Map Size Thread

[SuccessPastaTime]

 

Success - debate the issues, not the poster. Idiot.

 

 

Its one or the other with the RDF -

 

'I dont want a true crime sized city '  ' Suburbs are boring'  ' the map is HUUUGE, stop trolling ' .

 

 

The small city camp however take time to analyse the pictures seen, the experience we have of IV ( 5 years and counting ) and come to the conclusion that while the city is not small for a GTA game, its small for the area its supposed to portray.

 

The most damning evidence of a small city, and it is without question CAST IRON proof of a smallish city is the 9/10 blocks from downtown to the hills, shown in crystal clear detail below.. This distance will be driveable in anything between 45 and 60 seconds (if the windy roads were straight at the hills) . Gold plated proof of a small city. The CBD is in the middle of it so expect similar travel time to the periphery.

 

That is a good observation.

 

I feel if you included the other side it's still pretty decent. I mean, it is way condensed still and missing a lot of things. I wish there was a freeway in between Downtown and Vinewood. Things like that actually make it appear larger. It looks a little like a small town in the distance

 

And, calling someones opinion bull is a childish way to debate.

[GKP]

It will take 2 minutes (that is a statement of time) to drive ( operate a car ) at high speed across the city (to move from one side of the city to the other).

 

 

I know this because I can count the number (1 ,2 ,3 , 4, 5 etc numbers!) of city blocks in the picture above from downtown to the hills.

 

Simple

[Ferocious Banger]

Some good news:

 

I might have made a mistake in the Observatory-CBD calculation; this Post here seems more accurate than mine.

 

So, what's the good news? There is an additonal 452 meters!

 

That is, its 1.56 mi and not 1.278.

[Emeritus]

 

It will take 2 minutes (that is a statement of time) to drive ( operate a car ) at high speed across the city (to move from one side of the city to the other).

 

 

I know this because I can count the number (1 ,2 ,3 , 4, 5 etc numbers!) of city blocks in the picture above from downtown to the hills.

 

Simple

If you don't think it's big enough don't buy it?

 

You're getting really worked up about this I can tell. Los Santos is going to be around the same size as Liberty City. Impressive counting skills, however.

[RaptorXD25]

Suburbs in the screenshots ? Where ? I must have missed something, because I looked hard and saw NONE. I really DON'T think so. I have seen clusters of homes tucked away in the hills, very nice houses and some mansions (Michael's namely), but I have not seen any true suburban area in the screenshots at all.

 

If Rockstar are saving it for later, then great, I'm very glad to be wrong. Until then, I see no true suburban areas in Los Santos in GTA V, judging from these screenshots.

 

 

Personally, having huge suburbs and such on the scale of LA would get incredibly boring. I dont understand why all you why stupid suburbs soo bad. So you can see copy and pasted houes every block or so where you cant do anything with them? Having variety in the city is much more interesting.

 

I think some of you guys put your expectations up way to high. There is only soo much this current gen of systems can do. Im sure they chose this city size for personal, and technical choice. If they made a larger city im sure they would have to sacrifice some in the visual and draw distance area's and then people would be sitting here bickering about how the visuals look no better than GTA 4.

Man, are you really that stupid ? Or maybe you just choose to be ignorant like many members of the RDF on here.

 

Who the f**k said they wanted copy and pasted blocks in GTA V's Los Santos ? NO ONE. So stop peddling that stupid nonsense that nobody said in the f**king first place. We just want suburbs, because LA is mostly made up of suburban sprawl, just like New York City is made up densely packed skycrapers as seen in Liberty City. How hard is that to understand ??

 

You talk about variety and making the city more interesting, well newsflash buddy, that is why we are here discussing this subject, we want Los Santos to be a very big city to have more of a chance of providing that variety, just like it's real life counterpart LA. We want a dense, busy downtown area, we want working-class residential districts, we want the ghettos, the industrial areas, the port areas, we want wealthy areas and we want the suburbs (LA is made up mostly of sprawling suburbs). If your thick skull actually read closely what we were talking about, you would have had some idea of why we want "stupid" suburbs, and that it actually makes a great deal of sense. We did not request more suburbs to make the game look pretty, we requested it to reflect it's re-creation of LA in the best and most realistic way possible that current console technology can allow.

 

Don't give me that bullsh*t about the current consoles cannot do it, of course they can. If the map is gonna be bigger than GTA IV, RDR and SA combined, then please tell how the f**k Rockstar cannot make LS a bigger place ? I mean look at the mountains and countryside. Of course it can be done, don't talk rubbish.

To be fair, many of the members on your side are just as ignorant.

[GKP]

In what way Raptor ?...I give proof and im ignorant ? The hell with you

 

Emeritus - ad hominem attack again, dont you get bored ?

