Map Size Thread

[Gtaghost22]

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

It is not really since it will be the most detailed 20 square miles in any video game to date. Rockstar (contrary to what most people in this thread think) is known for quality.

[Choco Taco]

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

http://www.gtaforums.com/index.php?showtop...entry1062148920

 

http://www.gtaforums.com/index.php?showtop...entry1062149367

[Triple Vacuum Seal]

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

It is not really since it will be the most detailed 20 square miles in any video game to date. Rockstar (contrary to what most people in this thread think) is known for quality.

It will surely be a quality game with a detailed map. But realistically, all of my pro-R* biases aside, the map size will be "meh". If the map is 20 sq mi, then I predict that the game will be great and the map detail will be great...but the map size will be okay at best.

 

Will I still play it? Of course.

 

Will it keep me entertained until the next GTA? Well, if it's anything like the wait for this one, then probably not.

[TheJasonGallant]

Keep whining over and over again. Arguing without knowledge and then just make fools of you. It's hard to find decent posts in here. I don't argue with those opinions because I don't know anything about Los Santos size. I can't show something interesting with proofs or facts because there is simply none. Even if I would look the closest as I could, the information would still be the same, wich is that there is no information to tell. You can all believe that you can prove something with some facts that you created but there is still no facts now. It cannot be done by simply search in every screenshots and map threads. Facts, are defined by things we know, things that are proven, things that are real and you cannot make facts with something you have never seen in action. This all thread is useless. The only way to know if LS is bigger than LC is to have the game in our own hands and then compare. No point arguing over something that isn't possible to prove or having some SERIOUS facts. Wich, from what we can see here, there isn't any.

[Triple Vacuum Seal]

 

Keep whining over and over again. Arguing without knowledge and then just make fools of you. It's hard to find decent posts in here. I don't argue with those opinions because I don't know anything about Los Santos size. I can't show something interesting with proofs or facts because there is simply none. Even if I would look the closest as I could, the information would still be the same, wich is that there is no information to tell. You can all believe that you can prove something with some facts that you created but there is still no facts now. It cannot be done by simply search in every screenshots and map threads. Facts, are defined by things we know, things that are proven, things that are real and you cannot make facts with something you have never seen in action. This all thread is useless. The only way to know if LS is bigger than LC is to have the game in our own hands and then compare. No point arguing over something that isn't possible to prove or having some SERIOUS facts. Wich, from what we can see here, there isn't any.

Does one need to jump off a cliff first to know for certain if they will die? If this thread is useless then why post?

 

It seems as if this thread has recently gotten back on track only for you to come sh*t all over things again.

 

Previewers were allowed into R*'s studio. FACT#

Previewers were told by R* representatives that V's map is 3.5X RDR's map in 2-D terms. FACT#

RDR has been released. FACT#

RDR has been measured. FACT#

If we know that 3.5 X RDR ~ GTAV, then we roughly know what V's size comes out to be. FACT#

 

 

See? There are facts all over the place; and some of us are actually trying construct them into useful perspectives and expectations instead of throwing a fit.

[TheJasonGallant]

Keep whining over and over again. Arguing without knowledge and then just make fools of you. It's hard to find decent posts in here. I don't argue with those opinions because I don't know anything about Los Santos size. I can't show something interesting with proofs or facts because there is simply none. Even if I would look the closest as I could, the information would still be the same, wich is that there is no information to tell. You can all believe that you can prove something with some facts that you created but there is still no facts now. It cannot be done by simply search in every screenshots and map threads. Facts, are defined by things we know, things that are proven, things that are real and you cannot make facts with something you have never seen in action. This all thread is useless. The only way to know if LS is bigger than LC is to have the game in our own hands and then compare. No point arguing over something that isn't possible to prove or having some SERIOUS facts. Wich, from what we can see here, there isn't any.

Does one need to jump off a cliff first to know for certain if they will die? If this thread is useless then why post?

 

It seems as if this thread has recently gotten back on track only for you to come sh*t all over things again.

