Map Size Thread

[HoboDealer]

I have, and what? Just looked at a few images and looks about the same as V!

You're just actin stupid, because you just don't wanna hear our opinions. As far as you are concerned Rockstar can do wrong and it is a mortal sin to criticize them.

 

Okay cool, stay suckin' ass.

No you're acting stupid; I hear your opinions, they just don't make sense! Rockstar can do wrong, there's a few things I'm disappointed about but not this

[Freezer89]

Wow.. I really don't want to have your first world problems. I personally couldn't care less about how big the city is. I just want a detailed city that won't be boring after a short while. Of course it shouldn't be too small but what I've seen so far on screens and trailers it looks big enough for me. And of course there is still the part which hasn't been showed yet. Why do you (some of you) think we've seen the entire city?

[brwhizz]

I have, and what? Just looked at a few images and looks about the same as V!

You're just actin stupid, because you just don't wanna hear our opinions. As far as you are concerned Rockstar can do wrong and it is a mortal sin to criticize them.

 

Okay cool, stay suckin' ass.

I think that Rockstar deserve to be criticized if they fail to live up to promises or disappoint people, but in this case there is no solid evidence that they haven't delivered a proper LA experience. Based on past games, they are very likely to have built a very good LA.

[UrbanTheEmcee]

I have, and what? Just looked at a few images and looks about the same as V!

You're just actin stupid, because you just don't wanna hear our opinions. As far as you are concerned Rockstar can do wrong and it is a mortal sin to criticize them.

 

Okay cool, stay suckin' ass.

No you're acting stupid; I hear your opinions, they just don't make sense! Rockstar can do wrong, there's a few things I'm disappointed about but not this

We are basing our opinions off pictures.

 

You all are basing yours off word of mouth. "blah-blah said..."

 

Which argument carries more weight? I'll let you figure that one out.

[brwhizz]

I have, and what? Just looked at a few images and looks about the same as V!

You're just actin stupid, because you just don't wanna hear our opinions. As far as you are concerned Rockstar can do wrong and it is a mortal sin to criticize them.

 

Okay cool, stay suckin' ass.

No you're acting stupid; I hear your opinions, they just don't make sense! Rockstar can do wrong, there's a few things I'm disappointed about but not this

We are basing our opinions off pictures.

 

You all are basing yours off word of mouth. "blah-blah said..."

 

Which argument carries more weight? I'll let you figure that one out.

Your camp are pretty much claiming absolute knowledge of a 'small' and 'unsatisfactory' LA; Our camp are simply considering the possibilities based on what we know so far and what Rockstar have delivered in past games.

[FAH-Q]

We are basing our opinions off pictures that don't fully depict the size of the city.

 

Fixed it for ya.

[UrbanTheEmcee]

We are basing our opinions off pictures that don't fully depict the size of the city.

 

Fixed it for ya.

For the last time smart guy, I don't think the city is small for a game, I think it's too small to represent different facets of L.A. with more than two city blocks apiece.

[brwhizz]

We are basing our opinions off pictures that don't fully depict the size of the city.

 

Fixed it for ya.

For the last time smart guy, I don't think the city is small for a game, I think it's too small to represent different facets of L.A. with more than two city blocks apiece.

But he just said that we probably haven't seen all of it, so you've still got your Pasadena, Burbank and whatnot still to come, in some form or another.

[zainzombie]

I really hate to be a part of this conversation but I will just say CVG who saw the game said, it looked almost like the fan-made map on this forum.

 

If we take the map made by fellow gtaf users, LS does look much smaller than countryside.

[Raavi]

We are basing our opinions off pictures that don't fully depict the size of the city.

 

Fixed it for ya.

For the last time smart guy, I don't think the city is small for a game, I think it's too small to represent different facets of L.A. with more than two city blocks apiece.

But he just said that we probably haven't seen all of it, so you've still got your Pasadena, Burbank and whatnot still to come, in some form or another.

Nope, just look at the mapping thread they excluded that entire area. Where that should be now is countryside.

[FAH-Q]

We are basing our opinions off pictures that don't fully depict the size of the city.

 

Fixed it for ya.

For the last time smart guy, I don't think the city is small for a game, I think it's too small to represent different facets of L.A. with more than two city blocks apiece.

*realizes he is talking to a wall*

[HoboDealer]

We are basing our opinions off pictures that don't fully depict the size of the city.

