Map Size Thread

[LotusRIP]

I hope the city is small, but I'm worried it might be too big.

 

I hope the map is more countryside than city. Actually, every GTA city is the same anyway really... just a few rectangular polygons with fake illuminated windows and doors that don't open. I think if anybody wants more city after playing IV for 5 years, you need your head checked. The airport was the most popular place in Multiplayer... go figure.

[philley]

Well, guys, you little moaning basterds,...in FACT, in IV we had two cities: A replica of NY and a replica of New Jersey! So stop whining. It really pisses every true GTA fan off! V will be immensive, the city and its life will be dense and in combination with its size it will be a enormous experience to play in LS!

[dxbrandon]

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?

Holy crap dude, very small? Really? I mean you could have just said small, but saying "Very small" is taking it to far imo.

[Ferocious Banger]

Well, guys, you little moaning basterds,...in FACT, in IV we had two cities: A replica of NY and a replica of New Jersey! So stop whining. It really pisses every true GTA fan off! V will be immensive, the city and its life will be dense and in combination with its size it will be a enormous experience to play in LS!

So..we aren't "true GTA fans?"

 

We should never question what we see? Yeah. Sounds about right.

[AlienWillHeMonsta]

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?

Holy crap dude, very small? Really? I mean you could have just said small, but saying "Very small" is taking it to far imo.

Ignore them, they're winding people up with their ill conceived nonsense about the LS being too small, relative to what we still dont know....and neither do they.

[philley]

Well, IV was too small, V with its city and countryside also doesn't fit your expectations,...go and play Farmville.

 

You have not played V for ONE SINGLE SECOND!

 

I predict that it will blow everyone away! Just wait until you are standing in the middle of LS, third person view over your character, and every impression of LS will be smashed right into your face!

 

Of LS we only have panoramic views but we do not have the experience of actually really driving or walking through it, with all the factors counting like traffic, pedestrians, atmosphere, etc.!

[Ferocious Banger]

I dearly hope that the SFV is there. See, even the urban core doesn't bother me ( it infact, is pretty nice! ); the lack of suburbia bothers me.

[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?

Holy crap dude, very small? Really? I mean you could have just said small, but saying "Very small" is taking it to far imo.

 

Ignore them, they're winding people up with their ill conceived nonsense about the LS being too small, relative to what we still dont know....and neither do they.

CVG said themselves that Los Santos is 1/8th of the map. Considering everything on how V compares to size with RDR and other GTAs, tell me that 1/8 is NOT very small. And we do know how big LS is by what Rockstar has told us and what previews have said. Come on guy, do some research. LS itself is confirmed to be smaller than Liberty City in IV.

[CSM. HB J-DOGG]

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?

Holy crap dude, very small? Really? I mean you could have just said small, but saying "Very small" is taking it to far imo.

 

Ignore them, they're winding people up with their ill conceived nonsense about the LS being too small, relative to what we still dont know....and neither do they.

CVG said themselves that Los Santos is 1/8th of the map. Considering everything on how V compares to size with RDR and other GTAs, tell me that 1/8 is NOT very small. And we do know how big LS is by what Rockstar has told us and what previews have said. Come on guy, do some research. LS itself is confirmed to be smaller than Liberty City in IV.

NO they said Downton LS is smaller than Downtown LC which is correct in Real life. LS will be wider than LC I expect the City to be the the Size of GTAIV and the country side to be the Size of RDR and SA combined. To Quote R* we have only seen a small slice of the pie

[GKP]

 

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 !

AHAAHAHAAHAHAAAAAAAHHAA easy there brother Im in tears

The irony is the bankmanager and others STILL think I want a 1:1 recreation of LA.

 

If he read what i wrote he and others would see that something between 3sq miles and 240sq miles would be great (8sq miles for example).

 

At least some of you are coming round to my way of thinking. Chocos comparision pics help and I think lent a hand to Raavi questioning the dogma that LS is somehow 'huge'.

 

Which it aint. its small

[Ferocious Banger]

The group isn't shrinking. At first, IIRC, deffpony, Official General and GKP were the only ones in this group. But in time, more and more people - including me, Raavi - have started feelign that LS is in fact, small. That says something.

 

I hope the next round of information destroys this group that I am part of. I will gladly accept that we were wrong all along.

[Freezer89]

The group isn't shrinking. At first, IIRC, deffpony, Official General and GKP were the only ones in this group. But in time, more and more people - including me, Raavi - have started feelign that LS is in fact, small. That says something.

 

I hope the next round of information destroys this group that I am part of. I will gladly accept that we were wrong all along.

I guess you guys were infected by them.. it's spreading like a virus and I as well a few others are still unharmed by this. Maybe we are immune against it.

 

Seriously though, until it's not official by R* and until we haven't seen the entire city from all possible angles, etc.. I will say that the whole city is big enough and not smaller than LC in IV (the landmass I mean).

[ArcherTheGreat]

You guys need to relax. If Rockstar themselves and GameInformer says that the land area of the Los Santos Metropolitan Area covers more than Liberty City , it damn well is . Do you really think Rockstar is dumb enough to pull off a stunt like creating a small city?

