Map Size Thread

[Raavi]

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.

Not to mention the fact that a lot of the areas seem half-assed. Like hollywood hills and downtown for example. Looks far too dense and close to each other.

[UrbanTheEmcee]

 

^^^ Speculation^^^ Based off what a magazine supposedly quoted.

 

Ours is speculation too, but at least we have pictures to back up our opinion.

 

@Raavi: I agree. It seems like the made the outline of the map first, then positioned the city afterwards.

[jonstunt]

Good point

[AlienWillHeMonsta]

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.

You wont capture the real feel of any city. Something will be missing. Someone will always find something that's missing from the real city and a reason for bumping this thread.

 

And this is Los Santos. Who said the map has to be 50% reflection of LA?

[Ferocious Banger]

Los Angeles, from the looks of it, and according to the people who live there, is a really imposing city. A metropolitan. This Los Santos town, isn't.

 

GTA has its home in the cities ffs.

[dxbrandon]

Nice, I like this "Speculation" better then the rest.

[PiggyBankk]

This is how Los Santos and the countryside should be balanced -- not the other way around like R* has seemingly done.

 

[ALeSsAnDrO]

I think it's safe to say by now that this is the first GTA focused more on the surroundings than the actual urban area.

 

If claims of the map being 3x that of RDR are to be believed, and since we already concluded that Los Santos won't be bigger than Liberty, then the majority of the map will be countryside. This never happened before in a GTA game.

 

This represents a shift in priorities. I can understand that the countryside is far easier to create than two or three more high-def cities, but if this priority remains in future titles, we'll never have a worthy San Andreas HD successor.

[HoboDealer]

I genuinely feel really sorry for the people who think LS looks small! Can you get any more pessimistic?

[jonstunt]

 

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.

You wont capture the real feel of any city. Something will be missing. Someone will always find something that's missing from the real city and a reason for bumping this thread.

 

And this is Los Santos. Who said the map has to be 50% reflection of LA?

Have you ever played LA noire? that was more of a true representation of the space between downtown LA and hollywood. To me it felt oppressive trying to drive from one end of the map to the other, I would get bored on the way, imagine the whole of modern LA being a 1:1 scale, too much driving for me. I think a liberty city scale city is the perfect size as a GTA universe city.

 

Sorry meant to quote one above you

[jogy]

LA Noire was pretty big to be honest.

[Official General]

I genuinely feel really sorry for the people who think LS looks small! Can you get any more pessimistic?

It's nothing to do with pessimism, it's about what is in front of us. If the images show us that LS does not look that big, then that is what it is. If that is what images appear to show, then we will call it as we see it.

 

It's not like we just decided to say "hey, let's start up this theory that LS in GTA V is small, let's do it just for the fun of it".

 

The thing is, we actually hope we are wrong, we are not looking forward to proving our opinions right.

[brwhizz]

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.

You're getting an enormous chunk of countryside, three playable characters and endless side missions and quests, as well as this city, in a game that exists in the same era and on the same generation of consoles as GTA IV: That's an incredible thing. When technology makes that leap again we can probably expect larger cities and a greater degree of sophistication, but surely you can be perfectly happy and content with what Rockstar are offering now - which is more than they've ever given us before.

[Mrthingus]

Approximate comparison of SA Los Santos and V Los Santos.

 

NEVERMIND - The image is too large.

[UrbanTheEmcee]

 

I genuinely feel really sorry for the people who think LS looks small! Can you get any more pessimistic?

What's a reasonable size neighborhood in GTA for you?

4 blocks, 3 blocks?

 

Where the f*ck are the homes in this city? Why is Vinewood three feet from downtown?

 

The city isn't small for a game, it's just too small for a representation of L.A.

 

No one wants the biggest map in history, we just want one that isn't in a Ziploc bag.

 

People keep talking about the console limitations, but there's more than just Los Santos in this game. That means they clearly had enough memory to represent a more accurate L.A., they just decided to make 12 mountains, a additional sea, and underwater exploration.

all of that is cool and very welcomed, but I'd rather they knock out a couple of those mountains to give Los Santos more character. It is the only f*cking city in the game after all.