 

Fixed it for ya.

For the last time smart guy, I don't think the city is small for a game, I think it's too small to represent different facets of L.A. with more than two city blocks apiece.

To be quite honest dude I don't think any game could replicate LA's scale and keep the special feel of GTA.

 

Please show me the pictures you're basing your opinions off, I don't think any areas have two blocks apiece...

 

 

[UrbanTheEmcee]

We are basing our opinions off pictures that don't fully depict the size of the city.

 

Fixed it for ya.

For the last time smart guy, I don't think the city is small for a game, I think it's too small to represent different facets of L.A. with more than two city blocks apiece.

*realizes he is talking to a wall*

Funny. Never knew walls to type out responses on a forum.

 

[UrbanTheEmcee]

We are basing our opinions off pictures that don't fully depict the size of the city.

 

Fixed it for ya.

For the last time smart guy, I don't think the city is small for a game, I think it's too small to represent different facets of L.A. with more than two city blocks apiece.

To be quite honest dude I don't think any game could replicate LA's scale and keep the special feel of GTA.

 

Please show me the pictures you're basing your opinions off, I don't think any areas have two blocks apiece...

Look at west Los Santos in this pic. We are supposed to have at least three rivaled neighborhoods in that area. (Green, Purple, Yellow)

That could reasonably take up everything over there, but we know from other pics that echo park is over there, a small middle class area, and the L.A. river. That area isn't that big from this picture, and how will one fill immersed if the rival neighborhoods are two blocks apart from each other. Somebody mentioned Pasadena earlier. Where on this picture do you see Pasadena being? You guys act like your eyes quit working.

 

 

 

[HoboDealer]

 

We are basing our opinions off pictures that don't fully depict the size of the city.

 

Fixed it for ya.

For the last time smart guy, I don't think the city is small for a game, I think it's too small to represent different facets of L.A. with more than two city blocks apiece.

To be quite honest dude I don't think any game could replicate LA's scale and keep the special feel of GTA.

 

Please show me the pictures you're basing your opinions off, I don't think any areas have two blocks apiece...

Look at west Los Santos in this pic. We are supposed to have at least three rivaled neighborhoods in that area. (Green, Purple, Yellow)

That could reasonably take up everything over there, but we know from other pics that echo park is over there, a small middle class area, and the L.A. river. That area isn't that big from this picture, and how will one fill immersed if the rival neighborhoods are two blocks apart from each other. Somebody mentioned Pasadena earlier. Where on this picture do you see Pasadena being? You guys act like your eyes quit working.

 

http://gameplaceftw.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/official-screenshot-view-from-observatory.jpg

"That area isn't that big from this picture..."

 

"from this picture"

 

Sure it looks pretty small from that angle, why pick a picture to prove your point that shows the least of west LS?

 

Have you seen these pictures?

 

 

 

The distance from Echo Park to Downtown LS looks pretty far from that, and who says that's on the edge?

 

It could extend even further back because we haven't seen the whole of the city yet.

[UrbanTheEmcee]

Damn...

I've never taken a close look at that first pic. That is nice.

I'll STFU for now.

 

kudos.

[FAH-Q]

Damn...

I've never taken a close look at that first pic. That is nice.

I'll STFU for now.

 

kudos.

That's what I thought.

 

The epitome of GTAF right here.

[HoboDealer]

Yeah man, all credit to JuventusFC for finding it from trailer 2!

 

 

[Choco Taco]

Damn...

I've never taken a close look at that first pic. That is nice.

I'll STFU for now.

 

kudos.

Here's that same view of the east in daylight:

 

 

The distance from downtown to the eastern edge of the city is about the same as the distance from downtown to the beach.

 

 

 

I wonder where they're hiding all of that sprawl.

 

 

[dewan2000]

The fact is, size freaks, that you have no solid evidence regarding the size and proportions of the game world; this is all speculation.

Yeah, lets completely disregard pictures. They were released for sh*ts and giggles.

Has it ever crossed your mind that Rockstar picks and chooses what to show you? That they havnt shown you the whole city. There still could be an Orange County Suburb in the game, Also there is Long Beach...There may be more South or North of the city that we have yet to see.

 

Its funny, people pose screen shots that show how large the city does look and you disregard them as having used some sort of Field of View effect.

[Meezarawcks]

The fact is, size freaks, that you have no solid evidence regarding the size and proportions of the game world; this is all speculation.