[ArcherTheGreat]

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?

Holy crap dude, very small? Really? I mean you could have just said small, but saying "Very small" is taking it to far imo.

 

Ignore them, they're winding people up with their ill conceived nonsense about the LS being too small, relative to what we still dont know....and neither do they.

CVG said themselves that Los Santos is 1/8th of the map. Considering everything on how V compares to size with RDR and other GTAs, tell me that 1/8 is NOT very small. And we do know how big LS is by what Rockstar has told us and what previews have said. Come on guy, do some research. LS itself is confirmed to be smaller than Liberty City in IV.

NO they said Downton LS is smaller than Downtown LC which is correct in Real life. LS will be wider than LC I expect the City to be the the Size of GTAIV and the country side to be the Size of RDR and SA combined. To Quote R* we have only seen a small slice of the pie

Exactly! A lot of people misunderstood the statement. When they said that Downtown Los Santos is smaller than Downtown Liberty City which is Algonquin, it doesn't mean the WHOLE city is smaller than Liberty City. It probably means that Rockstar squeezed a lot more into the city like Malibu, Long Beach (duh), Beverly Hills, Santa Monica and the suburbs.

 

Besides, there's not much to do in Downtown L.A. anyway. Rockstar probably just included the good parts like shopping malls and whatnot. I can imagine Vinewood being more "alive" than Downtown anyways.

[The Scottish Guy]

You guys need to relax. If Rockstar themselves and GameInformer says that the land area of the Los Santos Metropolitan Area covers more than Liberty City , it damn well is . Do you really think Rockstar is dumb enough to pull off a stunt like creating a small city?

The problem with this statement of GI's, is that they if they only mean the land mass of IV, that's taking away the rivers between the islands, which account for a huge amount of area, and contributes much more than you think to the overall size and feel of the map. You take away the water, and just join all the islands up together, then it would feel A LOT smaller, believe me. This is why I and many others are a little concerned at this point.

[GKP]

R* ARE only referring to landmass - not including the space in between LC islands. This is obvious as LS is NOWHERE near as large as the entire GTAIV map sea included - that much is obvious.

[philley]

for me it is like this: I will not dare to call LS small! Even because of these two screens:

 

 

Edited May 15, 2013 by philley

[GKP]

One can compare pics of IV from the air and V from the air. Mention of FOV and draw distance is ignorant. I can deduce when draw distance even comes into the argument, that is to say, its only a factor when comparing WAAY off detail...not from a comparable cross city distance that one can see clearly in IV.

 

 

FOV does have a role to play, however its still easy to compare landmasses from the number of observable buildings ...blocks....

 

 

LS will be approx 3 - 3.5 sq miles of land. Is this acceptable ?...I suppose it has to be. It COULD of been 6 or 7 sq miles by simply setting back Vinewood a little and adding a bit of sprawl or suburbs.

 

How the hell can anyone take issue with that ?

[Freezer89]

for me it is like this: I will dare to call LS small! Even because of these two screens:

 

img

 

img

Then I guess we have different definitions of "small". For me it doesn't look small (not big either). And that's not the entire city obviously.

 

Could it be that you just have too high expectations regarding the size? You know, R* is famous for paying attention in details not the size. LS may be not big but at least it will be filled with tons of stuff.. but I am just repeating here.

[philley]

for me it is like this: I will dare to call LS small! Even because of these two screens:

 

img

 

img

Then I guess we have different definitions of "small". For me it doesn't look small (not big either). And that's not the entire city obviously.

 

Could it be that you just have too high expectations regarding the size? You know, R* is famous for paying attention in details not the size. LS may be not big but at least it will be filled with tons of stuff.. but I am just repeating here.

sry, I would not dare should be the right thing I wanted to say

[Freezer89]

for me it is like this: I will dare to call LS small! Even because of these two screens:

 

img

 

img

Then I guess we have different definitions of "small". For me it doesn't look small (not big either). And that's not the entire city obviously.

 

Could it be that you just have too high expectations regarding the size? You know, R* is famous for paying attention in details not the size. LS may be not big but at least it will be filled with tons of stuff.. but I am just repeating here.

sry, I would not dare should be the right thing I wanted to say

Oh, alright then. But I bet there are still people who will call this small. Anyone?

[GKP]

R* ALWAYS included larger and larger cities.

 

Los Angeles has not been portrayed with the grandeur it should of in V.

 

LS is smaller than LAX. Thats small. Cross it in 2 mins on a highway. Small.

[ALeSsAnDrO]

I think it's a bit illogical how R* pushes for realism in certain areas like physics, animation, the weather system, even the look of the world, but always holds back when it comes to the size.

R*'s modus-operandi has been to include a very small fraction of areas that give the real-life city it's character. Landscapes, monuments, unique areas. Mix it all up, create you own parts suited for better driving and stunts and there you have it, the GTA parody of that given city.

 

But when you see ultra crap games like Test Drive Unlimited pull off big ass islands like Ibiza and Oahu, Hawaii, you can't help but wonder if R*, with all the talent and money, couldn't pull off a bigger city, one that didn't just feel like a tiny parody but a believable place for the characters to be in.