 

Previewers were allowed into R* studio. FACT#

Previewers were told by R* representatives that V's map is 3.5X RDR's map in 2-D terms. FACT#

RDR has been released. FACT#

RDR has been measured. FACT#

If we know that 3.5 X RDR ~ GTAV, then we roughly know what V's size comes out to be. FACT#

 

 

See? There are facts all over the place; and some of us are actually trying construct them into useful perspectives and expectations instead of throwing a fit.

These are facts for the ENTIRE map size. Not LS.

Why post? I have time to waste that's why and you? Why do you post? Your points aren't even valid.

[Emeritus]

Umm, the hashtag is supposed to come before the "FACT"...

[bakerach]

Moving away from fun math games, I posted a picture earlier and didn't see much response, so I added the 2 shots the picture was made from to explain. Thoughts?

 

[Triple Vacuum Seal]

 

Umm, the hashtag is supposed to come before the "FACT"...

Yeah I f*cked it up.

 

@TheJasonGallant What ever float's your boat. We've seen most of LS at this point. To think that the city will look substantially different in four months is silly to say the least.

[TheJasonGallant]

 

Umm, the hashtag is supposed to come before the "FACT"...

Yeah I f*cked it up.

 

@TheJasonGallant What ever float's your boat. We've seen most of LS at this point. To think that the city will look substantially different in four months is silly to say the least.

Of course we know what it looks like and all, but we cannot really tell the size yet. It cannot be accurate enough to actually tell.

[Triple Vacuum Seal]

Of course we know what it looks like and all, but we cannot really tell the size yet. It cannot be accurate enough to actually tell.

We got a general idea. Regardless of which one is bigger, the difference between the size of LC is LS is minuscule enough to say that cruising about LS in V will feel more or less like cruising about in IV.

[dewan2000]

Moving away from fun math games, I posted a picture earlier and didn't see much response, so I added the 2 shots the picture was made from to explain. Thoughts?

 

That image makes no sense considering the 2 pics you pieced together are taken from 2 different distances and angles.

[TheJasonGallant]

 

Of course we know what it looks like and all, but we cannot really tell the size yet. It cannot be accurate enough to actually tell.

We got a general idea. Regardless of which one is bigger, the difference between the size of LC is LS is minuscule enough to say that cruising about LS in V will feel more or less like cruising about in IV.

Oh yeah, I can definitly agree with that. I was pretty much talking about people that are arguing on wich one is bigger or complaining about LS size.

[Triple Vacuum Seal]

Of course we know what it looks like and all, but we cannot really tell the size yet. It cannot be accurate enough to actually tell.

We got a general idea. Regardless of which one is bigger, the difference between the size of LC is LS is minuscule enough to say that cruising about LS in V will feel more or less like cruising about in IV.

Oh yeah, I can definitly agree with that. I was pretty much talking about people that are arguing on wich one is bigger or complaining about LS size.

Yeah it get's redundant. I don't see the flame wars slowing down until R* goes quite again or release new info. Hopefully the latter.

[bakerach]

 

Moving away from fun math games, I posted a picture earlier and didn't see much response, so I added the 2 shots the picture was made from to explain.  Thoughts?

 

That image makes no sense considering the 2 pics you pieced together are taken from 2 different distances and angles.

Is it perfect? Definitely not. Does it "make no sense"? Of course it makes sense, It's just for a general estimation of height. Even if it's off by a couple hundred feet, it can at least help everyone to remember that it's the tallest skyscraper in the game.

 

Edit: and obviously they were at different distances and angles, that's why I scaled the top of the building to match in both screenshots. Again, I'm not trying to calculate B.S. things like the square footage of downtown los santos, this is just a rough photoshop.

Edited May 18, 2013 by bakerach

[Kifflom112]

I'm disappointed by how small South Los Santos looks in that shot. How pathetic, what were the map designers thinking when it came to that area? The city may not be small, but the way certain areas are done can piss me off. Just like how they cut Ranchos and replaced it with an airport.

[Ferocious Banger]

 

I'm disappointed by how small South Los Santos looks in that shot. How pathetic, what were the map designers thinking when it came to that area? The city may not be small, but the way certain areas are done can piss me off. Just like how they cut Ranchos and replaced it with an airport.