Yeah, lets completely disregard pictures. They were released for sh*ts and giggles.

Has it ever crossed your mind that Rockstar picks and chooses what to show you? That they havnt shown you the whole city. There still could be an Orange County Suburb in the game, Also there is Long Beach...There may be more South or North of the city that we have yet to see.

 

Its funny, people pose screen shots that show how large the city does look and you disregard them as having used some sort of Field of View effect.

Lol exactly. I posted the same screen a few pages back and no one had an answer. And here we are a few pages later and people are shocked by the screen.

[Ferocious Banger]

Do you people think that we are sitting in here and praying, "God, let us be true. Let the city be small. We want to win this debate!!!"? No.

 

We will be the happiest persons of all the GTA fans if we in fact lose this debate. Why? Because our expectations are at a groundlevel. Imagine seeing a larger city than what our eyes can see.

 

Speaking about eyes, you guys know what? We aren't basing our opinions off of any magizine. We see. We declare. Until proven otherwise ( by the "innovative" marketing planned by T2 ), our stance will remain rock-solid.

[Wreak Havoc in Los Santos]

sometimes it looks tiny

 

sometimes it looks huge

 

 

[Meezarawcks]

Do you people think that we are sitting in here and praying, "God, let us be true. Let the city be small. We want to win this debate!!!"? No.

 

We will be the happiest persons of all the GTA fans if we in fact lose this debate. Why? Because our expectations are at a groundlevel. Imagine seeing a larger city than what our eyes can see.

 

Speaking about eyes, you guys know what? We aren't basing our opinions off of any magizine. We see. We declare. Until proven otherwise ( by the "innovative" marketing planned by T2 ), our stance will remain rock-solid.

I don't think that. This however is quite weird: We see. We declare. Until proven otherwise ( by the "innovative" marketing planned by T2 ), our stance will remain rock-solid.

 

When you can SEE that the picture shows a massive city and still parts of the city are unknown then what stance do you have?

[Ferocious Banger]

 

Do you people think that we are sitting in here and praying, "God, let us be true. Let the city be small. We want to win this debate!!!"? No.

 

We will be the happiest persons of all the GTA fans if we in fact lose this debate. Why? Because our expectations are at a groundlevel. Imagine seeing a larger city than what our eyes can see.

 

Speaking about eyes,  you guys know what? We aren't basing our opinions off of any magizine. We see. We declare. Until proven otherwise ( by the "innovative" marketing planned by T2 ), our stance will remain rock-solid.

I don't think that. This however is quite weird: We see. We declare. Until proven otherwise ( by the "innovative" marketing planned by T2 ), our stance will remain rock-solid.

 

When you can SEE that the picture shows a massive city and still parts of the city are unknown then what stance do you have?

The unknown parts are, well, unknown. You say that the unknown parts might be big, we question it.

 

 

When you can SEE that the picture shows a massive city

 

Our eyes say otherwise. We haven't 'seen' a massive city yet.

Edited May 15, 2013 by Ferocious Banger

[Meezarawcks]

Do you people think that we are sitting in here and praying, "God, let us be true. Let the city be small. We want to win this debate!!!"? No.

 

We will be the happiest persons of all the GTA fans if we in fact lose this debate. Why? Because our expectations are at a groundlevel. Imagine seeing a larger city than what our eyes can see.

 

Speaking about eyes,  you guys know what? We aren't basing our opinions off of any magizine. We see. We declare. Until proven otherwise ( by the "innovative" marketing planned by T2 ), our stance will remain rock-solid.

I don't think that. This however is quite weird: We see. We declare. Until proven otherwise ( by the "innovative" marketing planned by T2 ), our stance will remain rock-solid.

 

When you can SEE that the picture shows a massive city and still parts of the city are unknown then what stance do you have?

The unknown parts are, well, unknown. You say that the unknown parts might be big, we question it.

 

 

When you can SEE that the picture shows a massive city

 

Our eyes say otherwise. We haven't 'seen' a massive city yet.

Really? So this does not seem massive to you:

 

 

If it does not then that must be some amazing sight you all have.

 

On a aging console I think what we have seen is insanely amazing.

[MuffinMcFluffin]

The biggest thing about the sprawl of the size of Los Santos, of course, is that we want all of the diversity it has to offer where nothing is right next to each other or too small for its own good. There's downtown, Hollywood, the beaches, the ghettos, the suburbs, etc.

