Map Size Thread

[Official General]

114 pages and STILL no coherent response from those who think the map is too small. Why can't you guys just say what you expect Rockstar to do at this point? Since you guys are math geniuses, you should be smart enough to give everyone your solution to this problem that is bothering you.

What more coherent response do you need. You only need to look at the images from the screenshots and see that Los Santos in GTA V don't look that big. So far that is how it looks. Any fool can see that. It don't meant there is not more to it, but right now that is how it looks.

 

You cannot get more coherent than that.

[UrbanTheEmcee]

 

114 pages and STILL no coherent response from those who think the map is too small. Why can't you guys just say what you expect Rockstar to do at this point? Since you guys are math geniuses, you should be smart enough to give everyone your solution to this problem that is bothering you.

Why do you keep asking that? The game is basically done. We don't expect R* to do anything.

You seem to be upset that this discussion is still alive. This is a forum. If people aren't praising, complaining, or any other form of commenting towards this game, then this site serves no purpose.

It's a discussion, if this bothers you then find something else to do with your time.

It doesn't bother me. I'm simply asking what you intend to happen. That's not an unreasonable question to ask, especially considering 114 pages of "it's too small!". I never said you can't express your opinion, but YOU seem to be upset about being asked a simple question. If you don't want to answer it, don't. Go back to another round of "it's too small!"

My solution is to burn time by sharing thoughts. I'm happy enough with the known product, these are just my opinions that don't reflect on my desire to have this game day one. I can't speak for the other Non-RDF members, but that's me.

[Emeritus]

 

114 pages and STILL no coherent response from those who think the map is too small. Why can't you guys just say what you expect Rockstar to do at this point? Since you guys are math geniuses, you should be smart enough to give everyone your solution to this problem that is bothering you.

What more coherent response do you need. You only need to look at the images from the screenshots and see that Los Santos in GTA V don't look that big. So far that is how it looks. Any fool can see that. It don't meant there is not more to it, but right now that is how it looks.

 

You cannot get more coherent than that.

It looks like a pretty good size. Just about the same size as LC, maybe larger. Looks great

[dewan2000]

RDF in action with their alleged leader. Commander GTAfan786 flanked by his masked henchmen said to be SmoothGTA, dxbrandon and dewan2000 among others

 

 

@ jamieleng

 

I do give a big sh*t believe that. I'm hoping for Rockstar to just show us more how big LS really is, so I know what I'm gonna get, because the screenshots are telling me I'm not gonna get a very big city.

Make a half-jokingly post and get pinned a RDF LOL.

 

In all seriousness, Im content if the city is roughly the same Size as LC. Which it appears to be. Sure Id love it if the city was more expansive like the Real LA. Actually been to LA once and first thing you notice is how massive the city actually is. From LAX you can barely make out downtown on the horizon.

 

We are just going to have to wait until next gen until can see a massive city. LS still looks very detailed and well put together.

[Official General]

 

114 pages and STILL no coherent response from those who think the map is too small. Why can't you guys just say what you expect Rockstar to do at this point? Since you guys are math geniuses, you should be smart enough to give everyone your solution to this problem that is bothering you.

What more coherent response do you need. You only need to look at the images from the screenshots and see that Los Santos in GTA V don't look that big. So far that is how it looks. Any fool can see that. It don't meant there is not more to it, but right now that is how it looks.

 

You cannot get more coherent than that.

Actually, it looks pretty big.

I did not say it looked small bro, and yeah it looks great as far as detail is concerned. But for being the only city on a reputedly very huge map, it don't look so big. It is big of course, but not as big as it should be. The fact that I cannot see suburbs for starters, legitimizes my view.

[Emeritus]

 

114 pages and STILL no coherent response from those who think the map is too small. Why can't you guys just say what you expect Rockstar to do at this point? Since you guys are math geniuses, you should be smart enough to give everyone your solution to this problem that is bothering you.

What more coherent response do you need. You only need to look at the images from the screenshots and see that Los Santos in GTA V don't look that big. So far that is how it looks. Any fool can see that. It don't meant there is not more to it, but right now that is how it looks.

 

You cannot get more coherent than that.

Actually, it looks pretty big.

