Map Size Thread

[skillz7855]

This thread is like a disaster area lol.

 

Where are people getting 3 square miles from? Did I miss something? Pretty sure that number is not a fact and needs to quit being thrown around like it is fact. Wasn't it also stated that Los Santos will technically cover more square miles than Liberty City?

When people compare the sizes nowadays, they aren't talking about Los Santos County, ala the entire map. They actually mean the Los Santos Metropolitan Area, basically the region where the city with the skyscrapers and urban settlement are, not the countryside or the beach or wherever that is going to be less densely populated than the city.

Yea but the people in the MAG where saying Los Santos the city was more square footage than IV liberty City so Los Santos City itself is bigger than IV.

[SeaFoam]

 

This thread is like a disaster area lol.

 

Where are people getting 3 square miles from? Did I miss something? Pretty sure that number is not a fact and needs to quit being thrown around like it is fact. Wasn't it also stated that Los Santos will technically cover more square miles than Liberty City?

When people compare the sizes nowadays, they aren't talking about Los Santos County, ala the entire map. They actually mean the Los Santos Metropolitan Area, basically the region where the city with the skyscrapers and urban settlement are, not the countryside or the beach or wherever that is going to be less densely populated than the city.

Yea but the people in the MAG where saying Los Santos the city was more square footage than IV liberty City so Los Santos City itself is bigger than IV.

I think I'm wrong about that information being in the magazine as I'm not seeing it. Maybe it was one of their earlier online previews? I'll continue to dig unless someone else knows.

 

EDIT: It was in Game Informers Q&A - Game Informer Q&A

 

 

From what you saw, did Los Santos, the city itself (not including mountains/countryside/etc.) appear bigger than GTA IV’s Liberty City?

 

Los Santos definitely covers more square footage, just as the sprawling Los Angeles metro area does compared to New York City. But just like the real cities, if you’re wondering about the density of the downtown area, Los Santos proper is smaller than Liberty City.

Edited May 14, 2013 by SeaFoam

[ArcherTheGreat]

This thread is like a disaster area lol.

 

Where are people getting 3 square miles from? Did I miss something? Pretty sure that number is not a fact and needs to quit being thrown around like it is fact. Wasn't it also stated that Los Santos will technically cover more square miles than Liberty City?

When people compare the sizes nowadays, they aren't talking about Los Santos County, ala the entire map. They actually mean the Los Santos Metropolitan Area, basically the region where the city with the skyscrapers and urban settlement are, not the countryside or the beach or wherever that is going to be less densely populated than the city.

Yea but the people in the MAG where saying Los Santos the city was more square footage than IV liberty City so Los Santos City itself is bigger than IV.

I think I'm wrong about that information being in the magazine as I'm not seeing it. Maybe it was one of their earlier online previews? I'll continue to dig unless someone else knows.

 

EDIT: It was in Game Informers Q&A - Game Informer Q&A

 

 

From what you saw, did Los Santos, the city itself (not including mountains/countryside/etc.) appear bigger than GTA IV’s Liberty City?

 

Los Santos definitely covers more square footage, just as the sprawling Los Angeles metro area does compared to New York City. But just like the real cities, if you’re wondering about the density of the downtown area, Los Santos proper is smaller than Liberty City.

Ohh now I get it. So basically the Downtown area will be the same size or smaller than Algonquin but the rest of the city, suburbs and Beverly Hills or whatnot will cover a larger area than what Alderney, Broker, Dukes and Bohan could. Okay, that's music to my ears man

[SeaFoam]

This thread is like a disaster area lol.

 

Where are people getting 3 square miles from? Did I miss something? Pretty sure that number is not a fact and needs to quit being thrown around like it is fact. Wasn't it also stated that Los Santos will technically cover more square miles than Liberty City?