 

Same goes for the size of the game. Since there's so much wilderness that seems like it should be miles away from civilization, but if you feel like you're only a half mile away as you get out there, it kind of takes away from the epic feel of "growing" into downtown as you get there. That's why the early shot we got of the dam, although a beautiful shot and a wonderful spectacle, takes away from the grand feel of the game as you'd think that should be way away from view.

 

Just my thoughts.

[LAPD 85]

Do you people think that we are sitting in here and praying, "God, let us be true. Let the city be small. We want to win this debate!!!"? No.

 

We will be the happiest persons of all the GTA fans if we in fact lose this debate. Why? Because our expectations are at a groundlevel. Imagine seeing a larger city than what our eyes can see.

 

Speaking about eyes,  you guys know what? We aren't basing our opinions off of any magizine. We see. We declare. Until proven otherwise ( by the "innovative" marketing planned by T2 ), our stance will remain rock-solid.

I don't think that. This however is quite weird: We see. We declare. Until proven otherwise ( by the "innovative" marketing planned by T2 ), our stance will remain rock-solid.

 

When you can SEE that the picture shows a massive city and still parts of the city are unknown then what stance do you have?

The unknown parts are, well, unknown. You say that the unknown parts might be big, we question it.

 

 

When you can SEE that the picture shows a massive city

 

Our eyes say otherwise. We haven't 'seen' a massive city yet.

Really? So this does not seem massive to you:

 

 

If it does not then that must be some amazing sight you all have.

 

On a aging console I think what we have seen is insanely amazing.

It still looks very small. To the right of the golf course in the other pictures are the mountains and then as you can see East LA in addition to Downtown LA, extending South, which looks very small. I am rather disappointed in Rockstar because the Los Santos itself is looking to be smaller than Liberty City in IV. That's a big step back if you ask me. Whatever happened to making the biggest city in the GTA series?

 

One other thing to keep in mind is that in trailer 2 you can see a city in the background of the desert airport which looks very similar to the Long Beach skyline. Also, we do not know what is on the other side of the mountains surrounding Los Santos. What is behind the Vinewood sign mountain and the golf course mountain? More sprawl? San Fernando Valley? Pasadena? Or is it just the ocean?

[Meezarawcks]

Do you people think that we are sitting in here and praying, "God, let us be true. Let the city be small. We want to win this debate!!!"? No.

 

We will be the happiest persons of all the GTA fans if we in fact lose this debate. Why? Because our expectations are at a groundlevel. Imagine seeing a larger city than what our eyes can see.

 

Speaking about eyes,  you guys know what? We aren't basing our opinions off of any magizine. We see. We declare. Until proven otherwise ( by the "innovative" marketing planned by T2 ), our stance will remain rock-solid.

I don't think that. This however is quite weird: We see. We declare. Until proven otherwise ( by the "innovative" marketing planned by T2 ), our stance will remain rock-solid.

 

When you can SEE that the picture shows a massive city and still parts of the city are unknown then what stance do you have?

The unknown parts are, well, unknown. You say that the unknown parts might be big, we question it.

 

 

When you can SEE that the picture shows a massive city

 

Our eyes say otherwise. We haven't 'seen' a massive city yet.

Really? So this does not seem massive to you:

 

 

If it does not then that must be some amazing sight you all have.

 

On a aging console I think what we have seen is insanely amazing.

It still looks very small. To the right of the golf course in the other pictures are the mountains and then as you can see East LA in addition to Downtown LA, extending South, which looks very small. I am rather disappointed in Rockstar because the Los Santos itself is looking to be smaller than Liberty City in IV. That's a big step back if you ask me. Whatever happened to making the biggest city in the GTA series?

 

One other thing to keep in mind is that in trailer 2 you can see a city in the background of the desert airport which looks very similar to the Long Beach skyline. Also, we do not know what is on the other side of the mountains surrounding Los Santos. What is behind the Vinewood sign mountain and the golf course mountain? More sprawl? San Fernando Valley? Pasadena? Or is it just the ocean?

When did they say they were making the biggest city in GTA series?

 

So you admit we have not seen EVERYTHING correct?

 

R* out of most developers out there have let me down the least in my videogaming history. So call me optomistically stupid but I trust them.

[Romarique]

If Los Santos is a tiny bit smaller than all of IV (- the water), don't you think there's ALOT of wilderness and what not around?? What's out there??