I did not say it looked small bro. But for being the only city on a reputedly very huge map, it don't look so big. It is big of course, but not as big as it should be. The fact that I cannot see suburbs for starters, legitimizes my view.

Yeah sorry about that. I changed my post before you replied to it.

 

I assume there are suburbs in there, we just haven't seen them yet. Probably because the city is so big it makes the suburbs hard to see.

[SmoothGetaway]

 

You cannot get more coherent than that.

I agree, the people posting the turbo gay RDF pics have been the most coherent argument in the thread.

 

Finally we agree on something OG

[GourangaMaster]

So I see this thread is,pretty much just a childish role playing flame war between trolls. Mods must be enjoying it because they havnt locked this inane "discussion". That or they want to quarantine the bitch session from further infecting other threads.

[UrbanTheEmcee]

 

So I see this thread is,pretty much just a childish role playing flame war between trolls. Mods must be enjoying it because  they havnt  locked this inane "discussion". That or they want to quarantine the bitch session from further infecting other threads.

People unfortunately have discussed this in the mapping thread, so this one is left here for people to be directed to.

On another note this thread has gotten several new members to join. So it's actually doing what it should, and that's provoke conversation.

We may get tired of the tug-O-war, so every now and then it turns into role play, but for the most part I just see two sides of the same coin. We are all talking about GTA V.

 

Mission Accomplished.

[Official General]

 

 

You cannot get more coherent than that.

I agree, the people posting the turbo gay RDF pics have been the most coherent argument in the thread.

 

Finally we agree on something OG

This turbo gay term you coined sounds very silly. Don't know exactly where you got it from, but it just don't make any kinda of sense, and it don't sound funny at all. Sounds like what a school kid would make up to be honest.

 

Turbo gay ?? What's that supposed to mean ? A homosexual who uses a turbo engine or something ? Lool so dumb.

[SmoothGetaway]

 

You cannot get more coherent than that.

I agree, the people posting the turbo gay RDF pics have been the most coherent argument in the thread.

 

Finally we agree on something OG

This RDF term you coined sounds very silly. Don't know exactly where you got it from, but it just don't sound funny at all.

 

RDF?? What's that supposed to mean ? A homosexual who uses a turbo engine or something ? Lool so dumb.

Fixed.

 

Anybody else got any questions or can we get back on topic?

 

I think there's a lot R* haven't shown us, suburbs included.

[73duster]

114 pages and STILL no coherent response from those who think the map is too small. Why can't you guys just say what you expect Rockstar to do at this point? Since you guys are math geniuses, you should be smart enough to give everyone your solution to this problem that is bothering you.

What more coherent response do you need. You only need to look at the images from the screenshots and see that Los Santos in GTA V don't look that big. So far that is how it looks. Any fool can see that. It don't meant there is not more to it, but right now that is how it looks.

 

You cannot get more coherent than that.

I DID see all of the screenshots. I think it looks large, and apparently the vast majority of people who saw the preview call this map MASSIVE. Considering that they review games for a living, I trust their judgement over a handful of "fools" who say it looks small. I say fools, because YOU said "any fool could see it doesn't look that big". That is a JOKE, so please let's not get uptight about it. You kind of left yourself open to it, lol.

For the record, you have a right to your opinion. If you think it's small, fine. Here's a couple of things i'd like you to consider.

1- In spite of all the screenshots and video clips, we have NOT seen everything, and won't see everything until it's released.

2- What other open world game has a larger map with MULTIPLE cities? I can only think of San Andreas, but the overall map is tiny compared to this.

3- Is there ONE professional review where someone has mentioned the map being at least LESS than expected? I've searched and found none.

4- What is the greatest game map to YOU? Now compare that to what little you've seen on this game.

You don't have to answer these questions, but anyone who feels like you do should at least ask themselves these questions, and decide whether or not they are being premature. Of course, there is no right or wrong when it comes to opinions, but the majority of people who've seen this game feel it's massive.

[Choco Taco]

But RDR is bigger than 5.5 s miles. Looking at these two images the playable area seems to be around 8 s miles and something like 13 to 13.5 s miles if you count the entire map.