When people compare the sizes nowadays, they aren't talking about Los Santos County, ala the entire map. They actually mean the Los Santos Metropolitan Area, basically the region where the city with the skyscrapers and urban settlement are, not the countryside or the beach or wherever that is going to be less densely populated than the city.

Yea but the people in the MAG where saying Los Santos the city was more square footage than IV liberty City so Los Santos City itself is bigger than IV.

I think I'm wrong about that information being in the magazine as I'm not seeing it. Maybe it was one of their earlier online previews? I'll continue to dig unless someone else knows.

 

EDIT: It was in Game Informers Q&A - Game Informer Q&A

 

 

From what you saw, did Los Santos, the city itself (not including mountains/countryside/etc.) appear bigger than GTA IV’s Liberty City?

 

Los Santos definitely covers more square footage, just as the sprawling Los Angeles metro area does compared to New York City. But just like the real cities, if you’re wondering about the density of the downtown area, Los Santos proper is smaller than Liberty City.

Ohh now I get it. So basically the Downtown area will be the same size or smaller than Algonquin but the rest of the city, suburbs and Beverly Hills or whatnot will cover a larger area than what Alderney, Broker, Dukes and Bohan could. Okay, that's music to my ears man

According to this, then yes. That's what I understand it to be. Now whether this still rings true who knows.

[bakerach]

 

This thread is like a disaster area lol.

 

Where are people getting 3 square miles from? Did I miss something? Pretty sure that number is not a fact and needs to quit being thrown around like it is fact. Wasn't it also stated that Los Santos will technically cover more square miles than Liberty City?

When people compare the sizes nowadays, they aren't talking about Los Santos County, ala the entire map. They actually mean the Los Santos Metropolitan Area, basically the region where the city with the skyscrapers and urban settlement are, not the countryside or the beach or wherever that is going to be less densely populated than the city.

Yea but the people in the MAG where saying Los Santos the city was more square footage than IV liberty City so Los Santos City itself is bigger than IV.

I think I'm wrong about that information being in the magazine as I'm not seeing it. Maybe it was one of their earlier online previews? I'll continue to dig unless someone else knows.

 

EDIT: It was in Game Informers Q&A - Game Informer Q&A

 

 

From what you saw, did Los Santos, the city itself (not including mountains/countryside/etc.) appear bigger than GTA IV’s Liberty City?

 

Los Santos definitely covers more square footage, just as the sprawling Los Angeles metro area does compared to New York City. But just like the real cities, if you’re wondering about the density of the downtown area, Los Santos proper is smaller than Liberty City.

Ohh now I get it. So basically the Downtown area will be the same size or smaller than Algonquin but the rest of the city, suburbs and Beverly Hills or whatnot will cover a larger area than what Alderney, Broker, Dukes and Bohan could. Okay, that's music to my ears man

BOOM someone else who understands. It's a bigger city PLUS a gigantic countryside, lots of which we haven't even glimpsed yet. People are just pissy because it's not... bigger enough, I guess? I know L.A. is WAAAY bigger than NYC, but this is the PS3/360 they're working with here, so I'm of the opinion that I should be psyched that they're accomplishing this amazing map. I say kudos to R*.

[Blazevski12]

 

The Bank Manager -

 

Not So, its just that the bridge shot above does indeed show the city at its widest point, from the docks to the Vinewood hills.

 

So what ?...doesn't discount the fact that in actual square blocks - the city is lacking.

 

True Crime ?..is your tiny mind not able to comprehend there is a gaping chasm between a 3 sq mile dwarf LA and a true to scale ( for at least part of it ) 240sq mile one ?

CAN YOU  ??? YOU f*ckING MORON!!!!!

 

READ OUR f*ckING REASONABLE REQUESTS BEFORE COMMENTING

 

You must be on your period but hopefully you wont be September 17, 2013 because by then you'll see the whole city as a decent size but

if you keep up this type of denial maybe you wont, anyways its YOUR loss because we'll enjoy it.