 

'our' camp is clearly more analytical , willing to debate the issue NOT the poster and dont view the world as binary 'this or that' choices.

[Emeritus]

In what way Raptor ?...I give proof and im ignorant ? The hell with you

You counted five blocks and then said that it will take 2 minutes to drive across the city.

 

That's not proof. You just made yourself look like a moron by putting everything in parentheses.

[GKP]

LOL you really are an idiot.

 

It was sarcasm , you said you 'didnt understand'..hence my patronising reply. Again. 9 / 10 blocks to the hills. Unless your driving an electric kids car it wont take more than 45 , 60 seconds.

[jamieleng]

I occasionally visit this thread, but everytime I'm reminded why it's only rarely. Can anybody tell me if there is a general consensus on the approximate size of the city. I mean, after all these measurings, convergence points, lines all over the screenshots, there must be a square mile estimation that is common amongst them. I'm useless at maths so please excuse my ignorance.

[GKP]

We dont know the shape of the city so it varies. I say 3 sq miles.

 

 

[RaptorXD25]

In what way Raptor ?...I give proof and im ignorant ? The hell with you

 

Emeritus - ad hominem attack again, dont you get bored ?

 

'our' camp is clearly more analytical , willing to debate the issue NOT the poster and dont view the world as binary 'this or that' choices.

First of all, I didn't give any names. What made you assume that I was directing that at you? Secondly, I would hardly call lines on screenshots analysis on even the broadest level. I call most of you ignorant because you post screenshots and accept them as "evidence", but when the other side does the same, they are simply ignored.

[Triple Vacuum Seal]

 

Personally, having huge suburbs and such on the scale of LA would get incredibly boring. I dont understand why all you why stupid suburbs soo bad.  So you can see copy and pasted houes every block or so where you cant do anything with them?  Having variety in the city is much more interesting.

 

I think some of you guys put your expectations up way to high.  There is only soo much this current gen of systems can do.  Im sure they chose this city size for personal, and technical choice.  If they made a larger city im sure they would have to sacrifice some in the visual and draw distance area's and then people would be sitting here bickering about how the visuals look no better than GTA 4.

 

Strongly disagree.

Not a huge proponent of the suburbs (though they would be nice to have), but you're twisting the meanings of the opposing side here.

 

- For one, just because a given feature is desired or requested doesn't mean it has to be present in full force. I'm sure a thin ring of suburbs would more than placate the suburban proponents. No one said the map would have to be overrun with them.

 

- Secondly, you're assigning entirely subjective characteristics - stupid, boring, etc. - to the existence of suburbs only to argue for the inclusion of a more physically empty space instead (the deserts, wilderness, and hills the map already has). Yes the wilderness has trees, scenery and what not which I will enjoy; but ironically, this gen limits R* capability to create a fulfilling wilderness more so than suburbs. After all, they had very small suburbs last gen in SA. There is no need to make a crime game based in modern SoCal only to make 70% of the map look like RDR.

 

- Three, your post is riddled with assumptions regarding the quality of the feature. You and everyone here know that R* doesn't screw around when it comes to quality. If you truly believe that R* would copy and paste block after block of suburbia + make it inactive, then you are confused to say this least. R*'s version of a modern suburb would include...

 

*enterable and interactive supermarkets*

*hilarious parody/comedy (keep in mind that the vast majority of R*'s fan base lives in the suburbs)*

*neighborhood aquatic centers*

*parodies of these massive industrial-styled membership gyms*

* restaurants and the typical GTA business*

*large car dealerships and car spas*

 

...R* could be the first game development company ever to properly capture that suburban vibe while subtly offering insight through it's famously hilarious criticisms. Must I reiterate how most of R*'s fan base lives in the suburbs?

 

 

- Four, you completely contradict yourself by arguing for the absence of a feature on the basis of "variety".

[Emeritus]

I occasionally visit this thread, but everytime I'm reminded why it's only rarely. Can anybody tell me if there is a general consensus on the approximate size of the city. I mean, after all these measurings, convergence points, lines all over the screenshots, there must be a square mile estimation that is common amongst them. I'm useless at maths so please excuse my ignorance.

It looks to be approximately the same size as Liberty City, so around 6 sq. miles.

[Ferocious Banger]

 

I occasionally visit this thread, but everytime I'm reminded why it's only rarely. Can anybody tell me if there is a general consensus on the approximate size of the city. I mean, after all these measurings, convergence points, lines all over the screenshots, there must be a square mile estimation that is common amongst them. I'm useless at maths so please excuse my ignorance.

 

Size of LS ( partially )

 

 

From Observatory to Downtown:

 

 

 

Before the line goes up abruptly as it nears the Observatory, in the consistent line, ~four US Bank Towers ( 310 m ) can be fitted approximately.

 

That is 0.812 mile.