 

http://i723.photobucket.com/albums/ww240/N...A-Bully-780.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/rS2t9.jpg

 

That makes V's land area at least 28 s miles and at most 47 s miles.

I think this is the most accurate measurement of RDR - http://i.imgur.com/n1kY0Rd.png

 

Rockstar described the total map area in 2 ways:

 

1. SA + IV + RDR with room to spare

 

2. 5 times RDR

 

Both of those have to be close in size and the only way to get similar numbers is if RDR is around 5.5 square miles.

 

That means the total area of the game is 27.5 square miles. That number includes everything - all of the surface area of the land from the ground to the tops of the mountains and all of the water around the land including the surfaces of the sides of the underwater canyons and deep ravines.

 

A thin strip of detailed ocean floor around the land can easily add up to over 4 square miles of surface area. That would leave 23.5 square miles for the land.

 

Now you have to take the surface area of all the mountains into consideration. There are a lot of mountains in this game, so that would probably take away another couple of square miles.

 

The Alamo Sea is surrounded by land and is described as vast. That should be at least another square mile.

 

So, that leaves us with 20.5 square miles of flat 2-D land area.

 

 

[Official General]

 

You cannot get more coherent than that.

I agree, the people posting the turbo gay RDF pics have been the most coherent argument in the thread.

 

Finally we agree on something OG

This RDF term you coined sounds very silly. Don't know exactly where you got it from, but it just don't sound funny at all.

 

RDF?? What's that supposed to mean ? A homosexual who uses a turbo engine or something ? Lool so dumb.

Fixed.

 

Anybody else got any questions or can we get back on topic?

 

I think there's a lot R* haven't shown us, suburbs included.

Please, don't modify my quotes. Either you separately say what you have to say in response my quotes, or simply just leave my quotes alone.

 

I really don't like people tampering with my quotes.

 

Thanks

[Raavi]

I can't believe this debate is still going on..

[SmoothGetaway]

Pretty sure everyone in the thread saw what I did there except you.

 

Oh well.

 

@ Choco: What makes you so sure it's a 3D area measurement and not the area of what a flat map looks like?

[Triple Vacuum Seal]

 

The whole map is basically 25.7 sq miles. If you add IV's map = 6.3 sq miles and add 5.5 sq miles (RDR playable area), and 13.9 sq miles of SA's map, that is 25.7 sq miles. But we don't even know if RDR's unplayable area is included. Therefore, if it is included that should be another 6.4 sq miles. So add that to 25.7 = 32.1 sq miles.

 

It is more towards 32 because they aren't going to leave out the waste of space from RDR's map. Even if they don't, it won't matter because of the level of detail. This extra 6.4 would just be a bonus. Either way, we have a VERY big map. Not as GKP expects however, rofl.

The only problem is that most of the suburbs/ghetto hasn't been shown yet, and maybe some other areas, and as well as the improved draw distance, these are what the causes are for the "Small" looking map.

I think you forgot to apply that extra 6.4 value 3.5 times. It looks like you added it to the total instead. I think it's very clever (in a misleading way) of R*, the magazines, or whoever made the estimate to use RDR's map as a comparison because of what you have pointed out.

 

3.5 X the playable area of RDR (many are saying 8 sq mi) = 28 sq mi.

 

3.5 X the entire area of RDR (the "Detailed Analysis of Map Sizes" thread says ~12 sq mi) = 42 sq mi

 

The map can be anywhere between 28-42 sq mi. Sources who have seen this map have been saying a whole lot of nothing.

 

 

 

 

Question for all of the serious mappers and source hunters...

 

Do we have a source that confirms these land estimates include topography? Not that I don't believe it, but it seems rather dodgy to do so. If the previewers are the ones who made these map size observations at a glance, then how could they account for topographical measurements that they can't even see on the fly? If R* made this claim about the topography, then why would they be setting their fan base up for disappointment with such a lack of transparency? It seems counter-intuitive on their part.

[SuccessPastaTime]

They goin' be some goo features up in dis gayme.

[Irrational]

Because there are too many blind idiots who fail to realize how small Los Santos is.