Edited May 14, 2013 by UrbanTheEmcee

[Ferocious Banger]

I genuinely feel really sorry for the people who think LS looks small! Can you get any more pessimistic?

It's nothing to do with pessimism, it's about what is in front of us. If the images show us that LS does not look that big, then that is what it is. If that is what images appear to show, then we will call it as we see it.

 

It's not like we just decided to say "hey, let's start up this theory that LS in GTA V is small, let's do it just for the fun of it".

 

The thing is, we actually hope we are wrong, we are not looking forward to proving our opinions right.

Couldn't have said it better, OG.

[HoboDealer]

I'm sorry did I miss something? Name one GTA city R* have created that is an exact 1:1 of it's real life counterpart.

[UrbanTheEmcee]

I'm sorry did I miss something? Name one GTA city R* have created that is an exact 1:1 of it's real life counterpart.

who said it should be?

But it still should be a representation.

[Triple Vacuum Seal]

 

I genuinely feel really sorry for the people who think LS looks small! Can you get any more pessimistic?

It's nothing to do with pessimism, it's about what is in front of us. If the images show us that LS does not look that big, then that is what it is. If that is what images appear to show, then we will call it as we see it.

 

It's not like we just decided to say "hey, let's start up this theory that LS in GTA V is small, let's do it just for the fun of it".

 

The thing is, we actually hope we are wrong, we are not looking forward to proving our opinions right.

Pretty much this. The word pessimism" is carelessly thrown around way too much by the more docile fans around here. Voicing a concern=/=pessimism.

 

 

I hate seeing the patronizing posts about how we should turn the other cheek (and actually spread our cheeks) for anything R* throws our way out of respect. If GTA fans didn't have these expectations, then the series wouldn't be where it is today. Nothing ever improves through appeasement...

 

"If you always do what you've always done, then you'll always get what you've always got" - Susan Jefferies

[HoboDealer]

 

I'm sorry did I miss something? Name one GTA city R* have created that is an exact 1:1 of it's real life counterpart.

who said it should be?

But it still should be a representation.

Well that's what you guys are inferring! It's a re-imagined version of LA, not an exact representation

[Ferocious Banger]

I'm sorry did I miss something? Name one GTA city R* have created that is an exact 1:1 of it's real life counterpart.

I'll put it in simple words : As the physics, characters become more lifelike and hence realistic, a puny city would probably be an immersion shatterer.

[UrbanTheEmcee]

 

I'm sorry did I miss something? Name one GTA city R* have created that is an exact 1:1 of it's real life counterpart.

who said it should be?

But it still should be a representation.

Well that's what you guys are inferring! It's a re-imagined[/B] version of LA, not an exact representation

Question. In this reimagining, where do the citizens of Los Santos live? In the skyscrapers.

I haven't seen any living area bigger than 4 blocks long in these screen shots.

[Ferocious Banger]

I'm sorry did I miss something? Name one GTA city R* have created that is an exact 1:1 of it's real life counterpart.

who said it should be?

But it still should be a representation.

Didn't you see homeless people in the first trailer?

[brwhizz]

I'm sorry did I miss something? Name one GTA city R* have created that is an exact 1:1 of it's real life counterpart.

who said it should be?

But it still should be a representation.

Well that's what you guys are inferring! It's a re-imagined[/B] version of LA, not an exact representation

Question. In this reimagining, where do the citizens of Los Santos live? In the skyscrapers.

I haven't seen any living area bigger than 4 blocks long in these screen shots.

Well, the rich live in Rockwood Hills and the beach-side areas; the poorer people live in the neighbourhoods of South Los Santos, and I would imagine that there are middle-class suburbs surrounding the city. My God, and there people who complain that we're 'only' getting one city, as if that isn't enough of a challenge.

[Darrel]

No, do you know what word is flung around here too much. "disappointed "

 

The map is not small. Expcect it to be as big as Liberty city itself, no more. They cut out sh*t like hundreds of identical housing blocks that look all the same. The map is going to fun to transverse, not a chore. As long as it feels like LA, then what is the problem?