 

Then as the hill comes in, pythagoras theorem had to be applied, twice.

 

The adjacent to the first right angled triangle is 289 meters. The second right angled triangle ( which ends at the observatory ), has its adjacent as 461.3 meters/

 

461.3+289+1308 = 2058.3 m.

 

That is 2.058 kilometers.

 

In other words, ~1.278 miles from the US Bank Tower to the Observatory.

 

 

 

From East ( what we have seen ) to West ( what we can see/have seen ):

 

 

I know the the picture is skewed. But its the best we've got yet.

 

As you can see, more than 8 but lesser than 9 US Bank Towers can be fitted across; That is - (8*310) + 208.988765 m.

 

That is 2.689 kilometers.

 

In other words, 1.67 miles.

 

If the map was only between the Observatory and downtown ( N to S ) and what we can see from East to West,

 

Then the size would be:

 

2.13 sq miles.

 

Assuming the distance between Downtown and and the bridge is another 1.2 miles and if  somehow we get another mile to play with over at East LS and west LS combined, we'd get:

 

6.08 sq miles, which is about the size of Liberty City including water.

 

 

There is a mistake in the first part. It's not 1.278 mi; it's 1.56 mi. That part is explained above.

Edited May 17, 2013 by Ferocious Banger

[GKP]

Raptor - 'lines on screenshots'...thats like calling the alphabet useless scribbles. Much can be inferred from analysis of photos. Estimations can be dont from old photos of V that are not far off after measuring them in game.

 

Counting the blocks in the skyscraper assault pic , 10 blocks to the hills, similar amount to the airport.

 

FB the city is NOT 6 sq miles. If it were it would appear to have DOUBLE the urban land area of LC which is does not ! .

 

 

The land area of V will be 21 , 22 sq miles , FACT, now the city is nowhere near 30 % of the map ! CVG would never had said having seen the map that the city covered 1/8 to 1/10 if it was.

Edited May 17, 2013 by GKP

[RaptorXD25]

Raptor - 'lines on screenshots'...thats like calling the alphabet useless scribbles. Much can be inferred from analysis of photos. Estimations can be dont from old photos of V that are not far off after measuring them in game.

 

Counting the blocks in the skyscraper assault pic , 10 blocks to the hills, similar amount to the airport.

No. It really isn't. The letters have a real purpose. The lines are supposed to represent an unknown distance. If you analyzed it to the extent of FerociousBadger, then the lines may actually mean something.

[Emeritus]

 

The land area of V will be 21 , 22 sq miles , FACT

Nobody actually knows what the land area of V will be, except R* themselves.

 

Shouting FACT after you pull numbers out of your ass does not make them correct, nor does it make you look like you know what you're saying. Counting the height of a skyscraper in pixels then turning it sideways does not prove anything. You have no idea how tall that building actually is.

 

The more you post the more I believe Epsilon is actually a parody of this forum and not Scientology.

[SuccessPastaTime]

We dont know the shape of the city so it varies. I say 3 sq miles.

So if we don't know the shape of the city, how can we come to a conclusion of it's size compared to IV?

 

I mean, I agree the distance between Vinewood and Downtown is quite small, but don't you still feel like there is something we're not aware of yet?

[GKP]

Emeritus - bollocks....we know the height of the tower FACT. The empire state in IV was accurately sized, no reason to think R* are scaling things differently now.

 

We f*cking well DO know the land area. 3.5 times RDR FACT FACT FACT.

 

Do the maths.

 

 

Success - We dont know the exact shape but very approximately we do . It aint some wierd extruded sausage shape. It will be similar to the real LA no doubt.

 

OG , Raavi - time for you to take over for the night shift soon. Late in the UK.

Edited May 17, 2013 by GKP

[Official General]

 

Personally, having huge suburbs and such on the scale of LA would get incredibly boring. I dont understand why all you why stupid suburbs soo bad.  So you can see copy and pasted houes every block or so where you cant do anything with them?  Having variety in the city is much more interesting.

 

I think some of you guys put your expectations up way to high.  There is only soo much this current gen of systems can do.  Im sure they chose this city size for personal, and technical choice.  If they made a larger city im sure they would have to sacrifice some in the visual and draw distance area's and then people would be sitting here bickering about how the visuals look no better than GTA 4.

 

Strongly disagree.

Not a huge proponent of the suburbs (though they would be nice to have), but you're twisting the meanings of the opposing side here.

 

- For one, just because a given feature is desired or requested doesn't mean it has to be present in full force. I'm sure a thin ring of suburbs would more than placate the suburban proponents. No one said the map would have to be overrun with them.