[Choco Taco]

@ Choco: What makes you so sure it's a 3D area measurement and not the area of what a flat map looks like?

http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/11/13/the...now-about-gta-v

 

 

Rockstar says the map is 3.5 times bigger than Red Dead Redemption -- 5 times bigger if you include topography

[SuccessPastaTime]

Because there are too many blind idiots who fail to realize how small Los Santos is.

Some people wouldn't consider it small and actually are satisfied with it.

 

Small is relative, unless of course it a fraction of the size of LC and the greater area, which I don't believe it will be.

 

Not saying it's bigger then LC, just saying it's in the eye of the idiot.

[GKPsupporter]

Even though only a small percentage thinks its small, Im coming to this thread on the 17th of september to see people complaining about how they got lost in LS or the city is HUGE

 

I used to think its small but now i think the "LS is small crowd" is kind of in denial

Edited May 18, 2013 by GKPsupporter

[Boss7dm]

 

Yeah that's the one. I'm convinced there's not much beyond the river, at least in the southern east section. The lights end fairly quickly and don't go up in the hills much.

Also the plane flying over the beach shot shows the hills area to the right of the observatory shot, although not real clearly, but enough to rule out a large suburban area in my opinion. I don't think we'll get that aerial shot. R* are probably having too much fun reading this thread and laughing at us all.

This is the area beyond the LA river (the canal):

http://www.igta5.com/images/official-scree...fter-trevor.jpg

http://www.igta5.com/images/official-scree...fter-trevor.jpg

It's quite big.

 

And here you can see the area beyond the observatory in the distance. There's a pretty big curve in the hills that could possibly allow a decent suburban area to be built there.

http://www.igta5.com/images/official-scree...to-vinewood.jpg

The first pic is a nice clear one. The best i've seen of area east of the river. But the skyscrapers are only just out of shot. Coming from downtown, you drive over the bridge and there's a suburb. It's about 12 houses deep to that lake thing, then another maybe 20 houses at best until you reach the foothills where the lights stop. This isn't what i'd call a fair representation of the suburbs east of LA. I'd say about a minutes drive at best. I only hope they extend through those hills into a reimagined Pasedena area.

The last shot could hold something though. Hopefully the 405 freeway over there beyond the observatory.

I agree, it seems like the hillside area in the first pics extend behind the sign and possibly into a valley. It's interesting that R* hasn't shown us any clear screenshots from that area.

As for an accurate representations, that will probably never happen since everything is so compressed. I'm still happy with what we're getting though. Remember the Hood in SA? It was fairly small but still felt big.

That image you posted isn't exactly proving you guys's a point. But substantiates ours, Los Santos may look fairly "big" in the pictures in reality it (can be)/ is very small and dense. Rockstar pulled this of a number of times, so why won't they do so now. Besides as Deffpony said; countryside is fairly empty and there isn't that much to do besides stunts and all that, especially after you completed all the side quests etc. So I don't get why anyone would want a countryside 8+ times the size of the city as the city will always have the most stuff going on (read: enterable buildings, hidding secrets, sport scars etc.) and be enjoyable for the longest period of time.

Wait... i missed something here!

How do you the countryside will be empty, with less interiors etc? I hope see much interiors there!

[Triple Vacuum Seal]

@ Choco: What makes you so sure it's a 3D area measurement and not the area of what a flat map looks like?

http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/11/13/the...now-about-gta-v

 

 

Rockstar says the map is 3.5 times bigger than Red Dead Redemption -- 5 times bigger if you include topography

That link says it's 5 X bigger than RDR including the topography and 3.5 X RDR not including topography. So does this confirm my estimate of 28 (RDR playable area)- 42 (RDR entire area) square miles?

 

 

Just checking so I don't get my hopes too high.

[Magic_Al]

 

The whole map is basically 25.7 sq miles. If you add IV's map = 6.3 sq miles and add 5.5 sq miles (RDR playable area), and 13.9 sq miles of SA's map, that is 25.7 sq miles. But we don't even know if RDR's unplayable area is included. Therefore, if it is included that should be another 6.4 sq miles. So add that to 25.7 = 32.1 sq miles.

 

It is more towards 32 because they aren't going to leave out the waste of space from RDR's map. Even if they don't, it won't matter because of the level of detail. This extra 6.4 would just be a bonus. Either way, we have a VERY big map. Not as GKP expects however, rofl.

