wrong.

kjacked's is the largest.

 

I highly doubt that's to scale.

That is the point. kjacked's scale is based on the whole horse track being one mile and the straights being around 600-800m, which would give this scale

jesus christ guys! chock ho made this scale. i did not make this scale. i never said the track was a mile from end to end. its a mile for a lap. the length from end to end has to be between 400m and 800m if it is a one mile track. i guessed it could be 600m but it was just a guess. it could be 500m, or 450m, or anything between 400m or 800m. let me repeat... I DID NOT MAKE THIS SCALE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! CHOCO MADE IT! I COMPLAINED TO THE MODS TO HAVE MY NAME TAKEN OFF OF IT SINCE CHOCO MADE IT AND CLAIMED IT WAS MINE. I HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT, IT IS CHOCOS SCALE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

i somewhat believe u, but i doubt Choco is dat big of a dick as to frame u for his stupidity

first of all it says "kjacked's estimate" which is not a first person way of saying "my estimate" if i was the one that made it. second of all read back a few pages and you can see the conversation that took place. he put my name on something he made.

 

@boss7dm, thats chocos los santos size estimation. i know, its way off.

[Agni]

Indeed, it is the distance fogging that makes SA seem so huge

Well, I also think that it was just really huge back then... You guys are defining 'huge' according to todays standards, which isn't all that fair. Videogames changed a lot through all those years (just look at the difference in graphics and physics..). Creating worlds that size (or way bigger) has become increasingly common since then. Discs can hold a lot more information these days.. SA might be bigger than V will be compared to it's open world competitors in it's day. But someone who knows more about gaming than me might tell more about that.

 

And now someone will come up with massive games with no quality like Just Cause or True Crime but they are irrelevant. Skyrim, that's a relevant comparison in terms of quality. It has the same sort of critical reception as GTA IV. Maybe Watchdogs will be such a game. If there is an open world game from 2004 that is anywhere near the quality and size of San Andreas then I would be delighted to hear about it.

Was there any reason to mention JC other than to hope to initiate a GTA fanboy circle-jerk?

 

Hint: JC 2's map blows SA's out of the water. So does IV's. SA's map is simply not that good. It was good back then but compared to modern day tech--it's not good.

[Eutyphro]

 

Indeed, it is the distance fogging that makes SA seem so huge

Well, I also think that it was just really huge back then... You guys are defining 'huge' according to todays standards, which isn't all that fair. Videogames changed a lot through all those years (just look at the difference in graphics and physics..). Creating worlds that size (or way bigger) has become increasingly common since then. Discs can hold a lot more information these days.. SA might be bigger than V will be compared to it's open world competitors in it's day. But someone who knows more about gaming than me might tell more about that.

 

And now someone will come up with massive games with no quality like Just Cause or True Crime but they are irrelevant. Skyrim, that's a relevant comparison in terms of quality. It has the same sort of critical reception as GTA IV. Maybe Watchdogs will be such a game. If there is an open world game from 2004 that is anywhere near the quality and size of San Andreas then I would be delighted to hear about it.

Was there any reason to mention JC other than to hope to initiate a GTA fanboy circle-jerk?

 

Hint: JC 2's map blows SA's out of the water. So does IV's. SA's map is simply not that good. It was good back then but compared to modern day tech--it's not good.

Just Cause 2 came out in 2010, San Andreas in 2004. Hardly fair to compare them on the criteria you compare them on. And even if the map could be better (which I'm sure is not the case), I'm not inclined to go play Just Cause because it is not critically received like GTA is, thus I can't be bothered with it. Difference between Just Cause and San Andreas is that GTA is gaming art and Just Cause is just a pretty average game. I did not mention them to start a 'circle jerk'. I mentioned them because people come up with those games when it's about size, even though they are totally irrelevant because they suck dick, and openly putting them in the same range as any GTA in terms of quality should be a Felony.

 

Edit: Oke, just read the hint part. Seems you try to dissagree with what I said when really, because of the 'current tech' part, you totally agree. I still think San Andreas has a lovely map, because San Andreas had a map that was used in a lovely game. San Andreas has so much charm, even if it is outdated.

Edited August 9, 2013 by gtaxpert

[DODI3OG]

 

Yup, this is pretty fail since we know that Liberty City has the same size as Los Santos,

and the whole word is 4-5 times bigger then Liberty City and 2-3 times bigger then GTA San Andreas.

This is - in no way - confirmed by Rockstar.

It's still an educated guess.

[Eutyphro]

Yup, this is pretty fail since we know that Liberty City has the same size as Los Santos,

and the whole word is 4-5 times bigger then Liberty City and 2-3 times bigger then GTA San Andreas.

This is - in no way - confirmed by Rockstar.

It's still an educated guess.

Grand Theft Auto V will be around five times bigger than its predecessor

http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/11/12/gra...-world-rulebook

[DODI3OG]

Yup, this is pretty fail since we know that Liberty City has the same size as Los Santos,

and the whole word is 4-5 times bigger then Liberty City and 2-3 times bigger then GTA San Andreas.

This is - in no way - confirmed by Rockstar.

It's still an educated guess.

Grand Theft Auto V will be around five times bigger than its predecessor

http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/11/12/gra...-world-rulebook

Ok. Thx

[DODI3OG]

So, GTA V will have a map w/c's 3.5x the size of RDR and 5x the size of GTA 4.

 

EDIT: Sorry the double post. Haven't seen my earlier post.

[Choco Taco]

Just in case anyone wants to check some map sizes, a mile length in GTA IV can be found here:

 

http://www.gtaforums.com/index.php?showtop...entry1061892669

 

 

[brian.]

those are 5 meters wide each.

[GKP]

Out of interest Brian, are you confident the '210m' block you measured in the screenshot tallies with the blocks you marked on the map ?...can be hard to tell.