 

- Secondly, you're assigning entirely subjective characteristics - stupid, boring, etc. - to the existence of suburbs only to argue for the inclusion of a more physically empty space instead (the deserts, wilderness, and hills the map already has). Yes the wilderness has trees, scenery and what not which I will enjoy; but ironically, this gen limits R* capability to create a fulfilling wilderness more so than suburbs. After all, they had very small suburbs last gen in SA. There is no need to make a crime game based in modern SoCal only to make 70% of the map look like RDR.

 

- Three, your post is riddled with assumptions regarding the quality of the feature. You and everyone here know that R* doesn't screw around when it comes to quality. If you truly believe that R* would copy and paste block after block of suburbia + make it inactive, then you are confused to say this least. R*'s version of a modern suburb would include...

 

*enterable and interactive supermarkets*

*hilarious parody/comedy (keep in mind that the vast majority of R*'s fan base lives in the suburbs)*

*neighborhood aquatic centers*

*parodies of these massive industrial-styled membership gyms*

* restaurants and the typical GTA business*

*large car dealerships and car spas*

 

...R* could be the first game development company ever to properly capture that suburban vibe while subtly offering insight through it's famously hilarious criticisms. Must I reiterate how most of R*'s fan base lives in the suburbs?

 

 

- Four, you completely contradict yourself by arguing for the absence of a feature on the basis of "variety".

@ canttakemyid

 

Ah bravo !! You couldn't have said it any better. I told him everything you said before, but in shorter form. This and mine should be more than effective enough to make him see sense.

 

Brilliant post

[Triple Vacuum Seal]

Thank you. For a minute I thought all of that typing was for nothing.

[Emeritus]

 

Emeritus - bollocks....we know the height of the tower FACT. The empire state in IV was accurately sized, no reason to think R* are scaling things differently now.

 

We f*cking well DO know the land area. 3.5 times RDR FACT FACT FACT.

 

Do the maths.

The size of things in videogames are not the same size as in real life. They can be bigger, or they can be smaller.

 

Fact.

[Official General]

 

Thank you.  For a minute I thought all of that typing was for nothing.

Nah bro, I read it all, and it hit the nail on the head with one bang

 

You see, the thing is these RDF guys have very thick skulls that can be hard to penetrate. But I'm pretty sure that your statement and to a lesser extent combined forces well enough to drill the message home into their hard-knock minds.

[GKP]

Except this gen things ARE sized correctly. As in IV . FACT.

 

 

[Emeritus]

 

Except this gen things ARE sized correctly. As in IV . FACT.

In GTA IV some of the brownstones have railings that go up to Niko's shoulders.

 

The Housers never said that they're going to size everything 1:1 from now on, did they? Because I don't remember them saying that.

 

They could have made the Bank Tower larger so that it's more visible from the edges of the city, so that it can act as a kind of central focal point, just like how they moved the Vinewood sign closer, because in real life you can't see the Hollywood sign from downtown.

 

 

Overall though !...JESUS..stop being picky. The scaling isnt the issue.

 

Yeah, overall things are scaled realistically. This doesn't mean that you can tell how tall a building is down to the meter, and then hastily copy and paste that over a long distance and say that your numbers are exact.

Edited May 17, 2013 by Emeritus

[GKP]

Overall though !...JESUS..stop being picky. The scaling isnt the issue.

[dxbrandon]

Emeritus - bollocks....we know the height of the tower FACT. The empire state in IV was accurately sized, no reason to think R* are scaling things differently now.

 

We f*cking well DO know the land area. 3.5 times RDR FACT FACT FACT.

 

Do the maths.

 

 

Success - We dont know the exact shape but very approximately we do . It aint some wierd extruded sausage shape. It will be similar to the real LA no doubt.

 

OG , Raavi - time for you to take over for the night shift soon. Late in the UK.

That rage.

[GKP]

no rage Dx - hard to convey mild annoyance without making ppl think your pissed off. Which Im not.

[RaptorXD25]

Thank you.  For a minute I thought all of that typing was for nothing.

Nah bro, I read it all, and it hit the nail on the head with one bang

 

You see, the thing is these RDF guys have very thick skulls that can be hard to penetrate. But I'm pretty sure that your statement and to a lesser extent combined forces well enough to drill the message home into their hard-knock minds.

Here's another thing I don't get. Several pages ago, you were irritated because people were throwing out insults and now you do exactly the same thing. I can see that a lot of people on both sides are also incredibly hypocritical. If you're going to insult their intelligence as a whole, then I don't see why they can't do the same to you. Some people on their side are intelligent and have posted valid points for their respective argument. If you can't see that, then maybe you are just as "thick headed".

[SmoothGetaway]

http://www.gtaforums.com/index.php?showtop...entry1062518635

 

 

Still waiting on a response from LAPD85 or Official General on this one. I guess were just supposed to ignore concrete facts (the GI article, what R* said) in favor of what something 'looks' like.

 

Impressive argumentation there fellas.

 

*waits for super witty RDF pic*