 

"Its small, still small, small, smaaaall smaaall" is a summary of what you've been basically saying on posts, but I want you on september

to buy Gta V along with a supply of tampons with a roll of toilet paper and play Gta V with its perfectly detailed game size, if the size doesnt

satisfy you go masturbate to a youtube video with a helicopter hovering over Los Angeles because guess what kid? This is Los SANTOS !

You are very emotional guy.

[Choco Taco]

Game Informer never stated whether they included the water between the islands in their comparison. Los Santos could have more square footage of land, but have a smaller footprint which means you could cross Los Santos faster than IV. For example:

 

[AlienWillHeMonsta]

Reddead SA and RDR is only 25 sq miles..

 

thats a 5 by 5 mile area. Hardly that unbelieavable ?

 

 

 

OG - For me, its something id do once, or in missions, after that... I suppose I have only ever played SA with underwater action. The lifelessness in that game put me off.

Before you went and lost your mind you posted this:

 

RDR map isn't a perfect square, making you comment completely redundant...along with your argument. Have nice day

[kasa]

well I continue my same mantra: till now the city looks big but what Im missing is I miss a certain vibe for specific neighnourhoods in LA like Compton, East LA, suburbs, till now the city seems it's mostly like a dowtown area with big buildings, hopefully Im wrong in the end

[bakerach]

well I continue my same mantra: till now the city looks big but what Im missing is I miss a certain vibe for specific neighnourhoods in LA like Compton, East LA, suburbs, till now the city seems it's mostly like a dowtown area with big buildings, hopefully Im wrong in the end

All they've shown us in any real detail are the areas around downtown, Malibu, Vinewood, and Vespucci beach. That's only about 1/3 of L.A. Look at a map of L.A.-- I'm guessing there's a lot more to the east, both northeast and southeast. The suburbs will be there, the hood will be there, and it will all be glorious.

[Blue_Mason]

facepalm....

[Freezer89]

facepalm....

Great contribution.

 

 

How are the chances we haven't seen one certain district of LS? Based on the trailers and screens it seems we've seen everything of the city but I feel that there is still something they haven't shown yet. On street level I mean and not just hundred meters above.. there are plenty of aerial views.

[Ferocious Banger]

well I continue my same mantra: till now the city looks big but what Im missing is I miss a certain vibe for specific neighnourhoods in LA like Compton, East LA, suburbs, till now the city seems it's mostly like a dowtown area with big buildings, hopefully Im wrong in the end

All they've shown us in any real detail are the areas around downtown, Malibu, Vinewood, and Vespucci beach. That's only about 1/3 of L.A. Look at a map of L.A.-- I'm guessing there's a lot more to the east, both northeast and southeast. The suburbs will be there, the hood will be there, and it will all be glorious.

This I hope of. Hope this is true.

 

Rockstar's marketing hasn't apparently started yet. Hope that sheds some light on the unsees city parts.

[Deffpony]

As chocotaco eluded to, it's not like these comparisons are completely accurate. LS is probably close to the size of LC. But until September we won't know if its more or less

[Irrational]

Game Informer never stated whether they included the water between the islands in their comparison. Los Santos could have more square footage of land, but have a smaller footprint which means you could cross Los Santos faster than IV. For example:

 

f*cking finally.

[Raavi]

As chocotaco eluded to, it's not like these comparisons are completely accurate. LS is probably close to the size of LC. But until September we won't know if its more or less

By the looks of it, smaller. Let's hope I'm wrong.

[kesta195]

Game Informer never stated whether they included the water between the islands in their comparison. Los Santos could have more square footage of land, but have a smaller footprint which means you could cross Los Santos faster than IV. For example:

 

I'd be happy with this. It's still technically bigger than LC, because you hardly spend time in the rivers. Think of how many more streets and locks you could fill that space with.