""oMg!!!11 your rong!! you HAVE NOT SEEN THE the ciTy yet!!!1 Rockstar is hiding south Los Santos!!11 South Los Santos is in the eAst you have not seen easT!!""

 

-RDF

[GKP]

Kifflom, you do occasionally come to your senses ! - Although you havn't seen the map, you saw a photo, realised that there isnt much land there and came to a (correct) conclusion.

 

Canttake - You have made some very good posts, but it does feel like arguing with creationists at times , they hold to their 'faith' about a large city and yet we see evidence contrary to this with our eyes.

 

 

Up after 8 hours asleep and there has been a lot going on. Bake's picture is misleading. One can count approx 10 blocks to the hills from downtown from the pic below. Do people not understand that we DONT need to see the entire map to infer distances ?

 

 

A CBD to hills and a CBD to airport measurement (as approximate as it is) is good enough to come to some fairly solid conclusions.

 

Edited May 18, 2013 by GKP

[icandothisallday]

A list of facts about los santos size...

 

1. it's bigger than liberty city

2. that's all we know at this point

3. whether or not the city is big enough or not is personal opinion and just like assholes everybody has one

 

 

also, why are people so shocked that rockstar condensed los angeles and even left large parts of it out? they did the exact same thing with liberty city. it was much smaller than new york and and didnt have anywhere close to the amount of buildings or areas that new york contains in real life.

[Official General]

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

If that image comparison of LC in GTA IV and NYC in real life was supposed support your argument, then you can think again.

 

In fact, you have very much proved that the LC skyline in IV was a very good rendition of NYC's Manhattan skyline in real life. Algonquin has just the right amount of skyscrapers and buildings to look like a very good GTA re-creation of it's real-life NYC counterpart. Nobody complained that LC in IV did not have enough skyscrapers and buildings, because it clearly does, it has a very good amount. Look at the LC skyline image, for a video game re-creation of NYC, it clearly looks brilliantly made, it appears to be huge and vast, there was no reason to complain about it.

 

People are not just complaining that LS in GTA V does not have enough skyscrapers, the main complaint is that there is not enough suburban areas spread around the city center to provide that realistic feeling of being in LA, which is made up mostly of sprawling districts. We can barely seen any sign of suburbia in this LS. Nice of you blame us and label us like whiners for what should be in the game but we cannot see so far. Don't try an twist this part of the argument to make yourself look right and clever. Nice try, but you were spotted.

 

Rockstar and Dan Houser can say all they want about how huge the map in GTA V is, that is all well and good. But for the one billionth time this is about the LS CITY SIZE ONLY and not the f**king map do you hear ?? Why you keep quoting that "huge map size" bullsh*t is beyond me, when you have been told many times that is not really the issue here. So your Dan Houser quote does not support your argument and on top of that, it don't mean sh*t.

[wallis]

I agree. IV was a great rendition of NY. LA is known for urban sprawl. It's referred to as 100 suburbs looking for a city. I'm happy with the LS skyline. It's a good rendition of downtown LA. The problem for me is the lack of space between that downtown area and the ocean and hills around it. There's just not enough around it for me. The parachute shot is the most concerning. I can count 5 or 6 blocks with only a few houses in each block, then you're at the docks. I can't see how this shot can be distorted and be hiding 10 or more blocks of hood in there.

[kesta195]

I agree. IV was a great rendition of NY. LA is known for urban sprawl. It's referred to as 100 suburbs looking for a city. I'm happy with the LS skyline. It's a good rendition of downtown LA. The problem for me is the lack of space between that downtown area and the ocean and hills around it. There's just not enough around it for me. The parachute shot is the most concerning. I can count 5 or 6 blocks with only a few houses in each block, then you're at the docks. I can't see how this shot can be distorted and be hiding 10 or more blocks of hood in there.

The skydiving shot is looking SW towards the airport, whereas the hood is located directly south, the port marks the southern most point of the city (see here). The hood fits between here and downtown.