 

Too many moaners here. If the map is not to your agreeing lower your expectations, and do us all a favour instead of moaning about something that wont change. This is a compared to liberty city thread. Not compare to real life size thread.

[The Scottish Guy]

I genuinely feel really sorry for the people who think LS looks small! Can you get any more pessimistic?

What's a reasonable size neighborhood in GTA for you?

4 blocks, 3 blocks?

 

Where the f*ck are the homes in this city? Why is Vinewood three feet from downtown?

 

The city isn't small for a game, it's just too small for a representation of L.A.

 

No one wants the biggest map in history, we just want one that isn't in a Ziploc bag.

 

People keep talking about the console limitations, but there's more than just Los Santos in this game. That means they clearly had enough memory to represent a more accurate L.A., they just decided to make 12 mountains, a additional sea, and underwater exploration.

all of that is cool and very welcomed, but I'd rather they knock out a couple of those mountains to give Los Santos more character. It is the only f*cking city in the game after all.

 

Look, it's great that the countryside/desert has returned. It was missed to some extent in IV and makes a very welcome comeback for diversity and exploration. But if it's gotten to the point where city has been sacrificed to cater for a few extra trees and waterfalls, then R* are forgetting what made GTA so special in the first place.

 

Like the guy above said, if we are only getting one city, then it should have been given all the priorities first before turning their attention to the surrounding areas imo.

[brwhizz]

I genuinely feel really sorry for the people who think LS looks small! Can you get any more pessimistic?

What's a reasonable size neighborhood in GTA for you?

4 blocks, 3 blocks?

 

Where the f*ck are the homes in this city? Why is Vinewood three feet from downtown?

 

The city isn't small for a game, it's just too small for a representation of L.A.

 

No one wants the biggest map in history, we just want one that isn't in a Ziploc bag.

 

People keep talking about the console limitations, but there's more than just Los Santos in this game. That means they clearly had enough memory to represent a more accurate L.A., they just decided to make 12 mountains, a additional sea, and underwater exploration.

all of that is cool and very welcomed, but I'd rather they knock out a couple of those mountains to give Los Santos more character. It is the only f*cking city in the game after all.

 

Look, it's great that the countryside/desert has returned. It was missed to some extent in IV and makes a very welcome comeback for diversity and exploration. But if it's gotten to the point where city has been sacrificed to cater for a few extra trees and waterfalls, then R* are forgetting what made GTA so special in the first place.

 

Like the guy above said, if we are only getting one city, then it should have been given all the priorities first before turning their attention to the surrounding areas imo.

And they've obviously spent a huge amount of time researching and constructing 'a city that both is and isn't LA' (Dan Houser). Rockstar are experts at their craft.

[jonstunt]

No, do you know what word is flung around here too much. "disappointed "

 

The map is not small. Expcect it to be as big as Liberty city itself, no more. They cut out sh*t like hundreds of identical housing blocks that look all the same. The map is going to fun to transverse, not a chore. As long as it feels like LA, then what is the problem?

 

Too many moaners here. If the map is not to your agreeing lower your expectations, and do us all a favour instead of moaning about something that wont change. This is a compared to liberty city thread. Not compare to real life size thread.

Well said

[Shane_Dbns]

I agree with Official General, from what we've seen so far, los santo isn't that big. I love countryside but at the end of the day this is GTA not RDR I can't see big heists happening in the countryside. I don't want a 1:1 scale of la but atleast 1/4 of the map should be city.

[HoboDealer]

No, do you know what word is flung around here too much. "disappointed "

 

The map is not small. Expcect it to be as big as Liberty city itself, no more. They cut out sh*t like hundreds of identical housing blocks that look all the same. The map is going to fun to transverse, not a chore. As long as it feels like LA, then what is the problem?

 

Too many moaners here. If the map is not to your agreeing lower your expectations, and do us all a favour instead of moaning about something that wont change. This is a compared to liberty city thread. Not compare to real life size thread.

Exactly! I don't remember people complaining about LC's size in the lead up to IV