The only problem is that most of the suburbs/ghetto hasn't been shown yet, and maybe some other areas, and as well as the improved draw distance, these are what the causes are for the "Small" looking map.

But RDR is bigger than 5.5 s miles. Looking at these two images the playable area seems to be around 8 s miles and something like 13 to 13.5 s miles if you count the entire map.

 

 

 

That makes V's land area at least 28 s miles and at most 47 s miles.

My old comparison image is a little off since I've learned the GTAIV and RDR map images are not drawn to the same scale as the GTASA image but are actually about 6% smaller scale (although the GTAIV and RDR images are the same as each other).

 

LAND areas (no water):

 

RDR 5.9 sq mi (in boundaries)

GTASA 11.4 sq mi

GTAIV 3.4 sq mi

----

Total 20.7 sq mi

 

3.5 times 5.9 (RDR) is also 20.7. This means something, as Roy Neary would say.

[Choco Taco]

That link says it's 5 X bigger than RDR including the topography and 3.5 X RDR not including topography. So does this confirm my estimate of 28 (RDR playable area)- 42 (RDR entire area) square miles?

 

 

Just checking so I don't get my hopes too high.

The playable area of RDR is less than 6 square miles, so expect around 20 square miles of land in V.

[ghostfacekiller]

 

Heard of True Crime Fatty - think !

 

Its been done 9 years ago YAWN !!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

Brian you total FOOL - are you suggesting that LS in V will be 13.9 sq miles or the same size as SA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

The land area of V is 22 sq miles and the city is approx one sixth to one eighth of the city. Do some fricking research !

Thank you Mr Houser. I had been wondering how big the map was gonna be.

 

22 square miles? so you expect me to believe that read dead redemption was 6.3 square miles?

 

you know i posted the game informer article over on igtav forums. they called me a noob and told me i was commenting on an issue that was resolved back in november when the game informer article came out and cleared up the confusion as to which was bigger, lc or ls. in the plainest most decisive language possible, an employee of rockstar told us los santos covers more square footage. end of debate on that subject.

 

as for the the other argument where everyone is crying in their beer because los santos doesnt have enough buildings...

 

 

 

boy i think they may have left out one or two buildings in liberty city too...

 

also, all these map "estimates" everyone is pulling out of their asses are just that... estimates and opinions. no one knows how rockstar scaled the games. unless you are a map designer at rockstar i dont want to hear sh*t about how this map is 22.67584933654 square miles and that one is 5.6879432456 square miles because billy bob over on dipsh*t forums told you so and showed you a really cool drawing he did of it in microsoft paint

 

"And to be exact, just a fact, well exposed in the words of Dan Houser: "This world is twice larger than the one presented in GTA: San Andreas"

 

http://n4g.com/news/517514/new-red-dead-redemption-details

 

STFU now!!! thank you! that is all

Edited May 18, 2013 by ghostfacekiller

[Choco Taco]

so you expect me to believe that read dead redemption was 6.3 square miles?

.

.

.

an employee of rockstar told us los santos covers more square footage. end of debate on that subject.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The playable area of RDR is less than 6 square miles.

 

IV has less than 3.5 square miles of land, so if Los Santos has 3.6 square miles of land, it covers more square footage than IV.

[ghostfacekiller]

so you expect me to believe that read dead redemption was 6.3 square miles?

.

.

.

an employee of rockstar told us los santos covers more square footage. end of debate on that subject.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The playable area of RDR is less than 6 square miles.

 

IV has less than 3.5 square miles of land, so if Los Santos has 3.6 square miles of land, it covers more square footage than IV.

thanks for that ground breaking math... and prove rdr has 6 square miles of map!!!!! please

[Triple Vacuum Seal]

That link says it's 5 X bigger than RDR including the topography and 3.5 X RDR not including topography.  So does this confirm my estimate of 28 (RDR playable area)- 42 (RDR entire area) square miles?

 

 

Just checking so I don't get my hopes too high.

The playable area of RDR is less than 6 square miles, so expect around 20 square miles of land in V.

Will do.

 

 

20 sq mi is...meh for 5 years of development; but it works.