[Supercrammer]

Liberty City is actually huge. There are so many streets to drive on. Based off the blueprint map, V doesn't look as dense street wise. Therefore, Santos will feel much more dense with things to do on every block and corner to give it the impression that it is big. Liberty just had a lot of driving area with nothing to do in between.

[GTAaLEX117]

Wow, I haven't been on this thread for a while.

Regarding an old conversation, Brian., if you agree with this scale of mine that the roads are the same width in both pictures: http://i1173.photobucket.com/albums/r597/A...4/Realigned.jpg, then do you also agree that the scaling of the pictures is accurate?

[Darth Mike]

Re-playing San Andreas, and holy smokes! I just realized what GTAV will be missing; it will be missing that amazing travelling between cities, through the magnificent countryside. God! What a game that is!

 

IMO, GTA:SA is the most ambitious game made by R*. I'm talking about ambition, and ambition alone. GTAV doesn't do all what SA did, but it will surely do whatever SA did in a better way and do some more that SA didn't.

 

SO, yeah, we'll miss the travels. We'll go north, enjoy the country, go south, enjoy LS. Rinse and repeat.

 

Okay bye. Thanks for reading I'm 75% asleep. Very sleepy. dzzz

Maybe we'll have a surprise. Who knows...

[josephene123]

Brian why are you so sure it's a 5 meter road? It definitely doesn't look like the 5 meter roads in the other picture that Magic Al put up

[abczyx]

Re-playing San Andreas, and holy smokes! I just realized what GTAV will be missing; it will be missing that amazing travelling between cities, through the magnificent countryside. God! What a game that is!

 

IMO, GTA:SA is the most ambitious game made by R*. I'm talking about ambition, and ambition alone. GTAV doesn't do all what SA did, but it will surely do whatever SA did in a better way and do some more that SA didn't.

 

SO, yeah, we'll miss the travels. We'll go north, enjoy the country, go south, enjoy LS. Rinse and repeat.

 

Okay bye. Thanks for reading I'm 75% asleep. Very sleepy. dzzz

You can travel a loop from LV to LS to SF and back to LV in under 10 minutes, easily. The countryside is pretty small in that game, and it's only the fact that the draw distance is short and the tricks R* used, such as putting the main LS - SF highway at the outer edge of the map, that make you feel otherwise.

 

Personally, I'd prefer the large contiguous single bit of countryside to the San Andreas ones. It will feel more realistic being a 10-15 minute drive from the big city, as opposed to 2 or 3 minutes tops such as in San Andreas. It makes the whole distinction of the countryside to the city more realistic. If you put GTA V's draw distance on San Andreas' map, you could probably see all three cities easily. That'd burst the illusion.

 

I think GTA V is as ambitious, considering the fact we're 9 years on, give or take a month or two. GTA V will only have one city, but the realism will be far greater. I always felt San Fierro felt a bit wasted in San Andreas.

[PoliceFarm]

Re-playing San Andreas, and holy smokes! I just realized what GTAV will be missing; it will be missing that amazing travelling between cities, through the magnificent countryside. God! What a game that is!

 

IMO, GTA:SA is the most ambitious game made by R*. I'm talking about ambition, and ambition alone. GTAV doesn't do all what SA did, but it will surely do whatever SA did in a better way and do some more that SA didn't.

 

SO, yeah, we'll miss the travels. We'll go north, enjoy the country, go south, enjoy LS. Rinse and repeat.

 

Okay bye. Thanks for reading I'm 75% asleep. Very sleepy. dzzz

You can travel a loop from LV to LS to SF and back to LV in under 10 minutes, easily. The countryside is pretty small in that game, and it's only the fact that the draw distance is short and the tricks R* used, such as putting the main LS - SF highway at the outer edge of the map, that make you feel otherwise.

 

Personally, I'd prefer the large contiguous single bit of countryside to the San Andreas ones. It will feel more realistic being a 10-15 minute drive from the big city, as opposed to 2 or 3 minutes tops such as in San Andreas. It makes the whole distinction of the countryside to the city more realistic. If you put GTA V's draw distance on San Andreas' map, you could probably see all three cities easily. That'd burst the illusion.

 

I think GTA V is as ambitious, considering the fact we're 9 years on, give or take a month or two. GTA V will only have one city, but the realism will be far greater. I always felt San Fierro felt a bit wasted in San Andreas.

Yeah, it's unfair to judge the sense of being far away from the city in GTA 5 just because of the draw distance, we know the world will be much larger and better designed, so when we're down in the world, driving through it ourselves, of course it'll feel much larger than the aerial shots make it out to be.

 

Besides, I much prefer having the ability to climb up the huge Mt Josiah, and look down at all the settlements and desert areas surrounding the Alamo sea, than to just have a thick brown fog 100 feet into the distance as a way to fool me into thinking things are so far away I can't see them.

[josephene123]

Again, brian why are you so sure?

[kjacked]

Again, brian why are you so sure?

He's trolling

[brian.]

Because I am sure. And because look at the width of the car. And because my own files are built after theirs lol.

 

Trust me, it's in the middle of me and al's estimate - or it's my estimate - one or the other.

[GTAaLEX117]

I asked you a question a page ago Brian. If the highways in this picture (the 2 lane and 4 lane ones) are scaled the same with the LC ones, do you agree that the picture of the LS area is scaled properly with the LC one?

http://i1173.photobucket.com/albums/r597/A...4/Realigned.jpg

[PoliceFarm]

Tried a little on-foot comparison between the two.

 

[kjacked]

Because I am sure. And because look at the width of the car. And because my own files are built after theirs lol.

 

Trust me, it's in the middle of me and al's estimate - or it's my estimate - one or the other.

so basically you have no clue? thats all you had to say