[AlienWillHeMonsta]

 

I think it's a bit illogical how R* pushes for realism in certain areas like physics, animation, the weather system, even the look of the world, but always holds back when it comes to the size.

R*'s modus-operandi has been to include a very small fraction of areas that give the real-life city it's character. Landscapes, monuments, unique areas. Mix it all up, create you own parts suited for better driving and stunts and there you have it, the GTA parody of that given city.

 

But when you see ultra crap games like Test Drive Unlimited pull off big ass islands like Ibiza and Oahu, Hawaii, you can't help but wonder if R*, with all the talent and money, couldn't pull off a bigger city, one that didn't just feel like a tiny parody but a believable place for the characters to be in.

I didn't realise you could, control three characters at the same time, fire guns, interact with scores of NPCs, have a huge number

of mission cutscenes, fly planes, go diving, enter / buy property...in Test Drive Unlimited.

 

Can you reverse a car in this game?

[philley]

MAN, THIS IS A GAME!!! A caricatural replica of LA (but with a believable vibe)! The Central Park of LC was as big as the biggest lawn area in the real Central Park! Nobody cared or even cares!!!

 

Whats wrong with you? You are getting such a detailed city, such a enormous countryside with so much to do, so much to explore,....

 

Man,.....you are lost,.....

 

As some of you posted before: Look at LA Noir, True Crime (both games) of Just Cause: It is getting more and more boring the more you play it because of the size!

[GKP]

 

I think it's a bit illogical how R* pushes for realism in certain areas like physics, animation, the weather system, even the look of the world, but always holds back when it comes to the size.

R*'s modus-operandi has been to include a very small fraction of areas that give the real-life city it's character. Landscapes, monuments, unique areas. Mix it all up, create you own parts suited for better driving and stunts and there you have it, the GTA parody of that given city.

 

But when you see ultra crap games like Test Drive Unlimited pull off big ass islands like Ibiza and Oahu, Hawaii, you can't help but wonder if R*, with all the talent and money, couldn't pull off a bigger city, one that didn't just feel like a tiny parody but a believable place for the characters to be in.

Exactly - their insistence on parodying everything has led to a dwarf like LA - a themepark no less.

 

Why squeeze all the LA 'sights' so close together...30 seconds from one district to another is not fun.

 

 

Do people not understand that ?....its a jarring effect in IV and it will be in V.

 

 

Philley - your obviously an ignorant person because you can't see there are hundred of different potential sizes between 3 sq miles and 240 sq miles (true crime). CAN YOU ?????

 

christ on a bike !

[ALeSsAnDrO]

I think it's a bit illogical how R* pushes for realism in certain areas like physics, animation, the weather system, even the look of the world, but always holds back when it comes to the size.

R*'s modus-operandi has been to include a very small fraction of areas that give the real-life city it's character. Landscapes, monuments, unique areas. Mix it all up, create you own parts suited for better driving and stunts and there you have it, the GTA parody of that given city.

 

But when you see ultra crap games like Test Drive Unlimited pull off big ass islands like Ibiza and Oahu, Hawaii, you can't help but wonder if R*, with all the talent and money, couldn't pull off a bigger city, one that didn't just feel like a tiny parody but a believable place for the characters to be in.

I didn't realise you could, control three characters at the same time, fire guns, interact with scores of NPCs, have a huge number

of mission cutscenes, fly planes, go diving, enter / buy property...in Test Drive Unlimited.

That would be a valid point if both games had the same staff numbers and budget.

Don't even compare the production limitations of a borderline indie game like that one with a blockbuster title like GTA.

[AlexJonesConspiracy]

hopefully the roads wont be empty this time and i will be able to use modded cars, without texture pop ins and taxi bug on a 2gb card sli.

 

edit: im just being sarcastic above. and i dont really care about size, LC was plenty big.

[philley]

 

Thank god I dont know each and every single corner and every single sight of LA so I can ACTUALLY ENJOY the new GTA!

[AlienWillHeMonsta]

I think it's a bit illogical how R* pushes for realism in certain areas like physics, animation, the weather system, even the look of the world, but always holds back when it comes to the size.

R*'s modus-operandi has been to include a very small fraction of areas that give the real-life city it's character. Landscapes, monuments, unique areas. Mix it all up, create you own parts suited for better driving and stunts and there you have it, the GTA parody of that given city.

 

But when you see ultra crap games like Test Drive Unlimited pull off big ass islands like Ibiza and Oahu, Hawaii, you can't help but wonder if R*, with all the talent and money, couldn't pull off a bigger city, one that didn't just feel like a tiny parody but a believable place for the characters to be in.

I didn't realise you could, control three characters at the same time, fire guns, interact with scores of NPCs, have a huge number

of mission cutscenes, fly planes, go diving, enter / buy property...in Test Drive Unlimited.

That would be a valid point if both games had the same staff numbers and budget.

Don't even compare the production limitations of a borderline indie game like that one with a blockbuster title like GTA.

They're different games. One is for driving only so the developers can afford to leave a lot of stuff out. GTA V is driving game and a hell of lot more developers will be limited in what they can include in the game.