[wallis]

I agree. IV was a great rendition of NY. LA is known for urban sprawl. It's referred to as 100 suburbs looking for a city. I'm happy with the LS skyline. It's a good rendition of downtown LA. The problem for me is the lack of space between that downtown area and the ocean and hills around it. There's just not enough around it for me. The parachute shot is the most concerning. I can count 5 or 6 blocks with only a few houses in each block, then you're at the docks. I can't see how this shot can be distorted and be hiding 10 or more blocks of hood in there.

The skydiving shot is looking SW towards the airport, whereas the hood is located directly south, the port marks the southern most point of the city (see here). The hood fits between here and downtown.

Yeah, you're right. Interesting shot that. It gives a sense of distance between that other bridge in the background and downtown but the parachute shot shows it's not.

[TheDeaconBosco]

 

I agree. IV was a great rendition of NY. LA is known for urban sprawl. It's referred to as 100 suburbs looking for a city. I'm happy with the LS skyline. It's a good rendition of downtown LA. The problem for me is the lack of space between that downtown area and the ocean and hills around it. There's just not enough around it for me. The parachute shot is the most concerning. I can count 5 or 6 blocks with only a few houses in each block, then you're at the docks. I can't see how this shot can be distorted and be hiding 10 or more blocks of hood in there.

The skydiving shot is looking SW towards the airport, whereas the hood is located directly south, the port marks the southern most point of the city (see here). The hood fits between here and downtown.

To be fair, that Bridge is not the Vincent Thomas Bridge, but the Gerald Desmond bridge which is located to the south east of Downtown and not directly south. So there might be a difference in the distance there.

[kesta195]

I agree. IV was a great rendition of NY. LA is known for urban sprawl. It's referred to as 100 suburbs looking for a city. I'm happy with the LS skyline. It's a good rendition of downtown LA. The problem for me is the lack of space between that downtown area and the ocean and hills around it. There's just not enough around it for me. The parachute shot is the most concerning. I can count 5 or 6 blocks with only a few houses in each block, then you're at the docks. I can't see how this shot can be distorted and be hiding 10 or more blocks of hood in there.

The skydiving shot is looking SW towards the airport, whereas the hood is located directly south, the port marks the southern most point of the city (see here). The hood fits between here and downtown.

To be fair, that Bridge is not the Vincent Thomas Bridge, but the Gerald Desmond bridge which is located to the south east of Downtown and not directly south. So there might be a difference in the distance there.

This is the Vincent Thomas Bridge, located SW of downtown near the airport and LS Forum. This is the Gerald Desmond Bridge, located south of downtown at the port. The hood could occupy the area bewteen these two bridges and downtown, which rest assured, isn't 'small' comparative to the rest of the city.

[wallis]

 

I agree. IV was a great rendition of NY. LA is known for urban sprawl. It's referred to as 100 suburbs looking for a city. I'm happy with the LS skyline. It's a good rendition of downtown LA. The problem for me is the lack of space between that downtown area and the ocean and hills around it. There's just not enough around it for me. The parachute shot is the most concerning. I can count 5 or 6 blocks with only a few houses in each block, then you're at the docks. I can't see how this shot can be distorted and be hiding 10 or more blocks of hood in there.

The skydiving shot is looking SW towards the airport, whereas the hood is located directly south, the port marks the southern most point of the city (see here). The hood fits between here and downtown.

To be fair, that Bridge is not the Vincent Thomas Bridge, but the Gerald Desmond bridge which is located to the south east of Downtown and not directly south. So there might be a difference in the distance there.

Yeah I agree. There's some distance between those bridges too, so the area south and southeast could be significant as the oil rig shot suggests. It'll be a long drive up the coast over those bridges past the airport and up that beach to the hills area. Things could be shaping up. I want to believe.

[Raavi]

[kesta195]

@Raavi, there will be more block off screen at the bottom. People on this thread have 'added' the rest of the bank tower to the bottom of the picture and there is room for many more blocks leading up to the base.

[sanex4]

and again

[Ferocious Banger]

deleted

Edited May 18, 2013 by Ferocious Banger