[Deffpony]

As chocotaco eluded to, it's not like these comparisons are completely accurate. LS is probably close to the size of LC. But until September we won't know if its more or less

By the looks of it, smaller. Let's hope I'm wrong.

I too think its smaller. But hopefully not

[Ferocious Banger]

 

[UrbanTheEmcee]

The F*ck? ^^^

[Ferocious Banger]

The F*ck? ^^^

Los Santos in Los Angeles. At least, that is how I feel it would be.

[The Scottish Guy]

Game Informer never stated whether they included the water between the islands in their comparison. Los Santos could have more square footage of land, but have a smaller footprint which means you could cross Los Santos faster than IV. For example:

 

Excellent post, and a great way to show graphically what a lot of people's concerns are.

 

It's all fine and well GI telling us that LS has more square footage than LC, but if that excludes the water between the islands, then Los Santos is going to feel A LOT smaller than Liberty city, as the water makes the map feel much larger than you think. I personally want LS to be at least the size of all three of the main islands in IV, INCLUDING water. Anything less, then I must admit, I'll be a little pissed off considering it's been 5 years since our last main game.

 

the city to countryside ratio should be around 1:5, not 1:8 as some people are suggesting here.

[Triple Vacuum Seal]

It's not that LS or the map is too small. What puzzles me is what exactly have we seen that resembles 5 years of work? Not saying that R* didn't do enough. R* simply hasn't revealed 5 years worth of development content (as they shouldn't in attempts to keep the game fresh to the buyer). With that being said, I don't see what's so crazy about thinking the overall map is much bigger than we've seen so far. Do people really think that small features here and there will be that missing chunk of work that V hasn't showed us? Even R* said we've only seen a slice of the game content.

[brwhizz]

 

Game Informer never stated whether they included the water between the islands in their comparison.  Los Santos could have more square footage of land, but have a smaller footprint which means you could cross Los Santos faster than IV.  For example:

 

Excellent post, and a great way to show graphically what a lot of people's concerns are.

 

It's all fine and well GI telling us that LS has more square footage than LC, but if that excludes the water between the islands, then Los Santos is going to feel A LOT smaller than Liberty city, as the water makes the map feel much larger than you think. I personally want LS to be at least the size of all three of the main islands in IV, INCLUDING water. Anything less, then I must admit, I'll be a little pissed off considering it's been 5 years since our last main game.

 

the city to countryside ratio should be around 1:5, not 1:8 as some people are suggesting here.

I really don't understand this. Surely, it's realistic to think that the area of Los Santos alone will be roughly equivalent to GTA IV's Liberty City: This is the standard size of a large city in this 'HD universe', which is surely big enough. Never once when playing GTA IV did I feel that Liberty City needed to be larger; It captured the New York City vibe perfectly and felt very varied.

 

There is no point in large for the sake of being large; I am completely confident that Rockstar will 'capture' LA and its surrounding suburbs and sprawl in GTA V.

[Raavi]

Game Informer never stated whether they included the water between the islands in their comparison.  Los Santos could have more square footage of land, but have a smaller footprint which means you could cross Los Santos faster than IV.  For example:

 

Excellent post, and a great way to show graphically what a lot of people's concerns are.

 

It's all fine and well GI telling us that LS has more square footage than LC, but if that excludes the water between the islands, then Los Santos is going to feel A LOT smaller than Liberty city, as the water makes the map feel much larger than you think. I personally want LS to be at least the size of all three of the main islands in IV, INCLUDING water. Anything less, then I must admit, I'll be a little pissed off considering it's been 5 years since our last main game.

 

the city to countryside ratio should be around 1:5, not 1:8 as some people are suggesting here.

I really don't understand this. Surely, it's realistic to think that the area of Los Santos alone will be roughly equivalent to GTA IV's Liberty City: This is the standard size of a large city in this 'HD universe', which is surely big enough. Never once when playing GTA IV did I feel that Liberty City needed to be larger; It captured the New York City vibe perfectly and felt very varied.

 

There is no point in large for the sake of being large; I am completely confident that Rockstar will 'capture' LA and its surrounding suburbs and sprawl in GTA V.

I strongly disagree. Size is of the utmost essence to get that real LA feel.

[ALeSsAnDrO]

I really don't understand this. Surely, it's realistic to think that the area of Los Santos alone will be roughly equivalent to GTA IV's Liberty City: This is the standard size of a large city in this 'HD universe', which is surely big enough. Never once when playing GTA IV did I feel that Liberty City needed to be larger; It captured the New York City vibe perfectly and felt very varied.

 

There is no point in large for the sake of being large; I am completely confident that Rockstar will 'capture' LA and its surrounding suburbs and sprawl in GTA V.

So as consoles evolve, storage increases, automated ways of developing emerge (procedurally generated terrain) we're supposed to be satisfied with the same map size over the years?

 

Why shouldn't people want more? If visuals and animation and the overall style of games get more and more realistic, the characters are supposed to continue living in tiny real-life simulations? I dont get this.

[UrbanTheEmcee]

 

There is no point in large for the sake of being large; I am completely confident that Rockstar will 'capture' LA and its surrounding suburbs and sprawl in GTA V.

 

I strongly disagree. Size is of the utmost essence to get that real LA feel.

 

They don't get it. They'll get it when they ride through Vinewood Hills in less then 20 seconds.

You can't change the definition of sprawl, and these photos lack sprawl. Not because of size, but because of portion of variety.

Edited May 14, 2013 by UrbanTheEmcee

[JStarr31]

 

I really don't understand this. Surely, it's realistic to think that the area of Los Santos alone will be roughly equivalent to GTA IV's Liberty City: This is the standard size of a large city in this 'HD universe', which is surely big enough. Never once when playing GTA IV did I feel that Liberty City needed to be larger; It captured the New York City vibe perfectly and felt very varied.

 

There is no point in large for the sake of being large; I am completely confident that Rockstar will 'capture' LA and its surrounding suburbs and sprawl in GTA V.

So as consoles evolve, storage increases, automated ways of developing emerge (procedurally generated terrain) we're supposed to be satisfied with the same map size over the years?

 

Why shouldn't people want more? If visuals and animation and the overall style of games get more and more realistic, the characters are supposed to continue living in tiny real-life simulations? I dont get this.

We do you guys think they're not including the water??? We include it in every other game (JC 2, SA, RDR, etc..). I swear, you guys just want LS to be small... smh.

 

You guys do know that the griffith observatory (and everything next to it, like that lake and housing) is part of LS city right?

Edited May 14, 2013 by JStarr31

[dewan2000]

 

I really don't understand this. Surely, it's realistic to think that the area of Los Santos alone will be roughly equivalent to GTA IV's Liberty City: This is the standard size of a large city in this 'HD universe', which is surely big enough. Never once when playing GTA IV did I feel that Liberty City needed to be larger; It captured the New York City vibe perfectly and felt very varied.

 

There is no point in large for the sake of being large; I am completely confident that Rockstar will 'capture' LA and its surrounding suburbs and sprawl in GTA V.

So as consoles evolve, storage increases, automated ways of developing emerge (procedurally generated terrain) we're supposed to be satisfied with the same map size over the years?

 

Why shouldn't people want more? If visuals and animation and the overall style of games get more and more realistic, the characters are supposed to continue living in tiny real-life simulations? I dont get this.

The same console doesnt magically evolve over its lifetime. They stick to the same hardware, and storage space means nothing when it comes to making a game. There is only soo much you can cram onto a disc.

 

Whos to say we have seen the whole city so far? We have yet to see areas such as Long beach, and it would be pretty stupid of them not to include areas such as Orange County. We have yet to see what lies along the coast line South East of the city. Might be more area's down there.

Edited May 14, 2013 by dewan2000

[JStarr31]